@janez

I just want to start by saying that I don't expect you to take this on board and I don't expect this to change your thinking at all. 

Idoru's experience is pretty much identical to most people I know. Most of my friends and peers went to average or less than average schools -  in the 70's/80's there wasn't much else unless you wanted to pay, Helicopter parents were few and far between where I grew up. Almost everyone went on to University, including some to Oxbridge and one to Harvard, or straight into good jobs. I have a pal who went to a North London school that has since been closed down who now earns an astronomical salary in the city, one that was expelled from a craphole at 15 and now runs an extraordinarily successful business and one that barely attended an awful school and is now living in L.A. and currently designing Robert Downey Jr's house. Most, like Idoru are doing well. I know only two people who went to 'good', high performing schools. One now works in a shop, one has used none of her good education in a work place and has spent her whole adult life as a stay at home mum.

I suppose that what I'm saying is not that it's not important to choose a brilliant school, but that if you don't get into the perfect school it is still possible and indeed quite normal to still do well and acheive whatever you want in life.

Annie, you do not need to change my way of thinking because I agree with all you said - it does not contradict my view at all. 

"Islington had the worst average GCSE grades in London". I think Islington pot may stop calling Hackney kettle black.

Lots of interesting points made here,

 @Janez   "It all depends on your own child." -  look at the context of that sentence in my original post ( I hope)  . I  certainly didn’t mean it was all up to the child as to whether they succeed, (i.e. and not the teachers), I meant choosing a school should take into account the strengths , needs and personality of the child.  ( ideally, I do realise that choice is illusory) .  I meant that you should look at your child and make sure the school understands what their needs, strengths and difficulties are, whatever their IQ or talents.   I suppose I was also appealing to those parents who think that their child is too bright for a school in a neighbourhood like Finsbury Park.

As to the Arts and Media bias, or any specialism for that matter, I don’t think this is important.  My own personal perspective is that the specialist path was one that schools had to go down to get the extra cash that was going round at the time.   (cynical) . In the case of A and M , it means younger pupil have one lesson of Art, Music, Dance, Media and Drama per week, all of which are fun and good for all children for building up confidence, technical and presentation skills, whether or not the child has any talent. Most schools teach these anyway but maybe incorporated into other lessons.  ( e.g. Drama inside English, Dance inside PE) It also means that teachers are encouraged to use multi media methods across the curriculum.  ( but I think all good teachers do that whatever schools they are at. )

It doesn’t mean any less Science, Maths English technology PE etc.

Ali , where do get the information you quote that  65%  of pupils from schools in Muswell Hill  get to a Russell group university. ?  I think you are confusing the statistic about 5 good A-C GCSEs with the eventual destination of the pupils after 6^th form.  ( IAMS is only an 11-16 school)  This is nonsense, with respect..  as far as I know there isn’t any published data about the university destinations  of the pupils from any  school.  I was just describing what I know about the destinations of some of my ex pupils. The pupils from IAMS often go on to do their A levels in 6^th forms in Muswell Hill, including Fortismere and Woodhouse ( Barnet) , as well as Islington 6^th form. So the destination statistics for those institutions would have to credit IAMS for some of their pupils.    But there are none officially, although Islington write to us every year and let us know how well our pupils did at A level and what university places they have got.

I’m also not sure you understand about Russell group and non Russell group.  ( with respect)  There is snobbery about these just as there is about schools. For the record my daughter got into a ( top) Russell group Uni having “failed” GCSE Science and Maths – D grades).  i.e. she wouldn’t have qualified for the new eBAC , although she did well in French English History etc. Enlightened admission tutors at Kings. Other things counted.

There is also anecdotal evidence that with the “top” universities being pressured to make their admissions more egalitarian and meretricious, they may favour candidates from ordinary comps rather than from high achieving schools!   ( I said may) . So as others have noted, buying a place in a “better” school, may not have the desired effect.  A lot of it all is luck, self confidence and learning to deal with new and sometimes tough environments. 

 Point taken. Correction to what I said . The pupils from IAMS ( and any other school ) can  join Fortismere in the sixth form, after GCSEs. I got that wrong.  The schools that have 6th forms accept pupils from any other schools, there's a lot of changing around then.  

Sweetpea, talking about "All depends on the child, a bright child will succeed everywhere", people are falling prey to one common fallacy. They suggest that Their Child is bright. Of course, how can it be different? They cook sushi, wear ironic glasses, read Murakami - how Their Child may be mediocre? You know, I never met more parents of exceptional individuals, accomplished in arts and sciences, living in harmony with world and people, caring about environment and community, enjoying deep relationships and building galloping careers in the areas of their choice, so, I never met more parents of such wonderful rounded people than among parents of 1-year-olds.

