only 1% of oxbridge students got free school meals

[itsawonderfuldarleneconnorlife]

DM link

Is there any solution to this other than bringing back grammars for every county?

Horton About 80,000 pupils are in receipt of FSM in year 6. This drops down rapidly by year 11 (embarrassment or the attractions of a Greggs sausage roll and coke perhaps?).

Of pupils eligible for FSM in year 11 about 11,000 go to university.

I think there's about 800,000 pupils in a school year - but I need to check that.

i had free school dinners all through school.wasn't a big deal,and no admissions tutor ever asked me to elaborate either

In 2006 about 16% of primary pupils were eligible for FSM and about 14% secondary.

BeenBeta I think it was to ensure a 'proper' gender balance

your recall of stats is v good!i went to uni with students who had never met anyone from a scheme.let alone ata a free school dinner

So most of you generally agree that grammar school is the way forward, but that its selection process into the grammars that is wrong favouring the middle class (MC).

I do not agree that the term MC is right here though, but of course I do think that without the parental help child has no chance to get in, but still out of those who do receive parental help still the natural ability selection process takes place. You will not manage to tutor a stupid child into a grammar, albeit he or she does not need to be the brightest cookie to get in.

From my experience I also agree with you that the drama of the system is that kids without family backing will not get in (also many MCs who believe that their child is top at primary - what really means nothing for the grammar process). There is also a problem, albeit probably smaller now, of pure lack of information. I have met parents who had no idea about grammar schools as the schools were outside of our Local Authority! Frankly on the secondary transfer booklet (wonderful 50page colourful booklet showing how amazing each comp is with happy faces and outstanding ofsed results) there was no mention of grammars in Sutton. This is state to state! Could it be that LA are competing for cash?

But there is, I think, a very simple solution to this problem, much simpler than the one I described earlier (raising entry age).

JUST CHANGE THE ENTRY EXAM TO MAKE THE ENTRY EXAM VERY EASY IN TERMS OF CONTENT, BUT DEMANDING IN TERMS OF TIME, ACCURACY, AND THINKING. THIS WILL TEST POTENTIAL.

I know it might sound insane, but:

a) test for comprehension using the simple newspaper article but long one, from the Metro or Daily Mail... and ask simple questions, but ask a lot of them! No tutoring will help a stupid child to read faster and spot obvious questions.

b) test for mathematics would be like this:

3 x 12
4 x 33
11 x 13
235 / 5
...

but so many questions, that it would be impossible to do all of them. How will you tutor your kid to answer 18 x 24 in 2 seconds . Use paper and you are doomed. Its that simple.

Add to this negative marks for wrong answers, and you could then at least see how quickly a child thinks, with that being a good proxy for their POTENTIAL.

The current questions are simply too difficult to do for someone who is not prepared, and probably very intimidating for someone who is seeing them for the first time.

---------

Three digressions though:

a) Eton has a computerized test that i heard is simple, but adapts to the level of the child, and my DS tells me that it was very unusual test, nothing like he has seen before in our prep for grammar, and frankly he says that he could not have prepared for it (and frankly when he told me this after the test I was very very happy, as i knew he must have done RELATIVELY well - and he did). State system could take what is best of public schools and learn.

b) the idea of changing the format of the questions is so obvious, that sometimes I wonder, if the headmasters of grammars deliberately do not aim to have a tutored children, for a tutored child means

• their own child gets in (yes, lets be real headmasters have stupid kids too)
• supervision at home and help with coursework
• further tutoring before gcses and a-levels

and overall it might actually all mean that a grammar school with semi intelligent but supported children, will actually perform better than that full of super smart kids who have no family backing (and in many cases even family issues of drug and alco abuse).

c) my DS who plays two musical instruments at high level (7), which he likes and enjoys, and reads a lot, simply has no time in the day to prepare for the grammars as much as other kids do. I find this to be a major problem for I would have to stop him playing the instruments so that he can prepare, and as i do not do this he simply has less time to prepare. Of course I do not advocate bonus points for extra curricular activities (this would make the system totally MC), but making the exam impossible to prepare for would actually help him to do more extra curricular activities which partially at least suffer right now (luckly DS has already passed the exam to grammar, so we are now only waiting for the allocation of place in March, what i hear is not given, as due to the credit crunch grammar schools this year are besieged by the independent schools wannabes and even PREP SCHOOL KIDS).

Anyway, just some thoughts for you.

The actual Sutton Trust Report as discussed by the DM in the OP.

Worth a scan through. The table on pages 17 and 18 list Universities by their FSM intake. From Oxford (.8%) to London South Bank with nearly 25% students who had been eligible for FSM.

jackstarlightsb,you have a plethora of useful stats
Kris, no i dont agree with state grammar schools

What type of state education do you support, scottishmummy, and what are your arguments of it bringing out the best in the most able?

In 2006 about 16% of primary pupils were eligible for FSM and about 14% secondary.

Thank you very much! I was curious to know how much the proportion of free school meals children entering university might be.

No tutoring will help a stupid child to read faster and spot obvious questions.

