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 don't know super. Hopefully (for OP) there are extra spaces being created. My comment was only really based on OP's assumption that this wasn't the case and, given that belief, it's perfectly natural for her to feel somehow aggrieved.

Hopefully she will now be asking that question .

Ptolemy, somehow I knew you would turn up and agree with the OP.

Do you REALLY think that CHILDREN should suffer for the decisions of their parents? How awful.

Personally I think this will take NOTHING from the OP. Her child will do well wherever they end up by dint of having an interested patent who supports education. The same cannot be said for all children and is exactly why society needs to identify these bright children and give them a leg up and out of poverty.

superexcited did your DS go to GS? Confused by your post.

No, I don't. I don't think it has to be about measuring children though, it could just be about providing fair access.

If grammar schools really cared about getting the brightest children regardless of their wealth and background then they should at least try.

Maybe there could be head teacher recommendations that could be supported by a child's primary teachers. And I really don't see what's wrong with grammar schools having to provide preparation and primary schools having to do the same. That way, all children have a reasonably fair chance, because none will be completely unprepared, and none will have never covered all the work they're going to be tested on.

Surely making sure all children are well prepared for the test is going to be better for bright but poor children than just allowing them a lower pass mark anyway. I'd expect that they children themselves would prefer a decent opportunity to achieve to having allowances made.

FFS Ptolemy there is bucketloads of evidence that PP kids do significantly worse than non-PP kids.

Using PP as a measure is clear, easily defined, easily understood and as such adheres to the Admissions code. A criteria that gives priority to some other disadvantage is too subjective to be fair.

Any child genuinely disadvantaged by the admission criteria has the option to appeal where subjective decisions can be taken.

Her child will do well wherever they end up by dint of having an interested patent who supports education.

This is such a lame and small minded argument. Do you really think that every bright child never has anything else that could affect their educational outcomes? That supportive parents can never have anything happen to them that means they can't be as supportive as they'd like to be?

Either abolish GS altogether, or bring the 11+ back to all primaries so every child gets a chance, rich or poor! Children should not be discrimated against because of their family income.

Tiggy, I know that only some types of disadvantage are covered by admissions law. That doesn't make it morally right to exclude other type of equally difficult disadvantage, and it certainly doesn't make it right for the state to further those types of disadvantage that it's already ignoring.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense! Trying to do too many things at once. Hope you know what I mean!

I bet the 'crappy' school down the road wouldn't be so 'crappy' if the grammar didn't exist. I think private schools and grammars are deeply corrosive to the wider state school system. That's not to have a go at the parents who chose these schools for their kids, most people just want the best for their own but the systemic impact is very negative.

As an ex GS pupil who was on FSM, I think this is a great idea so it's a YABU from me. I do sympathise, but it's like the HR tax argument in reverse - everyone thinks that the people who should pay more tax are those that earn, well, more than them.

The problem is that we have tied ourselves up in knots trying to create a "fairer" system than GS and ended up with the worst of all worlds. I would be in favour of reintroducing the 11+ universally because it seems to be the best of a bad bunch.

I totally agree Peachy.

We haven't had grammer schools in my town for about thirty years so this is a bit by the by but my friends daughter is extremely bright all A* in her GCSE ,s and A levels and her A levels were all maths and sciences she is just about to graduate with a masters at 21 and has been accepted for a PhD her mum is on benefits and always has been the daughter was very against having a leg up in education due her economic background she wanted to do it all on her own merit and she has done.

I disagree with Grammar schools and I'm so relieved that we don't live in a Grammar school area. I can understand your annoyance but you are blaming the wrong people. It's not the FSM children that will win a place at the expense of ?our child it's the heavily tutored/prep children that have the advantage.

"An panel of people listen to all the evidence of the child's disadvantage and are allowed to order the school to give that child a place. Even if the school is full up, the panel can direct the school to take them."

Certainly in Kent, and in my understanding, in other authorities too, this is not the case. Unless there is a medical issue, panels can only consider academic ability. If you cannot provide solid evidence of your child's academic ability then the appeal will fail. Regardless of disadvantage, special circumstances or anything else.

It is unfair that the heavily tutored prep school children have an advantage, but I think the fundamental difference is that they have that advantage because of their own parents, rather than some rules made up and enforced by the school/LEA/government.

The state should not be providing advantage for some children over others, it should remain neutral and support children's individual needs whatever they may be and whatever the income of the parents.

I've been though the appeals system, it is far from flawless and definitely doesn't guarantee the fair outcomes for children.

Ptolemy If you had your way, the number of kids on FSM who go to grammar schools would be ridiculously low.

Why do rich children get an unfair advantage and that's just fine because their parents have chosen to do that, but if kids on FSM get an advantage, oh no, can't have that - bloody proles getting above themselves eh

Nice to see the 'Usual Suspects talking about Grammar school Admissions' ?

I have said I think 5% FSM pupils should be a number 'most grammar schools should be able to attain comfortably . The present average for grammar schools is about 2%. MY DD1s and DS grammar's are also below 5% with 4.8 /4.3 % respectively in an area where the other secondary schools are 24.1/31.2% 6 times greater than the grammar schools.

That is blatantly not true Moomin, and is completely at odds with what I'm trying to say.

Give children on FSMs an advantage by all means, but not unless you give other disadvantaged children the same bonus. Low income is not the only disadvantage that exists, and the criteria used to determine who is eligible for PP does not cover all low income children, nor does it consider that it will include children who are no longer on a low income.

That makes a mockery of the whole things IMO.

"The state should not be providing advantage for some children over others, it should remain neutral and support children's individual needs whatever they may be and whatever the income of the parents."

They aren't "providing advantaging for some children over others"- they are very slightly lessening the disadvantage some children experience.