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 actually think the passive aggressive and quite unecessary[sic] use of "precious baby" is really childish and irrelevant to this discussion."

You can think what you like. But this is how you're coming across; that your child is more important/deserving because you're not on FSM. Or you have some sort of superiority over FSM families as the reason they are FSM is because "Don't bust a gut to work every day"

Should the school remove the 'looked after' as a criteria too?

Miele
There are always exceptions. Statistics obviously do not tell every individual story but as we all know it is stats that the government/LES's/schools use

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

grammar schools weren't set up to help social mobility, they were setup to educate the middle class. some point in living memory (maybe the 1944 act) they were forced to take some poor kids.
I know that my mum failed her 11+ in 48 so some time before then :)

I think its a good idea. My dd is at a granmar and 95% puipls are from private schools, how is that fair?

I completely agree with you OP,man did have been outraged if my ds had been disadvantage because of this rubbish when he was doing the 11+, I'd have probably given up my job for a year and fiddled some other finances to benefit from it.

There are other ways that grammar schools can help to level the playing field without discriminating against children, and they should use those ways before giving some children an advantage over others. They could offer free 11+ preparation for children from state schools, they could even offer extra free tuition to those of FSMs if they wanted to. We could stop the nonsense that means some primary schools are not allowed to prepare children for the 11+, or we could do something about the fact that some state school children won't have covered all of the KS2 work that the 11+ is based on when they take the test without having extra tuition.

There is just no need to give some children an unfair advantage over others, because that's what this is. If there was some kind of guarantee that all children on FSMs had parents that were uneducated and disengaged with education, then this might be ok, but unless you're willing to believe that every parent that gets FSMs isn't doing very well for their child's education, you have to believe that this will unfairly advantage some children.

Children disadvantaged by a low income are disadvantaged when it comes to income, but there are plenty more ways a child can be disadvantaged. Are we going to start judging every family who's children have reasonable circumstances to be considered disadvantaged, or is income the only disadvantage that matters because it's the only one that has measured by the government?

When it comes to the ability to achieve full potential in the 11+, I'd say that children who are grieving for a sibling or parent are disadvantaged, children who have a disabled parent or sibling are disadvantaged, children who have had long term illnesses throughout their childhood have been disadvantaged, children from certain backgrounds are disadvantaged.

I don't see why a child from a stable and educated family should be given an advantage over children in the above categories just because they have qualified for FSMs. The eligibility for FSMs could just be a very temporary thing that happens after parents get divorced and before the resident parent gets a job, it is not a guarantee if educational disadvantage.

That's because outcomes for children from poor families have been measured. Most of the other possible educational disadvantages haven't been measured, but that doesn't make the individual children involved any less deserving of positive discrimination.

the local grammar school has just started giving priority admission to children claiming free school meals

could you quote how they phrased it?

Yes, they can, but not if the school has a stronger case for not accepting them.

I understand what you've just said, and that's exactly why I think this is unfair!

When children suffer a disadvantage because of their parents then that's down to their parents. When children suffer a disadvantage because of rules made up by the government and because of schools, then there is something very wrong with that, and it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Providing 11+ tuition for state school children would be a much fairer way of redressing the balance, and while I realise that any system is going to have its issues, they don't need to be as bad as allowing some children to be unfairly advantaged on test scores.

I hate the grammar school system and am extremely grateful that we don't have to be a part if it here (although some children do sit the tests to try to get to grammars in a neighbouring LEA). I can understand the OP's frustration though. She has identified the school she would like her DD to attend. Entry to that school is already hugely competitive so OP has been doing all she can to improve her DD's chances of getting a place. Now, a new rule has been brought it, which doesn't apply to the OP & effectively reduces her DD's hope of attending that school. OP cannot afford private education.

I can't say I disagree with giving kids from poorer families a decent chance, but of course the OP is going to be pissed off!

I suppose OP will be outraged at University application stage if her dd gets priority over private school pupils if she gains equal A levels to them?

I'm at a loss as to how anyone can read Tiggy's posts and disagree.

I'm lucky enough to live in an affluent suburb - I'm under no illusion how much that combined with us as parents being educated and interested in education gives our children an advantage. I get so fucking sick of the parents at our children's' school moaning about having to pay for music lessons because the kids in xyz council ward get them for free. But then because I grew up in xyz council ward I know exactly what those kids have to overcome and I'm all for giving them a leg up whenever and whenever possible.

OP the whole grammar school system is a crock of shit but if you have to punch in any direction, don't punch downwards - only a dick would do that.

Now, a new rule has been brought it, which doesn't apply to the OP & effectively reduces her DD's hope of attending that school

Does it reduce her dds chances though or is it one of the grammars who have increased capacity with the new spaces being allocated as priority for FSM pupils?

Exactly tiggy, all children are children. So why are only some children that have a disadvantage deserving of having their disadvantage considered.

I completely agree that allowing every child to reach their potential will mean that some need more support than others, which is why they should all get that, not just some of them.

If we only consider some disadvantages, then we unwittingly give some children an advantage over others. They might not end up as advantaged as some others who's parents are healthy, supportive and wealthy enough, but they are still getting an advantage over others at the hand of the state. I just can't agree with that.

All children who need it should get that extra support, because when you only give it to some, you create extra disadvantage for children that were already in that category anyway.

I lived in an area with selective schooling. Our 'crappy local comp' turned out the shadow secretary of the Treasury Rachel Reeves, at least 2 people with PhDs, the HR director of one of the largest and most prestigious national companies and several Oxford and Cambridge graduates in my year alone and that's just for starters, I could go on.

If your daughter really is that bright she will do well in a 'crappy local comp' too.