to wonder why grammer school entrance exam marks are required to be higher for children sitting exam educated in private schools?

[1dilemma]

Have thought this before and started thinking about it again after reading some of the 'are private schools better thread?'

so what do you wise mumsnetters think?

Surely if the marks required were lower for state edcated pupils it would remove some of the advantage parents (grandparents) are buying and even things up a bit?

I've thought 2 potential problems are that the state would not want to admit that state education might not be equal (in some cases) and there is tutoring to consider but.....

we do it for university, we do it for medical school etc etc

so what do you think?

(will be going out later today so will def. reply but might not be until later)

Who's talking about Labour MPs?

I tell you how they are subsidising the middle classes - my town has half a dozen prep schools. Crammers for the grammar. There is an absence of private schooling at secondary level. Why?

The reason is because all the little private schoolies are being crammed to get into the grammar so mummy and daddy don't have to fork out for the private education they would ordinarily pay for. Not because it is necessarily better but because they are then assured to be mixing with the right types -other middle class children etc. And the school will hothouse and focus almost exclusively on exam results in a rarefied environment where the light of real life doesn't shine! Next step leafy uni.....

Yes, there are those who don't go to private school and get in to grammar. But how many are being privately tutored by similar pushy, middle class parents?

How many ordinary pupils from working class backgrounds, without extra coaching get in? Just look at the percentage of children from middle class backgrounds attending compared to the local demographic.

This is not a meritocracy.

Grammars act as free 'private' schools which is why they are a susbidy to parents who would otherwise go private.

If you don't like your local comprehensive, get involved, make your voice known, work for change. Support your child. Teach them about life and difference and that there's more to life than exams and 20 A* at GCSE. State schools need supportive, articulate parents not the cream taken from their intake.

If you can't be bothered to do that, put your hand in your pocket and pay for the exclusivity you desire.

Debs40 - pretty snide and offensive post - "all the little private schoolies", "pushy middle class parents", "mummy and daddy", "20A* GCSEs"??? why is it acceptable to stereotype like this? What experience do you have of grammar schools?

Would it be acceptable for anyone to talk about kids attending comps in the same aggressive terms? No, I thought not. How about a rant about "working classes" with a few stereotypes thrown in? - no, that wouldn't go down well. Class is apparently based on the profession of the "head of the household" - sorry, we're working class by that measure.

DD is at a grammar school which is also a state school. She didn't have tuition, she's just bright. She didn't go to a private prep, just the village primary as did the majority of girls at her school. As a parent, I felt it was the best school for her and who she was mixing with didn't enter the equation. If her headmaster is to be believed, his school actually gets less funding than local comps for political reasons so I don't see how it could be regarded as "subsidising the middle classes"

I also have a DD at the local comp. She's actually taking more GCSEs than her sister. There are fewer and less varied extra-curricular activities.

My god what a lot of old Trot rot. Middle class parents getting the decent education they've paid for, what an outrage. The fact that 'pushy parents', as you put it, (i.e. those that want their children to do well, and most probably progress into good jobs, enriching the economy) are happy to use these services means, in your world, they are evil and must be closed down.

I can't understand your mindset frankly. I take it you'd prefer your doctor to have a D in Media Studies from Shittown Comp than straight As from Ermysted Grammar. And if you ever needed a lawyer to represent you, you'd seek out the one with the roughest background rather than the one who'd achieved the most.

As far as the developing world is concerned, 20 As is* what it's about, and their kids are working a lot harder than ours in many cases to get ahead. I'd be careful because while our children are all busy getting exposed to 'diversity' (aka drugs 'n' knives), little Johnny in China is busy studying advanced calculus.

There's nothing stopping working class parents being 'pushy' (i.e. giving a shit about education), the fact that many are not says more about them than it does about the middle classes of whom you seem to have such great contempt.

Let me point out that the greatest achievers at school are children from Indian and Chinese backgrounds, not white people - and in many cases their parents don't even speak English, and most could not be described as middle class. Why? Because their parents are 'pushiest' of all. Sorry, pushy is good.

OK so I didn't proof read the post!!

Should always do so I know especially the title

roomforthree check out Kings and Georges in London both have programmes which set lower entrance requirements for those from certain types of schools

I wish my parents had been pushy.

When you come home from school and no one ever asks if you've got homework, let alone whether you need any help with it, I think it takes an exceptionally bright and driven adolescent to spend time studying rather than watching telly or hanging around with their mates.

I'm not convinced, had grammar schooling been available to me, that I would have achieved much more than I did.

And fwiw, my DM went to a 'posh' grammar (which her widowed DM wasn't keen on because of the cost of the uniform), but she left at 15 without waiting to take any exams.

She's really good at crosswords though.

Not sure what my point is - had a glass of wine and no dinner yet. Think I'm just getting maudlin.

I really should get the title changed can you do that?

Can't help but wonder whether such an action would help even out some social concerns people have

(FWIW I didn't come from a grammar system, don't live in an area with one and my oldest is 5 so I'm not exactly speaking from experience!)

Debs,

Doesn't the state subsidise everyone who is in maintained schools?

If grammer schools were to adjust for primary schooling, it is admitting that maintained primaries are inferior. That is something that Mumsnetters won't admit to.

