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

suppermummy
I am not rich, I live in the catchment of a dire comp, I got my kids into a better comp a few miles away.
The failings of comps are best dealt with by improving comps, not by undermining them.

Where has it been said that Grammars will be funded more than other schools?

Why the need to keep them apart?

They are already being kept apart in schools where you need to be wealthy to live close enough or be able to prove you are Catholic enough, or again wealthy enough to have been tutored in an instrument, or clever enough to play the system and rent in area without getting caught.

They are called comprehensive but they are not, of course those lucky or wealthy enough to get into a good comprehensive supports the system because it advantaged them. But on the other side of the fence the inequality is just as great as ever.

suppermummy
If you have grammars across a large area - such as Kent, by definition you have secondary moderns.

And if you look at the research that was published in the summer, the improvement in bright kids is so trivial (1/3 of a GCSE grade per subject)
that it is not in any way worth the stress and cost

Doesn't any success of grammar schools just indicate that comprehensive schools need to make more of their most able children? All that seems to have been proved by separating the more academically able/better prepared for the 11 plus into entirely different schools in the U.K. is that everyone else tends to suffer, regardless of whether they are studying the same subjects as in the grammar schools, or a more practical curriculum. Why the need to keep them apart?

Grammar schools lead to marginally higher grades for those who get in and worse grades for those who are just below the pass threshold. Thus they have been proved not to work.

No that proves they do work, what you probably mean to say is that Secondary Moderns, have been proved not to work. However this evidence is based on 163 Grammar schools, so to even use the word 'proved' is misleading, I think 'indicate' would be a better word. Also from what I have read, no one is advocating we bring back Secondary Modern schools.

“Pupils eligible for [free school meals] appear to suffer marginally less educational disadvantage if they attend grammar schools”

So it would seem the best outcome would be to make sure more children on FSM go to academically selective schools.

In a system where we already have massive selective comprehensives, based on money, faith, sporting ability, musical ability, how sharp elbowed your parents are etc etc it makes no sense to restrict academic selection.

Sorry, kesstrel, but when you don't make clear what you are saying, then of course you are open to misinterpretation. Which correlations were you referring to? The monetary ones, or the demographic ones, or both? In what way does your article fit into a discussion about £240million for grammar schools? What exactly are you trying to say about funding? Either schools in many areas need more money or they don't, yet you appeared to be arguing that they don't, because it cannot be proved that any improvements made have anything to do with money - oh, unless we are talking about pupil premium money .

Another correlation is that schools which get less funding because they have fewer pupil premium children make less progress. Given the fact extra funding normally coincides with extra time, resources, manpower and attention given to a particular group of children, it seems likely that extra money and extra focus actually go hand in hand and are not mutually exclusive. So now, maybe more money and focus should be going into those coastal towns you think nobody wants to live in, and more general funding should be going as a matter of urgency into schools which are generally so underfunded that they cannot afford experienced teachers. And I still think £240million to grammar schools is failing to address the real problems. So what is your opinion on that, given that that is the subject of the OP, so forgive me if I interpreted your comments in that light and therefore did not comprehend what the hell you are actually trying to say about anything?

I was commenting on what you said, not what the article said, except to the extent that the article did not appear to back up what you were saying

Well, given that what I actually said was:

"Not everyone agrees that it's the extra investment in London that has made the difference. Some argue that it's demographic changes, with a much larger proportion of immigrant children from higher-achieving backgrounds, that is primarily responsible for the improvement there, due to those children and their families having higher aspirations and a better work ethic. Correlation does not prove causation, unfortunately."

I have to ask, in what way does the article not back up what I said in my comment above?

You also wrote:

Another interesting thing is that "disadvantaged" schools, as they are referred to in the article, get more pupil premium money. Still, it's nothing to do with the money, apparently.

This comment also puzzles me, because the article, in fact, specifically talks about pupil premium money, and compares students who attract this money in London with students who attract that money outside of London. It doesn't say that pupil premium money doesn't help; just that pupil premium students in the demographics that appear to have raised overall standards in London in fact do just as well in schools outside of London.

Returning to your claim that you were commenting on what I said, not what the article said, you wrote the following:

So why not get off your high horse and agree that schools are being seriously underfunded in some areas?

Yet nowhere did I say that schools are not being seriously underfunded in some areas. Current levels of underfunding are a different matter to what the paper I linked to is discussing.

You also wrote: And possibly admit that £240million towards new grammar schools is not going to achieve much

Where in the comment above did I suggest that it would? Where did I say I was a supporter of grammar schools?

Sadly, this tactic of misrepresenting what people say is why it seems to be impossible on here to have any kind of serious discussion about how to improve less successful comprehensive schools.

Oh, and also ask the DfE to stop holding up London schools as a beacon of excellence, when the reality is they used to be awful and are now quite good at getting good exam results, which is a massive improvement by their previous standards, but does not mean the rest of the country should mimic them and mass academisation follow.

