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.

My friend has Looked After children, they are the children of his partner and he's been there since they were very young. For various reasons their Mum cannot loom after them so he does with his new partner. They are designated "looked after" even though he is the only father they have ever known. He has two children of his own with this ex who are also there.

It may be true that a bright child will do well wherever they go - but I'm not convinced. I was a bright child at a small all-girls secondary. I never fitted in, I was picked on for coming top in everything. I responded by deliberately not doing homework or revising for tests in an attempt to fit in. I did OK at A level (3 A grades, a distinction in the physics 'special paper, and a place at Oxford), but when I got to college, I really struggled to keep up with people who had been pushed harder, and had done further maths at A level (not an option at my school). I scraped a third from Oxford, and am now in a job I enjoy, but could still be held back by job adverts demanding a "first or second class honours degree". My DD1 is at a good, very large, mixed, comprehensive, with a wide range of subjects on offer, and seems to be happy.

Teacher, I do agree with you that a Kent system is far from ideal, and I completely recognise the problems associated with it. I don't know what the answer is though. I think parental choice when it comes to schools is important, and I think it would be good if every child who wanted a grammar education could have one. But then I also think it would be good if parents could choose a more hands on vocational style of learning if they thought their children were better suited to it. There would also have to be something in the middle for the all rounders.

But I firmly believe that grammar education isn't better, it's different.

Smokepole, the point I am making is that there will be (quite a large) number of children at any SM who are within the margin of accuracy of the test, and thus on a different day would have got into a grammar. A segregated system may be enitrely appropriate for children at the relative extremes. But it is unjust to those in the middle - and I suspect that it is the performance of the MA children in a segregated system who bring down the performance of the system as a whole, and thus show no advantage (and according to some studies a disadvantage) in terms of overall academic results in grammar vs nion-grammar counties.

What are good parenting skills? When you are living just above the breadline and both working alternative 12 hour shifts to make ends meet, it's very difficult to take your DC off to cultural activities and enrich their environment. Both parents exhausted and constantly worried about money or should parents then give them a lesson in family budgeting? Life is just very very difficult for a lot of families!

Sory, used LA as the statuistics do - low ability on entry, not looked after. The latter would be LACs. Apologies.

(MA = middle ability on entry, in my last post, ie those who get 4s in their Y6 SATs. HA = high ability, those who get 5s and 6s.)

I do, by the way, think that there is a need for excellent, high status, hands-on vocational training in this country - a society and an educational process that recognises excellence in practical subjects as a worthwhile, high status pathway for some young people.

However, while the 'other school' in segregated systems are measured against exactly the same academic yardsticks as the grammar schools, and deemed to be 'failing' because they do not measure up well against this - in some ways wholly unfit for that purpose - measure, then we are doimng nothng well. We are neither providing good vocational training, nor are we maximising the academic performance of all young peoople if that is what we feel we should be doing.

A child at grammar school, with supportive parents can fall behind horribly if they are bullied (especially if it is the clever kind of bullying that cannot really be pinpointed as such but goes on for years).
A child from a supportive family can become disruptive at school if they lose a parent or lose their home.
Any child from any background can have behavioural or learning needs

These are also reasons why a bright and motivated child with supportive parents might not do well at their local comprehensive, whether it be sink or outstanding.

As such, a lot of people with offspring of similar academic ability have direct experience of both types of school.

I am one of those parents, not because one of my children didn't pass the 11+ And one did, but because we decided that even if he did pass, it wouldn't be the right school for him, the pressure of the 11+ would be too much and the comp would suit him better. So he didn't sit the test, but I'm thankful that as parents we had the choice.

"Being bright or motivated or both isn't a reason to think it's fine to send a child to a school where there experience will be harder than it has to be"
But the selective system means that sending that child to a grammar school means that the majority of children have the negative experience of failing at 11 and being sent to a school which even if it isn't is percieved to be worse. Why is the right hand side of the bell curve more important than the top or the left?

Where I am from (NE) grammar schools went in about 1970s. It is only a very few areas of the UK which still have them. I remember the direct grant schools going too - including my brother's which went fully private (until then - 70s some of the children were funded by the state under the direct grant scheme).

