Kent Grammar Schools - how far are kids commuting?

[Growlybear]

My daughter went to Newstead Wood and she had a wonderful education. The journey was very easy; for the first year and a half she used the coach service which was organised by the Newstead and St Olave's PTAs, and which ran from Crystal Palace to the school gates. Then when she was a bit older, she caught the train from either Penge East or West Dulwich. As Ballerina said, they make a whole set of new train or coach friends, and the journey is a very social part of the day. My daughter used to catch a train at around 7.45, so didn't have to get up incredibly early. She was usually back at the station by 4.30. The amount of homework set at Newstead seemed to be far less than friends children had at other local schools. It was a bit inconvenient at times for my daughter not to have many friends who lived close by, but by the time she was in Year 9 we were all happy with her making her own way to Bromley or friends' houses during the daytime. Also, because so many of my daughter's friends lived quite a distance from each other, they probably had more sleepovers than they would have done otherwise.

[BB100]

Wilsons Wallington and Sutton can all be accessed via Sydenham/Forest Hill/Honor Oak line. Get off at Waddon for Wilsons, next stop Wallington for Wallington Boys and next stop Sutton for Sutton. There's a growing group of boys on the line for those schools so your child would't be going it alone. It's approx 30 minute train journey and I have one at a grammar and others at a local comp and they all leave and return more or less at the same time. There's very little extra travel time in it.

[Tanza]

Hello - does anyone know of anyone making the journey to Wilsons from East Dulwich Station?

I see there is a direct train to West Croydon and the bus goes from there straight to the school gates, so in theory it's possible, just from looking at the train times and the fact that the kids have to be at the school for 8.25 makes me doubt that it's a realistic option from this end of East Dulwich. Would love to be wrong about this though as we loved the school.

Ballerina208 Wrote:

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

> 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!

[Gill2]

I have tutored quite a few boys who have made the journey. At first I had concerns as the Autumn term is long and it gets dark early but they soon made friends with other boys of all ages and thoroughly enjoyed the journey.

[Nicholas Spears]

'Everyone must go to local schools'? What about if there's clear evidence that Southwark schools are failing children?

A few years ago Cambridge university did research into how local authority schools prepared kids for Cambridge entry, and found many simply failed to offer children the chance to do the right sort of A-levels.

'The highest performing local authority, judged by the number of students achieving AAA in subject combinations that make them viable Cambridge applicants, is Reading with 27%. The lowest is Southwark, where NONE of the 111 state-sector A-Level students got AAA in an appropriate combination in 2006.'

Your kids might not want to go to Cambridge - but it gives you pause for thought when you're worrying that Otta thinks you 'pathetic' for shopping around a bit.

ps Yes I know, things might have changed a little since then, but the principle that some schools might be poor,and best avoided even though they're on your doorstep, remains.

here's a link to a report on the research

http://www.cam.ac.uk/news/poverty-is-the-main-barrier-to-a-level-achievement-report-shows

[bornagain]

!!!! is having the 'right' A levels on offer for Cambridge the best guide to whether the local secondary schools are failing or not? Really?

[Nicholas Spears]

Did I say it was the best guide? Really? I'm saying it is an indication all is not well. Or is it ideal that NO kids in Southwark state schools surveyed, that's zero per cent, had a chance of getting in to Cambridge in the year concerned?

What is the best guide, and where are the statistics to show how well Southwark is doing?

[LondonMix]

Not even a single child in Southwark achieving 3 As in academic subjects within the state sector is surprising (in a bad way). For those students capable of achieving it and not doing so, it is certainly a failure.

Given the link between social mobility and educational attainment and the UK's abysmal record on this front I would say this should raise serious concerns.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13794591

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

However the longer I live here the more I realise that this is at least in part due to the fact that the English seem to be hostile to the very idea of social mobility- like its some form class betrayal...

[Skegness]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/destinations-of-key-stage-4-and-key-stage-5-pupils-academic-year-2009-to-2010

Looks like 1% of Southwark state school children went to Oxbridge in 2009-10. That's the national average so not too bad, really, especially considering that none of the maintained state schools are selective. Not enough going to Russell Group universities though. I think Southwark had a record A level year in 2012 though so could be better by now.

[Ballerina208]

You must do what is right for your child, for your family and only you know what that is. Not all children do well in highly competitive selective schools, not all children do well in comprehensive schools.

I don't know if you are in the catchment area for Forest Hill Boys, boys do well there, the sixth form is mixed with Sydenham Girls and they do well too. Good luck with your choosing

[Otta]

It is worth noting that some of your kids just won't be A Grade students, wherever you swnd them.

[LondonMix]

What's the point in noting that? Really?

You expressed disbelief earlier in the thread that there might not be a suitable school in Southwark for every child and that parents whose children were going to selective grammar schools were making an unnecessary (even pathetic) choice.

