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.

Lotty most kids don't need a tutor to pass the 11+ (it aint rocket science if you're bright) however given the fact most will never have entered an exam hall they will need exam technique.

Some kids(most likely those in the crappier primaries) who haven't been given access to year 6 curriculum will also need to cover that.

Pretending the above isn't so doesn't help anybody.

The op has a problem with grammars full stop.Sutton have suggested measures to level it out.

It isn't a level playing field for any child and it's even less of a level playing field re the better comps as Sutton says but nobody seems to worry about that.

The fact remains if kids aren't at a certain standard by year 5 all the tutoring in the world won't get them in.Which gets us back to the pupil premium and questioning how it is spent which is down to primary schools not wealthy parents paying for tutoring.

By the way, all NT children are "at a level to sit the 11-plus". It's purely a ranking system, not a measure of material learnt.

Back before the earth cooled, it was recognised that preparing for the test increased everybody's scores a few points, leaving the rankings largely intact.

It was a naice middle class parent's wet dream when the edict went out from I think Kenneth Baker that it was morally indefensible for primary schools to prepare for the 11-plus.

It handed competitive advantage on a plate to parents who were in a position to tutor, over those who weren't.

Paying to be bumped up a queue only works if everyone else isn't also paying to be bumped up.

[Disclaimer: I don't whether current primary practice is to prepare for 11-plus or not, or if it varies per school.]

[I'm also not familiar with current 11-plus content - and they've just changed it again - so don't know for current test how much it's a knowledge contest vs IQ test.]

It's diff in each area.

Ours is essay(punctuation,spelling and grammar) with a plan and reading comp in an hour!!!

2x VR

Maths based on level 5 but with level 6 scope.

Clearly those in schools hot on literacy and which push the maths curriculum will have an advantage.

They sit it in Sep of Y6 so unless the school is pushy many might not cover some of the content.

Personally I think choice of primary school gives you more of an advantage. A lot of these tutors are no more qualified than you or I.

Imvho the VR is the easy bit.

"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.

I would think they're very few DC who could attain grammar school in these circumstances. They would have needed huge intervention, at pre-school age, in order to stand a chance."

Which dire straights are these? Oh, you mean they come from a family eligible for benefits? A poor family? I expect there are many, many families eligible for FSM who are perfectly bright, and able to get their children to school!

I really hope you mean that as a wind up, otherwise it is staggering rude!

Probably best if poor children don't try for grammar school, to be honest. They have so much on their plates already it would be positively cruel to burden them with anything else. So much kinder if they just go to the nearest comprehensive and do hair and beauty or sports science.........

That is silly Curlew.If you had worked with children as I have living in poverty in very challenging areas you would see how many are already far behind at 2 and how the odds are stacked against them.

Hence the need for the pupil premium(which clearly isn't being used correctly in many schools) and the measures Sutton suggested.There is also an aspiration issue ie educating the small percentage of parents this applies to that grammar is a possibility.I suspect many struggling with some of the worst issues life can chuck at you don't even think grammar is for them.

Again not the fault of the sharp elbowed mc or even those above or just above fsm.

You keep going on about things not being mc/wealthy parents' "fault," Retropear.

These parents are responding perfectly naturally to the system they are presented with, where there is an arms race to get into a particular school. You can hardly blame them for doing so, any more than you'd blame someone for offloading shares when they think the price will fall.

The question isn't whether the mc parents are at fault, but whether we think an arms race system is necessary to achieve the final aim, which (I hope we agree) is high quality schooling to enable every citizen to fulfil their potential.

You've given a cogent example of the cost of this arms race, suggesting primary schools divert the pupil premium to tutoring Y6 pupils for an exam which exists only to administer the system, instead of using it on, say, involving parents through adult training courses (one highly successful project),

Some people feel an arms race is an inefficient use of resources and the results don't actually serve the children very well.

Other people love the arms race, because they believe it is skewed in their favour and will help them garner resources to their child over other children.

You can't blame them for wanting to seek advantage for their child. But it doesn't mean the state should enable this - and pay for it.

Retro - Most pupils dont need a tutor to pass the 11 plus- but judging by the comments on Mumsnet - those that can afford one do ....but make statements "we are only doing it to make sure that X gets a place ...."

Is Pupil Premium used to benefit the children that it is allocated for - NO.... perhaps Pupil Premium should be used to give the children it is allocated for either one to one tuition in area's they may struggle in education or to help the bright children who qualify for Pupil Premium to prepare for the 11 plus...instead I think it is used to benefit every child in that school...I remember correspondence coming out from my daughter's school all the time stating that even if you dont need FSM please register if you qualify ....

