# Schools in Lambeth discussion thread



## Gramsci (Dec 9, 2012)

There have been a lot of posts on the thread about professionals putting rents up about schools. So at suggestion thought I would start a schools thread. I do not have kids but the posts were interesting and there is a lot about schools in Lambeth I didn't know. Like the social apartheid. So feel free to post up.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 9, 2012)

this could be interesting hopefully t won't turn into one of those mumsnet type threads where the discussion focuses on how to get places in schools where ones Ds's and Dd's [sic] don't have to mix with "the wrong sort".


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

Basically, the wealthy and the cunning (like me) will stop at nothing to get their kids into the catchment of the 'right' school.

Which leads to social segregation. And to the statistical discrepancies I have highlighted elsewhere on this site.

You get segregation _within_ schools too.


----------



## Glitter (Dec 9, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> this could be interesting hopefully t won't turn into one of those mumsnet type threads where the discussion focuses on how to get places in schools where ones Ds's and Dd's [sic] don't have to mix with "the wrong sort".



That DS, DD and DH thing proper gets on my tits. It's awful.


----------



## boohoo (Dec 9, 2012)

Glitter said:


> That DS, DD and DH thing proper gets on my tits. It's awful.


 
what about LOs and OHs?


----------



## Glitter (Dec 9, 2012)

boohoo said:


> what about LOs and OHs?



That's bad but at least it stands for something you might actually say.

Dear husband ffs :spew:


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 9, 2012)

Can we institute FD and FS here?


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 9, 2012)

What is this Dd shit? Does it stand for darling? If so, how dfucking twee.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Dec 9, 2012)

Yes, and yes.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

you'd be surprised how many "liberal" parents i know who have said they wouldn't even think about sending their kids to _any_ school in lambeth and are making daily preparations to get out as soon as their little uns get beyond toddler age. this "moving out" is why london is such a sad place in regards education, imo. where some of my mates live in the sticks, the kids are all sent pretty much to the nearest school - why can't this happen in london; why the great waves of flight and moving around of people, often with their kids "future" being the deciding point? annoys me. the amount of yummy mummies in crystal palace is truly incredible, posh prams, nice houses in gypsy hill etc, but i bet you at least 70% of them won't even consider their kids to the local state schools at secondary level.

my main fear about raising a kid in lambeth is not so much the schools, but gangs and crime. i _would_, no matter how hard i try to prove myself wrong, be worried about letting them out. it's a fear that's not strong enough for me to move away though - i'm here for the long haul and we already have a secondary school sorted in croydon where my wife teaches.


----------



## Winot (Dec 9, 2012)

To recycle my comment from another thread:



Winot said:


> It's definitely the case ime that middle class parents (of which I am one) avoid schools they don't see as being 'right' for their children, and partly being 'right' means a decent proportion of 'people like us'.
> 
> Our kids' school is about 5% white British (mainly black African/Afro-Carribean) and is shunned by the white middle class (and no, it wasn't our first choice but has turned out to be great). But it might well also be shunned if it were full of white _working_ class.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 9, 2012)

I think the only way to make schools right it to choose a reasonable distance and make all the schools take the same amount of students by race, gender, class and SEN. Probably sounds like an exercise in control for too many people but the alternative is basically white or black schools/working class or middle class schools, which with a couple of exceptions is what we've got now.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> To recycle my comment from another thread:


for sure, it's a class thing. but i have also heard a few "i wouldn't want them to be in a minority" sort of comments too. which is got fuck all to do with the kid, but the parents' silly prejudices.


----------



## Winot (Dec 9, 2012)

nagapie said:


> I think the only way to make schools right it to choose a reasonable distance and make all the schools take the same amount of students by race, gender, class and SEN. Probably sounds like an exercise in control for too many people but the alternative is basically white or black schools/working class or middle class schools, which with a couple of exceptions is what we've got now.



Whilst I don't disagree with your broader point, aren't you being a bit pessimistic here? Even the much-feted Sudbourne has 30% free school meals and a decent racial mix afaik.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

nagapie said:


> I think the only way to make schools right it to choose a reasonable distance and make all the schools take the same amount of students by race, gender, class and SEN. Probably sounds like an exercise in control for too many people but the alternative is basically white or black schools/working class or middle class schools, which with a couple of exceptions is what we've got now.


yep.

it's wrong and it is the one thing about this city that really gets my goat.

"choice", i suppose. but why should kids be part of a silly game of "choice", when there has to be a loser?- and it's not choice, is it, but who can afford to move, or live in a posh area.

just another symptom of free market economics, but it's so wrong it's stomach churning.

grrr


----------



## nagapie (Dec 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> Whilst I don't disagree with your broader point, aren't you being a bit pessimistic here? Even the much-feted Sudbourne has 30% free school meals and a decent racial mix afaik.


 
Well it's a version of what we do when children come into Year 7, we try to mix the classes as much as possible to facilitate different kinds of children mixing with each other and an acceptance of difference as well as varying ability and distributing need. You quote Sudbourne, but how many other primaries would you say have a proper mix of students from all classes, and I would argue that Sudbourne is losing this too as the catchment is now tiny and very expensive.
The fact is that if you don't have a comprehensive mix, which was the ideal for secondaries when comps were created and which we have largely lost now, some schools have an unfair amount of need. This is very much the case in a lot of Lambeth schools. One of our students recently left to go to a high-achieveing girls school in the area. They contacted me straight away as they were so concerned about her need. Really she wasn't particularly stand-out in the need of my school. Another student left to go to a more needy secondary and isn't even getting much SEN input, she had a lot intervention at our school, because there is so much need the school she's gone to. Of course I forgot to say that there should be no entry tests, of course.


