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.

BREAKING NEWS *

This entire discussion is a moot point because this government is not serious and does not care about 'social mobility'.

What do you not get?

They.don't.care.

They are pretending to care to pacify what they consider the masses.

Get.a.clue.

seeker you and many others seem to be saying that grammars are not full of the brightest kids, but in fact are full of children from MC backgrounds whose parents push for it.

Then you say you had to put your DC in grammar for your DC to be educated alongside her peers academically.

Both can't be right can they?

If the high schools are full of perfectly bright WC class whose parents didn't push for it, why wasn't that good enough?

Not being arsey here btw, in your position I woul dhave gone for GS too.

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?

They may be looking but they haven't suceeded. I know certain DCs who are not grammar school material, but they got the place because their parents worked on it for several years.
I am not convinced about Eton, I think that you will find that certain feeder schools are producing just what they want. State schools don't coach for 11+, they treat it properly, and it is a shame the parents don't.

Thing is, I don't see why a child who has really grafted to get a place at GS doesn't deserve it.
Doesn't it bode well that a child is willing to put that sort of slog in? Doesn't it bode well that the parents care?

The MN thoery that coached children are struggling in their droves at GS doesn't seem to be borne out by the results.
Afterall GCSEs and A levels are not the perserve of genius. Hard graft goes a very very long way.

Raw intelligence after all is worth precisely fuck all without application.

There are lots of generalisations on this thread which don't fit my own children's school nor accurately describe many of its or parents.

I'm not sure it's helpful to inclusivity for people to be insisiting that tutoring or private schooling is essential to get in: who are the people that are saying that and on what do they base the idea, which is presented as fact?

The head at our school insists tutoring is neither necessary nor desirable and won't get a child in; he says the vast majority of pupils who succeed in the tests do so with no prior tutoring from a professional tutor and he says there is no significant drop out rate to suggest that below standard tutored children are getting in.

I think he probably knows what he's talking about; he's a very straightforward man.

wordfactory aren't people on here saying that raw intelligence is worth precisely fuck all if you can't pay for a tutor? I know which I think is worse.

I dont think there is any real evidence that tutored children can't keep up.

A bit of anecdotal twaddle here...'my DS's best friend's brother was tutored since birth and he actually has the IQ of a single cell amoeba.'

The only evidence there is, seems to say that the results from GS are good...so all these supposedly highly coached kids are doing alright methinks.

I suspect the truth is that many kids are coached but they'd have probably got in anyways. It just helps parental angst. And maybe it helps a kid's confidence a bit which always assists performance on the day.

And even if the odd kid who isn't that bright squeezed in through coaching, so what? If the kid carries on grafting like that he'll do just fine. Why is he less deserving of a place?

wordfactory I think that's much more how it is, that the right kids get in and the parents who paid for a tutor might just as well have saved their money.

There remains the different issue about whether the right kids are applying. I think that's the one the heads are more concerned about than the tutoring thing.

I think that's right.
Of the two kids from DC's prep who applied to GS, both were as bright as buttons. Lovely kids.

Maybe they were tutored? Probably.
Was it necessary? Probably not.
Both got in, one with 100% in tests.

Should they be kept out of GS because they wnet to prep? Absolutely not. Their parents can't afford private secondary and their kids will be an asset to their GS.

Is there any chance we could accept that not all grammar school entry requirements are the same across the country?

I firmily believe that all but a few especially gifted children do need tutoring to get into a superselective GS. And superselective is all we have in this area.

In a neighbouring borough there are four grammar schools, all within a short distance from eachother, all with small catchment areas, all take headmaster/mistress reccomendation from primary school. Getting into one of those schools is going to be easier than getting into a grammar school that has a massive catchment area that spans four counties.

This is where tutoring comes in, because as I said earlier, children don't just have to pass, they have to pass highly enough to get one of the limited places on offer. It is a fact that children passed the exam, and still could not be offered a place because there simply aren't enough of them.

This school is able to take the very best of the best, which does mean that very bright children who could easily pass a common entrance or an 11+ which isn't forced to apply such high criteria, cannot access this school without extra help.

When two equally bright children are competeing for one place, but one has had a couple of practice papers at home and one has had proffessional tuition from a qualified teacher with prior experience of teaching to the 11+ for a year, which one is likley to have the advantage?

Very interesting then why those grammars able to be super selective are doing no better than some others which are not super selective.

I think the volume of numbers applying is misleading. Whatever advice is given to parents, do they take it or do lots just wing it with a really good school on their doorstep? These presumably are the grammars like Tiffin in very densely populated areas. But it clearly ramps things up, both for the parents and for the pupils of parents who are dead set on their child getting in.

Anyhow, the grammars which feature regularly in the top section of the tables are not all super selectives. Do those possess a particular magic or is it simply that more applicants doesn't mean better?

I'd rate a grammar as 'super' on its results rather than on how many apply.

If you have a school which takes the top however much % at 11, then it would be outrageous if their results weren't excellent.

Imagine a year 7 in which practically every child was at at least National Curriculum level 5 - wouldn't you be asking questions if most of them didn't get mostly As at GCSE?

As for the super-selectives - don't forget the snob factor!

50% of YR6 in a prep school in close vicinity to a superselective got places. They were assisted in school (VR lessons) and also had private tuition. VR holds twice the weight of English or Maths in Essex and can be tutored for. A bright kid with no 'help' doesn't stand a chance IMO.

The top grammar in the country is definitely a superselective - it is above Eton in the FT 1000 (2010). Not bad considering it is free.

What's the 'snob factor' Seeker?

Yes Seeker of course I'd expect results to be good but the point is about the relative results of the so-called 'super selectives' and their allegedly poor relations who do equally as well if not better.

I think the culture in the densely populated areas is much more competitive and not one I'd like to be part of. Just happy to get at least the same results!

Pickled my experience says different.

All grammar schools are equal - but some are more equal than others!

What is the top grammar in that table then Pickled? Tbh our school keeps its head well up compared to Eton, I think a number do.

'Free' isn't the main purpose of grammars.

Colchester Royal Grammar School. It is superselective but it is not the hardest of the Essex grammars to get into. Go figure.

'Free' is pretty much essential if poor kids are to get a look in, no?

Superselective just means that there is no catchment AFAIK.

Giddy I take your point. But surely that means they aren't 'super-selective' because what your post says is that most of the pupils who end up with one of the 120 places are pretty much the same as many pupils who failed to win a place.

That makes sense but I don't think it make them super selective in the true sense.

It's just about population density really, not because the children getting in are cleverer than those getting in to a school like ours where one third of applicants win places.

Go figure what? Colchester is a great school. By hardest you mean in terms of the ratio of applicants to places? I made that point somewhere above.

I think you know I meant that grammars aren't there for the main purpose of saving affluent and aspirational parents fees.

To OP

You asked " Am I being Unreasonable?"

The answer is yes.

Would be very interested to see how/if your views change by the time your Dcs go to school

Giddy I see. There's muddled thinking going on then (mine included) because the posts above suggested to me that super selective meant numerically more applicants and that those schools ended up with brighter kids which raises the other questions relating to results.

Really poor kids won't be able to afford to travel 25 miles is another problem.

Anyhow, thanks for putting me straight, it's interesting to know what goes on in other areas with all this.