Should state grammars positively discriminate in favour of state primary/ non tutored DCs?

[miljee]

Perhaps a 'cat amongst the pigeons' question, I know, but in view of the fact several top universities have been requested to lower their entry requirements for state comp. kids versus private/public schooled kids, shouldn't state grammars be requested to do the same? Would that 'level the playing field'?

in some ways I think yes as they should be looking for base potential in children - not sure how you could make it workable though. ask you to confess if you've had tutoring??? When I went to uni I noticed many of the private school pupils really really struggled I think mainly because they were used to being pushed & pushed rather than flying by the seat of their pants!

I've been interseted to see how a city fairly local to us is absolutely bristling with prep schools but has no private boys' secondary school and one (major-league) girls' public school; meanwhile the local state primaries, when specifically questioned, say they only enter kids for the 11+ if the parents forcefully request it as they feel their pupils, however bright, really don't stand a chance against little Jeremy and Fenella who are NVR'ed to death for 4 odd years prior to the 11+ at their private preps.

I like the idea too but can also see the problems.

I wonder if state schools will be inundated with admission enquiries from parents of privately educated yr 5s hoping to 'switch in' at the last moment?

Does anybody know the % of private school/state school children who pass the 11+? I know round here some of the prep school parents were shocked to realize that just going to prep school was't the fast track to grammar they thought it was!

Locally it is not representative as the grammar is Catholic out of 40 children at the attached Catholic prep (grammar used to be private but is now state) 18 got into the Catholic grammar, the rest of the places went to children from other Catholic primaries and a few non Catholics.

What about home-educated children whose parents want to opt back into the state system at secondary level?

I do consider it unfair that parents are prepared to pay for their children's education at primary level, knowing that it gives them an advantage in the 11+ and then take up a state place at grammar - when many of them could easily afford to stay in the private system - thereby depriving a bright state pupil of that place.

I hate grammar schools. I would prefer to a have a system of comprehensives and the bright and thick kids equally distributed between different schools. (Ie. all the schools in a town have the same percentage of special needs kids, bright kids, middle ablity kids and plain stupid kids)

It would then be very easy to transfer little Cecil who is thick as two short planks to a lower ablity set when the affects of Hothouse Prep wears off. There would be no problem with Cecil taking up a grammar school place that he is too thick to benefit from.

I agree Frances5, and that is how it seems to work where I live. Three comprehensive schools, all of which have good reputations.
Totally non-selective - all children living in the town are in the catchment area for two of the schools, which are literally right next door to one another. The third school is only 6 years old and at the other end of town, so tends to attract children from that side of town and villages on that side. In practise, some parents just let their children choose, ending up with children at 1, 2 or even all 3 schools.

What this means is that the child from the roughest estate has exactly the same chance of going to the school as the child from the most expensive house in the town. The town is a 'normal' market town, with a mixed population, not full of wealthy parents or anything like that. And yet the schools seem to do very well for all groups of children, from the gifted & talented to the struggling. Their value-added scores are very impressive.

My son's friends in his tutor group include a boy who lives in a manor house more than 4 times bigger than our 4-bed semi, and a boy from a very deprived background, a very rough family actually though the lad himself is very pleasant.

Children are set for many subjects and this seems to work really well, allowing all to be taught and challenged at the right level.

I really think this is the way comprehensive education can, and should, be. I truly hate the idea of selecting children at age 10 or 11, and I would not live anywhere that was the case.

Instead of arguing over how grammar schools should select, shouldn't we be making sure that the comprehensive system works for all
our children.

I know mine isn't an isolated case, because I have friends who live in other towns where ALL the comprehensives are good. So my question would be, if that can happen in very ordinary, socially-mixed areas, how can we improve things in other areas?

I admit I spoke to a work-experience upper 6th former from a state grammar who readily admitted she felt that 'most' of the girls she'd come up through the school with were from prep schools. I'm sort of amazed there isn't more of a hue and cry in that town- I mean, they all pay taxes yet the majority of parents are effectively subsidising academically selective schools which their own children, perhaps clever but untutored stand little chance of benefiting from. I gues sthe reason is there IS a fuss BUT the middle class parents almost certainly have a stranglehold on the (Conservative) council! And every Ed Authority wants 2x 'Outstanding' schools in its area!

