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.

No they don't suggest prioritising state kids the op did but they highlight their concern re the issues mentioned.

Not sure about fsm as it's a teeny group in reality.

Tbh I think those strongly against the op are thinking only thinking of their own privileged children and not the majority.

Lovely to see the OP engaging in debate methinks you lot have written her article for her.

retro- you fail to address the crucial issue here, and that is that thousands of very able children are overlooked each year in the farce that is 11+ because they are poor. Perhaps their parents are immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees that have no idea how the English education system works, let alone heard of or could prepare their child for 11+, perhaps they live on an housing estate with extremely poor primary schools, and so have been disadvantaged since they began school, perhaps they are born to lone parents that must work every hour they can, meaning they cannot ferry them to 11+ tutors weekly (as none would dare set foot in the area they live in!)?

I live in an area with super-selective grammars, they are highly sought-after, 20 applicants sitting the entrance tests per place, pupils travel 20 miles or more to attend (highly urbanised area, not rural). The LA-maintained schools here refuse to prepare pupils for 11+, in fact they refuse to even let parents know whether or not their child would have a chance if they sat the entrance test , they are not allowed to promote the grammar schools in any way... despite these super-selectives being state-maintained schools!

The grammars are colonised entirely by the middle classes- either those that don't fancy another 7 years of fees, or (and in majority) those that are hypocrites argue their principles would never let them go private, but are quite happy to pay for schooling through their mortgages, by purchasing homes in the enclaves around primaries with 80+% level 5 at KS2. FSM rates at these schools are >2% cf. LA average of 34%.

It is perfectly fine to have grammar schools, but all who are capable of attending should have a fair chance to gain a place.

And I see no way to account for, or remediate the first eleven years of their lives being spent in sub-standard schooling, sub-standard housing, being marginalised by the rest of society.

Retro, I'm strongly against the OP, and if I were thinking only about my own children, I'd be all over this proposal like a rash.

If I'd have known my state educated child would have had priority over privately educated children, I wouldn't have been anywhere near as anxious for the four months we had to wait to find out if ds had a high enough pass to gain a place at the school we knew would be best for him.

You seem to be completely missing the point that private school versus state school isn't really the issue. The issue the Sutton trust raised is about tutoring, not private school.

How is prioritising state school children over private school children going to prevent tutoring?

How is it going to help children from low income families get into grammar school?

Don't you see that prioritising one group of children over another is just as likely if not more likely, to lead to children who can't keep up with the pace of work gaining places as the current system does.

Bsc think I have addressed the issue.I agree with the maj of what you've said but not sure of your point.

Actually given that children in the very poorest groups are already hugely behind at 2 I doubt sadly that thousands would glide in with tutoring.Poor kids didn't used to be overlooked as wealthy parents weren't interested.Many kids are being failed in primaries and can't afford tutoring.It's not just the poorest.

Many kids -poor,not wealthy,average,squeezed middle(not wealthy middle),everybody other than the wealthy are missing out for reasons I've mentioned and it does need to be sorted.

Woo the article on the Sutton Trust page seems to mention prep schools and makes little reference to tutoring.

They had some good ideas like outreach to encourage poor and average programs etc.I simply think the op's suggestion would go even further.

bsc thanks for the flattery, I'm not writing an article :)

People on this thread are arguing "what about the private school kids. They didn't have a choice that their parents sent them to private school, why should they miss out?". The point is that yes, private school kids don't have a choice any more than any kids really have a choice where they go to school. What they do have, is parents who can afford fees of several thousand pounds a term, or in a few cases, parents who can't afford such fees but are sufficiently hardnosed to negociate bursaries and scholarships for them. I.e. parents who take an active interest in their education, and can afford to invest in it, through time or money. If your parents are like this, you'll do fine - you probably don't need the extra boost that the grammar school would provide.

What a large number of children in state school do not have is similarly affluent and motivated parents. Why should average rich kids get past bright poor kids in the race to grammar school places? The grammars already give priority to kids in care, then kids on pupil premium. It's easy to prove you've been at state school from y3 to y6 - why not filter out a chunk of the rich average kids and open up more places to people where it would really make a difference?

Grammars do not give priority to PPP here and average children have no chance whatsoever of getting in.

Are you talking about grammars that take 30% of an LA's pupils?

retro "Many kids are being failed in primaries and can't afford tutoring.It's not just the poorest." really? Where are these children? Because I do think it is the poorest- those with any means do not leave their children being failed by their school- they move the child, or put in extra support. It is the poorest that cannot afford to do anything about it.

Sorry disagree.

It's not that easy to move kids regardless of income.They go back 6 months,getting places,transport etc.

If it was that easy I would have done it.

The poorest get pp and schools/ heads are being judged on how they cater for this group so will bend over backwards to support them.Joe average can go hang.

