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.

I think LotusLight that you will find that the parents who want selective schools are the ones who think their child will be selected!

Well of course it should be on merit. It can't be when it isn't a level playing field. No test can make it a level playing field. Therefore you can't give a place purely on merit- people can 'buy' advantage.

If you improve your child's literacy, numeracy, and general knowledge - whether by tutoring or valuing education and making sure that child takes it seriously - you are improving the child's merits.

I am the son and brother of teachers, which long ago led me to Andrew's Formulation: It is socially divisive and unfair to give your children any educationally advantage which teachers cannot afford for their children.

So tutoring is out, but a houseful of books is in.

Some children have lost by the age of 3 yrs- younger really- those born disadvantaged, with parents who don't care, or on drugs etc are going to be disadvantaged all the way through. Very sad. They need the money spent in them early on-they would be the successful ones given a different start in life.

And then those who supply the houseful of books want to stop the disadvantaged being given a small helpful step.

If the school in question is the one I think it is, then it was actually set up by its founding body with an expressed intention to help the 'poore boyes' of the area. Taking the decision to admit 20 PP students as part of its PAN is therefore only right and proper.

Besides, OP - your dd hasn't even sat the exams yet has she? Tutoring is really not all it's cracked up to be you know. My dd had none and she's in Y8 of one of the London SS. We are not rich.

Mehitabel6 It depends what helpful step. If you mean help to do better in school - fine. If you mean pretending they have done better in school, which is what the OP mentioned many a post upthread - not fine.

I mean the priority admissions. If they get the marks they did then just think what they could have got with tutors, practice papers and a houseful of books!
Anyway- it will be here to stay, regardless of how it annoys those who don't like it! I can't see how anyone can resent it for a child far less privileged than their own.

Far fairer to have a comprehensive and let them find their level.

' We forbid any new Free Schools or Academies from being Academically Selective even if parents want it '

Sounds like the 'Labour' Party to me, preaching in Fidel Castro speak .

I do not know why in a 'free' society parents can not have the type of schools built that they want . They pay for schools via taxes... It really is appalling and distainful to the public, not allowing free will over schooling for their children.

You know what would make Comprehensive/ Modern schools better remove the bottom 20% and the (disintrested) put them in Vocational schools or (Borstal's) teaching skills in how to be productive citizens.

"I do not know why in a 'free' society parents can not have the type of schools built that they want . They pay for schools via taxes... It really is appalling and distainful to the public, not allowing free will over schooling for their children."

For the same reason we don't allow privileged access to NHS care on the basis of parental choice. It's about fairness to children.

That will always trump the wishes of adults.

"You know what would make Comprehensive/ Modern schools better remove the bottom 20% and the (disintrested) put them in Vocational schools or (Borstal's) teaching skills in how to be productive citizens."

Oh fuck off back to the 1930's why don't you?

[

smoke that may not be a bad idea.

The main thing is turning out pupils who can do the basics and if comps cant do that, then there does need to be other solutions.

I do not see whats wrong with schools specialising in helping bottom 20%.

Or is it only the top that needs specialist help.

And yes, we want choice, we dont want a one size fits all. I think thats more suited to parents who feel ashamed of where their dc goes to school.

I can't see why one size should suit all. I also can't see why they shouldn't all be in one building, with one Head and one uniform and then they can easily move up or down sets.
The beauty of the comprehensive is that one size doesn't suit all and they were able to educate my academic son and my non academic son quite easily, according to their needs.

So to get this straight:
at the tender age of 10/11yrs you take the top 25% or so and give them the best schools and the best opportunities.
The bulk in the middle you give an adequate education but cut them off from some subjects and any teachers who want to do 6th form.
The bottom 20% you put in Borstal type schools.

And people are serious.
Sometimes words fail me.

Basically you don't need an exam at 10yrs- you look at the parents and sort it at birth.

Baby 1 - 2 high achieving parents, detached house, nice garden etc Grammar school.
Baby 2 - drug addict, feckless parents, no settled address- Borstal.

And the really stupid thing is that if you changed the babies at birth they have a totally different outlook for the rest of their lives.

Um why are grammars the best schools?

Private schools get in far more to Oxbridge than grammars as has been widely reported.

An outstanding grammar is no better than an outstanding comp ditto a good grammar to a good comp.

Why is it ok for parents to buy up places to the best comps via property but not ok for parents to ever do extra work with their dc( even when stuck with mediocre primaries) that may well help them get into a school that suits them?

I can't see why one size should suit all.

Er, because children like my DC who has a significant learning disability and multiple sensory issues couldn't cope in a 'one size fits all environment'. My child needs to be in a low distraction, low stimulus environment which couldn't be possible in a busy school aimed at NT children.

They are better schools than sec mods because they have 6th forms, they are aiming to get the best into the best universities. Sec mod children are not expected to go to Oxbridge;learning Latin is closed off to them.
If grammar schools were not thought to be best then people wouldn't need tutors, they would be utterly thrilled to get a sec mod!

That is exactly what I said Superexcited- I can't see why one size should suit all. Of course they don't. I went in to say how the comprehensive didn't- it treated my very different sons differently.

One size didn't fit me,Dp or any of our siblings.Our parents were brainwashed into the funnelling of their dc into one school without looking around or becoming informed. All regret both.

Mehitabel6 That's twice you have mentioned Latin. Had you heard that Oxford abolished compulsory Latin for applicants around 1970 and so, I believe, did Fenland Tech Cambridge?

If you mean that learning Latin is a Good Thing then I am with you!

Mehitabel6

like op, like me ? no detached large houses here etc.

1. at the tender age of 11 you get rid of some pupils who are all rounders to some grammars.

2. plenty of intelligent dc will still go to comp/secondary because, they are not all rounders, they had a bad test day, they didnt want to go, their parents not interested/didn't want them to go.

3. for struggling bottom, put them in school devoted to their needs

I chose a comprehensive carefully where one size didn't fit all.

I will believe that grammar schools are not the best the day someone says 'bring back the secondary modern system' and they never do. It is always 'bring back the grammar schools'. Generally by people who expect their child to get a place and wouldn't want them in a secondary modern. Why they then think it is good enough for other people's children, I don't know. Except that they patronisingly say,it is the school suited to them -when 10 yrs is far too early to know.

mehit thats brilliant your local school was able to successfully cater to your dc needs, however you do understand that not all schools are good and can do that.