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

Tinderbox
You forgot those who are excluded by money in the state system.
Nobody is excluded by money from the state system.

The administration of selection is an avoidable cost that diverts funds from classroom teachers

I suspect someone says "So why have I never seen you post without mentioning money?" just hasn't read a lot of other topics I post about eg feminism and much else. I certainly don't think everyone who can afford £12k a year school fees necessarily has high qualifications but that tends to be case. however 92% of children go to state schools and also genetically two very bright parents have a slightly less bright child I think the studies say so IQ tends to veer to the mean.

I have never felt I was paying to keep the children from the great unwashed. Around here the privae schools are the ones which have a huge mixture of people and cultures whereas some of hte state schools are divided on colour - nearest state primary has girls in head covering etc and the one after that is local C or E almost all white. In the pre school closest to me instead there is a mixture which better reflects the local religious and ethnic mix.

There are some state schools kids can’t go to because of money(they may well be in an area their parents can’t afford to live in);some because of religion;some because of sex and some because of selection(11+ or music) .

I have never said rich people are better than eveyrone else. I have siad those who can afford to pay school fees tend to have more qualifications than some of those who don't. It is not exactly a controversial statement.

I agree our local primary school set up is unusual for outer London. Not htat close to me we also have a hindu and a good few jewish state primary schools too. The divide in the nearest bit is as stark as I explained - probably are good state schools but one is very much white C of E and the other is non religious and mostly not white and the nearest private prep is much more mixed. That may just be a quirk of where I live. If I moved into zone 2 or 3 or something you might well find some posh private school in Chelsea compared to a state primary in a neighbouring borough.

And re cost.Hardly. It’s a once a year event on a Saturday. County allocate places with all other secondary places.

Kids out of mainstream education are what is crippling our county and taking funding out of education for the majority. Grammars run on very little money and provide a lot of bang for their buck,often due to the support and hard work those nasty sharp elbowed mc children and parents you love to hate provide.

No, not lying. Look at all the caveats in my words. I excelledm yself... presumably, likely to... may have.....
On the whole if you earn a lot you tend to be those with a higher IQ but obviously as 92% of children go to state schools a lot of those have bright parents too. I have never said otherwise. it is just more likely that those paying fees have higher qualifications and earn more.

I don't think my words are revolting in any way at all. I am sorry if anyone feels revolted by the concept that women who can pay schools fees might have higher qualifications resulting in higher salaries. others on the thread had said a bigger unfairness is those who use state schools and buy houses in areas with high prices. That might revolt some people too.

Oops - "assortative mating".... May be I would not make mistakes like that had I gone to the local Newcastle comprehensive as indeed some do. I might be a billionaire by now too with higher exam results.Richest man on our parents' road was in scrap metal.

The mating is interesting man on our parents' road was in scrap metal.. The other fascinating thing is women choosing sperm donors and those looking for a life partner put height of the man above everything the analysis of the IVF clinics and dating agencies whose which really surprised me (as a fairly short person). I don't understand why height matters.

Grammar schools are better off than secondary moderns in the same area and with the same level of local authority funding because they do not have such high numbers of pupils with additional needs in social problems, SEN,frequent movement and non-English speakers. They might get the same money but they have far less to spend it on.
In some authorities the funding itself is higher. So Sevenoaks gets a new grammar which is a free school and attracts significantly more funding.
As parents are, generally, much wealthier the voluntary donations and extra curricular charges are higher too which alleviates school budgets.

Not sue @Xenia that your arguement holds true. The very bright don’t need a special, elite education from four years of age to shine. In our children’s primary classes the parents had very socially mixed backgrounds but included medical and surgical consultants, senior lawyers, a partner in large accountancy firms, a director of international petroleum company, the M.D. of a large civil engineering company, a director of nursing for a large trust, the CEO of publishing company. It wasn’t in London and all were really quite well qualified.

There are plenty of quite dim people who have children in independent education. Many are simply over educated for their innate ability and have done well because of the Peter Principle and networks made through the old boys/girls club.

