To Think this is a new low in "social Mobility".

[smokepole]

Just browsing the updated DOE performance tables, "Weald of Kent" Grammar in Tonbridge has officially 0.0% FSM in its 1134 pupils. I am not picking on them in particular , because I would not be surprised to see
Borlasse's in Marlow the same or others, but I just think this is "quite a startling statistic"

This is surely a new low in "Social Mobility" I thought grammar schools were typically about 2% FSM but 0.0% sends out a terrible message.

My view (awaits a good telling off) is that it doesn't matter how bright the child is, without parental 'support' the child is unlikely to pass the 11+

By support I mean encouragement, going through 11+ workbooks and papers etc, and even just making the decision to put the child forward for the exam

I expect that many children receiving FSM are not getting that parental support in some way? Before anyone puts words in my mouth I am not blaming or suggesting that their parents don't care / are feckless and useless etc. There could be myriad reasons - if you live on or near the poverty line finding the mental energy and space to support your dc in 11+ preparation is going to be hard....perhaps the parents didn't benefit from a good education and wouldn't know where to start with supporting their child? Perhaps some of these families feel so crushed by their circumstances that Grammar school feels like an impossible aspiration and isn't on their radar?

Not sure what the answer is but I don't think that Grammar schools are in a position to resolve it

The 11+ exams are held in the first part of Year 6, very little a school does will compare to the intensive coaching most children get

Yes I agree but I also think its a clear sign the parents obv have had to step in and do something to give their state educated a chance against privates whose eye and whole teaching program will be on 11+ and scholarships.

I think there is a whole lot more schools can and should do to support possible grammar candidates in their midst.

Its crazy.

When a point here and there makes all the difference, showing child past papers, familiarizing with non v reasoning...telling the child, the parents where to get practice papers from...putting parents in touch with others if they are interested, tips on timing and exam technique...and a quick appraisal of any weak or particularly strong areas...honestly, how long would that take.

I disagree that 11+ doesn't need teaching. My ds passed - but during test papers it became apparent that he hadn't covered some of the maths questions in the curriculum at school - or at least they weren't secure. Nobody is born knowing how to convert fractions to percentages - you have to be taught how

I bought my own kids a pack of each type of paper and tehy worked their way through them in the few weeks before.It doesn't take a tutor.It cost less than £20.that is not outside anyone's reach

Yes but the child who is not encouraged at home or at school probably won't even know of the existence of these papers or what they could gain from buying them if they had the money and familiarizing with them.

I think its easy, I think I can help my dc but it frustrates me, people moan about social mobility and don't point any fingers at state primaries which do nothing to help potential candidates at least try and have slim chance at 11+.

It boils down to parents interested or not.

That is in my view where the difference should be minimized because the school should help and have special classes for 11+ ers.

Yes you can argue its not same as tutor and so on, but if the child is bright it will give them a chance at present it seems to me a child whose parents are not interested....will have no chance and thats where a main problem is.

I agree that tutoring very likely shows diminishing returns, but that the first step of it - encouraging bright pupils to consider applying, familiarity with questions, practice working at the pace required and some of the techniques of exams should be done in primary schools. If that was combined with the prioritisation that i think tiggy described above - if you are in pupil premium you get a place if you meet the standard required, even if its only just - it could transform it.

And most papers are VR or NVR? No, actually. My ds did an English comprehension paper (he needed to know things like what is a pronoun, adverb etc), a Maths paper (again had to understand and apply various mathematical concepts) and a VR paper.

but I don't think that Grammar schools are in a position to resolve it

no they cant really resolve it but a poster has mentioned new measures to try and make it fairer but state primaries can do loads more to help.

Goodnes me, a parent who had the time could go in and do the workshops, a parent who had been through it and knew what was needed.

its not about creating intellegence where there is none, its just direction and information.

I totally agree Knitted - it seems so obvious! Which was why i thought there must be a more substantial reason why it doesn't happen beyond 'we don't agree with the system', or hanging on to the belief that baseline tutoring wouldn't have an impact.

