If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

@Againname

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.

I’m going to disagree. Studies of grammar schools after the 1944 Education Act show no change in the relative chances of children from poorer home backgrounds either gaining grammar school places or obtaining formal school qualifications. Children from families with at least one parent who had qualifications retained a big comparative advantage in gaining a grammar school place.

By the 1950s and 1960s sociologists had recognised that the use of IQ testing in the 11+ exam tended to benefit families with relatively highly educated parents.

So children with educated parents still got the grammar school places and the children from the lower socioeconomic groups - with less educated parents and often with a need to leave school before formal qualifications to earn a wage - went to secondary moderns.

All we’ve done entrench that inequality with the educated parents tutoring throughout primary, so that the attainment gap between those children and disadvantaged children is even wider by the end of primary.

My daughter passed her 11plus exam (she was tutored in Y5) and has a grammar school place for September. My mother was a single mother so couldn’t afford the same level of tuition for me so I went to the state comprehensive school and did well. There are a lot of Asian children at the Grammar my daughter is attending and their parents are educated professional immigrants so the children are first generation born in the U.K.

in my daughter’s state primary school out of 33 children in our one form entry school, 25 of them got into grammar. This was the highest number in recent years. The parents are all very highly motivated, have good jobs so push their kids to achieve. Out of the 8 who didn’t get a grammar place, 3 of them will be going to private schools.

I have heard from secondary teachers in the area that teach at the state comprehensive schools, that the behaviour of kids is made more challenging as the ‘brighter and better behaved’ are at the Grammar schools and there is no balance that you would usually expect at other state schools that don’t have grammars in the area.

Which is the very definition of a champagne socialist.

Our state did the CATs and we had a call from the teacher to say whether they should try the 11+. Ours was a good state primary though so I think only a few didn't take it at all and over 90% got in (extensive tutoring in most cases). Yes, those who weren't taking it were always the poorer families. Most kids knew all through primary who were going and the queen bees would literally not play with anyone dyslexic or not having tutoring.

I think they should be abolished if they don't take 50% FSM or at least have a minimum amount of FSM legally imposed.

Because it is fine for him to do it but not anyone else!

FSM are disadvantaged from the get-go in so many arenas. For example, we know that reading ability is one of the most important measures of academic success. A fair number of these children enter Reception without being exposed to good quality children’s picture books; or even realising that print in English goes from left to right, or that you read a book from front to back. They fall even further behind when no one does regular reading at home with them; and when it comes to preparing for 11 plus, no amount of tutoring will remedy the situation. The free nursery early years provision that kicks in at 3 (now 2?) is inadequate and poor: these nurseries are overcrowded (children rammed in like sardines in a can), and staffed with poorly educated and poorly paid, mainly young, workers. How is this going to improve social mobility? I never even considered using the universal free early years provision when my DC was young because my child’s development would have gone backwards not forwards. He was better at home with me as a stay-at-home parent.

My DC is at a top 50 grammar school (OOC place). He went from a state primary. I make no apologies for it. I pay taxes; it was an option available to me, and I took it.

That's the other thing - your primary head master/mistress has to be ofay with the appeals process to get them in if they just fall short. Our state primary had a new head from another area, not used to the grammar system. He failed about 3 kids in his first year as a HM because he didn't properly fight their corner on appeal. It's a cut throat thing when you live in a grammar area. The pressure to stay in one is immense too with lots pushing out less able or struggling pupils. Most students we know at our have private tutoring alongside as well to keep up and in the top sets.

The biggest thing though is parents have to sign their dcs up for the 11+ and not all primary schools point it out or make it easy. They need to know their dc could pass.

plus if you haven’t applied for your nearest available school, then free transport isn’t always available.

there are a lot more barriers to PP kids going to grammar schools in grammar areas than just the small number of prep school kids who then go state for secondary.

I've checked and it is 20 points lower, with access to free online tutorials etc to practice the questions.

It kind of already does though. In my area the disadvantaged children are given priority places at the grammar schools. They still have to pass the test though, as they should.

Our grammar schools have contextual offer for children on FSM.

I think it's about 10 to 20 marks lower.

Yet Starmer went and chooses to send his child to one?

Wallington Girls does. Or they did. Not checked recently

Even that won’t be enough. How will you stop the house price rises in the tight catchments of fabulous state schools? some are already private by house price.

Change the admissions criteria, change catchment areas frequently. Obviously ultimately there shouldn't be such a discrepancy between schools, I'm not saying opening up grammar and faith schools to all is a solution to all that's wrong with education but it's an easy start to even things out a bit.

It's the 11+ that's the issue. It can be coached to and the more coaching the higher the pass rate becomes so the kids who can't afford coaching have a decreasing chance of accessing grammar. It's a stupid system.

When I am queen I will abolish all segregated schools apart from specialist SEN schools. No grammar, no private, and no religious schools. I will also abolish the monarchy once I've sold off all the castles and land to pay for setting up quality comprehensives across the land.

