Parents' Buying places at Grammars

[Judy1234]

From the Telegraph today which is quite interesting...

"Middle-class parents are "buying" places at grammar schools, according to a leading academic.

Up to a third of children admitted to grammars in some parts of the country have received tuition at fee-paying preparatory schools, it has been claimed.

Professor David Jesson, of York University, said the findings underlined claims from the Conservatives that selective state schools "entrench" social advantage.
advertisement
click here

It will be a boost for David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who has faced a revolt by backbenchers after severing the party's long-standing ties with grammar schools.

Mr Cameron said that selecting pupils by their academic ability at 11 benefited families from affluent areas but condemned working-class children to an inferior education.

Prof Jesson analysed the 22,000 children admitted to England's 164 grammar schools every year. He found that 3,000 - more than 13 per cent - entered grammars after being educated at private prep schools.

But just seven per cent of children in England are schooled in the private sector - suggesting that children from wealthy families are dramatically over-represented in grammar schools.

Prof Jesson said that in at least one local authority area 33 per cent of the grammar school population was from prep schools.

He also said pupils from the private sector scored similar results to state school pupils in national tests taken at the age of 11. However, they appeared to do better in the 11-plus - the grammar school entrance test - fuelling claims that they are "coached" to pass the exam.

He said: "Shouldn't we be more strict in looking at grammar admission procedures if wealthy parents are buying their children into schools that coach them for the 11-plus? On a national test basis, they are no better than state school pupils."

The most sought-after grammar schools get more than 10 applications for every place and their popularity continues to grow. League tables for 14-year-olds published earlier this year showed that 81 of the top 100 schools were grammars.

Parents are believed to be going to increasing lengths to ensure their children get in.

A report last year said that children as young as eight were being sent to private tutors for up to three years' coaching for the 11-plus. Some parents are spending up to £1,500 a year paying for one-to-one tuition. In Warwickshire, it was claimed that copies of 11-plus papers were being circulated among private tutors, who can improve their reputation by helping pupils into top grammar schools.

Brian Wills Pope, the chairman of the National Grammar Schools Association, said the figures underlined the need to build more grammar schools.

"The grammar school ethos is to take pupils from any background," he told the Times Educational Supplement. "I'm sure 11-plus coaching does go on in some areas. It's just a shame there aren't more places."

A separate report published this week by the London School of Economics said that a grammar school education could be very beneficial to children from poor backgrounds. But it warned that many could not get in because admissions procedures were skewed against them."

God I just wish that everywhere would have them, or that they were abolished completely.

Round our way, there are zillions of little prep schools and no private secondaries. Go figure .

Hallgerda, you overlook a fairly vital point: private prep schools can select their cohort of pupils, especially if they are in an area (Salisbury springs to mind) where their very raison d'etre is to get little Oliver and Camilla into the state grammars. The local state primaries have to do the best they can with all comers. Logic would dictate that St Getemin will do better with its selected intake than Lower Bogsworth Primary might with theirs. In a perfect world, all schools would be able to take each child to the pinnacle of their ability. In the real world I think we have to be impressed by how well so many do!

And wychbold, preparatory schools were so named because they prepared well-to-do boys for the rigours of boarding school, many of which weren't academic at all, just 'character building'. To suggest their role as preparatory schools is to prepare for each and every type and style of education is stretching the friendship a little too far.

Grammar schools were created to allow bright children from poor backgrounds to improve their lot in life, back when academic education just wasn't available to 'the masses'. This they did with great success. Those beneficiaries rose from the blue-collar working class to nice white collar jobs, living in leafy suburbs. But now they're demanding the right for their own children to go to grammar school, often with prep schooling and coaching, to the detriment of poor children from blue collar/working class backgrounds. Their own 'leg up' has been conveniently overlooked; any sense of social responsibility seen as a sign of pinky/liberal namby-pamby weakness, and their new position of privilege has given birth to this nasty sense of entitlement, survival of the wealthiest. It's not pretty.

