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 also wonder whether school performance measures - both league tables and Ofsted grades - could take much better account of the nature of the intake of each school. As Green has said, her local comprehensives are 'Good', and she wanted her children to attend an 'Outstanding' one. If Outstanding is easier to get for schools with easy intakes at present, that obviously affects choices of families like hers.

Making sure that 'Outstanding' meant 'this school busts a gut to ensure that every child, wherever they start from, makes excellent progress taking their personal and socioeconomic circumstances into account when making the judgement' and ensuring that all 'old Outstanding' schools were reinspected against this new definition, would significantly change the landscape in many areas.

Isn't it strange that Mumsnet is full of people who know when their kids are below primary school age that the grammar school will be the right "choice" for them?

I also find the one that goes:

'Able children are ignored in comprehensives, so I send my child to a grammar. I have never had a child in a comprehensive, of course.'

a little odd.

Can't some state schools select on sporting and musical ability.

And no I don't think a level 3 and 6 child can be taught properly in the same English class at secondary,it would benefit neither.

Re how ours is regarded,there are so many options with parents banging the drum of their choice that actually there is no problem. If anything one of our grammars is the brunt of many scathing negative comments which very nearly put me off- miserable overworked tarty girls all with mental health problems hanging round city nightclubs. Couldn't get further from the truth. And no I would have no problem if other abilities were admitted should the same formal and robust style from the get go be continued. As I've said if Balcarass,Grey Coats or other comps of the same calibre were on my door step and we had a spare £500k to spend I would have no problem sending my DC there.

Like many parentsI want an excellent,robust,pushy and formal teaching style at secondary for my DC. My partner and I had dreadful secondary experiences which were completely the opposite. I know many parents would gate what we want.

There is no one size fits all.

No-one has yet really addressed the issue of the abuse of the democratic procedure here. This policy was not in the manifesto. Elected councils will not have any power to stop a grammar. At what point do the people of a town get the chance to decide the type of education they want for their children? Surely we should get the chance to hear the evidence, listen to both sides and then make a decision.

could take much better account of the nature of the intake of each school.
Contextual Ofsted grades were stopped by Michael Gove as he wanted all kids to be above average (yes really)

I don't give a stuff about Ofsted "Outstanding"
DH has been in schools during enough Ofsted's to know that a lot of the grading is now highly political - LEA schools get marked harder than Academy chain schools.

My local school will never get marked right down because they spent £16m on its building.
The fact that the chain has had to parachute extra SLT in this week is beside the point.

hate

I think it is a rare child that is gifted in one curriculum area but below average in all the others. It is highly unlikely such a child could pass an 11 plus exam unless they were OK at maths but gifted in English. Gifted in maths alone would not be good enough due to the literacy nature of the questions. Not all 11 plus exams are the same, of course.

I think from a purely Ofsted point of view, the grammars in Bucks are better than the vast majority of the secondary moderns. That includes a wide range of judgements including leadership and management and not just exams. Surprisingly, they are better from a progress 8 measure too. Where the secondary moderns are poor, is with the PP children. However, it appears few PP children would get to grammar schools because the majority are languishing in the lower achievers box. The grammar schools are increasingly populated by prep school children and the new tutor proof exams have proved to be nothing of the kind, as the prep school stat illustrates.

Not everyone here wants a grammar school for their child and some children do not sit the 11 plus. Many parents are more than happy with the good secondary moderns. After all they do sit GCSEs as well. They send penty of children to university and there is a chance to go into a grammar 6th form. Very few feel that a secondary modern place is a failure but there is an urgent need to imporve the educational offer for the lower achievers and the management of the worst schools need to do better (and be better in my view).

I also think it is interesting that an existing secondary modern head never gets a grammar headship. I am not aware of them even applying. Grammar heads come from a select bunch already in the grammar school management system. I think the inability to recruit the best Heads to the secondary moderns is a major problem. It is a major problem for some comprehensives too. This will be even worse with new grammars. Great for those who get to the grammars, but the other schools will struggle in that area if they lose the best 25% to the grammar.

Meanwhile those of us who say 'I have able children who are doing very well, and are not ignored' are somehow in 'different comprehensives' from the comprehensives that grammar school supporters are talking about...

(I'm just thinking back to earlier posts about 'leafy comprehensives' - that as soon as a comprehensive is said to be doing well by able children, it must be because it is leafy, not because it is a comprehensive.)

to finish the sentence - and are deprived of schools with high class management too.

"Doing well"? Is that progress or exam results? Is it good teaching? Is it excellent management? That term can mean a whole host of things. It can also mean the children are middle class, have tuition, well educated parents and are highly supported at home. All of that can be true in a comprehensive with lots of high achievers and the "doing well" may have little to do with the school if it is coasting. I am sure Sir Michael Wilshaw's remarks about the worst comprehensives are not about comprehensives in leafy areas. They are schools in areas of deprivation, mostly.

