to really regret the whole grammar school thing.

[newrecruit]

DS1 is in year 4 (DS2 in year 1).

I went to a girls grammar school and loved it. So when we moved out of London one of the reasons we chose this area was the schools. I don't think we are super selective (don't quite know what that means)

However, I was explaining the schools to him this morning as we drove past one and had an impending feeling of doom.

He's bright but can't be arsed. Resists pushing and I am against tutor on principal. I don't think he'd suit an all boys school.

What have I done! We should have just moved to a comprehensive area with a decent intake.

Some parents are already talking about tutors and its 2 years away. I want to hit them quite hard.

Please pile in and tell me to get a grip.

I should also add that the majority of people in my area who will be taking advantage of the new criteria were only in FSM for a short time (usually due to marriage breakdown) and many have received private tutoring as well as coaching from the grammar school.

Why do you suppose the eligible score will be lower? The eligible score has barely shifted at our local superselective for years.

I also think that your experience of those with at the lower end of the eligible band struggling may be a case of your generalizing from the particular. There's no precise correlation between old style 11+ test scores and subsequent public exam performance. It follows that there's no particular reason why those within the eligible band should struggle, wherever they're placed.

whatever5 you seem to have real issues around trying to help low income kids benefit from a grammar education. Why so? And you know about the individual circumstances of a significant number of FSM children who sat the test, enough to draw proper conclusions?('the majority'? 'many'?) Really?

Why do you suppose the eligible score will be lower? The eligible score has barely shifted at our local superselective for years.

I suppose the score for entry will be lower because it is! For example the score chosen for entry those on FSM (or previously on FSM) at Camp Hill Grammar school for boys in Birmingham is only 215. Everyone else will have to get a score of about 235 to get in.

whatever5 you seem to have real issues around trying to help low income kids benefit from a grammar education. Why so? And you know about the individual circumstances of a significant number of FSM children who sat the test, enough to draw proper conclusions?('the majority'? 'many'?) Really?

I don't have any issues with actually helping those at a disadvantage go to grammar schools. I just don't think that this exercise will help them.

Ours will be much higher gap than that.The fsm places just need to pass ie 50% in Eng and maths. The remaining places will go to the top however many left for which there will be stiff competition ie 80s and 90%.

I don't have a problem with it but I think it just shuffles places and it will be those just over fsm who will probably be more likely to be at the lower end of the remaining places given out and thus miss out-if you go by the argument re need for allocated fsm places.

Interestingly the head admissions bloke at Oxford was on the BBC site saying fsm wasn't a reliable measure so they don't use it.

Tbf I think info to year 5 parents in the form of a letter from the g school involved,an 11+ club and VR days at the grammar school(which ours run) and info on their website as to packs to buy to do at home(which ours do) would help more.

LePetit, Your grammar school is completely different from the ones near me. The ones in London swear blind you don't need any prep, and don't offer any. They are overrun with supplicant, and don't reach out with open days.

It sounds much more welcoming.

Grammar schools differ hugely,it's only on MN that they're all the same.

Ours does a lot of outreach.We were told on our tour that they're aiming to reach out even more to local kids.

Obviously a major difference with Oxford is that the uni can use as much subjective detail as it wants, unlike grammars. Makes a difference.

whatever5 could you tell us where you found the data for this year's tests for Camp Hill? Is it on the website? Interested to look.

What I find interesting about this debate is the insistence that grammar school education isn't suitable except for bright children WHO ARE HARD WORKING.

What about very bright children who aren't hard working? It seems to me that there are many like this.

I used to teach in a school on the edge of a grammar school area. We only really lost two types of children to the grammar.

1. Those whose parents were not university educated or who had been let down by schooling - they would be anxious about securing the "best" for their children.
2. Bright children who were seen as lazy, not engaged or had behaviour issues.

We tended to keep bright well behaved and hard working children. If U had doubts about the work ethics of my children I would be more tempted by a grammar. My eldest is only at a grammar because he was excluded from his high school.

whatever5 could you tell us where you found the data for this year's tests for Camp Hill? Is it on the website? Interested to look.

I may be on the web but I received the information via letter.

whatever5 could you tell us where you found the data for this year's tests for Camp Hill? Is it on the website? Interested to look.