Interesting that the report says "Prof Jesson....also said pupils from the private sector scored similar results to state school pupils in national tests taken at the age of 11."

I'm confused as to exactly which children are getting the tutoring. Is it the children at private schools who are being tutored as well as going to fee-paying school?

Fwiw, dd2 has a place at the most sought-after school here in Lagos after flying the tests and a 1.5hr interview. There were 800 children after 60 places. She's the only child in her class who doesn't have a tutor.

"Grammar schools were created to allow bright children from poor backgrounds to improve their lot in life, back when academic education just wasn't available to 'the masses'."

Sorry, but that's just nonsense with regard to a lot of grammar schools which were originally fee-paying schools for a large number of students.
The one I went to was created (in 1906) to provide educational opportunities for girls, simple as that. Social engineering didn't come into it - the original pupils were local bourgeoisie, daughters of professions, wealthier tradesmen etc.

In our area the prep schools tend to go up to age 13 and they hate children leaving at 11 as it ruptures the top end of the school (this is for boys) and it's a shame for the children as the boy at 11 is not the girl at 11 and it's great for a boy at 11 and 12 to be still in a primary schooll in effect, top of the school, head boy, prefects etc all that stuff in those last 2 years instead of bottom of the pile as 11+ tiny little thing in some huge secondary, state or private so in fact they do their very best to make sure no one leaves at 11 and frown on parents who remove children at that age aslthough some remove children at 11+ to sit for private schools.BUT I have never lived in an area with grammar schools so it could well be different. Also NW London is fairly well off in general here so there isn't the I must save XYZ per year by not buying a school place quite so much as other parts of the country where wages are lower.

"Xenia - that's what I assumed, that people who started off with private schools intended to go private all the way through. So the north London selective schools attract who? The children from the better state primaries and church schools whose parents coach?"

Not sure exactly what you mean. Say Haberdashers they have a prep part but at 11+ a huge new entry too where many chidlren come in from state primaries and also other private preps. Or did you mean state selectives? There are some in Bucks but that's quite far out.

Maybe I didn't explain well, but I was talking with a top tutor recently who made the point that, while she can teach a child the actual mechanics of how to take the 11 plus - they turn over a page, they see a question and they understand what sort of question it is and don't have to waste time working out the formula for answering it - she turns away a lot of children because she knows that, academically, they won't make the grammar grade and that, if by some fluke they did, they wouldn't be able to hack it when they got there. She said that there isn't time in the actual exam to sit there thinking "now how do I go about working out this question?" and that tuition helps with establishing that element of recognition more than anything else - the kids still have to have the brains to work out the answers themselves.

even those with money want to save spending if they can - that's how money accumulates.

never heard of a prep school that wasn't pround of its grammar entry.

The 1944 Education Act had that intention though -

"While there were only Elementary Schools for children between the ages of 5 and 13 problems were limited. There was only one way forward after school - the working world. There was no possibility of an academic career except for those who could afford it.
The general nature of education changed when it became possible for a restricted number of pupils to gain free places in a Grammar School if they passed an examination at the age of 11."

Sorry, was responding to Kathy - the other posts weren't there when I went off and mithered!

Evern boys' 13+ school in the land hates children leaving at 11 for state grammars. It decimates your last 2 years of the school and you don't want to sell your school to prospective parents on the grounds that all leavers are going off to state schools fo goodness sake- where is the cachet in the state school? They still do much more than the best private secondaries. They aren't the pinnacle of academia some parents con themselves into believing.

Xenia - we two are one in most things - but that has to count as a rogue apostrophe, old thing. I mean it could just about be legitimate but it's stretching a point. Or an apostrophe.

Wendy - yes, in postwar Britain grammars definitely had that role and my parents and MIL all benefited from it.
I was just being historically pedantic....

miljee: "private prep schools can select their cohort of pupils... The local state primaries have to do the best they can with all comers."
Private schools are a minority and lots of parents do not use them on principle or because they can't afford them. There are plenty of clever kids in State schools who should be getting Grammar school places.
A lot of State schools do no preparation for 11+ as a matter of policy (despite parents' wishes) but do cram for SATs (because they are important to teachers / schools).

