Not one pupil in Knowsley went to Oxbridge last year and only 2% went to RG universities.

[thebestisyettocome]

In adjoining areas, Sefton and Halton, admission to Oxbridge was also 0%.

I'm really angry about this. No wonder people who can afford to send their children to private school.

41% of pupils in Knowsley went to university
No they did not

140 children from the LEA went on to a Higher Education Institution.
1600 in the GCSE cohort
that is 8%
National average is around 40%

"What do they need history for?"

Birkdale man AJP Taylor must be spinning in his grave...

This is an utter fucking disgrace. I was born and raised in a borough adjacent to Knowsley and I know the area well. In fact, the area that I grew up in faces many of the same problems as Knowsley. I know from travelling and working around the UK that these problems are common to many of the poorest areas of our country.

I refuse to believe that these kids aren't, on average, as smart as kids from elsewhere. The stats show that shit schools are endemic and that worklessness is a problem. These two facts taken together create a vicious amplifying effect. These kids are often undereducated and then simply dumped onto the dole queue. There are no obvious routes out of poverty, and no academic role models to follow - even if there were, there are no jobs to employ a smart mind.

This affects aspirations - why believe that you can rise to the top if you can't even see what the 'top' looks like. Before you know it, there is another generation facing the same problems.

Speaking from experience, the only future is to get out, leave home and try and find work (and a better life) elsewhere. This in turn though, reinforces the problem for those that don't make the break for whatever reason and they end up living in a twilight world of those that are left behind. I was fortunate to be able to use going to university (before tuition fees I must add) to provide me with a 'soft landing' in another part of the country ? it remains the best thing I?ve ever done.

The annoying thing is that I think that this problem is fixable - at least it is for some. Reintroducing grammar schools would give a lifeline to intelligent children from poor areas. It would give them a chance of a good education. It would raise ambitions. It could give hope. I know many people see grammars as elitist and that it's only the lucky 25% or so that get a good education, but the fact is that the comprehensive system, as practiced in Knowsley, is failing 100% of our children. Anything has to be better than that.

Cecily. To be honest I'm not so stupid I blindly accept any old rubbish headline but having read the entire article (which was in today's Echo and very measured and non-sensationalist in it's tone) which I am pretty certain you haven't, I strongly believe there is a problem.

Not according to the table linked to in your other thread. It says that 41% when to university. 38% to other universities and 2% to RG. There must be some rounding down of the figures as that doesnt quite add up, but it says that none the less.

I lived in Knowsely, but went to a school in a neighboring LA and ended up going to a RG university (far too long ago to feature in the stats though ).

In my case, the main reason for going to a school in a neighboring LA was that we had only just moved into Knowsley (and only just over the boarder) before I started secondary, and I was at a feeder primary. I certainaly wasn't alone in travelling out of the borough though and there was also very limited academic post-16 provision as others have identified.

The fact that there are few educational establishments providing A levels may on the surface explain these figures but surely the question needs to be asked as to why there is such little provision.

Don't know about Knowsely, but I went to school in Sefton (Merchant Taylors') and in my year 7 girls went on to Oxbridge and loads of others to RG. There were a similar number, more I think, from the Boys' school.

I don't think there has been any decline in academic standards at that school so I can't believe the Sefton 0% thing.

Vaga
you are misreading your stats
on the KS4 table it show 1600 pupils of whom 75% stayed in education including 15% entering 6th form
on the KS5 table it shows 370 pupils of whom 150 went to Uni
BUT
that means from the starting point of 1600, the number going to uni was low

Stats need to be read with a close eye on the basis points.

EBD
Is Merchant Taylors' a state school as these are ONLY state school stats

Should also add that the area I went to school in is also pretty deprived, but has a couple of schools that produce pretty good results. In my year, there were four who went to Oxbridge and quite a few more of us who went to RG univeristies. We weren't a particularly unusual year for the school either.

The area overall is perhaps a little more mixed than Knowsley with maybe one or two more affluent parts, but there are also places where there is real poverty. There are still far too many children in both areas who probably don't get the chance to fulfil their potential, but it does seem wrong that there should be such a difference in opportunity just because you live a few miles down the road (although Merseyside is far from unique in this I know).

Oh no, sorry, it is private. As you were.

