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?

In Edinburgh, where I used to live, a house in the catchment of one of the considered 'good' secondaries was more than 3 times the price of one a little way away. I think the same is true in most of the UK, so yes I would say that rich people are more likely to have children at academically high-achieving state schools. I don't agree that these schools are that great, though, as often they have bullying problems and are full of snobby types.

Our daughter attends a selective school which has consistently been in the top five for final year results for at least a decade and in the top three frequently (there are only one or two private schools in the top ten). I would say that most of the families are at least middle class, not necessarily rich though. Many of the children received intensive tutoring to get a qualifying mark in the entrance exams in the first place or they, like our daughter, had a parent or grandparent at home to tutor/supervise them. Most still get some sort of tutoring once they start attending although the parents mostly see it as money they would have had to spend on private schools had their child not got in.

IMO, it's not really money at all which is the deciding factor - it's how much supervision and parental involvement ,or other family support, there has been after school during the primary years. If you have family A where both parents are out from 7 am until 7pm, have the kids in care after school but have three times the income of family B who have someone at home from 3pm who is taking their kids to extracurricular, supervising homework, and making them do some extra work it's more likely that the kids from family B will get the higher results unless the children from family A are exceptionally self-motivated (and of course some are). I think that's why many immigrant families have children who do so well because so many have a grandma/grandpa at home who used to be a professor in their own country and they get nutritious meals cooked at home as well.

Entrance exams are selective and divisive. They're really nothing to do with filtering children down the appropriate paths of academia v "skills" in their educational careers. THe point of them is to cream off those kids more likely to score high exam results and to leave the rest behind.
The reason that nurses, teachers, carpenters are not "valued" is that they don't bring in money for anyone. Off the top of my head the only "vocational" career ( as it were) that holds a decent wage potential is medicine. Certainly vet. Med.

Choice is a misnomer when applied to schools. There is very little. So many schools (especially Secondary) are crap. And having the money to live in, or move to, the catchment area of a good school does make a difference.

"rich" is such a subjective term.
We're about to move. We'll be buying a house as close to possible to a well performing school. I would definitely not describe us a as rich. But plenty of ppl who couldn't do this would, I'm sure. It's all relative.

But if alternative schools are good(which many are) I'm not sure re the leaving the rest behind argument.How does 2 out of a primary school class leave the rest behind.At our school more go to the alternative good comp(currently the in place with better facilities)instead of the catchment comp than the grammar.Both are good.Where other kids go is neither here nor there,all schools should be set least good regardless of who is in them.

And re catchment in areas of good schools they vary too.Many areas with amazing schools will have perfectly good alternatives and many will have affordable housing albeit shoe box size.People have different values.Many people wouldn't dream of squeezing into tiny houses,running old cars and not having a smart phone.Others would.

There are some extreme cases in some areas I'm sure but sorry saying all the best schools are monopolised by the rich(whatever that is) is ludicrous.

Obviously I haven't rtft because I wasn't aware that ppl were saying they all the best schools are monopolised by "the rich"

Not owning a smart phone won't enable you to buy a home (however modest) in a price-hiked "good school" catchment area if thats a lady out of your reach. It's a myth (own voiced by my baby boomer DM and her friends) that if ppl spent a little less on luxuries they'd be able to afford to live in the "right" area (or buy a home at all)

Op says all.

No not buying a smartphone won't buy you a house in an expensive area but paying for a bigger mortgage or rent for less and economising elsewhere to live in a more expensive area will give you more choice re catchment.Many non rich people do this,never go on holiday and scrimp.

It would certainly give you more cash for tutoring.

We still haven't ascertained exactly what "rich" is or the "best" schools?Considering there are very few what I call rich (those that can afford £15 k per year per child on private education in my book which may not be everybody's view) the statement in the op just doesn't make sense.

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.

*toatlly agree with this when I was choosing a high school for my son all the mums were talking about schools ECt as you do you would be surprised how many mum were simply sending there child to the nearest school with out regard to weather it was actually any good , shocked how many parents did nil to know research on the schools and I pretty much saw no one on the induction evenings from my sons school I went to to every local one to get a blanced view.

Also on another note thinking of really deprived children I work In social care and have noticed that some parents activly choose the worst school because of the lack luster attitude of your a parent who carers not if you child is at school or not why would you send then to the outstanding school who will ring and bug you about your child attendance when they can go to the sink school were no one cares were they are and more over are relived they are not in.

Homework not being given out
Attendence not being checked ECt suits some parents just fine a lot of the neglect I see would have been discovered much early on if the children were attending another type of school as they hold pupils and parents to a high standard but many is simply don't want to be held to that standard

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

No I wouldn't.

"the outstanding school who will ring and bug you about your child attendance when they can go to the sink school were no one cares were they are and more over are relived they are not in."

Really? Schools where nobody cares about attendance? Now that I don't believe!

