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.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just pointing out that in some areas there has already been investment in schools which only cater to a narrow sector of the range of pupils. Take away all the historical emotiveness attached to grammar schools and it's already happening.

MinesaLattecino I don't know anything about the brand new studio school you have mentioned. Are you saying that children of high academic ability are unable to attend that school?

Minesa 15 studio schools have closed which is quite a lot seeing as they have only been opening since 2010. There are 35 left open in the country.

feweek.co.uk/2017/03/02/fifteenth-studio-school-set-to-close-out-of-36-nationwide/

Mrs. May said that opening new grammars will provide more good school places. Her assumption being that grammar places = good places. Surely not all grammar schools are good schools, and a proper education is more than just passing exams.

I almost can't believe this conversation is even really happening. Grammar schools always felt like a relic of the past to me, a few old buildings with old fashioned notions on learning and academic ability being set in stone from birth or soon after left dotted about the country. How the tories think bringing that zombie back from the dead is a good idea I'll never know.

Any year 7 can go on to be the brightest year 11, the brightest year 7 can go on to barely scrape or just miss a passing grade.

I live and teach in Kent. My dc are at the bottom of a superselective- not much fun for them tbh. There are no comprehensives- Mascalls, mentioned up thread, is simply a sec mod without a grammar right next door, a good % of children in its catchment go to grammar schools. Transport to your nearest grammar is not free (though all
Kent children can get a subsidised bus pass). You are between a rock and a hard place if your child is neither super driven, or unable to cope with academic work. It is not a good system here and I am very surprised other people want it.

This is a really interesting thread as I live and teach - and always have done - in an area where we have no grammar schools. They were abolished in the 1970s. I do however teach In a local authority which at the moment is in the bottom 5 of worst funded authorities in the country. With the new proposed NFF we will be the WORST. Yes there are pockets of wealth in the LA but we are surviving in a leaky flat roof 1960s build with redundancies hanging over our heads every year, where cuts are being made to curriculum subjects, extra curricular subjects and mental health services. It's dire. If you were to move our school to the next worst funded LA then we would get another £600,000 a year - this government needs to fund the schools is HAS got not spend money on new grammars. 4 day weeks here are a real possibility as we can't afford to heat and light the school, run the kitchens, pay staff. My students are Outstanding yet they are being made to feel truly 'worth less' 😡

Technical and vocational jobs also offer good pay and job security so the choice of school at 10/11 is easier.

Germany has good technical and vocational schools but it really does not make the division of children at 10/11 easier. Children develop so much between 11 and 16 or 18 that choices about their careers and futures should not be made at 11. And in Germany, as in the UK grammar system, it is not a choice made by the parents.

There is not that sense of you are doomed if you do not get to the grammar.

Do you really believe this? Because my friends and family in Germany would be absolutely devastated if their children didn't get into the grammars. Of course, because they are white and university educated themselves their children are very unlikely to have to go to other schools, but they still worry a lot that this could happen. The main resistance to changing the school system in Germany comes from parents who are afraid that their children will be forced to go to secondary school with immigrants, children from different socio-economic backgrounds and so on.

Germany's school system was condemned by the United Nations for perpetuating social inequity. I wish people would stop banging on about it, people have been trying to fix/bin it in Germany for years.

I was thinking about the irony yesterday that if grammars and secondary moderns had existed when DD went to primary I'd have been the Mum asking about tutoring for a five year old. She is sort of averagely bright, exactly the point on the Simon Burgess spectrum where SES status makes the most difference to getting in.The middle class educated leftie Mums like me who prefer comprehensives will make damn sure that the JAMS who are being lied to will have the smallest chance possible of getting into these new grammars. Odd that.

noble what sort of school do you teach in? I'm simply wondering if you teach in a leafy comp and get the inequity of leafy comps, with no way to access them other than very significant amounts of earning power on the part of the parents (for a large mortgage), or a bid wodge of capital.

No-one is suggesting the re-introduction of a full grammar system in any event and so many of these threads are based on arguments around that, mostly the sense of failure of those who don't get in. That's not what is being proposed, so those arguments have little value.

No-one ever addresses the very strong movement towards opening up these grammars to disadvantaged students, to prioritizing them in the offer list, to the outreach in primary schools - actively identifying the high achievers in primary schools and trying to provide educational support and to encouraging their parents to apply. I notice that you completely ignored that post further up noble, also several where I ask about your take on leafy comps, which of course throw up precisely the same social issues of exclusion to all but very advantaged kids and then top that by not allowing even natural talent as a possible way in.

I live in a small town with a very diverse population. Some very rich people-and two estates that are areas of significant social disadvantage.

