If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

So you have to decide at age 4 that you're going to stay private until 18 - and if you lose your job, suffer ill health etc etc then your academic child has no choice but to go to the local underperforming comp. Yeah that sounds really fair on the child.

I suppose that could be fair if the state was to offer a funding contribution to those self-funding private education. Grammar schools in our part of the UK have 10 mile + catchments, and are highly competitive, they service a large area in order to select the results they require. As I understand it some will accept lower results from those within a 1 mile catchment, but I’d imagine both of these could change if they were to receive a large influx of admissions.

Most of the richest people I know, the vast majority, dislike selective education for their children. They’re quite happy to choose non-selective private schools and pay for university abroad with easier entrance grades than the UK - as their kids will be successful no matter what.

The type of parents who prefer selective state education tend to those who need to work & who may have gone through it themselves (usually abroad - most Indian immigrants to the UK opt for selective where possible). They are prepared to coach at home even if they can’t afford tutoring. They are the same types of people who opt for private selective - often from the same postcodes and with the same income. But the difference is they prioritise different things with their money.

People who think state grammars widen accessibility are wrong. They just make it even more difficult for those on fsm as the pass rates are higher.

Terrible idea to judge kids at 11.

That's the problem in the UK. It's why the grammar system went wrong. It shouldn't ever have been seen as being judged, and the 11+ shouldn't have been seen as something to pass or fail.

The German system is much better. It's about finding out what type of schooling and training opportunities best suit each individual child. They seem to recognise there's equal value in academic and vocational abilities, schools, and jobs.

As my earlier link shows there's also options to move type of school if the child's abilities change as they get older.

To add, we can't judge accurately how accessible grammar schools in the UK today are for less advantaged kids, because there aren't many left, and those that are still in existence tend to be concentrated in specific parts of the country. It's not UK-wide, unlike in Germany.

This report: https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/facts-figures-and-evidence-about-grammar-schools/says 10% of privately educated kids gain grammar school places. If 25% of privately educated kids (who weren’t previously destined for Grammar) also gained places, that would be 35% kids coming from privately educated backgrounds.

Interesting name.

Love, Karl.

Often gets ignored in grammar school threads is there used to be a 13+ intake. So if you didn’t make the 11+ grade in what is now year 6, when you were in what is now year 8 you could take another test and join the grammar at year 9. In Kent at least there is in theory still an option for this but it doesn’t happen. class size limits along with funding being per child means they fill their all places at year 7 and any spaces that become available through the years, are filled from the old waiting lists (which have original 11+ scores), there’s not capacity to hold places to run another intake later on for those who’d benefit from a later intake.

I don’t know about that - if we only gave a shit about problems that applied directly to us, that makes us a bit selfish doesn’t it? There is no point in society if we don’t care about other people experiencing issues. I mean, only homeless people are homeless. Should the rest of us just not give a shit?

I don’t live in a grammar area btw

but it would seem silly to abolish or restrict them as they are clearly doing well

Restricting state grammars to state educated pupils only is a terrible idea. No parent can predict when their child is 4 exactly what the future will hold.

Giving contextual offers on a sliding scale based on disadvantages is a reasonable idea but complex to apply fairly - a pupil could qualify despite e.g. having tutorials paid for by grandparents for example. It would be a massive administrative task to fairly assess how much advantage each applicant has. Just the fact of a primary school being private isn't necessarily an academic advantage - some primaries are so child-centred and play-based that the children are significantly behind compated to the national curriculum.

It would be better to abolish grammars altogether and to have a "grammar stream" in every comprehensive school which children with aptitude can qualify for at any time rather than on the basis of one assessment aged 10½. Plus obviously sufficient funding so that all comprehensives can offer the excellent standard of education that all children deserve rather than there being this enormous stressy fight for the limited places in the few schools that mamage to get good results.

