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.

Oh and my Dp's comp was in Surrey,the segregation from those fighting to get into the posh comp was worse than the fall out from any grammar which just a few went to.

He went to the shite comp on the council estate,he is bitter to this day that his parents didn't go for the only option available to them in order to get him into a decent school- the 11+. In Surrey house prices are mental.

His comp was so bad he ended up doing his Alevels at night school in a year from where he got into a red brick uni.All the bright kids went to the posh comp near the posh houses,those left to go to the other comp on the council estate weren't encouraged to do anything and were bullied if they did.

Dp won't be making the same mistake with his kids.

Can I point out, rather late in the day, that just because you are not on FSM does not automatically mean you are "posh" or "privileged" or even "leafy".

In dd's school year of 100 (year 6) there is no one on FSM. Does that mean that there are 200 parents leaping about the playground in Boden and vying to park their Porsche Cayennes? Of course not. This area is solidly lower middle/working class. Working class. To qualify for FSM or the pupil premium you need to be on benefits. Or possibly have one part-time parent.

In short, I think a more meaningful study would include or involve a separate examination of how many ordinary income families access grammar schools as opposed to those of extraordinary income households. I wouldn't be surprised if that group went a lot higher up the income scale than £16,500 or whatever figure it is.

"Can I point out, rather late in the day, that just because you are not on FSM does not automatically mean you are "posh" or "privileged" or even "leafy"."

I don't think anyone thinks that. The point is that this is a grammar school with a catchment. And the non grammar schools in the catchment have "normal" levels of FSM. So either very poor children are intrinsically less bright than reasonably off ones, or there is something wrong with the selection process.

By the way, lanie, it is incredibly unusual for a state primary school to have absolutely no kids on FSM- are you absolutely sure?

Given how hard it is to get fsm many schools have just a few so it stands to reason you won't have many in grammar schools.

I totally agree with you Laine and think the continual Tory rhetoric re fsm is because they know it's buggar all numbers in reality so it makes them look good but costs little.

If they focused on those just above fsm and all the way up to htr I might be a tad more impressed.

Not fooled.

I said in year 6 - no doubt there may be some in other years.

Yes, Retropear, I think the FSM thing is a red herring. I don't think the FSM children (or their past equivalent) were ever really grammar school contenders, or at least were in very small numbers. BUT - those from lower income families used to get the grammar school leg-up.

I would like to see a basic rate taxpayer (household income) breakdown of grammar school places.

Considering how poor you have to be to get fsm,how chaotic life can be in such families and less likely children will be literate or numerate by the end of primary(for what ever reason) it stands to reason very few fsm kids will make it to grammar.

In my experience many families in receipt of fsm have rather more on their minds than providing Little Johny with a steam of books that would enable him to be literate enough to cope with VR etc let alone be tutored in it.

Primary schools have a big part to play.

The only reason my very poor dad went to grammar was because there were better standards in schools during the 40s.He was very bright but his primary school had made sure he had a high level of literacy and numeracy too so even if tutoring had been around then he would be well equipped for it and on a level playing field with richer kids.

Half my children's primary school are on fsm. I don't know who they are, obviously, but if I were guessing I'd also say they make up about half the 'top set' in my children's various classes. In which case, in a fair system, they would expect to get into selective schools.

As I say, I don't know who they are but I do know that half the school do not come from chaotic/illiterate/innumerate families as is suggested above. FSM is 20% of the population at large. I don't get this business of how utterly dysfunctional these families must be and so they wouldn't have a hope of teaching their children to hold a pen. With percentages like that they must include loads of many bright children. Therefore, if there's not a single one in the year at Curlew's kid's grammar, then something has gone wrong.

Disclaimer: this is London where I think poverty and aspiration are not mutually exclusive. And where, on the whole, schools are pretty good.

I do think the problem with grammar school entry is that everyone should go into the exams on a level playing field ....

The Primary schools should perhaps run the exams instead of SATS...there should be a couple of introduction tests to just give the children an idea of how the questions work....

