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.

tiggy >>Some have a fixed number places reserved.

This was challenged legally, under the 'no school may select pupils for admission by income of their parents' part of admission code (sorry- that's not a real quote but cannot remember the phrasing). The super-selectives I know that were to have 1/5 of places set aside for PP pupils have had to put that plan on hold for the meantime.

tiggy I wonder if you could name some schools which have this (fixed number for PP applicants) as an approved policy for the current year?

MarianneSolong you and your DD are very wise. My DD1 is at a well known grammar and hates it, but we cannot find her a place in the local highly regarded "comp" style schools. She's having to see a psychologist she's so stressed. Obviously that's not going to happen to everyone but it really is a case of be careful what you wish for. Anyway, we're sort of reconciled to having to wait and move her for 6th form.

I am in Kent, seeing as someone mentioned it earlier, and round here those who believe only a Grammar will ensure their children have a good standard of education and friends with ponies employ a tutor from year 1 or 2. I had one friend who was paying £400+ a month for one child to go to a tutor most evenings after school and most days in the holidays (DD1 was only tutored once a week for an hour to learn exam techniques, she passed easily).

DD2 is in one of those highly regarded local comps, she didn't even sit the 11+ - once bitten etc. (no one has a pony though).

nerfherder I have no idea how many children who have previously been pupil premium eligible later attend prep schools. I do know of one child personally whose parents were on a very low income (due to them both being PhD students) and attended the local primary but was moved to prep in year 2 when his parents finished their studies and one got a good job. He might not have been a FSM child though as I have no idea whether student parents meet the criteria for FSM.
I would guess that some parents can be out of work for a couple of months due to redundancy etc and be eligible for FSM and then return to well paid work, hence the child has not been considerably disadvantaged for more than a few months.

I have looked at the Grammars nearest to me and none give priority to pupil premium children. Even in the case of tie for last place (on score and distance) the place is allocated randomly. How many grammar schools give priority to PP children?

I went to a private school up until Year 9 and then to the local comp, which would also be my children's comp now. I did "fine", as I'm sure my children will. However, I don't want them to do "fine" and be swept along and ignored because they are bright (but not the brightest) and well behaved. I want them to believe that there is a huge world out there with opportunities up for grabs. I want them to be excited at what life has to offer them and to instil a work ethic that sets them up for success in the future, no matter what their definition of success is. My comprehensive education did not offer this. My research indicates that our only local grammar school does.

I am not going to heavily tutor any of my children but I will help them by giving them the tools. If they don't get into the grammar school or even want to go there then it really doesn't matter but I need to know (for myself) that I have given them the opportunity and done what I think is my best.

Incidentally my ds does have a tutor at the moment - 1 hr per week plus approx 15 mins HW 4/5 nights per week. I don't have that time to spend with him right now and we are able to afford it. If we couldn't I would have to find the time to do it myself. Not everyone can afford tutoring but everyone can care about their kids education (however that may relate to your educational philosophy).

The Boys' Grammar in our area lists 7 over-subscription criteria, and their priority. 1st in order of priority are 'looked-after children', 2nd are those in receipt of free school meals.

tiggy- those were the school to which I referred, yes.

What do you think about the proposal? Because the legal challenge was made by a group of (ostensibly) mc parents, complaining that their children would be discriminated against or disadvantaged by the new policy, without taking into account that the 25 PP places are actually additional places in those schools, as the Foundation schools have all expanded their PANs. Nor do they allow for the fact that many PP pupils have actually been disadvantaged educationally for the previous 11 years of their life before they even reach Secondary school.

Allocating (extra, additional) places to PP pupils with academic potential seems to me exactly what Grammar Schools should be about.

Allocating (extra, additional) places to PP pupils with academic potential seems to me exactly what Grammar Schools should be about.

But how do you differentiate between those children who have been PP for a few months during the last six years due to a fairly short term redundancy of a parent and those who have been pp for most of their school life?
How do you stop parents playing the system and one parent moving out for a few months to enable pp eligibility and effectively cheat the system?
That last scenario might sound extreme but when you consider the number of people already giving false addresses or baptising their children and pretending to support a religion just to gain the desired school places it shows that some people will go to dodgy lengths.

Personally I think a child with good physical health and a clever and educated parent isn't significantly disadvantaged academically no matter if the parent is on a low income or income support.

The children who are really disadvantaged are those who come from homes where there is a lack of parental involvement and where parents are very poorly educated themselves. Focusing on the PP won't help these children as they're simply not applying for grammar schools in the first place.

I agree one of the most important things to educational success , is that the parents buy in to education, this is regardless of how comfortably off they are. What about a child who comes from a well of family, whose parents place little value on education and are not educated themselves. I know this thought will not get much time, but this can happen.

