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?

Rock the town is Darien CT. When we visited it did strongly remind me of a Hollywood's idea of the idyllic East coast suburb in a very creepy way.

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

I do think you'll find a lot of people saying that from all over the country!

So basically you're saying that the best thing is to get children to take an exam at the age of 10 and, on the strength of that exam, decide whether that child is going to go to university or not, or whether they are going to go straight into work in a trade. At the age of 10.

What sort of training are you thinking of for the failures children best suited to the secondary modern?

So basically you're saying that the best thing is to get children to take an exam at the age of 10 and, on the strength of that exam, decide whether that child is going to go to university or not, or whether they are going to go straight into work in a trade. At the age of 10

I want my DD to try for grammer as she is a good all rounder.

We will not be able to afford to send her to uni. I want her to forfill her accademic potential and do the best she can in a school that will enable this.

After that.....

"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."

The overwhelming majority of richer families don't care that much about the denomination of the school, they are going on results.

If you look at the M20 postcode for example,
www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/group.pl?qtype=GR&f=n6X99FN8ft&superview=pri&view=&sort=l_schname&ord=asc

You've got
RC:
St Cuthberts RC 29% FSMs - undersubscribed by 3
St Catherines RC 8% FSMs - 194 applicants for 60 places, religious selection applied

Non-Denom:

Beaver Road 10% FSMs - 354 applicants for 90 places, catchment of 0.403 miles
Broad Oak 15% FSMs - fully subscribed
Cavendish Primary 21% FSMs - 214 applicants for 90 places, catchment of 0.698 miles
Ladybarn 40% FSMs - 139 applicants for 60 places, catchment of 0.633 miles
Old Moat 53% FSMs - (barely) fully subscribed - no catchment

CofE:

Didsbury CofE 7% FSMs - 205 applicants for 30 places, religious selection applied
St Pauls CofE 18% FSMs 148 applicants for 45 places, 0.405 mile catchment

The 3 most popular schools (St Catherines, Beaver Road and Didsbury C of E) are respectively Catholic, non-denom and CofE, and are within 1/4 of a mile of each other, in Didsbury, with FSMs of 8%, 10% and 7%. So there are basically three middle-class schools to choose between.

The next-most popular school, Cavendish is in West Didsbury, just outside the catchment for the posh schools in Didsbury, and having some overlap with the other schools, which are all in Withington (except Broad Oak which is sort of on its own to the south of Didsbury).

Within Withington, the least deprived school is religiously selective (St Pauls).

But when you've got a split where half (sometimes more) the schools are religious, it isn't possible for all of them to be selective. Religious selection enables financial selection, but it's not inevitable. A RC school in the middle of Moss Side is not going to attract the children of millionaires.

What religious selection does allow an over-subscribed school to do is exclude the poor, with very high success. It doesn't enable an undersubscribed, failing school to suddenly attract lots of middle-class kids.

What sort of training are you thinking of for the failures children best suited to the secondary modern? there should be training available for everything, to forfill everyones potential

The bottom line is schools are failing in the UK stop pussy footing round about it, its a crisis.....

ALL schools should be excellent. The problem is the bad schools, there are too many of them, and when they are bad they are awful.

What sort of training are you thinking of for the failures children best suited to the secondary modern?

I think that sentence sums up EXACTLY why we have a problem with education in this country. Why on earth would you consider children who are not academic to be FAILURES? They're not failures at all, they are merely not academic. Being academic is not the be all and end all, and many tradesmen/craftsmen earn a damn sight more than those with degrees.

No wonder we have such a downer on skills based learning in this country.

My point exactly, stratters. If you can find a way of giving 10 year olds a test, sending the minority who get the highest marks off to one school where they will be prepared to be doctors and lawyers and the rest off to another school where they will be trained to be electricians and hairdressers without making the second lot feel as if they've failed, then you're a cleverer person than anyone who's tried to administer an 11+ exam yet!

When I consider how much money I had to pay to get my house rewired, I'm very tempted to force all my kids to become sparks. I'm not even slightly joking. Not the teensiest weeniest bit.

They'd be rubbish though. Well, the girls. Perhaps not DS.

There is a real market for tradeswomen-seriously. Women plumbers and so on can charge a premium.

However, tradespeople often earning more than professional people is another of those myths perpetuated by people trying to justify selective education. They don't, generally.

No wonder we have such a downer on skills based learning in this country yes and why people think if they dont get good grades its all over for them.

sending the minority who get the highest marks off to one school where they will be prepared to be doctors and lawyers

i want to send mine off to for fill her potential not to become doc or lawyer, unless she wants too and can get herself into uni without us funding her.

I think there is value in education without becoming a high earning accountant at the end of it.

