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.

I think it was you Ta1kinPeace who said that 70 kids from your dd's year at school went off to hair and beauty college after GCSEs - that's approximately half the year group of girls? Perhaps here is some untapped potential?

Mumski45 I didn't post:

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

You did.

Its the % that I think is irrelevant

It's not irrelevant if it's being used as a reason to invest millions. If more leaders and Nobel prize winners are attendign comps. then surely it would make more sense to invest the money in comps. not try to move them all to Grammars.

Tinklylittlelaugh

Agreed, it is never that simple. A supportive family who values education is in my limited experience far more important than anything else when considering a child's ability to achieve their potential. As supportive parents will strive to maximise their children opportunities.

We need to focus the resources on making it easier for those who have neither money, nor a family prepared or able to make sacrifices, to access an education appropriate to them.

clavinova
how very sexist of you to make that assumption

MumTryingHerBest

Yes the percentage is irrelevant because I am referring to the participation of the UK on a world stage and by definition most of these people will not originate from the UK educational system. My point was that if we want to produce people capable of being world leaders and pioneers (e.g. noble prize winners) then our education system needs to be capable of producing them by nurturing the talent we have.

Ta1kinPeace

I always though the definition of a comprehensive school is a school which does not select according to ability. All secondary schools other than grammar schools are therefore comprehensive schools.

Most comprehensive schools have distance from the school within their main admission criteria. This pushes up house prices near the good ones and hence does restrict the access to them for children who are disadvantaged and from less well off backgrounds in many areas. This is a well accepted phenomena and is one of the reasons why we have good and bad comps.

Mumski45 our education system needs to be capable of producing them by nurturing the talent we have.

If Grammar Schools are to be the facilitator for this you need to be confident that the tallent will be identified at the age of 10/11 in the form of the 11 plus exam. Do you think it will?

Mumski
I always though the definition of a comprehensive school is a school which does not select according to ability.
How can it be?
I'm not a Catholic so a Catholic school is not comprehensive in its intake.
I'm not Jewish so a Jewish school is not comprehensive in its intake.
My kids are different sexes so any single sex school excludes one or other of them.

A comprehensive school admits based on

• correct age for intake year
• looked after and all that guff
• address to give distance from school

nothing else about the parents or child is, or should be relevant

Clavinova
Joking apart, I cannot remember the details of the actual post you are thinking of
but in a Comp with 300 kids per year
roughly 1/3 will go straight into vocational or work
roughly 1/3 will do A levels and then go to work
roughly 1/3 will go on to higher education
which seems entirely reasonable to me

"Ta1kinPeace

I always though the definition of a comprehensive school is a school which does not select according to ability. All secondary schools other than grammar schools are therefore comprehensive schools."
Tediously disingenuous. As you well know.

I wonder how much of this 'concern' about Grammars is displaced worry about the wealthy elite losing their ability to buy their way into these 'leafy comps' which are really grammars in all but name. Much better to actually make parents children prove their merit before they can get into an academic school. Would these elite even want to go to a grammar if it meant they had to mix with 'rough' diamonds?

Actually a solution would be for comprehensives to run a top set in core subjects that you could only get into if you passed an externally assessed test to prove you are capable of an A* or 8/9. This would advantage poorly performing schools as the top set would have much smaller class sizes, which could attract extra funding just like the opposite end of the spectrum does. It would certainly make me less concerned about sending my DC to a school in a deprived area.

The recent post where Michael Wilshaw talks about how some comps are not stretching the most able might give the impression that he supports grammars. In fact:

'The idea that poor children will benefit from a return of grammar schools is "tosh" and "nonsense", says the outgoing chief inspector of Ofsted.
Sir Michael Wilshaw said a return to selection at 11 years old would be a "profoundly retrograde step" that would lead to sliding standards.'

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37275092

Gini99
Hackney Downs grammar school/failed comp - now high achieving Mossbourne Academy (Michael Wilshaw's school) has the most interesting history. Alumni at the bottom of the page.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackney_Downs_School

Interestingly, Mossbourne 'selects/manages' its intake with academic banding which puts a 'cap' on the number of poor, low achieving children from the local area (so there will be kids who can see the school from their window who won't get a place) and replaces them with middle/high achieving kids from further afield. Mossbourne is quite transparent with its banding test scores (unlike many other schools that use banding tests to skewe their intake) but it does mean that Mossbourne has a lower % of fsm/higher % of high achievers than other schools in the immediate area.

noblegiraffe
Michael Wilshaw isn't in charge of funding though.