As a long-standing secondary school teacher I completely empathise with how you feel. Just to give you the perspective on the other side though; children sit 9-11 GCSE exams, if the data shows that they are struggling to get a 1,2 or 3 in their subjects then it is time to look at reducing their exam spread. This isn't to make the school look good, we are judged very heavily for making the decision that any child doesn't sit an exam and we have to justify our choice. It also can't just be one bad exam, we look at factors like mini-assessments, mocks, attendance in the lessons, and whether having such a large number of exams is actually having a detrimental impact on the child.

On the topic of streaming, I can promise you that top streams do not get the best staff. Any secondary school teacher will tell you that the timetable is a gaping maw and you are stuck with whatever it gives you (one year I was given top set History and bottom set French and I don't even teach those subjects!)

Moving sets, it does go upwards as well as down. However, set movement is also constrained by the timetable. Many sets are arranged in pairs (e.g., if you do well in English you can't move sets unless you've also done well in History or R.S). There are other rubbish, timetable reasons as well.

I'm not saying that decisions are being made correctly everywhere, and I completely agree that there is too emphasis on pushing GCSE grades, I just wanted to lift the curtain a bit on the other side.

@Naran yes, perhaps it is idealistic but we should have an education system which actually works for all children not just the well off or academically strong. Children can change a lot between 10, when they would sit the 11 plus,and 14 so being in schools where there are different options would be ideal.
@sparklychair no I don't see comprehensives as selective. They admit all children regardless of their academic ability, religion etc.

Most comprehensives don't stream, they set. A child can be Set 1 for Maths, Set 3 for English, Set 2 for languages etc.

I couldn’t agree more. A friend of my mother’s went to Grammar School while her brother was slightly under, so didn’t get in. Their lives became dramatically different and this friend feels that grammar schools are incredibly bad news. Of course a child of 10 shouldn’t be judged for their life prospects.

Indeed. People in Kent, Bucks, etc: "Grammar schools should be for MY DC!"

People everywhere else: "We're not bothered because we don't have grammar schools."

They already standardise score based on age when the August and September children will be in the same classes.

But mostly streaming works at a subject level doesn't it? So a child could be in different streams for different subjects but not consigned to one stream for everything. That seems fair enough to me. It is how my comprehensive worked 50 years ago.

There should be more selective schools, so children who would like to learn, from whatever background, would be able to learn in the environment they all deserve!

You mean Labour considered the evidence that the grammar system was a barrier to socioeconomic mobility and did (or at least tried to do) something about it?

They went about it in the wrong way imo. As Naran says, grammars did used to enable socioeconomic mobility. DH's dad went to one in the 50s. He grew up on a social housing estate in a very poor area.

Although personally I don't like the narrative of 'mobility', in that there are many lower waged jobs that are important and needed (including those that require academic ability). The issue is these roles (vocational or academic) aren't valued as they should be. Better wages and or more affordable housing especially social housing is the real answer to inequality.

The problem with the grammar system in the UK was that, unlike Germany, not passing the 11+ and going to secondary modern became to be seen as a failure. Whereas Germany recognises that vocational abilities and training is just as important and valued and can give opportunities as much academic abilities and training.

I think it would've been better to have kept the grammar system, but ensured vocational ability was equally valued. Secondary moderns should've been modelled on the German vocational schooling system.

YABU , everybody pays their taxes and is entitled to use State schools , as regards letting FSM a children in with lower scores surely that will just be horrible for those children as they will likely struggle and be dragging along at the bottom rather than doing well at a different school .

Low income families already have this option, mine taught themselves from books. However, their grammar is still heavily skewed towards the middle class children, we are one of the poorer families.

You do the tutoring yourself is what I meant

How is not realistic when huge swathes of the country only have comprehensives and no grammars?
I live in such a county, and there are some state comprehensives posting every year with their, “ten 9s - congrats to Amina and Jake!” comments.

Presumably the partner is earning. If you are on a low income you don't have the money to throw at tutoring regardless of your own educational background.

unworkable

plus how would you account for a highly educated SAHM earning £0?

They could standardise scores based on parental income?