I think you are wrong here, actually. Most children can improve things like this just by practicing. If it was common knowledge that the test would include something like comprehension from a newspaper article, you can bet your bottom dollar that children from homes where they are expected to get into grammar schools would have done loads of it and children from homes where nobody ever reads a paper would have done none. Even being in a house where papers are routinely bought and read would improve performance - if you have no money to buy papers or no inclination to do so, then your children would be at a huge disadvantage.

In our area, grammar school tests stick closely to verbal and non-verbal reasoning which is an attempt (I think) to test IQ/aptitude and general literacy. I can't really see how else you could do it unless you were prepared to spend a lot of money on testing children which I think most grammars would be disinclined to do.

I went to a school which routinely comes in the top five of all schools in the country. They had a very different approach. In addition to exams, they had the children in for a couple of days and just gave them a normal school day, teaching lessons on stuff that no child would have been likely to cover, even at a highly pressured prep school (I think our RE lesson was on native American religions). In this way, they could spot children who were keen to take part in lessons, ask sensible questions, produce interesting work etc. But that must cost a bomb. I think it's fairer, though, than trying to do it via an exam. You can definitely teach exam technique but you can't teach interest or engagement in the intellectual process of learning.

Copying what private schools do might not be a bad idea although even VR and NVR can be practiced for.

I know we did a few practice papers with DS1 and he improved dramatically between first and last attempt.

kris, the points you make re adjusting the entrance exams are v interesting; I've just been travelling home thinking about this thread and what the best way to get away from this whole tutoring situation we have now.

Agree with what you say re being informed. With hindsight I admit I was a total idiot about the 11plus, and I have the benefit of an Oxbridge education!

I know that several primary schools in our borough (mostly in areas where there are higher numbers of people in receipt of benefit/free school meals) year after year no children pass the 11 plus. Can it really be that none of those children are able to pass, or is it that they haven't been tutored?

Apparently (i.e I read it on here) in Germany they 'select' but without an exam. Pupils and parents get to chose which type of school - academic or technical. Teachers provide guidance - although this can be ignored. But if a child struggles they have to move schools.

I'm guessing this type of thing only works when all schools are reasonably good and of equal status.

Indeed its very useful info.

Quick note though. London unis have a higher ratio of intake, as clearly number of FSM students would prefer to save money by staying at home, with London having the highest catchment area.

To have a proper results you should:

1. compare ratio of total LAs FSM to FSMs at university in that county

2. pool London FSMs and Uni spaces together

You see this table is highly misleading, suggesting that Oxbridge does not like FSMs, where as by looking at the Imperial, LSE and UCL numbers, which are also great institutions, it is clear that Oxbridge is underrepresented as almost all Oxbridge students come form outside of Oxford or Cambridge, and I would imagine that FSMs usually stay at home.

Jackstarlight... if you are the person with easy access to stats... perhaps you can find the comparison of FSMs performance from SUTTON COUNCIL (which has grammar schools) to that of Edinburgh (which does not).

Also it would be great to see %of Sutton LA FSMs at primaries / comps / grammar and respectfully % of Edinburgh LA FSM's at primaries and comps. This is to ensure that the FSMs don't underperform already at the primary to secondary move - which is actually what I expect to see.

Armed with this data I could engage into the discussion with ScottishMummy on superiority of the systems with grammar schools, over the systems without them. Franly, at the moment all my arguments are based on logic, but it should be not difficult to find empirical evidence (if it exists).

Perhaps someone has access to it?

Edinburgh is not a good comparator- 25% of its pupils go to private schools.

yes 25% secondary pupils in edinburgh private schooled highest uk apart form london

Yet another reason we'll never live in Edinburgh again.

Ok, then skip the verbal test altogether.

Instead just give them a super easy reading test, and just allow the ones with say 90% to progress, and the rest will be out regardless of their maths exam. The ones who would pass would be judged solely on the basis of maths.

This is just to make sure that the kids speak English, as otherwise you will get a lot of kids who know maths but do not speak the language, what will of course not make them suitable for the grammar place.

The method described by Horton sounds great too, but would cost a lot and frankly still not sure if a day would be enough to make the FSM kids feel at par with the merc driven prep school kids. This is a gap of confidence, preparation. How where you then assessed? Teacher hand picked you?

Perhaps, just perhaps, more children who are not in grammar or private schools would get to Oxbridge (or Russell Group) if teachers encouraged them? I lost count of the number of times I heard from other state school Oxbridge undergraduates that their teachers had actively discouraged them. Children can't get in if they don't apply....and when peer pressure is likely to put them off teachers saying the same will not help change that.
In contrast, my state school teachers helped me, coached me and encouraged me all the way - and we had no tradition of Oxbridge at all. If they could, other teachers can too. It makes me very sad to see a lack of aspiration.

Kris - I think the Hefce look at participation by area - but comparing a grammar with a non grammar area could be tricky (too many other variables).

It would be useful to know how many of the 65 FSM students at Oxford went to Grammar school.

mumtolawyer... your are an idealist.

