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.

can'tkeepawayforever your argument is based on the idea that other provision has to decline, in consequence of the most able 10% being provided for elsewhere. There's no good reason why it has to.

Peregrina I heard that stat at a particular education event - were you there as well?

So are these proposed new grammars going to take the "top" 10%? Is that definite?

ggodbye There's a lot of evidence to suggest it will. And no-ones pretending that grammars will improve things for those who don't attend them. So all the risks in this experiment will be borne by those who won't gain any of the possible benefits.

goodbye
There is plenty of evidence (on ipad, cannot link) that
bright kids do well given a gentle prod
Middling kids do better if they have bright kids to aim for
Lower kids do better if they can beat bright kids at something (eg art or sport)
Therefore the best results for all kids come from mixed ability environments
Without detriment to any

After age 16 they are young adults so its a different issue

HPFA - yes, if it was a Friday night in Abingdon. Who knows, we might have even talked to each other.

"Clavinova Fri 10-Mar-17 08:29:54 The council kids won't get a look in
They will if 10% of places are reserved for them*

Perhaps a good first step would be to instruct all existing Grammar Schools to admit a minimum of 10% FSM for next year.

I agree that 10% looks great. However, you are backing a concept that is lacking in specific details. Has it been decided that it will be 10%? Has the PAN for each new Grammar been decided? If not, throwing figures around that paint a favourable picture is a pretty pointless exercise really as they reality may be quite different.

HPFA and TP yes, I know - but instead of saying that that has to be the case, there should be a particular focus on ensuring it doesn't, given the data available. It isn't a necessity, and there's been a great deal of clamour around the issue of the new exams failing to cater for the less able. Everything always seems to be complained about and no-one ever seems to contemplate change as a means of fixing and improving. It's very negative.

It's quite interesting that this thread has now turned to worry about leafy comps under threat....

Goodbye,

OK, let's spell this out carefully.

Say there are 10 schools, currently all comprehensive. All offer a full range of A-level choices, because they have sufficient pupils wanting to take the full range of options, as well as more vocational qualifications. All have approximately equal numbers of SEN and PP children, all at the average for the area. Teachers in all schools get to teach the full range of ability, and thus - quality of department and school leadership apart - all schools are 'equally desirable / have equal status' as places to work.

One converts to a grammar, taking the top 10% of every other school. It is perceived by parents as 'better', because it gets better raw results AND it will have virtually no SEN children and perhaps 20-25% fewer pupil premium children than all the other schools. The proportion of SEN pupils and PP pupils in all the other 9 tgherefore increases.

The numbers in each of the remaining schools wanting to take 'minority academic A-level subjects' - Further Maths, MFL - fall below the economic threshold, and so cease to be available in those schools. Teachers who want to teach their subject right the way through to A-level - often those with the best subject knowledge - therefore leave. The grammar is obviously going to be an easier place to teach - no children of low or middle ability, no SEN, virtually all from supportive homes - whereas the other schools will be harder, so teachers will gravitate towards the grammar and recruiting and retaining teachers for the other schools will be more difficult.

That's before you even get on to the fact that there will be children in 'the wrong school for them', because the test is so flawed, and the psychological effect on those who have failed on a high stakes test at 10 ...

MumTryingHerBest
Kent, Surrey, and Sussex are all home counties. Interesting they all have Grammar Schools too. Funny that.
Sussex absolutely has no grammar schools and the Kingston and Sutton grammars with Surrey addresses are in outer London Boroughs, so at the borders of London and Surrey. Surrey is well known for its private schools and leafy comps.

You are in a partially selective Borough - so catchment areas/house prices are doubly important because the schools have non-academic places as well.

So, goodbye. How do you think the introduction of more grammar schools could be made to benefit those who don't get into them?

Bertrand, hey, I'm interested in how it can be made not to actively harm them, let alone benefit them.....

MumTryingHerBest
Cross-posted.
No, I don't know what percentage of grammar places will be reserved for poorer pupils, certainly some of the existing grammars are slowly reserving places for fsm kids ranging from 5%-15%.

goodbyestranger Fri 10-Mar-17 08:52:00 no-one ever seems to contemplate change as a means of fixing and improving.

Additional Grammar schools are not change. They are more of what already exists.

"Bertrand, hey, I'm interested in how it can be made not to actively harm them, let alone benefit them....."

Me too. But benefit of the doubt and all....

can'tkeepawayforever I've read your post swiftly because I need to leave at 9am but you're describing a doom laden scenario with a lot of questionable propositions delivered as fact. There's a lot to be done, but it's certainly true that education generally is in a state of flux and things are going to change, if only to be economically viable. The challenge is to get it right. I'm unconvinced that everything is absolutely great at the moment - the middle range may not be too badly off but the provision for most and least able in mainstream schools seems wanting, if one looks at things as a whole.

Ah, so you have no concrete ideas at all, but you think that if you wave your hands around a lot and say 'things need to change' then everything will come out right?

Are you a member of the government??

MumTryingHerBest I was referring to provision for both ends of the ability spectrum, not simply the proposal for grammars.

Enjoy your day!

I'm not hand waving at all but some of us need to get places....

I look forward to a really detailed reply later in the day, in particular why you think some of the propositions are 'questionable' - if you look at any area with grammars that take c. 10% + of the local children, what I describe is exactly what happens.

Ta1kinPeace
rich, poor, brainy, immigrant, indigenous the bus was open to any and all who shelled out the £2.20 return fare.
Poor families don't tend to only have one child. A conservative example of two children at secondary school paying £2.20 per child per day is £22 per week x 39 weeks = £858 per year or £71.50 per month. I honestly can't see many poor kids catching that bus to the better comp.

Testbourne Community School, the Hampshire comp you linked to needs a kick up the proverbial - Progress 8 is only average and minus for middle and lower attainers - I cannot see it keeping its 2010 'outstanding' grading.

goodbyestranger Fri 10-Mar-17 09:06:35 MumTryingHerBest I was referring to provision for both ends of the ability spectrum, not simply the proposal for grammars.

I wasn't aware there was a proposal on the table for both ends of the ability spectrum. Grammars are to address the top end of the ability spectrum, what is propossed for the bottom end of the ability spectrum?

Peregrina
Two of the three comprehensive schools in Abingdon (John Mason, Larkmead, Fitzharrys) have below average Progress 8 scores and the third is only average. Who on earth is campaigning to save comprehensive schools in Abingdon??

Clavinova Fri 10-Mar-17 09:13:41 I honestly can't see many poor kids catching that bus to the better comp.

But they will be able to afford it to the Grammar?

Testbourne Community School, the Hampshire comp you linked to needs a kick up the proverbial - Progress 8 is only average

At least it's doing better than the RI Grammar with a below average progress 8.

what is proposed for the bottom end of the ability spectrum
Extra £215m for SEND provision.
www.educationbusinessuk.net/news/06032017/%C2%A3215-million-schools-improve-send-facilities