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?

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?

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.

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.

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/

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.

• 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
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+

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 !

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.

"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.

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

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

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

.

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

"Modern" schools are demonstrably struggling because of the existence of grammars.

""Modern" schools are demonstrably struggling because of the existence of grammars"
^
Wellington school in Trafford? Competes with grammars and has excellent results. As does Ashton on Mersey School.^

December 10th

...except the actual evidence is against you (both in terms of the 25/75 % grammar/secondary doing worse overall than comprehensive system; and that you cannot designate people "academic" or "non-academic" by exam at 10 years old.

The case for a few supers selectives is better (as they don't seem to have the same impact on neighbouring schools)

It is terribly worrying that evidence is ignored over wishful thinking.

Borders

You cannot just look at the odd school. You have to do it on a national basis

"WHY modern schools fail kids"

Well they don't always.

But it's the case that when schools are socially and academically polarised, the schools which contain the highest proportion of disadvantaged and disengaged children become very hard places in which to teach and learn.

Just saying that it can be done.

Agree that schools with high % of disinterested pupils likely to impact on school as a whole.

Wellington school in Trafford?

Only 14 out of 234 of its Y11s were low attainers at KS2 therefore this is not a secondary modern.

As does Ashton on Mersey School.

Only 37 out of 256 are low attainers. Another not-secondary-modern.

So where are the low attainers going and how is that school getting on?

It's a bit ironIc that Dorset is highlighted as one of the counties that wouldn't be affected. Poole Grammar recently nosedived in their last Ofsted which happened as their results weren't good enough. Parents in a neighbouring LEA where the children traditionally go to the Poole Grammars (single sex so two) have been increasingly turning their backs on them and sticking with the local schools.

Wellington and Ashton on Mersey are not Secondary Modern schools !

What type of school are they then since over 40% of Trafford's pupils are educated in grammar schools.

I know Trafford's education situation is totally unique . However, what i would suggest though is a 'Secondary Modern' school does not have to be type cast as a place that can not educate high fliers.

For your info i believe Manchester Utd send their young footballers to Ashton on Mersey school !

Sorry I've just checked and I'm wrong - it was Ashton On Mersey School that wanted to bus out the kids with EHCPs.