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.

"if you're streaming all the classes then whats the point of them all being together in the same school? "

Well, someone may be absolutely brilliant at maths but cr*p at languages. Thus they would be top set for maths and bottom set for French.

I was in the grammar stream of a comprehensive school. This worked well as you could move between streams and there was a wide range of sets to suit all abilities for subjects which were streamed individually.

Hathor, yes I have gone off topic. Sorry!

Education is discriminatory. Middle class children and children who attend better schools do better in early years goals, SATs and GCSEs. They are then more likely to take a levels and get better results in them, and do 'better' degrees at 'better' universities and more likely to do postgraduate qualifications.

So why shut down grammar schools? How are they more unfair than any other part of the system? How are they more unfair than comprehensives in middle class catchments that poor people can't afford to live in? Should we close Oxford? Should we change A levels so that more people from working class backgrounds pass them?

I understand the 11 plus is unfair, but I cannot see that it is uniquely unfair.

When I went to grammar school, quite alot had been at private prep schools previously so they would get into the grammar.

Many of them ended up in the bottom streams, and I can't help wondering whether the state pupils who had not been tutored to pass the 11+ might have done better - through natural intelligence, not coaching.

violethill and soupdragon - yes I see that for maths, english and languages it would work but not all classes are setted are they - what happens in those - in history and geography, science, drama etc? Surely now pupils have so many option at gcse that this isnt practical?

Am not convinced that one school can be all things to all pupils. And (sadly) its immaterial anyway as we would never have a truly mixed intake.

People tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile two opposing views:

1. Indie schools should be abolished, and everyone should in the state system
2. Weeeeeeeeell, except, parents who can afford to pay fees should not be allowed to take places in good state schools...

These views are heard a lot in our area, the first by parents of pre-school children, the latter by the same parents when fighting to ge ttheir child into a good local school...

giantkate - depends on the school I guess - the ones I know set pretty much universally.

I am anti grammar schools. The really good thing about comprehensives is that it is all within the school and they can move up and down. I hate the way that they pass an exam at 11 and they have the place for the rest of their school years. Sometimes a few children move up from a secondary modern but they never move down. If there is to be a grammar school system I think there should be a review at the end of each year, until they get to GCSE courses, and the top of the secondary modern should go to the grammar and those struggling at the grammar, or being lazy, should go to the secondary modern. I can't see people liking that but it works when they are all under the same roof in the same uniform.
I don't think that state pupils should have an advantage. Grammar schools should devise a test that can't be prepared for with tutors or practice papers.

The Girls Grammar near us is "known" for VERY heavy hinting that any of their pupils who look set to ruin their perfect exam scores would "be happier in another school"!

I felt it was unfair that DS's school could not help him & his friends with practicing for the entrance to his school - when the private schools all did this instead of SATS (confirmed by friends with children at said schools). I couldn't afford / didn't agree with a Tutor so we did it from Past Papers at home, as to have NO preparation would be madness against the uber-tutored.

I know 1 girl who got a Grammar place and got 3 level 4's at her SATS. DD failed the 11+ but got 98% in her SATS (and now has a Cambridge offer)!!

'The Girls Grammar near us is "known" for VERY heavy hinting that any of their pupils who look set to ruin their perfect exam scores would "be happier in another school"!'

Good-and so they should!
If they are at a highly academic school they should be highly academic, otherwise their place could have gone to a highly performing secondary modern child. The world is full of high achieving, very academic people who failed the 11+.

I'm one of those dreadful parents whose child is at private school in the hope of getting a grammar school place. Why? Simple - our nearest school is a grammar school. We are in catchment but in the neighbouring county. In the county we live there are no grammars and primary school heads are very anti 11+.

If my ds is bright enough then I want him to have the same opportunity that I had. His school doesn't teach for 11+ afaik but they will give him an all round education to 11. I don't believe in tutoring as that won't help once they are there.

I can't afford secondary school fees so I hope the Rugby ruling isn't widely applied. Having said that it does refer to distances of 10 miles which seems a long way to go to school .

