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.

CaroBeaner - I grew up in Kent, and my memory of what we actually called the "Kent Test" was in fact that everyone did take it, and that it did not involve maths or English papers, only a reasoning paper. I have no idea when it changed from an opt-out system to an opt-in system with extra assessments in maths and English, as now seems to be the case in most of Kent, but it just seems to have swung more and more towards a system that transparently hugely benefits those from the better schools with the more actively involved parents.

I don't even know if it IS now an opt-in system (except for the super selective grammars, where some people would have to opt in, as they don't even have to live in the county), is it?

LaQueen -

No, not all children in Kent take the 11+. You have to opt into it.

So the question is whether the low numbers of FSM children at grammars is because a lower percentage of those that sit the test PASS it, or whether it's just because a lower percentage of them SIT it, in the first place.

If it's the former, then the advantage wealthier children get through tutoring may well be the reason. But if it's the latter, then that can't be the reason.

I also agree with Caro's last post and would probably go further. How about a range of papers be administered at various times in the school year, during class time, to all children - without the children even being informed when it would happen or which things they're doing count towards the test and which don't? Then the cumulative results of all these determine grammar entrance.

MorethanChristmasCrackers said it well. It's not just about money but also what the home environment is like.

Imo, 11+ can be done without tutoring (I know as my kid did it for a superselective grammar) - throw away the Xbox (or best not get one in the first place - we only have a very dusty Wii that has not been used for years), get your child to read read read, as well as read to them from an early age (borrow from the library -ours lets you have 15 books each at a time as well as audiobooks) and make sure they are looking up vocab, very little tv going on also - it's not the norm in our house to watch it except selectively but plenty of other interests (music, drama, sport). Buy the how to do books from Bond etc. and several types of 11+ practice books online (or free practice papers) for VR, NVR and maths and do lots and lots of practice til your DC is getting over 90% or as close to in the papers. Not a paid tutor in sight and doesn't take a whole lot of money either but it does take time and can't be left to the last 6 weeks before. There are no guarantees of course some children are not grammar school material and some are not willing but at least you can do all you can as a parent instead of leaving it to the school or believing that only the tutored can get in. Remember there are many many of those who do use tutors for 1-2 years whose DCs still do not pass 11+.

yes the middle classes can afford tutoring which may of course enhance performance but I believe it does plateau somewhere after an amount of practice but the point you have to face is, the middle classes may also be percentage wise better educated / graduates (and I say on the whole because of course there are exceptions everywhere) and therefore likely to have more of the above environment in the first place which is a BIG factor in likelihood of success at 11+.

FastLoris - I was beginning to wonder whether that is what actually happened when I was at school, because all I remember is one exam on one day which the whole class took in the school hall and then waiting for a letter, which would be one colour if you had passed and another colour if you hadn't, and my mother saying that if the results were borderline, the school's report would have some influence, which didn't go down well with some parents who thought that this could be biased...

rabbitstew, your experience was just the same as mine, blue if you passed and pink if you didn't . I can still remember the thrill of opening the envelope.

Nibs, that was still a heck of an effort on your behalf to get your kid through. Many parents just wouldn't know were to begin.

FastLoris, it would be in the schools' interest, if they administered the tests, for the kids to do well in them. There'd probably be some level of preparation and some schools would effectively end up teaching to the test.

Nibs777 - it's a bit hard to take your example as a great one for parents on low incomes, given that your description of keeping your kids so busy with music, sport and drama that they don't spend lots of time watching TV is one that could only be described by a parent with a fair amount of money and access to the facilities required to keep your children busy with such wholesome pursuits. In all honesty, it is more a description of how someone with more than enough money to pay for a tutor doesn't actually need to pay for the tutor.

ps also, you did tutor your children, so your children were tutored...

pickled -

Sure, but the point is all schools would be able to do that - to the extent that it's [i]possible[/i] to teach the stuff. My impression of the kent test is that's true to some extent for VR, not very true at all for NVR, And they're all teaching maths anyway, so the only difference would be that all schools could accelerate their more able maths students to be up to the test, rather than only independent schools and those with private tutors doing so.

As every child, no matter how poor, has a statutory right to a school place, this would surely level the playing field a bit. I'm not suggesting of course that it would level it completely.

It would just be much simpler and fairer to focus our energy on improving education for all.

If wanting to create a fairer society is seen as having a chip on your shoulder I am quite happy to admit to having a vat of maris pipers on each shoulder.

It would make me something of a hypocrite to have benefitted from a comprehensive education and then once my own children had all the advantages that money can buy, to then pull the ladder up for those trying to make the leap I was lucky enough to make.

A good comprehensive allows all children to be taught according to their abiity without the need for stigmatization or making anyone feel like one test has decided their future.

Nibs My DD2 has just passed the 11+ to a top superselective. She could also easily - in her sleep - pass A levels in Friends, Dr Who, Star Trek and its many variants, Lost, and probably other programmes such as Horrible histories that I don't know ant myself and therefore can't say for sure whether her constant stream of quotes etc is accurate. So I'm not so sure you're correct about the telly thing, especially since Dd1 is the same and is also at the suoerselective. They don't own a wii though.

rabbitstew -

I don't think that's really fair re Nibs' post. Group sporting and drama activities don't cost much - and pretty much all primary schools have a range of such things available after school either free or at very low cost (and if they cost, usually subsidised if necessary for children on FSM). Music, in the sense of 1:1 lessons (which is not the only way to do music, too) is the only thing there that really requires money.

