What do we think about grammar schools giving priority to state pupils?

[Hathor]

A reported in the news today
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5671757.ece

Bet that is a good one for debate. Discriminatory or fair? I am undecided, although I suppose the whole grammar system itself is discriminatory.

It seems a bit OTT to discriminate against those from private schools as there will be some children who have been at state schools with tutoring who will also have a head start at the grammar school test.

The grammar schools should have admission by an intelligence test (that one cannot be tutored for) and an interview. They should have the freedom to select some children from disadvantaged backgrounds who maybe don't have the highest test scores but who have potential.

If there is such demand for grammar schools more grammar schools should be created.

It is a very difficult situation. There is no fair way of organising the school entrance.

Children at a private prep are at an advantage over those who are at state primary.

Children who are at a good state primary are at an advantage over children who are at a bad state primary.

Children with parents who are prepared to teach them (or pay a tutor) the skills required for the 11 plus are at an advantage over the parents who cannot be bothered or don't have the intellect of a bright 11 year old in order to explain the test to their child.

In my area (West Yorkshire) I would say that there are not enough grammar schools for the number of children who would benefit from a grammar school education and whose parents support the type of education provided by in a grammar school. The solution is to provide more grammar school places.

Agree with most of MillyR's post except:

'Children at a private prep are at an advantage over those who are at state primary.'

as this implies that a fee paying school is always 'better' than state. Which ain't true!

'Children at a private prep are at an advantage over those who are at state primary.'

Oh, but this is true. It's not because one is better than the other, but the prep school pupils will have been taught how to pass the entrance exams. This puts them at an advantage.

the flip side is the Prep school pupils who failed the entrance exam to the local comprehensive because they didn't understand how to answer the kind of questions they were given. They had been taught specifically how to do 11+ and common entrance exams.

Violet Hill...

Yes, I agree that the fee paying school is not better over all. I mean that fee paying schools (where I live) teach verbal reasoning and do huge amounts of work for the 11 plus, and state schools are not allowed to do that in my LEA, as it is an opt in 11 plus, not an opt out like in Kent LEA (although even Kent only does a couple of familiarisation papers).

So fee paying pupils are at an advantage in the test, but are not at an advantage when they actually start at the state grammar.

Don't they always complain that middleclass parents get places at Grammars in preference to working class kids because they can work the system and find the loopholes.
I am middleclass. I can see a loophole. If anyone would like to give me £50 in unmarked notes, then I'll give them the secret.

Wouldn't the real answer be to scrap the state grammars, since dividing children at 11 according to a spurious ability test is just another hurdle to good education?

That's a different topic to the one you set up Hathor.

Parents will send their dcs to state schools and tutor them

Or will there be a means-based test and a class test as well to stop these "cheats"

You can't stop people taking advantage of any educational system and social engineering never works. They should roll out grammars nationwide again (yeah, right) so there are more places and more bright children would stand a chance.

MillyR - you are right, as you were!

I suppose that if state grammars are getting a high proportion of independent school pupils, then lots of families are using them instead of continuing with private education.
Is that fair? Not really, but the whole system is unfair isn't it?
I know families who have moved to grammar areas with the hope that they don't have to pay fees at age 11+. However, what happens to the ones in the state system who get bumped down to the non-grammars as a conseqence?

I went to a grammar school. It was an opt out 11+ with a very strict catchment area (our town district) The entire town sat it on the same day. We were given no warning and no preparation, just a few verbal reasoning questions in maths class every now and again.

I don't think I know anybody who had additional tutoring and it was all very fair (assuming you think the grammar system is fair to start with).

However now nearly 50% of pupils travel from out of the area, many of them from fee paying primary schools which only have comps in their area. This has essentially meant that places for local children have halved and it has become far more competitive. I think these days all the middle class parents pay for extra tuition because everyone else does. Those who don't are therefore at a disadvantage.

The state should attempt to provide everyone with schools that will provide an adequate education for their child's needs. People should not have to pay for a private secondary education just because there are no schools offering a traditional academic education within the state system. There should be enough grammar school places to educate all the reasonably bright children from families who want a traditional education. In some areas only 3% can go to grammar school. A lot more than 3% should be going!

fruitstick - that doesn't sound very fair to me.

I take your point about the lack of tutoring etc making it a more 'level playing field', but the traditional 11+ was grossly unfair. It assumed that one particular type of very narrow exam taken at one particular point in time was an accurate way of assessing intelligence and potential.

