Tories pour millions into new grammars while state schools discuss the possibility of a 4 day week

[noblegiraffe]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/theresa-may-unveils-plans-new-generation-grammar-schools/

In a cowardly move, the Tories are publishing their White Paper on grammars before publishing the responses to the Green Paper which, the best thing Justine Greening could say about them was that they were 'not overwhelmingly negative'.

What a bunch of fucking shite. And where are they going to get the thousands of pounds required for free transport for golden ticket poor kids? The only potential money-saver here is that we know that the vast majority of poor kids don't get into grammars. Why not save this money and put it into the school that the poor kid would be going to originally? Then everyone would win, including the poor kid who isn't faced with a long commute, the poor kid who didn't get into the grammar, and the 90% of kids who aren't 'grammar material' (decided by a faulty test which puts kids in the wrong school aged 10) who would see more investment in their education which is desperately needed at the moment.

Education policy should be for the many, not the few and setting up free schools is a total waste of money in boosting the life chances of children in poor areas. It seems to me this is all about selection - not just academic but religious as well. I don't imagine it will lead to lots of grammars in areas of social deprivation because people who want to set up free schools tend to pick where they want to be - hence in recent years free schools appearing where there was no shortage of school places. It will most likely lead to a load of religious schools. So overall the schools that cater for diversity are getting budgets slashed in real terms while those that select their intake will be rewarded.
Ironically, if I did what the prime minister suggested to get into an outstanding school I would have moved to a less affluent area not a more expensive one, but I'm happy with my good local school!

Laura McInnery (think I might have spelt that wrong) has tweeted that rushed free schools with selection is like taking a cold and multiplying it by flu...

They're not listening to us either! Grammar schools are also struggling to recruit appropriately qualified teachers (no one applied for my maternity cover), our building is falling apart and looking unloved (like everyone's I'm sure), we've cut the teaching hours to year 12 already (4 hours instead of previous 5 per subject) and are seriously considering cutting subjects (makes sense to me - our workload is heavily uneven with core subjects having 27ish in GCSE and some options having 4!). They're not even funding the grammar schools they have, without funding schools can achieve nothing.
I'm sick and tired of their crap lies. They may well have 'protected' funding but that matters not one jot when pension contributions, business rates and specification changes have all happened at once without being funded!
Remember, they're trying to split us up. We're all in a rubbish state. Years ago, perhaps grammar schools were treated more favourably. This has not been the case since I've been teaching.

The only way to provide new schools is to embrace free schools. I was listening to the Leader of the London Borough of Southwark this morning on the radio and there is no choice if more places are needed. The government will not accept they have wasted money by allowing free schools in areas that did not need them. This has led to poor value for money as other areas needed schools more. Once free schools were handed over to megalomaniacs and parents with an axe to grind it was an inevitable problem.

Of course new schools are needed but so is a proper evaluation of where they are needed and a recognition that grammar schools do not aid social mobility. These schools will test for selection and that automatically rules out the least advantaged in society unless they are very bright.

Listening to the radio this morning, lots of parents refer to their working class backgrounds and how grammars helped them. They seemed to have no idea that their current status was miles away from working clsss and their children wanted for nothing. They were as middle class as the next person and getting tuition too. Some people are paying £1000 to get to grammar schools in Lincolnshire. I bet the average veg picker can afford that!

This is mainly about the telegraph coming up with a good story. All new schools have to be free schools, that is the law. What is being said is that disadvantaged pupils should not be further disadvantaged by not being given help to get to a school up to 15 miles away that is a grammar school. Whilst not being very in favour of grammar schools I think that this is a perfectly reasonable idea to allow funding to get pupils with the right capabilities to go to grammar schools.
Somehow the Telegraph has connected this decision to free schools, that need to be built for the increasing population, which could in some instances be grammar schools and made a mountain out of a little molehill.
If there was not the need for new schools then I would be arguing very strongly that the need is for the £300M + to go on every school budget not on anything else.