Also being poor doesn't mean you are witless and unable to support your child any less than those on low/ average incomes.The fact is all are vastly disadvantaged by those who privately educate and pay for tutoring.

The grammars already give priority to kids in care, then kids on pupil premium.

I can assure you that the grammar school I use doesn't give priority to children who recieve the pupil premium either because they are in care or on FSMs.

OP, you are coming across as if you think that it is wrong for parents to influence their children's educational outcomes. There are some parents that disadvantage their children and there are some that try to massively advantage their children. I don't think it's parents that do their best for their children that should be held back here, it's the parents that aren't engaged enough with education that need to change.

Retro, I read news articles rather than the report itself, and they talk more of tutoring, and of FSM rather than state school children. Perhaps you could link directly to the report?

But surely you have given your child(ren) extra support at home to remediate what is happening in school? That is not hard to do, and does not cost money, or at least very little.

I'm talking about real poverty- schools with 90-100% on PP. Do you think a PP child in those schools is anything special? Do you really think their teachers are treating any of them differently? No- their schools are already failing- lots have been forced to become academies, but they're not doing any better now they've converted.

Woo I do my best thanks(probably more than those who simply write a cheque) but it simply won't be enough.

Crap at links,sorry.

But retro you don't seem to be taking on board what people are saying on this thread- it isn't private school children that are being tutored- it is state-educated children with wealthier parents.

Woo I do my best thanks(probably more than those who simply write a cheque) but it simply won't be enough.

Why probably more than those who write a cheque?

Bsc maybe they're failing because they're not using the pp wisely,not all schools in areas like this are failing.Doesn't make much odds as compared to privately educated kids they'll not stand a chance either way and neither will kids from average families who count too.

I want my DD to go to Grammer school.

I am fully aware and prepared however to be doing lots of leg work and research myself, on what is needed to get her in.

I am going to be her tutor.

Its a few years off yet, but I have little confidence in the state system, so already I am geared up to fully support her learning anyway.

I think the information is going to be there when I want it, its there for everyone, millions of test papers, there will be tons of parents talking about it on line ( ), whats best to learn and say and all the rest....lots of practise on that type of exam.

If she fails, I will not feel in the slightest that we were disadvantaged by it being me, a non teacher with no clue on several subjects who was helping her.
If she fails she just wasn't good enough for that type of test, and therefore she should not take a place there.

But then I just don't have a defeatist attitude

The fact is all are vastly disadvantaged by those who privately educate and pay for tutoring.

I disagree with this. My children are not disadvantaged by those who privately educate or tutor any more than they are advantaged because of those who don't care about education. It's up to me to bring up my children to the best of my ability, and that isn't affected by anyone else.

The grades my dc get at school are as a result of what they do, and they have the same opportunity while they are at school as the children who come from traveller parents that never went to school themselves, and the children whose parents know I from day one that they are likely to send their children to independent secondary.

What I do as a parent isn't affected by what other parents do or don't do, and it's not as if there's a limited amount of As that are allowed to be given out at GCSE. Every child that earns one gets one.

I always find threads like this odd, attacking the wrong place here, the attack should be aimed at rubbish schools.

Agree with everything you say woo and put so beautifully too

Retro you make some good points but you sound defeated before you even start.

Elf well when you've started doing it (as I have) and seen parents try and fail(like I have) come back then.

Tutoring your own knackered child after school isn't easy particularly when you are wading through treacle trying to shoehorn in stuff they should have done ages ago and would have done in an Outstanding or private school.

Woo well if your kids are in a school that pushes and ensures your child is at 11+ level then fine and dandy.

Retro, the parents who "simply write a cheque" have to get the money from somewhere. We're not all independently wealthy, you know. Lots of women choose to work in order to allow their DC to be privately educated. Others choose not to work, in order to give their DC additional support with their education.

Which is more laudable? Or are they just different ways of achieving the same thing?

(incidentally, I am aware that there are also women who have no choice but to work, and still are not able to afford to pay school fees. But they don't tend to be the parents that are able to get their DC into grammar schools. The parents of grammar school children do tend to fall into the two categories mentioned above.)

Retro, you do sound very defeatist. Like I said, I could understand that feeling when my own ds was doing the 11+. But he got in because of what he is capable of with support from parents who didn't get an A level between them, and a state school.

He did stand a chance as does every other child with motivated parents.

The only children that have very little chance are those that are educationally neglected by their parents. The is only so much the state can do to compensate for that. Actively penalising every child who isn't neglected in some way crosses a line, and is not the solution to inactive parenting.

retro has your child been failed by their school? How long ago did you realise this? You sound very bitter, and seem to be taking this very personally- this is not a criticism, I mean that it all sounds very raw for you.

Very few parents would earn enough on two salaries to pay for 2 sets of fees,a mortgage,bills etc.

Most average families can barely pay their fuel bills.And fat lot of good having a sahp is when kids are at school all day.