I can see the original poster's issue here though. You bust a gut to work full time and just don't meet the low enough income for the priority place whereas if you chose to work only part time because you want a lie in and a chance at a grammar school then the state says well done you have the place. It is similar with private schools and bursaries - mother chooses not to work at all, income is lower, child gets 10% bursary. Single mother who works very hard indeed full time leaving at 7.30am for a long commute and she gets told in that case you earn too much to get any help.

We reward the lazy very often in the UK and even the new system of universal credit which is going to try to incentivise full time over part time working is unlikely to succeed in that aim.

Not going to grammar school is only percieved as being worse and is only a negative experience for children because of the attitudes of adults. It doesn't have to be that way.

I'd much rather see a shift in the way parents and teachers talk of pass, fail, better, worse, than see schools that do an excellent job be abolished.

If we had more grammar schools to remove some of the pressure of gaining a place, and if all the alternative schools were great places of education that young people wanted to go to, then the 'experience of failing' wouldn't happen.

Not going to grammar school is only percieved as being worse and is only a negative experience for children because of the attitudes of adults. It doesn't have to be that way.

There are so few grammars its not 1950's where it was a prevalent in your face choice and test.

Its not like that now.

Plenty of really bright children will fail simply as they are not good all rounders.

If you have two dc and one fails and one passes who they feel about it, is solely down to you.

Ptol

Most schools cant even talk about 11 +

If we had more grammar schools to remove some of the pressure of gaining a place, and if all the alternative schools were great places of education that young people wanted to go to, then the 'experience of failing' wouldn't happen

Yes and this is what I don't understand. In areas with lots of G schools surely its easier to get in. So dc who should be in, usually are?

and Yes schools all at a good level would totally remove all this angst.

Comprehensives are never going all be good though. Some are good and some are bad and if you live out of the catchment area for a good one, the grammar schools are good option. If my children hadn't gone to grammar school we would have had to move or pay for private school (which we can't really afford) as no way would I send them to a failing comprehensive miles away.

Mary some grammars are good and have good value added, other grammars are poor and have poor value added. Just because a schools a grammar doesn't make it the best place for an academic child.

It is similar with private schools and bursaries - mother chooses not to work at all, income is lower, child gets 10% bursary. Single mother who works very hard indeed full time leaving at 7.30am for a long commute and she gets told in that case you earn too much to get any help.

The vast majority of private schools state in their bursary policies that they expect parents to maximise income in order to afford fees. If one parent isn't working then the schools expect them to seek work and increase income unless there are extenuating circumstances such as being a full time carer for a disabled child or relative (SAHM doesn't usually count).

Mary some grammars are good and have good value added, other grammars are poor and have poor value added. Just because a schools a grammar doesn't make it the best place for an academic child.

The grammar schools in our area have good value added but even if they weren't that good they would still be better than some of the failing comprehensives that people who live near me have been offered in recent years.

Teacher. Yes there were 2 other pupils in 'all the top sets for Maths/English (as well as DD1) who should have been at a grammar school.

The parents of the other 2 pupils (1 Boy/1 Girl) though were an exception with their views on grades and academic work.

The reality , despite (how UN PC it sounds) the families and pupils at DD2s DS Grammars are 'more deserving' of a better academic education and better opportunities . It has got nothing to do with Wealth/Class or Color it is about having an attiude of hard work behaving well at school and believing in defererd gratification. The sad fact was a large number of the Modern schools families/pupils do not buy in to any those things. The pupils prefering to play on their mobile phones, video games at home do no homework and when put in detention laugh and not turn up.

This behaviour is condoned by the parents 'because the school is not going to get the kids a job' so why should they listen to the teachers.

This by the way is a good school, I have praised it numerous times . The school had 'segregate' DD and the few other bright pupils in to their own mini sets for Maths/English Science , because it was the only way the bright children could learn at the appropiate level .

v good post tiggy, v rational. Unlike such wild statements as,

" 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. "

which just leave me gobsmacked. God forbid anyone not from a 'hard working family' should have any educational advantage!

Therefore only 1 or 2 children from the top set in local primary schools tend to get a place even though realistically at least 5-10 children from each of those classes are of high academic ability

IF so few get in why the fuss, how are other schools failing because top creamed off? This ^ suggests its not true