And possibly admit that £240million towards new grammar schools is not going to achieve much?

kesstrel - I was commenting on what you said, not what the article said, except to the extent that the article did not appear to back up what you were saying. If you look at what I have written, you will gather, in any event, that I do not actually believe London schools have done something phenomenal. However, the fact remains they have enough funding not to be contemplating mass redundancies and/or four day weeks. So when education in some counties has got to that level of underfunding, it comes across as pretty offensive to argue more funding won't help. So why not get off your high horse and agree that schools are being seriously underfunded in some areas?

it's nothing to do with the money, apparently.
we can halve the funding of London schools and give it to lower funded authorities and it will make no difference to standards in London,

I think you are misreading the report I linked to, if you think that's what it says. What is being argued there is that investment above the pupil premium in London schools does not appear to be correlated with better London performance, and that demographics do.

I believe this is a valid and thought-provoking point of view, which is why I put it forward. I also believe that if we are serious about improving comprehensives everywhere, we need to look at actual research with an open mind, rather than dismissing it in a flood of absurd strawmen and sarcasm. If the various London initiatives and higher funding may not themselves have been responsible for improved results in London, then it's important to be aware of that, in order to consider other approaches to school improvement.

Although more seriously, of course just providing more money is not enough - schools need to use the money wisely. £240 million towards new grammar schools is not my idea of a wise use of money.

And I reckon our increased success in the Olympics has nothing to do with money, either - our athlete demographic just has more drive these days. So lots of that funding can go elsewhere, too.

Another interesting thing is that "disadvantaged" schools, as they are referred to in the article, get more pupil premium money. Still, it's nothing to do with the money, apparently.

Aww. That's alright, then - we can halve the funding of London schools and give it to lower funded authorities and it will make no difference to standards in London, then. That way, we avoid a four day school week elsewhere and everyone's happy. It is amazing how apparently London's demographic has changed so rapidly from being one where its state school pupils were amongst the worst performing in the country to being the best performing, all because of their drive and work ethic, and so unfortunate this coincided with a huge injection of money and focus on the groups of children who are now performing so well... As for good teachers being attracted to London despite not being able to afford to live there - that would be because many teachers commute into London for the better pay, rather than teaching in their local schools for less pay. Have you never noticed how many people commute into London for work???...

educationdatalab.org.uk/2015/12/the-quest-to-find-london-effect-why-are-some-groups-of-pupils-making-more-progress-than-they-used-to/

Also, there seems to be a contradiction between saying that good teachers can't afford to live in London, but that London benefits from being able to pay for experienced teachers rather than NQTs.

Not everyone agrees that it's the extra investment in London that has made the difference.
link please

Good teachers and headteachers want to live there;
They want to but they cannot afford it.

London schools get nearly double the funding per pupil of Hampshire schools
that is twice as much money per class per year

the money that London state schools get is nearly as much as the private fees in the South West and the borders (north and west)
its a no brainer that if you can only afford NQTs rather than experienced teachers, learning outcomes will be hit

and the utterly dumb Academy system has stopped sharing of resources and training where schools are more than a mile apart so made it even worse

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.

Not everyone agrees that it's the extra investment in London that has made the difference. Some argue that it's demographic changes, with a much larger proportion of immigrant children from higher-achieving backgrounds, that is primarily responsible for the improvement there, due to those children and their families having higher aspirations and a better work ethic. Correlation does not prove causation, unfortunately.

In addition, London has other advantages that it would be difficult to transfer to many more remote areas. Good teachers and headteachers want to live there; most of them don't want to live in seaside towns miles from a city, for example.

While I agree that improving comprehensives should be the priority, I don't think that just providing more money would necessarily be the answer.

Trying to replicate what was done in London but seriously on the cheap doesn't work. So either London schools are actually rubbish and cheat to get good exam results, or lots of investment makes a difference.

You can't pretend throwing money and expertise at schools doesn't work when the government loves to crow so much about the success of London schools which have had colossal sums of money thrown at them compared to anywhere else in the country.

So, other than just throwing money at a school, which has been proved not to work, what would you do to "improve all comps"???

Grammar schools lead to marginally higher grades for those who get in and worse grades for those who are just below the pass threshold. Thus they have been proved not to work. So why would you throw money at new grammars?

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?

So how about improving the existing comprehensive schools instead then?

It successive governments and educational experts knew how to they'd have done it. Trouble is, all schools are different, different areas have different problems. One size doesn't fit all.

There have been some quite spectacular failures where brand spanking new comps have been built, with state of the art facilities, but have become failing schools almost immediately.

A school near us has been crap for over 40 years. They've gone through all kinds of initiatives to improve it over the years, but all have failed. Finally, a couple of years ago, they closed it down.

So, other than just throwing money at a school, which has been proved not to work, what would you do to "improve all comps"???