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'?

i think only rich children should be able to go to the top schools and get the top jobs.

Did you feel ok about not passing the 11+? I think I would have been sad. I feel sad for you in a way if you are JT because it seems like they got it wrong unless the Technical High was super fab and met your needs in every way of course.

and bank at HSBC in poole or canary wharf

oh me too, custy. Me too.

did I feel sad about not passing?

not that I remember, some of my friends also came to the TH with me so I didn't feel as if I was going to a new school alone. My parents didn't show any great disappointment and my sister didn't gloat. We're a positive family!
My sister passed a couple of years before me but I actually got more results exam wise (but they're not brilliant) but she has the better career than me. What does that tell us exactly, I don't know!

Yes, I liked my school but things were more strict back then, I prefer teachers who can keep you interested AND keep you in line. We still had to wear uniform, we respected staff more.

I would prefer a system like Italy or Germany where there are choice of schools. The decision is made at more sensible age like 14 and the child and the parents get more say. Unlike the UK the children in different sorts of schools get a radically different curriculum as opposed to giving less able children a watered down version of a grammar school education.

Comprehensives should and can be made to work. However it is important to get rid of selection by house price as much as selection on academic ablity or religion.

Surely it must be possible for a large comprehensive to provide a better range of courses rather than the rigid and frigid national curriculum.

I must confess that I would not have been happy if I had had to go to the particular secondary modern in my town because it did have a bad rep and bad elements - however dh went to a second mod in Essex and he and a couple of friends I know did better than me grades wise - but confess they might not have done so well if they had been at the bottom of a grammar school. I hope my dd's pass their 11+ (who doesn't) but I can honestly say that if they aren't that way inclined i'd rather they went to a good sec mod that was more suited to them and what they are good at.

I don't really understand how discrimination can be a good thing, positive or not. If the standards at state schools hinder students being able to fulfil entry requirements then shouldn't the standard of education at state schools be addressed so the entry requirements could be met? and not lower entry requirements?

DP's brother got the second highest score in the 11+ in early 80's but his Dad gave him a choice - Grammar school in Kent or the local Comp. He chose the comp. He went on to have an interesting career in Music and Youth rehabilitation. He was an interesting and dynamic young man who sadly passed away three years ago. At his funeral the priest said that in all his years he had never ever seen so many people at a funeral. The docs who treated him at hospital even turned up so touched were they by the sheer number of people who visited him and stayed with him in hospital.

He touched many young people's lives, many serious criminals, and helped many back on the straight and narrow. He gained respect from them and his reputation as a serious music artist went a long way to helping this. I was speaking ot DP about this yesterday and wondered why his Dad gave him the choice. 'Don't know but it was the best thing he ever did' was the reply. He would never have made the difference he made had he not had the experiences in a London Comp DP thinks.

The problem with the grammar school system is that it is a competition. Surely any child who reaches say level 4 in English, Maths and Science keystage 2 sats should be allowed a grammar style education, if you are going to have selection at 11 years old.

I find it cruel that children who can't read or write for whatever reason are allowed to attend mainstream secondary schools.

juuule, I feel you're being a bit naive. It sounds oh-so ideal that state primaries should 'up their game' to bring children upto the same standard, 11+ wise as their prep school counterparts but you have to remember that state primaries have to take all comers- the bright, the average and the criminally insane..! Whereas preps, esp in selective state grammar areas can pick and choose according to likely 11+ potential and of course, in that environment, they're going to be able to pick some children who wouldn't have stood a snowball's in a state primary then tutor and coach til those kids DO pass, and in doing so, deprive a deserving and able state primary school child that opportunity.

And frances, I do agree with you up to a point but can you be absolutely sure that the KS2 prep school child who gets a 4 is exactly the same, academically, as the state primary child with a 4? Or has one been carefully nurtured to that point whereas the other got there purely on force of intellect?

Finally, whilst the not-quite-bright-enough prepped child might get into a grammar and be thoroughly miserable and out of their depth there, the fact remains a) it happens all the time and b) they've deprived another child of that place.

But level 4 is the level they are all supposed to get frances5

I agree that level 4 is what a child is supposed to be at keystage 2. If a child is less than level 4 when they start in secondary school, particulary in English they are going to struggle with the demands of mainstream secondary school.

It is child abuse sending a child who can't read to level 4 standard to a mainstream secondary school. I think they need intensive help so that they can make progress in all subjects, prehaps there needs to be special schools for illiterate children with a normal IQ. Lack of basic reading skills hinders a child in every area of the national curriculum except PE. If such children had small class with say 7 children in and some LSA support then they might learn to read and still access the curriculum.

