"I could never send my dcs to grammar school....

[winkywinkola]

...because I think it's unfair on all those children who can't get in because they couldn't afford tutoring for 11+. But I will send them to prep and boarding school."

I was a bit perplexed to hear this from a mum at the school gate. Aibu?

I was in an area with super selectives and that worked much better. Only 1or 2 children per primary school got a place and only a few sat the exam. The comprehensives were very good and most parents were happier having them at a neighbourhood school with local friends. (These were intelligent parents with good careers themselves and high expectations for their children)

I wouldn't mind the super selective with 2% creamed off - they might benefit from specialist teaching.

Bertrand you're incredibly sneery about the work a lot of people are putting in to target the less well off and encourage them to apply to superselectives. I actually think that you're out of date and have little idea about what is actually going on at these schools, presumably because you're not capable of adjusting the mantra. The reasoning isn't that it's 'safe'; the reasoning is that it's the right thing to do. As I say, the policy has already paid some dividends in that our area appears to score very highly on the outcomes for the less well off in terms of top universities etc and so appears to have already helped more DC than your endless criticism on MN has done.

What we need is an absolutely tutor proof exam- but that is impossible.

To get back to OP I think she had the right idea because what people want is the very best education for free. She is saying that she can afford to pay for it and free up a place for a child whose parents can't- good for her.

No we need a tutor proof exam which is what the CEM purports to be and is, to a large extent, despite the howls of dissent by tutors and various vested interests such as publishers of 11+ papers etc, but we also need effective outreach programmes to target those DC whose parents wouldn't normally be thinking of sending their DC to a grammar, for whatever reason - social, cost of transport etc.

The whole postcode lottery thing is so complicated. My street is fairly socially diverse and falls into the catchment area of two different comprehensive schools. Both schools are excellent, and rated Outstanding, but one is an ambitious school which has improved results dramatically over the past few years and one is very much a leafy suburban school with few pupil premium kids , lots of extra-curricular activities and lots of pupils who go on to Oxbridge or other very competitive and highly regarded destinations. The working class kids on my street all go to the rougher but going places school and the middle class ones all go to the Oxbridgey school. The families have a genuine choice of schools and they are still segregating their children.

Sneery?

Can you tell me how many children on FSM there are in the super selective you are talking about?

A personal bit of anecdotal evidence to counteract the claim that children from 'non educated' families fail the 11+ is that all of my four school friends children passed their 11+!

I don't object to superselectives, although I'm not convinced that they are necessary in an area with well-run comprehensives BUT I live in a fairly urban area where the comprehensive schools are able to share resources and offer citywide extension activities for the brightest pupils. I can see that in smaller areas that might not be possible.

Have just had to google to find out what on earth is a "superselective"?!

Why can't people just send their kids to 'school'?

I just don't see how you can make it tutor proof? Children with educated parents are generally going to have been exposed to more sophisticated vocabulary etc, etc than other children, giving them a head start on anything language based, regardless of whether they have used a tutor.

Mango for most people in my area the superselective is just the nearest school.

teacher I agree with you on the problems posed by the post code lottery. Unless you dismantle every comp in a naice leafy suburb and bus all pupils to newly extended inner city schools, then you are always going to have thousands of children disadvantaged because their parents can't afford a home in a naice catchment.

MaQueen I think that's why Durham have been slogging away at developing it for so long.

"Mango for most people in my area the superselective is just the nearest school."

Sorry? That sounds a bit Govian! Are all the children in your area in the top 2% of the population then?

Yes that was poorly phrased! Nevertheless the vast majority of those at the school live relatively close and there aren't too many other schools on the doorstep. I think the top 2% may be over egging it a bit : ) Top 10% maybe? Perhaps even a little bit more?

So where do all the other children go?

And, out of interest, how many FSM children are there on roll?

They go to the schools which are further away!

I wouldn't like to state the number Bert, since I don't know it precisely. But what I do know is that it matches exactly the number of children attaining a good L5 in the area the school serves, also that the PP DC outperform the non PP DC. Of course I realize that there are problems in attaining a good L5 in the first place, but that's out of the hands of the secondary school to a large extent, although the school does go out to local primaries to help with extension work.

Bad wording again: the number of PP DC on roll matches the number of PP DC attaining a good L5 in the area the school serves.

"I wouldn't like to state the number Bert, since I don't know it precisely"

Easy to find out............

if it's a super selective surely you will be looking at more than level 5s?

Really interesting thread! My DS is at a comprehensive school, top set in most classes and going into year 9. My DD is going to a GS in September and since year 5 has been two levels above most of her class. There are 7 kids going to GS in September and all of them sit at the same table in school, none of them had tutoring other than practise books and parents helping at home. My sons uniform and "bits" actually cost £20 more than DDs but this was because of the rugby shirt! He's only done rugby for one half term since he started!

With the FSM eligibility being so low at £16K PA . It is disingenuous to use for proving how many 'working class' /or lower income families children are being educated in grammar schools.

Being deprived does not stop or begin at £16K PA income and therefore FSM should not be used as definitive evidence in assessing a schools cohort.

And FWIW 12% of the kids at the GS are on FSM.

"There are 7 kids going to GS in September and all of them sit at the same table in school, none of them had tutoring other than practise books and parents helping at home. "

That's tutoring!