Priority admissions to grammar for free school meals

[polycomfort]

I'm pretty much not a person to start hand-wringing over low income families getting breaks. Happy for people less fortunate to get the odd leg up. Fine.

But I'm really angry to have just read that the local grammar school has just started giving priority admission to children claiming free school meals. I understand they get an extra £900 per child so I get that there is probably a financial benefit for the schools themselves. But I've been practicing with my daughter every evening (can't afford a tutor) using books I've bought cheap on Amazon and was thinking she might be just about good to go after lots of effort from both of us and now I'm just thinking what's the point? There are 20 applications per space as it is, and now just because I'm not poor she has even less of a chance. We don't have a high income but I work full time and so she doesn't get free school meals. For my efforts I may end up having to send my really rather bright daughter to the crappy (and it is crap) local comp even though she may be brighter than a child whose parent doesn't bust a gut to work every day of the week.

I don't think it's okay for grammar schools to be crammed full of wealthy kids who could go to private school, but couldn't they do a household income cut off rather than using a free school meal as the criteria? Then all the kids who can't afford to go to private school could be assessed for grammar school. I don't see why kids from the middle income should be penalised.

"Haklyut - you're calling me naive yet you are shocked that corporate firms judge applicants based on where they were schooled??"

I'm not shocked. I know bastards exist. Just surprised they are prepared to do something so openly illegal, that's all. And also surprised that you think it's an OK thing to do.

Actually, perhaps a true test of the mettle of the grammars would be for them to take all those "Kids all smoking right outside, always stories in the paper because someone's been excluded for drugs, or weapons, poor grades, high exclusion rates, faces from year 11 hanging around two months after they've left school with pushchairs.." and see what they can achieve with them.

Beyond repair, you hit the nail on the head. If I trusted our comp to make sure my dd achieves her potential then I would be sending her there. But I don't.

Hak. Look at Traffords area and house prices and it helps explain

And doesn't that support the need for FSM kids to be given priority for grammar schools?
Does it also tell us that grammar schools are not just creaming off the brightest but also the wealthiest as that is the factor that has the biggest impact of educational attainment.

Poly, how do the high attainers do?

Do you have a good edication OP? It is one of the best predictors of children's outcomes (maternal education). Plenty of poor children will come from a family where neither parent has a degree and so simply may not have the education or exam experience to offer any credible education support to their children. Why are you not focussed on the many, many more children who are unfairly tutored it makes absolutely no sense. Far more of them will unfairly take your child's place.

Oh not its not me poly, there are numerous articles on them failing dc who did very well at age 11, these pupils then mysteriously fall below potential.

Are they catching some strange disease called OIK?

My DS is at a super selective grammar because there are no DC receiving FSM there is no pupil premiums, the result of this is that a school with the brightest pupils has less money than any other school. They are struggling financially.

OP, why do you think it's the job of the school to ensure your DD achieves what she's capable of?

And why do you think it would be the fault of other students if she goes off the rails and loses motivation?

Well they wouldn't, would they arse? Of course they wouldn't. We've established that the teachers are the same quality. It's the type of pupil that attends that dictates. I want my dd with them, alongside them, with the peer pressure they create. Rather than alongside those others you mention.
Not because I think they are better humans. But because that is the environment where she is most likely to achieve her potential. If you don't value that, and rather you value your child being amongst a true cross section of society. To experience the grit of having their bags searched for weapons on entry to school then fine - great for you. I don't want that and hence I've spent time studying with my dd in the hope she can attend the higher level of school. Go to work, every day, and come home and further support her by practicing for tests. I realise that makes her lucky (to have me ) but if intimately it makes her more academically capable then she should be first in line to the best school. Otherwise.. What next? Will we allow people from poor families in to Oxbridge even if they're less intelligent than other applicants who may be middle class?

super

the hall was fairly full for the headmasters speech until he opened by saying he was going to speak for around 30 mins, at which point more than half of the people got up and left. What kind of people looking for a school can't even be bothered to give up 30 mins to see what can be offered to their children for the next 5 years?

I don't... Anothernumberone. I dropped out 20 years ago aged 15.

When will people realise that grammars are not full of the 'brightest pupils'? The 11+ is not an objective test of 'brightness'. It is not a level playing field. The blind failure of some posters to grasp this continues to baffle me.

Poly, your child has supportive parents and is working very hard, and has help to work hard and in the right way. I think it's pretty safe to say that if a child without her advantages passes the test, that child is brighter than yours and deserves the place.

Probably parents who thought the best way of seeing what the school was actually like was to walk around speaking to teachers and pupils. Listening to the head giving his half hour PR speech only gives you an idea about that head's narcissism. It really isn't something that shows a school in its best light tbh, though the inexperienced parent might think it's useful.

OP, why do you think it's the job of the school to ensure your DD achieves what she's capable of?

Poly, your child has supportive parents and is working very hard, and has help to work hard and in the right way. I think it's pretty safe to say that if a child without her advantages passes the test, that child is brighter than yours and deserves the place.

^^ this

Why , beyond?

And neither is Oxbridge full of the most' intelligent'.

Oh no titchy heads are paramount in the success of the school. their ethos radiates down.

Well that makes even less sense as to why your ire is directed at the poorer children rather than the ones who have paid private tutors and are doing your child out of a place given that it is very likely that she is more intelligent than they are. This is not necessarily likely to be true of the poorer children which has been detailed ad nauesum here.

Fwiw I do think that having your child in the best available school does confer educational advantages. I have a local private school that gets the best outcomes but since I went to the local secondary and did fine academically my kids will go there too. If the secondary was shit I would pay for the benefits of the private school but it is not.

Just to clarify in case my posts are confusing:
I understand OPs frustration and I understand that it is natural for many parents to want what they think is best for their child and will help their child achieve their potential (myself included).
I understand that some parents (myself included) want their children in an environment where the children and parents of those children are highly motivated.
I also think it is right that FSM children or other legal disadvantage measured children are given priority for grammar school places especially as those children are far less likely to live in the catchments for the best performing schools and are more likely to have overcome hurdles in order to pass the 11+.

Its all a conundrum isn't it Arse, grammars are not creaming off top 25% yet secondary/comps still failing brightest pupils, yet some say state are capable of teaching top pupils and yet state they cannot cope with teaching them at state primary level due to disruptive pupils..

but this all disappears in comps with older dc who one would imagine are even harder to handle?

Unfortunately many heads don't seem able to trust their own teachers to deliver that message though so they drone on for half an hour, lessening the time parents actually spend with teachers and students.