We have a grammar school and a high school- aka a secondary modern. Virtually all the local children go to one or the other- a few go out of town and a few go private, of course. The high school has 37% pupil premium children. The grammar has none. They are a mile apart.

I don't see how anyone can look at that and still support selective education.

Bertrand
I have noticed that the grammar schools in your part of the country are slowly increasing the number of disadvantaged children they have - your figures might be slightly out of date.

Well very clearly there's work to be done in your town Bert, and it's entirely possible to do it. Although I think there are a lot of people in favour of superselectives dotted around the country while not in favour of the full grammar school system, as you have in Kent. It would be interesting for a starting point to know how many applicants actually applied to the grammar from the two estates, because as with higher education, there's a huge cultural disincentive to apply, re-inforced - whether consciously or not - by those who are better off and are determined that their kids should get in. What is the Headteacher of your local grammar like? Some are extraordinarily good at leading initiatives, others are complacent. Is it a co-ed grammar or two single sex ones?

"Well very clearly there's work to be done in your town Bert, "

Not just my town, the same situation pertains, although maybe a little less starkly, in all selective areas.

goodbyestranger Thu 09-Mar-17 08:49:24 inequity of leafy comps, with no way to access them other than very significant amounts of earning power on the part of the parents (for a large mortgage), or a bid wodge of capital.

Heavily oversubscribed schools, no matter whether they are comps. Grammars, sec.mods, faith or otherwise will see parents buying places with strategic house moves.

You get Leafy Grammars too. Take a look at the house prices in Marlow. Sir William Borlase’s GS had a distance cut off of 3.3 miles this year.

Chesham Grammar has a distance cut off of 6.5 miles this year compared to a distance cut off of 12.6 last year. Burnham GS had a distance cut off of 7.4 miles compared to 10.7 miles last year.

Whilst distance cut offs can and do go up (which is the same for leafy comps. btw) many parents don't like to take the risk so will aim to buy well within the catchment area.

As long as distance is used as a tie-breaker for allocations, premium house prices in the areas with the highest performing schools will exist.

I think the only way the school admissions issues can be resolved is by a combination of fair banding and lottery.

Yes I agree completely Bert.

Mum, for our school a parent could live literally anywhere in the world (provided their child is/ will be entitled to education in the UK) and not be at a disadvantage over the parent who bought the house across the road from the school gates. I don't see any reason to continue with catchment for grammars, although I do see a reason to move to postcode for prioritization for admissions purposes rather than income. The commitment to free school transport for disadvantaged children in yesterday's budget is a really important disincentive removed for a lot of parents, especially with rural grammars. Of course it doesn't help those in next band of income above that very low cut off, of whom there are many.

If you sort secondary school data in England by %FSM / Pupil Premium, the schools with the lowest PP are ALL selective.

Burnham Grammar school is not that leafy - it's in Slough, fsm 9%.

"Yes I agree completely Bert."

So why not advocate for that instead of for selection?

Clavinova, what is relevant is not the 'absolute' fsm. It is the gap between the fsm of the grammar and of the surrounding schools / area.

So if average PP in the town overall is, say, 23%, and that at the grammar is 3%, that's an issue.

Equally if in Slough overall the %fsm is 29%, and that in a specific grammar is 9%, the gap is still 20% and it is exactly the same as a grammar with 3% in a town with 23%.

I am rather glad the cut off distances are less. It means children who live nearer are getting in and not being driven in from neighbouring counties. Many would like to see Bucks schools for Bucks children.

The biggest service that could be done to aid the less ambitious, poor, but bright child is to tutor in the primary schools for anyone who wants it. Minimal cost and could be an after school club. Bucks does outreach in some schools to promote its grammars but it is half hearted.

We have estates where virtually no child would get to a grammar school but the majority of families living on the estates are not university educated and have not been to grammars themselves. It is unlikely their children will be grammar children. Same in Kent I guess. That does not mean that any bright child should not be given an even playing field - they should.

This idea that secondary mod children see themselves as second class failures is overrated. Around here plenty go on to university (neighbour's child is at Exeter from a sec mod) and don't keep looking back. In fact the university destinations of some at the grammars are not that brilliant! The over coached are not hitting Oxbridge! The vast majority of pupils in the sec mods are very happy. Some of these schools need to improve, that is true. Many get results better than comps elsewhere. People who get 118 in the 11 plus do go to them. 119 would probably get to a grammar on appeal but not everyone appeals. Some sec mods are very popular and over subscribed.

If you sort secondary school data in England by %FSM/Pupil Premium, the schools with the lowest PP are ALL selective.
I can think of a few comprehensive schools in that list: Arden, Thornden, Coopers, Balcarras, Ilkley ...

cantkeepawayforever
I think the relevance is that grammar schools are slowly becoming less socially selective, not more so. FSM rates at grammar schools are increasing.