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.

How does the "losing out" manifest itself?

They lose out because they are not given the opportunity to achieve their potential.

Not given the opportunity to fulfil a craving for knowledge.
Not given the opportunity to learn new concepts until everyone else is ready.
Given a sense that it is not good to be ahead and there is no benefit from working hard.
Frustration with the slow pace of the class as a whole.

Mumski45 Fri 10-Mar-17 11:10:29 Why should we not strive for excellence rather than mediocrity and sameness.

The huge investment in new Grammar schools will do nothing to improve the funding issues being faced by all existing schools some of which are Grammar Schools. How is that striving for excellence?

Who is going to be our leaders of the future and our nobel prize winners

I'm pretty sure you can't predict a person’s career path off the back of an 11 plus exam. As this point has been raised before as a reason for needing Grammar schools, does anyone know what % of world leaders and Nobel Prize winners actually went to Grammar Schools?

"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."

Because a child who can't read is properly disadvantaged.

Obviously in a world of limitless resources every child would have a personalized curriculum. But until then........

"You could therefore argue that the current system discriminates against grammar schools and the new progress 8 removes that discrimination and makes it fairer."

You could argue that. But you would be wrong.

"Who is going to be our leaders of the future and our nobel prize winners"

Well, not disadvantaged or working class kids, that's for sure.

does anyone know what % of world leaders and Nobel Prize winners actually went to Grammar School?
Quite a few recent Prime Ministers.

This pie chart shows that the Government spent £85.2 billion on education last year - the money allocated for free schools/new grammar schools is a fraction of that.
www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

Mumski
You have to remember that the differences between kids in primary schools are much more marked than at secondary.

Starting Year R, some kids are 25% older than others
Starting year 7 the largest gap is 9%

Primary schools are smaller so a couple of bright kids stand out more.
In a big secondary, there are loads of bright kids to so the top set of a Comp caters to them

and at DSs 6th form - with 2000 per year group - even the very brightest get pushed.

does anyone know what % of world leaders and Nobel Prize winners actually went to Grammar School?
Irrelevant
as most of them went to school several years ago before rather a lot of legislation was passed.

Not many Female politicians before emancipation.
Not a reflection on them, just a reflection of the legal environment.

BertrandRussell

I never said we should not invest in the child who can't read and in a world of limited resources this is were the attention is focused. But we are not a third world country. We are relatively as a whole well off and should be able to devise a system which caters to everyone.

Surely there is somewhere in the middle between a system which only focuses on the low ability and one which has a "personalised curriculum" for every child.

MumTryingHerBest
I agree and the government should be putting investment into all areas of education and not just grammar schools as I said before.

The 11+ is not a perfect system and is definitely not "tutor proof". However if we can find a way to make access to grammar schools fair to children from all backgrounds (e.g. by requiring grammars to reserve x number of places for children on FSM and funding their transport if it is an issue) then surely this is better than the current alternative which is selection by parental wealth and access to private schools.

It is irrelevant to look at the % of world leaders and Nobel Prize winners actually went to Grammar Schools as these are international concepts and we are discussing grammar schools in the UK. However using Oxford university entrance statistics alone more than 44% of those entrants from the UK came from the the mere 7% of UK students who attended private schools in 2015. How else do you suggest that we tackle this unfairness without investing in those who show high ability at an early age.

This should not be and does not have to be at the expense of everyone else but as part of an system which allows children to learn at a rate which is appropriate to them.

"You could therefore argue that the current system discriminates against grammar schools and the new progress 8 removes that discrimination and makes it fairer."

You could argue that. But you would be wrong.

And your logic for that statement is what?

"Who is going to be our leaders of the future and our nobel prize winners"

Well, not disadvantaged or working class kids, that's for sure.

And why not if they have access to a grammar style education which suits their learning style and funding for transport to help them get there every day then there is no reason why they can't have access to a top university and the same opportunities that every privately educated child currently has.

Mumski45 It is irrelevant to look at the % of world leaders and Nobel Prize winners actually went to Grammar Schools

So why did you post tjhis on a thread about Grammar Schools in the UK?

Who is going to be our leaders of the future and our nobel prize winners

Bertrand
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. But this is being addressed already with SATs reforms, reading interventions, phonics testing, Progress 8, Year 7 catch-up funding, GCSE English resits - even if the 16/17 year old doesn't actually pass the English resit it's another year spent on studying the subject.

Mumski
Please explain to me how the schooling for poor people in the Winchester area will be enhanced by bringing in selective schools?

In a big secondary, there are loads of bright kids to so the top set of a Comp caters to them

Depends on the cohort and how the school organises the classes.

In my comp, there were six forms in my year. But those six forms were split into two before setting, so there was a "top" maths group for forms A-C and then another "top" maths group for forms D-F. So basically a top, middle and bottom group for three forms and another top, middle and bottom group for the other 3 forms. I was the top group for D-F and we had a massive range of abilities, between A and D in fact! My comp certainly didn't "cater for" the brightest - you simply can't when you have such a large range in a single class. The brightest were basically ignored as the teacher concentrated on getting the D graders up to a C!

The middle groups were likewise two groups of wide ability, in fact, worse because half the groups were doing foundation and the other half higher, so you had two groups where the teacher was splitting their time and lessons between two different exams!

