Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

where to live to get to good state secondary?

57 replies

Daniiil · 08/09/2009 23:31

Hi, our DD is to go to her secondary in 3 years so we try to figure out where to live (London and commuting area) to get into catchman area of good grammar (or just good) secondary state schools. Were looking at Kent, Richmond, Heampstead, etc but got really confused. Can anyone advise good places to live with good schools not so oversubsribed? Appreciate your feedback.

OP posts:
TalkinPeace2 · 27/07/2011 12:06

Hampshire
None of that Grammar malarkey
some excellent comps
good road, rail and air links to other places
nice countryside
nice coast

Jinx1906 · 27/07/2011 13:08

I like that Grammar malarkey

TalkinPeace2 · 27/07/2011 14:21

I take it yours are not at the Secondary Modern then?

Jinx1906 · 27/07/2011 14:40

No we are at GS. Can not fault it.

hangon · 01/08/2011 20:51

If a child wants to learn they will regardless of what school they are in.

crazynanna · 01/08/2011 21:10

creditcrunched What do you think of the state secondaries on the Islington/Haringay border? (friend's girl leaving primary around there soon) Smile

gazzalw · 02/08/2011 10:11

Don't want to rain on your parade but have to say I find all these threads very depressing.... what about families that can't afford to move to the areas with the best schools? Somewhere down the line we all need to take a leap of faith and stay put as long as we're not talking sink estate comprehensives.

We live in a fairly grotty area but with highly selective grammars nearby if DCs are bright enough. However, it's by default (where we could afford to buy) that we moved here and naively we didn't even consider potential schooling choices (which is why we then had a big headache getting EC into our preferred choice primary) as DS was only a baby.

Yes, we do all want what's best for our children but all this moving around the country to take advantage of the best school places is what's leading to our very divided society and isn't really fair. As one parent working in education said to us a few weeks ago, if you support your child academically they will be fine whichever school they go to. I know some highly educated academic types who went to pretty mediocre comprehensives but did really well nevertheless.

On a similar note, I was reading an article about Tulisa (from NDubz) and she was saying how rough Haverstock Comp was/is but this is the same school that Ed and David Milliband attended and they both went to Oxford!

What we should all want for our children is a school where they mix with children from all backgrounds and cultures and are educated well.

It would be interesting to know quite why people think it is necessary to go to an area with the best schools - surely this is subjective anyway and is partly subject to fickle attitudes about what constitutes a good school. I can think of at least one school around here that 7 years ago would not be touched with a barge-pole by the Yummy Mummy brigade, but since a turn-around by incoming Head has now become the chichi school in the Borough. It has meant that the former less well-off demographic of pupils (who used to constitute most of the school population) has now been driven out by incoming middle-class families - is that morally right?

mummytime · 02/08/2011 10:41

My mum couldn't afford to move to get me into a better school, but she used the system to get me allocated the best she could (actually there was an even better one I could have gone to, but her prejudices stopped her sending me there).
Having taught in schools, I know there are some which would make my kids miserable. Some of those are even good schools.

gazzalw · 02/08/2011 10:52

I would agree with you Mummytime! The best schools do not necessarily constitute the best ones for your child! Everyone has said to us that you have to go on your own instincts and likes of child(ren) when considering school options. Helicoptering into the best schools does not necessarily take that into consideration at all.

Also, don't think that when we were children that parents made the same type of sacrifices for children as we do now. How many of us went to the local (not necessarily the best) schools and have still achieved in life?

mummytime · 03/08/2011 08:15

Well if I'd gone to my catchment school I couldn't have gone to university to study the subject I did, as they just didn't allow you to study the right selection of subjects post 13.
However my mother got me into a different school because I had been threatened with bullying if I went t the catchment one.
Actually in a working class area, there were two schools which people did everything they could to get there kids into. (One is still a top school btw.) In the neighbouring Grammar school area there was some coaching etc. And we all thought the parents who sent their kids to the local/not great schools for political reasons were a bit odd (I'd have done the grammar school tests if I had lived in the right place, but you couldn't go from just anywhere in those days).

Jinx1906 · 03/08/2011 13:38

When we are talking about the best school, I mean the school that I believe is most suitable for my children.

We live in a GS area and sadly a lot of really bright children do not get in our local GS because they are not prepared for the 11+ test in the local state primaries. A lot of these places are allocated to children from Private primaries, not because they are brighter but because the parents and private schools played the game i/e prepared the children.

I believe that an average child with supporting parents should have the potential to pass the 11+ We did not have expensive tutors or sent our kids to a private primary school, we did our research and made time to work with our children. I can safely say that we are not in the top set of the GS but we are not struggling either. I think that unless parents are able to buy themselves in to an area where there are good schools i/e schools were they would be happy to send their child which also have good commuter links and everything else on the wish list, I believe the GS is a good alternative. I definitely don't think that GS children are brighter, but in many cases they have parents who care about education and put a of time and energy in to their kids schooling and yes I'm sure those kids would do well wherever they end up. I think the children we should worry about are those who do not get the support they need at home regardless of the families income etc..

OhYouBadBadKitten · 03/08/2011 13:53

ooooold thread.

TalkinPeace2 · 03/08/2011 20:43

Old thread
perennial issue

where I live is a pretty manky local area - dispersal zones, sure start the whole shebang - but only four miles away (on a public bus route) are some excellent schools

CaptainNancy · 03/08/2011 21:44

gazzalw I imagine tulisa is of a different generation than Ed and David Miliband, and does not have an economist for a father (though I stand by to be corrected as I have no idea who she is!). Schools can change an awful lot in just 8-10 years.