I took the old style 11 +, and passed it. My siblings took it and failed. We all actually went to a comprehensive anyway. We all got good O and A levels and went to University.

Makes me wonder about all the potential University candidates who got written off at 11 and sent to a secondary modern where O levels weren't even an option .

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the current system, the old style 11 + has been discredited.

MillyR - isn't your argument better for more good state comps, rather than more grammar/secondary moderns?

Wont the feepaying parents just move them into the state system a year earlier or whatever and try from there? If they fail then they will still go onto the local feepaying secondary at 11.

All the prep schools round my way refuse to tutor for the grammar school exams because they miss out of two years of extra fees.

I can't understand how a grammar school would be allowed to do this. How can they have admission criteria that specifically excludes one group? It just seems very strange.

No, because not everyone wants a traditional education. A lot of people want the kind of education offered by comprehensive schools. They don't want parents like me turning up and moaning about what goes on at the local comp and insisting on changes. There need to be a variety of school types for different requirements.

I am not using traditional as a euphemism for 'academic'. And some comprehensives are traditional and academic.

There is no single defintion of what is a 'good education' and I cannot insist that all schools offer what I want for my child. But is should be recognised that there are more parents that want what I want than there are places available for our children.

But what if you live in a grammar school area and your child does not get into the grammar?

But there will always be differences in the detail of what people want for their children. On that basis, you could say that no school will ever be 'right' because they aren't going to be able to cater for what everyone wants.

Surely the solution is to have really good quality state comprehensives which offer academic excellence as well as all the other things that are important to a rounded education?

And surely we'd be doing our children a disservice to let them think everything in the world is going to be exactly tailored to their own specific needs all the time anyway?
I think it's an important lesson for children to learn that people have different strenghts, weaknesses and learning styles. After all, when you get to University or the world of work, you hopefully pick something that suits you well enough, but there's always going to be some element of compromise.

violethill - I think its very hard to teach children in the same classroom with wildly different abilities/behaviours though. And if you're streaming all the classes then whats the point of them all being together in the same school?

And while we're at it - if you're running classes of all the sciences/languages etc how can you fund the teachers to be doing more vocational subjects? good quality state comprehensives are what is needed but am not sure if it can ever work in practice with a properly universal intake.

MillyR,now you are getting away from the issue in my OP.

Given that we do have grammars in some areas, this new policy of further selecting based on what primary education the children have had seems discriminatory.

Wasn't there also a ruling recently about grammars in Rugby not being allowed to take children from the neighbouring county?

At this rate the only people who will get into the local grammars will be a child from next door and his puppy.

Yes, I do believe there has to be compromise. But there is huge diversity in our society in what people believe is culturally or intellectually important. I must stress I am not talking about ethnicity or class.

A lot of people want their children to be able to have an opinion about a wide range of topics, and argue those topics passionately. When I went and looked at the comp, the walls and exercise books were full of work on things like knife crime, abortion and the Klu Klux clan. Other parents were really impressed by this.

I don't want that (my children can read that in a newspaper anyway). I do not know what causes knife crime, nor do I know the solution. I don't have an opinion and any opinion I could hold would be ill informed as I am not a specialist and nobody can be a specialist in everything; it is absurb that an 11 year old in an area with no reported knife crime should be encouraged to hold an opinion based on almost no knowledge.

I want my child to learn about a wide range of topics and how to learn the tools of knowledge: languages, philosophy, statistics, maths and scientific methods. Then they may be able to hold worthwhile opinions about some areas they are a specialist in. That to me is a traditional education.

I am not criticising all comprehensive schools (they are varied; I am just referring to my local comp), or criticising opinionated children ( we need some; it is vital for democracy). I just think there has to be a balance between having the self-esteem to hold an opinion and having due respect for people who know a lot more than you do about a particular topic. My comp has not got that balance, but many parents would not want it to! I am just saying it is not the education I want for my children. It is a different ethos, not a different standard. I don't see how a school can have more than one ethos.

giantketstacks - yes it would be extremely difficult to teach children of all abilities in the same class, which is why comprehensives set by ability (not streaming - that's different). You ask what the point is of them all being in the same school - well, I guess it's some children are brilliant at Maths, some at Science, some at English... they will end up in the right class for their ability, while being part of the same institution as their friends. Any other system seems bizarre to be honest. What would the point be of putting a child who might be fantastic at Maths but poor at English into a 'one size fits all' environment where they might struggle to keep up? Or conversely, what would be the point of holding back a child who might struggle at one subect but be great at another by putting them in the old style secondary mod model?