Grammar Schools and Private Schools

[peapodlovescuddles]

I genuinely don't know what to think here so would be interested to see what other mumsnetters have to say

Today while my son was swimming I overheard another mother moaning. Her DD has just found out she hasn't got a place at our fantastic local grammar school.
She was saying it wasn't fair people like peapod sent their children to grammar school when we could easily afford private school fees, my DCs went to a good prep school and then onto the grammar because I wanted them to meet a wide range of people from many walks of life. I didn't feel this would be accomplished at the local public school and I don't want my children to board.

So should I have sent my children to the private school so someone less well off could have had their place? Or is ANYONE entitled to a state education?

Prep achool doesn't actually help with 11+ as all the teaching is geared to Common Entrance exams, which are subject based and very different. I sent my children to a prep school becaue I wanted to be sure they basic literacy and numeracy were covered and the work ethos encouraged, and I wanted them to go to grammar school because the standard of education is better than fee paying schools in this area, and for them to meet more children who live in this area. They had to do the practice papers on their own as the prep school were not prepared to help them with this. Yes, my sons got into the grammar school, but most of the other boys are from state primary schools and lots of them had no tuition. Sometimes I wish I'd been more relaxed about their education and saved the money, but you never can tell.

I went to a prep school (many years ago) that prepared us (very rigorously) for the 11+ and for common entrance exams, according to our parents' wishes.

I suppose parents who cannot afford Prep school feel hard done by if Prep school kids take the Grammar school places and push Primary school kids out.

Despite what higgle says. There are some Prep school in some areas who basically know that the reason parents are sendng their kids to the school is to make sure they get into a free Grammar school at 11+. Prep school sod of course work towards 13+ as higgle says which is the private indpendent school market. Prep schools serve both markets.

A lot of parents cannot afford to pay for private schooling up to 18 so investing in lower cost Prep school is seen as sensible alternative if it ensures a Grammar school place.

I wish that the entire business of getting a good state secondary school place was not so stressful in this country. It does no good to the country, parents or children.

I supose I have to hold my hands up and just admit I intend to avoid the whole issue by paying.

I think this is one of those situations when we just have to face the fact that we don't care enough about fairness and equality to not make the most of every little advantage we can muster to achieve the best end result for our child.
In the OP's position I would feel a little guilty - there's no denying that money is an unfair advantage in all sorts of ways - but my guilt would not prevent me from getting my child the BEST education available to him.
I would certainly make some decent financial contributions to the school though.

I think it's easier to get your cheque book out some times.
Having said that, if everyone is going to desert private schools hopefully that'll make them more desperate to accept my 3 for the price of 2 offer that I shall be making if the eldest doesn't get into my local grammar school.

If they are a top-drawer prep and act as a feeder to public school it will be common entrance, as many of those parents would not dream of entering the state system, even at top-notch grammar level - educational standards have nothing to do with it! But many many (bog-standard!)independent schools do coach for the 11 plus. You see, even in private education we have our hierarchy!

My neighbour thinks we are rather downmarket and she actively discourages her children from mixing with mine because hers are all at (or down for) big-name public schools whereas my children go to a local independent day school, and have the local (albeit ever-so-slightly more polished) accent to go with it, which is practically sink-estate behaviour as far as she's concerned! To the local oiks my kids are posh, but to her my kids are the oiks!

Not quite true TiggyR. A lot of private schools prepare candidates for the 11+, particularly girls as this is the age when many girls change schools in London and a lot of other places. Schools like City Girls and City Boys and North London COllegiate in London take their main intake at 11+ whilst Perse Boys and Girls in Cambridge have major intakes at 11+. These schools are all private and feature prominently in the league tables.

"But what "system" is it "playing"? The basic primary education system in England is a choice between state day school, private day school, private boarding school and home education. Any parent can choose any of these options, resources permitting. And from any of the options the system allows a parent can choose any secondary school for their child, selective criteria exercised by the school permitting.
"

I'm not denying that any parent can choose a state school for their children. Apart from those who can't afford private school....

But as ABetaDad says there are many parents who send their kids to a fee paying primary (prep) school to ensure their child will pass the 11+ and go to a grammar. Sorry, but I (and many others) do think thats playing the system. Giving your child an advange that other children can't afford and then taking up the free (and often better) state education.

I'm NOT blaming anyone who does this. If I cold have afforded to I'd have done it. But I can't. So instead my bright but dyslexic DD does to a school that gives her no support at all. She's a year behind in all subjects. Maybe if I'd been able to afford to send her to prep school she's have got better teaching and mroe support and wouldn't be so behind. Then she may have ahd a chance of passing her 11+. Instead she will go to the local shitty comp with its 38% pass rate at GCSE, struggle even more, quite probably leave school with no qualifications and end up doing crappy menial work for the rest of her life.

I agree with one of the previous comments re tution for the 11+. Many people at our local state primary think it is "cheating". This really annoys me as I know of a child who was tutored from age 5 but still scored well under the average. Would these parents send their children into a piano exam or ballet exam without practising? If the capability is there then they might improve their score by a few marks with tutoring, which when it comes down to it is doing test papers prior to the 11+.

I noticed that alot of the questions in the 11+ were not covered by the state curriculum so you need to do some practise with old papers. We had one question relating to feet and inches - my son wanted to know what a "foot" was! Anyway he did far better in the 11+ than his test papers showed and is going to the local grammar even though he has also got a scholarship at one of our local private schools!

