so, how quickly could these new grammar schools actually open?

[megletthesecond]

Obviously I know it won't happen overnight and these things take ages to go through parliament. How long is a piece of string etc....

But when could they start opening? Three years, ten years? It seems like a personal campaign for May in which case would she want to push it through before the 2020 GE?

https://consult.education.gov.uk/school-frameworks/schools-that-work-for-everyone

okay, I think I understand... selective schools are supposed to do a "menu" of options, which may require partnering with non-selective schools. This would support the non-selective schools to extend work to prepare kids who might be able to transition to the selective school. Also, there would be multiple transfer points (age 11, 14, 16).

So... why not have selective & non-selective schools on the same site. Then we don't have to worry about transport differences that might become obstacles to moving schools. Plus the selective+non-sel school could share facilities for certain subjects, like PE, DT, RE. In fact, the two schools could be merged in management. And the entire facility could be run as a "comprehensive" education service. With setting for different ability groups.

Oh wait....

The senior data analyst civil servant in the link that NobelGiraffe gave about how to respond to consultations... says that teacher retention is a key issue in minister's minds. I wish I could believe that. Anyway, that suggests that if teaching unions opposed new grammars that they won't happen. Yeah Right.

The plans for independent schools also seem counter-productive.

For example, most independent schools would only be able to offer more fully funded bursaries by putting the fees up. But by putting the fees up some pupils will be unable to continue paying and will return to the state sector, costing the state sector more money. The best case scenario is that the schools lose some "middle/high" income pupils and replace them with "low/middle" income pupils; the more likely scenario is that some schools just close down (forcing more pupils back into the state sector).

Actually most of the suggestions for independent schools can only be funded by increasing fees. If our fees go up by e.g. 10% to pay for this, I for one will certainly be removing my kids and sending them back to the state sector..

haybott Mon 12-Sep-16 20:34:25 If our fees go up by e.g. 10% to pay for this, I for one will certainly be removing my kids and sending them back to the state sector..

Would that not depend on what other options are available to you?

And then there's idea of cash strapped universities sponsoring schools... the only example of an existing such partnership they give is in central London, a very narrow focus 6th form that has only been open 2 yrs. I can't find any stats what the social profile is of its intake (affluent, I'll wager).

How is this approach going to raise GCSE pass rates, especially for not high achievers, when the Unis are Reading, Colchester, Bradford, Preston?

Yes, so far I'm not seeing which of these proposals are going to have any impact on areas that have the fewest 'good' secondaries, including Hartlepool and Daventry, which the paper mentions. Not many world class independents or universities in easy sponsoring distance of those afaik. Still more to read...

Would that not depend on what other options are available to you?

No.

I pay large amounts of tax. I pay large amounts of school fees, thus saving the state from paying for my children's education. I would categorically refuse to pay much more than I currently pay, just so that the government can play political games.

For example, my DC's school already allows its facilities to be used by the local community. Many of the local kids using the facilities are actually wealthier than we are and turn up to e.g. use the swimming pool on weekends in cars that I certainly couldn't afford. Many of the kids coming to careers events/science competitions etc live in million pound houses and go to "Outstanding" local state schools. They are benefiting from what I am paying for, while being far wealthier than me.

I would pull my kids, put them into the state sector (comprehensive or grammar) and use the 30+k per year I would save to support their education in the state sector. I wouldn't be alone in this - many parents just can't afford a hike of 10% or so on top of standard fee increases.

OK, so 3 of the 5 options to improve standards in the local non-selective schools when there is a selective school amongst them are about making sure that a wider demographic can get in to the selective school. Which is laudable, but actually nothing to do with improving the standards at the non-selective schools??

haybott Mon 12-Sep-16 20:50:56 I would pull my kids, put them into the state sector (comprehensive or grammar)

What if there is no Grammar/selective within reasonable commutable distance and the comps. are going to pot because money is being diverted to pay for establishing the new Grammar/selective schools?

I was talking about this issue with friends last night. We agreed that compared with say 20 years ago, the children are better behaved and better turned out. Those that visited schools as part of their work, said that great emphasis was being put on behaviour, and pupils respecting each other. Results are good. These are just your 'bog standard' comprehensives. In short, schools are now doing a lot right.

No one wanted to go back to the old system of Sec Mods.

Haven't read the full Green paper yet but first thoughts from reading the summary were:

FFS - spot the glaring omission -Vocational Education. You know, the opportunities for 50% of the school population.

And as to the stuff about 'smaller independent schools' - it's such a joke, they are already struggling in many cases, so will probably just close.

SEN?

What if there is no Grammar/selective within reasonable commutable distance and the comps. are going to pot because money is being diverted to pay for establishing the new Grammar/selective schools?

There is a grammar within reasonable distance. My DC would almost certainly qualify for this (superselective) but I would anyhow be more likely to use catchment comprehensive. While chronic underfunding is an issue for all state schools, I cannot imagine that the local state school will go to pot that fast - it is filled with children of highly educated, highly paid professionals. And in any case 30k per year pays for an awful lot of support outside school...

Over the last few years the number of children educated in private schools has decreased considerably, following fee increases, the post 2008 recession etc. I really believe that the combination of government induced fee increases (to pay for more bursaries etc) with Brexit stress on finances will simply cause many more parents to withdraw their kids from private schools.

Haybott, in the circumstances you describe why are you paying for private school?

Small class sizes; provision of academic subjects which are not available in local state schools (Latin, Greek, Mandarin etc); individualised tuition in subjects in which DC are advanced; co-curriculum providing deeper and broader education than national curriculum; opportunities to participate in Olympiads etc (not provided by local schools); specialised drama and music tuition. Facilities very good, but not really an issue for us.

We agreed that compared with say 20 years ago, the children are better behaved and better turned out.

One of the problems with the debate is that so many people are talking from their own experiences of comprehensive schools back in the day rather than having knowledge from the present. I was chatting to a colleague yesterday who had a horrendous time in a London comp back in the day ( although interestingly it was a school with strict streaming where the top stream did really well and the rest were abandoned) and he said how much better his son was doing in a rapidly-improving Oxford comp. Without his son's experience I suspect he might well have supported grammars.

Aalya It can be quite interesting to read the comments pages in the local Bucks press. There are many complaints about the influx of children into the county from outside while Bucks children are squeezed into secondary moderns. But other people think this has had a benefit on the better of the Bucks secondary moderns as they now have a good proportion of able children!

I haven't been able to bear to read the consultation yet. Will have to as I think my response might sound more intelligent if I had actually read it.

I saw Sam Freedman tweeting that he'd never read a policy proposal that tied itself up so much with trying to mitigate the ill-effects of the proposal.

It's so true. They want more grammars but grammars are socially selective so they've put in a bunch of info about how the grammar will be forced to take poor kids. Grammar schools cause a downturn in nearby schools so they've had to put in stuff about grammars having to team up with a non-selective school to try to stop it going to shit.

If the grammar doesn't do this or fails to do this, the local schools go to pot and the grammar is stuffed with millionaires then the grammar may stop being allowed to select.

How about the potential (and known likely) bad outcomes are avoided not be threatening punitive measures but by not introducing the bloody things in the first place?

Completely agree noble - it all seems to be about solving problems that they themselves create.