To think that grammar schools should limit the number of places available to private school kids

[reallytired]

Many grammer schools are over loaded with private school kids. Bright state school kids just can not compete. It is a massive advantage being in a class of 8 with specialist teachers and no SEN kids.

I think that the number of places for privately educated kid should be limited to the percentage of private school kids in the area. Ie. if 10% of kids in a town go to private school then 10% of places should be reserved for private school kids and 90% of places should be for everyone else.

It would then give poor state school families a chance. My son got mostly level 3s at his key stage 1 SATS and is on the top table in his class for every subject, but his school does not think he would get a place at the only grammar in the area. Its crazy. Its no wonder that social mobility is at an all time low.

"I don't know...I think the situation needs tweaking. There is a definite 'educational apartheid' going on which is more divisive and limiting than the old grammar/secondary modern divide".

You said it, Alistron.

aliston 1 I agree. But who cares about a level playing field when their children can benefit from an advantage that they can pay for? No-one cares much about people generally and only about themselves. They will protest that they do but actions do speak louder than words I think.

Maybe it's not educational apartheid so much as parental apartheid.

Nobody is prepared to challenge the fact that some parents (from all stratas of society) just don't support their kids enough and that actually it's NOT OK.

It's not ok to not read to your kids.

It's not ok to be 'too tired' to help them with their homework.

It's not IMO OK to allow them to just do the minimum and not perform to their best ability - in whatever they are good at (from football to philosophy)

It's not OK to entirely abdicate your responsibility to the school - you need to pay attention and be involved.

Perhaps this is where private education has a distinct advantage. If I was paying for an education like that I would expect my children to do as well as they were able and would be even pushier than I am now - if that's possible.

Too often I think the system gets blamed, when actually if no-one at home gives a monkeys about their dcs education, then the children generally don't do very well. I have seen very underprivilaged children with incredible learning disabilities do outstandingly well, because their semi-literate parents cared enough to bother and be completely involved with their dcs education.

Society will never be fair, even with a completely level playing field, there will still be unequal outcomes.

Surely as a parent it's your job to move heaven and earth to get your child into the right school for them.

Apt description for the parents who dutifully turn up at church every week to get a place at the church school.

haven't read the whole thread but OP yes YBVU!

Our prep school doesn't coach for 11+ as most stay on until 13 and sit common entrance exam. Some people leave for a state school for a variety of reasons, one being can't afford it any more.

Bearing in mind that for the years that their child has been at private school, they have not taken up the place that is required to be provided for them, thereby saving money.

Why are they not entitled to it?

Grammar schools at least select academically. If you want educational apartheid look at ordinary secondary schools. If you have the money you can buy a house in a very nice area an have access to several lovely well performing state schools.
The idea of 'choice' is a myth unless you have the cash to move into a good catchment area or opt out of the system and go private.

One of my parents went to a grammar school and has had a great career as a result. A child living in their old house now would have a choice of 3 schools, the best of which gets around 35% A-C at GCSE.

Once those "private school kids" attend a grammar school they become exactly that - grammar school kids. Labelling people because of their previous school is wicked and against all natural justice. Grammar schools are about academic excellence and if that means taking the brightest entrants then so be it.

Yes, crossword - the question should be simply how to ensure that they do get the brightest.

Given that even if you could restrict private school entrants you couldn't possibly legislate against other forms of extra tuition (be it professional or engaged and able parents) then the only solution is that the state primaries adequately prepare their bright children. This is what used to happen; I'd thought they didn't any more but recently learned that many of the in-catchment primaries for my DDs GS do prepare them (the church schools don't because they want to feed the church school).

Levelling a playing field by thumping down the high points may be the easiest option but in this case the correct solution is surely to fill in the dips.

(oh, and in case it wasn't clear, as far as I can see most of my DDs classmates were from state primaries not privates)

bb99 "Nobody is prepared to challenge the fact that some parents (from all stratas of society) just don't support their kids enough and that actually it's NOT OK."