----------



## boohoo (Dec 9, 2012)

When my daughter is old enough I'd like her to have a chance to get a good education. At secondary school level, I feel I was failed by my school. My primary school was good with a great headmaster who had a positive effect on many of the pupils. Secondary school was all about keeping the class under control  - there wasn't much joy in learning and no reason to want to learn when the careers advisor poo pooed your aspirations and suggested a career as a nursery nurse or teacher. There wasn't talk about university or going around the world. We didn't have any great role models.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> for sure, it's a class thing. but i have also heard a few "i wouldn't want them to be in a minority" sort of comments too. which is got fuck all to do with the kid, but the parents' silly prejudices.


 
1) Stop faith schools selecting pupils.

2) Have some kind of multi-school catchments. Now, parents who can afford house priced ££££ get their kids into school *x*. If those homes could also be assigned, randomly, to nearby schools *y* and *z *it would break the intensifying cycle of clustering and segregation.


----------



## Winot (Dec 9, 2012)

The 'distance to school' test could go (or be attenuated). Doesn't need to be so overriding when there are so many primaries in proximity.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

would banning the whole idea of a catchment area work? i.e. you could send your kid to any school, anywhere? so if someone fancied a school across town, they could send them there? surely this would break up the class/race segregation problem? it would also mean that everyone is sort of on a fairly equal starting level, and not chained to the area they live in? this would give poorer folk who can't afford to move a chance to send their kids to a good school and would also mean there is more a mix for the middle class kids who go to that school?

probably gibberish.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 9, 2012)

Then schools would select so that wouldn't solve the problem. You still wouldn't have choice unless you had resources. You need a system, just not the one we've got. 

leanderman's is a bit like mine, just not as explicit


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Then schools would select so that wouldn't solve the problem. You still wouldn't have choice unless you had resources. You need a system, just not the one we've got.
> 
> leanderman's is a bit like mine, just not as explicit


first come, first serve?


----------



## Manter (Dec 9, 2012)

Glitter said:


> That DS, DD and DH thing proper gets on my tits. It's awful.


Non parent is very confused- DS, DD, DH?  what are they?


----------



## nagapie (Dec 9, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> first come, first serve?


 
Once again those with know-how running rough-shod over those that can't nagivate the system easily. Just no.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

do the school or the pupils make the school "good"? is it largely one answer or the other? or is it a perfect blend of the two?


----------



## trashpony (Dec 9, 2012)

Manter said:


> Non parent is very confused- DS, DD, DH? what are they?


Son, daughter, husband.

I don't know how you sort out inner city schooling. If you ditched catchments, the parents who 'care' would send their kids all over the borough. Those that don't (or who can't afford the wrap around care to allow them to choose) would go for the nearest school


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> do the school or the pupils make the school "good"? is it largely one answer or the other? or is it a perfect blend of the two?


 
Apparently headteachers are crucial. 

But there is a close correlation between performance and selection policies, whether by catchment, mortgage or by faith.


----------



## Glitter (Dec 9, 2012)

Manter said:


> Non parent is very confused- DS, DD, DH?  what are they?



Dear son, dear daughter, dear husband.

uke:


----------



## Manter (Dec 9, 2012)

Glitter said:


> Dear son, dear daughter, dear husband.
> 
> uke:


yes, puke


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

Glitter said:


> That DS, DD and DH thing proper gets on my tits. It's awful.


i'm a bloke, but i used to go on mums net a lot to read tips as i am a stay at home dad. gave up because you'd get sentences like "we are concerned becasue DT has just fallen out with DF and DG wants to enter the argument so DJ and SG and BM came round and we went to the GH."


----------



## Glitter (Dec 9, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> i'm a bloke, but i used to go on mums net a lot to read tips as i am a stay at home dad. gave up because you'd get sentences like "we are concerned becasue DT has just fallen out with DF and DG wants to enter the argument so DJ and SG and BM came round and we went to the GH."



I'm on babynbump and between the spelling and some of the batshit mental ideas some of the American posters have I find it hard work at times.


----------



## Winot (Dec 9, 2012)

trashpony said:


> Son, daughter, husband.
> 
> I don't know how you sort out inner city schooling. If you ditched catchments, the parents who 'care' would send their kids all over the borough. Those that don't (or who can't afford the wrap around care to allow them to choose) would go for the nearest school



Didn't Brighton try a lottery system?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> Didn't Brighton try a lottery system?


this would be a good idea.

can you imagine the screams and howls from the middle class parents who really, truly wretch at the idea of their little cupcakes mixing with poorer kids? there's some who unflinchingly, without humor or irony, admit as such. "oh is that the school with a lot of scummy kids?"

great idea though.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

Glitter said:


> I'm on babynbump and between the spelling and some of the batshit mental ideas some of the American posters have I find it hard work at times.


got enough books now to see me through i think so i can avoid the forums. toddler tamer is ace.


----------



## trashpony (Dec 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> Didn't Brighton try a lottery system?


Dunno. I used to live in Camden and my friends who live off Finchley Rd got given a place for their daughter by Kings X. Completely fucking hopeless in terms of logistics. They got her another place closer on appeal but I think in London, a lottery with big inner London boroughs would be really crap and would end up with no one being very happy.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 9, 2012)

A lottery is a terrible idea. Just throw the dice and see what you get? Doesn't seem a good way to sort children't futures.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 9, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Apparently headteachers are crucial.


