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.

What a load of total bollocks. Why is it okay to pay for tutoring for an exam (which often runs into the many hundreds of pounds, at least in our area where people are advised to start in year two for an eleven plus exam and is beyond the reach of many families as much as private education would be) but not okay to pay to educate your children privately? This is joke post, I can't even believe I'm engaging with this thread. I can't even believe there is someone who's sense of logic work likes this.

tralalala I don't agree with you but I respect your opinion more than the OP's. It has the benefit of being logical .

in our selective LEA there are lots of private schools thatcram year 6 to pass 11+. Those kids then take the grammar places. The local primaries vary in the amount of special 11+ tutoring they provide. So, yes, the fee-paying schools do very well from cramming for 11+. They also clean up on the 11+ 'fails' whose parents don't want them going to the academy. Obv. the govt are being economical with the truth. But were grammars the solution anyway? Good arguments they're divisive too. My dd's at one, btw, for reasons I won't go into here.

Lack of social mobility in this country is not the fault of private education.

It is the result of sections of state education being completely shit.

I am happy for our local grammar schools to take children from out of borough (even though we are in borough), because it isn't the fault of the children in the neighbouring borough that they have no grammar schools.

Catz-lawyers so that's fair.Who speaks for kids pushed out of uni because of fees and pushed out of grammar for lack of tutoring?

I read in the Times this weekend to pay for half of a childs's uni fees you need to save £200 odd a month.I forget what the full amount was,eye watering I suspect. People don't have that kind of money let alone money for lawyers.

I this gov are just talking out of their backside,social mobility my arse.

A local borough is one thing Milly - getting in and moving from the other side of London or Hong Kong (I kid you not) is another.

It annoys me when people snobbily say that they wouldnt live where I do as its a 'shithole' but then will happily send their dcs to the grammars. But am always on my high horse about this and am boring myself about it now.

Is this common? All of the people I know who went to private primaries went to private secondaries. With a few leaving for the state sector at sixth form.

Maybe it varies depending on area?

At my primary school we were prepared for the exam to get into the same secondary school IYSWIM. All of the girls (from what I can remember) got through and stayed at the same school.

I think it would be worth getting into a palaver about if there is evidence that this is very common.

PLUS why stop there - what about people who buy a house in the "right" catchment / get religion to get into the best state primaries and then tutor like billy-o. From what I have seen this is far more prevalent than people leaving the private sector at secondary level.

Interesting about private schools not teaching to the 11+,we have a local one that boasts it's results.

Some interesting points I wasn't aware of though.

I went to grammar school 35 years ago. Very few went from my school (which was in the middle of a council estate). Far more came from a nearby wealthy area. No tutoring in those days, it was simply down to those who had support at home and those who didn't. Whilst I had no support at home re practicing papers I did have parents who valued their dcs education mainly because they themselves were uneducated and wanted more for their dcs.

YANBU, I think grammer schools should be there for bright kids from poorer backgrounds who could really do well in life if they are given a decent education. If you can pay to send your children to prep school you can afford to pay untill 18. I see no point in prep schools but I guess some famlies have more money than sense so that is their business.
The problem with kids who have been heavily tutored/helped to get into Grammer schools is they often really struggle to keep up with the high standards when they get there. Each time a toff prep school child gets a place at a grammer school that is one less place for a child who could have really benefitted from that place. I am not against private education as I recognise that if you can afford to pay for your education that is one less person the state have to educate but I do think if you make the decsion to pay for a private education you should give up your right to attend grammer schools. Sorry about the bad spelling but I am a poor state educated dummy!

Sardine I wonder if this is going to be more common.

I have no idea how many go on to grammar school from ds's school but they do make a big deal about the number going on to the attached senior school and offer fee discounts if you do.

Kate you summed up exactly what I'm trying to say .

I know plenty of people who can afford to pay £7,000 a yr prep fees. I know a lot less who can afford £14,000 for senior school fees. The only way Ds will be going to private secondary is if he got a full scholarship!

katedan - so what about if you are really wealthy but send your dcs to state - where I am people pick and choose and move between state and prep as lots of people are very wealthy - does that mean that you are going to start means testing for all grammar places - that just doesnt make sense.

Everyone where I am tutors, state or private and as a result its actually quite a level playing field - this year its easier to get into a really good single sex private school in my area thats top ten in the country academically than it is to get into a grammar.

And 'toff prep school'?

MilaMae

0.5 / 10

Nice to know that my Ds is a 'toff'. I'll have to get him to go and live somewhere else. There is clearly no way he can carry on living with his state school educated oik of a mum.

I don't see why we need to try and pick holes in the govts attempts at social mobility - they're tories, it's not on the agenda!

And yes, if you wanted to give every kid a fair chance, you'd have to abolish grammars and private schools.

joan - if you wanted every kid to have a fair chance you'd have to take them all into care from birth. Its all done by age 7 - thats what surestart is trying to address.

Im sorry but the OP is 100% correct for the Wirral area anyway!

So presumably my "toff" prep school kids would be barred from going to the local grammar because I (council house raised and comprehensively educated) decided to take advantage of my social mobility and pay for a good education for them? Interesting theory.

I don't understand the idea that children who go to private school are stupid?

I went to a selective private school in North London. I don't think that you could say any of the girls there were stupid.

I also find the idea that anyone with above average income should be barred from selective schools very odd. So the poor bright children get a grammar school, the rich bright children get a private school, and all the bright children in the middle don't get anything special? That sounds really peculiar to me.

get the marks, get the place

I agree with Joan.

In the current flawed system you have to work with what you've got. If you were serious about this you'd ban private schools and all selection (including religious, catchment, testing) for state and do it all on a lottery.