May has got her Grammars.

When people talk about the 11+ and grammar schools they talk about it as if it / they are only one type of thing. They aren’t and the methods of selection are equally varied.

I live in Bucks. Our secondary education is 100% selective- there are NO comprehensives just Grammars and uppers. There are 13 Grammars and 21 uppers. All the Grammars have catchment areas (as do the uppers). Bucks is the only county which is opt out. Every child in a Bucks primary school is automatically entered for the 11+ to be sat in September of year 6. It is designed to broadly select the top 30%. Primary schools provide a familiarisation paper but can not tutor. I know no one who has tutored from year 3 / 4 in Bucks. To gain a place you need a standardised score of 121+ and then meet the catchment/ distance requirements. The test is NVR and Englis & Maths (not VR).

My children’s grammar takes 120 children and generally allocates in catchment to about 3 miles. The catchment upper takes 210 children and allocates in catchment to about 5 miles - so broadly similar. The 2 schools are within walking distance of each other and their is no us and then - all children have friends at both schools. I have a number of friends with children at both schools.

Henrietta Barnett in contrast has no catchment and takes the highest ranked 98 girls who sit their test (who could live anywhere) - so in principle could take no local children. Kendrick (in Reading) has a very large catchment- approx radius of 30m and takes the highest ranked children who sat their test from within catchment.

I could go on but the point is grammar schools are not a single entity.

Bucks is probably closest to the old system. The problem in Bucks is highly tutored students from ooc who raise the qualifying mark making it harder for Bucks children to get places.

None of them are perfect systems by any means but they are all very different systems.

@noblegiraffe - agree entirely about removing the whole system. Mine went to a great comprehensive and out performed their cousins at one of the super-grammars.

Just pondering really and thinking of a way to create a tutor proof system that gives an equal opportunity to those children without access to tutoring whether private or parental.

In my utopian world , we would actually spend extra resources on those who struggle with education either academically or because of disengagement, rather than creating hot houses for the academically able.

error teacher assessment is very unreliable, 11+ tests are also unreliable. That doesn’t mean that we can replace one with the other, it means the entire system of selection should be scrapped.

I couldn’t agree more, op. This is a move to institutionalise social advantage for those who already had it. Consistent with most policy from the current lot.

Is it any less fair than endless prepping though?

Teacher assessment is notoriously unreliable.

How about having catchment primary schools for each grammar and commit to taking the top 20% from each school (as defined over 2 years by their teachers) plus remaining places for other students eg those at the prep schools, and/or those outside the 20% identified by their teachers.

ScrubTheDecks How do they determine middle class background? I've only seen the FSM and PP numbers for grammars, are they using another measure? I wouldn't call someone middle class because their parent has managed to keep working in minimum wage jobs and never applied for FSM.

Its 50 million, a drop in the ocean for the schools budget. And its being given so that they can expand, they aren't being given any more funding per pupil. Its really going to make zero difference in the grand scheme, not worth the fuss.

Why should only bright children from poor backgrounds be given opportunities? Does this mean we write some off from infancy because they haven't had any chance to show whether they are potentially bright or not?

However, I can't see it not be manipulated to help those children already more advantaged - I doubt whether the kid being pushed around B & Bs and with an unemployed or minimum wage parent will be first in the queue for the grammar.

I saw this on the news and felt so saddened. It will only increase the class divide. It's that simple. May doesn't care about the general population in any way.

What I find particularly horrendous is the suggestion that our lovely state primaries should evolve into nasty little 11+ prep schools . . As JustRichmal says above, the number of man-hours under 10s waste learning to jump through hoops in grammar school areas bothers me more than what fretful parents spend on it . . . . When our DC were in Y4, another mum asked the HT at a parents' forum if our inner London school wouldn't consider training (some, maybe top-table, with parents willing to pay?) DC for selective or private school entry? To his credit, the HT ruled it out quite firmly. A school governor came on later and advised the parent to hire a private tutor.
But how long could the HT resist that sort of pressure, if the grammars were all around us, scooping up top-table kids from every primary (and not just a few out in the distant suburbs?) How long could we, as parents?
Who really wants this madness back? And I speak as the product of a 1970s grammar school education; of which the most important impact was to make us all feel vastly superior to the secondary modern kids in town. Neither school, frankly, was any good; a brilliant comp like the ones both have since become, I hear, would have been 100x better for all of us. "Academic" kids don't benefit from being academic all the time, and "non-academic" kids also have talents, which can only develop if they maintain a modicum of self-belief . . . How do grammar schools help with any of that? Mine certainly didn't.

I live in a grammar school area and agree with the person who was saying about children being tutored from Year 3. I know of children who on top of that did a three day intensive programme in the summer holidays. These are children who are already massively advantaged purely by being middle class.

I went to a grammar myself and I never felt as good as the other kids there because I wasn't as clever and well off as some of them. I suffered from low self esteem so how will these children be supported?

Dont have grammar schools in my county

I can't work out whether thats good for my children or not

eliza

I can't remember where on here i read it

But there was a post saying that back in the day girls had to get a higher pass mark to get into grammar schools than boys did

justicewoman that's a brilliant post!

Just to add.. someone said why do we need them. We need to give bright children from poor backgrounds the real chance to have a better opportunities than they would otherwise get and if someone is really bright they will get that.

DS is at a state grammar and we didn't tutor at all. We did a few prep books but that was it.

(although for transparency he did go to a prep school from 7 - but they don't prepare for 11+).

I think grammars are great...I went to a really dire comp where people did not want to learn and spent 5 years being bullied because I did.

I think there needs to be another measure of low income used in addition to FSM and PP. A child whose parent(s) end up on benefits for a short time will become a PP child if I understand correctly? But a child whose parent(s) have worked for the minimum/living wage throughout their schooling is classed the same as a middle class child with a much higher household income.

A 'Bum' fight is when you use engage your bottom to achieve advantage over another human being !......

This is instead of a 'bunfight' : the meaning of is to suggest Victorian children squabbling over buns and cakes at tea time.

In the context of grammar school exams, this could equate to blocking the school car park. This therefore meaning Syreeta's mum could not access the school or enable Syreeta to take her 11+ !. The effect being to substantially reduce the competition for your child.

What is a bum fight? Do you mean bun fight?

A bad school doesn't suddenly become a good school because it is a comprehensive !

Indeed not, but nor are all grammar schools good!

How do you know whether people are on the left or the right? Don't forget that Maggie Thatcher as Education Minister approved the most comprehensives - because middle class children were failing.

Two girls at the same grammar Peregrina.