Kent Grammar Schools - how far are kids commuting?

[BB100]

Going back to the original reason for this thread. I looked into Grammars in Kent but I felt that they were too awkward and too long a journey to get to. It worked out about one and a half hours from where I live. I think an hour journey is long enough and anymore is really pushing it. And when it goes wrong it can really go wrong. Remember when we had sudden snow falls a while back. Well, I wanted to know how my child could get home if the trains are cancelled.

I decided to go for the grammars in Sutton instead. For boys there is Wilson, Wallington and Sutton. Wallington is probably the easiest to travel to once you get off the train as the bus is right outside the station. Wilsons has a busy road to negotiate but the boys seem to manage. Sutton is a short walk from the station. For all these schools boys have to be at Honor Oak or Forest Hill station by about 7:30 to get there on time. For coming home the boys tend to get back to SE23 about 4:10 if they move quickly.

For the girls there is Wallington Girls but is awkward to get to from the stations.

The other problems are when there are events, meetings and parents evenings or school trip pickups, as getting to them can be tricky and make for a very long evening travelling there and back. However, you can drive into Sutton in about 35 minutes and is the best option as the trains are less frequent as the evening progresses.

And don't be put off by the number of people who go for the tests. My child got in without any private tutoring or coaching at home. If your child is expected to get level 5s for maths and english the schools recommend that you enter the test, as results are given to you before you have to complete the Pan-London form.

Having said all this, isn't it too late for applications this year already? Or are you planning for next year?

[minder]

Sorry but where's Newstead Wood?

[Otta]

Orpington.

[david_carnell]

I attended Sutton Grammar myself so if anyone wants any insights drop me a PM.

[Vik]

I must admit to finding it quite sad that parents feel the local schools are so bad they have to send their children on 1hr+ commutes. My older children and their friends are all at local secondary schools and all doing brilliantly and are more than happy. The schools that aren't doing so well will only get better with the support of local families.

[david_carnell]

Absolutely Vik - couldn't agree more.

I also find the implication that "I'm only doing what's best for my child" is that anyone who doesn't send their child to schools miles away, is somehow not.

[Jessie]

Also - me with my chip again, apologies all forthright EDFers - what about parents with no cars, single parents who work full time (ie me) etc who can't drive out to Kent for parents' evenings, emergencies etc?

Although, having been through the most stressful and upsetting primary school (non) admission a few years back, it is easy to sit here and wax moral. When it's you who are given NO choice of school in the local area and are given a completely unacceptable school, I can see quite well why schools further away become much more attractive.

[DaveR]

"I must admit to finding it quite sad that parents feel the local schools are so bad they have to send their children on 1hr+ commutes. My older children and their friends are all at local secondary schools and all doing brilliantly and are more than happy. The schools that aren't doing so well will only get better with the support of local families."

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, in practice it's difficult to criticise parents who don't see their role as being a "force for change" (and with their kids as guinea pigs) but rather just want a school that best meets their child's needs. I think that most parents' ideal would be a local state school that caters for all ability levels and aptitudes and enables all kids to do their very best, but unfortunately those types of schools remain quite thin on the ground; arguably the present system of state secondary education is actually not very good at producing them.

On the specific issue of commuting to school, outside big cities it's not uncommon for kids to have a 30-45 minute bus journey to secondary school, so I doubt that it's inherently detrimental. I'd be more concerned about all their friends living miles away, and spending half my life in the car driving them to and fro.

[LondonMix]

Agree with DaveR.

Perhpas my own experiences color my view on this too much but I went from an ordinary stream to an advanced stream and then to a selective high school. In ordinary classes I severely underperformed due to being bored out of mind and thus perferring to chat with my friends rather than pay attention. In advanced classes my grades improved dramatically as the work was more interesting though I still found it a doddle and didn't particularly enjoy school as it was still mostly dull. I only started loving school and learning once I joined my selective high school and performed well as a result, in addition to developing a better work ethic etc. My high school catered for the top 1% of peformers nationally (standardized tests back then in the US were on relative not absolute performance). It seems unreasonable to expect a state comprehensive to cater appropriately for such a small percentage of the student population given the tiny numbers involved. While a state comprehensive is greate for 99% of children, the few who go to grammar school probably do benefit and I can't see why that's so controversial. Within the greater London area, what percentage of the student body actually performs well enough to get into grammar school anyway? I know nationally, grammar schools are less than 5% of secondaries and in Greater London I imagine its much, much less.

