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 actually have the experience of an academic child in a secondary modern. He is doing fine. Would he have been happier at the grammar school or at a comprehensive? Yes, I think he would. He would have had more choice of academic peers -to bounce ideas off. We wouldn't have had to work so hard at making sure he didn't become an arrogant git (a very unpleasant phase he went through-fortunately short lived). And he could probably have persued some of his interests in school which would have made life easier for me!

Sorry- I didn't mean to post that- I was just musing to myself!
I think that some people have a very idealised view of selective education. I think they see a split where some children go off to the grammar to learn Latin and some go off to the secondary modern to learn mechanics and useful trades. It's not like that. The Government has devalued vocational courses- mostly because the chattering classes were so incredibly sneering (and still are-this thread passim) about "hair and beauty" or "tourism" even though their children would never in a million years do such courses and that they gave something incredibly useful to the kids that did. So now set 7 at my ds's school have to pass an exam on Shakespeare and a Victorian novel.......

That "new development" could result in a massive backlash from the parents whose children are passing but not getting places because they are being given to children with lower pass marks.

And, incidentally, I think that in terms of the 11+ my child is a special case. He is the only one like him I have ever heard of. I think that overwhelmingly, according to the parameters of the test the "right" children pass. It's just that a) the parameters are flawed and b) the separation into different schools is damaging and unnecessary.

Bertrand I'm a TA and have to sit in exams with those very students who have to "draw information" and "infer" and "compare" - it's a cruel and wicked thing to behold.

Expanding Grammars is the exact opposite of the trend in parental choice in my tiny corner of the UK. We are across the border from a Grammar (2 as single sex) and there is another a bit fraction further away but not much. Traditionally our local school would lose approximately a class to the Grammar at end of year 6. DD is Year 13 and 24 went in her Year. DS is Year 8 and about 11 went from his year. Less children are being put in for it plus some of those who pass aren't taking up their places. Since the 11 plus for DS's year one of the Grammars went from Outstanding to Requires Improvement after Ofsted reinspected following poor grades.

DS wasn't interested in going to the Grammar, all his friends despite saying they were going to decided not to sit the 11 plus. DS had a change of heart 2 weeks before hand. DH's Dad had an accident abroad plus DS had a lot of homework at the time so there was no time to prepare him beyond one timed English paper and a flick through to see what the other 3 papers looked like. He didn't pass by half a mark but out of catchment children need a higher mark anyway. He went onto get level 6 in the Reading and Maths SAT papers that summer and now has a diagnosis of dyslexia

Very anecdotal and I don't think it adds anything to the thread really but it has been interesting to see the trend locally. The acid test will be when DS's cohort sit GCSE, in theory the results should be up compared to DD's year but they will be on numbers versus grades and with all the differences over the last few years it is hard to make comparisons.

HPFA
Interesting that there are actually very few comments in favour - even in the Guardian its usually 50/50.

Rubbish - the Guardian is the most left-wing newspaper in England - link to one political opinion piece with 50/50 comments.

As for left-wing cartoonist Martin Rowson - he's such a principled socialist that he sent his own son to Dulwich College (son is mid 20s now but dad was in the newsletter). He has a daughter as well - so £40,000 pa school fees instead of a South London comp?

Rubbish - the Guardian is the most left-wing newspaper in England

Far from it because as you say he's such a principled socialist that he sent his own son to Dulwich College The paper is full of writers the same.

It's only left wing by comparison with the Torygraph.

Traditionally the Guardian was Liberal, so is still more of a Centrist paper, but the Overton window has shifted so far, that now views which would have been considered blatantly fascist are the norm for the right wing.

Some grammars already do that. Ours does,it's in all the admissions info. No backlash,why would there be?

I think the same should apply in top sets at comps. There is a big advantage in being top set straight from primary. At the very least surely the best comps should have the same in their admissions criteria.

So what's the % of pp kids at your grammar, ginger?

So are you saying that parents who just miss getting in are not in the least bit bothered? There was a backlash from parents that contributed to them being scrapped last time around.

In a way, I think it's a pity that the Middle School model didn't last. Many of us would be less unhappy with selection at 14 or so, and with Education now until 18 all children would get a 4 year run at the last stage. It now makes much less sense to have a set of exams at 16.

