Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

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

903 replies

curlew · 29/11/2013 12:18

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.

OP posts:
Retropear · 04/12/2013 18:12

But many comps aren't working.

Also if you start in lower sets it's a lot harder to end in top sets.It's all fine and dandy for those parents who's kids go to top primary but if you're on fsm and come from a crap primary quite frankly the odds are stacked against you.You'll be missing work from day 1.

The sharp elbowed mc parents posters love to berate are everywhere.

And sorry if parents don't have aspirations it is up to schools.I used to give aspirations,it isn't hard.

Talkinpeace · 04/12/2013 18:14

But many comps aren't working.
Evidence for that?
Also if you start in lower sets it's a lot harder to end in top sets
Hard but not utterly impossible - as it is if you are at a different school.

Retropear · 04/12/2013 18:18

Yes not impossible in the Outstanding schools which kids on fsm have even less access to according to Sutton.

Evidence re all comps not being all that were kind of in yesterday's Pisa results.

WooWooOwl · 04/12/2013 18:24

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.

I agree and disagree with this. The reason it's unfair is not because of school systems. It's unfair because some parents aren't good enough at being parents. I don't believe the education system should be there to compensate for bad parenting, that's what social services are there for. As well as the many free resources that parents have access to, like sure start centres, parenting courses, the benefit system. There really isn't any excuse for a parent to be completely disengaged any more. There might be reasons why some struggle, but enough support is there for those who want to improve themselves.

Original poster
curlew · 04/12/2013 18:26

"Also if you start in lower sets it's a lot harder to end in top sets"

Absolutely it's hard. But it's not completely impossible. Which it is if you are in a completely different school. And that is without even touching the can of worms which is the psychological and societal impact of the "sheep or goat at 10" split.

OP posts:
Original poster
curlew · 04/12/2013 18:30

There may not be any excuse for being a bad parent (if you think not being in a position to engage with the 11+ process makes you a bad parent!) but the fact remains that the are children who have parents like that. And a system which discriminates against those children - not the parents, the children- is unfair.

OP posts:
Retropear · 04/12/2013 18:30

Schools get judged on progress.Those that show Outstanding progress get Outstanding Oftsed reports and thus become the schools which parents all want and fsm kids aren't getting access to.I'd save your rage for that.

LaQueenAnd3KingsOfOrientAre · 04/12/2013 18:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Retropear · 04/12/2013 18:35

As did my dad,he was a gardener's boy with both parents in service and a headmistress full of aspirations for him.

Original poster
curlew · 04/12/2013 18:37

Excuse me, I appear to have stepped into an episode of a Downton Abbey.........

OP posts:
Talkinpeace · 04/12/2013 18:37

retropear
Those that show Outstanding progress get Outstanding Oftsed reports and thus become the schools which parents all want and fsm kids aren't getting access to.I'd save your rage for that
I'm not sure what you mean.
If the kids live in catchment (and round here, the catchments are miles across) they will get in, FSM or no.
FSM is a criteria for admissions after all.

WooWooOwl · 04/12/2013 18:38

Curlew, if the system was designed in favour of children who have bad parents, then it would be discrimination against those of us that do our job. Children with good parents should not be denied choice of schools that suit them because some parents are disengaged. Parents who pay into the system have rights too, and I believe choice of schools is an important thing to have. That doesn't just mean grammar schools, it means any school whether selective or not.

Retro, why can't all parents have access to all schools? Apart from selective schools, we do all have free access to all schools. Whether we choose to use that or not is down to us.

LaQueenAnd3KingsOfOrientAre · 04/12/2013 18:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Retropear · 04/12/2013 18:40

Yes if they live in catchment and haven't been pushed out as highlighted by Sutton.

noddyholder · 04/12/2013 18:42

curlew Grin quote of the week

Retropear · 04/12/2013 18:43

Woo catchment comes into play doesn't it.

We seem to have loads of options which are fine here but I have friends where catchment plays a far bigger role and schools are the two ends of the spectrum.

WooWooOwl · 04/12/2013 18:49

Didn't we agree on the last grammar school thread that the Sutton Trust may not be the most credible think tank in the world?

I don't think it's as huge a problem as you think it is anyway, it's not in my experience. I live near an outstanding comp, and I know of four families that did council house swaps into the area to get their children in there. It is doable, it just needs parents to actually put their children first in their lives. There is actually a high percentage of children at this school who are from traveller families, who have also been proved not to have good educational outcomes, but more often than not, they aren't entitled to FSMs.

Apart from that, all children deserve access to outstanding schools, not just those on low incomes.

The biggest factor affecting failing schools is usually their intake, and the only group of people that can improve that are parents.

WooWooOwl · 04/12/2013 18:50

What is it that creates a situation where you have outstanding schools in expensive areas?

It's the parents.

And it works both ways.

Talkinpeace · 04/12/2013 18:53

retropear
You are extrapolating what happens in Central London onto the rest of the country.

Council estates cannot be "priced out", nor can agricultural tie houses, nor can many of the ex council houses that are still lived in by their original purchasers.

Catchments are how it works in most of the country.
Catchment kids get in first - even if the catchment includes areas with the nickname 'chavistan'
only then do the sharp elbowed out of catchment get a look in.

Original poster
curlew · 04/12/2013 19:00

"Curlew, if the system was designed in favour of children who have bad parents, then it would be discrimination against those of us that do our job."

I'm not talking about designing a system in fqvourof such children. I just don't think they should be institutionally discriminated against.

Which is why there should be properly set comprehensive schools for all. Became nobody has come up with a reason why some children need to be in grammar schools apart for the danger of catching "yob and dim". Which at least one poster is honest enough to openly admit to being her reason.

OP posts:
Philoslothy · 04/12/2013 19:09

Laqueen as someone who is of that background rather than just go wafting in, and whose family almost all exclusively live below the poverty line - most " poor " children so get onto school and do learn.

People are not a different breed because they are poor, there are some children from highly dysfunctional homes but the two do not always have to coincide, as you have acknowledged in your later post.

WooWooOwl · 04/12/2013 19:36

I don't believe they are discriminated against. Not be schools anyway. Children are disadvantaged by their parents, not by schools, and schools cannot be expected to compensate for a lack of parenting.

We already have the farcical pupil premium that positively discriminates in favour of children on FSMs.

Personally, I felt one of my children needed to be in a grammar school because he wanted to learn more maths, science and classics than he would have got at the excellent comprehensive my other child goes to which spends a lot of time doing design and technology and cookery, and doesn't offer classics.

Retropear · 04/12/2013 19:36

Phil so why is the gov wasting money on the pupil premium?

And if we're going to disregard Sutton's concerns re the best comps then surely we can disregard their concerns re grammar schools.

Philoslothy · 04/12/2013 19:41

I am not saying that there aren't challenges which may be costly to overcome but to say that the circumstances that mean a child receives FSM are so dire that it is a miracle if they go to school is patronizing to the extreme.

WooWooOwl · 04/12/2013 19:42

Phil so why is the gov wasting money on the pupil premium?

Bloody good question!

The ring fenced money should be targeted on children who need it, not those who fall into a category with a box next to it that can be ticked! There are too many exceptions to the rule that children on FSMs need extra help for it to make any sense, and there are too many struggling children who are overlooked because they come from stable and supportive families that don't claim benefits.