£240 million allocated to new grammar schools in the Autumn Statement

Then why doesn't she discover a few principles and get on with resigning? Oh no, got to put the Tory party first.

It's not that simple, though. She may feel that she can still do a lot of good in her role at the DoE, provided that she is willing to make compromises. So, yes, TM gets to open a few new grammar schools but perhaps Greening feels she will be able to get through other policies she believes in.

Ultimately politicians always have to compromise - the issue is where their red lines are and how much they are willing to move their lines for personal gain/progression.

It's quite possible that Greening is willing to sell out personal beliefs for progression but I think it's too soon to tell. Certainly there are other ministers who disagree with TM on some issues (and no 10 will force TM"s will to be carried out on these issues) but who are fighting very hard to get other big policies they believe in implemented.

Academic selection is the only way to provide mobility in the current selective comprehensive environment.
Except that the evidence directly contradicts your assertion.

Where the Comps are actually comprehensive (ie are clear of to many segregated schools locally)
they seem to do just fine for all kids

Parents won't be able to choose not travelling over travelling for their non-Catholic less academic 11 year old

That is already the case.

Concentrate on developing comps

Some comps in middle class enclaves? are successful in providing for academic children. The rest of the country ... not so much. Academic selection is the only way to provide mobility in the current selective comprehensive environment.

Gove said the cancellation was done in a crass and insensitive way

Assuming that quote is accurate, he didn't say the cancellation was wrong.

Oops - wrong thread

Done.
Some VERY strange starting points in the consultation.
Thankyou for giving us the chance to make our feelings known.

Is a bit odd in the first question it wants you to just choose one of the options of 'who you are' - surely many of us wear several hats from that list?

I am far from convinced that Greening actually wants grammars but if TM does then the only option for Greening to push against grammars would be to resign.

Then why doesn't she discover a few principles and get on with resigning? Oh no, got to put the Tory party first.

"When money is tight and school places are in short supply there is no way the government should be saying 'here, special subset of the population, here's a shiny new school for you on your doorstep. The rest of you can get the bus to the next town." To a secondary modern. And when there is no evidence that a grammar school as does better by any individual child than a comprehensive if both are schools of the same quality.

Some Parents in our area compete for super selective places in a school that has excellent results over all. As it has super selective places it sends lots of kids to good universities . In fact this highly sought after school is a comp. yes we should make a priority of getting the best out of our brightest young people, but as this school shows, it can be achieved in a comp.

Concentrate on developing comps (rather than constant change and interference) and at least wait for the impact of Progress 8 to be seen and analysed, before slapping in a partially baked Ill thought -out change in a random way.

May needs to get out a bit. I am disappointed by Greening. She rented a house in Derby Road. She knew. But now she is rich so does not care.

I think you are misreading the situation. No 10 is over-riding ministers' personal views. E.g. Education/BEIS certainly don't want restrictions on student numbers or student numbers included in immigration statistics. TM does. I am far from convinced that Greening actually wants grammars but if TM does then the only option for Greening to push against grammars would be to resign.

supermummy
I take it you live in London

rather than in the land of deregulated public transport
where the bus to the catchment school is free
but all others are around £700 a year
which means that without catchment schools, only the rich can even consider choosing schools
so economic discrimination is rife

If there are Grammars all over the place then the shite Kent system is what will happen
with the financial bus fare segregation hidden inside it

It could hardly have been clearer to you, you mean, kesstrel, and please don't tell people what they can and can't take offence at.

so......Nicknmeused said: "So how about improving the existing comprehensive schools instead then?"

Badbunny said: If successive governments and educational experts knew how to they'd have done it.. So, other than just throwing money at a school, which has been proved not to work, what would you do to 'improve all comps'???

user7214743615 said: "BTW it is not true to say that increasing financing has been proven not work: the increase in funding in London has worked. Why don't we try and learn lessons from this, instead of opening grammars to fool middle class parents into thinking that the education system is improving?"

I said: Not everyone agrees that it's the extra investment in London that has made the difference

But apparently it was my post that "went off at a tangent", ? It could hardly be clearer that I was following User's reference to "funding in London", in order to address the issue of whether the extra investment did or didn't help to improve comprehensive schools there.

I won't be responding to you again, since it's obviously pointless. But please, think more carefully before you tell another Mumsnetter that her post is "offensive" because you imagined it said something it didn't.

kestrel - I have no problem whatsoever linking their posts to the OP. Only yours went off at a tangent. The fact that nobody followed your tangent is not my problem.

Roundabout"
so forgive me if I interpreted your comments in that light and therefore did not comprehend

Try reading the comments of user7214743615 at 10:22:29 and of Badbadbunny at 09:52:59. They are both directly above mine, and introduced the subject to which my post was a response. It is not unknown for threads to diverge from the direct topic in the title, but if you have problems with this I suggest you direct your criticisms to the two posters above.

We wouldn't have skewed demographics now if "it were done properly." It's just that nobody has worked out how to do "it" properly. Kent and Buckinghamshire certainly haven't worked out how to do academic selection "properly", despite having been practising it for years. And travelling to school benefits the wealthy, as the poor don't always get a free bus pass, even if there is a bus to get them to school in the first place.

I believe that schools should be part of their local community

Why cant they be, my local faith schools are very much part of community but admit pupils from all over the place.

11 year olds shouldn't be travelling long distances

That's a choice parents make, go to your nearest school or consider travelling a bit to go to one that fits you better. Its a choice every parent makes already, academic selection doesn't change that.

the same skewed demographics will nevertheless result

Not if done properly but even if it does its wont be any worse than we have now, and maybe 3% on FSM getting better grades is better than 0.

Then maybe the argument will be made to end all selection of any sort.

Supermummy - the same skewed demographics will nevertheless result. The school's getting the best results will attract the wealthier parents. Nobody has yet created a selection test for any type of school that does not ultimately appear to advantage exactly the people who are currently already benefiting from the status quo.

How many secondary schools do you think one area can support?

In what I used to call a LEA their must be close to a few dozen secondaries. Why?

roundaboutthetown

I am saying the current system is already selective but the only area not allowed to specialise is academically. So some academic selection makes the current selective system more equal.

If you have grammars across a large area ...by definition you have secondary moderns

But no one is suggesting we replicate the old Grammar system that Kent holds onto. If in an area you have good/outstanding academies, free schools, faith schools, grammar schools, UTCs, sports academies, music selection, special schools and all the other types and hybrids of types that you can get, then NO by definition you do not have Secondary Moderns.

... it is not in any way worth the stress and cost

The average difference might be small, however that is only an average. I suspect a lot of pupils at Grammars do not or should not be there and they drag the average down. The solution would be to move them out of the grammar at the end of Y8 and move in the 'so called' late developers.

The difference at the top end of ability at Grammars could be more significant which is what I thought was the whole point of academic selection. How were these stats even arrived at because if your looking at the top end of ability it probably doesn't differentiate between someone who got 80% and an A* and someone who got the same grade but 95%. The new levels 8 and 9 might give a more accurate picture.

Supermummy - so are you saying the system is currently unfair, so we should feel obliged to make it more unfair still? In areas with lots of grammar schools there are lots of children in those grammar schools who were privately educated at primary level. How is that improving on the status quo?