Schools admission criteria......

[LookingforMaryPoppins]

So, my youngest has her heart set on the same grammar school as her sister. She has worked hard and successfully passed the 11 plus. Really proud off her, she is dyslexic so no mean feat.... having just checked the admission criteria, having a sibling at the school makes no difference. Passing the 11 plus is the first criteria followed by children in care, pupil premium and then distance - she is bottom of the pile. If she doesn't get a place, which with that criteria is likely., the option is a sink failing school..... how is that fair?

I know! Surely children in the care system need to be supported and protected a bit more? This thread is baffling.

Really this illustrates what is wrong with having a selective school system. If grammar schools didn't exist in OP's area, the comprehensives would certainly get better results and almost certainly would get better funding and investment. That would be much fairer for all pupils.

If mainstream education was good no one would compete to go to a grammar school or pay for private education in the first place.

Appalling how people are making out the OP to be a selfish person when the elephant in the room is the poor educational system.

Mainstream education should be of an excellent standards and accessible to all regardless of their needs and not a postcode lottery or whatever.
Finland has done it.

Until we shift the blame from the parents and start campaigning for better schools nothing will happen.

Oh and free breakfast clubs are not going to cut the butter . It is a sticking plaster on a bleeding wound.

I can only speak for our local grammars, but the biggest concern re: admissions is private school kids, who would have been destined for private secondary, are opting for grammar places due to VAT and other PS school cost rises. When everyone on MN was shrieking ‘pay the VAT’, sadly social mobility for your average kid wasn’t being considered. Shame on Labour and anyone who believed their outright lies.

Of course. Plus the OP wants a selective school, but doesn't want any selection on social criteria.
As if these PP or LaC are having some sort of crazy privilege in life.

My daughter is adopted and the school is in receipt of PP for her. I remember a meeting very early on when we were all told she would struggle with learning and would never do as well as her peers. The fantastic head teacher replied along the lines of "not on my watch!".

She attained a pass rate and above in her SATS and is doing very well in her secondary school. A school chosen because of their nurturing and inclusive teaching.

Both schools have used PP to provide her with the level of support she needs to stay at the same level as her peers. If you were to know about the neglect she suffered and the resultant trauma, instead of resenting the additional "benefits" she gets, you would be thanking your lucky stars that your children aren't even aware of the evilness that exists let alone experienced it.

For the record, both DH and I are hardworking and earn reasonable salaries. We are also a "normal" family but it is only through having a head teacher who cared and had the funds via PP to help that my daughter has done as well as she has - I really cannot understand anyone who would think this is in unfair. Unfair is suffering neglect, being removed from everything you know and being so far behind because of that, that "normal, hardworking" people think she and other children in receipt of PP should continue to suffer.

OP give your girls a hug and be thankful they have never suffered in the way my daughter and most adopted and LAC have.

@VaccineSticker I agree with almost all you have said. The problem is that the OP, like many people, punch down and blame those they see as "less than" when they see a problem with our education system when they could instead campaign for a better system that works for everyone.

You’re making an assumption that PP children or those in care don’t come from hard working families who don’t value education. We know that educational outcomes for pupils in these groups are very low and they don’t benefit from all the 11+ tutoring etc that other children do, so it’s great that the school has prioritised them in their admissions criteria.

"Normal families" - bloody hell.

This ⬆️

@VaccineSticker Finland is a highly homogeneous society.

So they have to pass the 11+
Care of the local authority or post care (adopted)
Pupil premium - on UC and earning less than £7400 per year per family

How many traumatised kids who've suffered abuse and may have fasd do you think are going to pass the 11+? You think being adopted solves all the problems? They're mostly years behind their peers not ahead of them.
How many children on the poverty line do you think will be able to pass the 11+. They fund these kids for a reason because the stats show they fall behind and schools struggle to bring them up to ARE (age related) without it.
You are a spoilt princess and I find your lack of knowledge about what CLA and PP really mean offensive.

I don't think you know how much you have helped this young woman. Well done you.

I think you have just proposed abolishing grammars? The OP is unlucky to live somewhere that still has the system. Most of the country got rid of them decades ago.

Re the 20% passing English and Maths. I wonder if this is grade 4+s, or more likely the 'good pass' at grade 5+? (Which would mean the school isn't as bad as it is made out to be )

This 👏.

