Is it reasonable to judge a secondary school on the number of its pupils who spend lunchtimes hanging around the tube station smoking?

[frogs]

Well?

This is considered a desirable school, btw. But I don't understand why (a) they let them off the premises at lunchtime in the first place and (b) why the staff don't do patrols of likely hangouts to check who's getting up to what.

Dd1's school do both (a) and (b), as did my school back in the 80s. Does it matter? Should I care?

Does nobody have an opinion on this?

I'd expect some patrolling teachers so the kids scattered occasionally.

I wouldn't judge the school completely on this, but it does look bad and I would want to know more about lunchtime management.

At our secondary school, only sixth-formers are allowed off the premises at lunchtime. And yes, staff and mid-day supervisors wander round the school making sure all is OK and there are no behaviour or other issues.

i dont knwo why they let them out
very old fashined now tbh

Also, if a parent or member of the public reported anything undesirable amongst school pupils even when they off the premises, the school is red-hot on acting upon that information. They are very big on preserving the good reputation of the school.

Yes, I find it a bit odd too. The tube is literally 100 yds from the school gate, and it just looks so, so bad, particularly since the ones hanging out, being noisy and littering and smoking are the visible face of the school, iyswim. All the many well-behaved children engaged in productive lunchtimes clubs and activities are hidden behind its ugly walls.

The ethos of the school is arty and liberal, which is fair enough, but surely it has to stop somewhere. The school has no uniform, so there isn't the "how dare you behave like that while wearing uniform" factor, but I do find it surprising that there doesn't seem to be any attempt to put the kybosh on the activities of the tube station crew. I'd have thought letting them off the premises at lunchtime must vastly increase truancy for the afternoon sessions as well -- presumably there are some who just don't bother to come back .

Must investigate further.

The two closest to me let them out at lunchtimes, and tbh yes I have noticed that the majority hanging around smoking are from the one school in particular, and yes it has put me off the school.

For that reason and others it now won't be on the list of school I apply to for Dd1.

This would not happen in my school (is a 'good' school, even though it's high school not grammar - in N Ireland).

Kids are only allowed out to go home for lunch. Even 6 years shouldn't be out without permission. Staff and lunch supervisors patrol grounds, and even after school if we see kids smoking in school uniform they get in trouble next day. I usually wind down window, point to cigarette and say "see me tomorrow"!

My local school says younger ones (up to Year 9) aren't allowed out at lunchtime but most of them do go into town and hang around there. When questioned at an open evening (when we were considering school for our dc) the head said it was up to parents to tell their child that they expected them to stay on site for the day and the school couldn't take responsibility for them when off-site! This put us off the school just a touch...
The head has now changed but I'm not sure the new one's making much progress with this. The school has no uniform and is very liberal, arty - although not the one you're thinking of frogs as there's no tube station near.

This school is by Tufnell Park tube station. The tube is literally 50 yards from the school gates.

It's very odd -- the fact that they allow this to go on must say something about the school, but not sure what. Still, we have a few years to check it out before ds does secondary transfer, but I confess I do find it rather offputting. Not in an "Omigod, my precious baby is going to be sharing a class with rough children" sort of way, but more from the viewpoint, "This school has a goodly-sized intake of at least averagely troubled children yet is prepared to turn a blind eye to the sort of behaviour many other schools would try to stamp out".

Hmm.

I wouldn't like it - the local school here is/was dreadful - had a new head this sept and the firstthing he stopped was that sort of behaviour - going into town and hanging around the few shops, blocking the entrances, smoking etc. Everyone has high hopes for him.

We don't let our kids out at lunch time.

We go round the school, but not outside. Tough enpough to find the time to go round the school, in between chasing up homework, sorting course work and doing catch up sessions, while you wolf down a sarnie!

Perhaps it is like our school. PFI built in well off area.

Too expensive to wall or fence school grounds, so no physical block on leaving site.

