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

Yura, I agree with your point about resourcing. As talkin says, this is seldom on the basis of need because the sharp elbowed would squeal too much about the fact that the funding for naice primaries with easy intakes would go down

I remember the person upthread who stated that grammar schools were saying that they were underfunded because they got so little Pupil Premium funding... [hits forehead]

Yura,

I have worked in a school with 35% Traveller, well over one third SEN, very high PP, yes. We clothed and fed quite a few children daily, taught many 5 year olds to speak [they had never been spoken to] and gave at least 1 girl her first ever hug. Avoided by everyone from local villages ...

I was rigorously held to account by the head for the progress of every single child, every half term. If I had EVER said 'I'm ignoring X and Y, they're nearly average', I would, rightly, have been first laughed at and then managed out.

Do you any of your friends work in really disadvantaged schools?
Some of the most disadvantaged schools are entirely white, English speaking .... its not about Language .... its about parental aspiration

which brings us full circle

I left because at the time I had my own children of the same age, and could not manage the sheer emotional strain that comes from not being sure who may not be in school the next morning, and why.

I could not give a dam if a grammar schools were inhabited with 800 millionaires children. If these are the children who have passed the requirements than good for them sod any positive discrimination nonsense .

Quite frankly I am delighted some middle class kids have the opportunity to study in an oasis. This away from the utter chaos of society for 7 years. At least they will not have to be indoctrinated at 12 about how fortunate they are because 40% of their classes parents earn less than £14,400 per year.

If a grammar school was filled with 800 millionaires children...

@letstalk2000 spot on

I don't think Winchester boys doing maths, chemistry and physics A levels is shoehorning. tyere are a limited number of dcendent academic facilitating subjects of which those are a major 3. The biggest issue is (some by no means all ) state comps' children not doing maths, chemistry and physics A levels and instead doing mickey mouse subjects instead. If the Winchester boys pick decent subjects good for them.

Hmmm I don’t buy it. Surely an extra £100k in house price would only be around £500 a month, half the cheapest school fees

Lots of homeowners in London and the South East live in the catchment area of not very desirable schools but they cannot afford to move.They live in nice houses with large mortgages arranged some years ago that wouldn't meet today's lending criteria - and that's without stamp duty (£30,000 upwards for a detached house) - plus other moving costs. But it's fine if they stay put because interest rates are low and they earn good wages - so they pay school fees instead.

Talkinpeece
cantkeepawayforever's comprehensive utopia would have allocated your dc to the local academy.

Xenia,

Local state comprehensive and local superselctive actually offer very similar A-levels. The difference is in the balance of how many do each subject.

Largest subject in both is Maths, but e.g. History is HUGELY larger at the comprehensive than at the grammar, whereas Sciences dominate the grammar. Really interesting to see the 'department we're proud of / poor relation' thing going on in the two schools in the two History / Music departments.

Clavinova,

It would depend. There wouldn't be any academies, and people would still be free to express preferences.

The point would be that e.g. PP children might be admitted in smaller numbers than before to a historically 'failing' school, and much larger numbers to historically 'highly sought after' schools. Affluent children would be admitted in smaller numbers than before to honeypot comprehensives in nice suburbs, and larger numbers than before to schools historically regarded as 'failing' because of their intake.

It would also mean that Talkin's local school AND the comprehensive that she has used would have virtually identical intakes - which would, over time, create much more equal outcomes.

Just looked at our grammar school stats, and each year with the new intake, 17% are from private schools, the rest state. I was surprised, I thought it would be higher than that.

My DS private primary only 50% passed 11+ selection test so it doesn't guarantee anything

I'm really shocked that the top London state schools are looking for CAT scores of 135. Surely that's massively high? I thought my DCs were bright but they didn't get near that.

