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 suppose the anti-grammar brigade had better rally then because they don't appear to be very effective at the moment and some of the campaign groups have questionable integrity. This is an interesting blog from a website that you linked to HPFA which mentions anti-grammar campaign groups in Kent and Maidenhead.

www.kentadvice.co.uk/peters-blog/item/936-new-buckinghamshire-anti-grammar-school-group-opens.html

Extract: "The owner of the Kent Education Network (KEN) website has recently provided sites for two other small campaigns against academic selection at Local Equal Excellent (LEE) for residents of Buckinghamshire and 11+ Truth, which involves KEN, LEE, Transform Reading and Kendrick, and Excellent Education for Everyone from Maidenhead”, both registered in September. The last named apparently represents campaign groups as:"A joint effort by groups in selective areas around the UK”, although I am not sure that four meets the description of 'many', and looking at their output it is clear there is a long way to go."

"The focus in 11+ Truth on its trashing of Kent schooling is appalling, with many false allegations, wrong data and misleading conclusions as illustrated below."

" Although it makes a lot of noise, Kent Education Network appears to comprise a website, two spokespeople, and just another nine members. "

Before you question the blogger's integrity he also says; "This is not a pro or anti grammar school article, but one which argues for honesty in argument."
www.kentadvice.co.uk/what-i-offer/peter-read.html

Clavinova,

I think it s different trying to remove the status quo - grammars in Kent - vs preventing a move to create grammars in areas which abolished them decades ago.

I don't APPROVE of existing grammars. It is obvious from comparing grammar and non-grammar counties that they have no overall benefit. However, I don't march / send letters / petition to remove them.

I will, absolutely, do all of those things to prevent new grammars being created.

I do wonder how many of the pro-grammar posters are teacher, who actually look at a class - all good at, or less good at, different things, and say 'oh yes, it is perfectly fair, and a really good plan, to separate out 3 of these children to receive a different education from the rest'.

It just fails the reasonableness test. Why is it that children at the 11th centile are so totally different from those in the 9th that they should be in separate schools? What about the 'Highest level in national Maths competition' child who finds English difficult and thus would never be in the grammar but can be in the top Maths set and the 4th English one in a comprehensive?

As i say, i have taught a very tiny number of children, both at the very exceptionally able, and with very exceptional learning difficulties, who have seemed to have such different needs that some kind of school separate from mainstream broad-spectrum comprehensive education seems indicated.

However, that has been a fraction of 1% at each end of the spectrum, not 3 in every class.

Perhaps a better option to separate childeren in to classes based on ability earlier on, but not have separate schools?

They didn't tier the classes at my daughters school until later on and my daughter found that annoying as she was held back by other childeren who were either less able or in a lot of cases,just less interested.

Iswym about kids that are good at one thing and not necessarily another.

I also swym about possibe social stigma on comps. That would be a terrible unintended consequence for a huge number of childeren.

Editorial in the Times. You might need a magnifying glass to read it.

twitter.com/mikercameron/status/840577112172040193

DH goes to lots of schools all over the country - all age groups, all sectors.
Nothing he has ever seen will convince him that Grammar Schools are a good idea.
The kids at selective schools are no brighter than the upper sets in non selective schools
they just think they are.

HPFA
pbs.twimg.com/media/C6pUY8xXUAA8kKD.jpg

Gruffalo's wife - my DC are in a school that sets progressively.

They set in maths and PE in Y7, then in more subjects (English, Science, Humanities, Languages) in Y8. In Y9 the whole year group has a bit of a mix around, so they are set for almost everything (not drama, music, art, DT) but have a different group of people in that set.

For GCSEs, core subjects are set, and those with more than 1 class doing them are set (so e.g. there are languages sets), but those where there is only 1 class in each options block, or minority options such as Music, are not set - but by then, those children who have chosen a subject tend to at least have a good attitude towards it, so the fact that in e.g. an Art group some are more able than others, but all are keen artists, is less of an issue.

