For anyone who still thinks that access to selective state education is a level playing field.....

[curlew]

I have just read the latest OfSTED for my dd's grammar school.

There are no children in Year 7 who are eligible for FSM. None. Not one.

Caro, I don't think that entirely true seeing as the opening post did not say anything about being in a fully selective area. Curlew didn't state that she was in a fully selective area until she was asked, which is fine, but the line 'For anyone who still thinks access to selective state education is a level playing field' does nothing to suggest that we are only talking about fully section areas. It suggests we are talking about any type of selective state education, whether that be grammar, super selective grammar, or faith criteria.

But yes, in some areas people do move closer to a school - but it is as likely to be to avoid a demographic as for the actual education or educational success. Thus creating ghettoes both of overheated house prices and underachieving schools.

In S London there are many comps which achieve very highly, have a very inclusive demographic and are in areas of downbeat housing and house prices (for London).

So the panic in polarising the school population is unnecessary.

Pmsl because we can all afford to live in London where more is spent on each child than anywhere else.

Yeah many parents in the inner cities nobody gives a shit about would love a place in some of these shiny new academies the Tories love to big up.

I agree that successful schools push house prices up. It is very definitely a fact in this area.

That's why I said earlier in the thread that if grammar schools didn't exist, there would still be massive inequality in access to state education.

Most parents could sooner move to the moon than London.

"It's not a different debate though, because as I pointed out yesterday, these MN grammar school threads don't differentiate between grammar schools in fully selective areas and grammar schools that are the only school of their type in an area."

Sorry- I thought this thread was differentiating. Could we assume that from now on it does? Because the argument for/against super selectives is a very different one from the argument for/against a wholly selective syste,

WooWoo- well it has been cleared up since. As you point out. It is a long thread. And interminably repetitive if we don't absorb the point and move on.

London "downbeat housing" is likely to be vastly more expensive than the poshest houses in many areas.

London the place where huge percentages of children are tutored,which gets more state money per child and has a huge number of pushy immigrant families which all help to push standards up.

Not really comparing like for like are we.

If this thread is only about schools in fully selective areas, then I am more likely to feel less need to defend grammar schools. But I genuinely did not get the differentiation, especially after your posts (curlew) about 'juggling' schools. That made me think we were talking about any school that requires parents to jump through hoops.

So, moving on, I agree then that there are massive problems with a fully selective system, and I wouldn't want to live in one. But at the same time, I'd have thought that access to grammar schools in those areas was easier for children on FSMs because the percentage of children that get a GS place is much higher, and at least some preparation is done at primary schools.

No, not like for like, but the point is (one of the points, perhaps) is that inner London does present a model where there cannot be a house-price ghetto because within 50m of ordinary yet ludicrously expensive terrace houses or 20s semis there will be a high density council estate. And in the density of London housing there will be a high ratio of social housing. (perhaps this accounts for the high average spend per capita?) and I live in a borough with very high overall levels of deprivation.

Within this model it is the case that in schools with a very mixed demography can be very high achieving. Good schools. Despite having many of the families LaQueen etc wish to avoid. So why in suburban areas to people flock to avoid schools where there is more of a mix of pupils? Thus creating more of a polarisation? And driving house prices up?

Even in catchments where the intake is almost exclusively from highly disadvantaged housing, the schools and the results can be very good. Look at Platanos college, formerly the feared Stockwell park School. And house prices do not correlate to school desirability: house prices in Brixton are way more expensive than in Streatham or Lewisham , but the schools in Streatham and comparable areas of Lewisham are far more sought after and oversubscribed than the Brixton secondary.

The model of schooling within mixed ability, and a hugely mixed demography, and achieving good results for all, is successful in London. And could be elsewhere. But people fear it, and move to an expensive catchment, or seek selective schooling.

Not all schools in S London are good or desirable, of course. But that isn't inherently due to the mix of pupils.

So why in suburban areas to people flock to avoid schools where there is more of a mix of pupils?

It seems to be a self perpetuating viscous circle. I'm in the Home Counties, where areas as divided more clearly than they are in London. Smaller towns and villages are separated by fields, so you don't get affluent families in the same catchment areas deprived families. Where it does happen, the low income families are in the small amount of council/HA accommodation that is left over after the majority has been purchased privately. So the families that are seen as being actively engaged in their children's education massively outweigh those that aren't, and results can still be high.

In the cities and large towns where there is a larger amount of socio economic diversity within a smaller area, there are also a lot of private schools and children that travel to the grammars.