I am with you that something should be done JimmyChoos - and possibly in primary schools, but wouldn't primary school teachers in deprived areas say they have enough to contend with as it is without 11+ preparation added to their remit?

Which was why i thought there must be a more substantial reason why it doesn't happen beyond 'we don't agree with the system', or hanging on to the belief that baseline tutoring wouldn't have an impact

I think there must be more to it.

Its so sad that so many students wont have even heard of grammars, know they exist or that they could have even sat an exam for them...not too bad a prospect for those with really good comps and so on around them but for those who could go two ways...one way is closed due to simple lack of information...I posted an article on another thread that state comps are failing bright pupils...so sad.

it seems very wrong to me...condemning child because of what parents can or cant do.

I recently visited a state primary where secondary school options include comprehensive and a state grammar. I asked if any help was provided to students applying for the grammar school, the head teacher scoffed at me and said "oh no. That is something parents need to deal withif that is something THEY want to pursue".

The grammar is highly selective and many candidates are highly drilled by prep schools or tutors. A bright child with no preparation stands little chance. So depressing and damaging for social mobility.

That makes me so sad Grit, I don't know why you were at the school but I would have liked to ask - why? And why isn't the school stepping in to help children whose parents don't know or don't care about the 11+.

Children being held back by teacher and heads?

Do governments (of solidly middle class and upper middle class men and [fewer] women) want or need social mobility? No, they probably don't. As long as there are sufficient scientists, doctors etc then they would probably prefer that these are sourced from their middle class peers whilst bright, working class children underachieve academically, do not compete against the established middle classes and are channelled into vital but lower paid jobs. There is no genuine political will to address this.

Interesting report from the Sutton Trust here; one of its recommendations is that a minimum of ten hours of preparation should be provided to all children.

I agree about the lack of political will - it's much easier to avoid awkward questions on why middle class families can no longer afford private secondary education if they have the opportunity to take grammar school places instead.

yes but is not helping a government directive ( right word?) or a school thing?

Schools take their direction from government, don't they?

Not abandoning the discussion but I have to take the dogs out now....

We need fairer testsand there should be a minimum of ten hours free or subsidised test preparation for all applicants to provide a more level playing field

We need primary schools in selective areas to encourage their higher achieving pupils to apply, and to work with parents to help them through the process. And, for those
high achieving students already in high schools or comprehensives in selective areas,
there is room for more partnerships with grammar schools.

From that Sutton Trust report seems to make sense, and staggered its not going on already.

• AalyaSecura

Thanks so much for the link what a joy to read, one feels as if one is going utterly mad.

Its a concern to us - that primaries don't do enough and thankfully to them too. As below.

A common concern in the research was the extent to which primary schools encouraged
pupils who are achieving highly at Key Stage 2 to apply to a grammar school, particularly
those from low
and middle
income homes. Primary schools could support pu
pils who can
succeed in local grammar schools to apply,

It seems they are not preparing or encouraging at all.

The only reason listed in that report on why primaries were not doing more was because many do not believe in selective education. Unbelievable.

Maybe adding in % applying and passing the 11+ on to school stats and a feed into a Ofsted ratings would make it a higher priority.

Jimmy, in Kent the LEA is against primary schools preparing for the Kent test. Some schools may do a bit in the guise of "maths club" or "optional holiday enrichment" sheets, and I guess academy's can do what they like, but the official line is that primaries do not prepare specifically for the test.

I also agree with too hasty- Tonbridge has relatively low unemployment and as nature and nurture do affect exam scores, most parents of 11+ passers can find a job.

Academies! Sorry.

Tanaqui, do you know why the LEA take that stance?

I do not but it has been the case for at least 20 years so I imagine it is a hangover from the days when no one tutored and the playing field was levelish.

Tbh Primaries are so variable in the standard of maths and English teaching, that adding 11+ prep would probably make things even less fair!