It didn't read it on the web although it may be on there. They sent the information to parents who applied to the grammar schools in Birmingham.

whatever5- the 'free tutoring' that those PP pupils received in preparation for the 11+ in Birmingham was literally a few (I believe 6) sessions of familiarisation with the testing papers, and some timings practice.

You and your children may not be disadvantaged by PPP getting priority, but mine will be, but, you know what? I don't actually have a problem with that, because, as I said upthread, I think this is actually a good thing, and that the state education system should be doing something about improving life chances for those that are disadvantaged.
I know you claim every one of them will be rich mc types abusing the system but I doubt they all will tbh. If even 5 deserving children that previously would never have had the chance of a KE VI Foundation education now get one, then I think that's worth it.

The KE VI schools have fewer than 2% of pupils on FSM (slightly higher percentage when you look at PP). Something needs to be done to address the inequality when Birmingham average for FSM is 34% (I'm not sure what % Bham PP is, obviously higher than 34%!).

NerfHerder I did think that coaching was a good thing and I think they should do more of that, perhaps including all children from more deprived areas. I don't agree that it is a good idea to lower the entrance scores for those on FSM though for all the reasons I have stated and can't be bothered to repeat. Also I am not claiming that anyone is "abusing" the system.

The KE VI schools have fewer than 2% of pupils on FSM (slightly higher percentage when you look at PP). Something needs to be done to address the inequality when Birmingham average for FSM is 34% (I'm not sure what % Bham PP is, obviously higher than 34%!).

Something does have to be done but I just don't think that what they are doing at the moment will help. More free tutoring and free transportation and uniform to the schools for those on lower incomes (not just FSM) would be a better idea.

Blimey, the school actually wrote to parents of children who are applying in this year's round saying in terms that pupils on FSM only need to score 215 but everyone else has to score twenty points higher. That seems a very divisive thing to do. I wonder what the thinking behind it is? It sounds incredibly odd - how did they phrase it?

They didn't put the two marks in the same letter obviously!

Ok this is all slightly disingenuous. I've looked at the Camp Hill site. You didn't mention that from 2014 Camp Hill took the decision to expand its planned admission number from 93 to 120 pupils, thus creating 17 extra places. The policy is clearly set out and the website specifies in terms that no boy will be admitted who hasn't reached the required standard in the test, with the eligible score set at 215. It emphatically doesn't say that no other boy will get a place unless they score 235. How do you extrapolate that? Are the test results in?

Anyhow, sounds a great policy. No doubt more schools will follow.

But it doesn't state that those extra places were created to ensure that children who would usually get a Place don't miss out due to the new pupil premium qualifying criteria. Those places have been created due to financial pressures (it says so on the admission criteria). A school will get more funding for 120 pupils than it will for 93 pupils.

It emphatically doesn't say that no other boy will get a place unless they score 235. How do you extrapolate that? Are the test results in?

I didn't say that the letter emphatically states that the other boys have to get a score of 235 but this was last years lowest entrance score and it will be very similar this year as the scores are standardised. In previous years you get a letter giving the previous years' lowest entry scores and the letter also states that if your child has score below this they may stuggle to cope with the level, content etc and it's also very unlikely that your child will be offered a place (if you put the school on the list of preferences).

We are not offering 11+ tuition, but we have been working with a group of primary schools to create some familiarisation sessions at our schools for bright children, primarily from schools in less privileged communities in the hope that more of them will be confident enough to apply to take the grammar schools entrance test (the 11+).

The above is also stated on the schools website. I think this is a great initiative and is much better than simply offering places to children eligible for pupil premium who might gain a lower score than some other children who don't qualify for a place.
I would like to see all eligible children offered some free familiarisation sessions. I would also like to see grammar schools making familiarisation materials free to download from their websites. I would like to see a return to primary schools being able to offer sessions after school to get the brightest children ready for the 11+.
If primary schools and grammar schools were able and willing to do more to ensure that all bright children regardless of parental finances and influence are prepared for 11+ then we might gradually start to see less of a need for tutoring and more naturally bright children gaining the places at grammar that they rightly deserve.

It says clearly that the decision to create extra places was taken in the light of the dire financial situation grammars are facing, to ameliorate it. But the fact remains that there are a large number of extra places available. It also makes great sense socially, politically and financially to try to offer that extra capacity to those on low income who might not normally apply, rather than to the better off kids who wouldn't on the old numbers have made the cut. It's a very sound policy to pursue on the part of the school, and barely affects non Pupil Premium kids.