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.

They are mostly self starters and often employers. Very bad for the economy to behave in a punitive way towards the self employed imo.

Clavinova
I'm not being sarcastic at all. I'm genuinely impressed.
A school near here was on national telly for having 57 native languages. I know how hard it is jumping through Ofsted's hoops in that situation.

GRuffalow
I'm an accountant.
In law, the SSP, SMP and the like come out of the ERS NI of 13.8% which self employed still do not have to deal with ....

Bertrand
Why are high ability children more needed for our future economy than middle and lower ability ones

Because hairdressers and beauticians don't programme computers, run global businesses or cure cancer. The Government clearly agree because this statement by Michael Wilshaw was written two weeks before Teresa May stood for office and she's clearly read it;

"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."

Ta1kinPeace
Sorry, I thought you were.

But Grammar schools won't achieve that by excluding gifted computer programmers, scientists, mathematicians who have dyslexia/dyspraxia/ADHD etc.

We need people of all abilities. When we find talent surely we should have the ability to nurture it in an appropriate environment. That same environment will not be suited to everyone.
No one suggested that those of high academic ability are more important or that we should invest in only those children. Should we not be providing the right environment for all children and accepting that what suits one group is not best for the other.

As far as I am aware there is not a proposal to go back to the old system of a full 11+ system which would create secondary moderns. It is therefore wrong to say that a new system which learns from the failings of the old one can't be made to work with right checks and balances and the required investment across the board.

Can I just check before I make a fool of myself- was the "hairdressers and beauticians" remark a joke?

mumski
As far as I am aware there is not a proposal to go back to the old system of a full 11+ system which would create secondary moderns
If you have an academically selective school in every town
by definition you have a remainders school in every town
call it what you like but it will be full of 11+ failures.

Clavinova Fri 10-Mar-17 18:00:51 be the next generation of business leaders, wealth generators and job creators."

What I'm not really getting my head around is the assumption that these can only be found amongst the top 10% of academic performers, based on their performance in a test at the age of 10/11.

checkinsandwich
Well I personally know one boy in a super selective grammar school with dyspraxia, one with dyslexia, one with aspergers, one with autism and one with a severe speech impediment. Also, several very bright, very fidgety, can't seem to wait their turn boys who probably have undiagnosed ADHD but their parents don't want to label them with anything.

MumTryingHerBest
What I'm not really getting my head around is the assumption that these can only be found amongst the top 10% of academic performers, based on their performance in a test at the age of 10/11.

You are right they can also be found in the 7% of children who are educated privately and whose success is dependant on their parents wealth or those children who come from families who can afford to buy a house near a good comp.

Job creators and leaders are all well and good but

without veg pickers and meat packers they will go hungry
without plumbers and carpenters they will have nowhere to live
without care assistants they will have to look after their own elderly parents
without delivery drivers they will have to go back to the high street

and we either train them up from the kids born in the UK
or keep on importing them

Bertrand
hairdressers and beauticians - a tongue-in-cheek reference to a previous post, yes.

Mumski45 Fri 10-Mar-17 18:10:32 Should we not be providing the right environment for all children and accepting that what suits one group is not best for the other.

Spot on. Which is why the proposal on the table to invest in schools for the top 10% falls far short of the mark. Either that someone has forgotten to circulate a massive chunk of the proposal, addressing the need to invest in and improve the educational provision of the other 90%.

Oh, and one girl who has dyslexia and dyspraxia and is now at a Russell Group Uni having left her super selective grammar two years ago.

Ta1kinPeace

I don't think the proposal is for a grammar and a non grammar in every town. The grammars would then cater for 50%. There is also no talk of a compulsory 11+ so those whose parents don't want their children to take it won't need to.

The problem here is that the experience of grammars across the country is different according to where you are from. In my LEA there are very few grammar places but they do exist for those that want them. There is no compulsion to take the 11+ but for those whose children would benefit the option exists. There are not enough places here for there to be a detrimental affect on the comps here. What needs to improve is the access to the grammar places we have as at the moment it depends too much on the ability of parents to prepare their kids for the test and the ability for them to pay for transport. If a number of places were allocated to the highest scorers who qualified for FSM and these same children qualified for free transport then the system would be fairer.

Mumski45 Fri 10-Mar-17 18:20:36 those children who come from families who can afford to buy a house near a good comp.

So we've moved on from all outstanding "leafy" comps. being the preserve of the rich to all good comps. being the preserve of the rich. I know that the FSM is a crude measure but I'm pretty sure it will disprove this suggestion.

those children who come from families who can afford to buy a house near a good comp.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the ONLY good comps are House price schools. I could name quite a few in my county alone that are not oversubscribed. This is close to saying that only comps that exclude poorer children are able to be good. Really don't like that.

My kids went to a good comp.
I live over 4 miles away from it in a different LEA
as do the 200+ families from round here who send their kids there.

Kings in Winchester takes kids from up to 5 miles outside its catchment boundary.

House prices are so sky high round here that very few people move at all.

The whole "parents move for leafy comps" thing is Londoners talking bilge about the rest of the country as far as I can see.

MumTryingHerBest

I agree entirely. The system should work for everyone and that requires changes and investment across the board. It is wrong for the government to invest only in one group and I would like to see investment in all areas of education. I would be happy to pay more tax for this (and also for improvements in the nhs but that is another thread)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by a good comp. What I meant to say is a comp which has high attainment levels rather than high progress levels. There are of course many good comps that do wonders for the children who attend them but are not full of high achievers. In my experience these schools definitely do result in higher local house prices.

I have no idea what a "leafy" comp is and I am from no where near London.

Where I am you need to live within about a mile and half of a comp to be able to get in, the alternatives are faith schools (which apparently are not comps and which also have small catchments) or the schools in special measures.

They're not investing in only one group,really silly thing to say.

Pp,Sen and several counties which have had a lot more money than others have had far more investment.

Grammars don't get more money,far from it.

The problem is that the whole of the south-east has high house prices. This is allowing pro-grammar supporters to claim that every good comp must be one that only the "rich" go to.

People won't be moving because they're priced out by the sky high prices.

What is needed is a national education strategy which is not dependent on the whim of whoever happens to be Education Secretary, but is determined by a body of people comprising members of all parties, people professionally engaged in education from various backgrounds and interested lay persons; working for the benefit of all pupils. And don't forget... academics need to have practical skills, and vice versa.