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.

The 10%, as i have said before, is utterly bizarre. It's like saying that the lowest 10% need to be in Special schools - whereas in the event it is less than 3% at Special schools of all types, from learning through physical and sensory to behavioural.

the idea that 1 in 10 children are so able they cannot be managed in the same instituion as the other 9 is obviously untrue. if we were talking about 1 in 100 - a couple in every year group - or 1 in 1000, i could understand, but 1 in 10?

I teach a class of just over 30 in the upper years of primary, in an able cohort. The idea that 3 of them need entirely separate secondary education is laughable. I would say that, ever now and again, perhaps every 5 -10 years, i come across a single child so able that they simply do not fit the standard educational mould, and i would accept the argument that 1 in every 300 or so might need a 'special education', or an adaptation of normal education in a single suibject.

But 1 in 10???

So why the need to have them in comps.

I'm not getting what is so crucial.

You think grammars are crap and serve no advantage,they get no extra money( if anything less).

Goodbye, you seem to be saying 'the Government says 10%, so that is obviously the right answer'. Why is it the right answer? Why jnot 0.1%? 1%? 5%? 25%?

If you look at the normal distribution, top 10% occurs at a still quite high point in the 'hump'. 1%, yes i agree, you're into the tail - but 10% is mainstream, espcially since, given the poor discrimination within the 11+ test, you are probably only reliably identifying 'half of the top 20%' and labelling it 'top 10%', whereas on another day with a different test you would identify a different half of those taking it. Not at the extremes, but from 5% down to 20%, gven the normal distribution, is in fact very similar in terms of actual ability, and from 11% to 9& virtually identical.

Greenginger, you create a 'better' school 'for the bright', hive 1 in 10 children off into it, leaving the other 90% of children in a school that will automatically be labelled 'for the dim' and then say 'what's the problem'??

You should also remember that those 1 in 10 may be those who keep certain A-level choices available in all schools, thus retaining the best and most able teachers in those schools .. and again, that you concentrate social / economic / SEN issues within the 'other' schools, allowing the grammars to absolve themselves of their share of the responsibility for such children.

Green, is your grammar regarded as 'better' than the comprehensives, in the public mind? Or as exactly equal, but offering a slightly different education to a different group of children, as a Special School does?

If it is regarded as 'better', you have your answer as to what the problem is.

IME, a truly terrible grammar, with no specialist English teachers for GCSE years and a negative Progress 8, is still regarded as a 'better', and 'higher status' school in the public mind than a comprehensive which has neither of those issues, but does take children from a rough estate. Why??

And you know very well that a main plank in the non-selective school argument is that the most able encourage the less able.

Eh? I've not seen many arguments of that type. Lots saying that you can't select 'the most able' with a flawed test aged 10. Lots saying that it is damaging to split kids into wheat and chaff aged 10. Lots saying that selection aged 10 is bad for social mobility. Lots saying that the existence of grammar schools makes things worse for schooling of rest of the kids who don't go to them. Lots pointing out that grammar schools are a failed experiment from a bygone era in which both education and the job market were completely different, and which was abandoned due to parental pressure.

I don't think 'the most able encourage the less able' is the main plank at all.

According to the Times today the new grammars are to be for the top 25% not 10% "as a briefing to grammar school heads mistakenly suggested last month. This was based on a misunderstanding and caused anger in Whitehall"

So could the people who have been telling us that "10% won't hurt other schools" now start explaining how creaming off the top 25% won't hurt other schools especially when they keep telling us that existing comprehensives with lower than average no of high attainers are intrinsically incapable of meeting their needs?

The numbers don't compute for the top 25% of the ability range.

If you think that the top 10% need to be removed to prevent them being dragged down by the rest then why would it be OK for the top band (top 20-30%) of those left behind to be dragged down by the rest?

It's an argument I hear all the time noble - greater good etc.

Clavinova This is a social media forum not a Court of Law! And anyone can post in Guardian comments - some are left wing but loads are people who like pissing off lefties.

I thought it was interesting that there were fewer comments in favour of grammars than there usually are even on the Guardian comments page. Given that posts are no doubt being added as we speak I am not going to bother counting through a thousand comments to see if the proportion is actually 45/55 rather than 50/50.

According to the Times today the new grammars are to be for the top 25% not 10%

Oh dear God it gets worse and worse. And that announcement about reserving places for poor kids when the data from Education Datalab shows that won't work. That's clearly just a sop to the social mobility argument. When people say 'grammars are shit for social mobility' people can parrot 'oh but these new grammars will reserve places for poor kids' and think that the whole thing has been sorted when people who know what they are talking about then have to resort to fine-detailed arguments that most people don't care about and won't listen to.

can'tkeepawayforever there will have to be a cut off and 10% seems a good one to me. You obviously have a different view, as will lots of other people. 25% seems way too broad and is the original range taken in under the old system and under the Kent system with it's full selective system. I don't see that 25% is feasible given what's being said about the positioning of new grammars geographically.

Noble how is Teresa May going to to turn the law passed by Tony Blair preventing the creation of new grammar schools? I gather most MPs don't support GS.

I sincerely hope TM will have a rethink about this as recent education seems to be based on favouring certain groups rather than giving the whole population a decent education with sufficient resources. When we were looking round secondary schools for ds1(15) it was the dcs who were predicted D grades but school wanted them to get Cs who got all the attention and resources. Every state school we looked at had a DtoC lead but if you were predicted a C or above there was no extra help to push up these DCs grades. Now it's the top 15 % who are going to be favoured with new GS.

goodbye The government's plans are so incoherent that it's impossible to know what their intentions are. They're talking about these grammars being in deprived areas but planning one in inner-city Maidenhead.

Well Maidenhead is almost the least big surprise going HPFA :)

Where are the kids who are top 1% in one subject but average in other subjects going?

Champagne even if Theresa May can't get the change in law through parliament to create new grammars (and I really hope she can't), I think that individual schools within MATs could convert to grammars ('centres of excellence') without a change in the law.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/grammar-school-theresa-may-government-education-return-selection-backdoor-warning-a7338856.html

I gather most MPs don't support GS.
Just recently the vast majority of MPs have shown themselves to have very few principles. If they are whipped to support Grammars then they will vote for them. They are more interested in their own careers.

Champagne An interesting question - previous Tory governments have not re-introduced selection because as one advisor put it "the day after the 11+ results you're flooded with complaints by parents when Johnny hasn't passed". It will also involve many MPs in poisonous disputes between one group of parents in their constituency who want a new grammar and another who wants to stay comprehensive.

I lost faith in parliament when they voted down allowing child refugees in, even ones who had spoken out in favour.

The big doubt I think is whether she can get it through the Lords. Not only has any evidence-based case for grammars entirely collapsed there is also the issue of whether it is democratic to allow one set of parents to force a town/area to accept a return to grammars/secondary moderns when the majority won't get any say. The Lords can therefore claim to be defending local democracy.

It would be interesting to see whether there could be an amendment requiring a similar ballot to be held to establish a grammar as there has to be to abolish one. The government could not really argue against this without admitting that in practice parents will have no rights to prevent comprehensives being turned into secondary moderns even when this is the wish of the local community.

The Lords will have a strong case for voting down the legislation because a return to Grammar Schools was not in the 2015 manifesto. However, the current Government seems not to be too concerned about manifesto commitments.

GreenGinger2 Sat 11-Mar-17 09:35:17 Some grammars already do that.

So it would seem:

educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/09/there-is-not-yet-a-proven-route-to-help-disadvantaged-pupils-into-grammar-schools/