Justine Greening grubs around for grammar school support after disastrous consultation

[noblegiraffe]

Despite the grammar school consultation only closing recently, the results not yet being published, and many high-profile education organisations condemning the plans, Justine Greening has decided to try to whip up Tory support for grammar schools by sending an email to Conservative party members and backers asking for them to support a grammar school campaign.

Ignoring all the evidence that this is a stupid and costly mistake, with real implications for parents who want to send their children to comprehensive schools and for disadvantaged children, she has described how 'popular' they are with parents, who perhaps aren't as well informed on education issues as the organisations and professionals who publicly responded to the consultation.

schoolsweek.co.uk/government-launches-pro-grammar-schools-campaign-just-days-after-official-consultation-closes/

Is this pigheaded or just desperate?

she has described how 'popular' they are with parents, who perhaps aren't as well informed on education issues as the organisations and professionals who publicly responded to the consultation.

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' .Do you think a restaurant puts on it's menu what it knows will sell, or does it ring up Gillian Mckeith?

This is where people don't get it. Restricting kids to 'vocational' courses (or assuming they are capable of further maths) based on a crappy test on one day aged 10 or 11 is bullshit.

december10th - it's fuckwittery like breezily saying that you just leave Latin and further maths off the curriculum and shove in a few "vocational qualifications" that shows the general level of thought and intelligence applied to thinking about the education of 75% of the population when people advocate grammar schools.

Also the 75% confined to "vocational courses" and no further maths-how do you know that they didnt fail the 11+ on English and are "academic" in Maths? Or vice versa. This dividing of 75/25% of sheep and goats at 11 (with very few opportunities to swap) is very divisive, regardless of whether you agree with grammar school (fwiw I believe in regional super selectives for a small percentage based on the same principle we have specialist music and dance schools)

So December, where would you put my dc? He's strong at maths and music (effortless level 6 in SATS with no tutoring or maths practice at all at home) but weak in literacy?

Or my dd - very bright and able but mentally ill and underachieving academically?

Or my ds2 whose autism has impacted on his ability to achieve academically, but a great reader and strong mathematician?

I wouldn't have passed the 11+ because as a child I wasn't interested in school. However I went on eventually to do a masters as an adult. My DH failed the 11+ but went on to get a PhD in chemistry.

The idea that you can sort children into 'sheep' and 'goats' at 11 is just wrong. Some children have very spiky profiles. Some are late developers. It's not the case that children are 'bright and academic' or 'not bright and not academic'. A child can be quite unimaginative and a bit of a plodder but if they are very hard working and have good study skills they can achieve very highly at 11. Another child could be vastly more imaginative and highly analytical, but a disastrously slow writer or a bit of a dreamer who gets poor marks because they set about things in a disorganised way.

Children are complex beings and potential isn't fixed.

My dd got 90% in her level 6 maths test. A high 5 in the others. Failed 11+. Messed up the answer sheet by putting 2 lines in one row early on, desperately tried to go back and sort it but ran out of time.

But luckily we dont live in a grammar area and have great comprehensives. She's doing brilliantly. Ds1 has spiky profile. Ds2 too early to tell.

Sorting at 10/11 is insane. Was a bit scarred by dd's upset and plummeting confidence post-11+ and didn't sit ds1 for it. Looking back, it was ME that was the sheep - I just assumed grammar = best and that sucking up the journey would be worth it.

Incidentally, my stepmother failed the 11+. Ended up at Oxbridge. But her parents were able to pay for private - she wasn't consigned to a secondary modern. That was 50 years ago and she's still scarred.

i appreciate that I may sound like I've got sour grapes because dd failed. But truly - it was a horrible experience for her and we are fortunate to have comprehensive options nearby that mean that it hasn't had a life-altering impact in terms of her educational prospects.

it's fuckwittery like breezily saying that you just leave Latin and further maths off the curriculum and shove in a few "vocational qualifications" that shows the general level of thought and intelligence applied to thinking about the education of 75% of the population when people advocate grammar schools.

I cannot express how much I agree with this.

roundabout Its terrible that our elected officials are able to get away with being so vague with these plans. I'm a firm believer that he money and talented teaching needs to be directed towards to poor and less able when it comes to education.

How many mentions were made of SEN in the green paper 'schools that work for everyone'?

Zero.

Another spiky profile DS here with top 1% verbal IQ, below average maths and bottom 7% spelling. Neither a grammar school or a secondary modern would be good for him.

Are those in favour of grammar schools really fine with their kids going to a secondary modern? If they are in favour of grammars then it follows that they must also be fine with secondary moderns. Strange as the evidence is that secondary moderns are not as good as comprehensives. I don't get the logic unless it's a case of sec mods being OK for you but not for me.

Its Friday night
Its December
Its Mumsnet
its ill informed posts on a Grammar School thread

Groundhog day

I wonder if there was to be a referendum on the return of grammar schools , what the breakdown of voters preference would be.

I would not be a bit surprised if most of the leave voters from Brexit would vote 'pro' to a return to a grammar school in every town.

It is clear that all of the educational establishment and those whose voice can be heard is anti selection. However, those whose voices are never heard are more than likely to be pro. This would especially be true if grammar schools were sold as being accessible to their children.

Whether this would be actually true who knows,

80% of voters would support them
and then find their kids excluded

"Grammar in every town" will involve a doubling of the education budget
which aint ever gonna happen

I don't think 80% of voters would support them, actually. And the result of a referendum depends entirely on how you frame the question. The majority of people are not spending their time desperately hoping for a grammar school to appear in their town, they have other things to think about.

Polling evidence varies greatly depending on the question asked. On the straightforward question of whether people want new grammars to be built only 34% said "Yes". yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/grammar-school-fans-know-theyre-worse-for-less-abl/

The very high figures sometimes quoted in favour of grammars are typically in response to questions like " Would you send your child to a grammar?" . Imagine a poll that asked "Would you pay for a GP appointment if charges were introduced?" was then used in a government tweet as "95% of people agree with GP charges"

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 ?

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.

We've got a representative democracy not a direct democracy. 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.

"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.!

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?

Well the Tories did say that grammars would only open where there was no adverse effect on other schools and where there was parental demand. Someone crunched the numbers to show this left 6 areas of the country which might want a grammar and it not totally destroy the other schools there.
"These were Solihull, Essex, North Yorkshire, Dorset, Northamptonshire and North Somerset, all of which have fewer disadvantaged pupils than the national average."

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38266726?client=safari

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 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

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.

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