Wrong side of the railway tracks: Most extreme examples

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

2 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Where there is an incentive, there is a human brain whirring. Forgot the smiley.

I know.

We were all thinking it, no one dared say it.

[longtomsilver]

2 hours ago, chicker said:

I take it the school (s) would be ofsted outstanding rated rather than good ? Trying to make sense of the figures rather than being a pedant .

Yes it's an ofsted 'outstanding' rated school on paper and is second in county on the league tables. However the difference between that and a good private school is a world apart. 69% 5 GCSEs (A-C) vs 100% and 12% A levels grades AB vs 86%. State schools have set the bar for performance and outcomes so low that to shine they only really have to do little. They make a song and dance when a handful of their students go onto Oxbridge whereas at private school it's considered the norm.

[CunningPlan]

37 minutes ago, longtomsilver said:

Yes it's an ofsted 'outstanding' rated school on paper and is second in county on the league tables. However the difference between that and a good private school is a world apart. 69% 5 GCSEs (A-C) vs 100% and 12% A levels grades AB vs 86%. State schools have set the bar for performance and outcomes so low that to shine they only really have to do little. They make a song and dance when a handful of their students go onto Oxbridge whereas at private school it's considered the norm.

You have to remember that 90% of private schools are very selective and only take the brightest. For example, to get in to Guildford Grammar you need to be in the top 5% of your prep school. Try comparing the results to the non selective private schools for a fairer judgement.

However, my local non selective state school was 81% AB at A level last year. But it is VERY strong on discipline. 

 

[Peter Hun]

10 hours ago, longtomsilver said:

The difference between property prices in the catchment of a good comprehensive school in our area and where we live is £125,000 (£185k vs £310k on a modest 3 bedroom semi). The additional cost (£200k (assuming added to the mortgage over 25 years)) can't be far off that of a private education.

Stamp duty rise makes a big difference in London. Moving in *or* out of a catchment can now cost £50-80k (in cash...) which covers a lot of private school fees.

Hence, our school catchment has risen from 500m to 985m.

[longtomsilver]

8 hours ago, CunningPlan said:

You have to remember that 90% of private schools are very selective and only take the brightest. For example, to get in to Guildford Grammar you need to be in the top 5% of your prep school. Try comparing the results to the non selective private schools for a fairer judgement.

However, my local non selective state school was 81% AB at A level last year. But it is VERY strong on discipline. 

 

I'd say 90% of private schools are ever so slightly selective and filter out perhaps only the 5-10% who are really struggling. Last year we lost 2 pupils and none so far this year. My daughter is moving up from pre-preparatory to the main school in September and the admission process involved an interview and passing the 11+ 

The majority of pupils at private school are middle achievers who'll excel as they receive a traditional education with solid foundations, small class sizes, a challenging curriculum and in the case of my childrens school text books from the 80s.

[Shrink Proof]

The other factor is the school's varying performance. Daughter went to a state secondary that was rated "outstanding" by Ofsted when she was in her final year. Within three years a new head and a merger with another school just down the road had put it in special measures.

[Wayward]

On ‎03‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 9:41 AM, EssKay said:

 

The most extreme example i can think of is the land either side of the DLR from Westferry to Bank.

 

Canary Wharf skyscrapers, "luxury flats" and marinas/docks on one side, and grotty council estates and run down takeaways on the other. Prices are at least 50% higher on average on the Canary Wharf side.

 

As for what causes it - lack of investment and scope for growth on the grotty side. They've been trying to improve the grotty side for decades with not much result. 

 

 

You see this in provincial cities also...take Portsmouth and the flashy resi towers in the Gunwharf development and the old council blocks immediately outside with equally good views but lacking the marketing and societal approval.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

24 minutes ago, Shrink Proof said:

The other factor is the school's varying performance. Daughter went to a state secondary that was rated "outstanding" by Ofsted when she was in her final year. Within three years a new head and a merger with another school just down the road had put it in special measures.

3 years? Bloody amateurs. Try 6 months.

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/229248-85k-a-year-to-run-a-primary-school/

 

[EssKay]

19 minutes ago, Wayward said:

You see this in provincial cities also...take Portsmouth and the flashy resi towers in the Gunwharf development and the old council blocks immediately outside with equally good views but lacking the marketing and societal approval.

Yep. Is that the only difference though?

 

Here in London the divide is also accompanied by much greater levels of poverty, social deprivation and crime on the grotty side of the tracks.

 

I get the fact that people are very wary of re-developing council estates due to the loss of social housing (due imho to local councils failures in most cases), but it effectively condemns those areas to ongoing problems and holds back their growth.

[Sour Mash]

20 hours ago, Greg Bowman said:

So private schooling by another name - only those who can afford to do  this will get into the best schools.

Yep, though this is seldom raised by anyone in the media.  The quality of education is now essentially about parental wealth.

How wonderful that Britain got rid of that horrible academic selection system in favour of such a 'fair' way of doing things.

