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?

What is the definition of high achieving? Is it exam results, exam results excluding BTEC's etc or is it value added.

I think many people would take high acheiving to me raw exam results in traditional subjects.

"Now, about this business of high archiving comprehensives being the preserve of the rich.........Any stats, proof- anything but anecdote to support the view?"

Not difficult, try google, first result:

www.suttontrust.com/our-work/research/download/75/

Faith selection is the most divisive (Page 7), in that it successfully picks off the rich in a poorer area (average FSM in the top 84 faith schools 5.9% versus 15.2% for the area), whereas for non-faith schools the gap was smaller, 5.3% FSMs versus 8.6% for the area, and 14.3% nationally.

So in simple terms non-faith schools filter out the poor in rich areas, whereas faith schools select only the rich in poor areas.

They generally do, yes, or if not 'the rich' certainly 'the comfortable'.

SaveTheMockingBird

www.suttontrust.com/our-work/research/download/238

Reading: 75% live outside the LA
Sutton: 63% live outside the LA
Trafford: 29%

I guess I was wrong about Trafford, I don't know the area or the admissions policies it sounds like they filter on house prices anyway!

Seriously huk are yiou trying to deny that there is an issue in the UK with house prices around good schools?

Because I know your schtick is to say grammar areas bad, comprehensive areas good...

But seriously, even you can't be so fixed in your view to not see what's happening in the UK.

Perhaps a better question would be...do you really believe the rich don't use their wealth to monopolise the best schools? Do you really believe that access to state schools in the UK is democratic?

So in simple terms non-faith schools filter out the poor in rich areas, whereas faith schools select only the rich in poor areas.
It seems to be the opposite where I live, but this is just for primaries, the only non denom school in the area (which is where my DCs go) attracts all the richer middle class families, as they tend to be aethists on the whole.

AgaPanthers - that does surprise me about Sutton. Well I was at school over 15yrs ago so it's probably a different story now!

"Seriously huk are yiou trying to deny that there is an issue in the UK with house prices around good schools?"

No,no- I'm not. I'm sure there is. It's just that it's always taken as read, and I suddenly realised that I've never seen any actual figures.

And I don't say grammar area bad, comprehensive area good. I say selective system bad, comprehensive system least worst.

Herc it wasn't the girls,boys or C but the other one. We loved it in every way but it's well over an hour away and we all felt car sick on the way home so it's a no goer.

We really didn't like the girls,loved the boys,C wouldn't suit her so it's either of the Good comps for her I think.

Retro CF? What about the comp with the grammar 'stream' (I can't remember what it's called, they gave DD2 a big YES on results day without us even having realised they were looking at her tests).

Hakloy (Karen was right, yes? I'm assuming she'd know that sort of thing) I agree with you that if it was done properly the comprehensive system would be the best (not just the least worst). But it would have to be done really properly - abolishing private schools, testing everyone, then fair banding so that every single school had proper concentrations at sensible centile levels, which would be narrower than 25:25:25:25. With probably clustering for some subjects (e.g. my own pet favourite music). That would require at the least LEA coordination and possible national coordination, free transport, and shitloads of money. I genuinely think it would be worth it in so many ways, socially, educationally ... but the cost would be prohibitive. Failing that, I think a super selective model followed by fair banding and clustering and equitable focussing of resources (so that the maths whizz who was unable to string sentences together was able to access appropriate peer groups for each subject - in the current comp model such a child doesn't have maths peers and possibly doesn't have English peers either)night work best - but I think that really, we are too hung up on schools and we should be thinking more about accessing education in a variety of locations and ways. But it would cost a fortune and will never happen. But I still feel that regional variations in educational funding and educational outcome are just as big a problem for society as a whole as variations between types of school.

It's in special measures.

Yes CF,what a lovely school!Super kids,head,grounds,ethos etc.The ICT is amazing,dp said it was the first school he'd ever been in where they seemed to know exactly what is needed out in the computing world.

Really pains us not to apply but if one out of the 3 didn't get in we'd be screwed as to travel.No bus there,couldn't move as you'd have to be on bus routes for the alternatives.

Really disappointed with the girls,wanted to love it but hated it,no outdoor space to relax in,funny atmosphere,bleak building.Up their own arses a tad too,v diff to the boys.

Anyhoo hijack over.

So's our primary school. There's a lot of it about...

