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.

Yes the new test is harder to tutor for thus harder to get a place wrongfully.

The best tests, the ones with predictive powers of about 0.7 were tests like CATs. No tutoring for them at all. Lack of ability to tutor for a test doesn't mean that it will be better than 0.7, merely probably that the previous test was worse.

Your DH clearly doesn't have a very critical mind noble if he's that easily persuaded.

goodbye how so? He believed the hype, he was shown the hype was nonsense and then he was shown some of the reality. He was pretty horrified, TBH.

He was shown something by you and didn't seek out alternative views or examine what is currently going on in grammar schools to address the issues around tutoring etc. It's very narrow. He probably wants a quiet life to be fair. After all, if you keep shifting from 10% to 25% etc there's no sensible argument to be had, because your prejudice is too obvious.

He was shown something by you and didn't seek out alternative views

Er, if he believed that grammar schools were good for social mobility and the evidence shows that they aren't, then what 'alternative views' should he be seeking out? Lies?

And I explained why I used the 25% figure

What was the 'evidence'?

Also, all you said was that some grammars go for 25%. That's not the model being suggested, so you're simply using it to shore up a wobbly argument.

It's a shite idea.
End of.

Well not really end of if other people think the idea has merit. But you don't have to engage Nonno, if you don't want to. No-one is going to make the 11+ mandatory..

Ask Headteachers and teachers. If they are not on board (or 'engaged') then who will work in them?

What if your child is one of the 90% who can no longer attend the local school (b/c it's now a grammar due to central location in large rural area and your kid didn't get in) so instead your child must be bussed away every day?

If the school needs 150 in each yr group (intake size I found for Tonbridge grammar), then that means a bus trip of at least 1 hr each way for many kids in Norfolk.

Kent has double the population of Norfolk, 25% target to grammars, and 32 grammar schools. Doing the math... suggests just 4-5 grammar schools would be available for the top 10% of Norfolk kids (we probably have fewer young people, too, so really 4 for the entire county). That also means min. 1 hr bus journey for kids at the grammar & even some not at the grammar... Lots of parents would not take the GS place b/c they would be horrified to send their kid so far away.

This is one the strongest arguments against grammars IMHO

I showed him the evidence that grammar schools were stuffed with the tutored kids of the better-off, instead of being the bastions of social mobility as advertised.

It's also pretty rubbish to be the child who doesn't get in.

The 10% appears to have been plucked out of the air.

In order to make the test fairer, it would be better to make it mandatory so that all children had the same chance. You would also need the preparation in schools. Even then, it still won't be fair - some children will get much more support at home.

Perfectly able candidates will fail - it always used to happen and I can't see anything stopping that. I recall from the old days that there were never any surprises in who passed, but there were nearly always some who failed unexpectedly.

Schools are having trouble recruiting and retaining teachers.
Most teachers believer in the best educational opportunity for all.
They won't want to work with just the knackered, bussed-in kids of sharp elbowed parents.

And in addition to those points peregrina all of the junior schools would be under pressure to teach to the 11+ test.

In order to address inequalities in education, pupils need to be targeted well before secondary school.

Grammar schools do not provide more choice for parents. They depend on the ability of the child. Ultimately the grammar school chooses the pupils. So Theresa May is talking rubbish.

So Theresa May is talking rubbish.

I wonder just how many bright, able pupils from working class backgrounds she knew at her own school? If such schools were bastions of social mobility, the majority of pupils should have come into that category.

Pretty rude Nonno. Plenty of my DCs' friends are simply bright, and had parents prepared to put them in for the test - a very simple form indeed: name, address, current school, no fee required and more importantly no large pot of money for a house near the school either, because there's no catchment. No matter how sharp their parents' elbows, kids can't get into our school without being pretty bright and then they have to be prepared to work relatively hard to keep up.

I worked in a grammar school until last year. It dripped money. The students had been tutored to within an inch of their lives for £30 an hour for the 18 months prior to the test. It was rammed full of the Home Counties and North London's middle classes peppered with the occasional council estate kid.

In all the time I worked there I did very little for social mobility.

I n the heyday of grammar schools (1950s) the proportion of the population that was working class was 75%. So it is little wonder that bright working class children won places. At the same time there was a large increase in white-collar jobs, which is why so many people perpetuate the idea that grammar schools promoted social mobility. At the same time it was still possible that a bright sec mod child could also make their way in a decent profession. Even then only a few went to University. Unlike today where even a quite mundane job seems to require a degree.

My son's grammar school's funding is so much less per pupil than all the other schools in the borough.

I wonder if that's why they're in favour of them, they can provide less funding per pupil so ultimately it is a cost reduction exercise.

DS's school currently gets around £4,500 per pupil per year, others get upwards of £6,500pppy. Under the new funding formula, the £4,500 is going to get even lower. DS's school is obviously really struggling financially, it is just not enough.

Despite my son being at a GS, that's really because we live in a GS area so choices are limited. I would prefer him to be in a heavily setted comp which surely would be best for everyone.

The only wobbly argument there, goodbye was that the 11+ does a reasonable job.

Was it Buckinghamshire that is so aware that the 11+ does a shite job that they have a system of appeals and work scrutiny and headteacher input to make up for the failings of the 11+ as a tool?

No different from the system in public exams which allows mitigating circumstances to be taken into account.

The 11+ in our area seems to be doing a reasonable job. Perhaps it's out of kilter with the rest of the country, although why it should be goodness knows.

And of course if the 11+ throws up such random results then opponents can't really use the argument that grammars produce good results only because they take the most able.

goodbye I'm sure the children you know at Grammar school are delightful kids. But most teachers agree that pretty much EVERY child is a delightful child and EVERY child deserves a great education.

The 11+ in our area seems to be doing a reasonable job

How do you know?

Kent has a system of appeals and work scrutiny as a safety net so it's not 'one test on one day' which apparently isn't fair either.