Universities of course also democratised with a plethora of Mickey Mouse courses and lowered entrance standards ... as long as you have the money (or are willing to take on shedloads of debt) to pay academic fees and your living costs, with degrees often reduced in value to where 'A' levels were a few decades back.  Increasingly, it's more about how rich Mummy and Daddy are, so that you can afford to get the university 'experience'.  So much better than putting the emphasis on selecting fewer students on the basis of their academic results to study on well regarded courses and then having the state paying the fees plus a student grant to them so that all social classes got a shot .. With the eventual  degree actually meaning something and giving the recipient who earned it a shot at a decent career regardless of social background.

 

 

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

22 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Yep, though this is seldom raised by anyone in the media.  The quality of education is now essentially about parental wealth.

How wonderful that Britain got rid of that horrible academic selection system in favour of such a 'fair' way of doing things.

Universities of course also democratised with a plethora of Mickey Mouse courses and lowered entrance standards ... as long as you have the money (or are willing to take on shedloads of debt) to pay academic fees and your living costs, with degrees often reduced in value to where 'A' levels were a few decades back.  Increasingly, it's more about how rich Mummy and Daddy are, so that you can afford to get the university 'experience'.  So much better than putting the emphasis on selecting fewer students on the basis of their academic results to study on well regarded courses and then having the state paying the fees plus a student grant to them so that all social classes got a shot .. With the eventual  degree actually meaning something and giving the recipient who earned it a shot at a decent career regardless of social background.

 

 

Not just education. Everything is wealth based 

[iamnumerate]

On 03/05/2017 at 10:19 AM, CunningPlan said:

The criteria I set out above are correct for the school I am talking about. They changed last year to avoid the 'rent to get in' system that was becoming prevalent.

The interesting thing is that ANY adopted child from anywhere in the country has first dibs.

One of my son's friends was adamant that he would get a place even though he lived 5+ miles away. We kept saying that he couldn't guarantee it but we didn't know he was adopted at about 6 months old.

If this was widely known, the very best schools could become almost exclusively full of adopted children.

 

I once heard of a woman who was living with her sister who had children at a school and the sister adopted the first woman's daughter so she could get into a school.  IMHO this shows a problem with our education system.

[Sour Mash]

2 hours ago, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

Not just education. Everything is wealth based 

Sure, but education shouldn't be.

If the wealthy want to pay to get what they perceive is the best tuition for their kids then fine, but regular people should be able to receive the best possible education, right up to getting a degree, for free (subject to showing academic aptitude).

[CunningPlan]

I am going to be controversial here but the thing that has the most bearing on the quality of a school is the quality of its pupils / parents.

By making a school hard to get in to, you end up with mainly motivated pupils who will want to learn and will respect the discipline required. (Or at least their parents will and hopefully will have a trickle down effect)

I would create reverse grammar schools.  Take the worst 10% of children (not the thickest, the worst behaved) and bung them somewhere that they can't do any damage to anyone else. The quality of schooling for the other 90% would rise exponentially.

 

 

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

12 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

I am going to be controversial here but the thing that has the most bearing on the quality of a school is the quality of its pupils / parents.

By making a school hard to get in to, you end up with mainly motivated pupils who will want to learn and will respect the discipline required. (Or at least their parents will and hopefully will have a trickle down effect)

I would create reverse grammar schools.  Take the worst 10% of children (not the thickest, the worst behaved) and bung them somewhere that they can't do any damage to anyone else. The quality of schooling for the other 90% would rise exponentially.

 

 

Disagree and I'd make it even more specific. It's the parents that affect outcomes. Just the parents.

Note I don't use the word quality.

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

23 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Sure, but education shouldn't be.

If the wealthy want to pay to get what they perceive is the best tuition for their kids then fine, but regular people should be able to receive the best possible education, right up to getting a degree, for free (subject to showing academic aptitude).

I don't disagree with that but even the supposed egalitarian grammar schools giving the hard done by a leg up is chronically gamed by the lesser haves. The have nots have no chance.

 

[CunningPlan]

2 minutes ago, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

Disagree and I'd make it even more specific. It's the parents that affect outcomes. Just the parents.

Note I don't use the word quality.

The children tend to be a function of the parents. (Obviously this a bit of a generalisation)

What do you disagree with?

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

19 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

I am going to be controversial here but the thing that has the most bearing on the quality of a school is the quality of its pupils / parents.

By making a school hard to get in to, you end up with mainly motivated pupils who will want to learn and will respect the discipline required. (Or at least their parents will and hopefully will have a trickle down effect)

I would create reverse grammar schools.  Take the worst 10% of children (not the thickest, the worst behaved) and bung them somewhere that they can't do any damage to anyone else. The quality of schooling for the other 90% would rise exponentially.

 

 

And what do you do in a school with the worst 10%? Kill them? Drug them? Lock them up?

Edited May 4, 2017 by 24 year mortgage 8itch

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

Just now, CunningPlan said:

The children tend to be a function of the parents. (Obviously this a bit of a generalisation)

What do you disagree with?

That's it's pupils and parents

as you say the pupils are a function of those parents

[CunningPlan]

Just now, 24 year mortgage 8itch said:

And what do you do in aschool with the worst 10%? Kill them? Drug them? Lock them up?

