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 ?

It kind of already does though. In my area the disadvantaged children are given priority places at the grammar schools. They still have to pass the test though, as they should.

I've checked and it is 20 points lower, with access to free online tutorials etc to practice the questions.

The biggest thing though is parents have to sign their dcs up for the 11+ and not all primary schools point it out or make it easy. They need to know their dc could pass.

plus if you haven’t applied for your nearest available school, then free transport isn’t always available.

there are a lot more barriers to PP kids going to grammar schools in grammar areas than just the small number of prep school kids who then go state for secondary.

That's the other thing - your primary head master/mistress has to be ofay with the appeals process to get them in if they just fall short. Our state primary had a new head from another area, not used to the grammar system. He failed about 3 kids in his first year as a HM because he didn't properly fight their corner on appeal. It's a cut throat thing when you live in a grammar area. The pressure to stay in one is immense too with lots pushing out less able or struggling pupils. Most students we know at our have private tutoring alongside as well to keep up and in the top sets.

FSM are disadvantaged from the get-go in so many arenas. For example, we know that reading ability is one of the most important measures of academic success. A fair number of these children enter Reception without being exposed to good quality children’s picture books; or even realising that print in English goes from left to right, or that you read a book from front to back. They fall even further behind when no one does regular reading at home with them; and when it comes to preparing for 11 plus, no amount of tutoring will remedy the situation. The free nursery early years provision that kicks in at 3 (now 2?) is inadequate and poor: these nurseries are overcrowded (children rammed in like sardines in a can), and staffed with poorly educated and poorly paid, mainly young, workers. How is this going to improve social mobility? I never even considered using the universal free early years provision when my DC was young because my child’s development would have gone backwards not forwards. He was better at home with me as a stay-at-home parent.

My DC is at a top 50 grammar school (OOC place). He went from a state primary. I make no apologies for it. I pay taxes; it was an option available to me, and I took it.

Because it is fine for him to do it but not anyone else!

Our state did the CATs and we had a call from the teacher to say whether they should try the 11+. Ours was a good state primary though so I think only a few didn't take it at all and over 90% got in (extensive tutoring in most cases). Yes, those who weren't taking it were always the poorer families. Most kids knew all through primary who were going and the queen bees would literally not play with anyone dyslexic or not having tutoring.

I think they should be abolished if they don't take 50% FSM or at least have a minimum amount of FSM legally imposed.

Which is the very definition of a champagne socialist.

My daughter passed her 11plus exam (she was tutored in Y5) and has a grammar school place for September. My mother was a single mother so couldn’t afford the same level of tuition for me so I went to the state comprehensive school and did well. There are a lot of Asian children at the Grammar my daughter is attending and their parents are educated professional immigrants so the children are first generation born in the U.K.

in my daughter’s state primary school out of 33 children in our one form entry school, 25 of them got into grammar. This was the highest number in recent years. The parents are all very highly motivated, have good jobs so push their kids to achieve. Out of the 8 who didn’t get a grammar place, 3 of them will be going to private schools.

I have heard from secondary teachers in the area that teach at the state comprehensive schools, that the behaviour of kids is made more challenging as the ‘brighter and better behaved’ are at the Grammar schools and there is no balance that you would usually expect at other state schools that don’t have grammars in the area.

@Againname

They went about it in the wrong way imo. As Naran says, grammars did used to enable socioeconomic mobility. DH's dad went to one in the 50s. He grew up on a social housing estate in a very poor area.

I’m going to disagree. Studies of grammar schools after the 1944 Education Act show no change in the relative chances of children from poorer home backgrounds either gaining grammar school places or obtaining formal school qualifications. Children from families with at least one parent who had qualifications retained a big comparative advantage in gaining a grammar school place.

By the 1950s and 1960s sociologists had recognised that the use of IQ testing in the 11+ exam tended to benefit families with relatively highly educated parents.

So children with educated parents still got the grammar school places and the children from the lower socioeconomic groups - with less educated parents and often with a need to leave school before formal qualifications to earn a wage - went to secondary moderns.

All we’ve done entrench that inequality with the educated parents tutoring throughout primary, so that the attainment gap between those children and disadvantaged children is even wider by the end of primary.

Quite right. Make them stand their private schools and pay the 20% VAT. That will ensure a more level playing field.

