Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

502 replies

MilaMae · 05/04/2011 17:31

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.

OP posts:
Abr1de · 05/04/2011 18:20

If you're that poor you don't pay university fees.

They only kick in for everyone else once you earn a certain amount post graduation.

How does this discriminate against poor, starving but bright children?

katedan · 05/04/2011 18:20

Apart from Paul Mccartney I doubt many very wealthy people send their children to state schools. I know some people have to pull their kids out of private as they have had a change in fortune etc but for most people who can afford a prep school education their child getting a place in a Grammer school just means one more skiing holiday!!!!

omnishambles · 05/04/2011 18:20

Would you ban home ed as well sardine as theres going to be lots of governess taught dcs once again in that scenario.

lovecorrie · 05/04/2011 18:22

I can't believe that grammar schools still exist! They were phased out here when i was 10 (1975) It's remarkable that one small country has such different ways of state educating still.

omnishambles · 05/04/2011 18:22

Thats absolute rubbish katedan - lots of people choose between them, especially at primary level. And its not one more skiing holiday unless you pay between 15 (entry level secondary,day) to 27(weekly boarding) thats a hell of a difference from free to anyone and thats before you've talked about multiple dcs.

mewantcookiesmenocanwait · 05/04/2011 18:23

If you banned private school kids from going to grammar schools, their parents would just find a way round it - they'd take their kids out for the final term or something.

omnishambles · 05/04/2011 18:23

What would help is abolishing league tables - then private parents wouldnt know to send them there in the first place and it all wouldnt be so feverish.

OliPolly · 05/04/2011 18:28

OP - YABU

I live in Bucks so we have access to the grammar schools. My 2 DCs are at prep and if they both pass the 11+, we will send them to the grammar school without blinking!

We can comfortably pay the primary school fees - not because we are rich, but because we have a good income and we live in a small house. DS aged 7 has a sports scholarship where the school will be contributing 65%. Secondary school fees are way too high for us unless of course another scholarship comes our way.

We all pay our taxes and state schools are for everyone

Loads of people have good incomes and they send their kids to state schools. Loads of people move house to get into catchment for good schools. Should they be treated differently?

Pure ignorance to assume that all private schools are posh.

By the way - our Prep school is more interested in their feeder school! Most prep children sit the 11+ becuase if you pass, you are most likely to get some sort of scholarship at the feeder schools!

seeker · 05/04/2011 18:28

Grammar schools in our area have less than 2% of kids on free school meals. Go figure.

MollieO · 05/04/2011 18:29

Katedan I guess you don't live near me. I had a good job until recently but not enough to spend £650,000 for a two bedroom house in the catchment area of one of my local schools!

katedan · 05/04/2011 18:29

i assume to people who can afford prep schools these kind of fee's are not alot of money, as for multiple DC I think it is incrediable that there are famlies paying school fee's for 3,4 or 5 children!!!

mewantcookies - I think the fact people would think of doing this says alot about the type of people who think that beause they have money there children are in some way better than a bright child who a grammer school place could really benefit.

MrsWitcher · 05/04/2011 18:32

A few points;

  1. My DCs have 23 in their class so not much smaller than stete schools.
  2. The grammar school system only benefits academic kids whose parents can't afford fees. Do non-academic kids not deserve a chance to better themselves? 3)What about parents who could easily afford prep fees but don't bother as they use the outstanding state primary? Should they be excluded? 4)In the same vein, what about state using kids whose parents could afford private ed but choose not to? Should they be excluded?
  3. And as you mentioned tutoring. Around here that takes place often 3 times a week from Y4. So you also get many state educated kids who, on paper, get better results than they should for their ability. 6)Lastly, I don't know any of the indie schools who prep for the grammar 11+.
SardineQueen · 05/04/2011 18:32

Grin dunno omni

If there were a lottery system though people who could afford home private education would just keep doing it, as no way to guarantee getting into the "right" school. And of course the idea of a lottery would be that there would be no "right" school as the children would all be mixed up.

OliPolly · 05/04/2011 18:32

Some parents have high paying jobs katedan

2 Medical consultants won't struggle to pay for 2 or even 3 DCs at a prep.

They have the income because they worked hard and got the grades!

MrsWitcher · 05/04/2011 18:35

Kate, I know lots of parents at our school who never holiday other than camping because of fees.
I'm not at all suggesting everyone could do this. But some people literally scrimp and save and work two jobs to pay fees. Women will say stuff like, I haven't bought a new coat for 8yrs and it's falling apart but I need to save a bit this month then next month to get one.

Original poster
MilaMae · 05/04/2011 18:35

Mewant they wouldn't get a state place for a term if the school was full.

I just think this "social mobility" thing like "the big society" is just hot air.Sounds good,a headline grabber to make the gov look good but amounts to buggar all.If you want true social mobility you need fairness,education is key and the grammar/ uni system isn't fair.

OP posts:
MrsWitcher · 05/04/2011 18:38

Just to clarify before I get flamed. I am not saying everyone can afford fees if they tighten their belt.

I am just saying that I know quite a few families who live very frugally just to pay for school. I guess they are usually middle earners with a not too big mortgage who spend £50 on food a week etc, don't ever go out and camp in the Lakes once a year.

Original poster
MilaMae · 05/04/2011 18:38

Mrswitcher I could scrimp and save all I liked,still couldn't afford 1 set of fees let alone 3.For some people fees are more than they earn.

Olipool the fact is privately educated people are more likely to get the top jobs.A medical consultant is more likely to be privately educated and that isn't fair.

OP posts:
OliPolly · 05/04/2011 18:41

Life is unfair - sounds harsh but true.

There is always someone who has more than you or someone who will find a better solution than yours. I think we need to improve whats already there if we can't change the status quo.

Perhaps state schools should do more in encouraging their pupils to even sit the exam and teach them how to pass the exam as in exam techniques.

The home enviroment is also a big factor.

MrsWitcher · 05/04/2011 18:41

I did say that MM, in both posts. But in many parts of the country, school fees are 8kpa per child. So if you have two kids and you cut your cloth to live off one wage (small mortgage, not the best area) then many people can earn 16kpa and their entire salary go on fees.

I'm not saying it's affordable for everyone but I know lots of families that do this.

SardineQueen · 05/04/2011 18:41

So what's your solution mila?

Grammar out, private out, how would you do it?

lovelybertha · 05/04/2011 18:42

I'm kind of half with tralalala on this one. The Grammar School system, imo is absolutely at odds with 'social mobility'.

What about the children who don't take/pass the 11+, and are not privately educated?
Where do they go, and how do they feel about it?
What is the impact of segregating children in this way due to ability at age 11?
11 fgs
How is it considered the right thing, in the 21st century, to determine the future of such a young child based on some maths and English test results?

Branding children as 'failures' at 11. Archaic.

Sorry - that was a bit of a rant Blush

Original poster
MilaMae · 05/04/2011 18:43

Oli good point about the state system doing more. Free tutoring to all who wanted it in year 5/6 would make it fairer.

OP posts:
OliPolly · 05/04/2011 18:44

How can the 7% cause so much chaos?

I wasn't educated in the UK so maybe I barking up the wrong tree! I grew up in a country where there were only 2 big universities. You had to be really really good (at least 2As at A level) to even get a place!

expatinscotland · 05/04/2011 18:44

They're not serious about social mobility. On the contrary. I can't believe anyone even gives all teh nonsense they spraff any headspace at all. The head of the Tory party in Scotland believes the age at which children can leave school should be lowered to 14, because why bother with children who are hard work? Just let 'em go beg in the street.

This government talks a crock of shit. Why would they talk any other jibe?