Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Eleven Plus (11+) in Surrey (Sutton, Kingston and Wandsworth)

Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators

11 Plus Platform - Online Practice Makes Perfect - Try Now
Okanagan
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:20 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by Okanagan »

twelveminus wrote:The national stats for England show 36.4% of FSM kids get 5 good GCSEs, and 62.8% of non-FSM. In other, words non-FSM kids are 1.72 times more likely than FSM kids to get 5 good GCSEs.

In grammar school areas the stats are:

Kent 31.3% vs 64.7%
Bucks 29.6% vs. 72.2%
Lincs 32.4% vs 64.7%

In other words grammar schools damage the prospects of the poorest kids, since FSM kids in these areas are far less likely to get 5 good GCSEs relative to their peers than the national average.
But (working on the 2010/11 data)
Birmingham (which is also a grammar area) 44.1% vs 65.2%
despite over 33% of all Birmingham pupils being eligible for FSM (compared to 5% in Bucks, 6.5% in Kent and 8.5% in Lincs) so clearly there are other factors at play. At a glance it looks like there could be some correlation between the prevelance of FSM and the outcome for those pupils. Take the London Borough of Newham for example - almost 38% FSM, but outcomes are 51.4% vs 62.8% - a high proportion of FSM, and a better than average outcome for those pupils. It is in the areas which FSM is very much the minority that outcomes are worse for this group - quite probably totally independent of the prescence or otherwise of grammar schools.
twelveminus
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by twelveminus »

Yes quite possibly. However one thing that is clear is that the underrepresentation of FSM kids at grammar schools is out of proprortion to their performance at GCSE. In other words, while most FSM children do not perform well in school exams, many do, but most of these do not make it to grammar school.

In Kent, for example, 31.3% of FSM children get 5 good GCSEs.

The 3 grammar schools with in 5 miles of Margate scored 84%, 82% and 92% of children getting 5 good GCSEs.

According to the DFE data, schools in Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate had 1219 pupils of GCSE age. Of these, around 236, or 19%, would be on FSMs.

Since 5 A*-Cs is 'good' at this type of grammar school (at a super-selective of course they are expecting more like 10 A*-A!), then based on the relative performance of FSM and non-FSM children in Kent, these grammar schools should be 9.4% FSM children (and maybe slightly higher than that, since, as noted, only around 82% got 5 good GCSEs at some of these grammar schools). The actual figure is 5.4%, so roughly speaking there are half as many FSM children at these grammars as there should be, based on their eventual performance at GCSE.
panicattack
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:28 pm

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by panicattack »

It's quite an ingenious argument that a catchment around the Tiffin Schools would help the poorer sections of society! Whenever catchment is discussed for TGS, it's conveniently forgotten that it's right to the North of the borough. Very close to Richmond Borough, in fact. Draw a circle of just a few miles around TGS and you'd be capturing Ham, Petersham, Teddington, Richmond, East Sheen, Hampton, Surbiton, and Kingston itself. Also, lots of parkland!

Of course, there would be pockets of poorer areas (as there are even in places like Kensington and Chelsea) but overall, it's a very prosperous part of the country. The choice of full and pretty expensive indies as well in the area eg. LEH, KGS, Surbiton, Hampton does not suggest one of the more socially deprived areas.
tiffinboys
Posts: 8022
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:00 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by tiffinboys »

The comments from panicattack are even more brilliant. So now Tiifins should not have catchment/distance policy because

1. Wider area is prosperous (!!).
2. There are many independent schools in the wider area (affodability doesn't count !!).
3. House prices will go up.
4. Poor children do not apply/don't pass the entrance tests.

As if these same factors are not present in other 162 grammar school areas.

Basically, the opposition is for the sake of keeping Tiffins open for their children, even if they live very far off or some even in the vicinity of other grammar school. Other grammars have catchment/distance rules and one can't do any thing about it, so atleast Tiffins must be the open selective. Vow, fantastic logic. :oops: :oops:
twelveminus
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by twelveminus »

We seem to be going round in circles here.

Apparently wanting to be able to apply to Tiffins is selfish, but not wanting other people to be able to apply so that your own child has a better chance is perfectly ok because that's what the do in Bucks, Kent <insert example here>.

Cue the next news story with a tenuous link to selective schools and the same arguments all over again I think.
tiffinboys
Posts: 8022
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:00 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by tiffinboys »

Agreed, we are likely to go round circles.

It is okay for other grammars to have catchment. But asking for the same here is selfish and looking after the interest of local children. Keeping it open selective is apparently not selfish and is just looking after the interest of the children living far away.

When Slough grammars, Bucks and Kent and numerous other grammars [enter any number of examples here] have catchment/distance policies, why only Tiffins have to look after the children of wider area. There are grammars where OOC children wouldn't even be able to sit for the entrance test. But it is incorrect to ask distant/catchment policy for Tiffin.

If some one really believe that Tiffins should be open to all, even to those living in Bournemouth and Manchester, then other grammars should also be open to Kingston children.
ClappedOutMum
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:56 am

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by ClappedOutMum »

tiffinboys wrote:Agreed, we are likely to go round circles.
Tiffinboys: You really do go on and on and on and on about this - don't you? Your point is made (and has been repeatedly made on pretty much every thread in this surrey section). We've got it (its hard to have missed it). Many on here disagree.

Lets move on.
tiffinboys
Posts: 8022
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:00 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by tiffinboys »

Clappedoutmum: I give response when a point/question is raised about the need for distance/catchment policy for Tiffins. I do not go on and on with out some one else raising some point or asking clarification. Just read last few posts, you will get the idea. Isn't that fair?

I am making my point. And it is your prerogative to disagree and it is mine to agree or disagree with question or argument raised by you or some one else. I think that is called democracy.

About Tiffin admission policy, you may like open selection or may want to abolish grammars. I argue for change until all grammars are open selective. You may argue for your kids' sake, I argue for our local kids - including mine. We both have a view. I am happy that TGS has seen the need for catchment - though their current proposal has quite many anomalies. The change hasn't happened without putting forward and arguing for our point of view.

You see, if you had not written your post, I would not have had to respond. It's not going on and on and on... :wink:
Last edited by tiffinboys on Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
TiffinGirls
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:19 pm

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by TiffinGirls »

I have not contributed to this thread as I haven't even read the report so I do not know why you are addressing your response to me!
tiffinboys
Posts: 8022
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:00 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

Post by tiffinboys »

Sorry, TG.... just a proof of being human - not robot.
Post Reply