I've done a few school visits over thae last few months and IMHO a lot of them reminded me of estate agents.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 9, 2012)

Glitter said:


> That DS, DD and DH thing proper gets on my tits. It's awful.


But amusing when the thread is discussing dh's unreasonable demands for a bit of oral


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

nagapie said:


> A lottery is a terrible idea. Just throw the dice and see what you get? Doesn't seem a good way to sort children't futures.


 
A lottery - as a way of *sorting *children's futures_ -_ is much better than selection by mortgage or faith.

Parents may wail - but largely because their house price would fall!


----------



## Thora (Dec 9, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> you'd be surprised how many "liberal" parents i know who have said they wouldn't even think about sending their kids to _any_ school in lambeth and are making daily preparations to get out as soon as their little uns get beyond toddler age. this "moving out" is why london is such a sad place in regards education, imo. where some of my mates live in the sticks, the kids are all sent pretty much to the nearest school - why can't this happen in london; why the great waves of flight and moving around of people, often with their kids "future" being the deciding point? annoys me. the amount of yummy mummies in crystal palace is truly incredible, posh prams, nice houses in gypsy hill etc, but i bet you at least 70% of them won't even consider their kids to the local state schools at secondary level.
> 
> my main fear about raising a kid in lambeth is not so much the schools, but gangs and crime. i _would_, no matter how hard i try to prove myself wrong, be worried about letting them out. it's a fear that's not strong enough for me to move away though - i'm here for the long haul and we already have a secondary school sorted in croydon where my wife teaches.


I don't live in Lambeth but in an inner city area with similar school issues, and would LOVE to be able to send my son to a good, local school.  Unfortunately, there's a chance he won't get into any local school (not one within walking distance/a km) and secondly, most of the local schools are rubbish.  So the possibility of moving out to somewhere where we could just pick the nearest school, get a place, and he would get a reasonable education is definitely something I am bearing in mind.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 9, 2012)

leanderman said:


> A lottery - as a way of *sorting *children's futures_ -_is much better than selection by mortgage or faith.
> 
> Parents may wail - but largely because their house price would fall!


 
But lottery being better than mortgage or faith is like saying hanging is better than electric chair or beheading. We can do better than all of these.


----------



## Thora (Dec 9, 2012)

leanderman said:


> A lottery - as a way of *sorting *children's futures_ -_is much better than selection by mortgage or faith.
> 
> Parents may wail - but largely because their house price would fall!


A couple of the secondary academies near me select by entrance exam, which then puts children into ability bands and (I assume by lottery) chooses an equal number from each band.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

Thora said:


> A couple of the secondary academies near me select by entrance exam, which then puts children into ability bands and (I assume by lottery) chooses an equal number from each band.


 
It's still a catchment, but with ability bands to stop the rich clustering around the school gates.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 9, 2012)

leanderman said:


> It's still a catchment, but with ability bands to stop the rich clustering around the school gates.


Are you saying rich people are generally brighter ?


----------



## Thora (Dec 9, 2012)

leanderman said:


> It's still a catchment, but with ability bands to stop the rich clustering around the school gates.


It's not a catchment area in that anyone can apply though, regardless of where they live.


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 9, 2012)

Thora said:


> It's not a catchment area in that anyone can apply though, regardless of where they live.


Anyone can apply to any school but the crucial factor is distance generally


----------



## Thora (Dec 9, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> Anyone can apply to any school but the crucial factor is distance generally


Yes, but my point was that these particular academies don't use distance as a factor in admissions.


----------



## Winot (Dec 9, 2012)

nagapie said:


> A lottery is a terrible idea. Just throw the dice and see what you get? Doesn't seem a good way to sort children't futures.



The point is that everyone gets the same throw of the dice, so that (ideally) the result is a statistically even mix of rich/poor/black/white etc.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 9, 2012)

Winot said:


> The point is that everyone gets the same throw of the dice, so that (ideally) the result is a statistically even mix of rich/poor/black/white etc.


 
Why can't we just organise it that way so ideally becomes the reality?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

Thora said:


> Yes, but my point was that these particular academies don't use distance as a factor in admissions.


 
Generally they do use distance. They let in the nearest 20 kids in ability band A, the nearest 20 in Band B etc.

Exceptionally, Kingsdale in Dulwich has no catchment ... but is planning to introduce one


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

nagapie said:


> Why can't we just organise it that way so ideally becomes the reality?


 
Fine, if you can work out a way of doing it.

Let's not dream though because:

1) The government likes backdoor selection (faith schools, academies)

2) It is very hard to win people over to the ruthless beauty of lotteries


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 9, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Generally they do use distance. They let in the nearest 20 kids in ability band A, the nearest 20 in Band B etc.
> 
> Exceptionally, Kingsdale in Dulwich has no catchment ... but is planning to introduce one


Kingsdale currently uses the lottery system and from the number of kids at the banding test it doesn't seem to be a problem for a lot of people. I'd be surprised if they abandoned this in favour of a catchment because the head is very proud of the schools diversity if his speech at the open day is to be believed.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 9, 2012)

cuppa tee said:


> Kingsdale currently uses the lottery system and from the number of kids at the banding test it doesn't seem to be a problem for a lot of people. I'd be surprised if they abandoned this in favour of a catchment because the head is very proud of the schools diversity if his speech at the open day is to be believed.