Well said! Personally I wouldn't move anywhere near the town in question because the secondary moderns (even the local ed auth. had to recognise you can't call the non-grammars 'comprehensive'!) suffer from having their top tier, certainly academically, and, truth be told, socially creamed off.

And the way I'd get around the 'how would you know?' would be to make all applicants' parents sign a legal declaration to the effect. The 'dobbers' would be climbing out of the woodwork to snitch! And how about weightings according to years in prep? The Cathedral prep in the town reckon they need a child for 2 years, minimum, to 'guarantee 11+ success' apparently.

I'm not anti-grammar, per se, I'm anti gaping loopholes allowing exploitation of the system- an occurence which has become ubiquitous since the chimera of 'choice' came along! But I still strongly feel a well run comprehensive wins hands down.

Finally, FWIW, I was a grammar school pupil myself BUT in my class of 30 (in '73!), ONE came from a prep and the rest of us were literally shop keepers and middle managers daughters from the village primaries.

love your post, portonovo.

Think it's easy to forget that under 5% of kids nationally go to grammars as well. They a very much a minority affair and are unlikely ever again to play a major part in levelling any playing fields even it is arguable that they occasionally did so in a bygone age.

And in some parts of the country the grammars are big enough/numerous enough to ensure places for all the local children likely to genuinely benefit from a grammar education, to get a place, on the basis of the same assessment across both sectors.
I know our independent school is not typical because it is non-selective academically etc, but of this year's secondary transfers, five children out of 24 are off to these local grammars - whose total Yr 7 intake is about...1,000 children in total.
The rest have taken the advice of the experienced staff and applied for a variety of non-selective/other independent schools, according to what will suit the child best.
Not all private schools are results-obsessed hothouses with a personal-gain-above-all ethos.
I can imagine it is a horrible and annoying problem in many LEAs and I am not sure what the answer is. But plenty of children are in independent education for ethical, religious, health or other family (eg wraparound care) reasons, not because they want or expect preferential treatment at 11 plus.

I agree that a truly comprehensive system is the best way - and that just cannot happen where there is selection at 11. I would be prepared to argue that it's not possible where there are independent schools either. When I'm world dictator there won't be any faith schools, grammar schools or private schools. Just properly funded, properly staffed, properly streamed comprehensive education for all.
{sheds a guilty tear and goes back to sewing name tags on dd's grammar school hockey socks}

I'm a little puzzled at "health" being given as a reason for choosing private education......?

Going to be controversial here - but I am all in favour of Grammar/High scool system. I don't believe you can tutor a genuinely non academic child to pass their 11+ no matter what private school they go to, (and even if you do it isn't in their best interests) similarly a genuinely intelligent child who is at a reasonably good state primary WILL pass their 11+. We live in Kent and still have good Grammar schools and good high schools, as well as bad high schools. Why not segregate though - I went to a grammar school and the focus was more on academic subjects, whereas teh local high school had much better facilities for the softer or more practical subjects. This selection allows children to go to a school that can specialise in the areas they lean towards, rather than all being packed into a comprehensive school that is unlikely to excel in all areas - only to be put into different "streams" within their lessons anyway. Surely it is more motivating for a child to be in the top or middle sets of a high school than to be in the bottom set for everything in a comprehensive?

Do you think you'd feel the same if you had failed the 11+ and attended a secondary modern school, out of interest, buffyfan123? I know or know of plenty of people who've attended grammar schools, private schools or comprehensives and rave about their respective educational experience (plenty of negative experiences of all 3 types of school too of course but it's definitely possible to find some positive stories from some people). But I have very rarely if ever heard anyone raving about how fantastic and amazing their secondary modern school experience was and how great it was that the 11+ enabled them to access it, I must say.

agree Buffy (from one who didn't pass the 11+)

and in answer to the thread title

NO

Did you go to a secondary Modern Nadine? (Are you JT btw?)

back in the good old days (where I lived) there were 3 levels

Grammar
Technical High - Me, Mrs Average
Secondary Modern

(might, might not )

Aha. Did you like your school? And do you think the sec mod was as good in its own way as the grammar?