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.

I do think there are huge inequalities in the education system but the idea being proposed here is not about creating equality for all children, it's for some children (the DC of people on here who agree with the OP funnily enough ). True educational equality is as Minifingers said....

"As long as money and social/educational nouse can buy you a private school/grammar school/church school place, or a house in the catchment area of a hugely popular school, we will NEVER have equal opportunities."

The fact is a private ban would go a huge way to tackle this inequality.

Obviously the tiny minority with dc that benefit from private want to keep the status quo so are against it- funnily enough.

Obviously the tiny minority with dc that benefit from private want to keep the status quo so are against it- funnily enough.

Thats right. Because I pay into the system too. So funnily enough I am against something that I am expected to pay towards, but then according to you, should be banned from using. Funnily enough ....

Although, as I've said, i'm happy to be banned from using it, as long as I don't have to contribute towards it

It would tackle this particular inequality, but it would also create a whole new one at the same time.

You can't prevent taxpayers from using public services as fundamental to our society as education is.

But they're not,millions of kids with tax paying parents are excluded from grammar schools.There are those who would never get in and those who could but don't because of parents with money as is discussed in Sutton.All use state alternatives.

Prioritising state perhaps would be fairer.That way both state and private are on a level playing field and both are jumping through hoops.Nobody is excluded.The fact is those at state schools will have had to work a lot harder for their place and if it's ok for them why not the private kids.

At the end of the day the lack of social mobility and the buying of education at secondary and uni level is a national disgrace.Many are concerned and something needs to be done.Whether it's sorting out grammar places or uni it's clear things will have to change unless we want the same families with all the top jobs forever more.

Yes, and all those millions of dc with tax paying parents can remove the competition and compete amongst themselves. As long as they don't expect me to contribute towards something that my dc aren't allowed to compete for too.

Obviously the tiny minority with dc that benefit from private want to keep the status quo so are against it- funnily enough.

I'm not one of those. You're only gunning for this because it would advantage your DC. It's silly to pretend you care oh so much about educational inequality.

You would be able to if state were prioritised.

At the moment more and more state kids are getting excluded from something their parents pay for.By putting them at the top of the queue after passing the 11+ the private kids will simply have to work harder or go state-pretty much like posters have suggested that state kids should do.

Candy my dc are average examples of the huge majority of kids in this country so don't get your beef.Any private child could have the same amazing advantage in a flash so there is nothing to moan about.

If you care so much re equality I don't get the fervent need to protect a privileged few.

One of the top grammar schools in the country is near us. Some local preps actually advertise that they've never failed to get a child in, and apparently no child stands a chance without at least 2 years intensive coaching. I looked at the papers and they're the 11+ version of crossword puzzles - ridiculously teachable. It's screamingly unfair, yes, because kids with parents who can afford good coaching or a prep school have a massive advantage.

Fortunately the local comp has better results than most grammars do nationally, so I don't need to worry. But it's crappy for really bright kids from poor families near bad comps, who have no chance. And it's a shocking waste of tax money if grammar school places are, effectively, being bought as a cut-price private school option. I think the answer would be less teachable-to-the-test, trick-dependent exams, which vary year to year... and no available past papers. If you can't coach them, then you get a better idea of raw ability.

I agree perfect but honestly don't think anything is uncoachable.

It would be interesting to know.

If you care so much re equality I don't get the fervent need to protect a privileged few.

I'm not protecting anyone. I am against grammar schools full stop and the education system really needs looking at. I also think you're not understanding that children cannot help being born privileged anymore than they can be born unprivileged. It does not sit comfortably with me to purposely disadvantage one group of children to advantage another does not sit well with me.

The private kids are working as hard as state school children though if they are being given more in the way of education. A grammar place doesn't just fall in their laps because they have parents that paid for their schooling. They do the same amount of study, just maybe in less time. Their lessons might be more intense.

Prioritising state school children would not prevent money having an influence on who gets a grammar place.

No one is excluded from grammar school because all can apply.

I agree with you that there needs to be more social mobility but I think success in life is available to everyone that works hard and perseveres. I don't believe that some people are prevented from being happy and successful because of what other people do for themselves.

Nothing is uncoachable, no, but if you give a child a few paragraphs and then ask some searching questions about what they've read - not bog standard verbal reasoning but some quite stretching, subtle ones - it's a damn sight harder to coach to that, than ut is a pair of sentences with similar but subtly differentiated vocab options, then telling them to use the correct choice, in a very time-pressured way. The latter doesn't test intelligence - the former arguably does. And the latter is a specific style of puzzle, while the former tests ability to think. You can still coach to it, sure, but you can also spend some time in most state schools in their G&T classes with the former without that totally wasting the time of the kids not applying to grammar, because what you'd be coaching would be critical thinking skills. Useful in any educational context. And exceptionally bright kids could make a good showing in that without any coaching at all - the puzzle-oriented/intensely time-pressured format, and they just can't. If I have time I might dig up examples of the two approaches, to show what I mean.