The point is, though, that the sets are for that subject, or group of subjects - keen scientists who are poor linguists are top set in 1 and bottom set in the other. it's not that there is an able 'stream' and a less able 'stream', or worse, separate schools.

Most of the schools round here do that too ...

little setting in year 7 as it takes a while for them to settle from 14 primary schools
then rigid setting in Maths and Sciences
fluid setting in languages and humanities
fluid setting in music
rigid setting in PE
little or no setting in tech subjects

pastoral tutor groups are designed to have a total spread of pupils so that the social mixing is retained.

So clearly Talkin there is no problem.

The kids are the same and grammars offer no more,they certainly don't get any extra money either.

Like some parents choose other comps some choose grammars. The kids at both are the same and there are no advantages. Some parents want more sporty or musical schools,some want grammars. There is no one size fits all.

And sorry your husband's observations don't really speak for us all.

Eaxctkly, talkin. I thought it was pretty standard.

DD had a bit of a grim time in Y7 - socially, not academically - because her mixed ability teaching group wasn't particularly great, but knowing that the setting was coming the next year made it all bearable, and as i say at no time did it affect her academic progress (very robust behaviour management).

I really wouldn't want mixed ability grouping in year 7, what a waste of a year.

Green,

So, to ask my question again - is your children's grammar regarded as 'better' or 'the same' in status by the general public? If it is regarded as 'better', with passing the 11+ being seen as 'good' and failing it as 'bad', then yes, there is a problem.

If your children's grammar admitted all abilities, but retained its formality and its Ofsted rating, which is what you said that you valued about it, would that be fine with you, or would it somehow be 'less good now'?

Green, if i may say so that is a really interesting observation, because it does seem to echo your general view, that children of different abilities cannot be educated or taught well if they happen to be in the same physical location as each other. Not even in art, DT, music, drama?

So all those years in primary, when they are taught in the same classroom, are a waste?

One of the really important lessons ds has learned from his secondary modern education is that you don't actually have to be academic to have something useful or interesting to say. He looks forward to RE- partly because he likes the fact that it's mixed ability.

So what you are saying is that a L6 writer cannot be taught in the same English lesson as a well-supported L3 writer, because somehow that would be damaging?? Why?

Sorry, Bert, not addressed to you. Exactly.

"The kids at selective schools are no brighter than the upper sets in non selective schools
they [and their parents] just think they are."

I would also say that it has been very interesting seeing who, from the various feeder schools, have ended up in high sets in Y8, and who, despite high Y6 results that might have seen them put into high sets in Y7, were actually working at a much lower level but were highly 'taught to the test'. That does take a while to shake out - even in Maths they are aught for a little while in mixed classes before being comprehensively tested and then setted .. and there are always a variety of surprises.

The thing with parental income is that there are wealthier areas of the country than others. Is a school that is in a wealthier area selecting on income? Wealthy areas need schools too.

cantkeep
It was one of the things that DD really noticed at Symonds - the kids coming in from selective private schools were rather shocked to discover that they were nowhere near the brightest in the college.

and yes, lots of parents assume that their kids are much brighter than they actually are

Green,

I do understand that you want there to be an extra choice for your own children - I understand that, it is only human to want 'the best' for your own children.

However, it's not just a matter of 'choice' is it? 90% of parents aren't able to make that choice, so while it does benefit you - and I understand the motive that makes you want to fight to keep that choice for yourself - it isn't like choosing between 'the sporty school' and 'the musical school', because those have admissions arrangements that are open to all who meet the residence criteria, and thus those are choices available to all.

If the grammar school was open to all who chose it,. that would be different, wouldn't it?

The wealth one is really difficult. I do think that there should be measures put in place that ensure that, within a given wider area, every school takes its fair share of those from deprived households.

I don't think 'wealth of an area' per se is so invidious - it is the using of wealth to buy into areas around good schools late in the day (so in the last couple of years before secondary admissions, typically) that is the most damaging manifestation of wealth, in the same way as paying for private primaries / 11+ coaching is an industry in grammar areas. I do think that some kind of lottery / fair banding might be the way forward.