For those who have been following this thread, there is an interesting article by Toby Young posted on The Spectator's website yesterday dealing with this:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/sorr ... -of-money/
According to the article:
- Children scoring in the top 25% at KS2 SATS (i.e. end of primary school assessment) who go to comprehensives that are in the top 25% of comprehensives by GCSE results get just as good GCSE results as those who go to grammars.
Toby Young says that this is evidence that grammars don't add much value compared with streaming in comprehensives. However, I wonder whether the study counted partially-selective schools such as Graveney and Watford Grammar Schools as comprehensives. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially ... _(England)) Those partially-selective schools are part-grammar and part-not so shouldn't really be counted. Also, quite a lot of the top 25% of comprehensives are Catholic or Jewish schools and so not available to most of the population.
- An independently-educated person will earn on average £57,653 more than a state-educated one between the ages of 26 and 42, controlling for family background and cognitive ability. Toby Young notes that figure is less than the average cost of a private education and certainly less than the £132,405 it will cost Shami to send her son to Dulwich College for seven years.
However, he's not comparing like with like because there's a time gap between the years from 11-18 for which fees are paid and the period of 26-42 during which the additional earnings are received. If someone is 42 now then the fees for 7 years of schooling 25-30 years ago were certainly less than £57,653