What I do have a problem with is the idea of all the extra tutoring and prep from age 8. If some of the grammar schools have devised a testing system that can't be studied for that would be great though that's a nearly impossible task I imagine.

[Otta]

I see your point, but surely out of the 35+ secondary schools throughout Southwark and Lewisham there will be a school that would suit any child.

[Jessie]

You'd think. But if my son was given a - say - all boys Catholic school, this to me would be quite unacceptable. This seems to have happened this year from what I recall reading.

[LondonMix]

I assume you aren't including the fee paying secondaries in your numbers Otta. I don't think everyone lives within the catchment of a state secondary that is necessarily appropriate and I'm not sure it would really make sense for a comprehensive to cater to what would be just a few top performing students within their catchment area. There is a reason why grammar schools need to pull from a broad area: the number of students who benefit from that sort of education are so few.

Academic ability is just like every other gift or talent such as sporting talent or musical talent etc. I think if we were talking about a specialst music school this wouldn't be nearly as controversial. Of course, a talented kid of any sort wouldn't have their life ruined by not having their specific talent catered to. But I really don't understand why with respect to academic ability this is such a polemic. Perhaps again it has to do with the fact that parents try to game the system (which I know happens).

[Otta]

I don't think most kids with exceptional musical talent get to go to special music schools, or even have music lessons, just the lucky ones or those who can afford it.

I just find't believe in the whole grammar school system basically.

[LondonMix]

My PA's daughter got a scholarship to a school with a fantastic performing arts program. We can argue if these opportunities are accessible enough to the less well-off but that hardly undermines the idea that getting the opportunity to do so is seen as valuable and worthwhile. I doubt you?d find what my PA and her daughter did so unacceptable despite the travel involved.

It's clear that your issue really isn't with the "pathetic parents" forcing their kids to travel but with the very idea of grammar schools as you've admitted. What exactly do you dislike about the system. You've mentioned you associate it with entitlement, is that it?

[Otta]

No no, I also think an hour+ journey each end of the day is way to much, but that's (like everything else I have said) just my opinion.

[tiddles]

interesting points all round. London mix, I find your input interesting, and whilst understanding your point, I have a real problem with the traditional grammar school system that was the norm in the uk. Children were separated out at age 11 as to what their academic path would be. Pass the exam, and you get onto the escalator of opportunity - yes brilliant if you pass the exam (esp if you are from a deprived background) however, fail, and you were pretty much cut off from alot of opportunities and probably given second class teaching. I feel that most people flourish, acadmically, at different times - some at age 5, some 8, others 10, others 14, 16 and so on. There are thankfully lots of stories of people overcoming the odds and doing fantastically well - brilliant. However there are loads of people who, I expect, have always felt cheated because they 'failed' at 11 for whatever reason. I am all for streaming, but within comprehensive schools so all children are challenged to their ability, but I like the idea that that brilliant maths teacher mr smith gets the best out of his brilliant pupils, and gets the best out of his less able pupils also!! Let's give all children the best facilities, and let them all rise to the challenge. The grammar school argument always seems to be to let the best children flourish. However everyone thinks their child will, of course, pass the exam. If everyone moved to the areas that have grammar entrance exams then the schools cannot just soak them all up like a sponge - the numbers will be limited and the pass grades will be increased leading to alot of disappointment and consignment to the scrapheap of lots of able children. So then this leads to lots of extra tutoring by those parents on the ball(or can afford it) , and those bright kids whose parent don't know how to play the system lose out - so the social mobility thing falls on its face. I say this as an eleven plus failure who was supposed to pass (oh the emotional baggage) who through luck and circumstance went on to get a good degree etc. Lots of people like me would not have had that second chance. I feel passionately about good education for all. Also, I think if your child is really super bright, make those flipping private schools on our doorstep give your child a place for free and make them justify their non VAT charitable status!!

There was an interesting piece about grammar schools on the vanessa feltz programme a week or so ago, and many of the secondary modern pupils were phoning in to say how poor their teachers were. This is exactly my problem with idea of a first and second class system.

apologies for hijacking this thread to go off road!!

[Otta]

What tiddles said.

I have a cousin (now 40ish) who was very bright as a kid. However, when her 11+ came around her parents were in the brink of divorce and she had a big blow up with her mum that morning, went in and messed up the exam.

