to wonder whether it is actually true that "all the best schools are monopolised by the rich"?

[Hakluyt]

(State schools, obviously. Private ones are, by definition!)

It's often said on Mumsnet, and nobody ever questions it. But is it actually true? And how do we know whether it is true or not?

How are you defining 'best'?

Who are 'the rich'?

I would assume that there is a correlation between highly ranked, outstanding schools and house prices and therefore higher income families.

However, I am limited in my experience of 'the rich', they don't tend to live round here, but we do have some excellent schools.

I would imagine there is truth in it. People with more money tend to be the ones who can move house to live closer to a school with a good OFSTED rating if they want to. Estate agents websites tend to give details of which schools are closest, parents check the school out and make the choice.

"I would imagine" "I would assume"...

Yet it is often stated as an incontrovertible fact. Usually by supporters of selective or faith schools- "It is better to have selection by ability or faith than by income"

DS is starting a state primary in September, very popular and oversubscribed school. The catchment area of it means it is very difficult for people from the 'best' area locally to get into the school.

A more interesting question is how you define the "best" school. Best in what way? Results?

I don't know. I suspect the people who use the argument mean best by academic results.

Well it depends what you mean by 'best'.

But if you look up which LEAs get the most DC into Oxbridge and RG universities, you'll see that top performers still offer selection. So grammar schools do well here. Do the rich monopolise them? I think you'd argue that they do OP!

Ditto the super selectives around the country.

As for comprehensives, well just ask any estate agent . They will explain the corrolation between the most desired schools and house prices!

"It is better to have selection by ability or faith than by income"

Where are you quoting from hakluyt?

But how do you define rich?

Plenty of desirable schools with kids that I wouldn't describe as rich.

Some parents may scrimp for a bigger mortgage of rent on a shoe box to live in an area.Are they rich?

Kind of getting a tad bored re anybody over fsm who want a decent education for their kids being looked on as taking from the poor and wealthy.

Our village school is an 'outstanding' church school where other parents look at me with pity when I tell them we didn't get in. It is considered a good school by many but
I often hear awful stories from the same parents about the schools lack of inclusiveness, inability to deal with bullying & frankly bizarre school policies that I can't believe parents aren't up in arms about.
My DS goes to a less well considered school (it's in a much much less well off area) but I think it's fab & am yet to have a complaint about it. The staff are welcoming, inclusive & DS is truly thriving. The management seems to be sensible and manages to deal with many abilities & issues(much harder), has sensible school policies and unlike his former very MC school actually doesn't tolerate bullying rather than just saying it doesn't exist.

Erm, in this city yes. Not a grammar school area, but there is a super selective school which has 800-1000 people sitting the exam every year for just over 100 places. I have yet to meet anyone whose child gained a place without paying for private tution in the months years leading up the exam. Every now and then "postcode stats" are released - they are heavily skewed towards the more affluent areas of the city. So yes, using anecdotal information and the extremely limited postcode information I would say in this city, the best school is largely the reserve of the children for wealthier families.

I've heard this said as if it's a fact too, but I don't believe it to be true. I also agree that 'best' needs to be defined.

I feel the same when I read people who are anti grammar schools saying that it's not fair that the 11+ decides at 10/11 years old whether children are going to get 'the best' education or not. Grammar schools aren't best, they are different.

I live in the catchment of a very good comprehensive that people move house to access, and house prices are high. But then the catchment also includes a significant number of social houses and two very big traveler settlements, so it's by no means populated only by those who would be called rich by MN standards. Overall it's a MC school, but that doesn't mean they aren't inclusive or that they don't deal well with bullying.

Paying for private tuition doesn't make you rich.

It's £10 an hour here,some parents may well scrimp in other areas eg no holidays,old car etc.Others may choose to go on holiday or spend money on other things and then say they couldn't afford tutoring.

You also don't need to pay for tutoring to pass exams,in this Internet age it's perfectly poss to DIY.

Yes I think there is some truth to it. We live next to a grammar school area and if I want my kids to go those grammars and stand a good chance of getting in, I'd have to move to a house twice as expensive as the one we are at now. The catchment areas around these grammars are of people who can afford to live there. I have even heard of cases of there being no FSM eligible children at some of the grammars because of the affluence of the catchment areas. It would be a much fairer system if catchment area never played a part in it. You could argue that a private school might have a more diverse intake because of buraries and scholarships etc

Retropear
Paying for private tuition doesn't make you rich.

It's 10 an hour here,some parents may well scrimp in other areas eg no holidays,old car etc.Others may choose to go on holiday or spend money on other things and then say they couldn't afford tutoring.

25 per hour here - I know as I pay it! Plus materials.

I agree Retro. The main point bring that parents don't have to pay for tuition, there is a huge amount if free material available.

And again, in my experience grammar doesn't mean best. It's just different, and while that may be best for some children, some children will be best placed at a comp, or best placed at an academy, or best placed at the local school that just happens to be in special measures.

In fact, just had a quick google - in 2012, 27 students out of 600 received FSM -seems exceptionally low bearing in mind the economic context of this city.

I imagine it's more likely to be the case in big cities where the pressure for places is high and the catchment areas are small. On the other hand, it doesn't always happen. Where I used to live in London the best school in the area had a tiny catchment area that basically only covered the council housing that surrounded it. There wasn't really any way to buy yourself in to catchment no matter how rich you were.

It happens in other countries too. Friends of ours moved out of New York to a commuter town with a good school system. It made quite a weird dynamic. Almost every child attending school there had one or both parents in a well-paid job in NY. Families moved there just before their eldest started school and left after their youngest finished school, there were very few elderly or childless people living there. According to our friend this town was the inspiration for the original Stepford Wives film.

It's £10 an hour here,some parents may well scrimp in other areas eg no holidays,old car etc.Others may choose to go on holiday or spend money on other things and then say they couldn't afford tutoring

I agree.

Anyway op I think you would be surprised how many people are actually not that bothered about their childs school.

I see it all the time where I live, there is one brilliant school in our catchment, its a good 20 min walk away, most parents on my road prefer the crap school for convenience.

songs

just re watched the orginal 70's version of stepford with the amazing Katherine Ross....which town is it?

Save the local grammar we're interested in has no catchment.Distance plays no part,I asked the head last week.

I don't know about "all" the best schools, but research by Stephen Gibbon (and others) at the LSE has shown that house prices increase (making it more difficult for less well off parents to get in) around schools that provide better than average value add (which indicates good teaching, leadership etc.). So overall, better schools tend to attract wealthier intakes.

They also found that house prices increase around schools with historically good results, which may due to good teaching etc. or may be down to a wealthier intake.

So research does support the popular lay expertise of MNers!

No selective schools round here.

I think it depends on the housing stock. Our school (in the South but NotLondon) is good and a feeder to a fantastic secondary school. There are a lot of very well-off people but also people bringing up 2 or 3 DC in a small maisonette. It's certainly not a 'monopoly' of the rich, because the rich don't buy/rent the maisonettes and small flats.

£25 a week.

I know people who spend more on various phone or car deals than that.It is possible to survive with old cars and £10 a Tesco payg phone.

It's not fair to write off those that scrimp as rich.