New grammars by 2020 which will exclude 90% of local kids

[noblegiraffe]

What an excellent use of scarce public funding, to build schools that most kids can't access instead of using it to build good comprehensives to improve the life-chances of everyone.

Word from the government (who appear to be ploughing ahead with the proposals before they've even published the consultation results) is that new grammars will only take the top 10% rather than the top 25% of kids. God knows where they've got the evidence that the top 10% of kids require a different school but they're certainly not sharing it with us.

It is also beyond me how making grammar schools even more elite will help with the promised social mobility agenda, when previous discussions were about how the pass grade would be needed to be lowered to increase the number of disadvantaged kids gaining access.

And if you were in favour of a grammar school opening in your area because you thought your kid would get in, how sure are you now? How much less tempting is a grammar school opening up if your kid is more likely to be sent to the other school?

In addition, expect to see furious threads in the near future from parents whose local school of choice has converted to a grammar and their kid is now being bussed to another school in the MAT that they wouldn't have chosen for them.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38906594

On one hand, more grammars would make it fairer for bright local children

If they're bright, why aren't they getting into the local grammar?

This is a potentially significant development:

twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/830023929737650176

Geoff Barton is now Head of the main Secondary School Leader's Union, elected pretty much because members want a stronger anti-government line. He probably would not have stood if not for the grammar issue.

So now instead of the nice corporate figure the government would have had as the head of this important Union they can now be pretty certain that the Heads rebellion will intensify. Great work Nick Timothy, I'm sure Justine Greening will thank you for it.

I do realise this will seem a little obscure if you're not a sad education nerd!!

The annoying thing about the evidence quote
Ministers and officials agree with us that there are a lot of people, who are philosophically opposed to selection, who keep saying it damages the education of other pupils but present little or no evidence to support this claim," said the head teachers.

Is that the evidence exists and was presented comprehensively by groups like Education Datalab. The government is dismissing the people who didn't also provide evidence on top of their objections instead of putting them together and saying
there are lots of people who are philosophically opposed to selection, and in addition there has been lots of evidence presented that it is harmful to other students

They don't need everyone to present the evidence, the evidence is there!

A much better explanation here:

schoolsweek.co.uk/ascl-general-secretary-election-results-geoff-barton-vs-chris-kirk/?utm_content=buffere39c4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Good news about Geoff Barton, schools really need to stand up to this shit. Bet he isn't impressed about the government's cosy meetings with grammar heads about how to shaft comprehensives either.

Noble

In my response I said something like "you will be aware of the overwhelming evidence so there seems little point in my repeating it" Is the government claiming that means I (and others like me) didn't have any evidence? Words fail me.

Noble I'm trying not to be overoptimistic but I do think this is good news because Heads are ALREADY in a rebellious mood. I think a lot of Tory MPs will wonder why the govt is creating this extra problem just to satisfy a few old fossils like Graham Brady.
What I would really like is for a few grammar Heads to come out and say "given the current financial situation this money could be spent in better ways. I suspect the vast majority of grammar Heads would far rather just get some extra money to spend on their pupils rather than embark on all the aggro and hassle of an expansion. I believe Maidemhead only found one school even interested in building an annexe and that fell through!!

I'll be interested to see how well such ideas go down in naice leafy Hampshire.

I think we have to admit that children's academic skills has a huge difference from the less able to the top supper bright. I belive teacher do a better job when they can concentrate on a group of similar ability children rather than have to cater for a big range different ability. Just look at the GCSE, there is even need to creat a 1-9 score system, as A* is not enough to descibe the difference within it. Think about the difference between 1 to 9. We hear plenty post here that a child is doing better to move down to a lower group if he is struggle. Why we want to put all those children together, so the bright ones can't be challenged , and the lower ability child can't keep up? People talks about setting within a school, but I think it takes more resource for the school to try to creat a big range. And the end result is to ignore the need of the bright children and the slow one. Only the middle one are taught properly.
10% is only 10 children from our local secondary, I can't see this will make our local secondary school a worse school just becuase this.
And, my own children won't benefit from this new grammar school thing, as it is too late for us. So my view is just for general.

Do you think that comprehensives don't have ability sets?

Springiscoming
Have you ever been in the door of a comprehensive school?

The kids taking double maths, triple science, double English, double MFL, Double humanities are not sharing classrooms with the kids taking hair and beauty.
They have this magical thing called "classes" that divide children up according to the strange concept of "ability" or even "interest".

That is why my DD left her comp to study Pure Science at an RG and her buddy went to technical college to learn to drive tractors.

Most of the country don't have grammar schools.
Hence as we don't have them I didn't realise that they didn't already just take the top 5-10%. I thought that's what they did.

Springiscoming1 Fri 10-Feb-17 13:26:00 Why we want to put all those children together, so the bright ones can't be challenged , and the lower ability child can't keep up?

Do you think the brightest DCs at this school will do better in a Grammar School (they select 10% on academic ability, no catchment)?:

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/136901

springiscoming - how do you think the classes are organised at our comp - 300 DC per year, all doing Maths, English and Science? Alphabetically, Or by age? Or maybe, you know, they put the brighter ones in together, and the less able in together, and let them work at an appropriate pace?

Do you think that comprehensives don't have ability sets?

They didn't have them in Grange Hill, which appears to be where some people get their ideas of what comprehensive schools are like.

That's my point, lots of people don't know the huge difference between a supper bright child and a normal child. So people think well, there are settings in the school, it is enough.

A friend's DS who has done 6 A levels and gone to Cambridge to study math, he has scholarship all the way in an independant secondary school. He entered Cambridge found some of his classmates really learn things easily, and a girl has done 8 A levels. He works really hard now.

I won't say anymore in this topic. Frankly, only 10% bright children will be selected, I can understand most parents will be against this grammar school thing.

Grange Hill must have had something going for it to attract children who speak with a 'Cheltenham Ladies College accent'

See 9.48 on this video.

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-ATrUuBHRs

Spring grammar schools are not for super bright kids who do 8 A-levels, they are for top set kids, of which there are plenty doing just fine in comps.

However, what needs to be realized about 'Grange Hill' is that Tucker Jenkins lot were the first cohort admitted when it became Comprehensive.

You can see how the 'calibre' of the pupils got worse , the accents of the teachers changed the traditional ones leaving for the 'Private's or going to work at 'Rodney Bennett instead the Grammar school that still existed !

Springiscoming
Spelling Independent correctly would help your case.
And doing 8 A levels is fascinating but irrelevant.

Maths at Cambridge is a course where a high proportion of kids come from the state sector with 3 solid A levels having miraculously survived non selective education until they were 16.

I just remembered I did 6 A-levels and went to a comp.

Springiscoming1 Fri 10-Feb-17 14:17:57 A friend's DS who has done 6 A levels and gone to Cambridge to study math,

So did his peer group at Cambridge all come from the same Grammar School? If not, I'm not sure what your point is.

Noble
I went to a selective private school and failed mine

DP has 5 A-levels and went to a comp. I only have three from my grammar, where the brightest children did a lot less impressively than the brightest children at DP's comprehensive. My friends' children are starting to head off to university from their comprehensives and their destinations are mostly pretty impressive - Oxbridge, Russell Group, U.S. Universities on sports scholarships, (and, admittedly, a couple went to the local non-prestigious college to do music related courses and focus on their band, but the band is doing pretty well).

Talkin