 
Go Kingsdale! A model for us all. Mind you, they have been accused of fixing exam results!


----------



## nagapie (Dec 9, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Fine, if you can work out a way of doing it.
> 
> Let's not dream though because:
> 
> ...


 
Of course, there's no way that the system will change to anything fair soon. The government is inequality's biggest cheerleader. But I was talking about an ideal, which is practically possible and workable, just not supported. One thing we can all remain certain of is that the education system remains rotten to the core, well that's what I believe anyway.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

Thora said:


> I don't live in Lambeth but in an inner city area with similar school issues, and would LOVE to be able to send my son to a good, local school. Unfortunately, there's a chance he won't get into any local school (not one within walking distance/a km) and secondly, most of the local schools are rubbish. So the possibility of moving out to somewhere where we could just pick the nearest school, get a place, and he would get a reasonable education is definitely something I am bearing in mind.


i can totally see where you're coming from, and i would do the same, but the ability to move, to choose schools, is part of the problem. you end up with schools that are bad, but the parents can't afford to move, so have to send their kids there, and thus the whole problem is repeated.

either all schools improve to a good standard, or parents send their kids to "bad schools" for the better sake of education and society in general is the only real way to solve what is a pretty sorry imo situation, especially in the inner cities. i have read about left-wing parents sending their kids to bad, inner city schools out of principle, but it's human nature to want the best for your child primarily i suppose.


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

i read somewhere that london state schools at all levels are the best in the country.


----------



## Thora (Dec 9, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> i can totally see where you're coming from, and i would do the same, but the ability to move, to choose schools, is part of the problem. you end up with schools that are bad, but the parents can't afford to move, so have to send their kids there, and thus the whole problem is repeated.
> 
> either all schools improve to a good standard, or parents send their kids to "bad schools" for the better sake of education and society in general is the only real way to solve what is a pretty sorry imo situation, especially in the inner cities. i have read about left-wing parents sending their kids to bad, inner city schools out of principle, but it's human nature to want the best for your child primarily i suppose.


I'm not sure if I entirely understand - are you saying if certain types of parents (richer ones?) send their children to bad schools then the schools will improve?


----------



## MillwallShoes (Dec 9, 2012)

i think it'll help. it comes back to the age old question whether it is the pupils or the school that make a school. i believe it is a mixture of both.


----------



## Winot (Dec 9, 2012)

MillwallShoes said:


> i read somewhere that london state schools at all levels are the best in the country.



Lambeth is in the top ten boroughs nationally of %age children attending a good or outstanding school (Ofsted assessed). 84% iirc. 

Hackney is much lower - in the 50s% I think. I'll try and find the link. 

Leaving aside issues with Ofsted etc. Lambeth primaries are really not bad.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 10, 2012)

Winot said:


> Leaving aside issues with Ofsted etc. Lambeth primaries are really not bad.


 
No, they're not. Most schools have an amazing and dedicated workforce and parents . However, there are a lot of things about them that are not good: growing segregation and disparity, schools with more SEN than they can handle. And like all schools in the country, a narrow curriculum and too much testing. And as schools are judged on results, schools with more EAL and SEN students have to spend even more time and effort focusing on getting these results. A Lambeth mum told me that her son used to do the most lovely paintings at nursery and now he doesn't ever seem to do anything creative, too much time on the 3 Rs. It's not the school's fault, it's the system.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 13, 2012)

Key Stage 2 primary results out today.

Huge improvements at Jubilee School. 79% of kids getting to expected level, instead of only 36% last year!

Improvement too at King's Avenue 63% to 70%, Holy Trinity 71% to 87%, Richard Atkins 79% to 93% etc

The across the board improvements are slightly suspicious!


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 13, 2012)

The more I learn about stats like that, the more I am reminded about how cops present their stats to the city bosses in The Wire.


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 13, 2012)

they're bollocks frankly... knowing what I do about NC levels, there is no way I'd choose my child's school based on them - or certainly not based on them alone.


----------



## Thora (Dec 13, 2012)

Could you expand a bit on that GG?


----------



## Thora (Dec 13, 2012)

Could you expand a bit on that GG?


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 13, 2012)

I'll pm you if you like.  I tend to try not to talk about work online too much.  Just couldn't resist an aside on that note.


----------



## Thora (Dec 13, 2012)

Yeah I'd definitely like to know more about NC levels/SATs - my local schools range from 25% to 75% at expected level


----------



## leanderman (Dec 13, 2012)

Thora said:


> Could you expand a bit on that GG?


 
These are small sample sizes for a start. The results are based on only 40-45 kids.

And of course there are lots of other issues with 'league tables' ...


----------



## Thora (Dec 13, 2012)

leanderman said:


> These are small sample sizes for a start. The results are based on only 40-45 kids.
> 
> And of course there are lots of other issues with 'league tables' ...


Are the results not from the school's Year 6 classes?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 13, 2012)

Thora said:


> Are the results not from the school's Year 6 classes?


 
Guess so. And most of these schools have about 45 kids entering in reception


----------



## Thora (Dec 13, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Guess so. And most of these schools have about 45 kids entering in reception


Ah, so 1.5 classes a year?  Are mixed age classes the norm?


