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’ve got a very nasty feeling that requisition of private school property is going to be suggested.

I don’t understand the “what about a private school child whose parents can’t afford the fees any more.?” Nobody is saying that they can’t then go to a state school- just that they can’t go to a grammar school. Neither can the vast majority of other children.

Jacqueshammer Yes mixed. Begins with a C in Lancashire.

Dixiechickonhols

Thank you! Not the one I was thinking of but I know which you mean

bertrandrussell yes they are. One poster is saying exactly that.

Bert, rto be fair, in my absolutist utopia, they could go to a state school but only where a space was available once all state-educated pupils had been allocated places - ie like a current in-year or late applicant.

So in a grammar school situation, they would get a place if not all places were filled by state school applicants, or they would get an occasional place out of year if there were no state school applicants for it.

This would be the same for transferring to a state comprehensive - if there was a place, and no waiting list, someone needing to transfer from a private school could do so.

the whole point is that my proposal is designed to ensure that all children EXCEPT those whose parents can, from the outset, guarantee funding for 'cradle to grave' private education (and consider the higher university fees worth it) attend state schools.

Then it ensures that every school has a socio-economic and SEN mix statistically matched to the wider area it is situated in (local authority area, to a first approximation), through use of differing effective catchments.

However, i agree that this is an absolutist view.

*Then it ensures that every school has a socio-economic and SEN mix statistically matched to the wider area it is situated in (local authority area, to a first approximation), through use of differing effective catchments

Anecdotally, the prep my DD attended has a higher ratio of SEN pupils than many state schools in the locale.

It also widens and entrenches the advantage the very richest have.

It goes without saying that all faith-based criteria would be eliminated as well.

So a school would admit

• Looked after children to the local authority average (e.g 0.5%)
• SEN pupils the the local authority average % (e.g. 8%)
• PP pupils to the local authority average % (e.g. 28.5%)
• Remaining 63% allocated to socio-economic bands, in proportion to their % in the local authority. (So e.g. a school would admit 15% from band A, which might give an effective catchment of 0.5 km, and also 15% from Band D. which would give an effective catchment for this band of 2.5 km. ERvery school would admit the same % but depending on the school's local environment, the effective catchements would vary)

Sonyaya,

I do have plans for that, by limiting the % of privately-educated pupils that any university can admit to that typical of the country as a whole. But that's another post....

@bertrandrussell what is the difference between private school and state school with the addition of private tutoring? Are they not both paying for education.

Why only the private school children stance of not being allowed in Grammar school?

At our closest 2 Grammars Pupil Premium children can get in with a lower score.
It’s not entirely altruistic though, they are struggling for funding due to lack of pupil premium, which is one reason we didn’t send dd

Struggling for funding because of lack of pupil premium? What utter rubbish!

cantkeepawayforever

Sounds like you have a plan for everything

I think we are just too ideologically different to ever find common ground on this though

Oh, if I ruled the world.....

My child is off to a super-selective grammar from a state primary in September - and I couldn’t be more delighted. Far from being born with a silver spoon, my child spent her early life in the care system, we, as a family are poor (I’m a single parent and we qualify for Universal Credit, so Free School Meals) and my child is on the SEN register at school due to a degenerative condition that will result in her being registered as blind within the next few years.

I think my child will singlehandedly boost the inclusion statistics at her new school - and I joke that the head should be rolling out the red carpet on her first day because she’s probably a full house on school funding bingo!

She had no professional tutoring to pass the 11+, because that’s an unaffordable luxury on £704 UC a month.

Ironically, the local comprehensive SENCo admitted they would be unable to meet my daughter’s needs, due to the complexity of the labyrinthine layout of the 1970s construction, which prejudices against visually impaired students.

As far as I’m concerned, my daughter has spent too many years at the mercy of the ideologies of well-meaning adults who will never have to walk a mile in her shoes. I have no qualms in attempting to level the playing field for her and help her beat the statistics which see all UK care leavers be only half as successful as their non-care leaving peers at GCSE level (so, less than a 25% pass rate at old-money A-C levels).

@moomin love it! If your daughters attitude is like yours, she will fly!

All for it - but please provide people with decent primary school options, and make people move schools if they move house. we are accidental private school parents - we have 5 (yes, 5) state orimary schools in under 1 mile, but can’t afford to buy a house close enough to get in any. And we don’t have the time to rent a house for a year, get in school, moce again. the school we got send to has results around 30% of national average. we can afford private school fees (which are less than the extra in house prices for houses close to decent schools) , so we went private.

I love the idea of grammar schools but unfortunately, most of the places are taken up by children who would otherwise be sent to private school by their parents as you say. For that reason, I regret I'm going to have to send them to room 101... what a waste - they could have been a great thing.

The ideal system would be for all comprehensive schools to be good, and able to meet every child's individual needs. Unfortunately this is not the case hence why parents often want their children to attend grammar schools and/or private schools. It would be nice to think of new ways to improve state schools for all children rather than ways to punish children whose parents choose other options. As for not allowing private school kids to apply for grammar schools, as most parents of these children will be paying UK taxes it doesn't seem fair to not allow them to access tax funded education.

Interestingly, grammar schools in some areas are far far more popular with first and second generation immigrants than with their actual local communities.

I know there are 162 grammars. How many private schools are there?

In my dd’s Year at her grammar she can think of 2 pupils that came from the private sector.
She wasn’t tutored and has thrived there. I’m a lone parent on little more than minimum wage. Grammar school is a godsend for us, hopefully she’ll have the chances and opportunities I never had to get a better life for herself.

It would be nice to think of new ways to improve state schools for all children rather than ways to punish children whose parents choose other options.

I think the issue is that these two are inextricably entwined.

While grammar schools exist, motivated, educated parents disproportionately want their children to attend them (because they select against the children from deprived families, those who have disengaged parents and those with SEN), and this means that the schools for other children are negatively affected by the presence of grammar schools as they have disproportionately many pupils with SEN and from deprived / less well educated backgrounds

While private schools exist, and select against the children from deprived, chaotic families and those with SEN, they affect the other schools which therefore have disproportionately many of these pupils.

So you cannot improve the 'other' schools in isolation - it is the system which creates many of these poor schools - a system that corrals the least able, most deprived and most likely to have SEN into certain schools, while segregating the richer, better off children without SEN into different institutions.

My DD goes to prep in a grammar area, most of the children go into grammar from there. It is a small school (approx 7 in a year group). As a family we have made huge sacrifices to put her in prep as the state primarys here are awful. Why should she be penalised because we have made the choice? We only want what gives her the best chance, like any parent would!

I suspect in England poorer areas with majority Labour control are the ones who ditched all grammars in the 1970s as they were left wing and richer areas didn't - eg Cheshire and Bucks and bits of London have grammars.

I can't see too much difference between parents helping children at home or paying for a tutor perhaps with a non working wife a home and parents paying school fees with both parents working full time jobs. I don't see why the school fees paying ones should be regarded as some kind of pariah when the trendy right on Blairite comprehensive supporters are p icking posh comps and doing a load of tutoring and burdening the state whereas if both the parents worked full time they could probably not burden the state with the cost and thus ensure more money available for children who are less well off.