rubbish local secondary school choices - London - did you end up moving?

[080878tukh]

DC is currently in yr 2 in a local London primary and all our local secondary options are quite rubbish. Contemplating whether it's worth moving - but with things as they are - not really the right time interest rate/house prices wise. I guess our dilemma is not unusual for London - we are only in the catchment of one single sex school that is really not very good. Not sure that DC would pass an entrance exam for the local private schools - that have become incredibly competitive of late. For those who decided to stay or move - do you think it was worth it either way?

John Roan became an academy rather than closing. I've heard good things about it lately.

Yes my son is here and it's improved a lot, I imagine in 5 years it will be back to Good.

Tallis is a solid choice but we were put off by how enormous it is (2200 students!)
JR is rather explicitly social justice oriented which we also liked a lot

Tallis is a solid choice but we were put off by how enormous it is (2200 students!) JR is rather explicitly social justice oriented which we also liked a lot

That's interesting, thanks @dreamingbohemian

Can I ask how the social justice emphasis manifests itself in school life? And what are destinations / progress like at JR?

My son's only a year in so I can't say much about outcomes and exams later on, but there is definitely a huge push to improve results and so there is loads of support, homework clubs, reading clubs, etc. There is a big focus on self-esteem and wellbeing too. They are VERY strict about behaviour, which will put a lot of people off, but I have to say my son is doing incredibly well because of it, in his last school there was so much disruption in the classroom.

It's very proudly a London school, very proud of its diversity, it really pushes tolerance and respect, and learning about current events and issues. They have lots of activities with local charities. They learn Black British History all year, not just doing a few things during Black History Month. They have inspiring quotes from Greta Thunberg and Barack Obama on the wall, that kind of place : ) It's not for everyone I guess but we like it.

@dreamingbohemian it sounds nice! I look forward to visiting when DC is a bit older.

I think the cracking down on poor behaviour is very good, as long as there's not an authoritarian approach generally, but given what you've said it sounds like they've got the balance of compassion and boundaries right.

Have you actually been to the school or talked to parents with kids there, or are you just determined to rubbish it and do it down on a large forum without any real knowledge or experience of it?

I'm in SW London but had similar issues - fantastic options for girls, much less good options for boys. Our local mixed comp had a bad Ofsted when DS1 was in early primary, the boys' option is thoroughly uninspiring and the results are well below the borough average, so we thought we'd probably have to move or sell an organ.

DS1 is in year 6 now and the local comp has had a massive turnaround - the requires improvement triggered so much change. New Head, it's part of a small but strong MAT, about five new heads of department and it's first post-Covid results smashed it in terms of performance relative to other schools in the borough. We loved it when we visited it too - got a really positive vibe and we're happy to be sending our son there rather than feeling a sense of dread about it. So things can change - and do go and see the schools if you can.

Yes I think you are right. By having any sort of admissions test, you are immediately filtering out certain pupils - those with more disorganised home lives / or with parents who don’t speak English so don’t understand what they need to do / or parents work and can’t take time off to get them to the test etc.

Plus Kingsdale’s admissions system is much more complicated than most schools, making it even worse.

But what is annoying is that Kingsdale state the banding tests are there to ensure a fair range of abilities across the school. It’s rubbish! It’s a selective school that pretends it’s a comprehensive.

This is so true. London state schools are generally v good. Money makes difference

Most London schools you have to sit some sort of test before being offered a place. The comprehensives near me do “fair banding”, so they take equal numbers of, say, five ability bands. All potential pupils have to take the test. It’s so they are true comprehensives, not just full of the very bright, for example - a child who lives farther away can get a place over one who lives closer.

OP. If you want to leave London do. But you don’t need to go now. In year 4 visit the local schools. Then decide if you need to move. Everyone I know who started at FHb this year really liked it. I was underwhelmed by Kingsdale. I think you have to the the right kind of child to get the best out of it. If I had my time again I would have moved to be in catchment for Langley Boys.

I have two DCs who are currently at separate secondary schools in London and neither sat a banding test.

However as you say other schools do use banding to ensure a fair intake but the issue with Kingsdale is it’s not just the banding test lottery. It’s the scholarships and half scholarships, which require a separate application form, and sitting music and sports tests - this accounts for 15% of intake. There are separate waiting lists for banding and scholarship pupils. It’s a complicated process and a child would need a parent who is quite savvy to make the best out of the system.
I know of parents whose children weren’t particularly interested in sports going for a sports scholarship anyway as a way to try and increase their chances of a place.

Yes, perhaps it’s not true for me to say most London schools you have to sit a test, but it’s common where I live. Kingsdale used to be a rough school that no-one wanted. We looked at it when it was on the turn and it did seem nice- but that was before the lottery system was introduced. DD (now a young adult) was offered a half music scholarship - and she’s really not very musical. My next-door neighbour’s child goes to Kingsdale and they’re happy with it.

I've just had a look at Kingsdale admissions. What does a scholarship or half scholarship actually give you. It's such a weird system

Fyi Hayes just got an outstanding this week. Mixed school. Currently need to live within about 0.9 miles. As the head said it's outstanding, not perfect, which I think is the attitude to take to all 'outstanding' schools.

