Few children from SE22 are privately educated

[Moos]

There's been some interesting articles in the press recently about children of - I would like to side-step the generalising class labelling here so I'll say concerned/interested/pushy parents who go to poorly performing schools. Apparently these kids do well, but it's not necessarily good news all round, or at least not for kids who don't receive the same encouragement at home. The first lot of kids get a disproportionate amount of teacher attention because they behave in class, and are expected to improve teacher and school league tables. They also tend to stick together and dominate the top sets.

I'm headed for bed but will try to dig this stuff out tomorrow if anyone is interested.

James- re Snorky's message if you haven't been reading the forum long you might not be familiar with Snorky's passionate posting style. I shouldn't really be trying to speak for him - and Snorky please smack me if I'm wrong - but I don't think you shd take the fois gras etc. personally.

[snorky]

is Ms short for miserable ?

[Guest]

You're quite abusive, aren't you?

[snorky]

I apologise for trying to add a little levity to a post, its was not designed to personally offend.

I stick to my scowly wankers comments tho.

[Guest]

It kind of sticks to you too...

Can't imagine I'd look cheerful either if I was working for a minimum wage in a cafe in a wealthy part of town (and if you're at the bottom end of the payscale there's not much to choose between ED and D Village).

[Moos]

If that was for me, I didn't find it offensive, I always like to read your posts. Just thought should offer a snorky health warning, altho I'm aware that was a bit presumptuous.

Ms - as I'm sure you know, as someone who is interested in fighting inequality - is used where a woman doesn't feel that her marital status is relevant to her formal title.

[snorky]

It was a dig at the owner of a deli that shall forever remain nameless, who is indeed a scowly faced wanker rather than his/her staff per se

[Guest]

OK, have nearly calmed down now, but while I'm still cross, I choose Ms because it's the only rational option in a country that, unlike some others in Europe, still labels women according to who they belong to rather than whether they're an adult or a minor.

Bet this thread is minutes away from being lounged...

[snorky]

in Czech the suffix "..ova" on a womans surname signifies that you are unmarried.

ish

[Guest]

The fact I'm on this forum at 11.20pm shows I'm unmarried. Bollocks. Going to bed.

[louisiana]

Mellors Wrote:

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

> As a parent of an under school age child and

> another on the way, I moved to the area

> specifically because it had good state primary

> schools (as did a number of my friends with

> children of the same age).

>

> I don't really see the point of paying over the

> odds for a house in SE22 which is in the catchment

> area for Goodrich/Heber etc and then sending them

> to private school anyway - you are already paying

> for a "better" education through your increased

> mortgage every month.

>

Yes, people like me are paying for the 'better' education of certain people's kids, when we don't even have any kids!

Or do you think that catchment areas should become ghettos free of childless people?

[Asset]

Ms B Wrote:

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

> Apparently if you live in the village catchment

> area for Dulwich Infants your children go there

> free of charge. So if you have a couple of little

> ones that saves you about (Ok I've no idea so

> let's say for the hell of it) ?20K pre-tax income

> a year. Over five years that almost would almost

> justify moving from E to N Dulwich.

Where do you go free of charge?

The infants is not a fee paying school. My son went there and there is no feed to private schools free of charge if you attend that school so what exactly do you mean?

[Moos]

Here's the story I was referring to earlier

The Guardian sez

And here's the Thunderer's take on it

But on the other hand something else

[James]

Just noticed this:

>Joking and sneery side swipes aside, this refusal to get involved in local community schooling facilities and manipulating the rules to get the "best " school entry for your kids may serve you well in your narrow little world, but does nothing to assist the system and goes towards creating a cultural apartheid whereby bad schools get worse and need to be constantly pumped full of cash and assistance to get them going again - this costs the tax payer and the kids themselves

I don't know who this was aimed at but personally I wish that all schools were banded so that every school had pretty much the same mix of abilities and there was no such thing as grammars or private schools. Unfortunately this will never happen. So peopler like me are faced with the choice of a dismal state school or a private scholarship. It's very easy for people without kids to tell us we should support the local comp but it's a different matter altogether when your child's future & happiness is at stake.

[KalamityKel]

James, just out of interest, given the choice (if money, catchment areas etc wasn't an issue) which school would you ideally want to send your child to?

[SteveT]

I'd like an approved one;-)

[James]

A decent comprehensive basically. It doesn't have to be amazing. I don't care if the kids are coming out with strings of A*s (I went to a grammar like this and hated it). The problem is in South East London it's completely polarized - the schools seem to be either exceptional (the selective/independent ones) or pretty poor.

I think Haberdashers is great and it was my first choice for my son. But I think what annoys me about it is the way it purports to be a comprehensive, yet uses complicated, opaque means of selection. I've heard many stories of people who were refused entry literally harassing the school (one such person on this forum) until they were offered a place. Whilst I can't blame them - we might have done the same - this hardly seems fair. Neither does the music scholarship system. Or the bizarre banding system which seems to discriminate against the upper bands.

If it really wants to be a comp, why not abolish the system and have a simple lottery? Otherwise, admit that you're selecting by stealth and become a grammar. They seem to be having their cake and eating it right now.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Just an aside regarding the music entry to Haberdashers (and Prendergast with whom they share the entrance test), it is based on aural ability that requires no prior musical knowledge. If they score highly on that, they then have to attend an audition which can be singing, or in my daughter's case, a piece she had written for the African drum, so it is fairly inclusive.

[Asset]

Where is Haberdashers? It's not exactly local is it?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

New Cross.

[dc]

Talking about more local secondary schools, these have improved greatly in recent years - particularly Charter and Kingsdale.

Here's a like-for-like comparison 1995 to 2007 (remember these all have a comprehensive intake):

Dulwich High School for Boys (previously William Penn)

1995 11% of pupils attained 5 A* to C

Now The Charter School

2007 61% of pupils attained 5 A* to C

Kingsdale

1995 6% of pupils attained 5 A* to C

2007 59% of pupils attained 5 A* to C

Waverley

1995 18% of pupils attained 5 A* to C

Since Sept. 2006 this has been the Harris Girls' Academy East Dulwich

2007 38% of pupils attained 5 A* to C

[Moos]

I feel a bit mean saying this given that presumably lots of local teachers and parents have put a lot into improving local schools, but would those statistics look the same if one were to take into account the strong overall rise in GSCE/A-level results in the same period?

[blinder999]

Moos Wrote:

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

> I feel a bit mean saying this given that

> presumably lots of local teachers and parents have

> put a lot into improving local schools, but would

> those statistics look the same if one were to take

> into account the strong overall rise in

> GSCE/A-level results in the same period?

According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7050451.stm), nationally:

"In 1995-1996, the number achieving five good GCSEs was 35.2% - with an 11.3% percentage point increase since then."

so yes, the improvements still look very impressive

[dc]

Blinder 999 - I'm not sure you're comparing the same figures there. I think you refer to 5 A*-C including Maths and English which is now the government's preferred benchmark.

When comparing with older stats we have to use the straight 5 A*-C measure as that is all that's available from past data sets.

In that case the figure in 1995 was 43.5% and is now (2007) 63.3%.

So the school on the site that is now The Charter has gone from achieving at a level of about 25% of the national average to about 96% and Kingsdale has gone from 14% of the national average to 93%.

So, Moos, you raised a fair point but it does actually appear that these schools have, to coin a phrase, 'pulled themselves up by their bootstraps' - at least statistically speaking.

[patricknicola]

My child goes to Fairlawn primary in Honor Oak, though we live in SE22. Its a really good school, good results, good staff and a good parent vibe. A bit of a hidden gem. Who knows with High School though.