Then reality starts to kick in, and a proud parent discovers that there is no direct impact of mammy’s P60 or daddy’s vinyl collection on the child’s brightness. No “I am white, educated and employed, job done, the child is bright”. And that the only privilege of parental educational level and consecutive salary size is an ability to contribute to development of your normal (meaning: average) child. This puts all the other potential contributors into a slightly different perspective, and “any school is ok” approach fades away.

On a child, being too bright for a school with low, though easily explainable, exam results. There is plenty of stats showing that schooling pulls weak children up (which is great), and pulls the strong down (which is less great). This is, by the way, one of the arguments of unschoolers. So, the bottom is still at the bottom, but doing better, that without school. The top is still at the top, but doing less than full capacity. Talking about a well/not that well performing schools, many parents may prefer a child being dragged up in a school, rather than pulled down. Although, other parents may prefer their Child to be a superstar in IAMS, rather in bottom third in Latymer.  

On specialism bias. I would better quote:

Teenagers at comprehensives are studying "low quality" subjects that will prevent them gaining a place at top universities – unlike their peers at private and grammar schools, according to an MP.

…

She found students at private schools were twice more likely than their peers in comprehensives to take maths, physics and chemistry A-level and three times more likely to take foreign languages.

Students at comprehensives were seven times more likely than their peers in private schools to take media studies.Twice the number of pupils at private schools take three  A-levels that are looked upon particularly favourably by the most academically selective universities.

And one more:

The country's top universities have been called on to come clean about an unofficial list or lists of "banned" A-level subjects that may have prevented tens of thousands of state school pupils getting on to degree courses.

Teachers suspect the Russell Group of universities – which includes Oxford and Cambridge – of rejecting outright pupils who take A-level subjects that appear on the unpublished lists.

The lists are said to contain subjects such as law, art and design, business studies, drama and theatre studies – non-traditional A-level subjects predominantly offered by comprehensives, rather than private schools.

None of this is news. I don't think it was ever a secret that art, drama and business studies aren't the preferred subjects for entry to Oxbridge. Nothing on earth would have made me a high acheiver in maths, physics and chemistry, even if I had gone to the best school in the land because I'm not interested in it. I'm a left brainer.

I don't know what ironic glasses are, no doubt that makes me severely unfashionable.

Didn't think you were meant to cook sushi.

Mirandola, I think that I remember some warm options in Dotori. However, the rice still need to be steamed. 

Disagreeing with someone or not capitulating to their views is not the same as hating them. Although I'm amazed that you know of so many places to find pictures to post in order to insult other members of this forum.

Oxbridge is not the best for Art, History of Art etc. There are much better places to go for those whose talents lie in those fields.

Dear Annie, I am sorry to see that your sensitivity to insulting intentions has not been triggered when people were writing things like “the more I learn of your worldview the more I appreciate my own” and “I hope I never meet any of them”. My favourite was “Perhaps you would benefit from spending some time in a really good school yourself? Sorry, and I take that back, if English is not your first language” which contained a great deal of socio-economic chauvinism, giving exemption to a potential foreigner, but insisting on ridiculing a person with potential diverse socio-economic background and limited access to good education.

“Haters gonna hate” meme suggests that here is absolutely no need to be “really, really, really” emotional about people who do not agree with you. As a left-brain person, you may understand that many people (especially with poor writing) find it easier to express ideas in pictures, therefore, there is such plethora of already made artistic points on the Internet.

I would agree that Oxbridge are not leading art institutions (was not sure about history of art, but I trust you). And I would be glad if someone could show with stats that local schools are feeding to leading art institutions. 

 We had too many kids getting Ds in English in particular, which brought down the results hugely".  

since when has average been the new unsatisfactory?

damn that grade inflation!

Or ... mor accurately:

History of Art is rubbish unless you have the express intention of finding a husband/wife from minor Central European/Middle Eastern royalty.

From St Andrews to the Courtauld ... its basically the same ... although in the latter case also throw in some posh Marxists (think Anthony Blunt).

Sweetpea, D can not be an average result in GCSE just because "some 69.8 per cent of entries were awarded at least a C". 

Long thread. Have read bits of it.

Re St Joans to get in the parents need to be practising Catholics.

It's pretty clear that different people have different ideas about what constitutes a good school.

