Selective (grammar) secondaries may go back to allocating places to the brightest children from borough junior schools.

[Bubble99]

Hoorah!

Isn't this what selective schools are meant to be about? To give a chance to bright children whatever their background?

In our area selective schools are full of children who have been at private prep schools or children who have been privately tutored/kumon'd.

Bright children whose parents aren't 'in the loop' are missing out.

As a a parent working two jobs with a dh working 3 jobs in order to scrape school fees together I find this method just as unfair.

I chose private at primary not so my child can be crammed for the local state grammar school (it is Catholic ex private with an attached prep anyway so we don't stand much chance) but so that my child can escape SATS and study a broad curriculum with music and drama being valued.

I'm hoping to be able to afford private at secindary too, but who knows what our circumstances may be then.

Incidenctally my dd's teaching assistant (whose dd went to the Catholic prep) said that out of 40 children in her dd's year only 18 got into the Catholic grammar, the rest came from other nearby Catholic primaries who also prepared for the entrance test (my neice has just gone there).

You will always get schools who prepare for 11 plus, some state schools will prep just as much if not more than the private ones.

We have the 11+ here. There are some primaries, such as my boys' one, which follow the LEA insistence that no cramming or preparatory work is done (apart from one mock test to familiarise the pupils with the style of exam. Others, however, do cram their pupils, particularly one in a very well-to-do part of town which prides itself on its high grammar school placements (well, no surprise there). This is just as unfair as parents paying for schooling or tutoring.

I don't really get what the big deal is. As far as I was aware, background doesn't come into it. Any child can sit the 11 plus. They should have a certain level of intelligence though, otherwise there's no point. I know parents who have sat their child for the 11 plus knowing full well they wouldn't pass it. What's the point?

My DD has recently been offered a grammar school place. She's not at a private school now, although her primary is one of the best performing in our county, so the kids that go there will get a leg up anyway. Yes, we had her tutored, by an ex teacher, quite an elderly woman, it cost us £7.00 for 40 mins once a week. Not extortionate by anyone's standards I would have thought.

In my area the Grammar schools are attended by kids from 'normal' families and 'normal' primaries. There probably are some from private schools, but I wouldn't have thought they are in the majority.

I don't think parents paying for tutoring is unfair. My family is an example that it doesn't have to cost the earth. Most primary schools don't teach verbal reasoning etc. so if you want your child to go to Grammar school, you've got to give them the best possible chance, surely?

Think back to any exams we've ever sat ourselves - driving tests, music exam, whatever, you wouldn't take any sort of test without preparation would you?

I think the problem is that children of parents who do not want to tutor or don't particularly care about what school their child goes to, may miss out on grammar schools. They won't even be taken to sit the tests.

I had to sit the test at school when I was 11 - we all sat it. Today, you need to apply for the test and also take the child on the Saturday when it takes place, which will rule out quite a few children who may be bright enough to get into the school but whose parents lack the motivation.

I know that some prep schools around my area timetable vr and nvr from the age of around 5 or 6, whereas state school children are having to be tutored or their parents are tutoring them. Clearly this will rule out an awful lot of children whose parents don't have the means or inclination to do this.

Both my kids go to grammar school and they know of children who are travelling up to 40 miles every day. Clearly parents want these schools so why don't we have them in every area - with a level playing field for entry into them.

Mummypenguin - you were lucky - very lucky indeed. £25 an hour is not unusual and this in a class of around 8 sometimes. The parent of a child I know was quoted £1,000 by a tutor from January up to September. The parent was on benefits.

Yes, we were lucky, and I'm very glad of it, but you know what? Even if we'd had to pay a lot, we would have found the money somehow, as both myself and DH very much wanted DD to get into the Grammar school, as the other secondaries in our area are really poor, so they just weren't an option for us. The only other school we would have sent her to, and she was offered a place, was a Catholic secondary. But even that school has behaviour issues, and seems to be going a bit downhill compared to what it once was. DD is a very bright girl, and we both felt very strongly that the Grammar school was the best for her.