There is the opportunity for all schools to offer children the level of education they need albeit academic or vocational if we can just look at the success of schools like Thomas Telford ....

I dont believe that grammar schools now serve the purpose that they were intended for and rather than these LA's look to find ways of changing tests so that children cannot be tutored or hot housed ...they should re-think the whole policy and change to all ability intake schools...lets not have children travelling miles to go to a school ....lets just have good schools that serve all educational needs in every area ...children dont have to be disruptive in school if they are channeled into an educational area where they can shine and achieve ..and feel that they have some worth ...

As PP have pointed out, no one has said, "I think the 11-plus system is great because it will give my child the chance to go to a secondary modern."

They've said (I paraphrase slightly): "I will have considered myself to have failed as a parent if I can't use my money and skills to make sure my child goes to a grammar," and "If all that fails, I will pay to send them private."

Really? We really want, as a country, to designate schools to be ones no one wants to go to? Why would I, as a childless taxpayer, pay for this?

Not sure I said how the pp should be spent parsing actually.Hadn't thought of tutoring but it's not a bad idea.

If a child is grammar level by year 5 maybe it should be spent on tutoring if his/her parents wanted it.The fact remains it should be spent on that child and if it's in that child's educational interest to go to grammar what else should you spend it on?

I think the tutoring defeats the object and makes it about money again

I want a choice and schools to suit my very different children.

We have a good system here.

The very able at sport,drama,music go to the all singing all dancing comp with a very good Ofsted which out of catchment parents fight or move to get into.I knew in an instant it wasn't for us so have picked the lesser very sciency comp for one and the grammar for the other if all goes to plan.If it doesn't they'll both go to sciency comp and we'll have to keep an eye on swot boy. Won't be the end of the world,some switch for A levels anyway.Seem to have lots of secondaries joining up down here.

Basically we have a choice and I'd hate to be without it.

Not sure why my grammar choice deserves berating but those moving to get into flashy comp don't.

But Noddy if it was to cover level 6 maths and get grammar,punctuation etc up to speed it would be beneficial anyway,would certainly have an impact on their Sats results and hence their setting in year 7.

Doesn't

It should be spent on what that particular child's needs are in any aspect of their education ..... perhaps X would benefit from a specialist course ...my daughter was fortunate to go to the Children's University in the summer where she spent 5 day's having fun with ICT - learning to build a website from scratch...learning all about graphic design and game building...

Any child would have loved to have done this - but it was only made available to the G & T kids - what a shame !

It is a sign if how out of touch some mumsnetters are they they consider it a minor miracle if a child on FSM gets to school never minds actually achieves anything .

With you on that Lotty.

I have 2 that go on those sodding courses and one doesn't.

All kids would benefit from enrichment.

As an aside what was that course?My DS does the IT ones but is desperate for more,he codes at home with dp who is a coder.

Interestingly the fsm kids get those courses free here,we struggle at times to find the cash for some of them.

I feel sorry for those above fsm but on less.

I think it's a crap system.

And the money we pay funds the free courses,it was on the website.

"I suspect many struggling with some of the worst issues life can chuck at you don't even think grammar is for them."

You make my case for me. A system which relies on a bright child having switched on, aware, knowledgable, confident parents with the time, energy and/or resources to get them a place at an appropriate school is inherently unfair. Much better a school where anyone has at least the chance to get into the top set rather than shunted off and told "no" permanently at the age of 10. It seems a no-brainer to me. And it also seems that anyone who isn't frightened of their child catching "dim" or "yob" will agree.

Disclaimer- I think that there is a separate discussion to be had about superselectives- they are very different animals to a wholly selective system.

But if they come from a crap primary due to not being able to afford the leafy village primary they'll have more chance of being stretched at a grammar as they'll end up in lower sets in y7.

It's up to schools to give aspirations.

It's one of the reasons we're going for grammar.

Our local comp has kids from our school(the lowest quintile) and kids from an Outstanding school in the top quintile.

DS will have more chance of being in groups which stretch at the grammar.

It's up to schools to give aspirations
WHY?
Children spend less than 1/6 of time in school.
If parents are determined to make an effort there is only so much teachers can do.

At least in a comp, the school can quietly move kids around the sets and curriculum
whereas those who do not make the grammar cut (in the tiny percentage of the country still afflicted by such a thing) never get the chance

thank goodness there are no grammars in most areas
we can get on with the system of "every child matters"