P.S. Thanks Hallgerda, I don't often get posters agreeing with me.

Check out the websites of well know prep schools in grammar school areas - most say they have high rates of grammar school entry. WOuld quote them here.

(m, but most areas don't have grammar schools, do they? London doesn't. I suppoose Kent, Bucks, Surrey do. Is it not something like 10% of the UK? But if I lived in say Surrey surely I'd want my children go to a private school which got better results than the grammar schools? Why pick second best unless people don't earn enough to go for the best I suppose).

Q, yes I saw my title and was amused particularly given my comments on the apostrophe thread. How are the mighty fallen!

OK - I will jump on my hobby horse and give him a gallop round.

The 11+ is intended to give opportunites to bright children regardless of sociio-ecomomic background.

My children go to an average state primary school. It has a very socially diverse catchment area - our market town has a lot of incomers fleeing from London as well as several quite difficult estates.

There are 60 children in year 6. About 30 took the 11+. 11 passed. All middle class children from professional or white collar families. How exactly is this fair, or fulfilling the 11+ ideal?

Remember that when campaigning for more grammar school places, you are also campaigning for more secondary modern places. Not quite so appealing!

I think the most telling sentence in the OP is this one:

"Mr Cameron said that selecting pupils by their academic ability at 11 benefited families from affluent areas but condemned working-class children to an inferior education."

Why? Why do grammars mean an inferior education for those who cannot attend? Why isn't the government doing all it can to ensure that the standard of education in all schools is equal to that of grammars? OK so grammars take brighter pupils, but why does that mean that the education they receive is better? Surely the area all parties should be looking at is the delivery of education, not necessarily those who are receiving it.

miljee, are you arguing that selection works? If the same child would get the same results at Lower Bogsworth as at St Getemin's (I love your school names btw), those sending their children to St Getemin's would be wasting their money. I suspect that might not be the case - perhaps the answer is to see what St Getemin's is doing that Lower Bogsworth isn't, rather than condemn anyone sending their child to St Getemin's. I don't think it's purely down to selection - expectations play an important role too. And proper marking. And decently challenging work. I could go on and on...

wychbold, I'm going to agree with you again - I have experience of primary schools discouraging grammar school applications as a matter of policy. Interestingly, my children's primary school was prepared to raise the possibility of going private but quite hostile to grammar school applications. As for preparation, both the state primary schools and the prep schools should be preparing the children for secondary education; doing more timed essays, comprehensions and non-trivial maths papers would help build their skills for secondary school, not just help them to prepare for the 11+.

My son's choice of secondary school was based on how his educational needs were going to be met in the different schools, and on the subjects taught. If the local comprehensive had come out better on that comparison, he would have gone there.

I agree. DS1 attends a grammar school. We chose this school for a variety of reasons. If the local high school had met our criteria, I would have had no problem in sending him there.

A friend (who has huge issues with the grammar system because the primary head said that her son was not grammar-school material - I do wonder what her issues would be if he'd had said that he was suitable ) recently accused me of sending DS1 there for the kudos and so that I could boast that he attends a grammar. I was deeply offended by this. Even if I felt that way (which I don't), how on earth could I afford to boast about it when I have two more sons who may ultimately go to the high school??? As it is, DS2 will be attending the grammar school in September, but I have no idea as yet which school might be best for DS3.

How on earth could I promote one school as being more desirable than the other, if one of my boys might end up at the "less desirable" school? What would that do to his self-esteem?

Certainly in our LEA, primary schools are specifically forbidden to offer more than very basic "familiarization" with the 11+ papers. This would be brilliant if all the schools complied. Ours does. School down the road has a 'voluntary but if you don't come we want to know the reason why" 11+club which is an hour after school 3 days a week from September to Christmas!