During Covid I lost all my hours at work and my income dropped to just literally pounds over the FSM limit. And then the vouchers were introduced and I actually ended up financially worse off than all the families on FSM who were able to get, and in some cases, substantial amounts of money towards food shops etc. One of the families who got these vouchers had 5k in savings whereas I had absolutely nothing.

Totally agree regarding looked after children and they rightfully should be at the top, but the pupil premium is not as black and white as some posters think. There are plenty of families just slightly over the limit who end up worse off after the benefits are accounted for and this should be not be ignored nor should these children be branded as privileged.

Children in care - yes.
Pupil Premium - no.

I also don't agree with children with EHCPs getting priority over somebody in the catchment area either. ALL schools should provide the same care for children with SEN (admittedly they don't).

Too late now, surely. The cut off for applying for secondary school places is the end of October, I believe. Any admissions criteria relating to address will look at the address at the time of application. This is how it used to work, anyway.

If children are on pupil premium their families most likely wouldn’t be able to afford tutoring targeted at passing the exams. The fact that pupil premium is being prioritised likely means the school are currently underrepresented by children in that situation and are trying to make things fairer for those children. Maybe they are also hoping for young people naturally good at taking exams

But presumably, because of your support, she’d be one of the children getting good grades at the sink school?

OP, you have some serious misconceptions

1. That pupil premium means your family is not "normal"
2. That pupil premium means your family is not hard-working
3. That prioritizing one group is disadvantaging another. No, it's an attempt to level the playing field.
4. That your child should be entitled to something because they have an elder sibling who got it.
5. That school results are unrelated to selection. Your child is likely to become part of the 20% who do well, if they go to the "sink" school, because they are clearly intelligent. The children who don't pass the 11+ are much more likely to be in the 80% who don't meet gov thresholds for gcse attainment.

I think that if shes passed thats the first intake surely?

Are you kidding me?

Imagine a child who is exposed to all kinds of crap in the womb, born addicted to heroin, time in the nicu. Then you spend most of the first couple of years of your life in your cot, not being fed much or stimulated because your parents are either out of it or sleeping off their hangover. You don't learn to walk until you are 2 and there are no books at home. Your parents keep moving around to evade social services and you end up going to over 30 primary schools. You usually don't get there until 11 because your parents are too hungover to take you. You finally get put into foster care aged 8. You've got enough food and clean bedding now but you still get moved around from pillar to post. You can't be in the school play unless your face is covered. If you are lucky you get to live with your grandparents. You worry that your friend will ask why your "parents" are 20 years older than his or why you can't have your photo taken in school. You've missed great big chunks of your education. Do you really think this child shouldn't get priority.

Some of the comments on this thread (not many compared to some threads I've seen) are vile. To be honest, if this is an example of the children of "normal hardworking families" who go to grammar schools i would rather my dc take their chances at the local sink school than go to the grammar school where people think LAC are at an advantage .

Not read the whole thread but @LookingforMaryPoppins trust me any child in care is not ‘ahead’ in any area of life.

You sound bitter towards children who’ve had horrendous experiences.

Beg your pardon? I did not say that. What I said that if all schools were of an excellent high standard across the nation, with no postcode lottery, there would be no need for private schools or grammar school. Blame the system, not the parents who want the best for their own child. The reason why so many people hate grammar schools and private schools is because they are envious of them.
if state schools were designed to that standard that envy and competition go get into the best state school would be gone and all the children will be educated to excellent high standard like in Finland, but sadly they are not and they won’t because the people at the top have never had experience or training in education, never mind state education. None of them have first hand experience of how things operate in there and the level of needs that need to be met etc. Many politicians hardly spent few minutes in schools for a photo opportunity and then gone, yet they are responsible for major decisions in education that will affect our future generation and economy.

No job out there lets unqualified people walk into top positions without the right experience yet somehow Tom, Dick, and Harry from around the corner landed it.
Yay!

@Wetandcold that's such a great outcome. Gives me hope that things are improving since my two went through the education system. All of the schools my two attended fought against me and spent not a penny of their pupil premium on addressing their needs.

There was very little understanding of the needs of adoptive children who had experienced ( and are still experiencing) trauma.

If we hadn't moved my DD to a very supportive private school she would have left with no GCSEs at all. In the end she got 5 ( levels 4 and 5) which was amazing.