I think that it is a complete joke that it will stop middle class parents monopolising the grammar schools! Are the government not aware that the middle class parents in state schools buy an unfair advantage with tutors or practice papers? The disadvantaged don't stand a chance, until they find a test that can't be prepared for.

Message withdrawn

I am on the private side of the fence but hope desperately that, if the tide turns against us financially, my kids might at least get into grammar school after prep.

however I really DO think that priority should be given to state school kids over private. If you can afford to go private then I think you are being very socially greedy in taking up a grammar school place that could go to a child that otherwise will not get the education they deserve. Just like I feel that if you can afford Bupa it is totally wrong to waste NHS funds as and when it might suit you.

But I do appreciate that this kind of view is considered to be mostly bonkers by most of the people I know

"If you can afford to go private then I think you are being very socially greedy in taking up a grammar school place"

There is a big difference between junior fees and secondary fees. Someone may be able to just afford junior but not senior.

I agree with you squiffy.

Squiffy I actually agree in theory but in practice your place wont be taken by an extremely bright but poorer child but by yet another prep school child perhaps educated beyond their ability.

This sort of middleclass soul searching does nothing to lessen the social inequality in this country.

The relationship (at least where I am) between preps/grammars/good state schools is extremely complicated with people starting out in the nursery of prep schools and only continuing if they dont get into the state primary of their choice and likewise at 11. But maybe this is artificial because we have so many good grammars round here.

"If you can afford to pay.."

Just because you have paid for seven years doesn't mean you can continue to, or even could afford it in the past without enormous sacrifice.

It's not a good ruling.

It may be a problem with these local independent schools, rather than independent schools in general.

For a state school pupil to get into a grammar, they have to go to school and do the national curriculum, and then they have to come home and do their homework and then start on with the 11 plus work. They are used to a heavy work load and have done the national curriculum. So when they go to the grammar they can cope with the NC work and are used to doing lots of work after school (grammar school homework is 2 hours a night here).

Maybe the independent schools in this case are preparing so much for the 11 plus that the kids don't cover enough of other subjects to cope in the grammar and as they didn't prepare at home have no track record of coping with huge amounts of homework. So the grammar school has put in place this rule, because it doesn't really want those kids messing with the league table position.

A very bright child will get to the grammar school without extra work, it is the border line cases that have to put in the slog and then you wonder whether they are suited to that sort of education.

PM

I do not know any children that have got into the grammar school into my area without doing a lot of work for it. I know some very bright children who did not prepare and failed. Bright children in previous years who did not get in have gone to do very well in other schools and go on to good universities. I know some areas of the country take 20% to grammar, but here it is closer to 5% from state primary. It would be unrealistic for an unprepared bright child to think they can beat the scores of other bright children who have all done lots of work. There are simply not enough places.

Gosh - that report enrages me. Yet more prejudice against independent school children.

FWIW DD's independent school did not in any way prepare her for the 11+. She has a lot of homework from school, lots and lots of sports and she sat the 11+ exam ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED. There was no support from the school and we did not engage any private tutors and nor did we tutor her ourselves.

She passed the 11+ - a competitive exam - against a whole load of tutored children ENTIRELY on her own merit. There were questions that she did not know how to attempt.

It is monumentally unfair to think that schools would discriminate against a pupil like DD on the basis of having attended a prep school.

Anyhow, if they are stoopid enough to do stuff like that they just don't deserve my daughter.

Actually, I don't see why the motivated parents of bright state school pupils couldn't get hold of past papers & tutor at home: I bet they're available on the internet.

Obviously that's bugger all help to bright state school pupils whose parents couldn't give a stuff. Don't know what the answer is there.

Speaking as an ex-grammar school girl now teaching in a (good) state comprehensive, I say we need more grammars.

Re: the child with 3 level 4s in her SATs, there's always going to be one child who gets into grammar school but is actually not terribly able - my best friend at school was that child, & she was utterly miserable a lot of the time. But it's quite unusual - the comp I teach in sets for English (& Maths & Science) based on tests in year 7, & we get the vast majority of the settings right.