Most people hate to admit their child is mr or miss average - so they resort to putting those that are bright down or that they only passed because of tutoring. The fact is tutoring can be good or bad depending on who you use and it is not a god given that it will help you pass - you have to have the intelligence in the first place!

I really don't think that the actions you describe are "playing the system". Parents should be encouraged to make the very best use of the resources at their disposal to ensure their children get the very best education they can, and the English "system" generally encourages parents to follow that course of action. How can that be "playing the system"?

Life isn't fair and we aren't born to a level playing field.

chocolatedot, I think you muddled me with the previous poster - I said that private schools do coach for 11+ !

Stripey it's not all about school, 2 years into the workforce nobody gives a shit if you've got gcse's, alevels or a degree.
We had a girl at our place who basically lied and said she had a degree, we all knew she hadn't but she had such front she ended up managing those with oxford firsts and yet she should never have got the job in the first place.
I won't be heart broken if mine don't take the predictable path education if for life not to be endured for 11 years.

'I don't have any interest in my son getting into Oxford and Cambridge or any Southern university where his Northern accent and background will be mocked'

This is a very old-fashioned prejudice and I hope you are not passing it on to your son. Why do you think people in the south are that fussed about your son's accent?

Sorry, Tiggy mis-read your post that you were suggesting that only inferior private schools coach for 11+ which certainly isn't the case in London.

I have a bit of an issue with a grammar school in Kent which takes children from 13 upwards. It is the only state boarding school and the only grammar school in England to operate an age 13 entry policy, and seems totally unfair given that all Kent state primary schools finish at age 11. Not surprisingly, there is a large cluster of prep schools (going to up to age 13) in this area, and about two thirds of the pupils going to this grammar school come from private/prep schools...(before the taxpayer finishes the remainder of their "private" education!). That to me is not a level playing field at all.

I know the school you are talking about Pristina; children can take the entrance exam from the local state comprehensive (and I know children who have done so and got in).

She is being unfair, envious and assuming alot.

Well it's not playing the system if you are perfectly entitled to do it, but try telling that to the parents of borderline grammar children who cannot afford it!

Equally, you can't demand that privately educated children should be exempt from taking state grammar places; their parents are tax payers and have a right to opt in and out of state education as they see fit, and if academic ability is the only criterion for selection (as we are told it is) then it cannot possibly be more acceptable to reject an applicant because his parents are affluent and supportive than to reject an applicant because his parents are poor and lacklustre. The only answer would be to do away with grammar schools. Every state school should be mixed ability (and secular, while we are at it ) and there would be no need for this unfair advantage argument. Of course some will opt to pay up to 18, which is fine. There will always be advantages to having more money than most, it's a fact of life and unavoidable.

Because I have lived in the South and the North, both for many years, and have many friends from different regions, and I work in a university, and visit many other universities, and have conservations with other academics about how their students behave.

I may be prepared to change my mind (see my response to Duchesse) and will certainly discuss it with people. But it has been demonstrated by research that having a Northern accent is a cause of discrimination in the workplace and it would be stupid to not tell my children that some people are going to be prejudiced against them. Ultimately, when there are plenty of good universities in the North, why take the risk of encountering discrimination if you don't need to?

Sorry, I should have said that last post was responding to Abraid.

I'm sure Colchester Royal Grammar have a 13+ and boarding option as well. We have boys trying for the 13+ all the time at my sons' independent senior school. their parents have never got over the fact that they didn't get in the first time, and they are prepared to uproot them halfway through. Frnakly, if they were that much of a sure thing they'll be getting all As and A*s staying where they are anyway. So what would be the point? Kudos. To have Colchester Royal Grammar School on your uni application form is like telling an employer you went to Oxfod or Cambridge. It's a status thing. Also these days you'll get extra brownie points for having done so well in a prestige state school, and almost penalised for going private, as if somehow your good results are less valid.

I can not believe that there are people who talk about 'a level playing field'.

There is no such thing!! Life is uneven and full of hills and dips. The type of parents a child has and their home background makes all the difference to how they perform at school.

If you choose to use private prep and then Grammar school for your child then that is absolutely your right.

But MillyR, won't they still face discrimination in the workplace if they have a Northern accent? Better to send him down South for university following your argument. Or is he only going to work in the North as well?
I went to Bristol University - pretty broad range of accents and ditto the City where I now work. Absolutely no discrimination that I can see.

MillyR, don't succumb to the Northern chip, or I'll pass you the ketchup! Honestly, look at the BBC for evidence that you are being paranoid. The only people who are truly stigmatised and villified purely on the strength of their accent these days are the upper middle classes with received pronunciation. For some reason I don't quite get, it's perfectly acceptable, de rigueur even, to ridicule them and assume they are all stupid, talentless and over-privileged.

Anna, I was certain that you would know the school I was talking about! The comp in question has no officially links with the grammar at all, it's just a case of parents uprooting their children at age 13 if they choose. There is no way on this earth that my parents could have made me leave all my friends and move to a new school when I was 13. So I think it is very unfair on state school children in this area. Prep school pupils have more continuity and are therefore more likely to apply to the grammar school (as shown by the fact that only one third of pupils arrive from state primaries- is there any other grammar school in the country with such a low intake of state primary pupils- I doubt it).

As for Colchester, if it takes children from age 11 as well then that is a different thing altogether.