I went to a state school in Upstate NY. It offered a huge range of courses including over a dozen AP classes (1st year uni level). I took 10 including physics, biology, calculus and statistics. And I was an arty student.

Every term, we had a choice of eight or 10 after-school sports. Everyone I know played at least one. I ran cross country in the fall, played basketball in the winter and was on the track team in the spring. This was pretty typical. Out of a class of 250, I could count on one hand the number of obese students. I know of two who had problems with eating disorders.

In addition to the sports, we had a wide range of extra-curricular activities including an award-winning newspaper, a daily TV show, a literary journal, a science olympiad team, an orchestra, a jazz band, a choir, a theatre group, a maths team, a chess club, a yearbook, Model UN, etc. I was in school every day until 5 or 6pm, by choice.

Most of my teachers had master's degrees. A few had PhDs. They were teachers because they loved teaching, not because their acting careers didn't work out.

My class was ethnically and culturally (if not economically) diverse. The school had a great SEN programme and attracted lots of kids with learning disabilities, who had help from specialist teachers. In the four years that I spent there, I don't recall seeing a single act of violence or serious bullying. Two of my friends were openly gay, and no one ever harassed them for it.

Everyone I know went to university after graduation. Most of my friends went either to an Ivy League school or to one of the small liberal arts colleges.

This is what a good state school is like. Do any of the schools people have been praising come even close to this?

I would never send my children to one of the academies, where the majority of the students can't read. Where kids regularly hit and bully one another, shove teachers and throw things across the room. Where students make casual homophobic remarks, and the teachers don't bat an eye. Where, come 3pm, the kids have nothing to do but roam the streets.

I don't care what percent of the students get an A-C. A good school doesn't consider a C an acceptable grade.

Well off people are more mobile in all countries. 

@rainbow_carnage, your school does sound great, I suspect we all would probably have liked to have gone there (and would be in favour of sending our own kids there).

In response to your point about where you wouldn't send your kids, I think most people (certainly the fellow parents I know, I can't speak for other so in this forum whom I don't know) want their kids to be in constructive, nurturing and healthy environments, rather than imposing and negative environments.  I guess the point is whether - as a parent and adult - you leave your community in order to find that for your child (assuming you're lucky enough to be in the position to do so) or do you try and create some of that in your community where you already are (and perhaps improve the situation not just for your own child but for other children and families also).

It is, I believe, a philosophical issue, despite some of the postings on this thread, and one that touches on how we relate to our local community and our perceived involvement as part of that community.

As an aside, I have a number of adult friends who went to very nice independent private schools which had some of the facilities you described at your school.  I've heard from them a lot of stories around bullying, homophobia, drugs and sex, so I don't think these are the exclusive privilege of inner city schools.

Class is a difficult issues, especially in the States. Of course, huge divisions exist, but it's not easy to pigeonhole people.

My family immigrated to the States in 1989. We had no money and didn't speak English. My parents worked hard and saved so that by the time I was 13, we moved from the city to a middle class suburb with a good school. It wasn't the wealthiest in the area, but it was one where parents valued education above all else. State education is largely funded locally. Every year, the towns have a referendum to decide whether or not to raise the tax that goes to pay for schools. Every year, the residents in our area voted yes. So while neighbouring schools from wealthier towns complained about music education cuts, my classmates and I had the best education... I was going to say money could buy, but that's not strictly true. The inner city schools actually spend much more per pupil that my school (subsidised by state and federal governments), with disastrous results. Money isn't everything.

I love the idea of being part of a community that values education more than large houses and shiny cars. I'm also very keen to stay in this area. But I don't see how I could contribute to the local schools. Certainly not in a meaningful way that would bring them closer to the sort of school I went to. This is why people start free schools. It's easier to start something new than to fix something that's been broken for decades.

I wish I had an answer to this. I don't want to move to the suburbs. I don't want to go private (even if I could afford it, which I can't). I certainly don't want to home school. And there's no way that I'd send my kids to any of the schools I've taught at. What else is there?

@Mirandola: r-c just said that they would never send kids to a school where children can not read properly. IAMS with its "normal, healthy, average" Ds fits that definition quite closely.

I would love to see someone, becoming a governor of a local "average D" school, while sending kids to a better one. 

The old piano factory in Leeds Place is up for it now the ppl who ran it as social centre went bust. Good opportunity but right next door to IAMS so I am guessing former pupils from middle class pods willbe given a hard time. But worth a go. I say this as a single bloke, no kids. Tho is is opposite the Lookalike Factory !! Chang