Canteen made too small, so some have to go to shops at dinnertime, as there is not enough space to get entire school (which is huge) through fast enough.

Can't get any lunchtime supervisers as in a well off area and no one needs the pittance that is paid for it.

Also teachers aren't paid to do lunchtime duty, and I personally couldn't do it unless I had a free on either side of lunchtime. Dealing with awkward kids for a full day with no break at dinnertime is just too drainig

My children's secondary doesn't let them out at lunch. You have to have a pass to go home at lunchtime.

Does them not wearing uniform make them less careful do you think? ie feel more free to do as they please as they won't get traced through school.

Yes I'd judge it.

Do many schools really not wear uniform nowadays?

all our local ones are going back to blazers from the polo shirt / sweatshirt combo.

AFAIK all of the schools in our local LEA have uniforms (secondary schools). Sixth formers are normal not expected to waer uniform

This is an inner London borough whose education dept has a good reputation, and they run some very high-achieving schools with a long tradition of being liberal and arty, ie. no uniform,first names, blahdiblah. I'm guessing that because the schools are successful, they're just being left alone to carry on doing their thing.

I don't have an issue with that, as such, but do wonder where they draw the line between being liberal and condoning bad behaviour. I've got a few years to ponder, batters, and will sound out the local grapevine and go to some open evenings next year. From an objective observer's point of view I do think letting kids out at lunchtime is bonkers -- they're likely to be choosing significantly less healthy lunch than they would in a school canteen, and it surely invites them to carry on in a way that they wouldn't be able to do on the school premises. Plus the risk of some of them wandering off and being late back or not making it back at all. The only argument I can see for it is that it keeps the most troublesome types out of the school's hair for the duration, which isn't really an argument at all.

If it was the case that school were judged on the amount of pupils hanging around the street/tube/cafe, then Madras college in St Andrews must give out a really low opinion. It's a nightmare on the main street at break and lunch times, they swarm out like ants into Tesco, Greggs (yes they hav eone in St Andrews), Woolies and any other shop selling foods. They have cigarettes, short short skirts, leggings, ties round their heads, waists, in fact anywhere but round their necks. They don't give a good first impression of the school
yet according to the Scotsman today and it's guide to schools, 90% of pupils passed standard grade exams, and it's 39= in the national rankings.

If they are a 'liberal' school then it may well be what the parents want. I used to teach in a school where many of the middle class parents were very resistant to what would be seen as old-fashioned school disciplines. They didn't like uniforms, lunchtime passes, even after school detentions. They were pretty relaxed about smoking and cannabis use. If a teacher reprimanded their child off-site they would not have been amused.

But, their children were our high-achievers. And many of them were charming, polite and easy to teach. Some were not. Same as most schools really.

Saltire, yes, that was exactly my question. Does it matter?

I'm guessing not, really, though presumably you have to make a judgement call about how likely your own child is to fall in with the smokers versus the lunchtime club people. And in fact the tube station smokers are not the arty middleclass kids that I see going into the school in the morning and coming out in the pm, so presumably my wholesome little boy is not really at risk of seeing the layabout types as something to emulate.

BBs, I think you may be right about the parents. There are several single-sex schools nearby which are marginally more trad, so people choosing this school have made a conscious decision in favour of that ethos.

The question is: Am I that kind of parent myself?

i wouldn't expect teachers to be patrolling tube stations to scatter smokers. even if it is 100 yds from the school gates. i hope the OP didn't mean that.

Without naming the school (please don't!!) it was easy to identify. Feel free to contact me re your questions, if you want.

I wrestled with this when ds was going to start secondary. They have now introduced uniforms and the smoking rate has gone down, but not vanished. They have no alternative but to let them out of school- 1100 kids with one playground and precious few facilities inside. As you say though, you don't see the chess club, the orchestras, the computer club and so on. I have decided it doesn't matter but it took a while to come to terms with it.