I would hope that some children could transfer back to mainstream when they had achieved a sufficient level in basic skills. I am sure that many severely dyslexic children would reach Oxbridge standards if they are just given some super intensive help for a year or so when they are eleven.

The grammar schools used to target money at top 25%. Prehaps it would be more sense to target money at the bottom 20%. Lets face it there aren't many jobs that you can do if you can't read.

more like the top 10%, frances, but I agree.

but anyway if we must have state grammar schools, I don't see how they can discriminate positively or otherwise due to the difficulty in proving who has or hasn't had tuition as others say.

I mean I agree broadly with targetting money at the bottom. not at all sure about special schools for the lowest ability pupils: why wouldn't extra help in normal school work?

miljee, I think you are right in that a private prep child who gets a marginal level 4 would not get a level 4 in the state sector. I think parents have to responsible in choosing a school appropiately. If all children who got a level 4 were given a grammar style education then no child is being denied the chance because of the prep school kid.

With proposals to make education complusory until 18 prehaps the 11+ model is outmoded. Maybe we should have range of educational routes that children can pick at 14.

"I mean I agree broadly with targetting money at the bottom. not at all sure about special schools for the lowest ability pupils: why wouldn't extra help in normal school work?"

In theory children with reading ablities do get extra help, but it varies from school to school. Sadly a lot of schools give their bottom sets to the least experienced/ weakest teacher in the department. I have a friend who is an NQT and she has been given all the bottom sets.

I think that children who can't read deserve smaller classes and highly experienced teachers. The amount of training on how to teach reading on a PGCE is a scandel. I spent 3 days at an EBD (Emotional and behavioural difficulties) school where the teachers knew how to support and teach reading in every single lesson. I feel its wrong that well behaved dyslexic children don't get the same level of help with reading as EBD children.

Prehaps a unit attached to a mainstream school would be kinder. There would be less stigma. Many dyslexic children find large secondary schools hard. They find it hard to get to the right room and remember the right textbooks. If they were taught in one classroom by the minimum number of teachers necessary then life would be kinder.

I do agree wholeheartedly there.

I just don't see the need for specialisation in schools at 11 at all really. There is an argument for specialist schools at 14+ for some pupils - specifically non academic specialisms, but not at 11 and not based on some exam.

Are we absolutely sure that prep school children are at an advantage? As I said earlier, there are parents in our area who discover to their chagrin that paying lots of money is not a guarantee of a grammar school place! Do we know what % of grammar school children come from prep schools? We do know what % are on free school meals.....but that's another thread!

Locally to me out of 120 children admitted to the grammar school, 18 came from a prep school. Around 22 prep children failed to get in.

Looking at DS1's friends from school, none of his classmates attended a prep school. I'm sure there may be some in the school, but, broadly speaking, the vast majority of pupils come from the state sector.

Surely a truely comprehensive education doesn't include setting or streaming?

I disagree, a comprehensive education MUST include setting or streaming. That way, all children have the same opportunities but the actual teaching is targeted at their needs and abilities.

So for example, my children at secondary school are in a mixed-ability tutor group. They stay with this tutor group for 5 years and have some of their lessons as a tutor group.

However, for other subjects (maths, English, science, languages, humanities), they are set in ability groups on each side of the year (year group is split into left and right sides).

This means that tutor groups have a broad mix of ability, talents, gender, social background etc. It means that someone who is very good at say maths but struggling in English can be in a high set for one and perhaps a lower set for the other, thus being challenged and supported at the right level.

Sets are reviewed for each subject each term, and there is a certain amount of fluidity, so being in a set is not being set for life.

Some children also mature later than others academically, and setting allows them to move up through the groups if it is appropriate. That's why selection at age 11 does not work for all. Some European education systems are particularly bad at this, looking at children aged 10-11 and deciding what sort of career or job path they will be suited for.

My own sister in law struggled with science in primary school and the early years of secondary school, getting lower than average SATs results. However, she then seemed to really take to it and develop a flair for science. She moved up through the sets, did very well at GCSE and A level and is now finishing a science degree.

Sorry I don't understand the concept of a prep child depriving a state educated child of a place. For example if a childs parents choose to live on the breadline to send their child to a private school with a view to helping them pass the 11+ and getting into a state funded grammar then why shouldn't they take the place, they are tax payers like everyone else and their childs education is funded like everyone else. Surely they are just taking a place that their child has worked towards.