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.

GreenGinger2 Thu 09-Mar-17 18:56:52 Surely that would involve travel which you were against when it involved grammars.

Given there is a much larger number of comps, I suspect there would be significantly less travel involved.

No not just good schools, the best schools.

Why exactly should parents sit and wait until their school becomes good or outstanding? They get 1 chance. Why should kids sit in schools that aren't up there with the best because you say so?

So Green Ginger, just for interest: national average of PP children is 29.3%. National average PP at a grammar is ?

if the gap between your grammar's PP % and that of the surrounding area is less than 10%, then I might start being vaguely impressed...

It is the gap that matters, not the absolute %. So 9% in an area where the average is 39% is frankly worse than 3% in an area with 23%.

What are you proposing for the parents of kids who don't qualify for the grammars? What will they sit and wait for? Someone finally to give a shit about the schooling for the 90%?

GreenGinger2 Thu 09-Mar-17 19:03:45 No not just good schools, the best schools.

To be clear, you are saying that the majority of comps. are not good? I take it you have your own particular measure for what is considered good and I imagine it isn't the OFSTED rating?

It might interest you to know (actually, I suspect it won't) that not all Grammar schools have an OFSTED rating of good or outstanding.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39076204

These schools,those dominated by the wealthiest 20% of families. Don't think there is exactly one in every town,costs of travel would be huge particularly as they will often be in wealthy areas pp kids will live miles from.

Our grammar is in an area with deprived areas on it's doorstep.

I'd like there to be SCHOOLS for all kids,
let alone good schools

Much of the problem in London is that there are not enough school places
and a microcosm of it is what we have in Southampton.
Houses have been built and no school places

all else is vanity projects

The point is Cant they have improved and are trying to improve further,others can too.

Greenginger, as i have said upthread, what matters - to me - is the common good.

I don't want to create a 'grammar in every town for the top 10%', because that means that the other 90% get a worse deal, and there is no net gain ... and the creation of an educational 'underclass' that this country could do without, while the progress of that 'selected' top 10% is unlikely to be greatly improved..

I don't want the government to be focusing money, effort and time on grammar schools. I want it to be investing in all schools, on teacher retention, workload and pay, on coherent qualifications for all and on excellent education from the earliest possible age for the most deprived. As a result, I also want performance measures for schools that understand context, and recognise excellence in context, rather than presuming that all children are identikit units, and i want these to be so highly publicised that nobody will judge a school by its absolute results or think that it is 'better' because it has good raw results based on compliant pupils with motivated parents.

I want proper, well funded comprehensive schools that cater for all needs, with fair admissions criteria that promote the needs of the most disadvantaged in society. I want them to have buildings that are well maintained and secure, and revenue streams that are predictable.

I want parents to get involved, to become governors, to demand money from the government and excellent behaviour from schools. i want appropriate specialist units for those with disabilities and behavioural difficulties, co-located with comprehensives so that integration is possible if in the best interests of the child.

I want teachers to be respected, but only insofar as they do a good job.

If my own children are in a school that is marginally worse as a result, I will regard it as a price worth paying for them emerging into a world where there is a smaller educational underclass, a little less 'them' and 'us', a little less 'me, me, me' and a little more 'this is for the common good'. As a parent, it is my job to fill the gaps - because I can - and I expect the school to fill these same gaps for those who have parents who can't.

Yes, i am an idealist, and proud of it.

GreenGinger2 The article states "Analysis of data shows 43% of pupils at England's outstanding secondaries are from the wealthiest 20% of families." - So less than half.

Now what % of pupils at grammaras are from the wealthiest 20% of families?

In the context of 'quality of schools', there is at least 1 grammar school that I am aware of that has a negative Progress 8 measure - in other words pupils attain less well there than they would in the average school.

Green ginger i was going to post that but lost my post !

Bertrand . There is no grammar school in the country that has Zero % FSM or Pupil premium !

The lowest is about 0.8% at both Borlase Grammar and Beaconsfield High

The two most middle class grammar schools in Kent Tonbridge/Judd both have an FSM % rate of 2.9/2.4% respectively and before you say that's over 6 years . The average school FSM rate of 27.4% is based over 6 years .

I don't know where you live in Kent but given your description of what sounds like a normal Kent town, i would be very surprised if the Grammar FSM rate is below 4%!

Who said a grammar in every town? There is no plan to return to the Kent model.

New schools are going to be built anyway,a few grammers (that get less funding when finished)in the mix will make very little difference. The price tag on the kids head goes with it whichever school it attends.

Grammers are vastly underfunded,they get less not more than comps.

cantkeepawayforever it would seem that approx 25% have an average progress 8 score for GCSEs.

Ah, of course the problem with that article is that it refers to 'oustanding secondary schools' - which could be either grammars and comprehensives.

So the underlying data could show that e.g. 60% of children from outstanding grammars are from wealthiest 20%, and outstanding comprehensives have a lower %....

Mumtryingherbest. Nobody answered me when i suggested that logical the top 1 and 10% of the wealthiest families children would be mostly educated privately !

Otherwise where do 7% of privately educated children come from !

"Grammers are vastly underfunded,they get less not more than comps."
Because they get little to no pupil
premium money. What with having little to no pupil premium children.......

Mum I'd suspect less. It is far easier and cheaper to get into a grammar.

Many areas of the country are only open to the richest families.

We could never live in the catchment of the best comps,we got our kids into grammers. We went without for a couple of years and go without to pay for the bus. It is just about doable. We could never afford a house in the catchment of Balcarrass or Greycoats to name but 2.

GreenGinger2 Thu 09-Mar-17 19:21:31Grammers are vastly underfunded,they get less not more than comps.

I don't know anything about school funding. Is finding for Grammar schools calculated in a different way to all other school or are they all given X% less than any other school because they are a grammar school?

So a quarter of grammar schools have average Progress 8 scores, and so pupils make less progress there than at at least 30% of schools nationally, and may make less than nearly 70% of schools nationally?

(Based on the 5% well above/ 25% above / 40% average / 20% below average / 10% well below average, an 'average' school is at least at the 31st centile, and could be as low as the 70th centile.)

That does seem odd, given that grammar schools have, by definition, an easy group to make progress with.

Said article said there was a 20% premium to get into the catchment of the top comps 45k.

Not necessarily so,it can be harder to show progress with bright kids.

I agree that the problems of ever-tightening, tiny catchments with rocketing property prices should be addressed.

I would be absolutely delighted if all the efforts going into the current proposal around grammar schools was instead looking at the best way to achieve this - because that is absolutely a better way forward for the common good, whereas creating grammars is not.

The point is they certainly don't get more money.

GreenGinger, actually, the educational data, AFAIK, suggests that it is easier to make progress with brighter kids. Do you have a reference for the opposite view?