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.

Will we allow poor families in to Oxbridge even if they're less intelligent than other applicants who may be middle class?

Measuring intelligence and potential is more difficult than just looking at exam grades. Studies consistently show that students from difficult schools are more likely to get firsts at uni than those from independent schools. Those students from tough schools have to fight like mad to get near comparable grades to their more privileged counterparts. Allowing universities to make slightly lower offers in recognition of this seems fine in my book.

Listening to the head giving his half hour PR speech only gives you an idea about that head's narcissism.

True, but why even go into the hall which you know is where the speech is taking place (and nothing else) and then leave in a huff when you realise it is goingvyobtake a whole 30 mins? Why not just look around the school and then leave without going to the speech?

If I stood on an election platform of banning all private and grammer schools the privately owned press, governing elite and vested intersts would do there best to bury me- it's not in there interests is it?

hettie The European Court of Human Rights blocked the way to the abolition of private schools more than forty years ago (in a case from Belgium, not the UK) so that fantasy is just that.

If private schools could be and were abolished the fee-paying classes would colonise good schools (by buying houses near them) and get the advantage of having their children educated with others like them while spending the money on an asset which will probably appreciate instead of on fees. Not sure I see a real gain there for anybody else.

Btw and I might be wrong do Oxbridge not reserve places for disadvantaged students? Universities where I am living certainly do.

PurpleDaisies We don't tell A-level markers which school or sort of school a candidate went to and we should not tell universities either. That should be hidden behind a code number.

You've lost me a bit there, Beyond - has watching the leaders' debate driven you to have a glass of or two?

I didn't quite understand your reply, beyond, but if you're saying the head teacher is key - sure they are.

But it's a partnership. Parents, school, student. If you think you're going to be leaving them at the door of a desirable school and picking them up seven years later ready for Oxbridge, you're in for a shock.

super because they are not interested, they already don't like what they see....I think its a crucial part of the picture to see what the head is saying, a crucial part.

I must be out of date with the latest ucas procedures Andrewofgg. Do the universities know the candidate's school type when they interview them?

Super - I agree. I was merely responding to an earlier post in which someone implied that when the parents at the state school open evening walked out when the head said he was going to talk for half an hour, they were showing their lack of interest in their child's education whereas the parents at the private school who sat through the half hour head speech were more involved. I actually think the state school parents were far more sensible in walking out and the private school parents were sheep-like idiots.

Purple and others - yes universities do know the school and its results when applicants apply. They can adjust offers accordingly, and many do, but spaces are not reserved specifically for applicants from lower achieving schools. (Bristol lists all the schools it will make a very slightly reduced offer to applicants from.)

Poly, this debate angers me but I am not entirely unsympathetic. You want your DD to go to a good school. You are worried about the alternatives.

I would put money on the fact that your DD will be fine, and do very well, whatever school she goes to. Don't worry too much.

Purple Most outside Oxbridge don't interview - it is all done on paper and in those cases there is, I think, no reason for the university to know anything about the applicant beyond what the form shows - which should not include race, gender, or school.

Where there is an interview race and gender will be apparent but school can still be kept off the agenda, and it should be.

You've lost me a bit there, Beyond - has watching the leaders' debate driven you to have a glass of wine or two?

I have lost you but its me having a glass ?

I think its interesting and I agree that the 11+ isn't the best measure of intelligence and I think for many many reasons not all dc capable of the 11+ will be applying for it. I do not agree that in areas with Grammars the 25% best are creamed off.

There are also a few schools with brilliant results and are in very deprived areas ( comps) so that isn't the answer either.

Beloved said state primaries cant compete with private preps, on getting puplils to pass 11+ due to x factors and yet she claims later on in secondary these schools can somehow get pupils with most potential to forfill that potential ( but this isnt possible at primary).

A conundrum

• titchy Thu 02-Apr-15 21:43:28

It was supers own post I was quoting, have you read the thread .

Like sheep, to sit and listen to the Head?

Much better to walk out and be utterly rude when the head is about to give the speech?

What arse said. It's scary when your pfb moves to secondary with big smelly 16 year olds - but honestly the vast majority do fine. Schools set according to ability. Kids generally mix with those they're in classes with, so your kid will mix with all the other set 1 kids if they end up at the secondary modern. Sad to say, but its the set 3 and 4 kids that are disruptive, disengaged and more likely to have issues. Those with supportive engaged parents generally do well and are happy. She will be fine wherever she goes.

suburban I was not replying to you.

titchy your not reading the thread. comps are failing the top pupils.

Schools set according to ability. Kids generally mix with those they're in classes with, so your kid will mix with all the other set 1 kids if they end up at the secondary modern

Interesting but I was under the impression from some posters that - actually all children mixed? Oiks and all?

Sorry and it was this supposed mixing that was creating good schools?

Thanks Andrewofgg. That's news to me. How do universities make lower offers to (if they choose to) students from tough schools then if they don't know who they are? It sounds practically very difficult!

I never said comps were failing the top pupils! The thread is about grammar schools, therefore the alternatives are not comprehensives by definition- they're secondary moderns.

And my kids' experiences is that kids from other sets don't mix, although they're certainly aware of each other and may stand next to them in the lunch queue, but they won't be in the same friendship group.

I can understand the fear of 'catching oik' though if you've never had a child at secondary school - it's quite daunting. But I think most parents' fears are unfounded.

Purple they DO know what school they're from!!!!

Haklyut.. You seem to think because my dd "has supportive parents and works very hard" (she had just one supportive parent, btw) that she has an advantage that a child with free school meals doesn't have. Do you think that poor parents don't support their children and that the children don't work hard? I'm sure children with free school meals can have supportive parents too. In fact the children with free school meals who apply to these grammar school presumably do have supportive parents for them to even be applying...

Poly - the majority of FSM kids do NOT have the support that you give your child.

Unfounded because then they are not actually mixing, I see.