My comment applies equally to state schools. I have no illusions about the state system. Like many parents, the needs of both my NT and SEN were not met well. They experienced all of the things that you mentioned and more. My children have options today that they would not have had because I went toe to toe with their teachers and headteachers and also invested a lot of time and energy myself.

I don't have a problem with the existence of Private or selective schools. IMO We need to focus on fixing the state education system rather than getting distracted by propaganda and half truths. Parents, schools and the government need to work together to fix the state system not just create places and opportunities for children who can pass exams at 11.

AFAIK, Starmer sent his children to the local primary school, given that he had lived in the same house within catchment for several years before they were born. Would you rather he had sent them private or moved to a different house just to satisfy your purity requirement?

I’m also not aware that Labour currently have any plans to abolish grammar schools (mores the pity).

My MIL was at school in the 50/60s. Her parents were of the opinion that grammar schools was not for the likes of them and MIL needed to be out of education as soon as possible to start earning for the family, so no grammar school for her. When DH was Secondary age, grammar schools had gone but there was a good school out of catchment which you could get in if you met certain criteria eg played an instrument, which DH's primary school had encouraged him to do so he fulfilled the criteria, but again their thought process was 'not for the likes of them' so he went to the local sink school. He did well academically, mainly self taught I think, but was horribly bullied. Has no happy memories of school

And yet many do give places to children in receipt of FSM with a lower score, with no issues. Your experience is out of date.

Why should children be educated with children of a similar academic ability. That benefits both academic and non academic children. I have had a child at a grammar school and a child working 2 years below exactions both were in the most suitable school for their needs.

Around here, IMO quite a few go from private primary to our (very highly rated) grammars. Tutoring for the 11 plus is also common, though if the state primaries paid the same attention to preparation for the 11 plus that the privates do, maybe tutoring wouldn’t be needed.

We lived abroad until dd1 was 10, she’d attended a very good English speaking school, but unsurprisingly there had been zero 11 plus prep.

So she had never even seen the type of ‘verbal reasoning’ test the 11 plus then consisted of, so at the beginning of her one and only term (at an independent) before the exam, she was scoring 40-45% in the daily practice tests.

By the end of that Christmas term, her scores were up to 90+%.

Just through lots of practice.

Nuff said.

I did hear not long ago, though, that at least one of the local grammars had resorted to the old style 11 plus exam - maths, English, writing an essay/story. That was apparently because too many children who’d scored very highly in the VR tests, could barely write a coherent sentence - they were having to give new entrants remedial English lessons.

@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER a lot of LAs don't allow state Primaries to prepare pupils for 11+

I went to university on a low offer for the course, from a failing school in a deprived area.
I actually did well, I was very self motivated and used to independent study as I’d had poor input from school.
(later on though the old boys network was a separate barrier as I watched everyone have internships ready…)

The primary his kids went to has been likened to a prep school. The catchment round it is very very tight as it’s lovely. Lots of million pound homes (like his) in the catchment. The likes of that primary is not available to most of us.

”the local primary” needs to be taken in context (the million pound houses!)

Round here (S. Warks) category 1 for grammar places is looked after children and FSM, when meeting a criteria of marks lower than the minimum score for everyone else. There is about 5% of places reserved for these children.

Agreed about OOC ones: we have loads coming from across county boundaries now, which has pushed the qualifying score up hugely for all the grammar schools

In 2002, a third of Eleanor Palmer kids were on FSM. A new head came in 2003. Starmer moved into catchment in 2004. I very much doubt the school was anything like a prep at that time..

I went to grammar school & we only had a handful from private school who got places. This was early 80s. They tended to struggle more as they had been coached & didn't have natural ability. Back then nobody was really coached & I can't recall anyone having any tutoring. Would you also ban state school children who had parents with enough money to pay for 11+ tuition?

From what I understand from friends in London, where Starmer lives has become an area of two extremes. It has social housing but the private housing (rent or owned) is very expensive. That was already the case by the time he moved there, although slightly less extreme than now. Going back further in time, even in the 90s, it used to be much more mixed with cheaper housing to buy or privately rent.

Talking of Labour leaders paying for good schooling, didn't Tony Blair do something like that? Sent his DC to a (faith based) state school but also paid for private tutoring. I might be getting him mixed up with someone else though?

Your point being ? Lots of summer born children are perfectly capable of holding their own and it’s totally different to getting a score boost due to income .