Now perhaps she was fated to fail, but no one believed that. As a result she missed out on Grammar school and became quite the wayward teen.

She's fine now, but it took her a while to sort her life out, and there is always a "what if".

Her younger sister went to the grammar and her life has been pretty different.

[prickle]

Yes, a v. interesting thread.

LondonMix said "My high school catered for the top 1% of peformers nationally (standardized tests back then in the US were on relative not absolute performance). It seems unreasonable to expect a state comprehensive to cater appropriately for such a small percentage of the student population given the tiny numbers involved. While a state comprehensive is greate for 99% of children, the few who go to grammar school probably do benefit and I can't see why that's so controversial. "

I would say it was perfectly reasonable for the state comprehensives to cater for all students including the 'top' 1%. They have special sessions/programmes for the top (and bottom) ability groups.

The so called 'top' students will benefit from a more rounded education as what a local comprehensive system teaches you is that there is more to learn about life than just academics. It teaches you how society works, rich/poor, clever/dim, white/black, powerful/powerless. By learning to rub along with the rest of us and not be creamed off into some super-elite school, your children will be far better equipped to deal with the intricacies of real life when they are older.

[prickle]

As for the commute, my older child goes to a local comprehensive where most children walk to the school. Not only can they get up later (and believe me, teenagers REALLY need their sleep) but their busy social life can happen without a taxi service from me :)

[Pugwash]

Just to clarify. our 2 girls went to Sydenham Girls as both they and us felt it was the best school for them. Waverley and Peckham were the only other local schools at the time. Both girls did well and went to Uni. Our grandaughter lives in Orpington and thats why she applied for Newstead. She is now in Darrick Wood school and in January will have to choose her exam options. At the time of application to Newstead - the first 100 only were accepted - perhaps there were building works or something ( especially since the anticipated intake is increasing) Some of my youngest daughter's friends went to a catholic school in the Croydon area - they complained that they were up at 6 am every day to catch a train about 7.30 from Forest Hill to be in school by 8.30 am and getting home around 5 in evening, 3 hours homework and bed around 9.30. They envied my daughter getting up at 7.30 and home about 4. In bad weather they were still expected to arrive near enough on time. I recall one mum saying to me that heavy snowfall had cut some trains and the girls had to wait nearly 2 hours for a train home. I was criticised by my eldest daughter's head teacher at Goodrich school for not supporting my 'local school' which at the time was Waverley but visits etc to the school made us so depressed as the state of the building ( it was still housed in the old Friern building at peckhan Rye and hardly changed since I was a pupil in the 60s)and that they openly admitted poor exam results and had no former pupil attending Uni. Sydenham offered us a lot more. Every parent wants the best for their child, my stepdaughter's eldest boy had some learning difficulties and in the Harlow area the local senior school holds in excess of 2000 pupils. Although not a catholic, he was accepted at the local catholic school with around 800 pupils a size which he could cope with. His 2 yoinger siblings now attend the same school. Some kids can cope with large schools, other's cannot

[Otta]

I don't think you need to feel any guilt about chosing Sydenham over Waverly, both were what I would class as local, and in the 80s & 90s Waverly got pretty rough.

[LondonMix]

Again, I think this is a cultural difference. The vast majority of the kids in my program in the US were what most would consider working class though not everyone. There was a really wide mixture of backgrounds in part because it was also an international school (race, religion, economic circumstances, origin). All backgrounds who attended thrived and became friends. Therefore I don't associate meritocratic selective education with elitism at all.

Again, its very interesting to hear your thoughts and your experiences with respect to the 11+. Again, completely different system in the US. I literally don't know one person who studied for the American standardised exams and its hardly a life-defining moment. The way you describe the pressure and the judgement associated with the entire thing makes the UK system sound wretched! I fully understand why some of you have such strong feelings about it.

