Schools admission criteria......

Yes. It's her daughter. People care more about their children than other people's. This is totally normal

Any child that isn’t in care is on the back foot… please read your comment again and sit with it. I’ve seen some stuff on here but that has to be one of the most vile. Regardless of what school she gets, having a mother raising her with those views she’s a lost cause anyway. Wow. What a disgusting, nasty comment.

And, naturally, parents with more resources will always make sure their child gets into a better school using whatever tools the system has available. Whatever system you design this will be the result

I don't doubt that they do. There are lots of disadvantaged groups that do not get priority, and I wonder what the utility is of prioritizing this group above others

Unfortunately education is never going to be a level playing field. There will be more pressure on state school places now more families are priced out of the private system.

Overall, people do seem to prefer admissions criteria that favour them (so church attendance over distance, or catchment before siblings, or siblings over distance etc).

The disadvantaged are likely to remain so and the OP’s, already advantaged, daughter will get her place at the lovely grammar school full of children from normal families.

Thank you for saying this!

While these sorts of policies are very well intentioned, they rarely actually work, because they end up creating the kind of unfairness as you describe.

I went to an underperforming state school in a rural part of the UK. Some of the children there are so much materially worse off than pupils in cities from who get priority and funding and focus based on things like ethnic background. It just creates unfairness in different ways than life being simply unfair

So essentially, you’d be happy for your daughter to be given an advantage but those who are actually already at a massive disadvantage in comparison to your daughter aren’t allowed? Or have I misunderstood?

I suspect that children in care and children of non-working parents are unlikely to pass the 11+ anyways?

I think the OP thinks people should know their place.

Read the thread then. You will then see the obvious reasons why this is so.

Then you need to educate yourself on the level of trauma and disadvantage they suffer.

How entitled does one have to be to think prioritising kids in care over privileged kids is unfair?

Oh I will!

OPs kids have much bigger issues than if they get into grammar school. Namely a mother who lacks any intellectual curiosity as to why looked after children or on pupil premium might be identified as benefiting from some positive discrimination. And as for describing her family as normal ….. and the unspoken abnormality of anyone not like her. If you are still reading OP catch yourself on. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Have a look on the school website for the % of children that have PP, in most grammar schools is it usually much lower than the catchment area. It might reassure you that your daughter isn’t being disadvantaged.

You genuinely can't think of a reason why they would have priority? Or by 'strange' do you really mean that you don't agree with it and believe that the privileged children of middle class parents who can afford to pay for tutoring and to buy houses in the catchment areas of high-achieving grammar schools should continue to take priority?

No, I don't think this is unfair. It's the same type of argument used by those that resent kids with an EHCP getting extra support or those with serious medical conditions receiving DLA or PIP.

Children in care are already significantly more disadvantaged than your daughter. Giving those that manage to pass the 11+ (no doubt with no tutoring) priority is an attempt to level the playing field. It's also not new or a choice made by the school; it's a requirement for all state schools.

If your daughter scores well enough in the exam, she will get in.

Just a thought OP - your grammar school is usual if there’s no staff places. Most round us have 4 or so places reserved for children of staff who have passed the 11+. (In many years, that would be more than look after places).

You're a snob op
Find the private school fees you'd be more comfortable there seemingly.

Do you know what "looked after" means? It means that for a multitude of reasons their birth families can not care for them and they are "looked after" by the state. These are the most disadvantaged and traumatised children, who have had to experience the worst things in life at a very young age. They should be our absolute priority for education support.

OP, if your child is bright enough to pass the 11+ she is likely to be one of the 20% who get the required GCSE grades no matter which school she attends. She may also have a better experience than struggling to keep up in a grammar school and the toll this takes on self confidence, particularly as she’s dyslexic.

We still have grammar schools in our area, so we moved out of the area when DC were very young to avoid them. My DC went to the local comprehensive school and all did very well. We moved back when the DC were adults and the same divisive issues still exist - relentless tutoring, kids travelling up to 40 miles each way to get to grammar schools, kids suffering from MH problems because of the pressure etc. I’m very glad we made those decisions on behalf of our DC.

Of course you’re not unreasonable to want the best for your daughter and it’s great she has a parent behind her advocating for her and trying to get the best for her.

So you're happy for the government to fund an enhanced education for your DD but annoyed that said government wants to also use those funds for other pupils it thinks should have access to it ahead of your child? Righty-ho then.