Grammar schools should make contextual offers?

[capitalshitem]

I have no personal stake in this at all as not in a grammar school area. I was watching a programme on tv the other day about grammar schools and a young girl from an immigrant family living in a tower block didn't get a place and she was less than 10% under the benchmark whilst a girl from a naice middle class family who had probably been tutored was a couple of points over and obviously got a place. Can't we assume that in the same circumstances they would both have achieved a similar result? Why can't grammar schools make contextual offers like some universities do?

This would be why claims that grammar schools are a good thing for children from disadvantaged backgrounds is bullshit.

And why I'm personally opposed to them.

? But one girl got the required grade, and the other didn't?

It seems far too cut and try decide a child's whole secondary education based on a score when you know fuck all about the child.

If we watched the same programme, which I think we did, the 'naice middle class girl who had probably been tutored' hadn't been tutored, and her mum made it clear she hadn't as she felt that was unfair. Did you watch the beginning of the programme? The child of who didn't pass was being tutored at a cost of £300 per month, whilst her Mum earnt minimum wage stacking shelves. I'm not sure they were in the same circumstances when you actually weigh up that the child who was tutored failed, and the one who wasn't, passed!

I'm in Kent and I know a few people who have successfully appealed and been awarded a grammar school place. I thought the first girl would have had a good chance if the head of her primary had put in an appeal I'm her behalf.

I'm probably also slightly sensitive about this as I got into a Russell group university partly because of circumstance factors including going to a deprived school with a less than 30% gcse pass rate and not having the required grades and the opportunity honestly changed my life.

Yes the show was a repeat of one shown earlier in the year. The one who didn't get in had been tutored and the one who hadn't did.

Just to play devil's advocate here - if you've been tutored, heavily, and still don't get the required grade, is a heavily academic grammar school somewhere you should be though? I imagine the pressure would be horrendous on you to perform to the same level as your peers, and would the tutoring have to continue forever more to get you to your A-Levels/chosen university? Where does it end?

Some schools do this to the extent that children who have received pupil premium (for whatever period they specify) at primary school are prioritised when the over-subscription criteria kick in.

Having multiple pass marks wouldn't be workable without a robust system to check eligibility for a category, and I think would be very difficult to design the criteria (given that tutoring may be carried out by parents).

whilst a girl from a naice middle class family who had probably been tutored was a couple of points over and obviously got a place

That's a big assumption.

My DD took - and passed - the 11+ for her grammar school of choice. We're not in a grammar school area, this was just a school she fell in love with. She had no tutoring at all.

She also the kid of a single parent, and yes - I'm probably "naice middle class" and an engaged parent, but she's dealt with a broken home, health issues so... it isn't always what you see on the surface is my point.

Just to add - once you pass the exam, priority is given to looked after children, pupils on pupil premium etc.

You are wrong the the tutored girl wasn’t bright enough the untutored girl was naturally clever.

It seems far too cut and try decide a child's whole secondary education based on a score when you know fuck all about the child. - all you need to know is will they be able to keep up with the high level and fast pace teaching in a Grammar school? Best way to do that - a test.
Its more discriminatory to let someone in based on their background, and reject someone else for the same reason.

Lots of them work like this, pupil premium pupils who pass are first in line even if they passed by 1 point. Everyone else it’s points order.

It seems far too cut and try decide a child's whole secondary education based on a score when you know fuck all about the child.

I agree with this in principle, and that kids lucky enough to have parents engaged in helping them to prepare for entrance exams are advantaged over kids who don't (I don't agree that this issue is as simple as "naice middle class v working class").

But where does it stop? Should GCSE and A level exam boards also make contextual decisions, to balance the scales a bit for the kids whose parents don't push them to work hard for exams?

At my sons grammar, pupil premium children have first priority with looked after children but I guess they have to pass the test first 🤷🏻‍♀️

Its hard work in a grammar. When they were part of the Education system, there were places for 20 percent of the applicants. Everyone expects little ds or dd will naturally get a place and feels affronted if they don't. Tutoring for entry is all well and good but if you cant cut it once you get there life can be very unhappy.

I think there should be some form of weighting, relating to the quality of the school they've come from, and parental income. This should not be a huge weighting, but worked out statistically so it's just enough to redress the balance fairly.

Grammar schools (or private schools for that matter) have no interest in levelling the playing field. Their prime interest is to retain their place in the exam results league tables.

And the safest way to do that is to keep recruiting from households where educated parents with the means to support their children (and tutor if necessary) will ensure the best chance of high grades.

People delude themselves that naturally bright children will always rise to the top. Everyone has an anecdote about lovely Jane who achieved greatness against all odds.

The reality is children with financial and practical support, with access to schools that face fewer challenges (simply by virtue of where they live) are far more likely to do well than a brighter child from a more deprived upbringing.
We don't do children any favours by denying this.

The workplace can be a great leveller but sadly many children will never access the workplace where they might have thrived.

Grammar schools (or private schools for that matter) have no interest in levelling the playing field.

That's quite a generalisation IMO. It may be true of some people in some schools, but certainly the original ethos of the grammars was to give the same chance of a place to children from every background. If that has now become skewed by tutoring, postcode lottery etc. then they should return to their roots, by weighting if needs be, so that there is effectively the same potential access for every child from any family, anywhere in the UK. I have to agree that most private schools aren't interested in supporting less well-off families though, except for a relatively tiny number of token assisted places.

At my DS's grammar school, 1st priority is looked-after children. 2nd priorty is pupil premium children. The school reserves 10 out of 120 places each year for pupil premium children, who have a lower 11+ score requirement to get a place than all other kids. So if the score need to get a place was 200, the top 10 pupil premium children who scored above 180 would all get places offered. Where scores are equal and not enough places are left, priority is given to pupil premium children. I think that's a fair approach and recognises the disadvantage that those kids have.

a girl from a naice middle class family who had probably been tutored was a couple of points over and obviously got a place

Your prejudice is showing

Many grammar schools are introducing lower pass marks for pupil premium children. It's a prerequisite for being allowed to expand, I believe.

Better just to get rid of grammars and offer lol children good schooling.

Had the unsuccessful girl not been from an immigrant family would you have been quite as concerned? You seem to be making the usual claim for 'positve' discrimination, ie discrimination that suits you.