Obviously a more privileged start in life will often advantage a child at a level you can't ever begin to even out. But providing a system of exams that so blatantly advantages coaching, and doesn't even pretend to test innate ability is fairly whacked out when a major life chance is to be funded by the tax-payer. Another grammar school I know of became aware that the kids were comparing where they ranked in their intake cohort, and it was corrosive for yeargroup cohesion and morale, so they dug up data showing where past years were ranked when they left as opposed to arrived, and proved there was no link whatsoever. Which interested me, because why did nobody then start to wonder if that weren't prima facie evidence that their admission tests were unfit for purpose...? Seems it didn't. That would have been my first thought - it's not a subtle leap, is it?

The Sutton Trust is so concerned about the narrowing of class background for the intake of this school that they're funding efforts to widen it. That's a charity that usually focuses on widening admissions to top private schools. If state funded centres of excellence are increasingly the sole preserve of very privileged children, then there's a major problem.

"but I think success in life is available to everyone that works hard and perseveres"

So clearly the children of the rich and influential are just much harder working and more determined and possibly much more intelligent than the children of less rich people in the UK, as they have proportionately VASTLY more money and success in adulthood than their poorer peers?

No one is directly excluded from applying, true. But there's plenty of indirect exclusion. Like people who can't afford bus passes. In Birmingham, there are no transport subsidies to the grammar schools if there is a place at a nearer school. This is surely a massive disincentive for poorer families to apply. No wonder grammars are middle class enclaves

and the head teacher said he is the first boy in the past 15 years who got into grammar from a very rough school. I think where is the will there is a way.

I think it's funny that you've told a story which illustrates the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.

I suspect the scruffy Chinese child had an IQ of 217 or something.

It's not just about rich and influential versus the poor and disadvantaged. There are plenty of people in between that are the most likely to want a grammar school place anyway.

I stand by what I said. A poor person is not precluded from success because of wealthy people. They may be precluded from success because of their own circumstances, but that isn't affected by what other people do or don't do.

In Birmingham, there are no transport subsidies to the grammar schools if there is a place at a nearer school. This is surely a massive disincentive for poorer families to apply.

That's appalling.

Minifingers - always amuses me when people declare anyone can achieve anything if they work hard and are willing to learn. Certain irony in thus choosing to ignore the overwhelming weight of academic research that says precisely and exactly the opposite. A comforting ideology fpr many, the bootstraps one, but utter bollocks just the same.

I don't get it - EVERYONE pays through their taxes for state education. Those who educate their children privately, choose not to use the money available to them for a state school place. If you were to deny those parents access to grammar schools, then you really need to give them their money back, especially as they will pay a higher rate of tax in the first place.

always amuses me when people declare anyone can achieve anything if they work hard and are willing to learn

Can I make it clear that wasn't what I was saying. I clearly didn't convey what I mean very well. I don't think success is defined only be having an influential and very high paying career. I don't mean that anyone can achieve anything if they work hard, I mean that if someone has the potential to do well in life then that potential stays with them regardless of how well or how badly anyone else does.

The point I was badly trying to make is that one child's chances in life are not determined by what happens to another child. People are dependant on their own circumstances in most cases, not those belonging to someone else.

Children that don't get into grammar school still have valid educational opportunities.

No they don't Zirca. Some people pay no tax and never have done. By your logic should they be excluded then from everything that taxation pays for?

Oh yes, and the average person sees their GP 5.5 times a year. I haven't seen mine for 5 years. Can I have my money back from those 27.5 consultations?

Doesn't work like that.

WooWooOwl talks much sense. I also believe that ultimately, your own graft, talents and dedication will get you far if you really want it.

I don't think it right to "punish" a child for their parents schooling preferences (and income), anymore than I think it fair to write off a child because of a low-income background. Disadvantaging a certain set of children (those of wealthy parents) in favour of others (those whose parents aren't wealthy) just tries to treat the result and not the root cause.

It seems to me the root cause is complex. Some (many?) state schools are letting children down- especially bright ones. There is a drive to mediocrity (e.g. aiming for 5 A-Cs and if you can achieve that, then fewer resources are aimed at you than at those on that C-D borderline. I have heard this from a deputy head). My DD is at a fee paying school and they are constantly trying to stretch her academically- without this she'd be bored- and no doubt her behaviour in class wouldn't be great as a result. I know from experience that our local state school does not seem interested in/are unable to do this.

Other schools are doing a heroic job, but working against the tide of poor behaviour, low expectations (from children and their parents), lack of interest in education (again children and their parents) and poor home environments. There really is poverty of ambition, and much as poverty of ambition in many areas. That is not to say that children from poorer backgrounds don't have more hurdles to jump.

sorry that should read "there really is poverty of ambition, and this is as much a problem as poverty of opportunity in some areas"

Of course this is a much wider issue than just grammar schools. The odds are stacked against poor children whatever type of school they're in. Even at comps with a very mixed intakes, it will be the middle classes that dominate the top sets, that have music lessons, that star in sports events, plays and productions. This will be to do partly with aspirations and parental influence but also because of practical issues - no buses, don't want to walk in the dark, parents have no car - and GCSE revision sessions, sports events and rehearsals are all after school.