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.

hak they don't have to but they may wish to do so. There is no compulsion for academic children to go to a grammar school. I agree it might be ideal for many academic children to go to the selective option in 11+ areas and certainly my own child was drawn to the selective schools by the thought of being among an able group of children. He said he was sick of being an outcast and hiding his ability at primary school. If his brother had been a typical child though they would have gone to the comp together (as we have comps where I live).

I think to some mumsnetters, and all grammar school supporters, "bright" children are fundamentally different and need a different type of school. I don't, frankly, think they care very much about all the others

I think two things of this statement either:

You think you are some sort of shaman with powers to see in side the human mind, you seem to have the measure of the human mind, are you a physic, mind reader because you are so sure of yourself and your pronouncements.

Or maybe you have another condition which always thinks the very worst of people, and keep projecting this onto your fellow man.

Not all dc are academic, there are other types of school, vocations available, I have one dc who is academic, and is showing great promise.

I am going to get her into a school that I trust to nurture this promise.

The other one, we do not know yet, she may not be so academic in which case we shall be looking for a school that suits her needs. If she is good at art, we will be looking for a strong art department, same with drama and so on.

"Had he not got I to a selective school then I would have deemed him not to be a good match for that school and he would have gone to the comp. I wouldn't have been taking sharp intakes of breath and complaining about prep kids, tutored kids or FSM kids taking all of the places unfairly."

Here we go - sheep and goats.

The insinuation: the 11+ and other tests done at 11 are a reliable way of identifying which children will and will not benefit from a fast paced and intellectually demanding secondary curriculum. I assume you also agree that m/c children and children from wealthy backgrounds and educationally supportive backgrounds are more 'entitled' to this sort of education than poor children - they must be given that they pass the 11+ in so much larger numbers.

"IYou think you are some sort of shaman with powers to see in side the human mind, you seem to have the measure of the human mind, are you a physic, mind reader because you are so sure of yourself and your pronouncements"

Or I form a hypothesis based on the available evidence, which I will continue to believe until I get evidence that suggests another hypothesis is more feasible.........

Beyond - you can't sort children into 'academic' and 'not academic' in that way. I can find you a dozen adults who wouldn't have passed the 11+ (myself, DH, DB included) who are intellectually curious, articulate and creative and have gone on to do higher degrees after a very mediocre school career. My own Ds (11) is a natural mathematician and plays two instruments at grade 5 but failed the 11+ for a super selective because he writes so badly. There's no way he would thrive in a secondary modern where the emphasis is on vocational learning. I'm just profoundly grateful he's got a place in a good comprehensive which has great music teaching and caters for a full range of abilities. This is only possible because we're not in a grammar area.

Why is it be frowned upon to say ' I want my Children educated in a grammar school, so that they can be surrounded by people like ourselves who are ambitious, have the same aspirations and think like us about education and future employment for are children'.

That statement has got nothing to do with class/color or money, just about wanting a certain type of education and being linked to similar people/families.

The secondary schools in 'Trafford' are in effect Comprehensive schools , because if you look at even Stretford High ( A deprived school in an relatively deprived area ) still does 'ok' with 45% GCSE (31% FSM).

Intrestingly the 'Grammar' school effect 7 causes problems at 6th form for Wellington with a 'poor' D+ (193) average grade . This is possibly because they may lose their brightest pupils to the grammar schools at 6th form.

However, Trafford proves it is possible to have 'Comprehensive' schools those that take a proportinate selection of students from all abilty levels, within a fully selective 'grammar' system 40%.

Why can't my non academic DS be educated in the same school as my academic DS?

That's a question for schools to answer. It's not down to parents who just want to find the school that is doing to do the best by each of their individual children.

It would be great if all comprehensive schools could cater equally well for all children, and some of them manage it very well, but it is a fact that some schools don't manage it very well. They just don't.

If we could ensure that all state secondary schools provided the best teaching in the best learning environment for each individual child no matter how they learn best, then people wouldn't feel the need to look to selective schools. It might also help if all children were automatically academically motivated no matter what their level of intelligence and if they all had high standards if behaviour and if none of them were easily led by peers who could be a negative influence. But we're talking about children who are all different and who all have their own weaknesses.

Firstly my non academic DS does not have complex special needs, he simply wouldn't have passed 11+.
Secondly I love the way the separate schools issue is solved by an airy - 'send them both to a sec mod' as if that is any sort of answer!

Our Children....

Great post beloved72 and so true for many.

I don't live in a grammer school area and my children go to the local comp so these threads always baffle me

Very interesting though and if we did live in that sort of area I'm sure I would get them to sit the 11+

"Why is it be frowned upon to say ' I want my Children educated in a grammar school, so that they can be surrounded by people like ourselves who are ambitious, have the same aspirations and think like us about education and future employment for are children'."

Well, if you want your child to only mix with children with a specifically academic focus, and if you think that only academically inclined children can be ambitious and have aspirations. AND if you think it's OK for you to have exactly what you want, regardless of the impact on other people......

Stratford High only has 13% low attainers.

Where are all the Trafford low attainers? In some sort of compound somewhere?

I think it's ok for parents to want their children to mix with children who have the same academic focus during lessons Hak. You make your point as if there's something wrong with parents who want their children to have a like minded peer group.

I also think it's ok for educationally motivated parents to have what they want out of the education system they pay taxes towards. The way I choose to educate my children has no impact on other people. None whatsoever.

"think it's ok for parents to want their children to mix with children who have the same academic focus during lessons Hak. You make your point as if there's something wrong with parents who want their children to have a like minded peer group"

And that's what the top set of a comprehensive school is for.

"The way I choose to educate my children has no impact on other people. None whatsoever."

It does, you know.

IMHO the assistance the pupil premium children need should (as a result of the additional funds paid to their primary schools) be provided at that primary school in enabling them to sit the 11+ on a level footing with their peers at the age of 10. Otherwise one has to ask the question of what has that money achieved for them in the x years the primary school has been receiving it (although I am aware that not all eligible parents claim and this has a knock on effect of the school not being able to get pupil premium funding for that child).

IN EVIDENCE (ANECDOTAL ONLY)

I went to a GS many many years ago (am ancient) and this sort of social engineering was done unofficially by "Headteacher's recommendation". I'm from a small town where everyone eventually found out about most things like this (and this was in the days before internet connections too).

It wasn't necessarily based on FSM but I know of 2 pupils at my GS (same year as me) who ended up there without having passed the 11+. They didn't have a happy time, and both left at 16.

The proposed scheme sounds like it could even things out and whilst I should support it in principle, I can't, as the reality of it wasn't something that enhanced the career/lifepath of those 2 children in my school year.

However, we were joined at GS in the second, third and fourth form years by a few kids who hadn't achieved a "pass" mark when they sat the 11+ exams at the age of 10 but who had blossomed academically later at the secondary modern. The flexibility in the system allowed for them to transfer and have a bit of catch up tuition in some subjects. One of them has outshone all of us as far as career path is concerned.

No, it really doesn't. Because I don't send my children to school thinking that it's ok to misbehave or disrespect teachers and other students. They go to (state) school, do what they are supposed to do then come home. That's it. It makes no difference to anyone else.

What about children who aren't top set material Hak? As has been pointed out many times, being motivated and wanting to learn isn't something that can only apply to top set children.

That's a very good point catontherun. If we need to fiddle results for PP children then what is the point of the pupil premium. Either it works or it doesn't, and if it does then we won't need to give extra advantage, and if it doesn't, then we may as well scrap it.