I think well-off parents - who will have been educated, but just not necessarily to a 'higher' level - are likely to want their children to enjoy the opportunties they now have. Perhaps their energies are less likely to be devoted to the 'right' UCAS choices and more towards other sorts of training and opportunities. At my daughter's school the great majority of people are going on to university. But one student will be taking up a position in her family's business. It seems likely that she will do very well - and also that if she wants further qualifications at a later stage, she will access them.

In our area, the grammar schools have allocated up to 20% of places to PP pupils. These are not additional places. Not only will they be let PP pupils into the grammar schools with a lower mark than other children but they have also been given free tuition at one of the schools. I suspect that the majority of children who will take advantage of this probably only have been PP pupils for a short period of time.

I don't know why you'd suspect that - have there been rumblings locally with parents about to give up their jobs and their savings and hasten to get on Income Support in the hope of a good day at the grammar school test? If so I would argue they are pretty unhinged and their children probably will suffer disadvantage!

The majority of children at dd's school who have received free lessons/lower pass marks were only pp pupils for a short time due to redundancy or marriage breakdown. Two of the children who have received free lessons/lower entrance scores have had private tutoring in addition to the free tutoring. They also have siblings at a private school so really not disadvantaged.

Admission laws already give compulsory (not optional) priority for children from care and one could use the same arguments there.

It's not similar to giving priority to children in care as those children are almost certainly at a disadvantage. That will often not be the case for PP children. Also the children in care always had to get the same marks as those not in care. They only got priority if they had the same mark (in the area I live in anyway).

Although the free tuition for PP children seemed like quite a good idea I don't think allowing children in with lower marks is.

I suspect that the majority of children who will take advantage of this probably only have been PP pupils for a short period of time.

That is one of my concerns. I am concerned about that because I feel that the children who should be benefitting from the pupil premium admission criteria don't have parents who will apply for their children to sit the 11+ exam. There are additional barriers to applying for grammar school other than the obvious tutoring costing money aspect.

Cost of uniforms and cost of bus fares are a couple of barriers. But mindset is another and some parents either not valuing academic education or just thinking that grammar school is not for the likes of them.
How do we change the mindset?

But this is the problem isn't it. There is no way to level the proverbial playing field any more because so much relies on parental input. This, far more than wealth or income indicators, determine success, grammar school or not.

When I was at school at sat my 12+ it was compulsory. We had all been given NVR tuition as part of our maths lessons.

Nobody had private tutors
Parents and children were not told when the exam would be as it was done in school time.

While still not being perfect it certainly removed a lot of the pressure and allowed the bright children whose parents weren't so bothered, to get the support they needed.

No the care priority isn't just about children IN care. It is also given to children adopted FROM care at any age. So a child adopted from care as a toddler gets priority in school admissions just as much as a 10 year old currently in local authority care waiting for a family.

As I said the children (from or in care) still had to get the same mark as those not in care. They were only given priority if they received the same mark.

I would say your experience of PP is pretty unusual. The % of children who qualify is not large. The % of children who qualify and have siblings in private schools must be miniscule (although I appreciate that isn't much comfort if they all happen to live near you)

Whilst overall the % who qualify despite now being reasonably well off may be quite low, they are still the ones most likely to take advantage of the new rules so I doubt that the grammar schools are going to increase their intake of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The two children I know who are genuinely at a disadvantage still won't go to the grammar schools because they won't be able to afford the bus fares to and from the schools if they did get in (school buses can cost £500 or £600 a year).

"Laws looks at general trends and the evidence for PP children and children adopted from care shows a disadvantage through the whole of their education"

I just wonder if the research for pp controls for parental level of education.

IMO the children at my children's school who are overwhelmingly disadvantaged are the ones whose parents are poorly educated.

Also the children in care always had to get the same marks as those not in care
And that's not the case in many areas either.
Children adopted from care and children with a statement naming the school only need to get the bare minimum pass mark. They don't have to get the qualifying mark (i.e. they don't need to get withint the top 300 scores in the way that other children do - they don't have to compete for their place just reach the bare minimum standard to pass the exam)

It is the case in my area. Even with the new rules, those from care would have to achieve the same mark as other children (unless also PP children)

"But this is the problem isn't it. There is no way to level the proverbial playing field any more because so much relies on parental input. This, far more than wealth or income indicators, determine success, grammar school or not."

I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head.

If we're to continue with a system of state education which selects on academic ability at 11, I'd like to see a switch to grammar schools being required to take proportionate numbers of children from state schools and private schools according to how many are being educated in these different settings within their catchment.

I'd also like to see children being selected by special panels in place at all the primary schools in the catchment, who'd look at a child's record over the whole of their time in school, drawing on evidence from a number of different teachers if possible.

Teachers KNOW who the really clever children are. When I was teaching I knew and it wasn't necessarily the ones turning in beautiful pieces of work - it was the ones who had a hunger for learning, a quick mind, were original thinkers.