If state grammar schools were for only state educated children…

[Rosaluxemberg]

Do you think it would help social mobility ? And that children on FSM or from very disadvantaged backgrounds who showed academic promise could gain entry with contextual 11 plus marks (like Unis).
To me the fact that privately educated children can benefit from 7 years of great education, with small classes, lots of attention, and to cap it all, preparation towards the 11 plus just seems so unfair and defeats the whole objective of it. Maybe there’d be more mixing of kids as middle class parents had to decide which path to take.
Who knows ? Any thoughts ?

As a long-standing secondary school teacher I completely empathise with how you feel. Just to give you the perspective on the other side though; children sit 9-11 GCSE exams, if the data shows that they are struggling to get a 1,2 or 3 in their subjects then it is time to look at reducing their exam spread. This isn't to make the school look good, we are judged very heavily for making the decision that any child doesn't sit an exam and we have to justify our choice. It also can't just be one bad exam, we look at factors like mini-assessments, mocks, attendance in the lessons, and whether having such a large number of exams is actually having a detrimental impact on the child.

On the topic of streaming, I can promise you that top streams do not get the best staff. Any secondary school teacher will tell you that the timetable is a gaping maw and you are stuck with whatever it gives you (one year I was given top set History and bottom set French and I don't even teach those subjects!)

Moving sets, it does go upwards as well as down. However, set movement is also constrained by the timetable. Many sets are arranged in pairs (e.g., if you do well in English you can't move sets unless you've also done well in History or R.S). There are other rubbish, timetable reasons as well.

I'm not saying that decisions are being made correctly everywhere, and I completely agree that there is too emphasis on pushing GCSE grades, I just wanted to lift the curtain a bit on the other side.

Restricting state grammars to state educated pupils only is a terrible idea. No parent can predict when their child is 4 exactly what the future will hold.

Giving contextual offers on a sliding scale based on disadvantages is a reasonable idea but complex to apply fairly - a pupil could qualify despite e.g. having tutorials paid for by grandparents for example. It would be a massive administrative task to fairly assess how much advantage each applicant has. Just the fact of a primary school being private isn't necessarily an academic advantage - some primaries are so child-centred and play-based that the children are significantly behind compated to the national curriculum.

It would be better to abolish grammars altogether and to have a "grammar stream" in every comprehensive school which children with aptitude can qualify for at any time rather than on the basis of one assessment aged 10½. Plus obviously sufficient funding so that all comprehensives can offer the excellent standard of education that all children deserve rather than there being this enormous stressy fight for the limited places in the few schools that mamage to get good results.

I don’t know about that - if we only gave a shit about problems that applied directly to us, that makes us a bit selfish doesn’t it? There is no point in society if we don’t care about other people experiencing issues. I mean, only homeless people are homeless. Should the rest of us just not give a shit?

I don’t live in a grammar area btw

but it would seem silly to abolish or restrict them as they are clearly doing well

Often gets ignored in grammar school threads is there used to be a 13+ intake. So if you didn’t make the 11+ grade in what is now year 6, when you were in what is now year 8 you could take another test and join the grammar at year 9. In Kent at least there is in theory still an option for this but it doesn’t happen. class size limits along with funding being per child means they fill their all places at year 7 and any spaces that become available through the years, are filled from the old waiting lists (which have original 11+ scores), there’s not capacity to hold places to run another intake later on for those who’d benefit from a later intake.

Interesting name.

Love, Karl.

This report: https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/facts-figures-and-evidence-about-grammar-schools/says 10% of privately educated kids gain grammar school places. If 25% of privately educated kids (who weren’t previously destined for Grammar) also gained places, that would be 35% kids coming from privately educated backgrounds.

Terrible idea to judge kids at 11.

That's the problem in the UK. It's why the grammar system went wrong. It shouldn't ever have been seen as being judged, and the 11+ shouldn't have been seen as something to pass or fail.

The German system is much better. It's about finding out what type of schooling and training opportunities best suit each individual child. They seem to recognise there's equal value in academic and vocational abilities, schools, and jobs.

As my earlier link shows there's also options to move type of school if the child's abilities change as they get older.

To add, we can't judge accurately how accessible grammar schools in the UK today are for less advantaged kids, because there aren't many left, and those that are still in existence tend to be concentrated in specific parts of the country. It's not UK-wide, unlike in Germany.

Most of the richest people I know, the vast majority, dislike selective education for their children. They’re quite happy to choose non-selective private schools and pay for university abroad with easier entrance grades than the UK - as their kids will be successful no matter what.

The type of parents who prefer selective state education tend to those who need to work & who may have gone through it themselves (usually abroad - most Indian immigrants to the UK opt for selective where possible). They are prepared to coach at home even if they can’t afford tutoring. They are the same types of people who opt for private selective - often from the same postcodes and with the same income. But the difference is they prioritise different things with their money.

People who think state grammars widen accessibility are wrong. They just make it even more difficult for those on fsm as the pass rates are higher.

I suppose that could be fair if the state was to offer a funding contribution to those self-funding private education. Grammar schools in our part of the UK have 10 mile + catchments, and are highly competitive, they service a large area in order to select the results they require. As I understand it some will accept lower results from those within a 1 mile catchment, but I’d imagine both of these could change if they were to receive a large influx of admissions.

So you have to decide at age 4 that you're going to stay private until 18 - and if you lose your job, suffer ill health etc etc then your academic child has no choice but to go to the local underperforming comp. Yeah that sounds really fair on the child.