Height matters as there is good research that suggests tall people are more successful both socially and in their careers.

Tinderbox you're right. I used to live in an area where the catchments of the best schools were shrinking every year as parents rushed to move closer to ensure a place for their dc.

We are now in a grammar area. But my DCs preferred is a super selective. Allocation by distance would have the advantage of helping create a community feel at the school.

Posted too soon...

As it is some kids travel over an hour each way, which is quite sad for them I think.

That is incorrect Cherry. Schools receive extra money for SEN, pp kids and ESL. They don’t get the same. Aside to that we are in an area that has always been underfunded(for both both selective and non selective schools).The selective schools receive between £400-£1000 less per child under the National Funding Formula. PP is paid on top.In addition to this we are in an area that has a massive amount of high/ complex needs children, many of whom are educated out of mainstream. Our county has overspent, hugely. So next year all schools( selective and non selective) are going to be getting under the minimum set by the gov to pay for the deficit and needs to run said special provision.

By all means deride grammars but don’t state of infer that they are hoovering up extra money and sitting in financial clover. They’re not. Many grammars are struggling financially.

Tinderb0x no, not all children with additional needs come with additional funding.

Yes things like height and health and if you look pretty can make a huge difference too to life chances although I am not sure height for women is so important (writing as only an average height person I have never seen much advantage in being tall other than to reach high shelves). In fact we are so short out my way given the ethnic mix when the new tubes came out the had to fit hanging straps later as hardly anyone could reach the bars even the men.

Tinder,

I think the way to think about it is that for every child who DOES get funding, through PP or EHCPs / statements, there will be a large number of children who don't quite make the criteria.

So a grammar school with very low %PP (say 2%) and very low % of children with EHCPs / Statements (less than 1%) will not only have very few of these funded children, but also a very small number of those 'non funded' children whose needs are not quite as great,.

In addition, those children at grammar schools with SEN or in receipt of PP will be 'fairly simple' cases - so eg. the SEN is likely to be e.g. HFA, or sensory impairments, not complex behavioural needs complicated by chaotic family backgrounds and poor housing. The PP may be those with a low income but not e.g. very poorly housed refugees with no English and a parent in a detention centre, or a child living in a family where all adults have issues with substance abuse.

So the grammar school will indeed get lower PP funding, and lower funding for SEN pupils, because they have a lower proportion of that 'visible and funded part of the needs iceberg'. However, the non-grammars will have many more complex cases included in their higher percentages of SEN / PP AND will have a much larger proportion of that 'don't qualify for money but do have addition learning or social needs' invisible part of the iceberg.

2.9% of all children have an EHCP, for example, whereas 14.6% have SEN. A grammar school with 0.2% 'funded' pupils will probably only have 1.5% 'SEN pupils in total'. A non-grammar with the national average percentages will have 10x more of each, and likely to be more complex cases.

I’m sure it won’t be long before DNA testing will provide accurate IQ information. That way all the super bright who actually deserve grammar schools can be identified. They can then be removed at birth and specially trained for the good of the country.
In the mean time I believe secondary schools should be rather small (400 students over 5 yrs) so that more personal attention can be provided. There should be more physical activity, and a variety of interesting courses.
Where you attend shouldn’t matter much and post secondaries should easily accept and allow movement from one institution to another (local college to top end uni).

I work in a leafy comp in an area with a few super-duper time grammar schools. We have a smaller proportion of children with SEND than the grammar closest to us, and we have very broadly the same proportion of PPP.
They have had their funding cut more than we have (though neither schools are flush, both struggling).

Hmm. Now what would super-duper time be?

Super-selective grammar schools is what I was trying to type.

So Sevenoaks gets a new grammar which is a free school and attracts significantly more funding

Trinity is the new religious free school which is not a grammar.

The grammar annex at Weald is an academy, same as the rest of the school.

OP, you might be interested in this. One of the SW London grammar schools is consulting about introducing an allowance for deprivation into its scoring, similar to age allowance.