Has anyone moved to get into the catchment area of grammar schools?

emsywoo123

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

There is nothing 'wrong' per se with sending your child to the local comprehensive scooby. I agree with you that local comps can churn out doctors, lawyers, accountants etc (my husband's friends will attest to that) but I am concerned with what I've seen in my local faith secondary schools (the only ones I'm interested in)

The reason I would like my child to receive education from the private/grammar sector is because of the greater extracurricular opportunities available within it. I was lucky enough to have a private education, receiving a scholarship myself (although I'm sure I've not capitalised on it in the way my parents would have hoped, given that I became pregnant during my final exams at university)

Surely everyone would like their child to receive the same opportunities that they themselves had? This'll be my last post to anyone looking for a debate about selective education vs state education, as it is not the question I posed.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: It has been debated many times here!!

I have been looking over the last few days at houses/catchment areas etc, DD is in year 3, DS is nearly 6 months, so I am trying to time a move in with both of their educations and where I might hope they could go.

Results on this project so far = headache, that is all!!!

mountainofdebt

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

if I don't think our DD is showing signs of being capable then I won't put pressure on her to 'achieve' academically/force her to go to a tutor or whatever, as it could easily destroy her confidence. I am a big believer in allowing children to play to their strengths, which may not lie in academia!

But aren't you making that decision by considering moving? If the non grammer schools are no better than the schools you are near now why consider moving?

As for tutoring, I think you'll find that the game is that children are tutored to pass the 11+ which is abit ironic if you think about it - the children that pass the 11+ are supposed to be the brightest (which is why they're creamed off) yet many are trained in how to pass the exam.

As for allowing your daughter to play to her strengths (which is to applauded) what happens if she passes the 11+ and yet wants to follow an 'arty' route?

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

The reason I would like my child to receive education from the private/grammar sector is because of the greater extracurricular opportunities available within it. I was lucky enough to have a private education, receiving a scholarship myself (although I'm sure I've not capitalised on it in the way my parents would have hoped, given that I became pregnant during my final exams at university)

Then why not simply choose the private route?

Becles

scooby088 wrote: »

Whats so wrong in sending your child to the local high school or academy? For me it's a complete non starter as i cannot see the point in getting another high mortgage for my child to get as some perceive as a good education, if you child isn't dumb as a post as with the cream it will rise to the top. So the answer to the question no i haven't moved and never will.

I know a teacher who worked in a secondary school in a rough area. The main reason he got so frustrated with teaching was that he spent far too much time disciplining the badly behaved children who didn't want to be there and disrupted lessons, rather than teaching the ones who actually wanted to learn things.

Although you might have a bright child, they're not going to get the best quality of teaching if there are others in the class who continually spoil the lesson and hold your child back.

Plans_all_plans

mountainofdebt wrote: »

But aren't you making that decision by considering moving? If the non grammer schools are no better than the schools you are near now why consider moving?

As for tutoring, I think you'll find that the game is that children are tutored to pass the 11+ which is abit ironic if you think about it - the children that pass the 11+ are supposed to be the brightest (which is why they're creamed off) yet many are trained in how to pass the exam.

As for allowing your daughter to play to her strengths (which is to applauded) what happens if she passes the 11+ and yet wants to follow an 'arty' route?

Then why not simply choose the private route?

Well by moving I don't think we are making the choice of grammar over state, as ultimately the school makes that decision by giving/refusing admission. By moving I feel we would helping to give her a greater chance of being admitted, based on current admissions criteria.

My parents had no idea they'd be sending me to private school: the only reason I was even put forward for the test was because I went to a summer fair at that school and said that I wanted to go there!

Tutoring is a different kettle of fish: my parents didn't have a clue about verbal/non verbal reasoning tests or what one could expect from private entrance exams, so this is why they chose a tutor for me. My dad wasn't particularly happy about it though, as he felt that if I couldn't pass on my own then "what was the point?" My mum pushed him to get me a tutor so that I had an idea about the reasoning tests in particular. My sister wasn't tutored becuase by the point she applied (2 years later) they were familiar with entrance exams.

If my DD was 'arty' and still passed the entrance exam then she'd have no say in the matter and would go to the grammar school. My reasoning behind this would be that in passing the test she'd be academically able enough to flourish at a grammar school. There'd no reason why she couldn't pursue art in that setting too. My problem would be if my DD was good at art, but was showing no signs of being academically gifted, then I think it'd be wrong to put her forward for the test myself and would look for the best arts providing school locally instead.

The reason I wouldn't go private from the off is because (although at a push) we may be able to afford the fees, there's no point paying half my wage out to a school when a similar education is available for free at a grammar school if she's able enough to get into one.

fluffysox

Hi I teach in a state grammar school and like somebody else said- we don't have a "catchment area". Children can travel as far as their parents want as long as they pass the 11+ exam. However I am frequently irritated by one of the local estate agents who advertises houses as being "in the catchment area for local grammar schools". Double check with the school to make sure there actually is a catchment area, you can also find out which areas are catered for with school buses.
As for tutoring, children shouldn't need it, some practice with "reasoning" books would be useful to give them confidence though. In this area, lots of parents opt to pay for tutoring through year 5&6 and although lots of children enjoy it and gain confidence from it I have seen no evidence that it increases their chances of passing.

Plans_all_plans

Hi fluffysox, thanks. I have spoken to the school admissions officer, who has explained the criteria to me. It is quite clear that there isn't a catchment area as such, but if you attend certain primary schools, as well as live in certain parishes in the borough then you are more likely to get in than if you are living outside the borough.

pinkshoes

My mum teaches in a state grammar school, and could tell you exactly which kids have been coached through the 11+ entrance exams - these are the ones who struggle for the whole school career, and most would have been SO much happier at the comprehensive school.

I'm quite sure the school gives priority to kids in the catchment area that pass the 11+, and then takes a % with good 11+ results from the surrounding area.

I'd certainly move house to get DS into a good school, and plan to do so before he's 11!

patchwork_cat

Fluffysox - I have a gut feeling that you teach at my DD's school as there is a local estate agent that does just that around here.

Lunar_Eclipse

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

LunarEclipse, can I ask what information you are sceptical about in my post? Is it the bit about people living in borough having a better chance, even if their marks aren't quite so good?

Yes, this part. I'm curious as to how this would be managed in practice, unless it clearly states this in their admissions information (which of course it could.) However, if anyone can favour the local community, I imagine a faith school could. I'm just saying it's very hard to know what goes on behind closed doors and am sceptical, given this:

It was very clear at one of the Open Days we went to in October that a certain school had previously admitted children that had not done well enough in their entrance exams to get in (according to the admission criteria of ranking kids and offering in order of exam percentages), but got in through Appeal because their current school provided evidence that their exam performance was not reflective of their true (historic) ability. The Head said that this would no longer happen. Really it never should have, based on their admissions criteria (forget the morals of going to one's closest school etc), hence my scepticism (ie trust in the system.) Entry is supposedly strictly to the top performing 'x' students on the day.

Lunar_Eclipse

patchwork_cat wrote: »

Purely my experience, it goes against the idea and my beliefs, but in my area tutoring is prevalent and so to give my childr the best chance I tutored. I would disagree that here tutoring only gives 4 points. I wouldn't have tutored my child if they couldn't keep up, and some don't . I don't agree with tutoring, but if everyone else does it then you have to.

I completely understand where you're coming from (having just been through this) however I disagree that 'you have to because everyone else does.' You have to be very strong in your beliefs though. I just don't buy in to what everyone else chooses to do.

But it's a tricky one.;)