To think if the gov are serious about social mobility they should be banning privately educated kids from taking state grammar school places?

[MilaMae]

Spending ££££ on tutoring to get your kids into a grammar school is one thing but sending your kids to a private school which is free from the national curriculum and able to spend every day teaching to the 11+ is wrong and buys kids school places which should be reserved for the state educated.

Alongside freedom to teach to the 11+ private schools have tiny classes so it's pupils have even more of an advantage. Many of these children won't even be naturally bright and shouldn't even be at said grammar schools.

In our local area apparently far fewer state educated kids got into grammar school this year. Obviously this is due to more privately educated kids applying for places due to parents struggling to pay fees in the current economic climate.

This is wrong. Grammar school should be reserved for state kids only. For many kids rightly or wrongly it's their one big shot at getting a leg up in life. The rich shouldn't be able to hoover these places up because they're feeling the pinch.

You can't put a stop to tutoring but the gov could put a stop to this very unfair practice(if they truely believe in social mobility).It would be very easy to control.

This isn't sour grapes on my part(my dc are tiny) just an observation.

@tralalala - there's a difference between 'social mobility' and 'social equality'. social mobility enables people to change the level they were born with according to ability. social equality means there are no different levels at all.

personally i believe social mobility is possible (it was proved to be in the past). i don't think true social equality is actually impossible. grammar schools enable mobility. i agree they don't create social equality.

passes Paws a sledgehammer

Grammar schools could and did enable social mobility for some - but as the above example shows, not everyone was even allowed to take the first step, and so ended up with less potential for mobility than ever.

"How does an IQ test differ from the 11+ then?"

it tests the capacity to learn rather than what has been learnt. there are usually a variety of ways of doing this and academics can argue the merits of one way over another ad infinitum. but it's clever stuff, eh? just have a look at some iq tests online and you will see the difference.

The 11+ differs from an IQ test probably in lots of ways, but in my limited knowledge of both I would say that that IQ gives more accuracy because it test things like working memory and processing speed, and it gives a range of what a persons IQ is likely to fall in with a percentage probablility. It can genuinely assess whether a child has a high intellectual ability because it tests a range of things, rather than testing knowledge on a particular subject.

11+ tests current knowledge and exam technique.

In theory, a 11 year old could score very highly on an IQ test if they are of high intelligence after never having had a maths or English lesson in their life before. A highly intelligent 11 year old would be completely unable to do well in an 11+ exam if they had not been studying maths and English since they were five, because it is about what has been taught to them and their understanding of that, not their natural ability.

Looks like Joan explained it much more clearly than I did!

A child certainly doesn't have to be a genius to pass the 11+ at my kids' school without tutoring. It's one of the top grammars in the country, regularly at the top of the tables. None of my kids are genius but they're all in so far. The vast majority of their peers weren't tutored either. The tests are tests of reasoning, both the VR and the maths. I strongly, strongly disagree that grammars are out to disadvantage already disadvantaged kids by means of the entrance exam. What prompts a statement like that?

How many children at your grammar ore on free school meals, Yellowstone?

ANd of course you can pass the 11+ without tutoring - particularly if you have parents who are interested in your education, you have been helped and supported all through Primary school, you come from a house with books, you are talked to, encouraged to discuss and think about things, watch intelligent telly and ....well, and are middle class.

Grammars aren't out to deliberately disadvantage disadvantaged kids, but that is sometimes what ends up happening. I don't think I can explain that any more clearly than I already have done. That's not to say that I explained it particularly clearly, just that I can't explain it any better!

I'm sorry but are you actually saying you want to stop people who have been educated privately ever re-entering the state system??? Once you opt out, that's it, no opting in again? How does that help social mobility?

thats rather offensive SEEKER.
my parents are working class, their words, and did all those things with their children, we were supported, had loads of books etc

More than in most grammars I believe Seeker, even though we're an affluentish area overall.