My DD did a Independent School entrance exam which involved two lots of tests ... a morning in class on a Saturday where she needed to read and answer questions and a small interview about her interests. The actual tests VR and NVR were not timed apart from the children had so much time to answer each question (computer based) and then it moved on to the next question or kicked them out of the test if they got too many wrong or didnt answer enough questions....so there was some pressure...but the test did enable the children to be stretched as far as they could because if they got the questions right ..... they continued with more questions ...so the school could see there true potential...

I'm probably one of a few parents on this thread whose daughter is attending an average comprehensive school - FSM - the school falls into one of the 20% worse category in the county...ethnic 10% worst in the country....

There is probably 28 children in her current yr who would have passed the 11 plus (left year 6 with high level 5's and currently working at level 6 or 7 in some subjects) judging by what my DD has said 4 of those are probably on FSM's.

If we turn the clock back to when I was at school - There was no tutoring every child had the same opportunity to get into the local Grammar school no matter what there background was ....the other children went to the Comp... I went to the Comp and it streamed and occasionally set... as far as I can remember everyone reached their full potential ....

I'm probably of the feeling now that perhaps the grammar schools should close and that each school should have an intake representative of the full range of ability and the community.

One of the most successful state schools in the country does this - Thomas Telford - whose location is by no means leafy with a very large catchment area ...but it caters for a diverse curriculum which means that most children will be able to study something that they really enjoy doing and therefore will perform to their best ability.

Yes London is a whole world away from most other inner cities.

I thought take up was more 14% but anyhow considering the total percentage of kids who go to grammar is very low even though my maths is crap it is obvious with such a small percentage numbers of fsm within that percentage numbers are going to be low.

Nobody is saying parents of kids on fsm aren't capable of teaching their kids to hold a pencil but living in poverty brings a lot of problems which do have an effect in school.If this isn't going to be recognised it kind of makes the whole pupil premium thing a waste of time.

Actually you're right 20% is too high - it's 19% in primary schools.
Of course poverty brings great challenges and I completely support the pupil premium.
It's just that I can't correspond this image of chaotic families with the children I see arriving at school each day.
There is no reason that they should not be represented at grammar schools. Maybe it wouldn't correlate exactly, but there should be at least one in the OP's example surely?

But Thomas Telford isn't "representative of the full range of the ability and the community" at all - how can it be with an intake of only 1% lower ability pupils? It's a 'quasi-grammar' school, much the same as Harris City Academy in Crystal Palace mentioned yesterday - which also has an intake of 1% lower ability children and 70% higher ability children. These schools 'select', first by application form and then by aptitude or test - the children are banded into 9 ability groups (which allows for many high ability children) and literally thousands of children apply increasing the pool of children they can randomly 'select'.

Thomas Telford has 12% of its intake on FSM's...so given that the average is 16% its not that far off representative of a full community how can it just have one percent low ability when it sets 9 classes within each year intake ...

Both my nieces were actually rejected by TT but both offered a place at Wolverhampton Girls High (top 20 school in GCSE's in the country) - so it turns away high achievers (niece gained 9 A* and 1 A in recent GCSE's)...

I don't know about Thomas Telford but Harris City was also in the local news for permanently excluding a much greater percentage of 'undesirable' children than the national average and therefore moving these children on to other schools. Also, we still haven't really addressed the fact that the Sutton Trust found the top 500 comprehensive schools don't reflect their local authority area and have on average half the number of children on fsm than their borough. Further, two supporters of comprehensive schools on this thread have given me enough clues to guess the schools their dc go to (I have friends/relations at both) and these schools have less than 4% of children on fsm, so not typical comprehensives at all. I really don't think the existance of grammar schools are the source of the problem.

If you look at how Thomas Telford has been set up ...look at how it is funded and how it works with industry...look at its facilities which are first class...look at what it offers for its pupils in terms of GNVQ courses its going to be a massive success (for all) and should be a blueprint for future education - its HT states they operate in similar conditions to a University they work with the children in an adult way ...

There is more development of these type of schools ...because they offer education that industry is looking for ....interestingly enough I dont think anyone has been able to work out their selection criteria ....I know in one year 87 children applied for the top band and only 7 were accepted ...

So the key is for the old grammar schools to be knocked down and sold for housing which in turn will raise the money for new schools to be built on derelict sites with superb facilities which incentivise children to attend and perform to their best ability....

