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.

Poverty is the decisive factor affecting a child's education - or is it?

Poverty actually doesn't impact on a child if the mother (not the father - interesting to ponder why) has a degree.

I think we can infer from that that the level of education from the primary parent is hugely important.

Now, it is not the case that everyone with a degree works, but generally speaking, it's a strong indication of ability to work and work in a job that pays well enough to avoid reliance on state benefits.

(Sheffield, obviously, sorry!)

There are other schools in the list of 'extremely high %PP, very high progress 8 for disadvantaged children' that are Catholic, so i have omitted those because again religious schools select for organised parents who can fulfill the religious criteria related to baptism, etc, even if economically they fall into the PP group.

Lavender, I realise that in examining the data, I tend to use PP as a 'proxy measure' for disadvantage, simply because that is how the data is published. I agree that, as in the Catholic case described, it is not always a good indicator of 'how much a child's education will be affected'.

If there were to be time, it would be interesting to look at the statistical correlation between %PP and %low prior attainment for different secondaries, to see whether there are some schools that have high %PP but low % low prior attainment, which would obviously be a different scenario for a school from high % of both.

Yes, I agree. I don't disagree with the concept of PP (anything that gets us extra money gets a thumbs up from me!) but it's a crude way of finding the children most in need of support.

Bert it's not a reporting thing don't be silly - you're quite simply offensive when you blow your own trumpet about how much you care and how nobody else can possibly care like you care because you care so so much. It's not particularly offensive to me - water off a duck's back - but it's certainly generally offensive on all sorts of levels.

Also, you can be as sniffy as you like about those growing up in deprived dockland areas because no doubt it's easy from your middle class home in downtown Kent, but ti wasn't easy for those who lived it - so credit where credit is due for overcoming the handicap of poverty and wanting to help others overcome poverty too.

can'tkeepawayforever it isn't window dressing, but I can see why you might like to characterize it that way. The Birmingham results suggest neither window dressing nor actually 'huge' effort.

Here's the distribution of disadvantaged kids in terms of attainment at GCSE English and Maths (dark blue are the PP kids).

As you will see, the disadvantaged are clustered at the lower end. If you want to help disadvantaged kids, money and resources should be concentrated there. If, on the other hand, you want to mainly benefit other kids, especially well-off kids, concentrate your money and resources at the top end, and then make some token gestures to salve your conscience.

can'tstayawayforever are you getting that info simply from the Pate's website? Pate's was sponsored by the Sutton Trust not that long ago on an access project so it's not likely that it's somehow suddenly become access averse. Looking at the website won't give information about all the work going on behind the scenes. If Pate's sets the lowest score acceptable for entry at 200 then that's almost certain to be because any score lower than the 200th is deemed to be a score too low to suggest the child in question could keep up at the school. There's a cut off for all schools and historical data from the tests shows each school where it needs to draw the line. 200 seems reasonable. Around 1000 take the Pate's test as far as I know. 200 seems reasonable to me.

noble how do you know the measures will prove to be token?

PP is not necessarily an indicator of low attainment. It includes service families where the Dad may be a pilot for example. It is an indicator of low income, in care, adoption, service family etc. These children may be under-achievers, but it is not a given if the parents are well educated but on benefits and value education.

The disussion on catchments is interesting. In my grammar authority with many grammars, they do have catchments. The data on the final distance from school they accepted a child, each year, is published. Some parents will want to live within catchment. Some will happily stay on the periphery and live in another authority. If they are a Bucks child, they are entered automatically and have to opt out. Children from outside Bucks opt in. If there are just a handful of grammars, their procedures are very different and tend to be school administered rather than LA administered. If the new grammars take 10% (of what) then catchments will be virtually impossible to determine I would have thought.

I think there are particular problems in children in my authority obtaining a grammar school place if they have less well educated parents and the schools cannot help the children pass. The LA recognised where there were problems, but did not introduce extra lessons. It introduced visits to grammar schools and sample lessons to enthuse. It also appears to be a fact that lots of children who do very well at school cannot pass the 11 plus in Bucks. There needs to be more investigation as to why this is the case. Some do not have tuition of course, but some do not read widely enough and have limited general knowledge and vocabulary. The test is geared to having a wider education than can be accessed at a primary school that is focussed on the national curriculum. Parents who know their children are doing well at school are sometimes complacent about the 11 plus. They think doing well at a school with few high attainers is good and a grammar place is assured. These children would often not be on a top table in a leafy lane primary. Some parents and children actively do not want the grammars anyway. They want to go to the sec mod with their friends. Some of these children have no financial disadvantage, but they do not have stimulation educationally at home. They have an ipad but they do not read books. They have holidays but they play in the pool all day, every day. They do not have a rich and interesting life. Others who have the advantages, in all areas of life, get ahead of them. The question is, how do you put this right?

goodbyestranger Thu 09-Mar-17 17:41:41 those growing up in deprived dockland areas

I wonder if I can apply to advise the government. I was FSM and lived near the docks.

goodbye because there aren't enough high attaining PP kids to fairly populate selective schools.

