kids who do ks2 at state schools should have priority over prep school kids at 11+

[marmitecat]

That would make grammar schools more attainable for poorer kids and those that can afford prep school don't need to take places away from normal families.

Oh for goodness sake parents up and down the land have to send their kids to substandard primaries and can't simply write a cheque.

Why should their kids be shat on twice?Crap primary followed by no grammar place because the rich parents hoovered up places many shouldn't even have(as the new Sutton report acknowledges).

That isn't what grammar schools were set up for.

Fleta because money(spent on private and tutoring)buys places many in the first 60 shouldn't have.A bright kid in a crap primary with no access to tutoring may well be brighter than many in the top 60.

It's all outlined in the Sutton report. I wonder if it will lead to a ban,would be far easier to impose than anything else.It's impossible to being in an exam you can't tutor for and privately educated kids would still have an unfair advantage.

Would be totally fair as everybody bar those with SEN(valid exception)can send their kids to a state primary.

No answer about people writing a cheque to buy near a good school then? Are you one of those? What are your local schools like? Sink schools?

Fwiw, I don't want to send dc to a grammar that badly. A good comp would be my choice. But seeing as theres nothing like that where I am, then obviously if my dc get into the grammar, then thats where they will going. If they don't, then it will be HE instead.

Err, prep school kids are rarely trained to pass state grammar exams. Private 11+ entry is a very different format.
Remove all the tutoring middle class state kids have to pass the 11+ for grammar, then we can start considering what's fair for poorer kids to have a proper crack at getting a place.
It's middle class tutoring that is depriving poorer kids of state grammar school places, not prep schools!

Thanks crafty.

Not according to the report Snoop.

Yes heavy tutoring will have an impact but who can afford that at £30 an hour?Also at the end of the day the advantages of tutoring are limited.I can't afford to tutor and acknowledge that.The primary education my dc are getting(no top notch primary here Brian) will have more of an impact as my dc won't cover half of what he should in school.Families who can afford private are hoovering up places,it's cost effective if you have the money.

I have a friend who teaches to the 11+ in her prep primary(the parents demand it) and friends with kids in other schools who do and can afford hours of tutoring on top. Sutton says this happens.

Frankly my dc is stuffed.

And why should my child be stuffed because you have a giant chip on your shoulder?

We pay a substantial amount of tax - are you saying we shouldn't be eligible to the same services that others are?

Pah. No grammar schools in the entire North East. Obviously us lot are too thick.

And actually my daughter has needs that the local state couldn't cater for.....how do you deal with people like that?

as my dc won't cover half of what he should in school.

Why can't you support him with work at home then if you don't think everything's going to be covered? Its a two way street, schools can't do it all by themselves, parents play a massive part in their child's learning. You might not have the choice of private, or a good state, or tutoring, but theres still loads you can do yourself.

If you did that then you'd also need to look closely at those who send their dcs to state school and can afford to live in very expensive catchment areas for those more desirable primary schools. I don't have a spare £1m so cannot afford to live in the catchment area of our local desirable primary school.

Surely we should be aiming for all primary schools to be good, not carping about people who choose to spend their own money on improving their DC's educational chances?

.

I'm unconvinced of the educational difference between private and state in primary school. I think how motivated and able parents are to help their child makes a larger difference - at primary at least.

My dc don't go to a private school because I think it is better they go because ds1 would not cope in an open plan classroom with 80 children in in. I recognise that I am very fortunate to be able to solve that problem without moving house.

I pay a lot of tax too as does everybody,why should less wealthy children be excluded from a school because parents of kids who shouldn't be there and end up struggling buy up places.

No chip here,just annoyance that schools which were set up for poor,state,bright pupils are being hijacked by rich parents with average kids.

Brian I can do that but it is much harder for him,many uneducated parents can't.

But what about those of use who don't have average children and are trying to find an education system to deal with that?

Moving catchment area is a far more expensive way of paying for a better education....should that be taken into consideration too?

Fleta many children have needs local state schools don't cater for,they have to suck it up.They shouldn't lose deserving grammar places on top.

Fleta catchment is harder to regulate,private primary regulations would be piss easy whilst also having a huge impact.

I think it would be win,win all round.Better for all the kids involved and the local primaries.

Except it wouldn't be win, win all round would it-because each child who is at private prep would lose out.

So what you're actually saying is "down with the rich kids" - worse kind of inverse snobbery.

IMO it is far, far worse to play the system by either moving area, or attending church to get your child into an excellent faith school whilst you're not actually practising is far, far more damaging.

Why would the rich kids lose out?They can go to private primary like everybody else.

You need to be rich to move area too- just sayin.

Sorry state primary

We're discussing secondary not primary.

Yes you do - hence why it isn't as easy as saying "private primary are getting all the advantages"

There are areas where there ARE no private secondary -so what happens then?!

Putting in a blanket rule that states privately educated primary children miss out at 11 is utterly unworkable.

What should actually be happening is making the woeful state education system better - then there wouldn't be such a premium on places at "good grammars" if the standard at all schools was brought in line.