To think the article on page 21 of The Times this morning 'The Towns where clever pupils fail if they are poor' proves selective education can help poor children.

[smokepole]

This is a continual ongoing debate on this site, about selective education 'the rights and wrongs of it'. However, the Sutton Trust recent survey has shown some interesting findings , regarding % of disadvantaged sixth form students gaining entry to 'selective' Universities from selective towns and non selective towns. Altrincham and Sale (Fully Selective towns 44% of disadvantaged sixth form students , went to the most sought after Universities. This is in contrast to similarly 'disadvantaged' sixth form students from Newcastle of just 4%.

This shows that grammar schools are able to push/help disadvantaged students, in to achieving higher grades and 'aspiration' than from Comprehensive/College type sixth forms.

This is a important statistic in showing that, a lot of the ground work in helping these disadvantaged students attain 'great' grades is done in the first three years of a 'selective' school.

I am going to say something that will upset a few people (surprise).

In life you are like the 'company you keep' therefore by going to a grammar/selective school , you are with the people you aspire to be with throughout your life.

I still don't know why you're so obsessed by this issue. Grammar schools aren't beneficial for everyone by any means.

I don't read the Times since it went behind a pay wall.

Altrincham and Sale are far from disadvantaged. They are considered 'naice' areas to live in manchester and the house prices reflect this.

When you say disadvantaged, do you mean children on FSMs? Because they aren't the same thing.

You'll probably know from the continuing ongoing debate that you mention that I'm a supporter of selective schools, although not neccesarily of fully selective systems. But wouldn't the argument to your point be that the grammar schools can only help 'disadvantaged' students if they are able to access them in the first place?

You really are obsessed with schools and universities op! I just knew before I read your full post what it is about.

"Disadvantaged" students are disadvantaged wherever they live !.

A free school meal pupil in Altrincham is no 'richer than a free school meal pupil in Newcastle..

It is not a case of how 'wealthy' the town they live in is , it is how you help 'poor' students from any town achieve.

Any debate about selective education is meaningless provided that private schools continue to exist. If there was only one type of school and every child had to attend it, with no exceptions. That would be an interesting proposition.

The current debate is whether or not the remaining 160 odd grammar schools should be closed. Well, no. They provide a good education.

But if your point is that in life you aspire to be like the company you keep, then surely it does make a difference if the disadvantaged child is disadvantaged in a wealthy area or a deprived area.

With that in mind, how can we tell whether it's the grammar school that made the difference, or if it was the attitudes of the majority of neighbours, primary school friends, families at clubs like brownies or scouts etc?

I think it's extremely unlikely that anyone would receive an excellent education simply from living in the same street as well educated people. (Apart from being led into a life of crime) what the neighbours are like, I suspect, has virtually nothing to do with it.

No, but it's not just about recieveibg an excellent education, it's about aspiration and attitudes.

The OPs point was that in life, you are like the company you keep. Assuming that is true, then the majority of people surrounding a child who is on FSMs are going to have an impact, whether they are well educated and highly aspirational, or are dysfunctional, uneducated and unemployed.

But if it's a matter of the company you keep, surely the disadvantaged will stand a better chance if they live in naice areas with comprehensive schools - just because they will all stand a reasonable chance of growing up with naice children; whereas in selective areas those that don't make it to grammar school are less likely to be with the "right" aspirational, naice peers.

I think hanging around on street corners, kicking cans and drinking cider can be the root of all evil, yes. But, if were concerned about lovely, lovely neighbourhoods with leafy trees, blackbirds and engaging teachers, then it's not enough. Because none of those things determines whether you'll get a PhD in physics or will break into your neighbour's caravan and spend a year in detention. And the things which do determine it have nothing to do with a Miss Marple style village green, a red telephone box and a grammar school.