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.

All the children who gain grammar spaces from DS's school got a level 5 or 6 in year 6. No level 4's (not even those with 4A) got a grammar place. My DS got level 6's but still narrowly missed a super selective grammar place by a few points.

Level 4 is what they should achieve by the end of primary. My DC's school always got more than 90% level 4s and they certainly not we're not all fitted to grammar school. My non academic DS got level 4 across the board and no way was he suited to a grammar school.

I am rather surprised to be continually pulled up on SN and the fact that they can't be fitted into 'one size fits all' ( even though I specifically said that it doesn't) to be told that actually a grammar school can manage a high achieving child with SN. Whether this boils down to teacher expertise or the fact that grammar school children are just kinder and more accepting than the 90% who attend comprehensives isn't clear. I am very sceptical, grammar schools have the same mix of personality types as any other schools in my experience. I have known children be bullied in grammar schools for 'being different'.

DS's good score got him a place in the top end of a normal grammar.

Apparently 75% of 11 year olds should achive level 4 in sats for Maths/English . 24% Level 5 (grammar) 1% Level 6 very high level.

So achieving level 4 is ordinary and means a 'Comprehensive/Modern should be fine and the correct level for educating them. level 5/6 children need to be educated in a more 'academically' structured environment away from 'BTEC Construction and Hair/Beauty type courses that normal comprehensives offer.

"So achieving level 4 is ordinary and means a 'Comprehensive/Modern should be fine and the correct level for educating them. level 5/6 children need to be educated in a more 'academically' structured environment away from 'BTEC Construction and Hair/Beauty type courses that normal comprehensives offer."

No, the level 5/6s should be in the top set of a comprehnsive school. Why do they have to be "away" in a different school to the "BTec Construction and Hair/Beauty types"? What will happen to them if they are in the same building and wearing the same uniform?

Level 5 kids can easily be educated well in a comp as long as there's streaming in some subjects and the schools value added score is above 100.

I get so fed up with people's perceptions of 'normal comprehensives' that I lose the will to reply.

I only agree with the existence of super selectives rather then bog standard grammars. It's important to cater for those with boffin level cats scores but those that are just bright (a couple of years ahead only), can be catered for through some streaming

My level 6 child has done very well being educated in a comp for the last 3 years.
And the kids I know who have gone to super selectives range from the actual boffin (the minority) to other level 5 & 6 kids who spent a long and / or intense period practising the test.

In our area you would need huge grammar schools to house the around 96% who achieve level 4!
My experience of super selectives is that it is the really outstanding that get a place and not the ones drilled to the test. You never get more than 2 per primary school- which is what you would expect.

The 11+ is at some point dividing children of equal ability where a line has to be drawn. On another day those children might easily be reversed. I know of 2 sets of twins where they have been opposite sides of the line and yet they have similar ability.

I hate the fact that it is so young. They are 11 yrs old. The level 4 child may be a late developer- they may be the high flyer next year and yet because they only got level 4 it is already decided at 11yrs old that they are fine with a BTec in construction or hair and beauty. It is a ridiculous age to separate them - I wouldn't mind if it was 14 yrs and they got some say in it.

Of course a level 6 child does equally well in a comprehensive- if there are no grammar schools they are in with all the other level 6s. It is just like a grammar school but takes everyone.

Myths of 11+ here

Despite what people say, research has shown time and time again that mixed ability teaching environments hinder the most able students. The overall effect of mixed ability teaching is that everyone but the brightest students benefit. There will always be exceptions to the rule and some children will reach their potential regardless of environment but statistically the brightest children do worse in mixed ability classes. Obviously the brightest children will benefit from setting which will mean that at least some lessons are less of a mixed ability environment but a bright child in a school getting 17% A-C GSCE isn't going to have many very bright and able children to learn alongside even in the top set. Even in schools which have better results not all subjects are setted.
Just one article on bright children being let down but there is many articles out there as a lot of research has been done on the topic.
www.gov.uk/government/news/too-many-bright-children-let-down-in-the-state-system

None of the comps round us do mixed ability teaching.
Some do mixed ability in some classes (not Maths or English) in yr 7 and 8, but by yr 9 all exam classes are set or streamed.

Why on earth would have have mixed ability teaching? I wouldn't send my child to a comprehensive where they didn't set.
Neither would I send them to a comp where 17% got A-C in GCSE.

No a level 6 child doesn't do equally well in a comp.It was widely reported on the BBC etc a couple of months ago that the more able do better in grammars.It was pointed out on the last mammoth 11+ thread but seems to have been conveniently forgotten.Funny that.

I don't Know any comprehensives that don't set. I hate league tables but they do at least make comprehensives very jealous of their position and they are not going to jeopardise it by having the Oxbridge entrant in the same English class as the child who is unlikely to get a level C.
And since well over 90% get level 4s aged 11yrs the comprehensives would have to fail them completely if only 17% got level C or above for GCSE!

I Don't think you have read my myths of 11+

I think it can be the target and league table system that can encourage some comps to focus on the medium level kids, where maybe they are borderline, to get the C grades racked up. So get the number of able students getting A* in the stats, too!

But many parents seem to assume, without closer inspection, that comps are just one big one-pot soup with everyone treated exactly the same. Maybe some are like that, but I don't know any.

It's one of the big Comp Myths, alongside any child who plays violin will get 'eaten alive'. I went to the Lambeth Music Festival last week at the South Bank. All Lambeth state schools. Hundreds of very talented young people playing to a really high standard in orchestras, jazz ensembles, chamber choirs, reed ensembles. Actually, thousands must have played during the week. An 18 year old conductor, schools where every child has a violin lesson every day at primary, schools music directors bursting with drive and passion, happy cool kids, happy music geeks, all in s london comps.

All the children I know who have gone to the bog standard grammar near us were level 5's. However the super selective has a massive much larger catchment of a few cities and takes a strong level 6.

Children do marginally better in grmar schools. But the knock on effects of the selective system is so damaging to the majority that the half a grade advantage to the higher ability children is just not worth it. And the research does not show why grammar schools give that slight advantage . Maybe it's just being told you're a member of the elite at the age of 1 1?

So do you tell the many Oxbridge students who went to comprehensives that actually they could have done better if only they had been to a comprehensive?!
There are of course many,many more Oxbridge students from Comprehensives because there are a mere handful of grammar schools left.

Err I have and it's a load of out of date bunkham written by somebody pushing local schools.

Many of us want choice and not to be pushed into our local school regardless and just because.

My family were working class( in my father's case very poor) grammar school kids who did very well and otherwise wouldn't have without their grammar education. Oh and fact: just because somebody writes that something is a myth,a myth it does not become.

Exactly , GoldenBeagle. People base their idea of comps on TV. It is not the reality. I get so sick of the idea that you will get jeered at in a comp if you happen to be bright- the reality is so different. The really high flyers are always in our local paper after exams and they are not embarrassed- it is celebrated - and they are not alone! They have thriving orchestras etc.