Grammar offers 10 places to those triggering "pupil premium"

[legallady]

Forgive me if this is a regular occurrence at other grammars but for those on the recent grammar thread, I thought it was interesting that Nonsuch High ( highly selective grammar in S W London) has reserved it's first 10 places for girls who have triggered the pupil premium at their primary school at any time in the last six years.

I know it's only ten out of 180 but at least they have thought about it. It may well be that they're just after the additional money but I like to think that their motives are a little more altruistic than that!

"you choose to deny the factors for grammar school entry may be cultural and down to work -ethic and parenting focus on education at home"

No I don't. I keep saying that parental involvement is key to getting into a grammar school. Which means that kids who don't have involved parents are screwed in wholly selective areas. Through no fault of their own. Which is why a comprehensive system is fairer because a child who wants of their own bat to do well can. Because children aren't classified into successes and failures at 10.

Your last post didn't make sense Curlew.You said it was down to parents if kids got into grammar but down to kids themselves to do well at comp.

Surely by your argument if parental involvement has such a big impact to the point you penalise any who has it said pp kids aren't going to do well at comp.

Doing well involves hard work whatever and kids don't miraculously change overnight and work hard at comp or grammar if they haven't previously.

Also who says kids on pp don't have parental involvement?

"Your last post didn't make sense Curlew.You said it was down to parents if kids got into grammar but down to kids themselves to do well at comp."

No I didn't. I said that a child doesn't have a prayer of getting into grammar school without parental support, but does have a chance of doing well without it at a comprehensive school.

Makes no sense still...but then Curlew judging by your posts on this thread you'd argue blue is green if it suited your political stance...despite any evidence otherwise.....the main disadvantage for certain children at all stages comes from uninterested parents lacking educational aspirations for themselves or their children.

As the stats on the Chinese show, being on FSM need not impact academic success at primary or secondary stage and does not as you argued, put a child at some sort of inherent educational disadvantage per se.

The point is in some cultures, FSM may go hand in hand with lack of parental involvement especially for many of the poor white working class (and yes exceptions exist). So...fix the culture and the lack of aspirations by outreach events etc. ...don't penalise others who do work hard by saying it's not a level playing field because FSM are not given reserved places even if they don't make the grade.

I imagine there are generally more Chinese and Indian children aspiring to be lawyers, doctors and scientists on average than wanting to be C list celebrities which seems to be the prevailing aspiration of too many poor working class children....and that is the kind of cultural poverty that is not likely to get that child into grammar school.

Hurstmum- tell me which bit you don't understand and I'll try and explain it to you.

most of it ....curlew...don't bother to rehash ...but the subject is more complex and grey than presented by your posts

Interesting that you find it easier to be rude and dismissive than to consider that I might have even a bit of a point. Or even put a bit of effort into understanding my point.......

How about building grammar schools right in the middle of a council estate?

more grammar schools then ...why not

Well, that would at least make the journey to school an interesting anthropological experience for the kids!

indeed

I am not trying to be rude curlew...it's just your stance is anti-grammar school because you think their very existence is elitist and middle class...and nothing will persuade you otherwise...even if there are excellent grammar schools that do provide social mobility for clever hardworking children of nurses or low paid civil servants or of aspirational immigrants who are not affluent ...your crude tool is FSM vs non FSM %. If there are not enough FSM let's simply abolish all grammar schools rather than looking at the complex socio-economic coupled with cultural reasons for an educational underclass. Somehow you think that will all be fixed by simply changing every school to a comprehensive.

Do your have any evidence that grammar schools provide social mobility?

There is evidence that children from disadvantaged backgrounds generally do less well in wholly selective areas than in comprehensive areas.

"Somehow you think that will all be fixed by simply changing every school to a comprehensive."

No' I don't. But I do know that grammar schools do noting for social mobility, and are part of the problem. So getting rid of them would be a start! A small start, because they only affect a minority of children. But they have no place in a modern world.

Half of the Labour gov went through grammar or private schools. It is politically correct as a Labour MP to state you want them abolished (and then use them for your own kids!) I have heard MP's citing religious reasons, and dont get me started on Diane Abbott and all her views on private education until of course she decided to use a private herself.

We have the grammar around here. I want more of them all around the country. It is next to impossible to pass the 11+ without tutoring and who can afford the tutoring - the middle classes! There are tons of examples of mikmen's/postmen's kids gaining a place - not any more.

Hurst is right btw. The Asian culture puts education as the highest priority. Its another issue whether its at the cost of the child who is often never available for play dates because they are studying. Our grammar schools around here are full of cultures who put education first.