My DD is on a full music scholarship place so:

1. we knew she basically had a guaranteed place as her ranking was high enough to get in on offers day.
2. free one to one tuition in her main musical study
3. free music theory tuition
4. access to music focused masterclasses (this week there was a day focused on gospel music with other schools from Southwark)
5. access to specific groups and choirs (some open to all, some invitation only).
6. programme of concerts

Plus it means the school has a huge music department and offer a lot of support to children who are considering a career in the music industry. There are three GCSE music classes in my DD's year (you lose the scholarship if you don't take GCSE music).

I spoke to the Musician's Union recently at a conference and they couldn't believe that a state school could have a music department on this level, so it appears to be quite rare.

Having sat for most of the music scholarships in London, Kingsdale did have the most inclusive and extensive application process (Camden Girls had several hundred sit the MAT but only invited the top 50 scoring students back to the audition and offer a tiny number of scholarships overall - Kingsdale you sit all parts and are marked on everything).

Half scholarship I think gets you free group tuition rather than one to one, but the rest is the same.

How good at music do you need to be?

How many children in receipt of pupil premium or with other markers of disadvantage get theses ‘scholarship’ slots, though? And how does the school compensate for the fact that, in general, it is those from more advantaged socio-economic backgrounds who have the instrumental tuition necessary to compete for such scholarships? Equally, how many music scholars are higher than average ability academically, making this a proxy for academic selection?

It’s selecting ‘easy’ kids and selecting against those who are most disadvantaged, this improving its results and public perception.

Exactly. It is a selective school and also gives places on a lottery basis when no other school in south London runs a lottery. It is in the middle of a non-grammar and therefore supposedly "comprehensive" area. I have no idea how K gets away with it ... and everyone hates the idea of their admissions process until their child gets "lucky" and gets a place.

I personally know two boys who were high achieving at primary who failed to get a Uni place this year. It is definitely not the be all and end all.

I also know many people who sent their first child there but not their seconds and subsequents.

I tend to agree. It’s years since we looked at at Kingsdale so things may have changed. It was just after it had been turned round from being a school no one wanted and was at the very start of it being talked about as being good. For my DD to be offered a half music scholarship there, I was surprised. She was grade 1 or 2 on the piano. No musical prodigy.

Meant to add, mine wasn’t particularly academic or bright. Solidly average at a state primary.

Even that small amount of selection is enough to change the overall demographic of the intake - towards those with parents interested enough and wealthy enough for music lessons; those who are ‘solidly average’ rather than those who find learning very challenging. That in turn affects results, then parental perception and popularity, then that gradually raises the degree of selection over time.

The ‘open warfare’ selection of 11+ is bad enough. The ‘sneaky backdoor’ selection of church attendance, musical aptitude tests, complex requirements is in some ways worse because everyone pretends it isn’t really there.

Yes, I agree. I suspect my child wouldn’t have got one today if we applied, but at the time, I could see why a school would want her.

Please don't write off FHS on what you've heard without taking a look at it.

DH and I are both Oxbridge graduates and as middle class as it comes, our DS is in Y9 at FHS and we are very happy with it.

Yes, it's a genuine community comprehensive so he is with some boys who are a long way behind him in attainment and motivation, but he has been stretched and his learning supported (he is on the high potential strand and so gets some extra stuff as well as in lessons). He is also happy, safe, enjoys school and has made friends with a lovely bunch of boys. The school is very nurturing and works hard on challenging toxic masculinity and ensuring the boys know there is more than one way to be a young man. No school is perfect for all children of course but I would really encourage you not to write off a school on hearsay.

Our DD is in year 6 and hoping to go to Sydenham, we would also be v happy with Prendergast Ladywell which we put as second. When DS was choosing secondary a lot of the middle class parents in his year were desperate to get Kingsdale or Sydenham and avoid Prendergast; now Kingsdale and Sydenham seem much less fashionable and it's all about Prendergast. Even though I don't think anything has changed much for better or worse in any of those schools - it's all about the chatter. So by the time you are choosing a secondary who knows - FHS may have become super desirable, or Harris may have become flavour of the month...

It's more about potential - you sit a Music Aptitude Test, aural tests and performance of 2 pieces with optional sight reading, plus a chat about what kind of music you enjoy.

DD has never taken a single exam in her main study. At the time she sat the test she was probably around G6 level in that and G1 in the other two. That's probably higher than the vast majority, DD reckons most of her friends on full scholarships were more like G3.

You don't need to be a classical performer (DD is not and we found a lot of schools were only really interested in classical music and orchestral instruments), and you don't need a sheaf of certificates or a working knowledge of composers. You also can't prep for the MAT (afaik).

You probably do need to be pretty interested in music rather than just being there because you've had piano lessons and thought you'd give it a go. You definitely don't need to be set on a career in that area either.

It's also not the case that they just use it to select via the back door. DD has severe dyslexia and while she's bright, I very much doubt she's going to be one of the kids with top grades in everything, and given we stated the SEN on the application for access arrangements in the tests, there was always the risk of being weeded out (one school did tell us that while they were very interested in her musically they couldn't meet her needs on that front).

Same with the sports scholarships - they're not assessing for academics there either.

Once you have a place at the school you can also apply for maths and art scholarships.

What the scholarships do ensure is very strong music and sports departments (especially as you have to take the relevant GCSE) - if you took those away and just had a system based on local entry, you'd be unlikely to have such large cohorts for GCSE and therefore smaller departments and a far smaller offer in terms of extra curricular activities for all (you don't have to be a scholar to be in the teams/bands/orchestras/choirs etc).