The government performance tables (sorry I'm rubbish at linking to websites) shows Thomas Telford as having an intake of 1% lower attainers in the cohort as only 1% lower attainers applied; the school takes a proportion of children reflecting the ability of the children who apply - there were obviously many more bands in the middle and high ability ranges than in the lower ability ranges as that reflected the quality of the children who applied; in fact 63% were higher attainers on entry and 36% middle attainers. Your nieces didn't get in because they were in a lottery with so many other high attainers.

Or perhaps a more 'underhand' selection takes place? How are these 9 ability bands decided - do they discriminate against the lower ability children? I'm not saying it's not a good school, it's just not a 'comprehensive' school.

I suppose they can only take lower ability pupils if they apply...there success is obviously offering education that suits pupils strengths...rather than just the normal academic subjects and also education that will lead to them finding work ...

We chose to send our daughter to the average local comp because they offered allot more than just academic subjects - they have a building and plumbing section of the school...they send children to the local agricultural college ...they build and race racing cars and specialize in drama and art ...it was a real risk because our daughter is academic but they also offer three sciences....

As parents we just want our child to eventually find a career that she really loves doing and will therefore hopefully succeed at and look forward to going to work every day... I worked in banking (30 years) until I took redundancy because it paid me an excellent salary and gave me a certain lifestyle I didn't really enjoy it ...

"Given how hard it is to get fsm many schools have just a few so it stands to reason you won't have many in grammar schools."

"I thought take up was more 14% but anyhow considering the total percentage of kids who go to grammar is very low even though my maths is crap it is obvious with such a small percentage numbers of fsm within that percentage numbers are going to be low."

Your maths is indeed awesomely crap, Retropear. You are confusing percentages with absolute numbers.

If the whole LEA has 3000 pupils on FSM, and 100 000 pupils total, that's 3%.

If a particular school has 30 pupils on FSM, and 1000 pupils, that's still 3%.

Per cent: does what it says on the tin.

The absolute numbers who get FSM (or wear glasses or support Man U) at each individual school will be less than the total, but if no other factors are operating, the percentages should be reasonably equal (with some variance for pure chance, which will even out over the years anyway).

Which is why the OP is stating that a huge difference in percentage of FSM between schools is suggstive of other factors at work.

Yes Parsing ie the pupil premium not being spent properly in order to ensure all fsm children are at a level which would enable them to sit the 11+ regardless of tutoring.Also the fact schools aren't doing enough re access to 11+ familiarisation.

Still not hearing much re the leafy comps far more fsm kids are excluded from and which Sutton seemed to be more concerned about.

I agree with laine in that considering the dire straits a family needs to be to qualify for FSM, in the first place, it's a minor miracle these children manage to even attend primary school on a regular basis...let alone get themselves properly prepared for grammar school entrance.

You mean that they can;t afford to have a tutor like your child LaQueen....

My brother was offered a Grammar School place ...we were at that time on FSM's my father had a slipped disc and could not work and my mother had never worked ...we were asset rich in terms of we lived and owned a farm but were cash poor ....life was a real struggle 3 children to feed...we had no bathroom (tin bath) or central heating - old drafty farmhouse ... It was very grim....

My sister went onto to become a Manager in a bank...

My brother is a Head of Finance of a large merged Local Authority

I was a Senior Auditor at a bank until I took redundancy recently ...

We all managed to go to school...I sat my A levels at night school because I needed to get a job and earn some money ...my brother did his A levels at school and then went onto a sandwich course whilst he qualified as an Accountant ..and my sister worked her way up through the bank from 16....

Its a real shame to hear some of your views on the less fortunate families .... you dont know their circumstances....yet you make sweeping statements that you are surprised they get their children to attend primary school.....

I know some single parents on FSM who are studying for degrees to get back into work their children are VERY bright .... and dont need a tutor to pass the 11 plus ....

I am still waiting. Is anybody able to give an example of a secondary school in an econonically advantaged area, that selects solely on proximity to the school, that has a FSM rate as low as that of Curlew's school?

Ok then Lotty let's get rid of the pupil premium,there is clearly no need.

Let's ignore the fact that disadvantaged kids on average under perform.

Will save the tax payer £££££££.

So, not a level playing field.

Which is what the OP is saying.