I've no idea why you think children allocated "sink estate comprehensives" should be left to drown btw, but maybe all these people looking to move are actually in their catchments?

CaptainNancy · 03/08/2011 21:47

jinx - an 'average' child should patently not pass the 11+. Grammar school places represent 4.7% of secondary school places in my authority- your average joe is not going to get in- they need to be in top 5%. A child working at average levels at KS2 i.e. a level 4 is not going to gain entrance, nor should they. If they are 'average' they are not highly academic, so why on earth would they want to attend a GS?

gazzalw · 04/08/2011 08:13

Don't think any child should have the misfortune to end up at sink estate schools - but no schools should be labelled as such in the first place. But maybe schools wouldn't end up thus categorised if parents did take a leap of faith and stayed put rather than defecting to the nice areas!
Yes, CaptainNancy, I know there's about a 20 year age gap twixt the Milliband boys and Tulisa and that schools can change markedly in that time. But do you not think that Milliband Sr would have been like Anthony Benn and even Jonathan Miller who sent children to local comps because of socialist principles?
Not sure if the grammar school bit was aimed at my post but I totally agree with you jinx.

What I disagree with politically is people moving just to be in the catchment areas of the best schools. It is the worst type of social engineering really with all the haves in the better performing schools. My own view is that every secondary school should have the equivalent of a grammar school intake which might encourage the aspirant parents to stay put rather than chasing the best schools in other areas.

CaptainNancy · 04/08/2011 09:52

Do you mean a top academic stream type arrangement?

gazzalw · 04/08/2011 10:47

Yes that type of thing - they do it in Wandsworth in some of the secondaries as far as I know.

magdalene · 11/08/2011 12:44

Fortismere's results aren't that great given the affluent intake.

Mill Hill County, Q E Girls, Copthall and Ashmole in Barnet
Sutton has a range of selective and comps
Redbridge comes out well as does Sutton, Bromley and Bexley for schools.
I am researching this at the moment myself and these schools have 70% pass rate for 5 GCSEs (including maths and English).

Camden school for Girls has a mixed intake and does better than Fortismere -high expectations and setting throughout make a real difference. Politics aside, exam results are important!

thestringpeople · 11/08/2011 12:48

South West Hertfordshire. Rickmansworth, Tring or Berkhamsted have good secondary schools and you can apply to the grammar schools in Bucks. Ashlyns in Berkhamsted is not over subscribed. It is an "improving" school, the OFSTED report doesn't do it justice and all the parents are very keen on the new head. Very middle class if thats your bag.

Jinx1906 · 11/08/2011 18:27

CaptainNancy,

In what capacity are you deciding that my average DD should not be in GS? DD is average and so are most of her friends, they worked hard to get there and are very motivated to maintain good levels. To say that these children do not belong in GS is totally out of order imho. In our area too there is a lot of competition for GS places and a lot of parents who send their kids there would like to think that their children are the top 5%. There is nothing wrong with having to work to get results.

Why do we want our average children to go to GS, simple because we do not like the comps. in our area.

TalkinPeace2 · 12/08/2011 20:17

If you have a Grammar School you do not - by defintion - have comps ;
you have Secondary Moderns.
Grammars (in their current incarnation) are not compatible with "every child matters"

magdalene · 13/08/2011 13:30

Well the grammar schools wouldn't be so over subscribed if the comprehensives actually raised their game and taught children! Thanks to some politician or the other there are now so few grammar schools left that competition is very, very high. Grammar schools used to take children of the top 20-25% ability band. Now we've got too many dud secondary schools failing too many children. No wonder parents are fighting to get their children into grammars. Why is it that on mumsnet parents should feel ashamed about trying to give their child the very best education? Jinx1906 is doing what she feels is best for her children. What's wrong in that? And let's face it, how many mumsnetters want their child at a school which only gets 35% of its students 5 GCSEs?

CecilyP · 13/08/2011 14:29

I think the point that CaptaintNancy was making is that even if grammar schools take the top 25% of the ability range, they will not be taking average children who will, by definition, be at or around the 50th percentile. I don't think it was meant as a personal criticism of Jinx or her children. If you want to return to the system that there used to be before some politician or other had their way, then the proper place for an average child would be a secondary modern school.

Jinx1906 · 14/08/2011 22:27

CaptainNancy said top 5% and that an average child should not be in a GS. My DD and her friends are average.

I don't know what a modern secondary is. I was not educated in the UK. All I know is that the GS' in our area are great schools, and that children are leaving there with good GCSE and A-level results, sadly the vast majority of children who leave the comp. schools in our area don't. A few years ago we were considering moving to an area without GS' and to live in the catchment area of a so called " All ability school " with reasonable results the house prices went through the roof. Unless someone is very well off there is no way one can live there.

The GS in our area are packed with so called average children, a lot of them come from Indie primaries, they pass the 11+ because they are prepared for the test not because they are bright. So why should parents with children from a state school not play the same game. My poor average child did not spent all her free time with a tutor or with her nose in books.

As I said I don't know what a Modern Secondary is but as far as I'm concerned the comprehensives or all ability schools in our area are a failed social experiment probably dreamt up by people who are sending their own children to private schools.

I agree that every school should be a good school and that it is not right that people are moving to areas to be in the right catchment area but I felt that considering our circumstances we had no choice but to play the game and to be honest I can only recommend others to do the same.