SomeGuy You misunderstand my 'mindset'. I don't equate background with achievement. I'm a lawyer with a rough background who achieved 'the most' (in your terms) - a first class degree from Oxford. Your comment says alot about the sort of attitude you have to education and the working class.

Achievement and background are not mutually exclusive. But a meritocracy means that the best get to the top not the most privileged. Unfortunately, we do not have a level playing field these days and recent reports on stagnant social mobility amply demonstrate this. It has nothing to do with working class parents not wanting the best for their kids too.

What the contemporary world needs is independent thinkers and intelligent citizens. We need schools who produce these types of individuals and who are not just geared to 'teaching to the test'. Education is not just about producing corporate fodder.

BodenGroupie My experience of grammars? I see the kids around me. I have friends who are senior teachers and educational consultants and Ofsted inspectors. I also know of the products of them from my time at Oxford. Interestingly, none of those at my college who'd gone to either grammar/public school got a first . I just wonder if some can cope when not spoonfed?? it certainly seems something that has been remarked upon in the academic world of late

I'm pleased for your daughter. But staistics demonstrate that selective education does not reflect the local demographic and my experience here (and I have friends that teach at the local grammar) is that many children are tutored and go to private school crammers.

So, although we like to think that the best get to the top it is not always true. .

Scienceteacher the point I am making is that such schools are providing free education at the state's expense when they implement selective policies and are not open to all. When they take children from parents who would often have sent their kids to private school because that is the ethos they want for their child

Just a view.

But, debs, the majority of grammer school parents do not see independent schools as a viable choice, so there is no reason to consider them as being subsidised by the state any more than any other family.

interesting comment debs do you not think evenening out the exams (if you were able) might help improve social mobility? do you think some state schools fail some bright kids (with current set up, accepting that the existance of grammars fails some late developers etc)

You could also argue, debs, that your Oxbridge education was subsidised by the state, over and above enveryone else in your social strata.

Oxford vs Thames Valley U is no different from the grammer/sec modern ideology.

Why did you whore yourself to the system?

Grammar

Grammar, grammar, grammar.

Oh crap it looks wrong now that I've written it out three times!

look the e is next to the r OK? we can't help it

Totally agree with debs40's first post despite the emotive language that some people have taken umbrage with. It is disgusting that an area with many private prep schools has no secondary schools other than a grammar.

It says an awful lot about the greed of the fee-paying parents and the lack of social mobility and opportunity for local, bright disadvantaged children.

It doesn't surprise me though and it pisses me off that the parsimonious MC also pay £££ more to live within the catchment of a splendid state or church school thus saving many more £££ even at primary level.

agree with debs40

If you are unfortunate enough to be educated in an area where there are grammar schools and you fail the 12+ then believe me there is little opportunity for social mobility. If you don't get into a grammar school you are simply kept occupied from 9-3.30 in a place with low expectations.

What greed of private school parents, ninkynork?

I disagree with glucose. In my area there are grammars and also comprehensives and there are plenty of opportunities for social mobility for all kids. Those who do not get into grammar are not "simply occupied".
And in the Poole/ bournemouth area I think it is more difficult to get into grammars from private schools - I might be wrong. flatcapandpearls might know...

Ninkynork the main difference between a 'good' state school and a bad one is the pupils and parents going into it. The good schools are good because of the parsimonious middle classes. The prep school costing £10k/year will most likely have better facilities, stricter discipline and smaller class sizes than the 'good' state primary school, but the students are likely to be very similar - a catchment area with no houses under £500k is an effective a wealth filter as any fees would be.

We had plenty of bad teachers at my middle class comp - they could get away with it there, but they wouldn't survive in the inner city. The inner city schools are likely to get more attention and funds as well, because they are seen as 'deprived'. The state spends far more in poor areas than rich.

I'm quite confused by the suggestion that it's greedy to send your children to a grammar school. One minute the middle classes are selfish for sending their kids private, and the next we are told they selfish for going to the state grammar school.

Until the state provides adequate education for all, sensible people will do whatever they can within their means to ensure that their own children at least get educated properly. Changing the system to enforce discipline and a love of learning in all students is not going to happen, so it's foolish to fight it.

thinking - great in your area, but...

In my secondary school we were not given the same opportunities as those who were in the grammar schools. This was not just because we were not being well educated, but we were all from less educated, socially deprived backgrounds. Most peoples parents had little awareness of what social mobility was, let alone how to present their children with an opportunity to maximise their potential to become 'socially mobile'

scienceteacher I'd pay for my bright DD who has been terribly let down by our local state school to be privately educated. I'd pay for private secondary education too if I could afford it.

What I would NOT do, and what I think is morally wrong, would be to let her take a place at a grammar school which should be taking un-coached and naturally clever children.

I "got into" a grammar after no 11-plus training whatsoever, just the exam, that one time. I am not very erudite and my debating skills are non-existent but my school gave me some social and economic mobility. Why shouldn't I speak up for people like me?

Ninkynork - bet you wouldn't turn a place down if it was offered.

Kemble, what do you mean?

If your DD was offered a place at a grammar school, would you turn it down? If she goes to a private primary but you can't afford independent secondary, would you turn down a place at a grammar school on moral grounds? That seems to be what you're implying.

Eh? If she's bright why shouldn't she go to grammar school? If it's not right for your daughter to go there (given that you can't afford private education) and wrong for people who can afford private education to go there, then who should it be for?