@Clavinova exactly. not to mention that for somecreason good state schools around gere don’t offer decent wrap around care and childminder aren’t that many around (and charge a lot more than regular after school care per hour). private school is a lot more affordable, which is really a travesty

and to add: 4 years ago, kids in houses around ours easily got into decent state schools. since then, 2 new housing estates have been built, and we don’t get into any of the 5 primary schools that are within about 1 mile of the house (new families plus siblings from buldge years means no chance for people living more than 500 m away). the school we got assigned to (and rejected) is 2.9 miles away, no bus service and requires a trip through town at rush hours (45-60 minutes each way). not unusual for the southeast

cantkeepawayforever

• how do you prevent parents paying nearly £700 per child to avoid their local schools - or simply just driving their dc to schools over 3 miles away?

www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/residents/schools/travelling-school/eligibility-free-and-paid-travel-school/paid-home-school-travel

Surrey and Hampshire have similar school bus services - my friend pays over £1,000 pa for 2 dc in Surrey to avoid her local comp. No doubt grammar schools out of catchment are the same, but Kent CC provides assistance for dc from low income families to their nearest grammar school up to 15 miles away.

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?

The 5 grammar schools in Birmingham have already implemented this idea:
www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/grammar-schools-set-lower-pass-mark-for-poorer-kids-10131366.html

On A level subjects in my sons' private school (all boys and they left last year ) (which is majority Asian) a lot of the boys do maths and science as parents think STEM subjects will get them jobs in medicine etc which is not unwise a decision if you are good at those subjects. If your English isn't great it can be sensible to avoid wordy essay subjects too. It may just be the other schools mentioned have more girls int hem that these all boys schools (though my daughter's old scholol North London C. has a lot of girls doing science, all girls school, and mine did science A levels and a BSc.)

Tinkly, don't worry about it too much and just concentrate on getting in to the school you want. I can't remember what of those scores my children got at which age but the prep schools are just using that test to give a general idea as to where those children might try for at 11 - no point in putting someone in for an exam who has no chance at all and having 6 failed school entrances when they ciould try for 3 they have a good chance of getting into and might do well at.

All the children at DS's grammar school went to state primary. All the pupils at the grammar school I attended in the 80s were also state educated.

How could you possibly know that? Unless there are absolutely no private schools within comuting distance of your area. Even then, some could only have moved in to the area after the age of 11. I only found out that one of my school friends had been privately educated at primary when we were in about 4th year, as she had moved from another town, so the rest of us wouldn't have known anything about the schools there.

I'm really shocked that the top London state schools are looking for CAT scores of 135. Surely that's massively high? I thought my DCs were bright but they didn't get near that.

I think they do because they can, if you see what I mean. Fierce competition, perhaps some spillover from the top privates.

My sons' prep school guidance was 125+ for St Pauls, W and the like. Realistically, I think they probably admit a spread between 120-140 for the most part.

I could not give a dam if a grammar schools were inhabited with 800 millionaires children. If these are the children who have passed the requirements than good for them sod any positive discrimination nonsense

I'll just repeat what I said upthread a bit: two children, identical test scores, one privately educated, the other state - the former will be the less intelligent of the two on average.

So positive discrimination, done intelligently, can actually improve the 11+ filtering process and ensure that they're identifying the most capable students rather than the best prepared.

It's not just a case of social justice, which seems to be your concern (a worthy endeavour, nonetheless, where children are concerned).

"Do you any of your friends work in really disadvantaged schools?"
Yes. Several of my friends do. More importantly, my ds went to one.

I've been trying to find out how many state school pupils were admitted to certain grammar schools, without much luck. But I came across this interesting article from a few years ago listing the most over-subscribed schools in England. I was surprised that there weren't more grammar / academically selective schools on there TBH

Grammar schools are an abomination and the remaining 148 should be made comprehensive at once.

Good luck with that. Over my dead body if anyone tried to make such changes to DD1's school, which she absolutely loves, and I'm sure any of the other parents of girls there would feel the same.

The Kent Test though is an absolute joke in terms of how they would get on at grammar school, and favours pupils from private schools, as in a state school, they would simply have not been taught the required level in Maths and English by the time they take the test, let alone the verbal and non-verbal reasoning skills. DD1 has always been very academically advanced, for one thing we had NC levels then and I could see exactly where she was in comparison to the national average.

She had tutoring for a year and a half (probably cost us about £1,500 in that time - significantly cheaper than moving into a catchment for a top comprehensive or paying for a private school, neither option would have been in our price range) and got into a super-selective but only just got the mark required.

You'd think from that, perhaps, loads of tutoring and only just getting in, that she might struggle at her school, but on the contrary, she is absolutely thriving and has been consistently getting top attainment scores in all her subjects for the last two and a bit years.