Justine Greening grubs around for grammar school support after disastrous consultation

Instead of denying kids their GS place, we should be focusing on WHY modern schools fail kids, and what can be done about this

and the standards in secondary moderns should not deteriorate.Meeting the needs of the majority of children there is of paramount importance.

But the elephant in the room is that not everyone is cut out for the academic pathway and their needs would be much better served by encouraging them to do qualifications in subjects they ARE good at

.

For bright kids at grammars, the "gain" in results is around 1/3 of a grade per GCSE
which is frankly not worth the waste of resources that Grammars consume

In actually think 3/4 extra A*s (from A) is quite a lot, and I don't understand what you mean by increased costs?.There wouldn't be more schools, it's just that every or 4 th school would be a GS and the rest secondary moderns

Sigh....
Time for a glass of something...
Grammars are a dreadful throwback....

"Hence it would be perfectly possible to send your child to the non grammar school"

It would no longer be possible to choose a comprehensive school.

And actually your post perfectly illustrates how the the negative impact on the education of the majority of children of reintroducing full selection, isn't even on the radar of the pro-grammar lobby.

It's a typical Tory mentality.

Flying

It is obvious why the people are objecting to the creation of normal Grammar Schools- because they have the effect of rendering the rest of the schools in the area as secondary moderns (and the schooling for 75% of the cohort deteriorates in most cases). The evidence for super selectives is less problematic.

So even if you are a CO (as you phrase it) unless your child is in the 25%, on a whole cohort basis, your child's educations standards deteriorate. That was one of the major drivers causing the abolition previously.

Assuming for a minute that grammar schools became the norm rather than the exception. Those who would be 'conscientious' objectors would not be forced to send their children to grammar school.

If your child passed an 11+ it would not be a 'legal' requirement to send your child !

Hence it would be perfectly possible to send your child to the non grammar school should a families political preferences suggest a disagreement with selection.

Talkinpeace.

Why were you prepared for your children to forego 2 A* for the good of society !

december
The report is here
epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Grammar-schools-and-social-mobility_.pdf
It got lots of coverage when it was published as the methodology is rock solid.

For bright kids at grammars, the "gain" in results is around 1/3 of a grade per GCSE
which is frankly not worth the waste of resources that Grammars consume.

1/3 of a grade :
so DD and DS would each have got two extra A* instead of A in their GCSEs but they would have lost out on the friendships with excellent people who would not have passed an 11+

• So most people think bright kids so better in GS People think that but the evidence disagrees with them*

Where are you getting that from? Can you link, please?

The evidence I have seen shows pupils in a GS have a significantly better value added score than a similar cohort in a comp.

December - NVR/VR is a very "blunt instrument" was of selecting children. Your set up wouldn't help ds. He has a spiky profile - top 2% VR but has difficulty with, say, nets and a couple of other NVR tests. Also slow processing speed.

The grammar/secondary modern set up would fail him as it would have failed my dd were we not in an area with ace comps. He was (old school) levelled at 4 at KS1 in reading. Using the old system, aiming for 6 in maths/reading/writing at end of KS2. But would not pass NVR based grammar test.

I have less problem with the superselectives/super grammar set up which we have in my area. Top 2% with a broad catchment of 13 miles, which covers much of London. You don't get the damaging top slicing that you get in more traditional grammar areas.

Dd's comprehensive is outstanding. She's on target for 8/9 in GCSE with most of the top sets in the comp (you can differentiate within a good comprehensive, where there is a total range of children).

Money ring fenced for fiddling with the system would be better spent on improving all comprehensives, modelling schools with good progress across the board of the intake, rather than on supporting a divisive system that experts (the very well educated professionals that nowadays seem to be vilified) say just doesn't work.

The consultation responses haven't been published yet -some people have put up their own responses online.

So the question is this:- why is it the job of bright kids to lift up the rest?

It's a completely artificial dividing line. If you selected 20% of all kids and gave them a school with the message " you are bright" and where their teachers were likely to be better qualified then they would almost certainly do better than those in other schools.

If the evidence shows that the majority of children do better in comprehensives than in a selective system (and it does) then that is what the government should provide. The govt should not be deciding that some children are more "worthy" than others.
Good article here www.lkmco.org/grammar-schools-bright-poor-wouldnt-help-either/

So most people think bright kids so better in GS
People think that but the evidence disagrees with them.

I'll stick with the evidence thankyou.

could you link to which one it is, @december10th? I tried all the links on thread but i'm not seeing a summary of the entire response to the consultation, just some individual contributions.

Sorry just found a link upthread

So most people think bright kids so better in GS, but less able kids do better in comps ie schools where the grammar school element is not creamed off.
So the question is this:- why is it the job of bright kids to lift up the rest?

Is there a breakdown online of what the consultation results were?

but parties put forward manifestos and then people vote for which set of policies they most want to see enacted.

Except this policy was not in the manifesto that people voted for, which is strange as they are so convinced it will be popular.

The idea is that knowledgable people make decisions on our behalf, for the good of the country, not simply enact the will of the people.

I would disagree. That is not democracy.whilst clearly it is not pragmatic to hold a referendum on every decision, but parties put forward manifestos and then people vote for which set of policies they most want to see enacted.
Pooka in this area the children do both an NVR & VR test on 2 different days , and only the best score in each subject is taken. So your DC would have had another bite of the cherry, and children are selected on the way and the speed with which they think.So yes, you get children selected who are poor at Maths or spelling or whatever because they are tested on their potential not how ell they have been taught or their current attainment
tive Saturdays tests

If a person is not bothered about professionals, then why would they want grammar schools? Grammar schools specialise in producing people who go into the professions and then spout their professional opinions all over the place.

The parents of those children who would be in the secondary moderns are also service users. If the majority of people in an area wish to retain comprehensive education why do people who want grammars have a "right" to overrule this?

"But the parents (or more precisely their DC) are the service users! They are the ones paying for it, they are the one's electing government.It is their opinions that count, not the 'professionals'."

Blimey- we really are in a post truth world when professionals is in inverted commas and service users isn't.!

But the parents (or more precisely their DC) are the service users! They are the ones paying for it, they are the one's electing government.It is their opinions that count, not the 'professionals'.

So you really don't see any role for evidence based policy? No role at all for people studying what works, and what turns out to be a waste of public money? Quite terrifying.

PS
Lotteries are only the answer in cities
in market town / rural areas they are the problem, not the solution

and
"a grammar in every town"

which of the Winchester state schools would become selective?
Which of the Romsey schools?
Which Petersfield school?
Which Lymington school ?
Which Fordingbridge school ?