Tiffins and Cabinet Office Report

[twelveminus]

It is no secret that most children coming to super-selectives such as Tiffins are intensively coached and heavily prepared for the entrance tests, as they are expected to score higher and higher each year.

On the other hand, if the Kent model is adopted whereby admission is given by distance subject to passing the test i.e. achieving a minimum standard, the need for coaching would reduce and make it more affordable to prepare for the entrance tests of the grammar schools.

While the DIY option is always open to all children alike (poor, not-so-poor, well-offs and mega-rich), coaching will not go away. But sensible admission policies would make the need for it a lot less than at present.

I'm afraid this is a bit of a non sequitur.

Firstly, FSM children are conspicuous by their absence from all grammar schools, selective or not.

Secondly, after Kingston itself, the main residential area for Tiffin boys (not sure about girls) is Hounslow, which is not an exclusive part of London by any means - Tiffin is in fact an alternative to loc sink schools in some decidedly unsalubrious parts of London.

Thirdly, I know children in Bucks and Kent and those who passed their 11+ were all tutored!

Fourthly, I would never trust the media to deliver an unbiased summary of any report, better to link to the actual report: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/d ... view_0.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As the report notes, London is the worst place in the country for access to good schools, with many parents saying no good schools are available, and therefore measures designed to promote exclusivity by limiting grammar schools to a particular geographical area, while potentially appropriate in an area of the country where 95% of children get their first choice school, are certainly not appropriate in London, where only 25% of secondary age children go to their nearest school, and where perhaps fewer than half of children go to their first choice (taking into account the tendency to self censor). So references to catchment areas in leafy Bucks or wherever are simply irrelevant to London.

The report says

“There are children being coached in Kent from the age of six. There are private
schools here which have the sole aim of getting children into grammar schools. A
lot of the children who are sent there are also coached privately outside the school.
What a life.”
Independent education advisor, Kent

It continues:

"It if schools narrow their intake to those who can afford the coaching to pass entrance exams, then they may owe their neighbourhood some route whereby less advantaged local people can aspire to get their children up to that standard."

That is not the same thing as restricting the catchment area to a few select, expensive postcodes around the school!

They are talking about providing free coaching/materials to poor local children - a laudable goal in my view, and one in keeping with the goals of the school to provide an education for the poor children of Kingston.

With the emphasis firmly on poor.

Perhaps the Tiffin Education Fund (£520/year/child currently) could be tapped for this purpose.

[Okanagan]

In fact, as this school is in the middle of the proposed catchment area and a large number of Kent children score 420/420, only the girls from the immediate area outside of Tonbridge council catchment (towards Horley to the West and Staplehurst to the East) are likely to be eligible for the OOC places from 2014.

The excessive number of very high scores is part of the reason why Kent are looking to change their 11+ system to give a betters pread and more ability to differentiate.

[Okanagan]

"It if schools narrow their intake to those who can afford the coaching to pass entrance exams, then they may owe their neighbourhood some route whereby less advantaged local people can aspire to get their children up to that standard."

That is not the same thing as restricting the catchment area to a few select, expensive postcodes around the school!

They are talking about providing free coaching/materials to poor local children - a laudable goal in my view, and one in keeping with the goals of the school to provide an education for the poor children of Kingston.

With the emphasis firmly on poor.

Perhaps the Tiffin Education Fund (£520/year/child currently) could be tapped for this purpose.

Similar schemes have been trialled before - Sutton Turst/Pates in Gloucestershire and by the Vale of Aylesbury Housing Trust in Buckinghamshire.

[tiffinboys]

I am afraid that people who only think of Kingston borough as consisting of expensive houses and wealthy people, perhaps need to visit the borough more often, than just coming on entrance test days. Even in KT3, They would be surprized to find council estates, poor housing, whole primary schools from where there is not a single intake to Tiffins for years.

The best thing Tiffins can do for local poor children is to reduce the intake from far away areas; at the moment, there are whole primary schools in Kingston borough from where parents do not enter their children for Tiffins - they feel whatever they do, it would be not enough in the wake of children who are coached for hours a day for years; some having been to prep schools. As some poster mentioned earlier, Tiffin would not be changing its tests in the 'foreseeable future' as per HT. Tiffin's GL tests are now very predictable and coachable. Unless this is changed, there is no hope for the children who can not afford coaching or their parents can not do DIY. Just being bright is not enough, as places will be taken by those who go to prep schools and/or are over-coached for years.

[twelveminus]

The fact is that grammar schools are socially exclusive.