The "top" group should have been out of all six forms and then it would probably have been an A-B group, with the second group being the C-D group. Then you could have had the top two doing higher level and the bottom 4 doing the foundation level. Then each group would have got the proper teaching to their level and no poor sod of a teacher would have to try to teach both foundation and higher level students in the same class at the same time!

For comps to work, they need the setting to be at a fine enough level. Stupid having 2 groups of A-D students as it's simply too wide. Just like stupid having 2 middle groups, both of whom had some foundation and some higher level students.

If we're going to move forward with just comps, then they need to find ways of properly teaching ALL levels to their abilities. Too much emphasis is on those at lower levels and the "quiet" brighter ones are basically ignored. These days, the way to get attention is to be just below some threshold or other so the school put all their efforts into getting you over that threshold. Kids who are working to grades B-C at the moment but capable of A/A* with a bit of push aren't getting that little bit extra support and that's just plain wrong and is where the selective schools have the ethos to encourage that "push".

"Surely there is somewhere in the middle between a system which only focuses on the low ability and one which has a "personalised curriculum" for every child."

We dn't have a system whic only focuses on low ability. However much mumsnetters try to suggest we have.

six forms per year is small at state secondary

"Kids who are working to grades B-C at the moment but capable of A/A* with a bit of push aren't getting that little bit extra support"

Evidence for this?

Ta1kinPeace

Agreed - my personal experience as a parent is currently only of primary schools.

But do the disadvantaged children from working class backgrounds have access to the best comps?

Access to good comps in my area is dependant on either participation within a particular faith or parental wealth (ability to afford housing costs) or even both.

My own situation is that we have 3 good comps nearby and 2 in special measures. 2 of the good ones are faith schools (we don't qualify as the faiths are both Christian and we are not) the other one we live too far away from so our only options are to move, schools in special measures or a grammar school more than 20 miles away. Now I could afford to either move or invest in the tuition and the transport cost but what about someone who lives near me but can't afford either of those options.

What if one of the schools in special measures near me was allowed to convert to a grammar school. There is no shortage of places overall in this area so no need for a new school. I have obviously not thought through this suggestion fully but am throwing the idea out there for discussion.

does anyone know what % of world leaders and Nobel Prize winners actually went to Grammar School?

Well on the very scientific approach to looking at wiki then going down the list of UK Nobel Prize winners [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#United_Kingdom here]] every one I checked who had a school listed went to an independent boys school. I got bored after the first 10 or so so perhaps a more rigorous approach would find otherwise! With the current funding crisis the independent school advantage looks like it's only going to widen.

Argh link fail here

Michael Wilshaw's monthly report June 2016:
www.gov.uk/government/speeches/hmcis-monthly-commentary-june-2016

"Of all the important issues I have put under the spotlight during my time as Chief Inspector, arguably none is as critical to the nation’s success and economic fortunes as the performance of the most able children in our non-selective state schools."

"The most recent statistics paint a bleak picture of under-achievement and unfulfilled potential. Thousands of our most able secondary-age children are still not doing as well as they should in the non-selective state sector where the vast majority of them are educated."

"What is most depressing is that the brightest children from disadvantaged backgrounds are the most likely not to achieve their full potential."

"As Chief Inspector, I have consistently lamented the failure of too many secondary schools to stretch our most able children, particularly the poorest. If our nation is serious about improving social mobility then our secondary schools have got to start delivering for these children."

"Our nation’s economic prosperity depends on harnessing the talent of all our young people but especially those who have the potential to be the next generation of business leaders, wealth generators and job creators.

As a nation, we have a problem with low productivity. The fact that so many of our poorer bright children are being deprived of the opportunity to fulfil their early promise must surely be one of the underlying causes of this.

The government understands that this is a serious and pressing issue for our country. It is taking steps to reform those parts of the system that have been putting a brake on high aspirations."

I would be interested to see how disadvantage is defined.

We have friends with four children on a lowish income. Both have degrees but one works part time and the other is a long term SAHP. Their children don't have much materially but they have plenty of intellectual stimulation and books etc. They have clear expectations about going to university.

Similarly DD has a good friend whose Dad has a well paid manual job and whose Mum works full time. Financially they are pretty comfortable. They do not value education very much though; Have actively discouraged their daughter from going to University and even refused to send her to the high achieving selective sixth form college because of the bus fare.

Disadvantage is not always as simple as family income.

MumTryingHerBest
*Mumski45 It is irrelevant to look at the % of world leaders and Nobel Prize winners actually went to Grammar Schools

So why did you post this on a thread about Grammar Schools in the UK?*

I didn't that was your question. Its the % that I think is irrelevant not the educational background that our future leaders/pioneers are going to come from.

Ta1kinPeace

I have no experience or knowledge of the Winchester area. What I do know is that experiences vary widely across the country as some areas have more grammars than others already and others have none at all. Also the educational provision seems to vary depending on density of population. Maybe you could give us some information on the particular educational issues in your area and what you think could be done to improve them. In most cases it will ultimately come down to more funding.

But do the disadvantaged children from working class backgrounds have access to the best comps?
If the schools are comps with clear admissions then why not ?

faith schools are not comps - ever