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.

On the other hand, of the 4 grammar schools in, say, Gloucester, only 2 have above average Progress 8 scores. The other two have only average, one of which is negative. Who is campaigning to spread this model more widely?

(And yes, you can say that the other schools in Gloucester - the secondary moderns - have significant lower Progress 8 than the grammars. What is interesting to know why anyone is advocating spreading this system further, in which not even all the 'highly selective' schools are above average, while making the 'other' schools significantly worse)

But will they be able to afford it to the grammar?
Well I thought the Government just announced they were going to pay for them.

That's interesting about SEND, Clavinova.

And what's proposed for lower ability children?

I honestly can't see many poor kids catching that bus to the better comp.

Truly "poor" kids are usually eligible for discounted/free travel. In our town, a poor, disadvantaged seaside resort with massive social problems, high unemployment, no major employers, there are two failing comps with falling numbers.

At the same time, there are no fewer than 8 chartered school buses taking kids to two "good" comps just across the county border. So that's 400 kids from an impoverished seaside resort with high unemployment who are managing to get a bus across the county border.

There are also service buses to the next small town which has a small "good" comp and service buses to the nearest city which has a couple of "good" comps, the buses being full with secondary school kids.

So, yes, even in poor areas of social deprivation, the parents manage to bus their kids to better comps to avoid the local sink schools. The sheer number of buses full of school kids on the two main roads out of the town prove it. Whether that's because of free travel, subsidised travel, or whether the parents somehow manage to find the money, is something I don't have the figures for.

Claivinova, what i don't understand is why the Government gives money to 'existing school types', within the same building, as the best model for SEN children, but sees the only possible provision for the more able is in segregated institutions? It just doesn't make sense.

If the issue is thought to be that comprehensives don't cater well for both ends of the ability spectrum, then surely the consistent and logical approach is to give money to those schools to improve that provision, not guive money to schools for children at one end of the spectrum yet pour money into alternative schools at the other end?

A little known fact about progress 8.

You get more "points" for lifting a child from A to A* than you do for raising a child from a D to a C. So it's easier for a grammar school to get a good Progress 8 score for making differences that barely matter (yes, I mean that!) than for a secondary modern for making differences that could be life changing. And this is fair and reasonable exactly how?

MumTryingHerBest

My experience so far - admittedly in primary schools only - is that there is an awful lot of time, money and attention that goes to address the bottom end of the ability spectrum.

For example pupil premium, funding for SEN children, PRU funding. There is also a lot of time focused within the everyday classroom on those children who fall into none of the above categories but for whatever reason are performing below the expected levels. This leaves very little time for those children and the top end of the ability spectrum who do currently lose out due to the shortage of resources.

I see many many intervention groups being run in my kids school for those at the bottom end whilst those at the other end are left to fend for themselves.

I am not saying its the same in secondary school as I have no personal experience of that yet but do those at the top end of the ability spectrum not deserve attention as well.

To be fair, Bertrand, that isn't the case for the currently-reported Progress 8, but WILL be the case from this year's Year 11. I agree that it will skew the results hugely from next year ... and the cynic in me says that is because grammar schools didn't look good enough in the existing Progress 8 measures so a fudge was created to improve the situation...

This is the relevant document - see p3

(Also, it is a transitional fudge, which will mean that Progress 8 measures will be uncomparable year on year from 2016 through to at least 2018. This is because of the move from all A-G, through this year's 'mixed economy' of A to G and 9-1, to the full 9-1 GCSEs. Once all GCSEs are on the 9-1 scale, then year on year cmparisons will be able to be made once more)

" This leaves very little time for those children and the top end of the ability spectrum who do currently lose out due to the shortage of resources"

In what way do they "lose out"?

Clavinova What has £215m extra SEND provisions got to do with provision for the bottom end of the ability spectrum?

if only to be economically viable
State Education is not a business
it is a core provision of a civilised society
economic viability is a smokescreen

Clavinova
Knowing some of the kids who got the bus each day, their parents sacrificed lots to cover that bus fare out of benefits
as they see it as an investment in their children's future

no subsidised bus fares available as the route crosses an LEA boundary

Clavinova Fri 10-Mar-17 09:40:14 Well I thought the Government just announced they were going to pay for them.

