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.

sorry-my comments a bit 'off topic' I know

Honestly, having been to grammar school and not being from a wealthy background (probably was fsm), this policy will make it better for your daughter of she does get in.Not only could my parents not afford even one holiday a year but they were divorced and our house was attached to other people's. This put me in a tiny minority. I want my kids to go to a sschool where they meet a rounded selection of people.

I imagine that after the cut off for passes, the school allocates from top score down, moving the fsm children up by an amount, or possibly to the top. This I do think unfair on children whose parents have low incomes but don't get fsm as the criteria for that school is score, and it is hard to alter that fairly.

However, in a flat pass area moving fsm Children to the front, above say distance criteria, seems reasonable.

(and it is very hard to qualify for fsm if you have 2 parents working, I teach many children who don't get fsm but would be better off if a parent have up work and lived on benefits, which is appalling).

On paper at 11+ I just just scrapped through because as "LA looked after" child there was no support at all. I failed the what is now NVR as I had no practice. But because I aced the written and scored a perfect Maths Paper.

By your reasoning I should have been rejected in favour of someone who was probably not as bright but had parent's supportand therefore had some support and scored higher.

Had I not been looked after I would not have got a place as I was in a high scoring cohort. But I was treated by admissions as an individual and I was admitted on the strength of my maths. I sat GCSE at 14 and read medicine at Oxbridge all because some gave me a chance at 11 when according to you I don't deserve it.

is it possible to work and get FSM?

Yes, you can work and not qualify for WTC - such as a single parent only working 12 hours a week, for example.

Thing is, some children on FSM have been disadvantaged since conception. Why shouldn't a bright child in those circumstances get a 'leg-up'? Education is their one chance to get out of the cycle of poverty.
My children will likely be disadvantaged in grammar entrance because of this new condition, but I am still in favour of it.

Nice to hear Maurice.

My sister did something similar, but she got into a grammar as my parents were divorced (was rare back then) and she aced the interview I was too thick to get in.

Poly the mistake you're making is assuming the 11+ test is an objective test of brightness.

Most grammar schools have very few, and in some cases no children who attract pupil premium. So unless you think than poor children are intrinsically less bright thwn better off ones, something certainly has to be done to redress the balance.

But don't worry, OP, very few disadvantaged children even get near the pass mark, so your child should be OK.

I live in an LA where all except one school are comprehensive. The only grammar school is for girls and attracts pupils from a very wide area. What makes me cross is that one of the comps is an extremely over-subscribed C of E school. Looking at its statistics only 5.7% of its intake are on free school meals compared to an LA average of 24.5%. Moreover 45% of the intake are classed as high ability compared to a LA average of 26%.

The best thing I got out of it was I went on to be fostered by a teacher. Sadly his wife died shortly after and he died whilst I was still there but for a couple of years I had a family... I also have a brilliant "stepmum" and sisters out of it.

Once you start discussing this it really does show the system up for the steaming pile of unfair nonsense that it is.

I had a rather shoddy education I will admit it, I attended about 10 different high schools (then dropped out completely at 14, right at the start of yr 10). I'm all for something that gives disadvantaged kids a very slight advantage

The 11+ is no true test of intellect.

fedup

Thanks, had forgotten there is a 16hr working rule

Polter I agree with you, but the problem is that you have made those assumptions due to lazy sterotyping, and not all children in those brackets fit those moulds - far from it.

You can't ever stop very motivated parents from jumping through every hoop in order to get their child ahead of the game. The simple fact is that many of those parents will be affluent, middle class, and probably professionals/graduates themselves. We can't do anything about that. And why should we? If they want to help and support their child that's their perogative.

Instead of focusing on ways to cheat the system by giving advantage to poorer children, why don't we just remove the system?

Rich parents can pay for all the coaching they like but if there are no highly coveted grammar places to fight for, what would be the point?

Unless they are prepared to fork out for private school all children would end up in the same state comprehensive system. The children of more affluent MC parents may, or may not float to the top, and initially be placed in the top streams. But over time each child would find their own level when they are all educated under the same roof, with the same teachers, same facilities, same system, same streaming, same expectations. We will never ever achieve anything close to equal opportunities in (state) education until we abolish all grammars.

Of course some children will still go private (as mine do) but that is a whole separate issue. If someone wants to pay for private, good luck to them. What they shouldn't get to do is use their money and social advantage to 'buy' their child a place at the best state grammars through hot housing in expensive prep schools.

But don't worry, OP, very few disadvantaged children even get near the pass mark, so your child should be OK.

Except that if you pay for private education you don't barge other people out of the way in the race for a place at a really good state school!

Like I said, remove the system, remove the need for people to find ways to get ahead of it.

If so many poor children are failing - according to stats - why arent schools changing to help them. Why are they not achieving what are the barriers?

If it helps social mobility (which is what grammar schools were set up to do) then it's a good thing, surely?

Nothing like being 'entitled' OP .

Actually, the grammars really seem to struggle financially compared with other schools because they don't get much in the way of pupil premium funding. DS's superselective must send out one letter every term asking for those who are elegible for FSM to step foward (in vain most of the time, I think!).

I think it's entirely right that some places should be ringfenced for bright children from poorer backgrounds.

But for what it's worth, I think many families are put off sending their DCs to grammars because they see them as being 'elitist' and 'not for our kind' (the exact words of a friend of mine, dismissing the notion of sending her son to one!).

The order will most likely be the very, very wealthy children who have either been to private primary school and/ or had an expensive tutor, followed by the children of equal or lesser intellect to my DD who get free school meals.

Lots of children from my sons school have had years of private tutoring and all but my DS and one other child (neither of who had been tutored) managed to gain places at the most selective schools. I think a supportive home life and natural ability are essential to gaining a place at grammar school and a lot if children from deprived backgrounds don't have the supportive home life factor and I think it is fair to take account of that.
I am by no means wealthy but I was able to spend £30 on familiarisation materials for my DS and even that makes a difference. A FSM child might not have access to any familiarisation materials and therefore if the FSM child scores the same as my DS then he is probably of superior natural ability.
My sons 11+ score put him in the top 4% of roughly 1200 applicants, if your dd can score that well then she should have no problem gaining a place despite a few token places being allocated to FSM children with a slightly lower (but still a pass) score.
Most schools using pupil premium or FSM as a priority criteria have created new spaces so the other children are not at a disadvantage regardless of what anybody thinks.