----------



## leanderman (Dec 13, 2012)

Yes. My daughters are in mixed classes. You kind of want them to be in the older class for reasons of pride but then they can get a bit lost


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Dec 16, 2012)

year 6 six sats only tell you what the previous 6 or 7 years in the school has been like - with the turn over of staff many schools have that doesn't tell you what the next 7 years are going to be like

(I don't think SAT's even tell you that to be honest - statistics don't tell you how your child is going to be supported emotionally or what the school does to promote an equitable community for instance)


----------



## nagapie (Dec 16, 2012)

leanderman said:


> Yes. My daughters are in mixed classes. You kind of want them to be in the older class for reasons of pride but then they can get a bit lost


 
What are mixed classes?


----------



## Thora (Dec 16, 2012)

Mixed age - if schools take 45 children a year then they effectively have 1.5 classes, so for eg. either have 3 mixed Yr1-Yr2 classes, or 1 Yr1, 1 Yr1-Yr2, 1 Yr2.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 16, 2012)

I didn't realise they did that in primary. We are discussing mixing year groups at my secondary next year, I have to say it rocked my mind at first but I guess they mix them in nursery so it's not that different.


----------



## Thora (Dec 16, 2012)

nagapie said:


> I didn't realise they did that in primary. We are discussing mixing year groups at my secondary next year, I have to say it rocked my mind at first but I guess they mix them in nursery so it's not that different.


I think nursery classes are going to end up with less of an age range though, as places start to take children only in September rather than in January and April too.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 17, 2012)

Thora said:


> I think nursery classes are going to end up with less of an age range though, as places start to take children only in September rather than in January and April too.


 
But they'll still have the 3+ children mixed. Do primaries mix more than 2 years? Might your child be in year 1 with children from year 3?!


----------



## leanderman (Dec 17, 2012)

nagapie said:


> But they'll still have the 3+ children mixed. Do primaries mix more than 2 years? Might your child be in year 1 with children from year 3?!


No.


----------



## Thora (Dec 17, 2012)

nagapie said:


> But they'll still have the 3+ children mixed. Do primaries mix more than 2 years? Might your child be in year 1 with children from year 3?!


No, I mean at the moment some children are in nursery for 4 or 5 terms rather than just 3 as they can start in January or April - many nursery classes are now only taking children in September, so all children in the nursery class will be in the same academic year.


----------



## Griffter (Dec 18, 2012)

Schools too are now only doing single intakes, in line with the nurseries. This means that a child who is still three in August but has a birthday before the term starts finds itself in full time education which is often a lot for them to cope with. My son is really struggling in the reception because he is effectively a year younger than some of the other kids but there is no other official intake in either January or Easter. The classes aren't mixed but it seems ridiculous that we are putting in place a system that is pretty much the opposite than in effective education systems like Finland.


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 18, 2012)

Due to the school funding formula dates...


----------



## cuppa tee (Dec 18, 2012)

The top man at one Lambeth educational establishment  has a unique vision for secondary education which some may find controversial. His solution is to bus 13+ year olds out of the city to a boarding school on Monday morning returning home for the weekends. I can see pitfalls here, not least the fact that these teenagers will be spending the weekends in a dubious environment so the security set up at the school will have to be something like an open prison....... http://www.durandacademy.com/durand-trust/


----------



## nagapie (Dec 18, 2012)

Urgh. Effectively saying their parents are crap. Like sending your children to boarding school at age 11 really teaches them the emotional literacy to become better people.

Kill that governing body, kill them in the face.


----------



## gaijingirl (Dec 18, 2012)

that's been in the pipeline for years (at Durand)... I thought they had already been doing it at primary level, but must have been mistaken.


----------



## Thora (Dec 18, 2012)

Griffter said:


> Schools too are now only doing single intakes, in line with the nurseries. This means that a child who is still three in August but has a birthday before the term starts finds itself in full time education which is often a lot for them to cope with. My son is really struggling in the reception because he is effectively a year younger than some of the other kids but there is no other official intake in either January or Easter. The classes aren't mixed but it seems ridiculous that we are putting in place a system that is pretty much the opposite than in effective education systems like Finland.


That's the position my son will be in too as he is 4 in August.  He doesn't legally have to start school until he is 5 so the only other option is to skip Reception entirely and go straight into Year 1 at 5 - if there is a place.


----------



## nagapie (Dec 18, 2012)

Thora said:


> That's the position my son will be in too as he is 4 in August. He doesn't legally have to start school until he is 5 so the only other option is to skip Reception entirely and go straight into Year 1 at 5 - if there is a place.


 
If you do this I suppose you are at a disadvantage as places are allocated for reception. Something to consider though if you don't like your options, just hang about on some waiting lists.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i wanna know where these people who buy up the sort of places mentioned here send their kids to school? from what i can make out, they don't send them to any of the schools i know in the brixton area.
> 
> private schools? genuine question.



They go private - or use the faith school route.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

Because faith schools have larger cashments!


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 13, 2013)

MillwallShoes said:


> i wanna know where these people who buy up the sort of places mentioned here send their kids to school? from what i can make out, they don't send them to any of the schools i know in the brixton area.
> 
> private schools? genuine question.


Your assuming they have kids
primary or secondary ?


----------



## editor (Mar 13, 2013)

Faith schools are evil.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 13, 2013)

editor said:


> Faith schools are evil.


 
so are private ones, in fact they may be worse than faith schools.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

cuppa tee said:


> Your assuming they have kids
> primary or secondary ?



Either. Although, wealthy parents are less likely to risk their offspring mixing with poor kids from 11 onward. By then, the glittering prize of Oxbridge is too close.