Have the Government explained why they can't do the same for those wishing to attend existing schools?

I'm pretty sure it will work out cheaper over all to bus DCs to existing schools rather than needing to build new schools to bus them off to.

BertrandRussell

They lose out because there is no time and attention focused on their needs. Because they have already achieved a level of attainment before the rest of the class they are left to coast whilst the rest of the class catch up.

Do more able primary school children not deserve to have an education catered to their needs just like the less able children do with their intervention groups.

My experience so far - early secondary and primary, one DC1 high academic ability one DC2 average with SEN.

DC1 had small group extension lessons supplemented with some 1-2-1 instruction at advanced levels throughout yrs 4, 5 & 6 at primary, along with additional challenging homework specific to high ability DCs (granted they weren't impressed with doing two lots of homework).

DC2 put in top groups due to very high underlying ability, given no help or support, made to stay in most break times and some lunch times to finish their class work, unassisted and unguided. I spent two years arguing with the school to get them to consider the possibility of SEN as they refused to investigate as she was performing to national standards. When I handed in the assessment report the response was "Oh, that explains a few things".

Every parent I know with DCs with SEN have had to fight all the way to get provision put in place for their DCs.

cantkeepawayforever

Having read a small part of the document you linked to the scale appears to be an attempt to make the progress 8 comparable across both grading systems.
I 'm not sure of the facts but surely the reason we are moving to the new scale is to better differentiate at the top end with the old grade A and A* covering too wide a banding and universities not being able to make informed choices over who to offer places to.

The new system gives more and therefore narrower bands. It seems to me that the progress 8 systems is trying to "see through" the two banding systems to the actual marks which are required in each one and therefore making them comparable.

This will apply to comprehensives as much as it will to grammars.

They lose out because there is no time and attention focused on their need"

What- none at all?

How does the "losing out" manifest itself?

"This will apply to comprehensives as much as it will to grammars."

Up to a point. A system where you get more credit for lifting As to A*s that Ds to Cs is weighted hugely in favourite of grammar schools, and leaves comprehensives at a disadvantage and secondary moderns at the starting gate....

MumTryingHerBest
It sounds like the experience of high ability children in primary school is very mixed as that level of extension is not available in my DC's school.

Unfortunately the experience you describe for your DC2 is familiar with my experience that a child who is already performing at or above national standards needs no additional help.

What we need is a system which recognises that everyone is entitled to a good education which caters to their needs. Unfortunately this requires more funding that the government are prepared to provide.

In a world of limited resources, the child who can already read has to be less of a priority than the child who can't. Sad but true.

BertrandRussell

"A system where you get more credit for lifting As to A*s that Ds to Cs is weighted hugely in favourite of grammar schools, and leaves comprehensives at a disadvantage and secondary moderns at the starting gate"

But its not as simple as that. The current grading system has a wide band of circa 22% for an A grade (based on a quick look at the grade bandings for maths in 2016) whereas the banding for grades ABC are in the region of 15%. The new grading system is presumably designed to differentiate more between a low A at circa 78% and a higher achievement of maybe 90% which is currently not recognised at all. You could therefore argue that the current system discriminates against grammar schools and the new progress 8 removes that discrimination and makes it fairer.

BertrandRussell Fri 10-Mar-17 10:55:13 In a world of limited resources, the child who can already read has to be less of a priority than the child who can't.

The Grammar proposal suggests otherwise though. £ms have been found for schools for the top 10%.

Yes we are in a world of limited resources but why is a child who can already read less of a priority than a child who can't. Why should we not strive for excellence rather than mediocrity and sameness.

Who is going to be our leaders of the future and our nobel prize winners if we don't invest in those that show exceptional talent and the ability to work hard. If we can't do this from the state sector then we perpetuate a world of privilege where these people come only from families with the money to invest in a private education.

MumTryingHerBest
Agreed and I don't see that as a bad thing as long the access to that education is fair.

What is bad is the lack of investment in the rest of the state school system and provision for everyone else. If we can tackle school discipline and improve the poor comprehensives then we can attract and keep good teachers in all schools and a good education can be provided to every child according to their needs.