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?

You’re so worried that your DD won’t get in based on just 3 criterion, that you want to add a fourth? Funnily enough, one that would benefit YOU!!

If there aren’t enough spaces that you’re moaning even before you know if she’s in or not, how would limiting those spaces further make it “fair”?

If there was a fourth category of siblings, then your daughter would still probably be in the same position, as those who lived closer to the school than you would gain a place first irrespective of siblings.

The vast majority of the country doesn't have grammar schools, I sometimes think people living in grammar school areas can get a bit obsessed by it. I suppose you could always move areas. The pupil premium thing is a strange one, as obviously someone could lose their job and be unemployed, if only for a few weeks, and be able to claim pp for the following six years, even if they got a highly paid job straight afterwards. There has to be some way of measuring these things though, and none of them will be perfect.

Hardly any children in care or Pupil Premium children get into grammar schools sadly. There’s certainly not a whole year group of them ahead of your daughter. It sounds like she may be disadvantaged by distance though.

Our local grammar schools have siblings priority but the child still has to pass the exam. In the OPs scenario it would be category 3 for siblings, being category 4 wouldn't help. I think ours has in catchment siblings separately from non catchment siblings, or at least it used to, to catch those who move in to the get place for DC1 then move away.

I actually get where you're coming from.

There are people who don't earn a lot but earn too much for benefits.

In Scotland we have EMA which is Educational Maintenance Allowance for pupils who want to stay at school beyond 4th year (16+, not sure what year that is in England, the year after GCEs I think). They get an allowance every week depending on parental income.

Mine didn't get it but stayed on anyway and I felt that I had to give them the equivalent amount but we were skint! It was really frustrating at the time.

However, my youngest son's GF got it and she now has a degree and has just got 100% in a new qualification she studied for. (They have been with each other since they were 15, now she's 30, and he will be at the end of the year). They own their home and have a great life together.

Both my children are now in professional roles. The privilege they had wasn't money (as we didn't have any really), it was seeing us both go out to work every day - and thinking that is normal. His GF didn't have that, but that little bit of money let her see that she could do better than her parents (she loves them anyway).

Your children will see that too.

The best thing one of my children said to me was "I just want what you two have, this house, your relationship, and us four, even though you're mainly skint" 😅

You're a good role model for your children. A lot of children don't have that.

In saying all this, we don't have this nonsense in Scotland as we don't have this two tier system. All of our schools are the same unless you want to pay for the education they would get anyway at a state school (i.e. dafties)

Not the most intelligent.

I'm not really in that situation at all, we have comfortable finances and in a comprehensive school system, probably far more likely you own than this grammar school bare knuckle fight in other areas of England.

It just struck me as unfair that those who are just beyond this threshold now have the disadvantage of being poor, of not having access to tutors and, now, less likely to get into the school they have applied for. The thing which annoyed me was this strategy employed by some posters to talk about pp students on one hand and middle class students on the other, forgetting the gulf in-between.

Anyway, I don't have a dog in this fight.

Bucks Grammar schools have sibling policies as do a few London ones.
Bucks you have to achieve 121 (qualifying score)

You do imo and I commend you for it.

Just looked that up for my daughters preferred grammar. A child in our street and my daughter both going for a place in a specific grammer, they has a sibling in that school. Could end up with the situation that they potentially get in with a score lower than my daughter (if both over 121) just because her sister goes there. They already have a slight advantage based on having gone through process already. It's ridiculous.

I entirely agree with the ethos of this thread. Yes, obviously children at a major disadvantage should be given a bit of leeway in a system designed against them.

But, just one comment, both of my children have got places at a super selective grammar (which, btw, allocates 15% of places to children on free school meals - which is admirable and the correct thing to do) but have had no formal/private tutoring. We're not on free school meals. But I wanted the best for their education, and have put in the time and effort at home over many years, and between ability and effort, both have been successful.

So it's doable. It's not just about ability to pay for tutors. To be honest, I think recognising the child's natural ability and the parent(s) working with that, will be more successful than farming them out at an hourly rate. Of course, many parents are not in a position to do that, hence the allowances for some kids.

Summary: yes, some kids need a helping hand, but not all that succeed in this system are privileged and have bought their way in.

Just looked at the figures for my DS's old grammar school and the number of PP funded pupils is approx 10 out of a year group of 180 pupils. My DS would have been one of those ten. He scored 326 and the pass mark is 304. I don't believe he stole a place from a "normal" child. There was so PP/LAC priority when he applied for entry in 2016 - they have only changed the policy in recent years.

Can't believe OP is still describing my family as not normal just because my DC are adopted. I can assure you we are quite normal, hardworking , financially secure and have always placed a huge importance of education. DH is an accountant and I was a SAHM and now an elected local councillor and community volunteer. My DS now works in finance in London and my DD is studying a level three qualification at college.

Also it's absolute garbage that school trip costs are inflated to allow PP kids to pay less. We paid exactly the same as everyone else. We were occasionally offered vouchers for enrichment type activities at school holiday clubs but I always refused them because we had the means to pay for that type of stuff ourselves.

I used to say to school that we didn't need financial help. What we needed was teachers/pastoral staff trained in the specifics of supporting adopted children with trauma issues. They would not spend the money on it. Easier to give out vouchers we didn't need as a tick box exercise.