You can't compare London to the rest of the UK.

The Spectator lists the reasons London schools do so well in it's article Why Are London Schools So Good?.When you also factor in how much more per child is spent on London kids and teacher quality(London salaries are higher so attracts good teachers)which has the biggest impact on standards you can see why comparing a London school to one in say the arse end of Nottingham is pointless.

I live in a selective school area, and with very few exceptions, the only children that get into grammar are those who either go to private prep schools, or whose parents are wealthy enough to pay for private tuition. Fortunately I have an outstanding academy on my doorstep. My eldest has mild special needs and finds pressure really difficult to cope with. Whilst she could have passed, she chose not to sit the 11+ a) because of the constant pressure at grammar schools and b) because the only grammar schools nearby are single sex, and she is a tomboy!. She started at secondary school in September, and is happy and thriving. Admission to grammar schools certainly isn't a level playing field, but then if there are good non-selective schools, it isn't the end of the world if they don't get in.

This whole thread misses the point that the majority of those on FSM in the Comp system are not making expected progress.

So all those of you banging on about how great your local Comp is, it really ain't that good.

Stop bashing the Grammars for their lack of FSM kids and focus your energies on the Comps and what they should be doing with theirs.

Exactly Pickled and the same goes for Primaries.

Those on FSM in ANY system! But this thread is about their lack of access to grammars in the very system that is supposed to offer a 'leg up' to intelligent but disadvantaged children!

Retro - not sure about London being attractive to top teachers given the terrible house prices, though!

I do agree that the geographical separation of different communities in rural and suburban areas creates s different dynamic in the catchments, but yes, Woo - the self perpetuating vicious circle is exactly what I am talking about.

I know London can't be compared to other areas - what I am saying is the London circumstance demonstrates that in principle mixed ability mixed demography schooling can and is a very successful model.

And within the DC comp and neighbouring comps the gap between pupils on FSM and others is far smaller than the national average and children on FSM are doing well. Not the case in all London comps, of course. But in lots. So another possible plus for mixed ability, mixed everything schooling.

And I do care about what happens to less academically able children than mine. It affects everything from social cohesion to my future state pension - ha ha!

There is no Grammar system.

There are a few GSs hanging on, that's it.

Even in Kent, those schools that aren't GSs are not Secondary Moderns in the old correct sense of the definition; nothing to do with being 'missing a top set' and everything to do with providing an alternative but equally valuable non-academic education.

The closest I can think of to a 'real' GS system is in Northern Ireland and the outcomes are pretty good. DC there do better academically on the whole than DC in GB (surprising when you think of that against the backdrop of 'The Troubles').

There has been research showing better academic achievement for all in grammar areas.

"Even in Kent, those schools that aren't GSs are not Secondary Moderns in the old correct sense of the definition; nothing to do with being 'missing a top set' and everything to do with providing an alternative but equally valuable non-academic education."

This is not actually true.

As stated in a similar thread, the Sutton Trust found earlier this year that the top 500 comprehensives (out of 3000 secondaries) are "more socially exclusive", "teach fewer than half the national average proportion of children eligible for free school meals" and very often didn't even represent "their own local authority area." "These schools open the door to social mobility. Yet the bottom line is that how good a school you go to depends on your parents' income." The Trust pointed out that covert selection was taking place either by catchment area or faith and that 106 of the schools in the top 500 had fewer than 3% on fsm. The Sutton Trust recommended introducing lotteries with banding for school allocation - hands up for that one!

"There has been research showing better academic achievement for all in grammar areas."

Has there? I thought that there was no actual evidence that a grammar system produced any overall benefit - I have seen it asked for on other MN threads.

And London isn't your typical mixed demography schooling as the Spectator points out.

Leaving aside that the vast maj can't afford to live there(presume that will get worse with the bedroom tax) there is the Rat Race, American Dream,second generation immigrant effect.

It is a world away from your average inner city elsewhere in the country.

"The Sutton Trust recommended introducing lotteries with banding for school allocation - hands up for that one!"

I think banding is good as it prevents the some of the ghettoisation mentioned before. Parents can be assured that there will be a group of children as the same ability as their own.

less sure about lotteries per se. In our area we do have a genuine choice of comp and people choose according to the style of school that suits their DC. This is even more relevant as Academies and free schools widen the diversity of types of school - being in a lottery for a bilingual school, against a technology college, for example, where parents will have a strong sense about which is for their children.