I did have doubts about her tutor at times, as she was doing 11 plus preparation work in a different format to the pass papers, and I worried that when DD had to sit the test, it would still seem alien to her, but she was fine luckily. This tutor also didn't do mock tests with DD, as another tutor I've heard of locally, does. She's very 'old school' and before she retired, was teaching for years, so she obviously knew what she was doing.

I just think you are lucky to have the option of a grammar school when most of the country has to put up with the comprehensive system.

I would agree. Most of the comprehensives here would give me sleepless nights at the thought of my kids being in them.

But MummyP - if you've got grammar schools in your area then the comprehensives will be even worse because the brightest kids have been creamed off by the Grammar.

Comprehensives in a grammar school area aren't comprehensives, they're secondary moderns, whatever term might be being used. Salisbury tried to get away with that 'trick' but seem to have been put right by OFSTED.

There's a thread on 'education' about whether grammar schools should discriminate in favour of non-tutored/prep schooled children which might be of interest and is related to this post.

I would have been glad of this when DS was sitting 11+ (now in Yr7). We had to bvuy past papers & practice at home as the vast majority of kids applying are from prep/private schools or tutored (which we couldn't afford & don't agree with anyway).

He worked hard & got in btw.

Not necessarily, idlemum. It's true that the comprehensives in our area are poor, apart from the Catholic secondary which DD also got offered a place at (she's in a Catholic primary) and she would have gone there, had she not passed the 11 plus or not been offered a place at the Grammar. At the Catholic secondary, there are lots of bright children. Indeed, there are two girls in DD's class, who are very bright, they sat the 11 plus and passed, but for reasons only known to their parents, they didn't pursue the Grammar school, didn't go on the waiting list, so weren't offered a place. Had they pursued the Grammar school option, they would have got in.

What does 'creamed off by the Grammar schools' mean? Does that mean that the Grammar schools actively seek out the brightest kids from primaries? That's not what happens here. For children to go to the Grammar schools, it has to be very much parent motivated.

What I mean by 'creamed off' (and I am not against selection per se but I am against the fact that only a small part of the country has that option whilst we are stuck with comprehensive only) is that if there is a grammar school option for children who can pass the 11+ then those bright children will therefore not be available to attend the 'comprehensive' and its mix of children will be affected.The post by 'Miljee' makes this point.I would also argue that any 'faith' comprehensive is not a true comp either because they have selected by the back door and are excluding children of non-religious parents (there has been a long thread on this issue somewhere).

Oh yes, that's an argument that could run and run, isn't it? Our Catholic comprehensive here, is very strict with it's policies though, and in particular our Parish Priest is even more so. He's very 'old school' and goes very much on church attendance etc. There is a lot of paperwork that you have to submit to the Catholic comp when you apply, but the one that makes or breaks it is the Priests reference form. One of DD's friends was turned down by the Catholic comp, because the Priest had made an error, and signed her form as 'not attending.' The girl had been attending regularly with either of her parents, she's attending the catholic primary, has been baptised, done her Holy Communion etc. As you can imagine, her parents were incensed when that happened particularly as she was allocated our catchment comp by the LEA which is really poor. The situation has now been resolved, and she's been given a place at the Catholic comp.

However, this Catholic comp in particular, doesn't exclude children of non religious parents, if there are places available after all the higher categories have been allocated, then they will get in. Perhaps more so with the primary though. Our Catholic primary has children attending whose parents aren't Catholic and don't go to any church. Still, not many though. This year, the Catholic secondary's cut off was category 7 which I think is 'other denominations.'

What annoys me about all that, is that children who attend catholic primaries, been baptised and Holy Communion-ed, ticked all the boxes etc, still have to bend over backwards (well, the parents do) to get into the Catholic secondary. It's very Dickensian.