For anyone who still thinks that access to selective state education is a level playing field.....

[curlew]

I have just read the latest OfSTED for my dd's grammar school.

There are no children in Year 7 who are eligible for FSM. None. Not one.

There are none that attract pupil premium, either, shmaltzingmatilda.

Not that old chestnut 'if you're anti selective system, don't use grammars' Soup. Secondary moderns are as much a part of that system as grammar schools are.

soupdragon- I occasionally shop in Primark, I don't always recycle and I quite often drive a 7 seater car with only me in it. Even though I don't think child labour is a good idea and I vote green in local elections.

Wanna make something of it? Do you? Do you?

'cream' = rich and thick :D

It's not just academic selection that has that effect. Other types of selection do too.

My local community primary has an FSM % that is 5 times higher than the RC primary in the same street. It's not a quality issue, as both schools are Outstanding.

The RC primary has quite a complex admissions policy, prioritising children who are baptised under 6 months, and needing a statement from a priest to say how often the family go to church. It takes planning, organisation and social skills to negotiate that, which potentially filters out families with complex circumstances.

Yep. Any sort of selection does this. I have heard it described as the "juggling effect" 2 identical schools- one demands that parents be able to juggle, one takes all comers. The "juggling" school will become populated by affluent middle class educated involved parents, and by definition, will get better results. And , also by definition, will have fewer "pupil premium" children. But it won't matter, because the PTA at the juggling school will be able to make enough money to pay for any extras!

Why does it matter?

Clearly, nearly all the children on FSM are not academically within the top 25% cohort (or the smaller cohort selected by superselectives) by the time they finish primary school. Clearly that's largely due to factors like poverty, lack of family support and so on. If a child is suffering those disadvantages, then they'll continue to suffer them regardless of what secondary school they go to.

So do something about the disadvantages, rather than trying to treat the symptom. What difference does it make to a kid on FSM that a few other kids go off to grammar school?

I don't really see why it matters either tbh.

I know there's something about the fact that my child's school has a very low number of children on FSMs that is supposed to bother me, but I can't quite work out what it is.

As long as all children are being educated well somewhere, what difference does it make?

Seriously? Seriously??

Well, clearly you're not bothered because your child is at that school. Presumably you prefer that school to the comp, it seems in some way better to you? Maybe the parents of children who get FSM would also like to access your school? And go to university? And get good jobs? And the obvious institutionalised discrimination doesn't bother you?

I'm talking about a comp. It's a huge school, plenty of people have access to it.

When I read threads like this,I'm thankful that the outdated grammar school system no longer exists where I live.

And yes it does matter, it matters very much.

Why?

The whole grammar school system is outdated.

All schools should be comprehensive.

That doesn't really answer the question.

The fact that there are no children on fsm at the ops grammar school answers the question.

"The whole grammar school system is outdated.

All schools should be comprehensive.The whole grammar school system is outdated.

All schools should be comprehensive."

So we all get crap education? sorry. I like the idea of selective grammar schools because I am convinced that in order to get to a good comprehensive you need to buy a house in a expensive area, and it is cheaper to coach your child than go into such ridiculous expense. I am angry at the thought that my son, who is gifted in maths, cannot go to a school that can stretch him and challenge him to be better just because I cannot afford to live in the catchment of the school that could provide that.

Having said that, I sympathise with the parents of those children who qualify for FSM. When you are struggling so much financially, it is difficult to find the energy and resources to coach your child ( I nnow it first hand, I have been there), much less so if you have not had a good education yourself.

I don't live in an expensive area.

Comprehensive education works well here.

The fact that there are no children on fsm at the ops grammar school answers the question.

No. It really doesn't.

If comprehensive education works well in your area, what difference does it make if a grammar school works well in another area?

We all get something that works well then don't we? Everyone's a winner!

WooWoo- do you think it's OK for there to be towns where there is one school for the kids on FSM and another school for the kids that aren't? Where there is a state funded, non fee paying school that is, in effect, only accessible to privileged children?

No, but I don't think it happens quite like that in reality.

I can see and understand the problems in fully selective areas where as many as 25% of children are effectively segregated, but I can't see why it should matter if there are a few schools, either grammar, comprehensive or religious, that just happen to have a low number of children who get free school meals.

As long as all children have access to a good quality education, then state education is doing it's job.

"No, but I don't think it happens quite like that in reality."

Come and look at the reality round here...........!

Are you in a fully selective area curlew?

Yes

Getting rid of grammar schools will not level the playing field whilst private schools exist.