This monthly commentary was published by Sir Michael Wilshaw two weeks before Teresa May put her name forward for the Tory Leadership:
www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmcis-monthly-commentary-june-2016
Our nation’s economic prosperity depends on harnessing the talent of all our young people but especially those who have the potential to be the next generation of business leaders, wealth generators and job creators.
With limited resources I think the Government's focus is on the most able for the reason quoted.
Arguably, the last targeted education project (improving schools in London) has been a resounding success. In 2012, 83 secondary schools in London used academic banding tests to 'select' or at least 'manage' their intake according to ability.

All new schools have to be free schools, that is the law.

It's also the law that you can't open new grammar schools....

The latest I've seen is that Local Authorities should be able to form MATs so that they can still run and open new schools because the Free School and Academy programme is a total disaster.

Incidentally, another free school has just announced it is closing because nobody wanted to go to it.

Grammar schools are state schools noblegiraffe and financial assistance for travel is very sensible.

It will be interesting to see the detail of the funding for vocational education too.

It all sounds more promising than every child having to conform to a single script, regardless of their particular talent.

They're not even funding the grammar schools they have, without funding schools can achieve nothing.

Yes, I'm not sure how running every other school in the country into the ground is going to achieve their stated aim of a good school place for every pupil.

Grammar schools are state schools

Yes, I know. The government is pouring millions into new grammars, not the rest of the state system.

It's bizarre given that there is a shortage of spaces in many areas that the government would seek to open any schools that restrict entry so that only a minority of pupils qualify, and yet this forms the bulk of their proposals - grammars and religious schools. Then they suggest bussing kids to schools 15 miles away. Given the latest reports on air pollution, this suggestion is bizarre - creating good local school places for all should clearly be the aim.

But families without Outstanding schools on their doorstep should be able to travel to wherever they please. Why should kids be barred from the best schools just because their parents can't afford to buy or rent in the best catchments.

And 15 miles is hardly a hardship. My DC travel 30- 40 minutes to get to school,not much more than to the comp they should have gone to. Not all kids live in cities,plenty travel and it is no hardship.

But families without Outstanding schools on their doorstep should be able to travel to wherever they please.

Why are you in favour of grammars then? They are anti-parental choice!
You do understand that the vast majority of parents will not be able to send their kids to grammars, whether on their doorstep or not?

They are an extra choice. In our area parents last year sent their kids to 3 other comps than the feeder comp. You seemed to have a problem with kids travelling to school ,simply pointing out that saying some should save the planet whilst others buy places in the catchment of the best schools isn't fair.

Where I live in Scotland the kids finish at 12.15 on a Friday. I can see Friday becoming a non s hook day very soon here.

Non school

They are an extra choice

Not for the vast majority of parents, because the school does the choosing, and they don't want 90% of kids.

What would actually happen is that most parents who live near a grammar will not be able to access it.

Kids being bussed this way and that instead of aiming for all schools to be good is totally bonkers thinking.

Someone (can't remember who) suggested that some primaries could be feeder schools for the new 'grammars for the poor'. It could be a good idea if all special measures primaries became such feeders. All the sharp-elbowed mummies and daddies would be fighting to get their little darlings in.

Some "choice".

The idea of a feeder for a grammar doesn't make any sense. If going to a particular school would give you priority for a grammar place then how would that work when the entry to grammar schools is based on passing a test? Would a feeder kid get in even if they failed? And if not, then how could it be called a feeder?

noble the whole point is that 10% most able should have a faster paced education not that the nearest to a particular school should have priority access. I can't see why you have a beef that those kids most suited to a particular type of education should have access to a school over those not suited, or at least less well suited, to that education.

Yes I do realize that on the margins some will miss out, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, just as with present catchments for comps.

Sorry, missed a 'the': the whole point is that the 10% most able etc.

Well that's what puzzled me about the whole idea. Also, as these new schools are for the bright poor children are they going to means test the parents before the test?

At the moment the only test we have for poverty is the take up of Free School Meals. Are these schools going to cater solely for them for bright children from this group?

"noble the whole point is that 10% most able"

What does 'most able' mean?

There is categorically no test which accurately measures either innate intelligence or potential at 10, as evidenced by the many people who went on to have brilliant careers after failing the 11+.