Just thought I'd add a bit of info, as there are lots of people guessing about whether there are schools in neighbouring areas which affect the stats.
I went to a huge 6th form college a few miles from knowsley on the edge of st helens (carmel college.) There were plenty of students from knowsley there, also students from halton. I'm pretty sure the school busses went to both places so that helped with transport issues.
When I went there, plenty of students went to oxbridge and RG uni's. Obviously this could have changed by now but it may explain where all those missing knowsley students are!

And with the withdrawal of EMA and school transport there may not be children in more deprived areas who will be able to afford to travel far

Haven't read the whole thread but wanted to make the point that although these figures are depressing we should acknowledge that there are often positive or at least practical reasons why students, particularly from working class backgrounds, choose not to apply to Oxbridge:

1.) They wish to stay at home to save money
2.) They do not like the very traditional courses offered by Oxbridge and RG universities

It is also the case that they are less likely to choose 'facilitating subjects' at GCSE and A Level and less likely to get the necessary grades to be even considered for Oxbridge.

Going back to the KS5 statistics. It states that 38% of children went to university and 2% went to RG. That doesnt add up to 41%, so could they have rounded down the percentage that went to Oxbridge, from maybe 0.4?

I dont know much about statistics, and I have a horrible chest infection so not on top form today.

Vaga
I'll swap your chest infection for my Norovirus - lots of lying flat reading tables on the Dfe website (that and I am a spreadsheet geek!)
and yes, in the notes it says rounding is crude to stop children being identifiable ...

fivecandles
and your second point is one of the few REALLY good things Gove has done - he's brought into the open the poor choices given to kids at some schools, made the RG publicise their naughty list of courses and I suspect in four to five years (when current year 9's are starting Uni) the disparity will have got much better

But it WILL take years because the kids sitting A's this summer chose their GCSE's when Tony Bliar was still Prime Minister.

Its a done deal - at least I might lose a bit of weight :o

Why might a high-ability kid from a working class family "not like the very traditional courses offered by Oxbridge and RG universities"?

Has someone told them they're not good enough? That people like them don't become doctors and engineers and managers?

Or is it their natural sense of rhythm that makes them choose media studies over engineering?

And why might they be 'less likely to choose 'facilitating subjects' at GCSE and A Level and less likely to get the necessary grades to be even considered for Oxbridge?'
Because no one takes the trouble to explain to them that there is such a thing as facilitating courses perhaps? And we're back to the old chestnut of schools pishing 'soft' subjects to jack up their position in the league tables.

Pishing? Pushing!

Serial
Because a lot of former blue collar families do not "get" learning for learning sake.
They think if you do engineering you'll become an engineer.
Rather than doing a degree that teaches you how to learn, think and be analytical and then go for a graduate job in any sort of business.

Out of my cohort of Uni people, very very few of us stayed with our degree subject as that is not the point of a degree at a top uni, unless you want to get into research.

and the CBI do not help with the shite they come out with about "relevant" qualifications, when few of them have them ....

Oh sheesh, Oxbridge is not the Be All and End All.
There was a girl in local paper who had an offer to do a course at Cambridge; she chose a Scottish Uni instead because she liked the design of the course better; it suited her long-term ambitions better. Oxbridge and even RG are so fucking Not Everything Is Better.

Don't forget some of the tables are pupil numbers, and some are %. Small numbers are omitted to protect students identities.

So for Oxbridge, any LEA with up to 0.49% will show as zero, although some students and you will not find them in the schools data as the minimum number to show is 10.

So it is possible that there are pupils in Knowsley that went to Oxbridge, but they do not show in the stats.

Not yet read the whole thread. Just some thoughts.

Why do they not include 1994 Group universities in the stats? 3 of the top ten universities are 1994 group.

My LA (Stoke) probably has similar figures to Knowsley - a good % of our students go over the border to Staffs for A Levels.

I'm sure deprivation has an effect, despite the widening participation guff. dd had offers for 3 RG/1994 group but has chosen to go local due to cost.

Will go off to read thread

But Talkin, that might explain why they don't choose Eng Lit, but not why they wouldn't choose engineering as a degree.

In fact, I seem to remember the decision at my comp being between university or not university, with subject being a secondary consideration. So I'm struggling to see "availability of subjects at RG universities" as a key factor with high-ability students.

I completely agree with you and others that this is at least as much about bum steers from the schools in terms of "facilitating courses" and value of degrees (especially now one has to get to grips with different institutions being apparently differently valuable - a change from the comparative equality of degrees in my day).