Yes that's our aim - private prep and then grammar. But for context, I attended state primary, got 100% on my 11plus and then went to grammar - but the OP is suggesting that, had I gone to a prep, then I wouldn't be allowed to go to grammar.

So this is the reason I am glad my DC' s didn't get in. My DS is gifted in maths and extremely good at English. However, when he did 11+he was 5 marks off that years intake. Year before, he would have got in. It was during covid when private primary's had their shit together and state schools were floundering all over the place. I was angry at the time. I'm glad now. Of course, private primary's are gearing up for the 11+ it's why the upper middle class send their children ( from yr3 they go in my experience) so they don't have to pay for private secondary. It is unfair as tutored children don't always translate well to the classroom as another poster just said. The reason I am glad is that "I'm better than you" attitude, the bullying, and that's carried for life. My DS went with his year from school, his best friends, who are rock solid. He is in top sets. His life is not all about hiting targets he is getting positive life experiences. Money can not buy that. I gave my DD the choice to do the 11+ ( which is well able for), and she declined as she would rather be with her friends and year group. The primary they went/go to isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, neither is the state secondary far from in fact. I'm sure the teaching would be streets ahead in grammar. However, I see state pupils (consistently and more than one) who go to the 2 Grammars here who are miserable as clearly the social divide is another factor for bullying and children as well as adults are often cruel. It's state funded private education in my mind. Social divides are difficult to traverse and are real. I have no answer for that.

This - my son did very well in his 11 plus but even so he has had his confidence knocked at grammar because there are so many bright kids. I am all for giving kids a chance but our local grammar offers a contextual offer of 111 when the other kids have to get 121....I know a kid who got 120.5 and did not get in on appeal. So I worry that children with 111 are not going to be able to keep up the pace - will have their confidence knocked etc.

@Cluborange666 - yes grammar done properly in NI does seem to mirror the results of streaming at secondary schools, the brightest do better than they would in a mixed environment, the bottom quarter do considerably worse than they would if they’d been mixed in with the most academically able.

sadly there’s not a system that’s best for everyone.

My nearest grammar school used to just select on the basis of test results. A few years ago it changed the criteria. The pass mark for pupil premium children is 5% lower and all those who meet this threshold will get a place. This year about 16% of Y7 are on PP. Then those attending about 35 linked primary schools (one of which is a private school) in the attendance area (like a catchment area) are admitted, followed by other children outside the area.

About 15-18% of pupils came from private primary schools (based on the numbers who didn't do SATs). And the school buses are expensive which probably acts as a barrier for many children.

Parents have different strategies. Most only do private for part of their child’s school career. It has the most impact on a child’s prospects and way of life (if it’s a good school) in primary as the daily PE / sports, music lessons, enforced speaking up, better technology lessons, sets up good habits. But that’s expensive if your child decides to stay in private for secondary lol

My kids go to the local grammar. One was fully home educated first, the other was HE then went private for GCSEs.
I am a secondary school teacher and saw the state of normal schools in my area (rough). We moved to a grammar school area for the kids. Grammars are not great due to inequality etc and the impact they have on the schools in the area (who lose the bright kids) but one of my kids has SENDs and I was not going to put him through a failing education system.
Btw, I’m N.Irish and grammar schools are freely available for all. We have the highest level of academic passes in GCSEs but we also have the largest amount of kids with zero GCSEs in the UK. This suggests that the division benefits those at the top at the expense of those on the bottom.

There should be as many grammar places as are needed. By having so few, they have become more exclusive than the most academic private schools. There should be a grammar for every comp. That would improve your social mobility for those who want it, not trying to complicate things with more and more batshit restrictions on private schools.

You could also improve social mobility by doing away with catchment areas, so that poorer, but more capable/ambitious children aren't trapped in rough schools, entrenching their poverty further.

The anti-private thing is a distraction from the real problem - underfunding and the appalling corralling of the poor well away from "nice" people (physically and culturally). I vote Labour because I have no choice where I live (safe Labour seat), but I do think they are being VERY disingenuous about this, and creating clickbait, not solutions (spoiler: the solution is spending the same amount per child as private school fees).

Streaming is increasingly going out of favour in comprehensive schools though- I do understand the reasons, it’s something like if you split a year group into quarters, the top quarter do better with streaming, the next two quarters it doesn’t make a significant difference to results and the bottom quarter do better without streaming (so mixed in with higher achievers not just with kids the same or lower level than then). This is just results, not how much they enjoy learning.

given that and that the push for schools is to get as many through GCSEs as possible, not streaming is the best option for the year group as a whole, unless they need to for different syllabus at gcse level (eg higher or lower papers, combined or separate sciences).

and while I do completely understand as a year group as a whole, this is best, both my children are comfortably in the top quarter (we live in a grammar area and both passed the 11+ high enough for super selectives). I really don’t want to lower my kids educational experience and attainment to help someone else’s child do better. Selfish, but realistic.

one is ar grammar, other will be going in September, both from a state primary.