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Either. Although, wealthy parents are less likely to risk their offspring mixing with poor kids from 11 onward. By then, the glittering prize of Oxbridge is too close.


of course, and them being wealthy the preservation of the status quo is paramount.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

If I had sufficient cash, I'd be tempted by the evil of private education.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If I had sufficient cash, I'd be tempted by the evil of private education.


Why? State educated UK kids regularly score in the top 10 world rankings of skills and knowledge.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

Yes - and Lambeth's secondary schools are well above average. 

Still, private pupils get almost half the places at Oxbridge, while being 7pc of the school population.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yes - and Lambeth's secondary schools are well above average.
> 
> Still, private pupils get almost half the places at Oxbridge, while being 7pc of the school population.


Who cares about Oxbridge? There's plenty of other world-leading unis in the UK.


----------



## TonyH82 (Mar 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Yes - and Lambeth's secondary schools are well above average.
> 
> Still, private pupils get almost half the places at Oxbridge, while being 7pc of the school population.


 
bring back grammar schools. that split was the other way round years ago...


----------



## nagapie (Mar 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> They go private - or use the faith school route.


 
Not totally true. I know families who use the local schools. Most however move into a better catchment area when they can. There are lots of ways to get children into the good secondaries if they are clever. Many parents start in one school and then move to a school of their choice in year 3 or so.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Who cares about Oxbridge? There's plenty of other world-leading unis in the UK.



The Sutton Trust says otherwise: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mobileweb/2012/11/20/elite-dominate-sutton-trust_n_2162777.html


----------



## TruXta (Mar 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> The Sutton Trust says otherwise:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mobileweb/2012/11/20/elite-dominate-sutton-trust_n_2162777.html


I don't dispute what that says - but why is it so important for YOU to have your kids get into Oxbridge?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I don't dispute what that says - but why is it so important for YOU to have your kids get into Oxbridge?



I don't.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> I don't.


OK, but then why are you tempted by private education?


----------



## leanderman (Mar 13, 2013)

Because, if my children are to run the country, it seems to help.


----------



## TruXta (Mar 13, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Because, if my children are to run the country, it seems to help.


Only a total bastard would want that for their kids! Anyway... enough of the derail. I've had three calls from the Fucksters today already...


----------



## MillwallShoes (Mar 13, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Not totally true. I know families who use the local schools. Most however move into a better catchment area when they can. There are lots of ways to get children into the good secondaries if they are clever. Many parents start in one school and then move to a school of their choice in year 3 or so.


 
or, like dozens that i know, they pack up and move to Godalming or the like.

The state schools that I know is South London do not reflect the area's they are based in. It's very depressing, if you ask me. Divisions along, mainly, class.

maybe it's always been the same, but my observation of this is particularly clear since having a nipper.

i'm a bit sick of all these middle class families i mix with who laugh at me with the idea of raising their kid here after a certain age (normally about 8).

"oh, but we wouldn't be able to let them out".

feel like answering: "ever thought that you're part of the problem?"

an impossible situation that is very complex.

it's all be discussed here before so won't bore...


----------



## Winot (Mar 13, 2013)

TonyH82 said:


> bring back grammar schools. that split was the other way round years ago...



Are you sure about that? Although the proportion of state school school pupils at Oxbridge was higher in the grammar school era, public schools were still over-represented iirc.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> If I had sufficient cash, I'd be tempted by the evil of private education.


Parents' level of education is a far bigger predictor of child educational attainment than school "performance"


----------



## leanderman (Mar 16, 2013)

Absolutely. But that is largely a fixed variable (DNA, money etc). Which is why it is tempting to alter the other factors you can control (school choice)


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Absolutely. But that is largely a fixed variable (DNA, money etc). Which is why it is tempting to alter the other factors you can control (school choice)


Yeah I can see that, but my point is that choice of school makes little difference in terms of exam results. Research bears this out. But we still seem to have this obsession with sending kids to the "best schools".


----------



## leanderman (Mar 16, 2013)

Have drawn up some bar charts on Lambeth schools' performance (because I am like that) and, yes, that is basically the story. But then you get somewhere like Platanos, in Stockwell, that produces amazing results from a generally disadvantaged intake.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Have drawn up some bar charts on Lambeth schools' performance (because I am like that) and, yes, that is basically the story. But then you get somewhere like Platanos, in Stockwell, that produces amazing results from a generally disadvantaged intake.


 
But that's because the schools you're looking at have children primarily from disadvantaged backgrounds. If you put a bright student with intelligent and active parents in those schools, that student would still do well.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 16, 2013)

nagapie said:


> But that's because the schools you're looking at have children primarily from disadvantaged backgrounds. If you put a bright student with intelligent and active parents in those schools, that student would still do well.



Up to a point. Which is why education secretary Malificient Gove has added a new stat to school 'tables': '%age of pupils gaining AAB or better at A-level in at least two facilitating subjects'.

This seems to be '%age of pupils who can get into a leading university, but not just Oxbridge'.

At Lambeth Academy, for example, that %age now is zero. 

However, it's a new place, with a small cohort, so the picture may improve.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 16, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Up to a point. Which is why education secretary Malificient Gove has added a new stat to school 'tables': '%age of pupils gaining AAB or better at A-level in at least two facilitating subjects'.
> 
> This seems to be '%age of pupils who can get into a leading university, but not just Oxbridge'.
> 
> ...