I agree with you that if it was done properly the comprehensive system would be the best (not just the least worst)

It could never be done right because humans are humans, in the worst comps, pupils who work hard and want to do well are in the minority.

what your pretty much guaranteeing in a grammar is that everyone is usually on much the same page, wanting to work and do well and get educated.

no matter how much you force some people they will not want to work, they see no point.

hard for any child no matter how hard working or clever to go against the social peer grain school and be out cast, bullied or worse or have no friends.

"It could never be done right because humans are humans, in the worst comps, pupils who work hard and want to do well are in the minority. "

There are kids who don't want to work hard and do well in any school. But not in the top set.

And, just out of interest, what do you think happens to all the children who want to work hard and do well in secondary moderns?

Fascinating that this has become a grammar school thread.

And Karen was, surprisingly, wrong. It's sort of Hack-looyt but not as heavy on the y as that looks.

It could never be done right because humans are humans, in the worst comps, pupils who work hard and want to do well are in the minority.

what your pretty much guaranteeing in a grammar is that everyone is usually on much the same page, wanting to work and do well and get educated.

no matter how much you force some people they will not want to work, they see no point.

hard for any child no matter how hard working or clever to go against the social peer grain school and be out cast, bullied or worse or have no friends.

100% agree with this, the comprehensives round here are good, despite the grammar schools taking the top % of bright pupils. They tend to focus on different GCSEs and other qualifications, which are more appropriate for children who don't necessarily want to go to Uni, and are aiming at going straight into work. Actually, I think the best system is grammar and the old style technical collages. It's unrealistic to expect every child to gain a certain number of GCSEs, and those less suited should be being taught a life skill for employment. This country is seriously lacking in skilled craftsmen and trades, and we should be looking at training children who are gifted in that area, instead of pushing them towards unattainable academic qualifications.

You have just SHATTERED my world view. I assumed that her crap choice in men (although actually - I quite like Edwin) didn't detract from her overall braininess. :( Ah well.

I don't think this has become a GS thread - but I apologise for the diversion where I asked Retro which school she was talking about.

Many of the best schools by results ARE GSs though, there's no getting away from that. Not all, obviously. And if you take wider considerations into account then that changes the cut again.

My own view is that most kids do actually want to 'do well'. Some kids need more help than others in appreciating what 'doing well' means, and what they need to put in to 'do well'. And there are different definitions of 'doing well' obviously (at one of my kids' schools doing well = doing medicine). But I think the idea that there are loads of kids in even the poorest comp who want to 'do badly' is - not quite getting the point.

As a society we should constantly be looking at what we mean by 'doing well' and whether we need to be tweaking our own understanding of that on a regular basis.

I did think that ret.'s comment about ICT facilities was interesting - I wouldn't pull a hair for ICT facilities. I really wouldn't. But perhaps I should. I suspect I'm the one who is wrong there.

As a society we should constantly be looking at what we mean by 'doing well' and whether we need to be tweaking our own understanding of that on a regular basis.

I think I agree with that, we should be looking at areas our children are talented in, not just exam results. I think too many children leave school feeling failures because they haven't gained x amount of A-C GCSEs, when in actual fact they are simply gifted in other areas. It's like the old days of the less able girls being automatically taught to type, not necessarily the right thing, and I am absolutely NOT advocating that, but you did leave school with something that enabled you to walk straight into a job.

'Twas just one area of greatness but we found it interesting(dp and ds coders so interested,not so much the rest of us)as they seemed generally on the ball about everything,enthusiastic,keen, really informed and lively teaching,could answer any question you threw at them in any dept.

• Actually, I think the best system is grammar and the old style technical collages. It's unrealistic to expect every child to gain a certain number of GCSEs, and those less suited should be being taught a life skill for employment. This country is seriously lacking in skilled craftsmen and trades, and we should be looking at training children who are gifted in that area, instead of pushing them towards unattainable academic qualifications

agree

I still think the country would be better run if MNers were in charge.

And, just out of interest, what do you think happens to all the children who want to work hard and do well in secondary moderns?

not sure I understand you, they do well, they do well, and go on to do what they want with more choice than those who had the potential to do well but it was never realised at school.

I loathe comps though....I think they are a really sad experiment thats failed.

I loathe them too, the ones round here are good, but I think that's an exception tbh.