Moving for secondary schools - is it worth it?

[monkeygoesbananas]

Just that really. Was chatting to DH about the whole house/secondary schools - I think it would be but he disagrees. Obviously, we don't have the benefit of hindsight and I was wondering what other people's experience has been - especially in terms of university outcomes etc.

@Guymere - where we are we'd be in the land of the ultra, ultra-selective Grammar schools.

@Africa2go - thanks for the clarification. Didn't know they lined up progress scores for individual bands rather than as an aggregate.

Also, can teachers/teaching really vary that much from school to school? I mean at unis it's basically the exact reverse - the better the uni the worse the teaching...but good unis don't care because ultimately its all about research anyway. Perhaps in schools thats different.

@monkeygoesbananas
Teaching varies greatly but this is ultimately down to the culture of the school and the leadership team. There is a reason why a good head can turn a school around.
When teachers are surrounded by good culture, consistent behaviour management policies and excellent professional development they become excellent teachers even if they started as not very good ones.
It is the same as a kid who goes from a school with low aspirations to one filled with high achieving kids. They'll improve.
So when you have a rubbish school with no aspirations for the students, the same thing happens with teachers.

What Malmontar says. Like any person in a workplace, teachers will do their best if they know they’re supported and have managers they can turn to + there’s consistency throughout the workplace + there are high expectations of them and they’re monitored and there’s the culture of working hard.

I’ve actually worked in some grammars too and there were quite a few students with learning difficulties (admittedly milder than what most comps face) but the level of support was incredible compared to similar pupils in some comps when they were completely off the radar.

My opinion is that if your child wants to learn they can do well at any school. You also get good and bad teachers in every school.

We discussed moving to get our DD into a secondary here in Edinburgh which was near the top of the Scottish league table, way higher than our catchment secondary. Thankfully before doing anything about moving, we visited our catchment secondary and were blown away by management & teaching staff. I’m now pleased to report DD is very happy in 5th year (year 12) at her catchment school , she got 7 A’s & a B for Nat 5’s and is making good progress with her highers, all this despite the catchment school being in the lower half of Scottish league tables.

We have always encouraged DD’s learning and take an interest in her course work (although is all way over my head now). She also has a large group of lovely friends from school.

Goood luck with whatever choice you make MonkeyGoesBananas.

There are countless children who do less well because their school has negative progress scores. Had they gone to a better school, they would have got better results. Outlier DC don’t prove a school is great for the majority.

Grammars do have DC with SEN but not SEN and lower attainment. They simply are not in the grammar schools.

In an area with super selective grammar schools, the chances are that the other schools are good. They lose far fewer bright students than the secondary moderns do in county wide grammar areas. So the attainment in the schools you quote is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

Where I live, Ofsted has never found poor teaching in the grammar schools. It’s not true there is poor teaching in every school. Where schools are RI, it’s often because DC are not making good enough progress. It’s because, mostly, teaching is not good enough and SLT haven’t done anything about it. Children do not have to expect poor teaching and neither do parents. It’s not up to parents to engage tutors and fill in the gaps.

In an area with super selective grammar schools, the chances are that the other schools are good. They lose far fewer bright students than the secondary moderns do in county wide grammar areas.

It isn't just that, it is also that lots of the places at most of the super selectives are taken by out of borough children depending on individual school policy. So these areas will have good comps as people move in hoping to get the grammar - they may not because of the intense competition and then find themselves using the comps which raises their results.

I have seen piss poor teaching in grammars btw.

But to answer the OP - depends where you live, your most likely school, your child's propensity to peer pressure and their likely friends and contacts.

So these areas will have good comps as people move in hoping to get the grammar

I think you’re in my neck of the woods, ChristopherTracy? I think the whole local demographic is skewed towards professional and very involved parents moving over specifically for education. Hence the primaries are also amongst the highest attaining in the country.

In my nearest town there are three Outstanding grammar schools. Until recently all three secondary moderns there were RI. People move here for the grammars too! However in some areas, the schools they have to accept if they cannot get to a grammar have been piss poor for decades! Not just the odd bit of poor teaching! That would be heaven!

I work in a high performing school, we got great progress 8.

thats great to know regarding progress 8. we are not really looking at the top of secondaries but none of our options would be in RI. I think its more a case of choosing between the naice and fashionable MC secondary versus a good secondary (with a better progress score) but lower results due to a more mixed intake.