Selection get out clause

[mrz]

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/grammar-get-out-clause-confirmed-selection-permissable-within-trusts/?utmcontent=buffer81f1c&utmmmedium=social&utmsource=twitter.com&utmmcampaign=buffer

Noble is right - you can't have Heads selling their school on Open Evening and then a term or so later have that school free to ship most of its pupils off to a different site. That's a betrayal of trust. I can't see all that many MATs going for this, to be honest.

You could definitely have the same uniform for a mat and have the head running the 'campus', but an executive head running the mat. Its like the way universities are run. If no MATs go for it then I am ok with that, but it gives the choice for some to do so.

The more I think about it, the more it solves all the arguments I have heard against selective schools.

So selective education by stealth is a solution to objections to selective education?

mrz Yes, deep down the proponents of selection don't believe that we should have a choice that luxury only belongs to those whose children "deserve it". Of course if you have entered your child into one school they should not be arbitrarily removed from it to satisfy other parents' wishes. Why anyone should think this would stop the opposition to segregation is beyond me frankly.

I wonder what they would think if all the best teachers were assigned to support children who have been struggling or have SEN/D.

This stuff doesn't sound acceptable to me.

Getting on a bus to be educated offsite should be a positive choice because the child is keen to get whatever that something extra is. It should not be an unchosen obligation for the convenience of a school's leadership team.

I don't have a problem with setting or grammar schools, but this strikes me as very cruel.

Elly You are perfectly right but this is wrong on so many other levels as well.

If you look at Para 22 on this document it is clear that it is actually quite difficult for a school to leave a MAT
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeduc/999/99904.htm

So a school who joined a MAT in good faith could be told that it was to become one of the Secondary Moderns and find that it was unable to leave the Trust to continue as a comprehensive school. How could this be legal - it is surely a breach of trust between the joining school and the Academy chain.

I just dont get why several posters are in favor of wealth selection. I am supportive of a comprehensive system that can select for ability. Legit.

Lets end wealth selection.

Comprehensive means doesn't select by ability. You can't have a selective comprehensive system by definition.

Comprehensive education means an entitlement to the same education regardless of ability

Why do people assume that this "selection by wealth" is universal? I can only think of one school in my county which might fit this definition. I've seen schools accused of this even though 50% of their entrants are disadvantaged! And as people have said, if this really is an issue then the obvious way to prevent it is to move to lottery admissions.

The logic behind this seems to be "I've identified the "best" school in my county and its unfair that my kids can't go to that when they deserve that school more than the kids who go to it"

mathsmum314 Sun 02-Oct-16 23:00:20 I just dont get why several posters are in favor of wealth selection. I am supportive of a comprehensive system that can select for ability.

So you are in support of any school that sets students by academic ability, not Grammar schools?

After all Grammar schools are, without doubt, selecting by wealth:

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/02/latymer-school-grammar-parents-financial-shortfall-theresa-may-education-policy?CMP=share_btn_wa

"With few students eligible for additional funding through the pupil premium top-up or special needs allowances, grammar schools are facing tighter margins than many comprehensive schools."

It is pointless opening more selective schools if the existing ones are struggling financially. More struggling schools won't improve the education system in this country.

Then lets see a fair admissions policy - we can all debate what that would look like. I just don't see what that has to do with grammars. That's just substituting one unfair system with another.

2StripedSocks Mon 03-Oct-16 07:53:09 Those top 500 being comp schools.

Of the top 50 comps how many are academically selective and how many select on faith?

2 striped You're just introducing red herrings here. If you want to argue that we should go back to grammars and secondary moderns then of course you can argue that case but don't pretend it has anything to do with fair admissions to comprehensive schools.

I think it is clear that we don't have a comprehensive system at the moment. Many schools select on faith, gender, musical ability, language aptitude etc. Never mind the whole selection on postcode debate. Given the reality of where we are starting from, I have no issue with a few new schools around the country being started that select on academic aptitude.

The Blair government should never have brought in the selection by aptitude thing. Much better ways to improve schools.

If the schools are going to be on the same site why not just have one school setting by ability - you could even call it a comprehensive school!

sounds like the best plan

As most schools use streaming anyway, what's the difference?

Most schools do not use streaming. Most schools use setting. They're quite different things.