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.

You're missing the point. The children I'm talking about aren't entitled to the pupil premium. That's the problem.

So Ptolmy- to get it correct - my DS could be in the same school, but those of equal ability but don't want to learn couldn't?
It is perfectly OK for non academic DS to be in classes with disruptive pupils but academic DS has to be removed from them?

it's all "but what about the middle classes- we don't get any extra help". Rather distasteful.

Children of travellers are entitled to PP aren't they?

Only if they fit the same criteria as anyone else, which many of them don't. There is no extra funding to reflect the fact that they are often massively disadvantaged because their own parents never went to school and are illiterate.

Mehitable, no, it's not ok, and that's not what I said. No child should have to be educated alongside others who are disruptive IMO.

it's all "but what about the middle classes- we don't get any extra help". Rather distasteful.

Your missing the point again. It's not what about the middle classes. It's what about the other children that desperately need support but don't get it because of the bollocks that is FSM/PP eligibility.

I fully agree but why can academic DS get the chance to be removed but non academic DS can't?

Because the system has to cater for everyone, including the children of parents who don't care about decent behaviour or education.

My feeling is that the real problem is poor parenting, but that is ignored because it's easier to focus on children who have a perceived 'advantage' by having some intelligence and motivated parents instead of focussing on those who drag down the standards at some schools.

Super - so the vast over representation of children from private prep schools at grammar schools is indicative of nothing?

I didn't say that it was indicative of nothing. You might want to imagine that I said that but it is nothing but your interpretation of what I wrote.

As a group children on FSM do significantly worse than non FSM children. So targeting support on those children is entirely sensible. There will obviously some that don't need thto extra support, but better that than others missing it

The fact that many grammar schools have no Pupil Premium children is more of an issue.

"My feeling is that the real problem is poor parenting, but that is ignored because it's easier to focus on children who have a perceived 'advantage' by having some intelligence and motivated parents instead of focussing on those who drag down the standards at some schools."

Eh? Sorry- don't understandthat. Where is poor parenting ignored? It's all part of the multiple reasons FSM children do so badly. Sometimes it's poor parenting. Sometimes it's circumstances where optimum parenting is practicqlly impossible. And you said that if the £900 a year cwn't completely redress that balance it should be scrapped.....

And what's your solution for poor parenting Ptolemys?

I completely agree with that Hak.

But the thing is, that enough others do miss out that is a problem. That's a fact, whether we like it or not and no matter how many studies concentrating on FSM we look at.

That's why I don't think it's fair to give FSM children an advantage over other disadvantaged groups at 11+ while we continue to ignore those other disadvantaged groups completely.

And I hope you might be beginning to understand that there is no malpractice going on at my school unless you recognise the whole system as it is set up as malpractice.

Exactly Hakluyt. You would expect them to have far more than none selective schools. People are quick to point out that comprehensive catchment depends on where you can afford to live. The one advantage of selection should be that where you can afford to live has no bearing on it and they should have a large pupil premium intake. (If the selection process was fair)

Why did he need to be in a different building with different uniform and different teachers?

Are you really asking why the less academic child couldn't be taught in the grammar school rather than the other way around? If that is what you are asking then I think the answer is fairly obvious: grammar schools only take those that score well enough on the entrance exams and a child who is getting level 4s in his SATs is highly unlikely to pass the entrance tests (especially at the most selective grammar schools). Bs and Cs at Gcse is good but it isn't what the most selective grammars would be expecting from their students. Don't the Altrincham grammars achieve over 60% A* & A at GCSE? If that is the case then a child who is getting Bs and Cs is going to be struggling to keep up with the rest of the year group. Would you want your B & C across the board child studying at an Altrincham grammar where he is struggling to keep up?

At secondary school you really shouldn't need sibling priority- if you are still doing a 'school run' with an 11 year old I'm a bit At that age they should be more than capable of walking, getting a bus or cycling to school.
I'm not sure about the 'one chance' thing tbh. I suspect this 'status anxiety' about getting into the right school, learning an instrument/doing a sport/attending multiple clubs, getting the right results, going to the right Russell group university etc etc is creating a lot of anxiety, stress and depression for our kids. It assumes they only have one chance at succeeding, it also assumes a very narrow definition of what success looks like.
A good 2:1 from a good university and a well paid professional job? Why? Does that make for a happier and more fulfilled life? Do you want your kids to have a happy and fulfilled life- who is to say that can't be achieved through poor grades, a vocation/passion a network of friends and family. One of the smartest people I know (russell group university, masters and everything) is a cabinet maker (for which he needs none of his lofty academic qualifications)- he is also one of the happiest.
I do value education- but I'm not sure I value our current measures of what educational attainment looks like. It's something a bit broader for me. This move to monetise and commoditise every aspect of our lives and only reward/value the aspects which are obviously economically functional is not a trend I support.

And what's your solution for poor parenting Ptolemys?

There isn't a solution, it will always happen. But I think it would help if the state stopped letting workless people know they'd get free money to fund as many children as they want, and I think it would help if we heavily invested in early years education, primary education, and the sure start schemes.

I also think it would help if we gave schools enough funding to ensure the best education to all the children, especially those who need extra support, without singling out certain groups with a ridiculously blunt tool.

"That's why I don't think it's fair to give FSM children an advantage over other disadvantaged groups at 11+ while we continue to ignore those other disadvantaged groups completely."

Which other groups are you referring to?

Ptolomy, at least in Kent one disadvantaged group (summer born children) are already given additional marks in their 11+. How is it different to give priority to PP pupils?

Oh, hang on, I think i understand. You're saying that children are only on fsm because they have useless parents and therefore should not be given any advantages because they are the undeserving poor?

You really do read selectively don't you Hak?

The ones I've already mentioned, like the traveller children, the ones who have low academic ability. I'll add the ones who's parents aren't interested in helping their children or who can't help their children for whatever reason who still don't qualify for pp.

• One of the smartest people I know (russell group university, masters and everything) is a cabinet maker (for which he needs none of his lofty academic qualifications)- he is also one of the happiest

Yes very much agree with this but its one thing having forfilled his potential and choosing to make cabinets, its another to have no grades, be trapped and be forced to do work you dont want too.

choice.

I Really don't know where you get that from my posts , Superexcited. He isn't academic- why would I, or he, want him in a purely academic school? I am asking why we need grammar schools. Obviously we don't because we only have 163 left with a tiny percentage of children at them.
My sons went to the same school and both did very well. I know some people think all comprehensives have bad behaviour (regardless of telling them they don't - I blame TV programmes)but they don't - luckily it was thought just as important for low sets to be free from disruption and it wasn't tolerated.