We actually never saw a penny of the PP funding spent on my DS even when I asked for specific help when he was struggling emotionally with something related to his adoption history.

Of course it's "doable", @duckydoo234 .
It's just that some children don't have the parents or the home life that even facilities that.
Some children have never been given a toothbrush or held a knife and fork or helped in any way, socially or emotionally.
No-one on here is suggesting that everyone who succeeds is very privileged. We all know that. However, unfortunately there is a huge gap in society and doing a small amount to address that is not "dragging down" anyone else, to quote the OP.

I know, I know. But almost every response in almost every post about grammar school is that EVERYONE gets tutored and there is NO WAY of getting in without a tutor etc. is nonsense. It's not fair. Some of us make the effort to spend time with our children, talk to them, do educational and cultural things with them, teach them, enrich them. And THAT probably has a much greater effect than the paid tutoring some get.

To be fair, I don't think anyone has said that. Really the responses are to the OP's posts and her statements about disadvantaged children.
What you've rightly emphasised though, is the importance of parental engagement and cultural capital. Which many children don't have.

How isn't it fair? Do you think the most vulnerable children in society are less worthy so should have to go to the 'sink failing school'.

You have to recognise that even having the time and ability and motivation to support them is in itself a privilege which many children dont have? You are right that this confers more of an advantage than paying for tutoring, or 'farming out' as you put it. One which many children dont have.

Well done to your 2 for doing so well

But the issue you are raising is that children in care and on pupil premium are getting preference over your child, and that there should be a sibling criteria!

It has only been since responses have been overwhelmingly against you that you have started talking about raising standards for all.

If there was a sibling criteria we wouldn't be hearing a peep out of you about raising standards for all. You would be perfectly happy to let all the children from 'abnormal' families go to the "sink school" as long as your kids were safe in their grammar with all the children from "normal" families!

Yes, I do recognise it. And I fully accept the privilege. My point was to say that not everyone pays for tuition, and some - with the will, effort and ability - can do it without money. The unfairness is the assumption by many that all success is due to ability to pay.

Very much agreed. It's the "cultural capital" that an engaged and intelligent parent is more likely to provide.

This is where the debate gets very thorny when it comes to PP. Because there is no direct link that says "parents on very low incomes are less likely to provide rounded educational experiences outside of school." But there are proximate links, as the causes of someone being on such a low income often have other implications, which affects a child's education outwith school.

• Disabled parents are less likely to work full time, and therefore their children eligible for PP. They are also less able to take their children to places that inspire and enrich their children.
• Parents who are full time carers may have children eligible for PP. They may also have very limited time to commit to their childs education.
• Parents who don't value work and therefore live off UC are likely to also not value education. They will be less motivated to enrich their child's education.
• Adoptive parents may be very able and willing to engage in their children's education. But their children have experienced ACEs that make it difficult for them to engage in these experiences at times.

All of these are probabilistic. Many parents in the categories above will provide excellent, rounded experiences. But the chance that they will is lower. Therefore, I applaud grammar schools like OP's DD's school, who are trying to redress these disadvantages and level the playing field.

No, all the evidence suggests that supportive and engaged parenting and cultural capital actually make more difference to a child's outcomes.
So you've done absolutely the right thing, and your children will benefit from your parenting immensely, probably better than those who can throw money at it.

No one said everyone who gets in is tutored, just that some have the option of tutoring and some dont, and for 2 children of the same ability, the one who is tutored is much more likely to get in than the one who is not, which is inherently unfair. Included in the heading of tutoring is the children whose parents tutor them through a combination of them being intelligent, engaged, having the time to support and doing things like providing them with practice books and papers. Also, it's not an 'either/or' situation in many cases - we pay for tutoring AND spend lots of time supporting our daughters with their learning, but I recognise that I'm privileged in having the time and academic ability to do that, and that my job gives me flexibility to work my hours in a way that I can sit down with her after school at least 3 weekdays to go through learning activities with her. That I have enough leave to take them to museums and other natural learning opportunities.

The whole grammar system is inherently wrong and flawed - as you say so much is linked the parents engagement and ability to support. Part of me is reluctant to put her into a system which is so inherently unfair. But it's an aspirational choice she is making, for positive reasons, so I wont let my moral objections get in her way.

Not getting a place at grammar is not 'being dragged down'.

You sound ridiculously entitled.

Sorry but that means fuck all when you have a few local prep schools where kids are covering 11+ material and sitting mock tests etc in lesson time due to parents wanting to swerve increased school fees for secondary.

The same parents are also happy to invest thousands in competitive tutors and private mocks. I know someone who did all of that and also paid out nearly a grand for a 2 day intensive the weekend before the test.

Add to that people who move into catchment areas temporarily to get a place. MIL bought a house recently from a family who had only lived there 6 months so DS would be in catchment and once they had his results and saw he had enough to get into an even more competitive school in the county they moved again.

I also know someone who made their child sit 2 tests in different counties with the intention to send their child to live with GPs if they did better on that test.

IMO it's right for LEAs/grammar schools to change criteria to prioritise kids who otherwise wouldn't get a look in because some of these parents are happy to play the system.

Not at all, my issue is the disadvantage that being a "normal" family appears to bring about. Siblings at the same school is not an unreasonable ask - accepting that they need to meet the entrance criteria and fall low in the over subscription criteria. anot figuring at all doesn't seem right....