 
I thought we were talking about primaries. Perhaps things do change in secondaries, depends on how the school is organised. Lambeth Academy is not a good example, my understanding is that the intake is from the more disadvantaged in Lambeth and very high SEN.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 16, 2013)

About primaries, I believe you are right. And basically secondaries too. Lambeth Academy does not get the high-achieving kids that would get AABs at A-level. So far.


----------



## Winot (Mar 17, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Up to a point. Which is why education secretary Malificient Gove has added a new stat to school 'tables': '%age of pupils gaining AAB or better at A-level in at least two facilitating subjects'.



Perhaps there should be a stat for "%age of pupils who go on to be estate agents"


----------



## Lazy Llama (Mar 17, 2013)

Posts merged in from the Work starts on the eagerly awaited new Foxtons office on Brixton Road thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 17, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Yeah I can see that, but my point is that choice of school makes little difference in terms of exam results. Research bears this out. But we still seem to have this obsession with sending kids to the "best schools".


 
Private schools are there to give there pupils the kind of suave confidence that one sees in the likes of people like Clegg and Cameron.

Exam results are secondary issue in reality. You can get some real thickos at "Independent" schools and they still end up doing alright when they leave. "Independent" schools are for reproducing a ruling class. Education should not be seen as a neutral activity separate from the rest of society.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 17, 2013)

leanderman said:


> About primaries, I believe you are right. And basically secondaries too. Lambeth Academy does not get the high-achieving kids that would get AABs at A-level. So far.


 
Sorry, you lost me. You said you'd quite like to access private education for your kids as it gives them better outcomes then agreed with all the points I made to counter that. So I'm taking it that you mean that private schools would lead to better social outcomes for your kids in terms of knowing the right people and getting that sort of confidence Gramsci mentions in the post above.


----------



## Winot (Mar 17, 2013)

The middle classes are partly worried that their child won't achieve it's potential in a 'second rate' school, but mainly terrified of mixing with the working class.


----------



## Winot (Mar 17, 2013)

It's been depressing to see friends/colleagues in my profession (which is very well paid) default to private schools once they have children (even the ones that went to state schools themselves). Unfortunately it's an entirely rational, if selfish, response.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 17, 2013)

> [quote="nagapie, post: 12062397, member: 24797" So I'm taking it that you mean that private schools would lead to better social outcomes for your kids in terms of knowing the right people and getting that sort of confidence Gramsci mentions in the post above.


 [/QUOTE]

Spot on. That is exactly why parents do it. They might go on about better results but this is the real reason. Though they would not like to say it in polite company.

Why are quotes not working?

nagapie


----------



## nagapie (Mar 17, 2013)

It can be a tough choice. Although I plan to send my child, who has just over a year until he starts school, to a local school I don't plan to send him to any of the 3 nearest me for various reasons. If it happens that he does have to go to one of them, it won't be the end of the world but I wouldn't choose them.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 17, 2013)

Winot said:


> It's been depressing to see friends/colleagues in my profession (which is very well paid) default to private schools once they have children (even the ones that went to state schools themselves). Unfortunately it's an entirely rational, if selfish, response.


 
I have been hearing this recently. People whose parents happily sent them to state schools now are looking at private schools. Usually at secondary level not primary. It is rational given the kind of society this is now. 60s and 70s moving to more equal society now its the opposite.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 17, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Sorry, you lost me. You said you'd quite like to access private education for your kids as it gives them better outcomes then agreed with all the points I made to counter that. So I'm taking it that you mean that private schools would lead to better social outcomes for your kids in terms of knowing the right people and getting that sort of confidence Gramsci mentions in the post above.


 
Yep.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 17, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I have been hearing this recently. People whose parents happily sent them to state schools now are looking at private schools. Usually at secondary level not primary. It is rational given the kind of society this is now. 60s and 70s moving to more equal society now its the opposite.


 
This line of thought was analysed very well by Simon Kuper in the FT magazine this weekend
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f0355440-8c3e-11e2-8fcf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Noyv8iH5

will post it up, if subscriber-restricted


----------



## leanderman (Mar 17, 2013)

nagapie said:


> Sorry, you lost me. You said you'd quite like to access private education for your kids as it gives them better outcomes then agreed with all the points I made to counter that. So I'm taking it that you mean that private schools would lead to better social outcomes for your kids in terms of knowing the right people and getting that sort of confidence Gramsci mentions in the post above.


 
Elite schools don't just foster a 'sense of entitlement', they provide lifelong social connections.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 17, 2013)

leanderman said:


> This line of thought was analysed very well by Simon Kuper in the FT magazine this weekend
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f0355440-8c3e-11e2-8fcf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Noyv8iH5
> 
> will post it up, if subscriber-restricted


 
 "Outcome" based attitude to education has its limits. I have (mainland) Chinese friend. When she first came here to study she found it difficult as she was asked to critique and comment in class.

In China schools do not encourage critical thinking. As she told me her Chinese friends are all into making money. Education is a stepping stone to that. Thats what the Government told them to do. 

She says it means that the growing social problems in China ( inequality etc) are not being addressed as people like her are not educated to bring a critical awareness. They do not even have the tools to do it she told me. 

So education based around "Outcomes" is in the long term not good for a society imo.


----------



## Winot (Mar 17, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I have been hearing this recently. People whose parents happily sent them to state schools now are looking at private schools. Usually at secondary level not primary. It is rational given the kind of society this is now. 60s and 70s moving to more equal society now its the opposite.