The 11+ is supposed to be an exam that any child of the right age is supposed to be able to sit down at and have a chance of passing - regardless of socio-economic background, primary education or whatever. The levellest playing field possible. What you actually get is maths that's not covered in the year 6 curriculum til AFTER the test, a pattern recognition test that I guess most children would find incomprehensible unless they had practiced and bizarre word games that require you to have a wide, and in some cases
abstruse vocaublary (a recent past paper needed them to know that the word "sage" has three meanings!)

And however good the non-grammar school option is (and I agree that most of them are not as good as they should be, to put it mildly) the fact remains that they are populated by children who know that they have been tested at the age of 11 and have failed the test. What sort of a message is that to send to 80% of a population?!

Our local grammars have mostly state-educated children in them. Most of the state primaries prepare those children they think will benefit from grammar education for the 11 plus as part of their year five and six curriculum. The privately educated entrants are in a tiny minority (four small schools vs at least ten much larger ones). Most of the children at them live in a neighbouring borough whose official policy is to provide no support for the 11 plus, and which is almost at the bottom of the national league tables.
Maybe some of those families preferred to give their children an integrated education from age 5 than have them crammed to the verge of collapse in yrs 5 and 6, all the while being aggressively discouraged by their head teacher at meetings and in letters
As with all aspects of education the picture is very different in different parts of the country.

Xenia, actually the Sutton grammar schools get very impressive results at GSCE - as good as Whitgift the local independent. And of course it is harder to get into say Wilsons (grammar) than Whitgift (hard cash aside). However I still think that the better privates are streaks ahead on their career advice and matching pupils with best A level choices/university courses etc. I was almost upset for a G&T daughter of a friend who wants to go into journalism being told that of course she didn't need to think about A level English Literature (and I think that she is now doing a Btech or something instead)

One interesting development is that one of the boys grammars has just started a 13+ entry scheme. Yet to see how popular it will be. Given that some of the grammars have the rich sporting, musicial, arts aspects equal to the independents and one or two even have grounds to match I have to say that the thought of not paying over £70k per child for the 5 years to GCSE is quite appealing! Although about half of the boys at ds1's prep sit and pass the 11+ only a third of those sitting seem to take up the places, though this does vary each year.

Oh and agree about the appeal of transfer at 13 for boys. We're a few years from having to think about it, but the idea of keeping them in the comparative safety of a primary school environement for a couple of years is quite tempting, especially as they get to exercise some extra responsibility and skip being the very youngest pupils in a 1000+ school.

Well there you are katelyle. So it's basically OK have your child coached on top of its national curriculum obligations, at evenings and weekends, and to pay to do so in most cases - quite often having paid the premium in terms of house prices to get into that sort of helpful, high-performing primary, but venal and selfish to choose independent education which helps children of all abilities across seven years (not all private schools are crammers) gradually prepare for right place for them at 11 (not all private schools hothouse children into educational settings where they will simply not be happy or progress).
That view prevails in many suburbs in London and it makes me smile wryly. We all do the best we can for our children given the options open to us.

But the vast majority of children don't sit the 11+. At our primary, many children did not sit it because their parents either don't agree with the grammar system and refused to take part, or came from an area which didn't have grammars and therefore stuck with what they knew, or felt that their child (albeit bright) would thrive better at a high school for a number of reasons.

Of the children who did sit the exam this last year, only a few failed (and their parents had been warned by the primary not to enter their child).

So children are not being labelled as failures at 11. How can you fail something that you don't take part in?

As F says the 11+ is just not an issue in most parts of the country.

What is amazine is both parties' policies on this subject. If they think grammars are great then surely have them everywhere. If you don't then change the system. But they daren't do that. They are going by if it ain't broke don't fix it but that's not fair on parents who want grammar schools in areas where there are none. It's an unfairness. I suppose parents could move. I've known people move to Bucks (go look at house prices in Amersham) for the state grammar schools but even those don't do as well as the private schools on the whole.

lm, that may be true. I don't know that area. Obviously Surrey is payment by house price anyway. Is Lady Eleanor Holles school around there - that's the only one with good results I've heard of, private.