But anyway Nib's point is more general than that. By far the more important things young kids can do to develop the skills and attitudes that lead to 11+ success are READING and TALKING WITH PEOPLE. Neither of these are expensive. They both, however, take a certain amount of time and interest from a parent to develop. And sticking the kid in front of a screen with a bag of crisps can be much easier.

In fact I recently read a study that concluded there were three things that contributed to brain development in infants and toddlers. Those were investigating the natural world; interacting with a caring adult; and problem solving.

None of those are expensive to provide. In fact an awful lot of what people spend money on for their kids seems to be designed specifically to thwart them.

On the FSM issue - our school has just published its proposed admissions policy for 2015 for comment, and among the proposals is one regarding FSM - kids who are in the passing category, and who are in receipt of FSM will get priority over those who don't. Which is something. Admittedly it doesn't solve the issue of getting the disadvantaged kids to the point of passing the exam in the first place, but it's still a very positive move I feel.

We love the TV in our house, our children even have their own room with their own TV and they have their own X box Wii. Our older children have all been academically verys successful in varying degrees.

There is an awful lot of handwringing about televisions on MN.

My eldest son loves to sail, he has quite complex needs due to being on the autistic spectrum and being out on the water is his release. He discovered sailing through a TV programme.

I have another child who watches endless Tv programmes but she also likes to cook in reality and perhaps that may be her career in the future.

The music, drama and sport doesn't actually matter one jot for grammar school selection but it does make them more rounded...yes it of course it takes money, but joining the local football or rugby club is not that expensive, or going to the local swimming pool and the library and things like bike riding is free ....and there is a local arts centre with heavily subsidized music lessons and orchestra etc. I am not sure it is such a heck of an effort ...I guess we just made it become the norm to enhance education in different ways in our house...maybe sounds obsessive i know, but whenever my kid reads an article or book about something, we put his list of unfamiliar words of the week on the kitchen wall and I ask him to try and drop them into our conversations that week...that's been built up over several months and no magic to doing that sort of thing. But my point is, if your newspaper of choice at home is a tabloid rather than a broadsheet, it's probably not going to help your kid pass the 11+ if that is all they have access to at home ...all I am saying a lot of it does start in the home environment.

philo

not saying TV is the work of the devil...selectively it can be very educational and useful and help relaxation ...just saying that as free time is limited than hours watching TV is taking time away from reading ....and wide reading and vocab is pretty core to the 11+ in my view and it was in the context of the 11+ that I made the point about home environment. Problem with hours of TV is it can be so passive. Mine just doesn't think it's the norm to come home and switch it on automatically and I like that. ...it's not handwringing but my kids also knows they will never get one in the bedroom.

Now here's a question:

All universities are like grammar schools, setting entrance criteria based on academic ability and only taking those who satisfy those criteria. The basis for measurement of those criteria is A Levels - aka the "18+" - a set of exams notorious for being skewed by intensive tutoring culture among the middle classes, to get their offspring an advantage above those of the poor who have to make do with what they get at school.

So who here is campaigning to turn universities into comprehensives, open to all equally regardless of past academic success, and for abolishing A Levels?

philo- agree sailing is great by the way ...but I think the kind of contemplation (or concentration rather) you get from sailing is very different from hours of passive tv watching...and it is very good for the brain to re-energize in my view by doing something like sport, sailing or playing or bike riding.

Nibs -

Totally agree re TV. It's not a question of there being anything wrong with actually WATCHING a TV program or two. It's the way that it dominates some peoples' living spaces that gets me - where it's just a default noise-and-sound-making box to divert everyone's attention from anything, whether there's something on that's actually worth their while to watch or not.

Hard line to toe though. We don't actually have a TV and like it that way. Not quite as worthy as it sound as we watch a lot of DVDs and eldest plays games on the PC. But there's no default assumption of media being on all the time, and mealtimes and bedtimes are for quiet conversation.

Eldest passed 11+ with near full score, and youngest is (problematically) years ahead in primary. Go figure.

I know it's been said (and proven?) that it's all about the parents and that if they're motivated to be supportive of their DCs education then DC will do well. That doesn't mean that the desire for DC to do well has to come from the parents though. It's strange what motivates kids. Exposing your DC to situations where they will meet DC from different backgrounds (more stable and successful ones if we are trying to help the FSM DC) might be what switches them on to wanting to do well at school. This might be by sending them to Brownies where they get to meet the Grammar School kids or by schools arranging exchanges that open up a 'better' world to them.

I don't want to sound preachy...and if others find it otherwise then fine, but I do believe my own kids read a lot more than they would if they were used to automatically switching the tv on first thing when they get home or get up or if we had it on constantly ourselves ..we watch a film or documentary or comedy or the news now and then...but not over dinner, more likely at the weekend and sometimes none at all over the weekend, and during a school night perhaps the odd 15 minutes before dinner. I think we could live without it quite easily but we have it and like it selectively because it doesn't rule us. Dinner is our reserved time for conversation about the day. We have no more shelf space for books in the house and so my kid's last present was a kindle (and not the one you can play lots of games on).