The fisher I agree.We live in a professional area(housing ranges from very cheap to pricey),loads of teachers and within distance(just about) of the best state school in the country.Nobody sends their kids there.It would be just about doable.A couple may go for the alternative grammar but not many,most prefer the ease of the other two comp options.And these are kids with doctors/ teachers other professionals etc as parents.

And what is the "best"? Both of our Good schools have weaknesses in some deps looking at exam results. Neither are perfect.The grammars that a very few go for also have their own weaknesses.

Where are these perfect schools?

Haven't read the whole thread and am about to go out, so a quick contribution: London schools are now doing better than average, even in deprived areas, and this seems to be down to a concerted effort to raise standards in those schools through the London Challenge.

I think there are quite a few good schools that have a relatively non-affluent intake - they might not be getting kids into Oxbridge, but they are providing a good environment and doing well by them. That's more anecdotal though, through speaking to friends who are teachers.

My own DD went to a very good state primary where there were a lot of kids from poorer families, but some of the teachers were absolutely fantastic. We thought ourselves very fortunate. It was the sort of school that was shunned by better-off families because they couldn't believe how good it was.

Retro - there are a few people from where you live and beyond at that school, actually. Not many obviously. But there's not many from any one place.

Obviously there are nearly as many definitions of best as there are people who give a moment to think about the issue. The best school for a child with SEN issues may have different qualities than the best school for a child without similar issues. The best school for a child with a particular talent or interest may not be the best school for a child with different interests - and so on. DD1's school would be dreadful forDS. DSs school would be dreadful for either of the DDs. Neither school is a bad school because of this.

It's down to MONEY. Pure and simple. 9 London boroughs get more than £6k per child, 1 gets more than £7k. Where retro and I live, schools get £4k per child.

And money again comes into it when you're talking about parental involvement. mini is absolutely right when she talks about that - thing is, having someone at home every day after school generally requires one parent to be earning a decent salary (or to have low outgoings - a tiny mortgage, say).

We kind of manage it through luck - we work flexible hours and are able to be home by 5. At primary, we used after school care twice a week and were able to share pick up on the other days. We were fairly fortunate, Tbh.

Having said that, I don't see any difference at all in the achievement of ds compared to friends with sahps, bar two exceptions - one who is acing everything and another who is the exact opposite (chicken and egg maybe, but this child stayed home for a sniffle, which just wouldn't have happened had both parents been at work in the day - now in his teens he is pretty casual about school attendance which I suspect is related). I suppose it's impossible to measure though on an individual basis.

Obviously the sniffle thing wasn't a one off!

Johnny really what about those unemployed who must be the poorest,part time workers which many second earners are,flexi hours and tax credits?

And yes re the staying at home for sniffles.I am a sahp and ruthless,not all of us are bored housewives desperate for the company of our dc.

By the time I've got my bickering trio out of the house with their assorted crap I'm quite glad to see the back of them.

And given that London has such high achievement in an area where the maj must have two wp sorry I don't see having a sahp is an excuse re parental involvement.

Parental involvement is influenced by attitude not money,the high achievement of many poor ethnic groups illustrates that.

DH has a tendency to keep kids off school for what I consider trivial reasons. This is rooted in the fact that he had polio as a kid, and after that his parents had that attitude towards him (which I suppose I can understand). I'd send the kids to school with blood pouring out of the stump of the arm that was just cut off by a thresher, me. However that can backfire - Dd1 was rushed to hospital with suspected appendicitis two weeks ago (it turned out not to be that but it was something real not nothing) a day after I'd given her a big old talk on manning up and not staying off school every time she had a slightly dodgy tum (I was away at the time, for work, overseas, but I could tell over the phone she was fine really...oops). Will I change my attitude in the future? Probably not. But he won't change his either. Sigh.

I've had the cats bum face when I've had to go back to collect ill kids more times than I care to remember.You can't win.

I've been house hunting in the South East and can tell you that there is a marked price difference in the price of v similar houses depending on whether they are close enough to the "good" school. A few streets further away and the prices plummet - at a macro level this is certainly favouring those with deeper pockets.

It's not really like that where I live now. Our local primary is outstanding but a sizeable minority won't use it because their perception is that the catchment isn't mc enough. Lots of people actively want their children to go to the local school from the community aspect of it though too.

My old primary school was rated outstanding last year - it's in a very working class area - so I'd be v surprised if the rich are dominating that school.

So while I don't think it's true for all schools, it's definitely true in some areas.

"No not buying a smartphone won't buy you a house in an expensive area but paying for a bigger mortgage or rent for less and economising elsewhere to live in a more expensive area will give you more choice re catchment.Many non rich people do this,never go on holiday and scrimp.It would certainly give you more cash for tutoring."

Do you realise how terribly middle class you sound?! Many people are living hand to mouth. You have no idea.

Quite myfairyking
And a SAHP too.
Just about scraping by?

Money isn't everything.

But it's not far from it. It makes a huge difference.

Thefishewife

agree but how sad...all schools have duty of care to notice whats going on with children,,