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?

And what Erin said.

Some people choose to put up with crappier housing in expensive areas,doesn't make them rich.

The trouble is, how do we define rich? I've seen people on MN disclose household income at £50k plus which I define as a fair amount of money, yet they claim to be very average earners.

I don't know if MN is skewed because it seems like there are high earners who don't think it's high but in RL, I don't discuss it with people, so maybe many people think like this too?

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

So how does it select?

Some of this will be partly down to the fact that houses with high price tags tend to have people who have successful careers living in them. People with successful high paid careers tend to value education and will have supported their children's leaning at home from the day they came home from hospital.

It's not really surprising that schools get good results when their intake doesn't have major behaviour issues because they have all been parented well, and they don't have to spend half their time getting children to engage with eduction because the parents have already instilled the importance of it.

Some of the best schools wouldn't remain the best if their intakes were different, and some of the worst schools would be likely to improve if they didn't have to deal with the effects of not very good parenting.

It's not just about house prices.

BoomBoom- that's interesting- real research! Is it possible for you to link to it or is it easy to find?

Hak purely on ability(11+)plus liaising with primaries.

Hakluyt, our grammar school selects on results of the 11+. The top scores get a place. There is a catchment area, but it's so big it may as well not exist, as it includes children that could in theory have a two hour commute to get to school each day.

If it gets down to the last place being offered and two people have exactly the same score, which is highly unlikely with standardisation and the way they mark, then it will be done on distance.

• Retropear Mon 30-Jun-14 11:27:18

Agree some people put education first and really and truly scrimp and save to put everything to it.

"Hak purely on ability(11+)plus liaising with primaries."

So how do they decide between two kids with the same score? Because if they are "liaising with primaries" they are on very shaky ground indeed.......

There's two secondary schools near me (non-selective comprehensives). One is a good but broadly average school and the other one is high achieving, outstanding etc. Houses the same as ours that are inside the good school catchment are 40% more expensive than they are where I live 250 metres down the road. 3 bed semis in my road sell for about £400k at the moment.

That difference in property prices is bound to have an effect on the demographic of people who attend, surely?

Ours doesn't liaise with primaries.

Rockandroll Well, some people live hand to mouth and cannot scrimp and save because there isn't anything. It doesn't mean they don't put education first.

It's money in your pocket as defines rich.

Joint household may well be more than 1 big income thus paying less tax or you may gave bought at the right time so have a tiny mortgage or be mortgage free,have help from family etc.Benefits such as TC can bring money in ones pocket up to those in the higher tax bracket,with a smaller mortgage you could be better off etc soooo many variables.

Far too many studies and articles berating anybody over fsm as rich and hoovering up best schools with apparent zero effort whilst munching cavier. It's pointless.

The so-called 'best' schools are in most cases 'best' because of their (self-selecting) intake, not because of the miracles the schools are performing.

High-performing schools attract motivated high-achieving parents, which in turn result in high-performing schools.

Some of the schools at the top of the league tables, in particular grammar schools, are very poorly resourced, and really don't work particular miracles.

Hakluyt - I think it's this one: Gibbons, S., S. Machin and O. Silva, Valuing School Quality Using Boundary Discontinuities, Journal of Urban Economics, 75(May) 2013

He's done other research that touches on this area too. List of publications.

wordfactory

how do you look up leas getting into oxbridge?

The Sutton Trust have done some research on entry into grammar schools which show that disadvantaged pupils are less likely to get in.

www.suttontrust.com/our-work/research/item/poor-grammar-entry-into-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils-in/

Hak,don't know the answer to that.

Think it's just an issue with those hovering around the cut off.Just had a big speech from the staff explaining it all,explaining the 11+,tips etc.They said if there are issues involved around the cut off they will ring primaries and ask for current levels,ability etc.

We live miles away so I asked if there was any point applying,most definitely apparently as they said distance just doesn't come into it.They have kids travelling from all over.

That's this particular school,schools vary(a lot) hence the pointlessness of putting all schools and families over fsm under one umbrella.

You might find this one interesting too

Research - PARENT POWER? (18 December 2013)

Categories: Schools, Social Mobility,

Author: Professors Becky Francis and Merryn Hutchings

This report presents a fascinating insight into the extent to which professional parents are able to gain an advantage over other families in the school system

www.suttontrust.com/our-work/research/item/parent-power/

Chaz, but is that because of the schools themselves or is it because of the parents and the circumstances of those children's lives?

I know you didn't say it, but I really don't think it's fair when people plane the existence of grammar schools for the fact that children on FSM don't get into them.

Just had a big speech from the staff explaining it all,explaining the 11+,tips etc.

ohh what tips retro....

rockandroll there's a study, quite widely reported I think. It was given to me by a colleague on the widening access scheme.

I'll try and dig it up for you. But if you search local authorities and Oxbridge/RG you should find it .

Depends where you live, I'd say.

We have grammar schools up here, pretty much every market town has one, with the towns being approx 30 minutes drive between them. It is a very poor rural area, and the grammar DD2 goes to has a very high proportion of children on free school meals. Including her.

I spend every penny of the maintenance I get for her on extra tuition because she missed so much school when she had whooping cough. We just go without luxuries to afford then.

Yes the property prices do make a difference, of course, but they don't bite at all housing equally. Where I live, there is a HUGE markup on 3 bed semis, 4 bed detacheds etc. But with 2 bed flats, I think there is much less of a gap, obviously in absolute terms but also in % terms. I guess that market is different and not so dominated by schools.

I think WooWooOwl is spot on about the parents valuing education and the standards of behaviour being high. Parents who buy a smaller 2 bed flat in a 'good' catchment rather than a larger home elsewhere also tend to value education.

Chaz it doesn't say less likely to get in but less likely to be there.

Underestimating their kids,attitudes towards grammar,poor info etc are to blame ie many won't even bother applying.

That is not the fault of parents who do have high aspirations for their kids,who get informed and who aren't put off by the grammar for rich kids myth.