Selective school does good job

London state school secures 41 Oxbridge offers

We can write Polly’s article for her now, can’t we?

The point though being:

The sixth form, which is oversubscribed, annually accepts 300 students, who are interviewed before being offered a place.

Selective school has good results.

And?

12 comments on “Selective school does good job

  1. Cherry pick the brightest, most ambitious students from among the London ethnic-minority diaspora, classify the kids as deprived and throw buckets of money at the enterprise, employing the brightest and best of our teachers (Oxbridge graduates). Of course it will succeed. I imagine there ain’t enough money in the world that would persuade similar quality staff to relocate to Grimsby or Stoke. I don’t begrudge the kids their success and wish them all the best, but it comes at a cost – three times the per pupil funding of here in the South West.

  2. @ Bernie G
    There is no “off course” about it. ILEA managed to ruin the education of millions of kids despite the tsunami of cash it spent and hiring lots of good teachers.
    OTOH Manchester Grammar – before Tony Crosland decided to destroy the chance for a bright working-class kid to get a good education – sent more boys to Oxford than Eton did.
    I think Brampton deserves congratulations because it is giving a chance to poor refugees – the Head and/or Governors are trying to do some good and succeeding.
    The statistics – one in 12 last year and just under one in 7 given a conditional place so perhaps one in 9 this year are impressive but not record-breaking – my school used to do better (it quite possibly still does, but I have stopped reading the self-adulatory stuff it sends out with begging letters to old boys).

  3. The Great School Scam is laid bare

    Note how the mainstream media have almost entirely ignored a new and devastating report about our few remaining grammar schools.

    The survey of evidence, by the Higher Education Policy Institute, destroys a number of favourite claims by the comprehensive lobby.

    Here is what it says. Areas which have academically selective schools are far better than comprehensive areas at getting state school pupils into Oxbridge and top universities.

    For example, England’s tiny few 163 surviving grammars send more black and minority ethnic pupils to Cambridge University than all England’s 1,849 comprehensive schools combined.

    By using a more realistic definition of low-income than the ‘free school meals’ test usually applied, the report also shows that any pupil from a less well-off home is far more likely to get into a good university from a grammar school than from a comprehensive.

    The huge ‘attainment gap’ between pupils from poorer and better-off homes, a real problem in this country’s schools, is almost eliminated in grammar schools.

    And, by the way, even despite the siege of grammar schools by middle-class parents trying to get their children into good schools without paying fees, 45 per cent of grammar school pupils come from households below the median income level.

    At every turn, this document makes nonsense of the education industry’s continued dogged defence of the failed comprehensive experiment.

    I have to keep asking why our Establishment is so blind to the blazingly obvious, and why this terrible mistake, which hurt the country as well as destroying the hopes of millions, is not put right.

    Gov’t should stop meddling and prohibiting – allow new Grammar Schools to open and see if they attract pupils.

  4. @ Pcar
    Thanks – good to have some quotable evidence (mustn’t mention the Daily Wail, remember to reference the HEPI ).
    It’s totally bloody obvious of course but the lefties will deny it so it helps to have some data to tell neutrals/apathetics.

  5. @ Chris
    Thanks
    Peter Hutchens missed a key when typing. The Grammar Schools don’t just send more BME kids to Oxbridge – the 163 Grammar schools send THIRTY % more BME kids to Oxbridge than the 1849 Comps (which are usually bigger and have far more BME kids in their catchment areas as – apart from Hindus and Chinese – most BME parents unwisely vote Labour)

  6. Hmm. Looks heavily cherry picked, and we need some numbers about “rivals the admission rate if top private schools”.

    And as for taking stats at Borough Level… reminds me of Sir Robin Wales decarling the while of Newham an area of Housing Market Failure to get his landlord licensing through.

    Are there any deliberate discrimination measures in place by Oxbridge at present?

    My top-ish (but provincial therefore ignored by the metro-tosser demographic who write the media 😮 ) Headmasters Conference indy school sent about 35 from 110 to Oxbridge back in the mid-1980s in my year.

  7. School makes very little difference to pupils. All this talk of “best schools”. It’s nearly all about the kids and the parents. It’s nearly all a correlation.

    Ofsted tracks variation in improvement. They know where kids are at when they leave primary and where they should be when they leave secondary. A good school will be one where the score is higher. Based on the raw material, they delivered better than that child was expected to do.

    The variation in school improvement in most places is somewhere between -0.5 and +0.5. Occassionally schools will score over +1.

    On the other hand, the variations of end scores is something around 25 points in a town. So the best schools in your town are getting around 4-5% better results than the worst. That’s all the difference a “good school” makes.

    This school scores 1.18. It is an exceptionally good school. No doubt. But if the school had been crap, it still would have delivered much better results than the average in Newnham just because of the kids they got.

  8. School makes very little difference to pupils. All this talk of “best schools”. It’s nearly all about the kids and the parents. It’s nearly all a correlation.

    Largely true, but wrong in a couple of specific instances.

    You don’t get into top programs if you don’t enter. While a top school might not educate better overall, if your school doesn’t have an Oxbridge entry stream, then you are massively disadvantaged over one that does.

    The big advantage of selective schools is not the better education as such, it is that they track the students better for the top universities and set up entirely different expectations for their pupils.

    Very poor schools don’t disadvantage very bright students because the parents of very bright students will ensure that they live somewhere with a better school. I did this myself — when we bought our house we had our number one criteria the school zone. I would have preferred to live in another suburb, but it had the worst school, so it was a non-starter.

    That doesn’t mean poor schools don’t educate poorly. They simply don’t get the chance to show that they would ruin the education of the brightest and hardest working.

  9. But…. isn’t SIxth Form automatically selective? You’ve got to have actually got a clutch of ‘O’ levels before being allowed to do ‘A’ levels.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.