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.

We all seem to be assuming here that a leady comp is better than a non-leafy one. But a school with an 80% GCSE pass rate isn't necessarily better than one with 60% -it doesn't mean that the individual child hasn't got just as much chance of getting good results.

I agree that progress is king, not necessarily GCSE results. GCSE results tend to dictate subjects offered at A level though. No FM or lots of MFL if student GCSE results do not warrant it. So many people comment that they cannot afford to move to a leafy comp area, it appears that is here they perceive the best schools to be. It would be good if they did not need to!

Exactly, HFPA. In one of the worst schools I have ever encountered - now closed, in Special Measures over a period of decades, in a Northern town with very significant disadvantage, well below floor standards, high turnover of heads, majority of children on PP, majority of students entered as below L4 in Y6 SATs, endemic worklessness in area from which virtually all pupils were drawn - c. 2 students each year got 10 A - A*. Ex pupils went to Oxbridge. There just weren't many of that calibre of student, not that the school couldn't get them to achieve good results (their added value, btw, was extremely high).

As i said upthread, it would be good if everyone - Ofsted, parents - understood that a good school is one that creates good progress for all children ... not the one with the shiniest set of GCSE / A-level results. until we can change that, then schools such as grammars, whose absolute results are high, will be seen to be 'better'.

Anon but calling a leafy comp a 'grammar in all but name' is just nonsense.

People might be surprised at just how many kids in a leafy comp would be booted out under the new 10% regime. (I'm hopeful they wouldn't boot out existing pupils, but you know what I mean).

Yes, the issue shouldn't be about whether poor children have access to "leafy" comps but about whether poor children should have access to a great education. A "leafy" comp which may actually be pretty complacent is not necessarily going to be better than one which is busting a gut to get children achieving their best. And it will have more chance of doing that if children haven't already failed a test and been labelled non-academic.

I don't doubt that there are poor comprehensives in some places. However, how is replacing a model which doesn't work in those cases with one which is 70 years out of date and was seen to be failing 40 odd years ago progress?

Someone has already said up thread - look to see what those successul Comprehensives are doing. London turned a lot of schools round. What did they do? It wasn't just money - there was more.

Of course there are poor comprehensives.

I just find it a little odd that they all seem to be situated in the centre of a little enclave of mumsnetters!

I think a "leafy" comp is just a comp which grammar supporters consider to be "good" . So any comp that Mumsnetters praise must be a leafy comp by definition because otherwise they wouldn't be praising it. My favourite was the one saying Parliament Hill was a house-price school because it's near Hampstead, as if living in a B and B hostel on the same street as million pound houses gave you access to all the privileges of actually owning such a house.

It's like "children don't go to Oxbridge from ordinary comps" - because if you go to Oxbridge from a comp by definition that comp is apparently not ordinary.

I wonder if, with a choice of a comp with 60% A*-C and Ofsted
Outstanding or one with 80% A*-C and only Ofsted good, which would be seen as the 'better' school.

I wonder if, with a choice of a comp with 60% A-C and Ofsted
Outstanding or one with 80% A-C and only Ofsted good, which would be seen as the 'better' school.

We have just chosen a 72% school over an 85% school because it is nearer and has a better pastoral feel. The parents of the other high achieving kids seem to think we are crazy though. Even the ones who I suspect are going to need a fair bit of pastoral support in the future, given the state they are in about the Y6 SATS.

People might be surprised at just how many kids in a leafy comp would be booted out under the new 10% regime
Isn't that because their wealthy parents didn't need to pay for the hot house tutoring that they would have received if grammars were available?

I wonder if, with a choice of a comp with 60% A-C and Ofsted
Outstanding or one with 80% A-C and only Ofsted good, which would be seen as the 'better' school.
Most parents I know would take a longer term view of Ofsted reports, results and its reputation in the area. So it really could be either school.

Anon
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

Which of the three Winchester Comps is the socially exclusive one?
Or will you accept that all three reflect their catchments pretty well.

Which of the two Romsey Comps is more socially exclusive?
When in fact both of them have a poorer intake than their locality because of all of us poor folks crossing the border ...

I'll accept that Thornden is socially exclusive, but Toynbee's results are snapping at its heels so that will level out

Anon1234567890 are you in favour of there being more grammar schools?

One of the Oxford schools (A) has the 14th highest Progress 8 figures in the country. Gets 51% E and M GCSE despite the fact that nearly half of students are officially classed as Low Achievers at KS2. Another (B) is probably the epitome of the "posh comp".

It will surprise no-one to learn that whilst School A still has 24 unfilled places School B rejected 195 applicants.

In terms of grammar debate the pro-argument seems to be that children in School A's catchment should have access to School B through a test. But School A has so few High Achievers you can't actually see their results in the statistics. So if School B became a grammar the chances of any pupil going there instead of School A would be infinitesimally small. Equally is it "unfair" that children who live near School A can't get into School B? It appears in fact that School A is meeting their needs superbly.

It is an extreme example admittedly. But it is real.

are you in favour of there being more grammar schools?

I am in favor of an end to wealth selection by house prices.
I am in favour of doing something for the more academic children who find the top set in a bog standard comp pedestrian.
I am in favour of giving children in deprived areas, whose families none-the-less raise their children to be academically well above average having the chance to get a school that will do more for them.

At the moment Grammars look to be the only choice on the table and no other political party seems to have a alternative.

I am in favor of an end to wealth selection by house prices.
THat can be cured by having enough school places , well designed catchments and good pupil premium.

I am in favour of doing something for the more academic children who find the top set in a bog standard comp pedestrian.
Evidence please. And define "bog standard" - name a school.

I am in favour of giving children in deprived areas, whose families none-the-less raise their children to be academically well above average having the chance to get a school that will do more for them.
Dividing the existing resources between more schools will not help that.
Focused use of PP and limiting how much Academies can spend on SLT salaries will have much more effect.

At the moment Grammars look to be the only choice on the table and no other political party seems to have a alternative.
Untrue.
Its not a prty political issue.
Its a case of allowing LEAs to provide enough places for the kids who need them
and then have absolute transparency of information and governance.

School A could therefore be regarded as an outstanding secondary modern school with superb results for low and middle attainers.

Anon- why do you think you need separate schools to do that? Why do you think high ability children are more important than middle or lower ability ones?

At the moment Grammars look to be the only choice on the table and no other political party seems to have a alternative.

Not looking hard enough. Why look at grammars who only do well by an already advantaged intake, instead of looking to comps who do well by a wide range of students? Wilshaw pointed to London as a source of inspiration.

Anon1234567890 Fri 10-Mar-17 16:22:38 At the moment Grammars look to be the only choice on the table and no other political party seems to have a alternative.

Well if, as you have stated on another thread, exceptionally bright DCs in state schools are screwed, then this would suggest that Grammar schools are not fit for purpose. They are supposed to be selecting and educating the brightest DCs.

HPFA
There is another school in Oxford - Oxford Spires Academy - the 10 high attainers scored very badly on Progress 8 but middle and low attainers did well:

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/136261

How interesting (and unfair) that progress 8 reporting will change so that A-A* is worth more than C-D.

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...

In my LA the school that scored the highest progress 8 last year was a secondary. The local paper managed to pretty much ignore this and harped on about how great the grammars were regardless.

the 10 high attainers scored very badly on Progress 8

Actually with only 10 high attainers, progress 8 is a bit of a bobbins measure - look at that confidence interval. You're looking at the -0.71 value and saying they did badly, but also they could have done pretty much smack on the national average. A single outlier in that group could also have a disproportionate effect.

You can't make any judgements
at all based on a sample of 10! That's ridiculous!