Hak - I don't think our sparks earns more than me. I suspect he might earn more than the average in the sort of careers my girls are hoping to have. I'm not saying they would be rubbish electricians because they are girls, but because they are dyspraxic. I know that in some places (e.g. London) female tradespeople can command a real premium and also provide a socially useful service. I am also increasingly convinced that the real route to not just material comfort but psychological comfort and security is being able to work for oneself, running one's own business preferably without staff. Being a wage slave, even if the wage is 'high' and you have a sprauncey title, is not a happy position.

I should have listened to my mum. She wanted me to become a civil servant, do the fast track thing, 'because the pensions are REALLY good'. Oh how I laughed. I'm not laughing now.

This is unpopular on MN but I think grammars should be done away with, same with schools that select according to faith. State funded schools should be as equal as possible, grammars are unequal. There might be an equally bright child who cannot go to a grammar because of where they live. So, they miss out.

I can see your point, but the system should be set up so that those who do show a more academic potential at a later stage, can transfer to do GCSEs prior to options. Nobody is saying that it should be set in stone aged 10, it may be currently in some areas, but that doesn't mean it has to stay that way.

One of the main hurdles that needs to be overcome, is that there is this perceived sense of failure if one isn't academic. It shouldn't be that way.

BTW, having renovated 5 houses, and being currently in the middle of my 6th, I have a damn good idea of just how much tradespeople can earn. And it is certainly a lot more than the lower end of the academic scale, I'm not comparing with doctors/lawyers/etc, very few people show enough academic bent to be able to become those, the majority are in the middle/lower end.

We have to change the way skilled people are seen in society, until that happens there can't really be any move forward in the school system.

I am also increasingly convinced that the real route to not just material comfort but psychological comfort and security is being able to work for oneself, running one's own business preferably without staff. Being a wage slave, even if the wage is 'high' and you have a sprauncey title, is not a happy position

I wholeheartedly agree. Yet wage slaves are perceived to be 'better' than being a trades/craftsperson. It's wrong, we have our ideals upside down, and back to front. Why can't we value a carpenter, a plumber, an electrician as much as we can a librarian or bank clerk. I know what I'd rather be. People with skills, and I include nursing, the emergency services, and teaching staff in that, should be highly valued; far, far more highly valued than they currently are.

I always think raise the bar rather than dumb down, how many have missed out on grammer education?

bring them back, then work on secondaries and bringing all schools up to same standars...

"
"We have to change the way skilled people are seen in society"

Well, we're sure as hell not going to do that by segregating kids at 10.

Why not? It's pure prejudice that stops us from allowing children to go in that direction. And why 10, it doesn't have to stay at 10, there's an ideal second stage just before options, 12-13 would be a much better time.

All this talk of segregation, failures, etc is just perpetuating that prejudice. Why can't we value people for their talents, rather than just their academic ability?

Ok, here's a thought, mine have been through the middle school option; imo it's a great way to educate (as well as home schooling, but that's a whole other ballgame).

Let's move the age of selection to when they would leave middle school. And let's not assume that children who don't go down the academic route don't get a full education, it's perfectly possible to finish education with a skill set AND a decent level of education. But currently, we are stifling those who would be better learning a skill, and frankly there is absolutely no need for it. We don't need thousands and thousands of low level academic children leaving school every year, we DO need people with skills. And it's high time we started valuing those skills, rather than writing those children off as failures.

Can you point us at where it's often said on Mumsnet? Because for something that's often said and never questioned it's proving remarkably resistant to the charms of Advanced Search.

I don't think it particularly is, unless you venture onto the education boards which are a bloodbath, it's just they always turn into a bit of a bunfight, so they tend to stick in one's memory.

Personally, I love a good education thread, but then I have some very big axes to grind about our current system, which is shite imo.

Stratter5 I don't think you can really tell if a child is going to be a great electrician, plumber, surgeon or lawyer at 10.

Incidentally where I live they abandoned the middle school thing about 8 years ago and saw results across the board improve dramatically.

I do agree with you about thousands and thousands of low level academic qualifications though. We currently produce armies of potential lab technicians (will never be good enough at science to go on to be researchers, doctors, nuclear physicists, etc but probably have enough basic science qualifications to be a low paid lab technician). Why? There aren't physically enough jobs in science to take every single child educated in the state system. Yet every single child has to do double or triple science, and many of them miss out on additional languages, humanities or arts subjects that might serve them better in their eventual careers, that they might do better in exams in, and that they might enjoy more. Why?

"All this talk of segregation, failures, etc is just perpetuating that prejudice. Why can't we value people for their talents, rather than just their academic ability?"

I agree. But that's how selection at 11+ in this country has historically been seen- and how it is seen in the LEAs that retain it today. And I don't honestly see how it can be moved away from the language of failure and segregation.

And there is something a bit glib about the assumption that because somebody is not academic, they are automatically good with their hands- or that if they are academic they aren't. The whole point of a comprehensive school is that they are (or should be) flexible- you can be set I for maths and textiles, set 4 for French and PE.