When presented with the reality that at least a few years ago, Southwark was not able to educate a single child to 3 academic As, the only thing you have to add is those of you worrying about this might not have bright kids anyway?

Is your point that because not all kids are capable of As most people shouldn?t worry about if top students are being stretched to their full potential within the state system?

[Otta]

No, my point is that some parents think they xan buy top grades for their kids, when actually their kids just aren't made that way.

[Otta]

And earlier I said Southwark or surrounding boroughs. I went to school in a Lewisham secondary.

I don't think social mobility is a bad thing, but in the case of schooling those famikies that can afford it go to the "best" schools, and thise that can't go to the state schools which struggle to improve because people don't get behind them.

[Otta]

But I do understand that it is hard to think about the society / community you live in and how to improve it when your number one priority is your child.

You (and by "you" I'm not talking about anyone specific) will always want the best for your kids, and when faced with a choice of sending them to a top school because you can, or sending them local and putting some time and effort in to making the local school better for every kid, I get why people would choose the former.

I just find it sad (in the boo hoo sense of the word).

[Nicholas Spears]

Can you give me some guidance on how I could 'put some time and effort in to making the local school better for every kid' because, as one parent, I'm not confident I could do that in the few years my child was there.

And I don't quite see why my child should suffer in the meantime, when they could be going to a school that's already better, like plenty of other children.

And out of interest Otta, do you a) Have any children and b) what schools are you near? Because if you don't have kids, or you're in the catchment areas of say Dulwich Hamlet and Charter, it's considerably easier to adopt a more-right-on than thou attitude.

[Otta]

Thanks for proving my point.

2 young girls. If we stay where we are they're both kikely to go to Sydenham.

[LondonMix]

I don?t know any parents who think they can fundamentally change who their kids are. However, the quality of teaching makes a huge difference to whether an individual child achieves their full potential (whatever that may be). That the quality of teaching between schools differs for all sorts of reasons (many unfair) I think is too obvious to be considered a controversial statement.

Regarding buying better grades, I dare say, everyone who goes private does just that. There was a study a while back that showed that state school students outperformed privately educated students at university with the same A-level grades, suggesting that the state educated children had unrealized potential not captured in the grades they achieved in secondary school. This has been the basis for creating the new state school quotas adopted by more than 50% of Russell Group Universities, who now try to assess potential as well as current performance.

Private schools outperform state schools and not solely because their intake is more naturally talented. Now, for me that shows we can still get more out of our students, and should figure out how to do that in a state funded system. Not just for the sake of equality but so we are really giving everyone the opportunity to be the best they can be. As long as there is a real performance gap between private schools and state schools, people who can afford to will often make that choice. It may be the less socially conscious thing to do but I can?t really condemn other families so quickly, having not walked in their shoes.

Grammar schools are a separate issue for me though. I?m not even sure that it?s possible to get the most out of the brightest (top 1%) without streaming that?s so narrow that at some point it is essentially equivalent to grammar school anyway. Even in the Finnish system, top math students are narrowed down to streams that only include the top 0.4% in the country. I can see an argument for making grammars more meritocratic if that?s possible (offer free tutoring to any child with potential) but I believe selective streaming at some point in secondary education has a role to play.

[Otta]

I'm just not convinced that we really know who the top 1% are at age 11.

I was a high performer at primary and had I lived where ny cousins live I'd ha e probably gone grammar. But I don't believe that woykd have changed the fact that as a teenager school was pretty low on my list of priorities.

[LondonMix]

I agree 11 may be too young. In Finland it's 16. The US equivalent of grammars start at circa 14. I do think it makes a hell of a difference to how much you enjoy school though. I was so bored at school until I went to my US grammar-equivalent, I used to skip class all the time. A bright student who isn't challenged in my experience gets bored and quickly becomes the opposite of a good student. Again, I can only speak from personal experience but my partner was the same. Top student at primary and by top I really mean top. He got bored and cocky and then went to a below par state comp and did terribly. His parents both left school at 15 and didn?t really push him which obviously also played its part. It didn't ruin his life- he eventually went to uni after a stint working at a fast food joint and now has a good job (as do his friends who were exactly the same and all in the upper stream at their school) but he definitely under achieved. They skipped class all the time (to play chess amongst other things).

[Otta]

I just discovered too many naughty things aged around 14 to care much for school. Still, got it out of my system early enough to laugh at all the people who were off their tits at uni, having had no life experience in their teens ;-)

But year, 14 - 16 much better ages than 11 to be judging true potential.

[Smiler]

Obviously otta, but surely many children in southwark in 2006 had that potential and were let down!

[LondonMix]

I can't say it turned me into an angel either:) But it did make school one of the things I enjoyed rather than something that bored me to tears. Still got into my share of trouble though!

Multiple entry points might be the best way forward for those who mature later or who have on off day. 11 while young, is exactly the age I remember starting to dislike school as boring so for some it might be the right point.