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 ?

What are they called if they aren’t comprehensives.
Genuine question as I don’t know

There isn't a need for Grammar schools in the vast majority of the country and hasnt Been for nearly 50 years.

My extremely dyslexic son found that after a top prep school and a year of quite intensive tuition at the private school we chose, which was too far away for his stamina, that he could pass GCSE (not spectactularly well) without doing any work after Y9. So he didn't work, because it was boring revision.

The issue, for me, is about getting kids engaged.

Very very sadly, most parents are not engaged in education and don't stress how much difference it can make to their children's prospects.

There is also the small, but important genetic inheritance factor. If you earn enough to consider paying for private education, then your children are fairly certain to be cleverer than the average.

I know this is true. I went to a bog standard county primary in West Cornwall (two or three year groups in one class of around 40 children) but instead of being agricultural labourers or quarrymen, my parents were a naval pilot and a SRN qualified nurse. We had books on the shelves and read broadsheet newspapers, so without any tutoring, of course I passed the 11+, apparently with a high score. Putting FSM entitlement (which didn't exist in 1967) into the equation would not have changed the results in my Y6 primary. The people who passed the 11+ (who didn't get to grammar school because it turned into a comprehensive that year) were somewhat short changed. But via Facebook, I can see that the children of the local shop keepers are still more successful and prosperous than the rest.

@IAmNotASheep high schools

Scrap grammars and tax private schools to the heavens. The extremely wealthy won’t care if private school costs £20k/term of £200k, so rinse them for every penny. Ordinary state schools would benefit hugely from an influx of involved, attentive middle class parents who aren’t averse to a bit of fundraising, and all the children would benefit hugely from mixing outside their social class. The money raised from taxing the ever loving shit out of the wealthiest families could be used to create a much more beneficial education system for all involved, including increasing SEN provision.

The playing field needs to be drastically levelled and I don’t really care if a few angry mumsnetters disagree with me.

@IAmNotASheep they're called Secondary Moderns.

Grammar systems are great for the 20% that pass, not so great for the rest.

And i say that as someone whi went to a grammar school and sent both children to one.

Possibly because they were drilled to understand that work comes before success. For me, that is the most imprtant lesson we should teach.

Private schools save the tax payer £40+ billion per year. If you abolish private schools how will the state find this additional money?
Private parents won't put their DC in sink comprehensive schools.
If anything we need more choice, not less. The 1 size fits all fails many DC. It fails SEN kids, many low achievers and many high achievers.
Some, more enlightened countries, use a voucher system whereby the state provides education vouchers and parents then choose the best fit for their DC including paying if they feel that this is the best fit.

I don't think it's a possibility. Some parents will move mountains, but most want the state to deliver just enough.

I am thrilled that my DS is 25 and making his own choices,

I do wish people on MN wouldn’t insist that non-grammar schools in grammar areas are “secondary moderns” - they are something very different to comprehensive schools, secondary moderns didn’t follow the same subjects and curriculum as grammar schools, usually offering a much more vocational education and children couldn’t do the old O levels that became GCSEs.

comprehensive schools admit all students based on criteria that doesn’t require a test. They teach all students a range of subjects to GCSE level. Therefore it is perfectly valid to call non-grammar schools in grammar area’s comprehensive.

because some of the brighter children (not all!) go to grammar school doesn’t make them any less comprehensive as comps in non-11+ areas with lots of private schools or faith schools creaming off the top achieving kids via scholarships.

Parents will put their kids where there’s a place if they can’t afford private school. What do you think the parents that currently can’t afford private school do? The sink schools would improve with a steady stream of kids from homes that value education and they wouldn’t be sink schools any more.

No private parent I know would send their DC to sink schools. Why is it up to to private parents to improve state schools? Why can't the 93% of parents at state schools do this? Are the 7% private parents so much better than state parents?

@FancyBiscuitsLevel I agree that the school the majority of children in a fully selective area go to is not a "secondary modern" in the traditional sense. I use the term, usually in quotation marks, because it is also not a comprehensive. A comprehensive school has the full range of abilities and socio-economic groups. Such schools do not.

Why do private school parents think they’d have a choice when it comes to the state education sector? Your children would go to the school nearest to their home with a place available. You might have a choice of 2/3 schools, if you’re lucky, but you don’t get to be fussy. I work in school appeals and every year I see middle class parents demanding a place at an outstanding school when they don’t live close enough. They don’t get it. They get a place at the school closest to their home with a place, it’s as simple as that. Your kids aren’t better, or more deserving, than anyone else’s. That’s what “level playing field” means.

Speaking personally, we would simply move or home educate until a place came up. Of course my child isn't better than any other child but at the same time I won't let her education suffer.

Ah the old “we’d home educate”. Yes, I hear that a lot. Parents don’t, though. They take the place and their kids are fine.

Of course, I can only speak for my situation but I could afford to give up work and then HE if we pulled her out of private.
I won't put her in local state secondary with low outcomes, results and aspirations. I don't think it is acceptable for a school to have fewer than 50% of its pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs.

Actually that's not true.

In a grammar area (as opposed to having a super selective grammar) the non-grammars are very different.

They offer a wider range of subjects but don't insist on foreign language, three separate sciences. Most don't have sixth forms.

They are more likely to offer vocational GCSEs such as childcare, PE or practical subjects.

And whilst the high schools in grammar areas may not be all about woodwork and CSEs, many do offer a more restricted curriculum. Lacking a significant % of high achievers many offer fewer MFLs, might only offer combined science, not triple science or not offer further maths.

Can we get rid of faith schools as well then please?

Comprehensives for everybody. Like in other countries.

£15200 average last year. I think as a lot of Mumsnet is Londoncentric people tend to think all private schools charge the 30k+ a year

The most expensive private schools aren't in London (except Harrow).

I was curious about which private school is the most expensive. According to the link below (no idea if it's accurate, as I just googled) it's not Eton although that is one of the priciest. It's Brighton College. Next most expensive is Concord College in Shropshire.

Obviously though fees will be higher if the DC are boarding rather than day pupils.

I also checked the fees for a London day school, out of interest. City of London, where Dianne Abbot sent her son, is around £22,600 a year.

https://piacademy.co.uk/advice/most-expensive-private-schools-uk/

@bridgertonmodiste - I live in Kent and have one child at secondary and another in primary having recently done the tour of local school options- both grammar and not.

all the non-grammars teach foreign languages and insist on one until GCSE. (But only the grammars offer Latin, although not all do now.) All have a 6th form, and the only non-grammar that doesn’t offer A levels near us offers the IB instead. The non-grammars often have other non-A level courses for Key Stage 5 but they have a uni route option for their brighter students.

they do less GCSEs, but closer to what is offered in other parts of the country, it’s the grammars who are offering something different than kids would get if they didn’t live in a 11+ area.

And I realise I spelt Diane Abbott's name wrong in my previous post. My fat fingers and I didn't click Edit button in time.

This is interesting as I always thought they were comprehensives but we now have three titles

• comprehensives
• high schools
• secondary moderns

So I’m still confused