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.

A report from the watchdog said schools had been “slow” and “complacent” in this field, despite its call in 2013 for “urgent action” to make sure the brightest students achieved their full potential.

The report, published today, said too many pupils were left “treading water” when they started secondary school because of “poor transition arrangements” between primaries and secondaries.

Shocking but some wont read this ^ and ignore.

Buts it ironic isnt it - that YOU are the only one who keeps on repeating and going on about it.

One poster apparently used it once, you keep going on and on about it, bizzare.

But as I said upthread - it doesn't say that all comprehensives systematically fail their bright pupils, which is what someone reading the arguments of grammar proponents would say.

It says that in some schools, the brightest pupils do not make the progress they are capable of.

It is also correct to say that in some schools, the lowest ability children do not make the progress they are capable of - equally for middle ability children.

However, as many people upthread agreed, all that is about improving the schools that are not so good at this - not using it as an argument for why grammar schools are the answer. Again, as said, locally a school that had 'sink' school status for mc parents of bright children a very few years ago now features in the top 15 of schools in my county in terms of value added to HA children, p[artly due to partnership with another successful local comp.

The trouble with those newspaper reports is that it is very difficult know how they apply to the grammar school debate. Many children do very well at comprehensives. Some don't. And there are lots of questions that need to be answered- for example, are the ones that don't do as well as they should (allowing for the fact that there are obviously schools where nobody does as well as they should) the ones who would have got into a grammar school if one existed? Or are they the clever but unsupported who wouldn't get into a grammar school anyway? There aren't any "whys"

Buts it ironic isnt it - that YOU are the only one who keeps on repeating and going on about it. "

That, coming from the person who completely misunderstood the context in which I once used the word "oik" and who has referred back to it at least 3 times on this thread, is solid evidence of a irony bypass!

It says that in some schools, the brightest pupils do not make the progress they are capable of

Well it seems to be an urgent pressing Matter Teacher, there are numerous articles on this subject, "urgent action" " slow and complacent".

Hakluyt, ^forgetting* about G schools for a moment, there are enough schools NOT capable of stretching high achievers.

No Hakult I try - not to keep repeating it I just want to make it clear I find it rude. The point, as ever does not seem to be getting through.

You used it once? And all the other negatives you keep using in all these threads? Should I trot those all out as well?

Its nice some one else mentioned them for you - so you can piggy back using these phrases, which is what you really mean, whilst blaming it on someone else.

Tiggy the reasons they are failing them are totally diff according to article

The disparity between the levels children arrive at secondary school with, and the level of work they actually produce is an ongoing issue that Teacher explains very clearly. Has anyone read the whole OFSTED report? What other reasons does it highlight? The "treading water in year 7" is another often quoted thing- at my ds's school they try to counter this by very early setting. Maybe that's a way forward?

BeyondRepair- at least your're original! Usually people have a go at me for assuming that all children in comprehensive schools are models of good manners and probity- nobody has ever accused me of being offensive to thm before!

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

I dont get it either

I don't either. There are 163 schools and totally irrelevant to most people.
You would think from MN that at least half the country had access to grammar schools!

I am a bit bemused that Hak could be accused of derogatory terms for pupils. I haven't seen any-unless it was when she was being ironic.

Had a look at the full report.

Interestingly, one of the key things that they pull out is the difference in outcome in schools where most able students make up a very small proportion of the school’s population [e.g. 'other' scjhools in grammar areas...] and those schools where proportions are higher [where outcomes for HA children are much better - so 'creaming off' some HA children to grammars does affect the performance of those left behind].

Another was the difference in outcomes between disadvantaged most able students and their better off peers ... again a topic we have discussed a lot here.

However, it does say
"In over half of the schools visited for this survey, the most able students were making as much or better progress than other groups."

So definitely not a universal picture of doopm and gloom...

Also, amusingly perhaps in the context of this thread
"Regional differences result in some disadvantaged students being even more badly served. For example, of the 500 or so disadvantaged students in Kent, only 2% go on to attend a top university. Disadvantaged students in Barnet are almost four times as likely as their peers in Kent to attend a prestigious university."

Not, perhaps, a strong argument for a fully-selective grammar school system....

Miele if you're still about - I don't think the fact that your children get FSM negates the fact that the high proportion of children on FSM at the school you don't like was the first thing you mentioned about it! It makes it a bit more odd that you'd issue such judgments, perhaps, as you're well-placed to know that a child can get free dinners and still speak nicely and be bright, though....

(Though I am shocked that the report includes Kent, which has no true comprehensives .. I wonder how much of the rest of the data is drawn from 'other' scools in selective areas rather than from comprehensives?)

beyondrepair would you like to direct me to any post where I've referred to 'oiks'? I must have been hacked!

I don't think you understood what I said at all. Miele dislikes the school with the high FSM, and has chosen the grammar because the children there speak nicely etc. It is she, and not I, who is making judgements here, and I think if you read very, very carefully you would be able to see this.

There's the rub re Brent and Kent. It seems to be where parents are bright, rich or immigrant or within the M25 children do well. It is one reason inner London comps have improved too.

The Sutton Trust suggested more ballots in its 2010 report www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Worlds_apart.pdf

teachers- you point about including non selective schools in a selective area is well made. It doesn't matter how well a Kent High school does, it is practically impossible to be Ofsted outstanding because they are judged by the same criteria as all other schools in terms of levels of progress and so on, and just can't compete with so few HA children to pull the average up. Thank you for reading the whole report, though, although I am pretty sure your analysis will be widely ignored!

People in general ignore any reports or statistics they don't like!

hak I thought progress was measured in terms of where the child started and what they had achieved by the end. I thought it was the value added that was the important measure and not the number of A* achieved by a school. Value added shouldn't be affected by the number of HA children because it isn't about pulling the average up.

"What I was actually saying is that my son speaks differently to the majority of people where I live because he has a southern accent."

You don't want him to go to school where children mainly have northern accents, or you don't want him to be bullied at school?

None of us want our children to be bullied. It's not a good argument for the provision of grammar school.

My youngest son has ASD - he'll be going to a big comprehensive. I expect him not to be bullied there. If he is bullied it won't be because it's a comprehensive.

Thinking Back (athough It was not known at the time (ASD) sufferer ) going to a 'huge' Secondary school was terrible for me. I think many children with High Functioning Autism are better placed in a more 'selective enviroment' . Beloved, your son is liable to get some 'bullying' whether he goes to a grammar or comp with Autism Spectrum Disorder. However, if you son is academic or has sporting ability he is more likely to be 'accepted' at a grammar school than a comprehensive where some pupils will 'mock' his face expressions or take the 'piss' out of the way he walks or his hand gestures ETC.

A coping Stratergy he may use might be a 'Class Clown' one. This is to get people to laugh with him not at him this of course will single him out to the teachers unaware of the reasons why , or the bullying taking place.

These pupils bully such children because , they are trying to prove themselves and will automatically pick on the 'weakest'child (emotionally not neccessarily physically the weakest ones).

This is more likely to happen at a comprehensive, because kids at a are more sure of themselves at grammar schools (only true bullies do that at grammar school).