frankiecat

Agree with Montassa. We joined HH in nursery, and from then through to Reception it was outstanding. The teachers were incredible, the environment warm and friendly, the approach tailored to the child. My son's kindergarten teacher was probably the smartest, most insightful, empathetic woman I have ever met. It was genuinely strange how different things became in Year 1. Most of the Year 1&2 teachers have been there much longer and just aren't such high quality. Although to be fair, I also get the impression Year1&2 teachers are under huge pressure themselves, and their anxiety is half the problem. His Year 1 teacher used to look as if she was on the verge of tears every time we met. Even before there was a problem.

Thanks Midivydale, and glad to hear your son is now doing well. I think the main thing I learnt is that there aren't so much good or bad schools, as schools that are right or wrong for the particular child. Unfortunately, as Monkey pointed out, I wasn't really paying 4k a term for me to learn things!

Hello. Realise this is an old thread, but a post may be of use to others researching the schools. We moved our son out of Herne Hill School as the pressure was too much. The pre-prep was outstanding, but in Year 1 the atmosphere changed. Within a month he was utterly miserable. We found out (afterwards) that for a whole term he was not given any play time - if a child does not write enough they stay in over break. He came home with wet trousers because he was too scared to ask to go to the loo. He was put in the bottom set for maths even though we were told - by his teacher - he should have advanced work. But for HHS this means written papers, and he couldn't do the writing even when he could do the maths. At the parents evening his teacher simply told us 'some children are not academic' while the head said if he 'isn't capable of engaging with our curriculum there's nothing we can do' and that if he was miserable he should leave. I should stress that my son is a perfectly normal little boy who reads about two years ahead for his age and is not disruptive, fidgety or lacking in attention. But he did write at an average speed for a 6 year old and HH move much faster - no exceptions. The lack of opportunities to participate in class that didn't involve writing (or possibly musical performances to concert hall standard) left him feeling stupid and stressed. I know I sound like I'm just having a rant because the school didn't recognise what a *genius* my darling child is, but that honestly wasn't what frustrated us. We repeatedly told them we didn't care about getting into Dulwich College, we didn't expect him to excel, we just wanted him to enjoy school. I really did not want them to tell me he was brilliant, just stop making him cry. We asked them to do simple things like not setting him targets around writing faster, which just demoralised him, or to congratulate him when he improved, rather than telling him off because it still wasn't as good as the girl next to him. But they didn't do it. I got the impression the teacher didn't really understand there could be alternatives. It wasn't just his form teacher - the SEN support is dire. At least four other children in his year left early for the same reasons. Having said all this, I have plenty of really good friends whose children are doing wonderfully there and have gone on to great schools. But they are children suited to that environment. My little boy just wasn't cut out for the kind of early pressure necessary to get into the top schools at 7+. That's not Herne Hill's fault, but what is down to them is the lack of an alternative approach for those kids who don't best express themselves through pages of neat handwriting age 6. That's why if you speak to parents you will find 50% say it's great, 30% say it's fine but more pushy than they hoped, and 20% say it made their child utterly miserable. Parents of children who are doing well often can't understand the criticism, because for their child it really is a great option. You could say all this is our own fault and that we had him in the wrong school, and that's probably fair. But the school could have told us and made helpful suggestions about where and how to move him. Instead they told us we wouldn't find a better school (we did), the problem was that he was lazy (he's not) and that no one else has ever complained (lots have). I would recommend considering HHS - I still feel it can be great for the right child - but I would urge you to be really honest with yourself about what type of child you have. Admitting they aren't in the 50% it really suits is in no way writing them off academically - at age 6 the ability to write lots has far more to do with emotional maturity and gross motor skills than intellect. The school we moved him to has an outstanding academic record, and is more selective than HH, but they simply don't focus on writing as the primary form of expression until children are a little older.

Hi Jamm1. This reply is probably way too late to be useful, but thought I'd post incase others are looking. Our DS is at HHS. The comments here and on Mum's Net seem to be split - some parents rave about HHS and others are pretty angry. I thought it might be helpful to try to explain why that might be. Firstly, Nursery to Reception are run by a different team. I don't know a single parent who didn't think early years were amazing. But the jump to Y1 in HHS it is HUGE. Whereas before the focus is on getting the child to enjoy school, in Y1 it is solely on entrance exams. Dulwich College will only accept children at 6 (for 7+ entry) that are 2.5 years ahead in reading and writing, however lovely and talented in other areas. It's much the same for Alleyn's and JAGs. This has put huge downward pressure on HH to ram a massive amount into Y1. For some children this is fine. If you have a bright child with a naturally pliant/ competitive temperament who is also physically advanced (writing needs loads of co-ordination) HHS will train them in a way that ticks all the boxes. Parents of these kids tend to say they've had all the benefits of a small school and still got the results of a top Prep. In addition, parents of kids who are perhaps a bit borderline can say HHS nudges the child over the line and into places like Rosemead. The parents who tend to be unhappy are those who's children do not fit the mould. That is not to say the child isn't bright. I know children who are near-genius but miserable or acting up under the pressure. A lot of parents feel, unfortunately I think probably correctly, that the school's response in these cases is week. Although the teachers/ head make a lot of noise about extra support, the main tactic is to punish poor performance (taking away time set aside for play is standard if the child hasn't written enough). They are a non-selective school but their reputation is built on getting kids into schools that are becoming mega-selective. This means there is a wide variation in children's abilities and parents' expectations and not enough flexibility in either the teaching style or curriculum to cope. The way they manage to move at a pace that will get 50% of the kids into top preps is to leave the other 50% to sink or swim. While some have done really well, a significant minority have sunk spectacularly, hence the divided opinions amongst parents. My advice would be to... 1/ Look at Y1 & 2 as closely as the early years 2/ Be really realistic about who your child is and what environment will suit them. It's not just how bright they are. 3/ Be realistic about what you are comfortable with. Some parents see it as 'stretching' the child, others see it as high-pressure 'cramming'. I don't think it says anything about you as a parent if you side one way or the other, you just need to be prepared for what comes with it.