I have to say that is not the impression I have of the system in the UK these days but I could be way off as my experience is very anecdotal. My partner's little brothers are more than a decade younger than him so I watched them go through it. Neither of them got into grammar school, both went to uni and one is now working for a top firm along with graduates from Oxford and Cambridge (which he didn't attend), the other one is still at uni. My mother-in-law comes from a very working class background and was a grammar school girl. She didn't make many friends so skipped class a lot. She managed to still get all A's on her O-levels but dropped out at 16 as she didn't really see the point of finishing school back then in the 60s. My partner's best friend went to grammar school (the only one out of 4 siblings) and now works a minimum wage job in a seaside hotel. One of my partner's best friends didn't even get his A-levels (got a U) but did a foundation year at uni, then became a top engineer for a world-class company and is now a mid-level manager there earning a top wage. My partner didn't go to grammar school by the way and has done just fine in life and doesn't remember being scarred by the entire thing but we are in our early 30s so perhaps things would have changed by the time he was going through all of this. I also know of positive outcomes regarding grammar schools of course-- one colleague of mine grew up on what he calls one of the roughest council estates in London (near Clapham Jct) and went to grammar school and believes it changed his life.

I'm sure all of your notions about the unfairness of the system, the psychological damage it causes and the potential damage it does to the so called "failures" is true but it really surprises me as it doesn't at all match with the outcomes and experiences I've witnessed. Grammar schools are clearly a very sensitive issue and the history behind them has deep meaning to all of you. As an outsider though without the "baggage," the issue really is much less of a polemic for me.

I hope comprehensives can cater to even the brightest 1% and keep them stimulated and engaged. My experience of streaming prior to joining my high school suggests not. My partner's experience of streaming at a comprehensive also suggests not as he was in the top-stream and was bored out of his mind. That might just be a question of implementation though.

Also, the idea that all parents think their kids are the brightest has not been my experience at all. My work colleagues and friends always seem to be fairly realistic about how clever (or not) their kids are and only once have I met someone who was openly very hung up about the entire thing. I mean, who really cares? Everyone has clever and not so clever friends and family. Being clever is just that. Its a talent like any other but it doesn't define the self-worth.

Overall, my personal experience with selective schooling was great and I am truly grateful for the education I received and the people I met. I didn't suffer as a result of the commute but again it will depend on the child. I participated in 3 different after school activities and had a part-time job in high-school-- I was basically a ball of energy that was very easily bored and didn't need much "down time". My parents were chauffeurs but they didn't mind enough not to do it. It's clearly not for everyone but it works fine for some families.

prickle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, a v. interesting thread.

>

> LondonMix said "My high school catered for the top

> 1% of peformers nationally (standardized tests

> back then in the US were on relative not absolute

> performance). It seems unreasonable to expect a

> state comprehensive to cater appropriately for

> such a small percentage of the student population

> given the tiny numbers involved. While a state

> comprehensive is greate for 99% of children, the

> few who go to grammar school probably do benefit

> and I can't see why that's so controversial. "

>

> I would say it was perfectly reasonable for the

> state comprehensives to cater for all students

> including the 'top' 1%. They have special

> sessions/programmes for the top (and bottom)

> ability groups.

>

> The so called 'top' students will benefit from a

> more rounded education as what a local

> comprehensive system teaches you is that there is

> more to learn about life than just academics. It

> teaches you how society works, rich/poor,

> clever/dim, white/black, powerful/powerless. By

> learning to rub along with the rest of us and not

> be creamed off into some super-elite school, your

> children will be far better equipped to deal with

> the intricacies of real life when they are older.

[Bigwade12]

Hi, does anyone have experience of sending children at Yr 7 from ED to the Sutton Grammer schools, Wilsons, Wallington and Sutton Grammer. All available under pan london application.

Also any parents with kids at St olaves or Newstead Woods in Orpington

[Ballerina208]

I have 4 children, the boys went to Wilson's and the girls to Newstead Woods. The journey is straightforward and easy for both schools, Forest Hill for Wilson's and Penge East for Newstead. They made great friends on the train with girls and boys from different year groups and schools. They tended to leave the house between 7.20 and 7.40 and get home between 4.20 and 4.45pm. Getting up early is just what they did in term time.

I don't think it matters how long a journey is, what matters more is how complicated it is, one train to school and a walk is really okay for secondary school children, a complicated journey involving several buses, trains and walking perhaps not.

there are very few children who would not cope with the journey, I grew up in Suffolk and everyone had to travel some distance to secondary school and long walks to primary school for that matter, it's all a part of growing up. Good luck with your secondary transfer, if the school feels right to you and your child then the journey is just a means to getting there!

[Pugwash]

When my grandaughter sat the exam - there were approx 1000 applicants and admission is based on exam results only