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

The people who would benefit most from the OP's proposal are sharp-elbowed MC parents who can afford houses in leafy catchment areas for good state schools. Which is rather ironic.

I agree with this!

Why are we discussing penalising private school children for grammar school entry, when we really should be discussing advantaging the Pupil Premium (i.e. the actual measurably disadvantaged) children.

We should be focusing on more concessions/different considerations for these PP children. Every child who is not PP is to some degree 'advantaged', (and anecdotally, I would say particularly those children who are non PP and applying for GS). What simply penalising private school children would do would be to further advantage already advantaged MC state school children,but wouldn't help the actually measurably advantaged PP children at all. The cynic in me thinks that the reason that so many on here want that is because it would further advantage their already advantaged children...

"The removal of choice is the penalisation."

But nobody is penalised by not having the extra choice that those with access to private education have?

measurably disadvantaged PP children

Yes, it is deeply unethical for state selective secondary schools to recruit children on the basis of a test which is not prepared in state primary schools.

But nobody is penalised by not having the extra choice that those with access to private education have?

Well I don’t know...I thought the premise was private was unnecessary because “bright children will thrive anywhere”. So....

"Why are we discussing penalising private school children for grammar school entry, when we really should be discussing advantaging the Pupil Premium (i.e. the actual measurably disadvantaged) children."

Why can't we discuss both?

Tweaking the 11+ is really only doing cosmetic surgery on the system anyway- the difference between children who are going to pass and those that aren't are obvious in Reception. A massive generalisation- but a telling one.

@ElectricMonkey i’ve shown our figures - sending our child to one of thecdecent state schools around us would cost us about £6000 more a year than private pre-prep. i could send him to the school where about 30% of kids reach national average, but which parent would do that voluntarily?????

I thought white working class boys did worst on tests and that BME particularly Chinese and Asian children were well ahead of white ones.

Oh it's because I couldn't possibly manage a 25-minute school run (!?)

Dickish comment. What a shame on an interesting thread. There’s little point engaging is there?

Gypsy / Roma / Traveller boys are, I think, the lowest performing ethnic group?

Interestingly, in terms of progress, the most recent report states
"White boys in non-selective schools in highly selective areas were less likely to make progress than any other group in any other type of school" - ie that where grammar schools exist, children actively make LESS progress in the 'other' schools than they do in non-selective areas.

So while those who argue for grammar schools want them because they advantage their own children (it is obvious that when someone gives a percentage of children that should be included, it is always a percentage that would include their own child) this is at the expense of the progress of others.

You may think 'that's fine, I'm alright Jack'.... but I don;'t.

And far from only pushing this because I am hypocritically sending my children to a leafy comp, I would also actively campaign for rules that would even out admissions between all schools, so that each contains their fair share of deprived families and SEN children. Then differences between schools would be those that are genuinely 'educational' - teachers, curriculum, leadership - and not those of intake.

FWIW, 93% of children from 3-18 are in state-funded education - and presumably the % is even higher if you look at secondary alone.

I THINK that the percentage is higher for 11-18 and lower for primary age. I'll see if I can find the statistics.

The ISC says
"The independent sector educates around 6.5% of the total number of school children in the UK (and over 7% of the total number of school children in England) with the figure rising to more than 18% of pupils over the age of 16."

If it is purely on exam scores surely that is fair? Some children in state schools are tutored for the exam, should they be discriminated against in favour of those that aren't?

cantkeepaway

I realise we won’t agree but I’m interested in your view - if we did that, it may level the playing field to an extent* but do you think that would be at the expense of the most able students excelling? In other words levelling things out by holding back those at the top?

*it would do nothing for the bigger causes of disadvantage in life

But Mrs penalising private kids would help those just over pp and those at all levels within the huge mc bracket. Why on earth not? Private school kids are unfairly represented in so many areasnot just Oxbridge. It’s win win for the maj if more state kids are helped in any class. Some families pay more in private fees than many mc parents earn.

"still don't think it's fair to disadvantage some pupils in the interests of others,"
Why do you think going to a comprehensive school is "disadvantaging" a pupil?

And if withdrawing places from privately educated kids is such a disadvantage join the ranks of the maj. Send your children to state primary schools.