The most deprived wards in Kent are:

Cliftonville West (Margate)
Margate Central (Margate)
Park Wood (Maidstone)
Dane Valley (Margate)
St Radigunds (Dover)
Eastcliff (Ramsgate)
Newington (Ramsgate)

The local grammar schools for the Ramsgate/Broadstairs/Margate area are:
Dane Court 6% FSMs
Chatham House 5% FSMs
Clarendon House 4.9%

The other local, non-grammar schools, have the following FSMs:

Marlowe Academy 38.3%
Hartsdown 35.9%
Ellington and Hereson 26%
St Georges 21.5%
Charles Dickens School 16.2%

In other words, in the most deprived, geographically isolated part of Kent where there is a very ample supply of grammar school, and a strong connection between the school and the local area, the grammar schools still very effectively exclude nearly all local poor children.

And yes, most of those being admitted to these Thanet grammar schools are being tutored.

The idea that shrinking the catchment area will magically result in significantly more poor children getting into Tiffin schools is just , and it's blindingly obvious that such a measure would benefit middle class people living within whatever arbitrary catchment was chosen. (And for all your talk about council estates, these are not competition and nowhere in the country do such estates form a significant part of the intake of grammars - the intent of parents advocating of a catchment policy is to exclude lower-middle-class, aspiring, largely Asian parents from places such as Hounslow with the result of making it easier for similar lower-middle-class parents who happen to be living in Kingston, to gain admission. )

And btw, council estates are exclusive in the sense that you can't just rent a council house for £80/wek - you have to go on a waiting list and conform to various criteria. School catchments invariably increase the price/exclusivity of housing available on the open market, and estate agents would sell on the basis of a given house being in the Tiffin catchment, quite apart from the fact that most people can't move into whatever capricious and arbitrary catchment was determined AFTER they had bought their house prior to the existence of said arbitrary catchment.

[ClappedOutMum]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating, if tiffinboys (and other locals) wants Tiffins to be a "local" school, the campaign should be to do away with selection and admit only on proximity ..... then they will have a local school servicing the community.

I'd have sympathy with that view.

[mad?]

I'd have sympathy with that view.

+1 what shocking stats twelveminus gave us from Kent.

[tiffinboys]

The house price issue is every where - is not only in grammar schools area. Even good primary school area would have a premium.

Why then it is raised only when we talk of catchment for Tiffin schools? And this is raised invariably by people living far away - some even 20 miles away or living within catchment area of another grammar. If it is an issue then it is also an issue for the 14 Bucks, 31 Kent, 3 Slough grammars, all other grammars and other good comprehensive schools as well. If some ones local LA has deemed it fit to abolish their local grammars, then it is not the responsibility of the other LAs to provide places for these unfortunate children. Have a go at your local LA and MPs and campaign to abolish restriction on establishing selective schools in your LA area.

Also it is funny to see middle-class bashing, even by the very same people who at some time have themselves been or still are middle class. What's wrong being middle class or what's wrong with being wealthy?

When there is an efforts to raise the well being of poor children - what do you think will become of them. They will most likely become middle class, so that they can then be bashed around for being middle class. Funny.

About intake of poor children, the problem is their learning level at primary schools. Are grammar schools expected to coach them for their entrance tests? If not, should there be places for 'poor' children in selective schools with out sitting entrance tests?

It is not something that can be solved by grammar schools or by changes in the admissions tests.

What can be done is to raise their aspiration levels and make them believe that their investment in time and resources would bring success? The current level of competition at Tiffins discourages even the thoroughly bashed middle-class. Just being bright is no longer enough.

[twelveminus]

It is plainly desirable to expend resources on children in receipt of Free School Meals, since such meals of course are only free for the recipient!

Measures that promote social mobility out of this class are to be encouraged for moral and fiscal reasons.

The issue is not middle class bashing, but the dead horse that you continue to beat of making the Tiffin schools more geographically exclusive.

There are lots of traits that I would consider middle class, such as reading a broadsheet newspaper, chatter about house prices, going to visit stately homes on the weekend, and so on. Some of these traits are IMO to be encouraged, others are neutral, and others are negative.

In this case it is not the middle class that I am bashing in general, but those members of it who try to ensure privilege (in this case, access to one of the country's most best schools) for their own children by means of denying it to others.

It is quite understandable that people will do this, and the successful competition for scarce resources, such as good schools, is part of what makes people middle class. That said, it really does stick in the craw that you do this, and claim that it is for the benefit of the poor!

The fact is that grammar schools are socially exclusive and damaging to the poorest kids.

I think this should be obvious given that the stats re FSM % at grammar school and the fact that the resulting rump is stripped of the brightest, most motivated kids.

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.

In Kingston it is 43.1% vs 72.1%, which is a smaller gap than average; it is likely given the stats from elsewhere that an explicit link between Kingston residents and its grammar schools would therefore damage the performance of the poorest (who would end up in schools stripped of bright pupils), quite the opposite of the claimed intention.

[tiffinboys]

As you stated before:
Lies, Damn lies and Statistics.

Are you saying that, having a grammar school in the area, is damaging to the prospects of poor children getting 5 good GCSEs?

What a tosh.

Don't know what would come next. All one can say is that poor children don't get good gcse's grade. Linking it with grammar schools is absurd.