Education currently is in something of a mess - we really need some fresh thinking about what will work for the 21st Century. I wish politicians would take much more of a back seat - parents, teachers, employers all have valid reasons for input into what should happen.

Doesn't seem to be Four, I've seen nothing in the local media.

The huge numbers that miss out on first choice comps nationally seem far more vocal.

No idea Bert,all I know is that for a grammar it's good and they're constantly striving to do better( still relatively early days) which is in stark contrast re comps. I see no measures for pp kids to access top/ the better comps or top sets in comps.

Easily looked up, ginger. I'll wait.

Lots about not getting in/appeals/tears on the 11+ forums.

Huge numbers moaning about not getting into first choice comps will be even unhappier when it's sec mods.

Nothing to stop PP kids gaining access to top sets at comps but plenty to prevent them getting into grammar.

Just under 10. Would be interesting to compare before and after said measures as not been in action for long. If you looked at data before and after you could perhaps predict a long term impact.Still early days and they're striving to do better.

Not so the comp sector where the problem is far more widespread and there are no measures in place.

Four seriously what a ridiculous thing to say. Pp white boys do badly in a Sats,pre the new curriculum only well under half were getting the required pass levels let alone exceeding.

If they don't get in top sets at comp them from the get go it is hugely harder to keep covering the work and move once there.

Bert, if these measures to prioritize access for disadvantaged children have only featured in the admissions criteria for two or three years, and if the renewed efforts and more pro-active strategies to encourage those DC to apply and the support being put in place for them haven't yet had time to follow through, how on earth do you expect Pupil Premium numbers to suddenly alter dramatically when reported as a percentage of the whole school?

I'm glad you think your own DS is pretty much a one off error in terms of the 11+ and that you don't think it a bad tool, on the whole. Neither do I.

To any parents moaning about their DC losing out to a disadvantaged DC with a lower score, my reaction would be: tough.

Also good to note that you get the whole issue around the new exams not serving the less able well at all. I've referred to it several times but it's part and parcel of the whole set of problems facing DC at the moment, at both ends of the ability range. It's not good enough to rail against grammars; not having selective education for the most able won't help those at the non academic end of the spectrum, in this new world of academic and linear exams and constant re-sits until the age of 18.

Peregina
Well I'd be more than happy for you to link to some unbiased comments in the Guardian then.
Of course Martin Rowson is left-wing - he does freelance work for the Morning Star, Red Pepper and The Tribune.
www.ents24.com/uk/tour-dates/martin-rowson

How well will the PP kids do in a sec mod? Surely it cannot possibly be better than in a comp with top sets? I thought the evidence was that PP kids do worse in a sec mod than in comps? Please correct me if I am wrong on that. By supporting grammar schools, you are endorsing the majority of PP kids having even less of a chance.

I am doing nothing of the sort Fourmantent, that's just a meaningless statement. How many times does it have to be said that nobody, nowhere, at all, in government or outside of it in the educational world, is suggesting a move back to a full selective system countrywide. So any argument based on the allegedly scary phenomenon of 'secondary moderns' is pointless.

I'm not clear why the most able 10% of whatever background should dumb down their educational chances by bringing up the other 90% in any event - they're just children too. There seems to be a view here that if they're clever, they're alright Jack but they have precisely as much right to achieve their potential as a much lower ability child, and that's based purely on the notion of equality.

And of course, as Wilshaw says and as the government has repeatedly said and school leaders too, our economy needs these highly able DC to achieve as highly as they possibly can for the benefit of the country as a whole. The glaringly obvious fall out of requiring the most able state schooled DC to 'bring up' the other 90% or so is to hand those future leadership positions almost exclusively to the independently schooled.

Are rejected comps more favourable secondary moderns? Less popular comps lose far more kids to comps than grammars.

With no catchment and careful location there won't be secondary moderns. There is no desire for the Kent model.

Our grammars take from hundreds of schools.

"I'm not clear why the most able 10% of whatever background should dumb down their educational chances by bringing up the other 90% in any event"

In what way do they?

And where do you get this 10% from?

10% would broadly be the ability range served by the new grammars, in an ideal world. And you know very well that a main plank in the non-selective school argument is that the most able encourage the less able.

What do you say to the other points in that post Bert?