Our local dry cleaners is run by an Asian man who says proudly both his children have gone to grammar school. He tells me that for him education is the top priority for himself and his wife. He has done Ok but he doesnt want his children washing other people's clothes.

yep, I have direct evidence ...I went to a grammar (no tuition couldn't have afforded it - had no idea what 11+ was when I sat it and then learned only two of us got into the grammar from my school), parents were educated (degree level) immigrants who brought less than ten pounds into the country because of currency restrictions on emigrants in home country due to politics - we started off living in distant relative's houses with two children and both parents in one room, but eventually, we moved to modest house, had many books (used or borrowed often) at home, decent newspapers, subscriptions of Reader's Digest and what have you, Encyclopedia Brittanica paid for in instalments and several trips to the library each month....not FSM because parents worked shifts in whatever job they could get (started off on factory floor for a few years) then they managed to get more professional jobs but still modestly paid based on their qualifications. I on the other hand went to a grammar and then top uni and became a professional solidly middle class type now mortgage free and taxed at top max % of income tax bracket...so I'd call that evidence of social mobility, wouldn't you? And grammar schools still can do that today - it's just that there are fewer of them unfortunately.

Hurst - I agree with everything that you say apart from the comment about no tuition. You really cannot just turn up for the exam with no prep work now.

Even parents who claim that they provided no help (apart from a tutor here and there and past papers of course!) have done something. It is not the done thing to say you had a tutor - so people dont!

BTW - I didnt pass the 11+, my children are at private school as we didnt think they were grammar school pupils. However my 16 year old has done very well in his GCSE's (much better than expected!). Do I think it was the expectations of his very expensive and snazzy school - YOU BET I DO!

Do, I think he would have done just as well at the local comp. Not in a million years. I went to a rubbish school (sec modern) where there were no real asiprations. I have done OK, but it was nothing to do with the school I went to.

This is looking to me like yet another grammar school debate that is getting mixed up by people on different sides of the discussion talking about different things.

I'm guessing (and massively assuming) from other threads that HurstMum is thinking of the Reading grammar schools and Curlew is thinking of a fully selective area with grammar schools and sec mods/high schools.

I apologise if I'm wrong, I just thought it would be worth saying because I have found myself doing the same thing more than once on here!

Which is why all state year 5 parents should get an info pack and an 11+ after school club.

Apologies as I haven't read the whole thread, but are they taking 'very bright pp children who just missed a pass mark on the 11+' or 'anyone that's pp whether they'll struggle or not'?

Very bright I presume however those just over pp or in the middle who have had no tuition or are in shit primaries are being shat on.

The places will be taken from them and not those at the private schools with 5 hours of tuition a week on top.

I do wonder when people come onto these threads saying comp education for all. If they had a choice of a grammar school or the local sec modern for their OWN child - which one would they pick!

Its the choice of parents around here. Or perhaps you expect people to move house and potentially pay £1000's of pounds just because YOU believe in comp for all.

The fact is we all try and make the best decisions we can for our children. There is an ideal where all parents are wonderful and caring, where education is exactly the same, where there are no queues for A&E.

And then there is reality.

If I am honest I am not sure how much of my social mobility was down to grammar or just my own aspirations wherever i went ...I just knew I didn't want to go through what my parents did which was a big driver. And then economic circumstances in over a period play a large part in social mobility. I don't remember being judged on class in professional circles but more on the level to which I had been educated and what I did for a living. I never lied about my parents' background in fact I was proud of them.

I think back in those days there was little tuition...at least we weren't aware of that at all or even significance of the 11+ ...my parents did not know the system ...and it wouldn't have occurred to get a tutor even if they had had the money...but then there were many more grammars then ...now it is ridiculous as there are so few and so many chasing hence the frenzy to get in ...I guess that's where it gets into who can afford tutoring but that's not the fault of the grammars. A lot of the children who didn't get into the grammar in my day went to perfectly good comps - sometimes i envied them as our grammar was so traditional and strict by comparison and they seemed to have much more freedom to be creative and express themselves and often ended up doing just as well...(hopefully grammars have moved on) but there were secondary moderns also with reputations as sink schools and that was wrong ....it is those that should not exist.

Our DS may not be as socially mobile as me because of steep house prices compared to income, economic circumstances etc. and because he already started off solidly middle class whereas my starting base was low. He may not get a job that is as well paid as I do because he may choose a different path but I hope he gets at least as educated if not better than me and I think his local selective state grammar will do that for him better than some of the private schools around here so I am all for it.

Well the reality is that education is hit and miss all over the country. Given the choices I have , if I could hire a tutor I would!! I don't resent other people for having the money and means I do so. Obviously it's a worry that circumstances will change for the pupil and tutoring is no longer a service that the parents can afford and I naturally would hope that each child was able to continue to do well And not struggle to keep up.

Obviously I doubt I will be in a position to provide tutoring so my dd has to get there on he own along with the rest of the kids.

My choice of school has no bearing on whether I support a system others don't approve of. And she sure as hell isn't going to miss out to spare other people's feelings about their own children, as I would never hold a school place against a child . No one is wrong to want the best for their child.

Of course it's unfortunate for those who won't have the chance. And believe me if by some fluke she gets a spot (doubtful with out the tutor and any places set aside for others placing us down the bloody bottom of the list) I will be nothing but appreciative of the chance.