I'm not sure I am middle class Seeker, I'm the daughter of a refugee, so quite a mongrel.

My kids watch crap on the telly the whole time, it's mindless. That's when they're not on fb or the X-box or Wii.

You're stereotyping. I like the mix at our grammar but I believe kids are deterred from applying and I'd like to see that change.

Actually, coccyx, I think that might make you middle class!

I'm sorry, didn't meant to be offensive - it was a flippant remark which I shouldn;'t have added. The rest of what I said holds good, though.

Bubble I realise you didn't say that but someone else did, explicitly!

You could find out, Yellowstone. I don't think there's a grammar in the country with more than 5% FSM. Which is shocking.

I have found out Seeker, I just said it was more than most. Our school is busy with outreach programmes and has the political will to do more. That's more important to me than knocking it because of the status quo.

I'm not knocking your school - I'm knocking the system!

I've not read the whole thread but I'vegot 2 points to make :

1. None of the prep schools I know prepare for grammar entry. They go up to year 8 and they do not like losing pupils at year 6. The name 'prep' means that their job is to prepare for entry into public school. Any prep school child trying for a state grammar has to prepare themselves out of school.

1. grammar schools should change there exam so that you cannot prepare or be tutored for it. This exam should simply show potential and those with the greatest get accepted. It is possible. I think Eton's pre-entry test at 11 cannot be prepared for, no reason why state grammar can't use the same system.

It would be lovely if they could do an exam with a level playing field, where you couldn't possibly prepare your DC, and if it was possible I would be quite happy with the system. Is Eton's test like that? What do they do? If they have it why do they have feeder schools that produce what they want?

(I was very pleased that old Etonians can't just put names down at birth).

Seeker, I definitely grew up in a working class household and throughout most of school was on FSM. But, we also still had those things such as interested parents who read to us. We didn't have many toys or board games but we played various card games most nights.

Eton's tests are similar to the ones my son took to get into his selective independent school. There's a pre-test at age 11-12 (year 8). This is Maths/English/verbal reasoning. If you get through this you're offered a place conditional on doing well at common entrance: eight or nine subjects, I seem to remember.

Don't forget that there are 2 kinds of grammar school in England:

  One is part of the old-fashioned 2-tier system, (originally meant to be 3, but the middle tier never took off) that still exists in Kent, Cheshire & Torbay/Plymouth.

 The other is a kind of super-elite school with individual schools covering very wide areas or large populations, as found in bits of London, the rest of Devon, bits of Essex and other scattered places.

By and large, the new model grammars well out-perform the old-model.

The old model failed because 75% or so of children were consigned to Sec Modz whose role was to prepare children for their proper place in a relatively static society. Grammars actually performed a similar role for middle class children, but did also provide a conduit of upward mobility for children from poorer backgrounds.

However, if you really want to improve state-funded education, you should not be creaming off the top 25%; you should be providing separate, more supportive education for the bottom 25%, who often are a major impediment to the other 75%'s learning.

I bet they can produce a test that it's nit possible to prepare for but since there is a whole industry built around the 11+ what would all the retired teachers do for pocket money if suddenly you can't revise/practise for it. Everything is about lining someones pocket the sooner the DCs learn that lesson the better their education at the university of life will be.

There's a lot more thought going into entrance tests than MN posters give credit for.

Of course grammar school heads are looking for tests which level the playing field as far as is possible. Does Eton have a preserve of anything these days?

'I would love for Ds to go to the local state school where they DO prepare for 11+'
I am pretty sure the Schools Admissions Code prohibits 11+ coaching in state schools

I really support Grammar schools, DH and I aren't affluent and don't do th church thing, and the local grammar school has given our eldest 2 a fab education. It is a normal grammar school with a catchment area rather than a super selective one (although it gets results as least as good as the super-selectives) It is quite possible for a moderately able child to pass the 11+ by just doing a couple of familiarisation papers.