But those of us who work in schools are trying to address that every day. And it would be fantastic if the wider school system took these factors into account. Sadly with the introduction of 'free' schools and the academy system I fear that the situation is going to get worse. But that's a whole other debate.

crossword define brightest? Who is brighter... the EAL kid with parents who are not engaged getting an NC level 4 at the end of Y6 or the private school child, with motivated parents, passing the 11+ ?! It's a tricky one.

CrosswordAddict:-
"Once those "private school kids" attend a grammar school they become exactly that - grammar school kids. Labelling people because of their previous school is wicked and against all natural justice. Grammar schools are about academic excellence and if that means taking the brightest entrants then so be it."

I find these sentiments very naive, sorry.

"Or better still state schools pull their bloody socks up."

Yes, I agree. How ever money has to come from somewhere. Instead tax payer's money goes on bonuses. The funding cuts that are happening in British state schools is shocking.

I am not sure how I would level the playing field. However I think the present situation is damaging the country.

We need social mobility for the sake of all of us. We need to support the gifted poor.

Here's an idea (off the top of my head, there's probably a lot of holes in it).

Private schools are supposed to do something in return for their charitable status. How about they should be required to run free tuition classes for anyone that a state primary recommends? Mainly for 11+ but in areas with private secondaries which offer bursaries, the entrance exams for those too.

The GS I work at has still majority state school entrants with what was a small no. from private primary, but those figures are steadily changing and last yr were at about 25% from private but after another successful yr results-wise that looks like to increase again. One parent said they would be mad to pay £12-15k per annum for senior (when the £ really does hike from prep) with the GS outstripping the private school results wise although whether they are really comparing like-with-like is hard to ascertains as some do the IGCSE or IB.

However, it's still very much a state school and a few parents who've experienced private prep education have expressed surprise at the 'rough' element, the 30 pupil class sizes, want more compulsory extra curricular activities, want more 1-2-1 for their children from staff.

I suspect the GS teachers have very little interest in taking only the pupils with the highest IQs.

Yes they want bright kids, but they alos need to be teachable and motivated. Engaged supportive parents, are pretty much a must too, I should think.

Only one indie primary school near me teaches for the 11+ - the others wont touch it at all and actively discourage it as they want the boys to stay on until 13 for common entrance and the girls to stay onto their respective senior schools.

Everyone near me tutors for the grammars - its not the private dcs that are the problem - its the dcs from surrounding boroughs.

I took Ds1 out of his state primary at the age of 8 because he was being bullied so badly he was suicidal. He was being bullied because he was bright. The HT thought he should dumb down and fit in.

He had 2 years in a lovely prep school where he flourished at his own pace.

He got into the local grammar school. I am grateful that the prep school encouraged him to work hard. I wouldn't say he was "crammed though". I didn't do tuition.

All the other boys in his class went on to private secondary schools - he was the only one who went to a state school.

I could never have afforded private secondary school.

I don't agree that children from private schools should be excluded from applying for state secondaries.

Just my POV.

Poor bright kids are teachable and moviated, in fact high achieving poor kids are often far more moviated than their private school counter parts.

Ex private school kids can be distruptive as well. Especially if they aren't coping without spoonfeeding.

Parents can be engaged in education, but there is a limit to how much resources a single mother on a low income can give.

I like the idea of private schools being forced to run free tutoring for promising state school kids.

Incidentally - he went to a local, state 6th form college for A levels, and was in a class of 6.

Why are people naive to think that bullying only happens in state schools? I went to a selective private girls school and suffered 6 years of total utter hell.

My son's state school has an excellent ant bullying policy. If your child is being bullied and nothing is being done then why not took at other state primaries?

Why are people naive to think that bullying only happens in state schools?

No-one said that.

Of course poor children can be motivated and teachable, but I suspect GS teachers would take supportive parents over non supportive ones, whatever the reason for their lack of engagement.

I'm not saying it's right, but I suspect it's true.

Bullying happens in every school. What varies is how schools deal with it.

Lit - don't understand your point really, GS schools don't interview parents.