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 that most of the population have education and the health service as major issues. I can't think of anything bigger or worthier.

It's a bit bizarre to be derided for posting about the subject the thread is about rather than something else! It's like posting on a thread about making Yorkshire pudding and saying that the roast potatoes are the most importAnt bit of a roast dinner and why aren't we talking about them...

Yes real education issues as opposed to a few Home Counties kids living in one of the most expensive areas of Britain not getting the school they wanted.

Marynary - I could name at least two schools in our London Borough which teach Latin. One is a fully selective grammar, the other is a partially selective (only 15% admitted via exam). Both teach Latin from Year 8.

Latin is making something of a comeback - there was a report in the Guardian's Education section a month or so ago to this effect.

Very clever if yo

Some areas getting vastly reduced amount spent per child than others being one of them.

Very clever if you can divorce systems of education from educational issues. I would think them central.

My DS did Latin in yr 6 of his state primary (and he is the non academic one)They were a taster and fun lessons.

In that case , if money is the issue, much cheaper to have them under one roof with one Head and the same teachers.

Not going to work sorry,like many our local comp is fit to bursting with no more space to build.

Academies have an overal management system,some grammars are part of academies.

P'sNeedle: it's one of the rarely discussed advantages of streaming. I know on these boards it is 'streaming bad, setting good ' but with enough flexibility, deployed because a good comp actually wants the right education for each child, it works well.

After all, a Grammar school is essentially streaming. The advantage of the grammar stream being in a comp means that all children can move in and out of different level classes.

Basically they are in streamed tutor groups. From the off. Music, Geog, history, PHSE , all subjects except maths, English, science and languages are done in those streams, and then maths etc are set. Many children are set across strams, there is carefully considered movement, and children move streams, too, especially late developing summer borns, or those who want a very vocational path into the BTecs.
It is a comp which is known for doing well by childen of all NT abilities, and not in a well-to-do inflated house price area, either.

I fully agree that childen with special needs need a specialist provision in terms of much wider experience of staff, specialist facilities, different scale etc.

Units for childen with emotional issues, behavioural issues, sensory disabilities, ASDs etc all work well, from what I have observed, and free childen to fulfil their potential. General 'grammar area' selective seems to do the opposite , trapping the numerical majority of childen in a school where they may not be able to take 3 MFLs, because they 'failed' the 11+, or leaving a grammar child struggling at the bottom of a bottom French set, losing confidence in a high pressure environment, because there is no middle set to move to.

So, to get this right - the worry is that although they would be set for lessons they might actually have to mix with all abilities at break times? In what way is this a bad thing?
If a mainstream school can't cope with SN I can't see how they fit into a grammar, a comprehensive or a secondary modern- it is a whole separate debate.

Itv da bad thing because children with severe autism or severe learning disabilities cannot cope with busy, noisy environments. Different smells, colours, noises, people rushing around, people shouting is something that children sensory disorders cannot cope with. Of ourself t would be a bad thing for them to be in a busy mainstream school. Many of the children with severe SN wouldnt mix with children of all abilities at break times as they would be too distressed and would be in a quiet place with a 1:1 assistant trying (and probably failing) to keep the calm.
Yes, SN education is a separate debate but you mentioned that all children can be educated in the same building with the same heads and the same uniform and that simply isn't true. You might think that all children can be taught together but it isn't always possible. A senior aged child who has zero verbal language, a sensory processing disorder and profound learning difficulties can't be taught effectively in a building with lots of mainstream children, no mature how much money you throw at the situation. If it could be done then lots of LEAs would already have done it to save money on the expensive transport costs of getting children to SN schools.

It's a bad thing (not itv da bad thing)

Vastly superior GoldenBeagle as a system of education.

Sorry, too many spelling errors in that post, my keyboard isn't behaving.

I think we have covered SNs Superexcited- they are a special case needing special consideration.
It is not a bad thing for my lower set DS to have friends in the top set- many of his friends were top set, and still are friends today.

It doesn't matter whether the secondary is grammar, comp, sec mod or private. Most haven't the money or resources or training to manage complex SNs.

So why state that all children can be taught together? You were even insisting that the only barrier to SN children being taught with others was money.
Now that I have insisted you are wrong you are saying we need to move on because SN is a separate issue.

And I don't get the general pessimism about failing comps, either. Our comp had a very bad reputation, and has now gained 'outstanding ' status etc. it improved.it was improved by the SLT and the governors. And not by bring taken over and re-branded by one of the Academy chains, either. For the last 20 years it has been an excellent school , though still the reputation lingered and people are disparaging about the Area. It has high FSM ratios. Now, I suspect, following it's new Ofsted rating, parents will flock, priced will rise and MN will say it is the school it is because families bought their way in. No: it improved in the midst of an ordinary community with some challenging demographics.

The behaviour of parents had a lot to answer for.

It's true: if in the short term my educational choice was grammar or secondary modern or failing sink I woulg grab the grammar life raft. That doesn't mean I believe sinks can't improve or grammars are the best system.

Special schools or main stream is a whole different debate.
I am not sure how they got into this one as it was about grammar school admissions. I have never been talking about the sort of SNs that any mainstream school would struggle to cope with to the benefit of the child with the SNs.

I agree GoldenBeagle.

A child with complex special educational needs has requirements beyond the scope of mainstream, and which mainstream teachers are not equipped or qualified to teach. However, I do think that for many children with Sen being well supported in a mainstream is the best possible outcome.

So, to get this right - the worry is that although they would be set for lessons they might actually have to mix with all abilities at break times? In what way is this a bad thing?

No, that's not the worry, so you're not right. Not in my sistuation anyway, which is what you seem to be referring to. It's really very small minded of you to insist that that that was my worry, and it is you that is projecting concerns about my dc having to mix with all abilities at break time, it hasn't come from me.

If a mainstream school can't cope with SN I can't see how they fit into a grammar, a comprehensive or a secondary modern- it is a whole separate debate.

Again, open your mind up a little bit. My ds with SEN is the one who is being better served by the grammar than I believe he would have been at the comp. Not because of the sen provision at the comp, which I actually believe is very good, but just because schools are different, and suit different children in different ways. I'm glad we had a choice. Ultimately I feel my children are well served by the education system in this area, which is all anyone wants for their dc. So why the need to attack it?

Sorry for the extra that there!

I am not sure how they got into this one as it was about grammar school admissions. I have never been talking about the sort of SNs that any mainstream school would struggle to cope with to the benefit of the child with the SNs.

Debates evolve and include new factors, it's how debates work. The OP wasn't actually asking about whether grammars should exist, she merely questioned then fairness of the FSM priority, but the debate has included whether grammar school should be got rid of.
After I mentioned severe SN yesterday you were still insistent that there was no reason why they couldn't be taught in the same building and even stated that mixing at break times would be a good thing for them. Your attitude was one of sheer ignorance.

If we want to stick with the grammar debate: some children with SN (but not Profound learning difficulties) are better suited to academically selective schools. That's not to say that they can't be catered for in a comprehensive environment, but if you have a child with certain SN they might be more comfortable and feel better suited to an academically selective environment where they don't feel the need to hide their cleverness.
If the choice exists then people might want to try and exercise that choice. We are not going to see grammar schools abolished anytime soon as the areas that fought to keep them still want them and will fight again to keep them. So the real issue is: how do we ensure that more children from deprived backgrounds get to access those grammar schools. How do we have an allocation system which favours intelligence over financial background.

"No, that's not the worry, so you're not right"

So what ^is the worry, then?