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.

Just dump the silly grammar system.

orangeyoda - I wonder if there is a difference in terms of the area and (1) the age the preps go up to and (2)the content of the 11+ itself?

Our prep goes up to 13 so all of the teaching is geared to common entrance at that age. Some leave at 11 to go to comprehensives or the grammars, but this is not with any help from the school and they certainly wouldn't publicise it. If a prep in another area only goes up to age 11 maybe they aren't so bothered?

In relation to the second point, Bucks 11+ is verbal reasoning and is meant to be tutor-proof. Again, no help here from the prep. If it was based on doing a maths paper and an English paper, I wonder if the preps might be more prepared to boast about numbers?

Just a thought.

You can;t get round the 2% free school dinners at grammar schools. It says it all.

VR is not tutor proof.

I think the 2% says it all as well.

We heard you the first time seeker .

Actually as a private school consumer I have no issue with outlawing private schools. Provided we dump grammars and faith schools too, fair enough. I have no issue with a truly comprehensive system provided it does what it says on the tin and actually provides a decent standard of education for all.

Verbal reasoning is easy to tutor for. It just needs a bit of practice and technique.

I agree-get rid of grammar schools and those who bring out the tired old argument about a way out for deprived DCs should be ashamed of themselves!! How are they to do it when most of those sitting the exam have been tutored? (I fail to see the difference between private school and private tutor-or even concerned parents doing practice papers)

Ipeople heard me the first time, why are they still going on about how there should be more grammar schools and they are really good for social mobility? Nobody with any sense of social responsibility who doesn't have the "look after Number 1" attitude so common nowadays can possibly think that grammar scchools are anything but a disaster .

No, I don't think VR is tutor proof. The thousands of pounds spent by parents on tutoring in the run up to the exams is proof that people will do what it takes (even if the evidence on tutoring is contentious to say the least). But what's the alternative? Maths and English? NVR?

Aside from everything else, you cannot possibly say to tax paying parents that just because they haven't so far accessed the education their taxes help to pay for, they are forever banned from doing so.

And Sue, our prep school parents seem to all drive clapped out old volvo estates is that what you meant?

I think the difference is usually about nine grand a year exoticfruits

Ah, now you're confusing not hearing with you with not agreeing with you.

Does anyone remember the idea of busing to get a rounded social and ability mix in all schools. Maybe that would be fairer.

MrsWitcher you obviously don't live near me then.

clapped out old volvo estates - bingo

I think it's only 'bingo' if it's a platitude. I actually drove one until 3mths ago myself as do lots of others. Maybe it's to fit all the camping gear in as that's the only affordable holiday?

sue52 we actually have a partial lottery system for the boys only secondary close to us - mainly due to the fact that the villages around us were suffering from lack of school choice. I have no idea what the effects have been so far on the educational side of things but unfortunately the bus services promised have now fallen victim to cuts and we're now choked with traffic on school mornings.

Our school car park - 70-80% massive presidential style 4 x 4s. 10% battered 4 x 4s (very rural area). 10% (me included) people carriers/other.

MrsWitcher good one.

That's interesting pawsnclaws. I know Brighton have a kind of lottery system for secondary school so in a few years we should know if it has resulted in better exam results. Thats too bad about the cut backs in your school transport.

You don;t agree that oly 2% oc children in grammar schools are on free school meals or you don't agree that is indicates theat the social mix in grammar schools is not very......mixed?

I agree with those who advocate abolishing grammar schools - specially Seeker, who puts the case more eloquently than I can.

Just a thought, but those who are arguing for greater social mobility, why do you want to restrict it to the academiaclly able? Don't the hard working middle and lower ability children have the same rights?

I wonder if the OP thinks that someone who once had private hospital treatment should be forever banished from the NHS?

In respect of grammar schools the issue, surely, is that state schools should do more to prepare children for the 11+? Decades ago junior schools saw it as a badge of pride to get children into the grammar schools. That went when it was deemed elitist. True social mobility might be achieved if we empowered junior schools to tutor any child deemed bright enough to go forward to grammar school. The wealthy would then have no advantage.

I love lefty logic - because all children cannot succeed let's ensure no one can. Is it any wonder we're sliding down international league tables like a fireman down a pole?

I'm not saying I disagree with you - read my posts.

If 2% as a figure is a fact then it's a fact. As to the social mix, I'm sorry but you're pushing at an open door here. Perfectly happy to see grammars abolished along with private schools and faith schools. And I say that as someone who has two children at a private school. If the whole damn lot got abolished we'd have a level playing field and I for one wouldn't give a jot.

Frumpy, that was my point earlier and is wher, I think, the argument for a grammar system falls down. Why should the more academically able be given better life chances than those less intelligent?

Segregating by virtue of intelligence levels is no more fair than by parents income.