Streaming is increasingly going out of favour in comprehensive schools though- I do understand the reasons, it’s something like if you split a year group into quarters, the top quarter do better with streaming, the next two quarters it doesn’t make a significant difference to results and the bottom quarter do better without streaming (so mixed in with higher achievers not just with kids the same or lower level than then). This is just results, not how much they enjoy learning.

given that and that the push for schools is to get as many through GCSEs as possible, not streaming is the best option for the year group as a whole, unless they need to for different syllabus at gcse level (eg higher or lower papers, combined or separate sciences).

and while I do completely understand as a year group as a whole, this is best, both my children are comfortably in the top quarter (we live in a grammar area and both passed the 11+ high enough for super selectives). I really don’t want to lower my kids educational experience and attainment to help someone else’s child do better. Selfish, but realistic.

one is ar grammar, other will be going in September, both from a state primary.

There should be as many grammar places as are needed. By having so few, they have become more exclusive than the most academic private schools. There should be a grammar for every comp. That would improve your social mobility for those who want it, not trying to complicate things with more and more batshit restrictions on private schools.

You could also improve social mobility by doing away with catchment areas, so that poorer, but more capable/ambitious children aren't trapped in rough schools, entrenching their poverty further.

The anti-private thing is a distraction from the real problem - underfunding and the appalling corralling of the poor well away from "nice" people (physically and culturally). I vote Labour because I have no choice where I live (safe Labour seat), but I do think they are being VERY disingenuous about this, and creating clickbait, not solutions (spoiler: the solution is spending the same amount per child as private school fees).

My kids go to the local grammar. One was fully home educated first, the other was HE then went private for GCSEs.
I am a secondary school teacher and saw the state of normal schools in my area (rough). We moved to a grammar school area for the kids. Grammars are not great due to inequality etc and the impact they have on the schools in the area (who lose the bright kids) but one of my kids has SENDs and I was not going to put him through a failing education system.
Btw, I’m N.Irish and grammar schools are freely available for all. We have the highest level of academic passes in GCSEs but we also have the largest amount of kids with zero GCSEs in the UK. This suggests that the division benefits those at the top at the expense of those on the bottom.

Parents have different strategies. Most only do private for part of their child’s school career. It has the most impact on a child’s prospects and way of life (if it’s a good school) in primary as the daily PE / sports, music lessons, enforced speaking up, better technology lessons, sets up good habits. But that’s expensive if your child decides to stay in private for secondary lol

@Cluborange666 - yes grammar done properly in NI does seem to mirror the results of streaming at secondary schools, the brightest do better than they would in a mixed environment, the bottom quarter do considerably worse than they would if they’d been mixed in with the most academically able.

sadly there’s not a system that’s best for everyone.

My nearest grammar school used to just select on the basis of test results. A few years ago it changed the criteria. The pass mark for pupil premium children is 5% lower and all those who meet this threshold will get a place. This year about 16% of Y7 are on PP. Then those attending about 35 linked primary schools (one of which is a private school) in the attendance area (like a catchment area) are admitted, followed by other children outside the area.

About 15-18% of pupils came from private primary schools (based on the numbers who didn't do SATs). And the school buses are expensive which probably acts as a barrier for many children.

This - my son did very well in his 11 plus but even so he has had his confidence knocked at grammar because there are so many bright kids. I am all for giving kids a chance but our local grammar offers a contextual offer of 111 when the other kids have to get 121....I know a kid who got 120.5 and did not get in on appeal. So I worry that children with 111 are not going to be able to keep up the pace - will have their confidence knocked etc.

So this is the reason I am glad my DC' s didn't get in. My DS is gifted in maths and extremely good at English. However, when he did 11+he was 5 marks off that years intake. Year before, he would have got in. It was during covid when private primary's had their shit together and state schools were floundering all over the place. I was angry at the time. I'm glad now. Of course, private primary's are gearing up for the 11+ it's why the upper middle class send their children ( from yr3 they go in my experience) so they don't have to pay for private secondary. It is unfair as tutored children don't always translate well to the classroom as another poster just said. The reason I am glad is that "I'm better than you" attitude, the bullying, and that's carried for life. My DS went with his year from school, his best friends, who are rock solid. He is in top sets. His life is not all about hiting targets he is getting positive life experiences. Money can not buy that. I gave my DD the choice to do the 11+ ( which is well able for), and she declined as she would rather be with her friends and year group. The primary they went/go to isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, neither is the state secondary far from in fact. I'm sure the teaching would be streets ahead in grammar. However, I see state pupils (consistently and more than one) who go to the 2 Grammars here who are miserable as clearly the social divide is another factor for bullying and children as well as adults are often cruel. It's state funded private education in my mind. Social divides are difficult to traverse and are real. I have no answer for that.

Yes that's our aim - private prep and then grammar. But for context, I attended state primary, got 100% on my 11plus and then went to grammar - but the OP is suggesting that, had I gone to a prep, then I wouldn't be allowed to go to grammar.

When I am queen I will abolish all segregated schools apart from specialist SEN schools. No grammar, no private, and no religious schools. I will also abolish the monarchy once I've sold off all the castles and land to pay for setting up quality comprehensives across the land.

It's the 11+ that's the issue. It can be coached to and the more coaching the higher the pass rate becomes so the kids who can't afford coaching have a decreasing chance of accessing grammar. It's a stupid system.

Even that won’t be enough. How will you stop the house price rises in the tight catchments of fabulous state schools? some are already private by house price.

Change the admissions criteria, change catchment areas frequently. Obviously ultimately there shouldn't be such a discrepancy between schools, I'm not saying opening up grammar and faith schools to all is a solution to all that's wrong with education but it's an easy start to even things out a bit.

Wallington Girls does. Or they did. Not checked recently

Yet Starmer went and chooses to send his child to one?

Our grammar schools have contextual offer for children on FSM.

I think it's about 10 to 20 marks lower.