Kenyancowgirl, I guess it's easy for you ( I presume your kids are already in secondary school/perhaps you are a tutor), to talk about how it's fine to reduce the recognised pass mark for some children - Positive discrimination , I guess is the word to be used.

From a parent's view, if your child misses out on a place despite getting more than the marks, due to children with reduced scores getting in, it is difficult to digest.With my biased view as a parent, who is spending time to prepare my DD for teh entrance exam, it's very difficult to accept that someone could sail through on reduced marks when children with the required marks could potentially miss out.

I am definitely NOT a tutor.....! (mock horror!!)

GS were set up to help the bright but poor who couldn't access any other education. They are now predominantly stuffed to the gills with the middle classes who use every advantage possible to gain a place - this has made the gap between them and the very poor even larger - why should a very bright child who does not have access to every single advantage (including a parent who is spending time to prepare them for the entrance exam) be given a helping hand - arguably, if they get 10 marks lower than your child with literally no help at all, they are "brighter" and more deserving than your child who has had all the help. Give them a step up and see whether they fly - the child who misses out despite all the parental help isn't suddenly going to lose that parental help - they will still have that, whether they attend the GS or not. Don't think about it as that child having snatched the place away from yours - think about it as two lists, and unfortunately your child was at the bottom of the non PP list - in that sense you can see that is completely fair.

I do accept positive discrimination, as you call it - I think it should go further.

I don't think it's as simplistic as you are trying to suggest.

In a hypothetical situation ,lets say a child has scored 370 and is living within the catchment area, perhaps at distance 3 miles or so and can't get in because a child on PP gets in despite scoring a lot less and lives further away - it makes it very difficult to accept this, both from a parent's & child's perspective.

Obviously our views are going to be very different on this issue and we'll just have to agree to disagree

So how do you feel about children from the Preps getting the lions share of places?


Don't you think they have an unfair advantage over all others?

AGGS needs to consider the impact of the prep school cohort, from a personal perspective, it makes no difference to me as the entry mark is still the same and catchment distance applies

But it doesn't. There are children coming from preps who really struggle at the grammar schools. Don't you think they may be taking places from other 'more deserving' or 'able' children?

Why would this be ok, but an adjustment for disadvantage not be?

With my parental glasses on, the reduction in 10 marks is the only aspect which jumps out to me.

I am unsure whether your kids would be applying for AGGS from 2020 onwards - if they will be and your view is that the reduction in 10 marks for other kids is fine, fair play .

Looking at the date of you joining this forum and also KCG, and your post count, I am guessing that you've been on this forum for few years now and have had experience of the 11 plus exams in some format.

It would be interesting to see if parents of kids applying for AGGS from 2020 onward share a similar view about kids with a reduced score getting admission, at the cost of kids scoring better.

I don't know much about prep schools, other than the school gate comments from other parents that prep school kids will easily get into one of the grammar schools as the schools fully prep them for the CEM exams and the exam would just be another school day for them due to the intense practice they've already had ....

I guess the prep schools cater to a specific population and their need..

No it doesn't. The child simply feeds off the parent, for one! You simply explain to them that some children didn't have all the advantages they did and, because of that the system allows them to do not as well in the test (in the same way that age standardisation smooths out any advantages/disadvantages). Or you say nothing and just say, bad luck you didn't get in this time but you will do well wherever you go because you are hard working and we will always support you.

If your child is lower down the scoring, they "might" (and it is a big might - there are VERY few PP children actually in GS) not get a place. (But then even if there was no allowance for PP they might not get a place). Or, with the help you are offering they will do well enough to not be bothered by anything going on around the cut off. In our area Warwickshire and Birmingham, a neighbouring area, many PP candidates score well enough to get in, in their own right, so in a sense are not displacing your child anyway.

If you take the example where there might be 10% of children in an average year group who are PP - say 10 out of 100. So your child effectively has to do as well as the top 90 children - if they don't, they don't get a seat - take the PP out of the equation in that sense - (the two lists I referred to earlier).

Ultimately, selection at age 11 is inherently unfair anyway - you cannot accept those bits of it and then cry foul when you see an apparent disadvantage....

http://www.aggs.trafford.sch.uk/admissions/

I confess that I’ve only skim read the consultation but it appears that the score is only relevant as a qualification level. Qualified children who live closest will be prioritised over children who scored highly, in each category. In catchment children are prioritised before out of catchment children. So if you are in catchment you will take priority over out of catchment PP. (I’ve ignored the sibling priority for clarity.)

Thank you Mitasol