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.

The DC eligible for FSM will get priority, as in a good number of grammars now. It would be good if the priority category could be expanded or altered to include certain postcodes in a given area.

It was Justine Greening who had the idea of having feeder schools!

Just because no test is perfect doesn't mean one should abandon all tests. Lots of things are imperfect but we still use them on the grounds that they do a pretty good job. The 11+ sifts reasonably well. No-one is saying that all life chances are going to be cut off from those who don't get into a grammar.

Most able in 11+ criteria. If you are very competent at Eng and maths with a good vocabulary,you are likely to do well in most subjects.

Some state schools select children who are more musical or good at PE. Are you suggesting all selection should stop?

The 11+ sifts reasonably well.

No it doesn't. If it takes off the top 25% of students, then 1 in 5 students will end up in the wrong school.

Not if there is a wide catchment.

Was that to me, Green? Mathematically, 1 in 5 students will end up in the wrong school based on the best predictive tests we have at the moment.

Grammars should be looking at the top 10% noble, not the top 25%. You're using different numbers across your posts - at least be consistent!

How,you don't even know where they will all be or the children involved?

Maybe half or more grammar places can be distributed equally to local primaries. I.e. Top 11+ scorers in each feeder school have priority access to grammars. That might even out a bit the intake of the primaries as well, so not all sharp elbowed parents fighting for spaces in the same primary, when the whole madness starts.

goodbye new grammars will be looking at the top 10% (a rather random figure plucked out of thin air I suspect, to pacify concerns that a grammar will ruin local schools, rather than due to any evidence base that these children need a different education). However a lot of current grammars take more like the top 25%. Someone said that the 11+ seemed to be doing a reasonable job at the moment, so it seems reasonable to point out that under current conditions, no it's not.

Because, green the best predictive tests we have of GCSE performance at the moment have a correlation of about 0.7 with actual GCSE outcome. It's to do with maths, not actual students.

See page 20-21 of this document for further details:

www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/SuttonTrustFullReportFinal.pdf

Not doing a reasonable job of what?

It is at our grammar noble. Most kids locally who one would expect to get in do, and most who you wouldn't expect to don't. It takes roughly the top 10% of the ability range. The Kent grammars take more like the top 25% but it's a full grammar system. Superselectives don't take the top 25% and no-one in government is suggesting the re-introduction of a full grammar system.

What is your view on the more generous funding for vocational training?

Maybe half or more grammar places can be distributed equally to local primaries. I.e. Top 11+ scorers in each feeder school have priority access to grammars.

I have only anecdotal evidence, but I am pretty sure that this used to happen in the old days e.g. 50s & 60s. It leads to the inequitable result that if one school has more able children than its quota in that year, then those who are capable of a grammar education miss out.

It's 8 years old and based on data pre the new CEM 11+.

All this is very Metropolitancentric. If you live in a rural area you have to have a huge catchment area to only take the top 10%. (Still, country children are thick was the received wisdom when I was at school.)

Ours is the most rural grammar in the country Peregrina, with the widest catchment area in the UK I believe. I forget how many times it's been at the top of the A Level league table and a few years ago the Sunday Times put the education it provided on a par with Eton's.

Peregrina yes I agree, that's why I think maybe only half of the places should be distributed that way.

Truth is, people in this country have very different views about selection. Since grammars are not really getting any more funding than comprehensives bar the initial setting up money, I think the bottom line is that a lot of people is opposed to selective education.

I don't think it is possible to convince people from opposite camps really.

So, Green? Have tests become suddenly massively more accurate since then? 1 in 5 wrong is pretty appalling isn't it? What sort of level of inaccuracy would be acceptable to you?

Anyway all the current tests would be binned, the government is planning on introducing some national test instead.

Oh sorry Peregrina I misread what you said.

The idea of feeder schools is bad.

I don't think it is possible to convince people from opposite camps really.

I found it quite easy to convince my DH. I showed him the evidence that grammar schools were stuffed with the tutored kids of the better-off, instead of being the bastions of social mobility as advertised. Then he talked to a friend about the total awfulness of the 11+ process, the huge amount of pressure to tutor from a young age and the vast amount of money the tutoring industry makes out of a totally unnecessary process.

He changed his mind about grammars pretty quickly.

What is your view on the more generous funding for vocational training?

I'm waiting for the government to make a total pigs-ear out of that too.

I have also been thinking, if excellent differentiation is evident in all state primaries, it will be easier to convince parents that selective education is not that essential. Quite a lot of threads in Primary section are about the frustration of not getting suitable work for able children. If parents have been disappointed through primary years it is hard to tell them comprehensive secondary will be any better?

Yes the new test is harder to tutor for thus harder to get a place wrongfully. It won't be perfect,no test ever is.