Actually a solution would be for comprehensives to run a top set in core subjects that you could only get into if you passed an externally assessed test to prove you are capable of an A or 8/9. *

That's actually a very good idea and would go a long way to deal with the perception of the brightest kids not being challenged and not being encouraged to aim for the top grades, if you ensured that the "top" groups really were only for the most able pupils and not diluted.

Trouble is, though, how would you select the kids to take the test, and what kind of test would it be. If you're not careful, you just end up with the 11+ scenario again where "pushy parents" tutor their kids for whatever new test is introduced. If kids were selected by teachers, you'd have the age old problem of teacher prejudice.

Michael Wilshaw also says in that article that he appreciated that grammar schools did a 'fine job'.

The recent post where Michael Wilshaw talks about how some comps are not stretching the most able

It's actually a post about many comps not stretching the most able not some comps.

I wonder how much of this 'concern' about Grammars is displaced worry about the wealthy elite losing their ability to buy their way into these 'leafy comps' which are really grammars in all but name.
Not much

because those of us who sent our kids to such schools know that the perception put about by MN posters and the tabloids is rubbish.

Winchester is ultra leafy
but all three of its schools have kids from the council estates
cos they are Comps

puts a 'cap' on the number of poor, low achieving children from the local area (so there will be kids who can see the school from their window who won't get a place)

You are aware that every single Grammar School in the country does this, it's call the 11 plus exam.

Even leafy comps have a large proportion of middle attainers, making them nothing like grammars which rarely have any.

Trouble is, though, how would you select the kids to take the test, and what kind of test would it be. If you're not careful, you just end up with the 11+ scenario again

Easy, in the English top set its an English test, in Maths a maths test ...etc Yes parents could tutor to pass the test but the class would only teach fast paced A* academic material and any child who can't keep up is moved back into a different set. So just passing the test isn't enough they actually need to be able to cope with the work as well.

The school could select who takes the test with parents also having the choice of entering their child any time they feel they are able.

Even leafy comps have a large proportion of middle attainers, making them nothing like grammars

In the 'leafy comps' that I know yes they do have middle attainers but (priority admissions aside) the vast majority of pupils are from very wealthy families. Which makes them socially exclusive, just like is being claimed for grammars. So to me its a question of which is better, socially exclusive schools for the wealthy, or selection by ability to pass a test?

Lots happened during my work time:

Peregrina Yep, Friday night in Abingdon

Clavinova Don't know how people would feel about a grammar in Abingdon but I do know it's a matter for ALL parents in Abingdon to decide - it's not up to a small group of parents to decide that two out of the three schools should become secondary moderns without the rest having any say. Same applies to the town where DD goes to school.

Goodbye I'm afraid I've been skipping through a lot of posts but the impression I got from your last post was that you felt we shouldn't worry too much about possible adverse consequences but just give it a try. If that's a correct interpretation then I don't really think that's terribly satisfactory - we have selective counties in England - why don't we study the system there in depth before extending it? But I'm quite happy to accept I may be misrepresenting you here.

Most poor comprehensives are in the North or the Midlands. They are not in leafy areas, by and large.

Bucks has grammar schools, but some of the secondary moderns have 30% plus high attainers. If anyone thinks all high attainers at primary get into the Bucks grammars, they are totally wrong. Bucks has 13 grammar schools.

The secondary schools do have far more PP children than the grammars but it is really difficult to see how the disadvantaged can get into a grammar if they are not the highest section of the higher attainers. It is virtually impossible to improve children to that extent if they are not intellectually good enough. Most FSM parents with children in grammar schools are well educated, but not higher earners, for whatever reason. There is no 11 plus tuition in primary schools here which is why the tutoring is so well established outside school. Tutoring available to all would make a difference, whether we like it or not. The primary schools I know work hard with all children -FSM children and others are given every opportunity to learn but cannot be tutored. The problem is the actual exam and the lack of preparation. It is not borne out, by any assessment I have ever seen, that there are hundreds of disadvantaged children who do not make it to grammar but are very bright. The super bright are nailed on get there anyway. It is the ones who need a boost that don't. Children who are tutored get the boost. Who will give the boost to the FSM or PP children around the new grammar schools? How will the places be filled by these children if they cannot pass the test, even at a lower level than everyone else? I just do not think they exist in the numbers the Government thinks. Doing better at a comp is one thing, being a grammar school child is yet another.