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.

Surely setting by ability, which is what they do at the comps I know will ensure that higher ability children do well.

Why is that half a grade the most important thing? Surely what happens to the other 77% of children more important? Once again, who is the right hand side of the bell curve more important than the left hand side?

But it would be interesting to know why that half a grade thing happens. As it's a national average, then for some children it'll be because they are in a not particularly good comprehnsive. Some of them will be children "mis-filed" in a secondary modern which may be less good at teaching the high ability children because there are so few of them and the school is geared up for middle and low ability children. A more tenuous reason, but one I think might be important is the self esteem boost that passing the 11+ gives.

But doesn't the fact that grammar schools make so little difference to overall results, and wholly selective areas do not do better than non selective ones cause grammar supporters to pause at all?

Oh, and I really want to know what Trafford does with its low achievers! There don't seem to be very many in any secondary school I've looked at.

I have just looked up the data for our local comp - in a residual grammar area. It has higher value added than any of the gramars - partly because it has extraordinaruily high value add for low attainers, but is also up there amongst the grammars for middle and high attainers.

So a high attainer there will make as much progress as they would at all but a couple of the grammars.

I agree, not all comps are up there - though there are 4 or 5 other comps up there amongst the superselective grammars in my area. But it seems to show that is not a problem of a comprehensive system per se, just a need top bring all up to the level of the best (interestingly, one of the top 15 for value added by high attainers is a school which has historically been regarded as something of a 'sink' school locally, now in partnership with a better regarded school and obviously improving very rapidly)

" Surely what happens to the other 77% of children more important? Once again, who is the right hand side of the bell curve more important than the left hand side?"
Totally agree Hak; all this hand wringing about 'bright' children as though the rest were so much dross.

And for the avoidance of doubt, I speak as the parent of two children very much on the right hand side of the bell curve. Not on the little tail-y bit at the far right, though..............

There are frequent debates here over grammar schools - but there are only 5% of pupils nationally who attend grammars (according to this from 2013).

I genuinely don't understand why this topic is such a frequent debate on here. 5% of all pupils.... Where are the discussions about how we can improve things for the other ~90% of kids (taking out the privately educated)?

• TheOriginalSteamingNit Tue 07-Apr-15 09:10:18

miele's posts kind of inadvertently say it all... She's not choosing the grammar for academic reasons but because it's an effective and efficient way to avoid the children on FSM who talk differently and behave badly!

Miele has said her dc are on FSM I think you owe her an apology for you post.

1. Because you have mis judged her and

2. your implying people and her dc on FSM need to be avoided and behave badly.

I find the way you and Hakyult are talking about Oiks and so on, as really offensive.

I do not want one school where all dc have to go, If I wanted that we could move to north Korea. ( except ponyang of course....) I want choice.

I still do not understand why posters care so much about this so called top 25%. Why they think failing comps are going to improve by having a top set in them, which only mixes with lower sets during lunch

Its the academic environment that suits some dc more, who are naturally academic. Its great we have choice if anything we need more choice not less.
And Id love to know how a teacher improves with 2 so called top 25% in front of her compared to say , 7

Why is that half a grade the most important thing? Surely what happens to the other 77% of children more important?

Half a grade is important whether it belongs to the top achieving group or bottom group. Why should a child not have something that they have worked hard for just because somebody else can't achieve as much academically?
I don't see why any child should have to sacrifice A* for an A just because there are other children sitting on the other side of the bell curve who need the brighter child in their immediate vicinity to do better. Schools should be able to get the best out of every student without sacrificing half a grade from each top ability child. Blaming the lack of progress made by lower achievers on the absence of the top achievers is just excuse making for poor teaching. As a parent of a top and very bottom achiever I see each of my children as individuals who should achieve as much as they can individually but I ensure that the top achiever isn't hindered by his brothers lack of ability.

There are frequent debates here over grammar schools - but there are only 5% of pupils nationally who attend grammars

I dont get it either

Did you read the rest of my post, super? Any comments?

I suppose this forum is not representative of the general populace, but it would appear from reading these threads that most people have a 'bright' child, possibly 'quirky' who is more deserving of a place at a 'good' school than others. See the OP as an example.
The other 95 per cent of pupils are badly behaved louts on free school meals. It seems.

"I find the way you and Hakyult are talking about Oiks and so on, as really offensive"

I certainly used the word "oik" ironically. Unlike the many people who characterise children from comprehensives as chair throwing bullies who will make life hell for any child who dares to be seen reading a book.

Or, on once memorable occasion, referred to children at secondary modern schools as "dregs". I think that one might have scarred me for life.

Did you read the rest of my post, super? Any comments?

Yes I did read the rest of the post. I didn't have any comments on the rest.

but it would appear from reading these threads that most people have a 'bright' child, possibly 'quirky' who is more deserving of a place at a 'good' school than others.

But if theatre schools were also a choice some dc are going to be natural stage performers, not all of them, so why want all them to go ?

surely everyone wants a school that suits that childs needs?

Would I want a non accademic dc in a grammar if I had the choice? NO! because not right environment

I think asking Hakyukt whether she reads any posts is a good idea as seems to ignore everything people say she doesnt agree with

Maybe trafford doesn't have many low achievers, maybe it's primary schools are better than average. There must be some logical explanation

"Blaming the lack of progress made by lower achievers on the absence of the top achievers is just excuse making for poor teaching."

But see my post earlier - the absence of the higher achievers from an entire school DOES influence the experience of the middle and lower achievers - and all the data I can find on GOOD comprehensives with a non-negligible % of high attainers show that they do as well be their higher attainers as grammar schools do. Those that don't do so well by this group, need to improve to the standard of the best schools, not be replaced by grammars or have grammars retained.

Hakluyt Tue 07-Apr-15 11:53:52

YOU are the only poster I have ever seen talking about oiks, dregs, and chair throwers.

So you don't have any views on why the half a grade thing happens, and aren't interested in discussing it?

no you are right beyond, a grammar school place would not suit every child. It is the way those other children are .......seemingly dismissed, on this forum.

I have read research on why the half a grade happens and I didn't realise that I needed to elaborate.

"YOU are the only poster I have ever seen talking about oiks, dregs, and chair throwers."

Good Lord! You must be ever so good at selective reading!

Actually, I might be one of two people ever to use the word dregs- me and the poster who first used it. That was quite extreme. I would name and shame, but she has name changed, so it would not be fair.

Just one report on the brightest being failed hak I had linked another one up thread.

news.tes.co.uk/b/news/2015/03/03/ofsted-schools-fail-to-stretch-brightest-students.aspx

Sorry, forgot to add the link