Schools admission criteria......

Ah I see. If that was the case here I would have definitely gone through the process.

In some areas / schools places are by score.
But in others like the OP's they are on distance provided you reach the minimum mark.

‘Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much’

I’m so sorry a looked-after oik is getting preferential treatment to Dudletta

Our Grammar schools are vastly oversubscribed so only about half the pupils who pass their 11plus get a place. My understanding was the first criteria was how well they did on their 11plus. It's graded so not simply a case of pass or fail.

Am I wrong?

Just want to add that the existence of so-called "sink schools" is not unrelated to the existence of Grammar schools which skim off the top 5%? 10%? which includes those with the pushy driven parents. What message to those kids who don't take or don't pass the 11+? You parents aren't "hard-working"? your parents don't care? YOU are "not good enough"? You are not "smart"?

Yes it actually does. It means their household income is below £7400 so I’m sure even you can imagine the challenges they face. We know this group of pupils face huge disadvantage in their education - 69% of all pupils passed KS2 SATs and only 47% of PP children. This won’t be because they are not as ‘clever’ of ‘bright’ , it will be because of the impact of multiple areas of disadvantage.

The fact that only 8% of grammar places are taken by PP when this sits at 28% shows these pupils are not being given an advantage over children like yours. I can’t find the numbers for LAC pupils but it will be minuscule.

Your description of other local schools is horrific - have you even visited them? Perhaps if you really don’t want your daughter attending a ‘sink school’ you should have worked a bit harder to get into a ‘better catchment’ or pay privately as you obviously think your child deserves this over others.

The privilege you feel your child deserves highlights why there shouldn’t be selective schools - it just perpetuates the massive inequality ties that we have in our society where those that ‘have’ get more and those without find it so difficult.

I'm 64. My brother did have a tutor for a brief time to help with Maths after he'd failed CSE a couple of times. That was unusual. Other than that I knew nobody who had any help outside school unless it came from parents and other family members.

It may have happened sporadically years ago, but my Dad, who is slightly younger than your Parents, said that no one was tutored where he was from. Most of the kids didn’t even know there was going to be an exam. They just came into school one day and were told to take the test.
Tutoring has got out of hand these days.

I don't need to 'be sensitive' because I'm being realistic.

The rise in the number of kids both entering and passing the test is due to parents who wouldn't otherwise have putting kids through the test to avoid increased school fees.

THAT is what drove criteria changes and they ARE middle class families.

So you think your children from a "normal family" should be prioritised over children who are in care?

I'm actually amazed that you're willing to admit publicly just how entitled you are.

Do you think that any family not getting PP is 'middle class'?

I'd say a family with a parent working 16 hrs per week in a NMW job is potentially 'under privileged' and yet this family wouldn't qualify for PP.

Also, PP eligibility lasts 6 years. I suspect this was why OP referenced COVID as I imagine more families would have qualified for PP status because of this period. They could be earning more now, but still be eligible for PP status.

I'm not saying giving it to PP kids is wrong. I'm saying be sensitive to the notion that families not on PP at the lower income ends are not MC, and may have equivalent income streams to PP families- but sometimes with less time.

So glad I live in Scotland where we don't have this nonsense.

The fact is the groups at the top of the pile are TINY groups compared to the overall intake. So yes she isn't at the top of the pile, but neither will MOST children who get in. With siblings not counting, your child has exactly the same priority as most children, with the exception of a few highly disadvantaged ones. That seems fair. The reason primaries prioritise siblings is because tiny children can't get themselves to school and parents can't be in two places at once. When the children are at secondary, this doesn't matter because the children travel independently.

These are grammar school places secured for our prep schools leavers, by year:

• 2025: 7
• 2024: 6
• 2023: 0
• 2022: 1

I can't get over this thread. Looked after children have significantly worse educational and health outcomes. If you are a looked after child, you have come from a home full of abuse, neglect, and loss. At best, you may have had a loving but unsafe and chaotic environment. Anyone who seriously thinks looked after children shouldn't be given extra support to overcome the huge barriers they will face need to have words with themselves. And being adopted doesn't change the fact that all adoption is bourne out of trauma and loss from a very young age. Adopted children face barriers other children don't.

And as for pupil premium, low socio-economic status and poverty are amongst the biggest predictors of educational outcome. It's about trying to break cycles of poverty.

The proportion of PP and LAC children who will have the opportunity to attend a selective grammar school will be very low anyway, and you have the audacity to be sat here moaning about it, and the VAT on private schools? Check your damn privilege.

Sorry but you sound really entitled here.

Why should DD be entitled to a place over others because her sister got in?

You know how competitive getting a grammar place is, particularly now that so many extra kids are taking the test due to parents not wanting to pay higher private school fees.

I'd rather looked after kids and PP kids get places over middle class kids. Round here they all play the system with prep schools using class time to prepare for the 11+ and expensive tutors who cherry pick kids. That's not what grammars are designed for.

There is nothing 'unfair' about prioritising clever under privileged kids for grammar places.

And yes, I do understand the system. I am a middle class parent from a 'naice' village with a child in grammar myself.

actually thats exactly what it means, pupil premium is awarded to those who are disadvantaged; you might disagree with how that criteria is judged but that is what it is for. in an educationally selective system those from disadvantaged background have barriers your children do not, it is fair but I understand why its frustrating, I am frequently in the same position, I have never been in receipt of any benefits or support and have struggled but I have worked in education and school governance and these policies are correct and mostly effective in trying to provide as fair access to quality education as possible under the current governments budgetary constraints.

I read that grammar schools have very low numbers of pp students (about 8%) and lower still LAC so very unlikely that op's child will miss out on a place due to this criteria. If a child is disadvantaged and still manages to pass the 11+, they are in a very small minority and deserve priority for places. The schools are often set targets to increase representation from such groups so they have to prioritise in this way.

Um, yes it usually does. PP funding is allocated to schools based on the number of children eligible for FSM (or who have been in past six years), from service families or who are looked after children. All children in these categories are likely to have experienced disadvantage of some kind. It doesnt for a single second mean that they don't come from "hard-working families." It means that they have experienced disadvantage in their very young lives though no fault of their own. They still have to pass the 11+ like anyone else who wants a place, which is already more difficult for them when there are children from more affluent backgrounds who can access tutoring or have simply experienced greater stability in their lives.

I can understand it is frustrating but the children who would attract PP funding for the school are likely to need the social mobility provided through attending a grammar school more than a child who isn't.

In reality, I would imagine such children in many cases have already been impacted by their disadvantage in life such that they won't pass the 11+ anyway, so I imagine you don't have much to worry about and your DD will get a place. None of these thorny issues are straightforward but your DD isn't more deserving of a place than any other child just because you value education and work hard. Conversely, you could certainly argue that a child from a family where education is not valued, poverty is the norm, family stress and instability are everyday facets of life and manages to pass the 11+ really does deserve their spot...

Maybe. I know they had additional tutoring outside school and it wasn’t uncommon. My point is there has always been and always will be inequality in education. It’s impossible for there not to be.

I wasn't. 61.

Do you really not think that LAC and pupil premium children should have a small leg up in Education? To make things fairer for them? 🙄 not better - fairer!

Fair point - I agree with you.

We’ve got one 50 mins away. The next closest is 2.5 hours!

@SatsumaDog if your parents are in their 80s the Primary schools would have tutored them for 11+. Nowadays state Primaries are not meant to do this