Yes, secondary level mainly.


----------



## leanderman (Mar 17, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> "Outcome" based attitude to education has its limits. I have (mainland) Chinese friend. When she first came here to study she found it difficult as she was asked to critique and comment in class.
> 
> In China schools do not encourage critical thinking. As she told me her Chinese friends are all into making money. Education is a stepping stone to that. Thats what the Government told them to do.
> 
> ...


 
Even more true of South Korea - where obsessive testing, scoring and ranking of students means their lives are determined in a 'Brave New World' way.


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 17, 2013)

A customer of mine who lives in a posh area of Claaaaaam, was telling me about two male work colleagues who were amazed that she sent her kids to state school (it's a good one, though!). They were both a product of private education (as probably were their parents) and countered that if you were going to pay for education why not pay for a better one? My customer said 'what on earth do you mean, I don't pay for my kids to go to school'. Neither realised that state school was free. 

How out of touch can people be???


----------



## gaijingirl (Jun 15, 2013)

was just reading about this new primary (free) school which is to open on Half Moon Lane - bilingual (Eng/German)

http://www.jkps.org.uk/


----------



## Manter (Jun 15, 2013)

That looks interesting.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 13, 2013)

gaijingirl said:


> was just reading about this new primary (free) school which is to open on Half Moon Lane - bilingual (Eng/German)
> 
> http://www.jkps.org.uk/



And admission priority given to children of founders.


----------



## Winot (Dec 13, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> I have been hearing this recently. People whose parents happily sent them to state schools now are looking at private schools. Usually at secondary level not primary. It is rational given the kind of society this is now. 60s and 70s moving to more equal society now its the opposite.


 
There are some interesting stats coming out of the Ofsted inspection of the Independent sector:



> Ofsted inspects 1,144 independent schools, 40% don't have good leadership; a third ranked below good overall (vs only 20% of state schools)


 
via
@Wigdortz
Founder and CEO of Teach First; Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Adviser of Teach For All


----------



## leanderman (Dec 13, 2013)

Winot said:


> There are some interesting stats coming out of the Ofsted inspection of the Independent sector:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not about the social connections and stuff I guess as much as the education.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 13, 2013)

Was looking for this thread last night. 

Thought there was a schools thread.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 14, 2013)

Gramsci said:


> Was looking for this thread last night.
> 
> Thought there was a schools thread.



Good debate right now on: http://www.brixtonblog.com/new-educational-campus-include-free-school/19036#comment-464045


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 15, 2013)

Only just seen this thread, and noticed some of the discussion about lotteries rather than catchment areas from 2012. Tbf I can see why the argument is made, but having worked with various children who have long commutes between their homes and schools (for various reasons), IME long commutes are bad for primarily emotional, but also potentially academic  outcomes, particularly for younger kids. Also I don't think the Brighton secondary school experiment achieved its aims of increased social integration, and I'm not sure if it's even still used.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 15, 2013)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Only just seen this thread, and noticed some of the discussion about lotteries rather than catchment areas from 2012. Tbf I can see why the argument is made, but having worked with various children who have long commutes between their homes and schools (for various reasons), IME long commutes are bad for primarily emotional, but also potentially academic  outcomes, particularly for younger kids. Also I don't think the Brighton secondary school experiment achieved its aims of increased social integration, and I'm not sure if it's even still used.



Are school commutes longer in aggregate in Brighton, now?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 15, 2013)

leanderman said:


> Are school commutes longer in aggregate in Brighton?


Tbh don't know. I was more thinking of kids in London who do it for a variety of different reasons. A lottery might no doubt have some benefits but it also potentially leads to more kids having much more lengthy and complicated journeys. 

Whilst I went to secondary school in Brighton many years before the lottery, I just went to one of the two schools that were closest to me, which was a 15 minute walk. My parents certainly didn't move to the area for catchment reasons, in fact we probably lived in the not so good area of the catchment. All my other secondary  school options would probably have required longer walks with a bus or multiple buses, and yeah, could have pushed the journey time up to about a hour, possibly more. I think that would have been a negative impact, as I see it have a negative impact on the others I referred to.

Though tbh I don't think Brighton has a complete lottery for the whole city, it's just a lottery for large catchment areas with several schools in each afaik. Which reduces the chance of really silly (i.e. 2 hour) commutes, but makes a limited impact in resolving the issues it was meant to resolve.


----------



## leanderman (Dec 15, 2013)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Tbh don't know. I was more thinking of kids in London who do it for a variety of different reasons. A lottery might no doubt have some benefits but it also potentially leads to more kids having much more lengthy and complicated journeys.
> 
> Whilst I went to secondary school in Brighton many years before the lottery, I just went to one of the two schools that were closest to me, which was a 15 minute walk. My parents certainly didn't move to the area for catchment reasons, in fact we probably lived in the not so good area of the catchment. All my other secondary  school options would probably have required longer walks with a bus or multiple buses, and yeah, could have pushed the journey time up to about a hour, possibly more. I think that would have been a negative impact, as I see it have a negative impact on the others I referred to.
> 
> Though tbh I don't think Brighton has a complete lottery for the whole city, it's just a lottery for large catchment areas with several schools in each afaik. Which reduces the chance of really silly (i.e. 2 hour) commutes, but makes a limited impact in resolving the issues it was meant to resolve.



Interesting. And the latter idea is what I'd advocate here at primary and secondary level. The impact might be limited though.


----------