"In other work that we have carried out, we have attempted to work out what would need to be done in order to admit a representative number of disadvantaged children to selective schools. This leads us to our conclusion that, practically speaking, selective schools would not be able to admit representative numbers of disadvantaged pupils, and therefore a policy of new or expanded selective schools would not be an effective way of helping this group of pupils.
Looking at four fully selective local authorities (Kent, Medway, Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire), we think that in order to admit a proportionate number of free school meals- eligible pupils, because of the differences in attainment that exist at age 11 between the FSM-eligible group and the non-FSM eligible group, selective schools would have to apply different entry requirements to the two groups.
We think that, broadly speaking, FSM-eligible children with Key Stage 2 results (an average of maths and English test scores) of 4.8 and above would need to be admitted, while for non- FSM-eligible children the figure would be 5. But these would be the minimum scores which children would attend selective schools with: the modal figure for the FSM-eligible group would be 4.8, while the modal figure for the non-FSM-eligible group would be 5.4. These are not small differences, and would effectively mean the selective school had two streams. While these very much would still be selective schools, we would question whether this – selective – is a label that would be recognised by the parents of the highest attaining pupils. As such, we would question whether such a proposal could actually be implemented – giving further reason for us not to think that greater selectivity is something that should be pursued."

So, if you want to help the disadvantaged, secondary school is way too late.

That quote was from educationdatalab.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/School-that-work-for-everyone-consultation-response-for-publication.pdf

Mum I think the government would seek you out if they thought you had experience to offer, not the other way round but I don't think being from a deprived background wherever that was geographically would suffice without having something exceptional to offer. So my answer would be maybe :)

Yes noble secondary school is too late.

Early years is key. I don't think grammar school heads should be reaching out to the disadvantaged in pre-school though.

Can I add into the mix a far more basic reason as to why blocking LEAs from opening schools is a bad thing

Avail yourselves of a search engine map and look up the secondary schools in central Southampton .........

If you have a boy and live in one of the thousands of new flats in and around Ocean Village ....

pick a school, any school

goodbyestranger i wasn't serious. I am from a deprived background as was my DH. We both have degrees but we didn't need a selective school to achieve it.

Yes noble secondary school is too late.

If secondary school is too late why are Grammars being championed as the way to help them. They're secondary schools.

I've asked the question before and I'll ask it again. How are FSM DCs going to pass the selection test. This question has to be asked in light of the funding and staffing issues that are being faced by all existing state schools including primaries.

I really hate the suggestion 'oh, give poor kids tutoring so that they can compete on the 11+'

FFS if you need tutoring to stand a chance on the 11+ then the 11+ is a fraud.

Tutoring poor kids to pass the 11+ is throwing money which is desperately needed elsewhere to prop up a failed project. If there's money for tutoring poor kids (and for bussing them halfway across the county) then why on earth not spend it on useful stuff for them and send them to a well-resourced comp?

Many on fsm do pass the 11+. Our grammar has 3 times the national average of pp kids. Many grammars are looking to improve and have done already.

Kids on fsm aren't actually the only kids that count,there is a huge group just above and up to those who can afford private too.

As an aside how are you going to get fsm kids into the top comps dominated by the country's wealthiest families?

Lottery, green, that problem was solved threads ago.

That said, I would prefer for every school to be good so that no one is trying to avoid anything. This will require a lot of investment, especially in teacher recruitment and retention.

GreenGinger2 Thu 09-Mar-17 18:48:25 Our grammar has 3 times the national average of pp kids

The National Average is for FSM 29.3% Are you sure your grammar has 87.9% FSM?

As an aside how are you going to get fsm kids into the top comps dominated by the country's wealthiest families?

The same way you get them into a Grammar but without the test.

3 x the national average at a grammar.

So when is that going to start?

Surely that would involve travel which you were against when it involved grammars.

Yes ginger. I said my ultimate preferred solution was to make all schools good so that no one was bussed anywhere.

Our grammar has 3 times the national average of pp kids
Really, so there is a Grammar school with 45% PP
I shall search the tables that I keep downloaded