To think funding new grammar and faith schools is a bad idea.

[ConstantlyCold]

Just that really. This will benefit pushy middle classes (like me) but not the kids that really need investing in.

Stupid idea.

It will probably be about 2% at the most. In our town-with a grammar and a high school about a mile apart serving the same communities, the grammar has slightly less than 2% PP- a slight improvement from 0 last year, and the high school consistently around 36%.

I think that the 2% has probably always mainly applied to London and SouthEast. They could probably increase the proportion as they have done in Birmingham.

How have they done that Dungeons?

How have they done that Dungeons?

They lowered the required entry score (up to a certain proportion of places) and provided free test "familiarisation" classes.

I think the Birmingham grammars are aiming for around 20% PP kids and some are getting there. I would really like to see how it works in practice. And how many accountants are getting rich on clever schemes to get their clients kids on FSM for a year at primary!

Free test familiarisation classes!

What a surprise more than fsm dc get in when the information is given to them.

If they lower the entry score for FSM kids then either the entry scores are meaningless in terms of standards needed to cope with the ‘academic curriculum’ or the FSM kids will struggle when they get to the grammar.

I’m not sure that grammars are set up to cope with struggling kids.

Can I just add that the talk about funding Grammar Vs SEN needs is completely ignoring the fact that we have a large percentage of SEN kids at the Grammar I work for - It's simply not the case that an SEN child is unable to get into a selective school.

And how many accountants are getting rich on clever schemes to get their clients kids on FSM for a year at primary!

Maybe but one of the schools had 20% on PP even before this scheme. As I said, grammar schools in other parts of the country are not necessarily the same as in London and the SouthEast. Often the middle classes live in areas with good comprehensives and aren't desperate for their children to go to a grammar school.

If they lower the entry score for FSM kids then either the entry scores are meaningless in terms of standards needed to cope with the ‘academic curriculum’ or the FSM kids will struggle when they get to the grammar.

They are not that much lower.

“They are not that much lower.”

Well, 10 to 20 marks lower depending on the school. If a child failed by that much in Kent, their chance of winnning an appeal would be practically nil. Obviously the tests are different , but.....

Often the middle classes live in areas with good comprehensives and aren't desperate for their children to go to a grammar school.“

Or areas with comprehensives at all?

Well, 10 to 20 marks lower depending on the school. If a child failed by that much in Kent, their chance of winnning an appeal would be practically nil. Obviously, the tests are different , but.....

I don't know what scores you are looking at but the actual score to get in is probably higher than the "qualifying score" as they only let a certain proportion in. 10 marks won't make much difference in terms of a child's capabilities especially if they were genuinely disadvantaged.

10 marks won't make much difference in terms of a child's capabilities

Doesn’t that just mean that there are a whole bunch of kids who would be perfectly capable of going to a grammar school who are relegated to the secondary moderns and makes a mockery of the whole concept of there being children who require a different curriculum and school to everyone else?

Doesn’t that just mean that there are a whole bunch of kids who would be perfectly capable of going to a grammar school who are relegated to the secondary moderns and makes a mockery of the whole concept of there being children who require a different curriculum and school to everyone else?

In Birmingham the other schools are comprehensives, not secondary moderns. I haven't said anything about there being children who require a different curriculum. I don't think they follow a different curriculum in the grammars than in the comprehensives.

Then what is the point of them?

Then what is the point of them?

I didn't say that there was a "point". I have only said that they have been good for my children as the very competitive environment was good for them. I think that there is also a benefit for those who don't live in the catchment area of a good comprehensive. They're not good for everyone though, obviously.

It’s only of benefit to those who don’t live in the catchment of a good comprehensive if their kids can get in. So for the majority, it’s no good at all. What would be better would for it to be replaced by a good comprehensive, then they would be able to accept FSM kids without having to go through contortions to do so and would save a huge amount of money (of which there is a shortage in education) in setting and administering the admissions exams.

It’s only of benefit to those who don’t live in the catchment of a good comprehensive if their kids can get in. So for the majority, it’s no good at all.

Well, obviously.[hmm} I haven't suggested that they benefit everyone.

What would be better would for it to be replaced by a good comprehensive, then they would be able to accept FSM kids without having to go through contortions to do so and would save a huge amount of money (of which there is a shortage in education) in setting and administering the admissions exams.

I'm not sure if you mean that "good" comprehensives (those that obtain good GCSE results?) should accept anyone on FSM regardless of an admission exam result. If so, I can't see that working.

Comprehensives don’t have admission exams.

If FSM are overwhelmingly going to comprehensives then the work needs to be done to make all comprehensives good instead of trying to wangle a few good grammar places for a minority of FSM kids.

I thought Birmingham was a wholly selective area? Am I wrong about that?

I thought Birmingham was a wholly selective area? Am I wrong about that?

No, it isn't wholly selective at all.

If FSM are overwhelmingly going to comprehensives then the work needs to be done to make all comprehensives good instead of trying to wangle a few good grammar places for a minority of FSM kids.

Well yes, obviously in an ideal world all schools would be good schools.

"You can easily find out- it's part of the DFES league tables so very public."

About 4%, apparently. Still not near the levels of comprehensives, I imagine, but high for a grammar school. Obviously there's a class divide - I'm not disputing that. I hardly feel that DD is singularly mixing with middle class children though. I'm more worried she's growing intolerant of less intelligent/focused people, but mixing outside of school will sort that out.

"Isn't this harking back to the idea that grammar schools are basically cheaper private schools though? I'm sure you only get that high concentration of crazily motivated children because their parents have pushed them to be that way."

I think it's more of a ripple effect. You have lots of very clever kids, lots of kids happy to put in a lot of work (perhaps because their parents initially pushed them) and as such they get a shock that they're no longer one of the "smart" ones, but pretty average. So they work harder, study more. It's really good for children who haven't had to work particularly hard in primary - a nice motivator!

I haven't much of an experience with private schools but imagine you do have kids that don't care. I'm not sure how competitive it is.

'we have a large percentage of SEN kids at the Grammar I work for'

what percentage have an EHCP?