I don't really care. But since we have 20% of children leaving school effectively illiterate, I would suggest an intensive reading and writing focus rather than teaching history etc. that they really don't care about.

From my own experience many years ago in a streamed comprehensive, on entry your were put in the A or the B stream. 1% difference could decide where you ended up.

The lowest in the A stream ended up with at least 5 good O levels. The highest in the B stream would get the odd O level and a few CSEs.

We had the same facilities, teachers etc. The ONLY difference was the behaviour of our classmates. 

 

[chicker]

20 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

I don't really care. But since we have 20% of children leaving school effectively illiterate, I would suggest an intensive reading and writing focus rather than teaching history etc. that they really don't care about.

From my own experience many years ago in a streamed comprehensive, on entry your were put in the A or the B stream. 1% difference could decide where you ended up.

The lowest in the A stream ended up with at least 5 good O levels. The highest in the B stream would get the odd O level and a few CSEs.

We had the same facilities, teachers etc. The ONLY difference was the behaviour of our classmates. 

 

My school was a large comprehensive 300 plus kids per year 8 classes. Top 2 did o levels , next 4 cse and the bottom 2 i've no idea how they spent their time but they seem to be kept out of the "way" .  Very similar to CPs proposal but closer to 20% .Some of the 20% were bright but lazy/lacked motivation ,some not very bright but many were disruptive and encouraged negative behaviour. Also non attendance was nearly encouraged amongst this group from 14 onwards ! Btw there was movement of pupils between the streams but very little if I recall. I was also the first year that had to stay at school  past 15 .

The negative attitude became the norm unfortunately in the school and it was very hard to get rid of.  Best day of my life when I left.

 

[Wayward]

4 hours ago, EssKay said:

Yep. Is that the only difference though?

 

Here in London the divide is also accompanied by much greater levels of poverty, social deprivation and crime on the grotty side of the tracks.

 

I get the fact that people are very wary of re-developing council estates due to the loss of social housing (due imho to local councils failures in most cases), but it effectively condemns those areas to ongoing problems and holds back their growth.

the accommodation differs in the sense it is older and unfashionable but not sure any difference in crime given they are right next to each other...in terms of poverty yes the occupants of the Gunwharf resi towers are unlikely to be on benefits etc.  Price works to exclude...just like in posh restaurants.

 

 

 

[The Spaniard]

This thread makes me nostalgic and recall my secondary school time from 1959 to 1965 at a selective state boys' grammar school. My parents were working class without a qualification between them, but they knew what they wanted for their children and they sacrificed much to achieve it. The school was academically first rate and regularly sent about twenty pupils per year to Oxbridge, about half of these on competitively gained Scholarships and Exhibitions. Most of these pupils were working class or lower middle class but academically they found that they could more than hold their own with very expensively educated fellow Oxbridge students.

My best friend in boyhood failed the eleven plus and went to the local Secondary Modern. There he received an excellent vocational training and became a successful qualified electrician. He married, bought a decent family house and had two children in his twenties.

Times have changed.

 

[chicker]

21 minutes ago, The Spaniard said:

This thread makes me nostalgic and recall my secondary school time from 1959 to 1965 at a selective state boys' grammar school. My parents were working class without a qualification between them, but they knew what they wanted for their children and they sacrificed much to achieve it. The school was academically first rate and regularly sent about twenty pupils per year to Oxbridge, about half of these on competitively gained Scholarships and Exhibitions. Most of these pupils were working class or lower middle class but academically they found that they could more than hold their own with very expensively educated fellow Oxbridge students.

My best friend in boyhood failed the eleven plus and went to the local Secondary Modern. There he received an excellent vocational training and became a successful qualified electrician. He married, bought a decent family house and had two children in his twenties.

Times have changed.

 

Without being rude what did your parents sacrifice ? I doubt if you had a private tutor pre 11 plus. University you would have received a full grant . Just interested as times have changed so much. My father (grammar school educated) was anti grammar school for his children .

Boomer children had it all it seems.

 

[The Spaniard]

23 minutes ago, chicker said:

Without being rude what did your parents sacrifice ? I doubt if you had a private tutor pre 11 plus. University you would have received a full grant . Just interested as times have changed so much. My father (grammar school educated) was anti grammar school for his children .

Boomer children had it all it seems.

 

They sacrificed their time and energy, working all hours to raise our standard of living from the post-war poverty of a shabby two-up, two-down Victorian terraced house with one outside WC shared with two other struggling young families, one cold tap in the "kitchen" and rented for 12s 6d (62.5 pence) per week. No early childcare then, I spent the first three years of my life in a Morris van with my mum as she made her deliveries. Perhaps dedication rather than sacrifice? Happy days.

You are correct, no tutor.

Yes, a full grant of £360 p.a. Plus £60 p.a. from the College. Plus paid jobs during holidays (more than half the year). I ran my own car and could afford to socialise in the pub every evening.

Yes, we boomers had every opportunity. I joke that if I ever write my autobiography (I won't) it will be titled "Given Every Chance".