Bits of news on the grammar school issue

And not pints - maybe that would have been an incentive...

It's all to do with our lack of respect for technical education, IMO.

And not pints - maybe that would have been an incentive...

Two - sorry!

Peregrina - there were tow transfer pints, supposedly to recognise various things - but , in general, the transfer from middle school could be direct to a UTC. Parents are very wary of anything new fangled on the whole and the UTCs just haven't taken off.

What teacher really would want to go and work in one. for example??

My mum went to a tech school in Bexley years and years ago that had an academic path for uni as well as vocational courses

Ditto for my FIL and Grandfather. The two schools that they went to (at differing times) both offered science and a couple of languages, I think French and German, as well as offering practical skills like shorthand and typing. Both FIL and Grandfather were the beneficiaries of this curriculum. They weren't offered every where, that was the problem, but it's a pity they didn't make them national post the 1944 education act. What they didn't offer was Latin and Greek which was the preserve of the Grammars. GF was sufficiently well prepared by his education to go on to qualify as a Civil Engineer, as well as being sent on ahead during WW1 to find billets for the troups, because he could speak French. FIL qualified with a trade and spoke German.

The trouble is that some people are still stuck in a world where the bosses and proper professional people came from private school, the lower level professional people and the managerial class went to grammar school, the skilled workers went to technical colleges and everyone else- the labouring classes went to secondary moderns. Well, that was how it was supposed to work. But society isn't like that any more.

OK Beans I didn't know that. What though was the transfer age from the Middle School and the entry age to the UTC?

Round here (Oxfordshire) only Oxford City had middle schools and they got rid of them some considerable time ago. There are one or two UTCs but I don't know how they are fairing.

It is a shame. My mum went to a tech school in Bexley years and years ago that had an academic path for uni as well as vocational courses - including what would now be access to nursing. She did the secretarial course because her family needed the money - so she still missed out on uni. And she was on free school meals. There never was that golden age...!
While I don't support the policy I certainly don't blame anyone for sending their kids to existing grammars - they are very good schools! I just don't accept that the government's plans will achieve what they claim and I think it's dishonest of them to say otherwise. They could do things differently and achieve a lot more.

Not true Peregrina - I work in an area with middle schools and the UTC round here was one of the first to go.

The government spent £9 million on this UTC which closed down 3 years after opening because of low pupil numbers, and of the kids who did go there, NONE of them passed GCSE maths and English.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/new-state-art-9m-school-9776436

And yet the government continues to push forward with this failed money-wasting initiative as well.

UTCs (technical colleges) are closing down as quickly as they open because parents don't want to send their kids there.

One of the problems here is that this isn't the natural transfer age. If we had retained a middle school system extending them to 14, instead of 12 or 13, so that all children had to chose a new school at that stage then they might have been more successful.

I likebeans, shame I did not realise that about tech schools.

My job is offering support to UTCs. They can't recruit - staff or students - and are dead on their feet.

UTCs (technical colleges) are closing down as quickly as they open because parents don't want to send their kids there.

No but having technical schools to make choices from Y9/10 would be useful

Not many children already have a specific focus and career plan mapped out at age 11.

I also govt does not pay lip service to technical/stem schools. They are key for those who may have a different focus

All I know was superselective was definitely the right choice for me. I was lazy but had a competitive streak. I also love where I teach.
I also loved my first placement school (comp in Hayes). Hated my second placement (girls comp in Surrey). But there we go.
Regardless of all the above Teresa May's current policy plan is rubbish and a waste of money.
When there's a element of educational policy on selection that has me agreeing with Betrand and Noble then I think we can say with confidence that it is a bloody stupid policy.

I can see the argument for super selectives. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. I just can't see any argument for other selectives. That's why I have respect for people who say straight out "yes, I think it's a crap system but I support it because it's best for my child". I deplore their mindset but respect their honesty.

I've been hauled over the coals on many a grammar thread!
I will just say, it increasingly sounds like what they're suggesting isn't grammar school in the sense of the one I work (or the one I went to). For super selectives to be super selective there will not be many of them. Super selectives are my favoured model by the way (prepares to be attacked). For a start the large catchment minimises the impact on local secondaries meaning they pretty much are comprehensives.
However, now is not the time to messing around in this ridiculous expensive way. The schools we already have need more money. All state schools need more investment. And soon. It really is quite desperate. The thought that a PM is more concerned with pissing money away on a vanity project makes me sick.

Game not fame

HPFA, I am honest hence why I get into trouble on this forum a lot. Previous posts will show how pro grammar school I am. But I was never pro for social mobility reasons, it was more to fame the best possible state school for the boys. Sorry.😟

I still can't get over Clavinova disqualifying someone from arguing against selection because they went to a crappy college instead of a sixth form.

I mean, that really is desperate, having to come up with bizarre reasons to try to discredit people instead of their arguments.

Angela Rayner seems to have done a good job here:

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/greening-targets-ordinary-families-in-grammar-schools-drive

"“This is a classic case of policy-based evidence-making. If your kids get free school meals or qualify for the pupil premium, the government doesn’t think you’re an ‘ordinary working family’,” Angela Rayner, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said.

“But however they try to fiddle the figures, the facts are clear and simple. There is no evidence that new grammar schools will do anything for social mobility.

“Instead of wasting time and money on Theresa May’s pet projects, they should be solving the real problems facing our schools and keeping their promise to protect funding for every child.”"