To wonder why priority isn’t given to state school children when allocating grammar school places ?

[Hermanhessescat]

I don’t live in a grammar school area but there is back door selection by affluence (one of best secondaries is in a nice leafy suburb) or by religious belief (equally high achieving secondaries are c of e or Muslim). I have no personal experience of them apart from the fact that my DF attended one in the 40s, enabling him to leave his deprived hometown and go to a fairly prestigious uni.
Many posters in the past have talked about sending their dc to private preps then trying for a state grammar at 11 which surely puts said children at a huge advantage due to smaller classes, better facilities and active preparation for the 11 plus.
How come the grammars don’t therefore give precedence to state school educated children who pass then allocate remaining places to those who weren't ? Or have a slightly lower cut off point for those children who attended schools in particularly deprived areas ? I appreciate that’s probably a fairly simplistic idea and prepare to be flamed

I don't live in a grammar area either but I thought entrance was strictly be exam results

Whilst it's based on exam scores results, when one child is tutored and others aren't there's an unfair advantage, which makes a mockery of the system.

Another way of the privileged shafting the poorer children

But no school should be a bad school

Because state schools are open to everyone who applies, assuming they meet the entry requirement. How could they possibly deny a whole swathe of children on account of choices their parents made?

Grammar schools are an abomination and the remaining 148 should be made comprehensive at once. But even if that doesn’t happen, places should certainly be reserved for state school pupils only.

Nothing about the 11+ is fair. We've just been through the process.

Or rather I should say nothing apart from actual exam day is fair.

It depends on what school you went to, not just private / state. But even a huge gap between state schools and what they do to prepare. Some do nothing as only have a couple (out of 100) doing it.

The recommendation here is that if your child is getting above expected in year 5 you have a chance.

Then the next unfair is tutoring. Some can afford it some can't.

Then the next thing is what academic / educational level your parents have. They may be able to tutor you at home if have a good understanding of the paper.

In our area the majority of laces are given to people in the local priority area. The council put a lot of money into schemes to encourage local kids (many in high deprivation areas) to apply. Offered free tutor sessions and classes etc.

But yes. It is an u fair process

Not all private schools are better than state schools.

Not all private schools teach for exams because they cater for age 4 to age 18.

In my experience prep schools are more likely to teach exam technique for private school 11+/13+ than grammar school.

Our local grammar has a vast majority from state schools. The private schools don’t teach to the 11+ and mostly target common entrance at 13. Most kids in the state primaries are tutored privately for the 11+ exam though, so the point still stands, re kids from wealthy families having an advantage...

Because grammar schools don’t perceive it to be in their best interests, where exam performance and school tables are paramount. So there is no incentive to change

There are private schools in my area whose main selling point is a practically 100% 11+ success rate.

My DSs state grammar has around 40% intake from private prep

It’s a disgrace, the whole system.

Ds1 attends a state grammar. When he joined in year 7 they gave us a list of his classmates and what school they came from. Out of a class of about 30 I could identify 2 max which had come from private prep schools, the rest were other local state primaries.

Because grammar schools are state schools so it would be wrong for them to discriminate on anything other than ability. And state school pupils can be heavily tutored anyway so it would be pointless.

Luckily I had no interest in my children attending grammar school (or private school for that matter) because if I had I would have been driven to the point of insanity by the craziness of it all.

Our grammar school DOES apply a slightly lower 11+ exam mark requirement for pupil premium pupils. The private school issue isn't relevant around us as there are no private schools (well there are, but out of catchment). Nearly all the pupils are therefore from state primary schools. Just shows that there is no consistency (nor can there be) as every school and every town is different when it comes to education.

How could they possibly deny a whole swathe of children on account of choices their parents made

Like faith schools you mean?

I can see where the OP is coming from but then the rich parents would send their kids to state schools, tutor them to within an inch of their lives and they'd still get in. Unless they went back to the old system of taking the top 25% of those living locally and get rid of this "super-grammar" thing. My old school was a state grammar and it doesn't have a catchment anymore. When I went you used to have to live in a set area, which was within a 3 mile radius and it wasn't for the superintelligent (or supertutored).

Plenty of state school kids are tutored for the 11+. No reason to single out private schools.

You can’t give priority to children from state primary schools because if you discriminate against those from private schools, where do you draw the line? How about children who have lots of tutoring? Or children whose parents are teachers and can tutor them? Nothing in the current uk education system is fair.

Our local grammar school accepts a number of pp children who get over a certain score (lower than you would generally need to get in otherwise).
My dc went to a state school and passed the 11+ without tutoring so it is possible but obviously private tutoring and fee paying primary school gives kids an advantage.
I’d happily get rid of private and grammar schools. Parental wealth shouldn’t dictate a child’s right to a quality education.

The thing is, quite a lot about the 11+ gives middle class children an advantage. I think the Kent Test this year was on the second or third day of the Autumn term. I can see why - it probably didn’t disrupt lessons as much then - but it meant that children who were tutored throughout the summer holidays would remember a lot more than those who weren’t.

It’s quite possible that prep school children would also have had a tutor.

With the caveat that MN isn’t a hive mind...I frequently read that private schools confer no academic advantage....so how is that possible whilst they simultaneously get an advantage for entrance exams?

We didn’t get any of our primary schools choices, and so chose private rather than the school 25 minutes away we were given. Should we really have been penalised and had our choices limited at secondary also?

With regards to exam prep, DD didn’t benefit for any. The practice papers were given after her entrance exam for private schools entrance exams so she had much of autumn and spring term homework free.

Of course private schools give an academic advantage. People are paying for the extra attention their children get in smaller classes and they also cream off the better staff as they pay better.

State schools are funded by the taxation that all working adults pay, even those that don't use the state system.

Because schools aren't interested in levelling the playing field. They are interested in taking the kids who will get them the highest results.

Where do you stop? Someone with an IQ of 80 with a disability causing that is not going to have a "fair" chance of getting a grammar school place (traditionally the grammar school IQ rate and university IQ scores were about 120). Children from very poor homes whose parents read to them will have an unfair advantage.

Doing it just by how people score in the test is just about as fair as you can get. However we sould have the same kinds of schools across the UK as we all pay the same taxes - or rather some of us pay heaps of income tax and some pay none but regionally... actually I am getting in a mess here as we probably have grammar schools in areas where people pay more tax. We abolished them were I am frmo (NE England) in about 1970.

Of course they shouldn’t exist but since they do they should be used to improve the life chances of the poor - but they don’t. They are a sop to the aspiring with grammar schools instead of paying fees.