How do a few comprehensive schools produce seem to produce successful people?

[Bahhumbug01]

Hi ,,

We live on the outskirts of London (Beckenham/Bromley postcode area) and have a young family. We are considering moving out to Edenbridge/Godstone/Crowhurst areas in the next few years. These towns all have decent comps, and excellent connections in to Central London for DH.

Our neighbours send both their DS to a Catholic school in the next town, some 12 miles away, which is accessible by tram and then involves a relatively short walk to school. The school has excellent sports facilities (on a par with some independent schools) and pastoral provision. Good academic results too. The comps in Bromley are quite poor on the whole. There is one outstanding boys gs but you have to tutor years ahead if you want to have a chance of getting DS in.

The RC school has an impressive list of alumni and I can't understand why (or how) the school has produced so many outstanding sportsmen, politicians, media types when it is just a faith comp. Is there a pecking order when it comes to comps, or is there some kind of selection involved? Does the same apply to some of the trendy North London comps too?
Also, is there no distance criteria involved for faith comps, but distance is important for 'normal' comps? It's all really confusing.

Me and DH attended normal schools (where everyone in the town went to the same school!!) out of London so are really green when it comes to London schools. We are actually a bit intimidated by it all which makes the idea of moving further out quite appealing.

Anyone else in same position, or struggling to understand the difference in admissions between different types of comps?

Geographic selectivity is one of the greatest drivers of educational inequality in state education systems.

Geographic selectivity is one of the greatest drivers of educational inequality in state education systems.
Piffle
My kids went to a comp 4 miles away.
We live half a mile outside the catchment.
The catchment is over 11 miles across.

Private schools and selective schools do far more damage than do catchment boundaries in fully Comp areas.

Popular comprehensive schools have a smaller catchment area, then house prices around the school go up and suddenly the previously 'comprehensive' school is limited to those who can buy a house in the area.

The comprehensive where my DB works is in a town with a lot of middle class families but was built on the edge of town near a large housing estate where a lot of immigrants live. The school does a sterling job of challenging the bright (of whatever background) at the same time as providing for the many who have SEND or who are from deprived families. It's truly a comprehensive school from what DB has said. The biggest challenge they face is not the immigrants or deprived families but the chronic shortage of funding as it's in one of the lowest funded areas in the country.

MariaNovella the RC school is St John Fisher in Croydon.

Brizzle
Catchment areas cannot shrink in a comp system - because they have to cover the whole county.
Getting in from out of catchment can become tricky due to house building

but my local comp still has 400 empty spaces so clearly lots of kids are finding spaces elsewhere

Selection by housing prices and/or (in the case of faith schools) specified hoops about being baptised and turning up at church.

I went to a crap school, but it still had an extremely famous actor amongst its alumni. If a school is old enough and big enough, some people who go there are bound to get famous at some point.

Catchment areas can shrink if admission is done on distance. If a school only has 180 spaces in a year group they will go to students living closer to the school than those further away. When a school becomes more popular people move closer to that school and further away students miss out on a place.

talk1npeace

The official designated catchment doesn't shrink, no. However all schools who have distance as one of their criteria can find the catchment area shrinks. At the following school (in fact several schools as it's from the LA admissions criteria) the first criteria is looked after children and the rest of the criteria are:

1. Siblings living in the first, second or joint area. [of priority]

1. Geography - Children living in the first area. Children living within the school’s designated area of first priority.

1. Geography - Children living in the second or joint area. Children living within the school’s area of second priority/joint area. Siblings living outside the area.

1. Siblings living outside the area.

1. Geography - Out of the area children. Children living closest to the school as measured in a direct line from the home address to the school.

In our non-London city, the difference in house prices/rents for comparable size houses in the catchment zones for the poor-results comprehensives vs the high performing comprehensives is bigger than the amount of typical school fees. ie you'd be paying £15,000 per year in school fees for private, but to move into catchment for the best-performing comprehensive school would be a good £18,000 per year more in mortgage payments. It's underhand selection by wealth.

shouldwe
Catchment areas can shrink if admission is done on distance.
You are confusing intake and catchment
The catchment boundary is a line on the map.
If more houses are built, a catchment school has to expand to fit them to comply with the admissions code.

I know people who live in a part of London which is not in any school catchment.
A gross failing of the Academy system.

Maipru
My house over the border into the catchment of the school my kids went to would cost 33% more
but I did not have to move

Geographic selection by schools inevitably leads to socioeconomic segregation over time. Redrawing of catchment boundaries is one way to counter this.

Well, to be fair, the vast majority of LA schools in London don't have any designated catchment at all - it is purely done on distance. I appreciate this differs by LA.

I'm in a grammar area and none of the grammars here produce anyone spectacular tbh. I went to a Roman Catholic school in London tho which had really good results

Sunset
Secondary schools in London have been dysfunctional ever since the Academy system started.
LAs are responsible for schooling kids but are banned by law from creating the schools and places to educate them.
Kingston have bragged about creating a shortfall to save money for years.
THat should be enough to get the councillors banned from elected office

I think most schools abandoned catchments in London after the Greenwich Ruling. Some do still have them but, for example, very successful LAs like Richmond don't.

I don’t know the school you’ve mentioned. I do know of one C of E school where to have any chance of getting in, the children must have been christened by six months, have a letter from the vicar to confirm that they go to church at least every other week (and have done for four years) and must live mere metres from the school. As a result, the children tend to be middle class and have parents who have put in quite a lot of thought into getting into this school.

As a result, the children tend to be middle class and have parents who have put in quite a lot of thought into getting into this school.

And the type of parent who has this much capability for planning and executing a long term educational project is going to ensure their child engages with school when he/she gets there.

ontop
But the Greenwich Ruling en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_Judgement
does not stop catchments at all

London LEAs are too small to be sustainable
ILEA was better for education

@Bahhumbug01 have you actually researched the areas you're looking at? Because I can tell you there is a severe shortage of secondary places in Edenbridge. There is no 'local comp', in fact the nearest school (currently requires improvement) is in the next county!

Around here there is no line on the map and no obligation to increase the intake if there is an increase in the numbers in the area. If you don't get into a local school then you are sent to a further away school.

You what? It never really occurred to me that going to the local comp (as I did) was going to prevent me ever doing well at anything

As others have said there are no catchment in London so it's furthest distance, thus if course it's geographical selection. Nesrvus (though no so close edd get in) is one if the top 10 comps in London. In a very affluent area. What a surprise.

Although tbf I don’t think that’s what you really mean. It’s the funding formula then- a school that does well one year will get more pupils the next year, and then more money because pupils=money. Means some schools are in a cycle of doing badly, getting fewer pupils and then getting less money so they struggle to improve the next year.
It’s a shit system really.

I don’t think it’s fair to say comprehensives in Bromley are crap.
Apart from Langley Boys and Girls, Darrick Wood is very good. As is Hayes. Ravens Wood is also good. Bullers Wood is good. Then there is Newstead and St Olaves, although they are grammars. And access to all the grammars in Kent.

I think people who live in Bromley are well served for schools.