However, what you could do... is to link the teachers salaries to specific variables... including

1000 pounds bonus for the oxbridge entry, or 200 pounds for the russel group one, etc.

At the moment the measurement criteria of school success are basically for percentage of non idiots in the school, and frankly nobody records or cares if your child got into oxford. In fact i can only imagine, what extra pressures it would pose from other parents, who would say ... "why did x get in and my son did not"... and following years... "if x could make it so can my son - are you failing him?"... etc.

Nevermind the extra references, forms etc.

When you have 35 kids under you, two of which are likely to become criminalists, you expect the teacher, and fellow students, to actually care.

You need to nourish talent, give it an environment to excell.

I would love to hear a single argument, but concise, with facts and ideally even evidence, why a full comp system is better.

Did anyone thing of the reason for number of private kids in Edinburgh? Lack of grammars. I have always said that should my son not get into grammar school, I would pay for independent school, or move abroad - just to save him. Anyone who lives in central London would know what i mean. Drugs, alco, abuse, even guns, murders, gangs, rapes.

This is not a quiet suburb, where you can even conrol these things. Some of my friends were practicing to be teachers in London, and they said that no way on earh, not in London. Many kids don't even speak English in local comps. Nigerian is the most frequently spoken first languge at some.

-------

I am not saying that these schools are doomed, as surely many great kids "make it" from such schools, and possibly once they make it they shine in real life, being well prepared, but if you want to help smart kids, you will give them an envirnment to flourish in. I really fail to see why this is not fair, ESPECIALLY IF YOU LEVEL OUT THE ACCESS TO THESE SCHOOLS.

kristolawyer, I would say that everyone on this thread is an idealist, and I wouldn't call that an insult.

The tripartite/Beveridge system, whatever you want to call it, had massive advantages but like every other system there were massive structural unfairnesses built into it, which you know all about - most of the funding went to grammar schools, the numbers of grammar school places available in different areas were so different, they educated less than 30% of children. Employers provided more training so leaving school without any qualifications was less of an issue, and the proportion of job types was so different - I've posted on here before about what to me was an interesting statistic that in 1970, 70% of the UK described themselves as working class. I don't know what the equivalent statistic would be now, but my guess is it would be much, much lower, due to the changes in work types and work patterns over the past 40 years.

I just can't see that recreating that system is going to work as things are now.

kris,your term are most disparaging "criminalists" you are talking about someone else children as if they are a sub-species. you seem to have a very predetermined view of other children potential and life path

Horton The system you describe, where potential students are monitored in class on taster days, would never work. Our local Grammars are hugely over-subscribed and use computer-marked multiple-guess entrance exams. The outcomes are very cut'n'dried and objective i.e. lawyer proof! Your system could not cope with the numbers of children involved and the outcomes would be too subjective.

Scottishmummy, out of all the things i write on this forum, you manage - as you would of course - to pick on one that is unimportant, but that makes you sound best (especially if you raise it to the term "sub-species"). Ayn Rand would be proud of you.

I am sorry if the phrase criminals sounded so bad. I will change it to students with criminal records for assoult, shoplifting, drugs, theft and other small issues with the law.

I am however surprised that you did not pick on my "Nigerian" language comment, or Yoruba actually, but I think that you were just too afraid to raise it, in fear of saying something politically incorrect yourself. Nonetheless, please note that I am just stating the facts from the experience of my friend, a trained but resigned chemistry teacher, who was in shock after his experience at the true London comp (not a VE religious school - the presence of which is another topic altogether in light of your views on grammars). My Friend did say, specifically that this school did indeed have a statistic on the MOTHER TONGUE language, and that the predominant language at school was Yaruba. I remember this as he asked me if I knew where this language was from... as it is not common to people to automatically connect Yaruba with Nigeria.

However if you think that people on free meals have it difficult with oxford places, you can only imagine how difficult it must be, without the presence of grammar schools, for a beautiful Nigerian girl, smart, to actually have a career and enter Oxford directly from comp school. Fairly selective grammar school would be a life saving for this girl, and with time to her community. To fail to recognise this, and to criticize without providing an alternative is just not right.

Instead scotishmum, I would really appreciate one serious comment on why you think that fully comp system is the right one? Perhaps I am missing something. Actually others are welcome too, as I know that you are not isolated in your view (hence 160 schools today vs what 600? in the past).

Maktaitati, I fully agree with what you said about structural changes, and indeed we can extrapolate this concept to the university problems of today (some of you know my view, that i am surprised why government has not proposed that 20% of universities should be totally free, which would be fairish, and would be so politically convenient for the LibDems). Indeed they could even potentially chose worst 20% of universities, and hope that just like with grammar schools, with time they would attract the best students who would opt for quality over 30k of debt.

Maktaitati, it would be good to see your observations of the system 40y ago, and system today, and while I am confident that the grammar system back then, and today, is not perfect, I just fail to see the system that is better.

I could be missing something though, and I am very open and happy to hear different views (as long as they do not attack me for using the term like criminals).