Actually they have been bemoaning coasting schools in easy areas.

Bojorojo- why do you thing grammar school heads are better than secondary modern or comprehensive ones?

One of my biggest bug bears about this is that there are increasing numbers of children struggling in mainstream schools because they have SEN. My local authority currently has many children not in school because mainstream schools cannot meet their needs but there are nowhere near enough places in special schools.

The sad thing is that with enough investment. for example the millions being poured into grammar schools, the needs of these children could be addressed far more effectively in mainstream schools.

Is aw the writing on the wall two years ago and got my son out of mainstream and into a special school...I had to fight for this as the local authority is cash poor and doesn't want to place children in the more expensive special schools.

Meanwhile those left behind in mainstream continue to be sidelined and their needs neglected as budgets are further restricted to pay for this Grammar investment.

GreenGinger2 Sat 11-Mar-17 17:46:40 And no I would have no problem if other abilities were admitted should the same formal and robust style from the get go be continued.

So you would have no problem with it becoming a comp?

GreenGinger2 Sat 11-Mar-17 17:46:40 or other comps of the same calibre were on my door step and we had a spare £500k to spend I would have no problem sending my DC there.

Well you could certainly buy yourself a distance place at my nearest school for well under £500K. It's situated next to a development of one and two bedroom flats.

bojorojo Sat 11-Mar-17 17:48:44 I think it is a rare child that is gifted in one curriculum area but below average in all the others.

You do realise that is is one of the indicators for SEN. I don't think it is that rare with gifted children. I may be less common amongst bright DCs though.

I didn't think that bojorojo was saying that Grammar Heads were better.I read it that there was an assumption by those appointing the Heads that a Sec Mod head wouldn't have the right experience. And that since a Head from a Sec Mod never got a Grammar Headship, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy - why bother to apply if you know your application will be dismissed out of hand?

The flip side to that is would you employ the head of 'Cheltenham ' Ladies College to become principal of the Marlowe Academy in Ramsgate !

I really wouldn't want mixed ability grouping in year 7, what a waste of a year.
This is a very sad statement. School is not just about passing exams. I agree that mixed ability core subject classes are not good idea but there is a lot to be learnt by mixing with a wide range of abilities, personalities and backgrounds.

I think it is a rare child that is gifted in one curriculum area but below average in all the others.
Could be more common that you imagine. There are lots of "gifted" and talented dyslexics out there... dyslexic entrepreneurs, etc. There are unidentified "gifted" students with learning disabilities working at average levels. Creativity and out of box thinking are not part of the 11+ exam.

A couple of things:

a) on the L3 / L6 in the same class thing - this is exactly what every Y6 teacher teaches every day, all over the country (which is why i chose the example). Every primary teacher, except in very unusual schools, teaches this type of range daily. Do children really learn NOTHING at all in primary school?

b) If grammars take 10%, then they do not take 'gifted' children. Quite bright, yes - as i say, the 11+ is probably discriminating enough to take children from the top 20% if they want the top 10%, though there may be outliers if the test is very badly designed. All genuinely gifted? No.

So is it unusual for a child to be bright - top 10% - in 1 subject and well below this in another? Yes, absolutely normal. 10% is 3 of my current class. The top 3 performers in English at present are not the top 3 in Maths. In fact, the top 3 in Maths are not within the top half in English. I would say that this is pretty normal.

I am also wondering whether Green has looked properly at house prices - or whether she is doing the thing described earlier where people say 'I can't afford a house just like my current one right next to a particular school'. If I have searched the area correctly, there are family houses near to the non-London school she mentions for at least £200K less than she mentions...

Alfiesnoisy Totally agree with your post. Well done for fighting for your son. It's disgraceful that it took a fight.

In my experience in my county, excellent staff in the grammar schools rarely apply for leadership posts in the secondary moderns. I cannot comment on comprehensives but the leadership seems segregated. The grammar Heads do not mentor secondary Heads. There should be much more pooling of talent. The grammars here have never been RI or worse. Very many of the secondary moderns have and there tends to tiers of quality within the secondary moderns. I fail to see why there cannot be much more learning from each other. It would be interesting to hear of any grammar school which has recruited a Head from a comp or secondary modern. I think there is a greater need to spread talent around. It is well documented that there at not enough excellent Heads to go round so inevitably some children do not get the best. Largely these are not grammar schoool children.

I was suggesting that being gifted in one area was a problem for 11 plus selection. Not that the children didn't exist at all. Also
I was answering the assertion that someone was gifted at one subject and bottom set for another, not in the middle. This could still be above average. For maths children who are not so good at reading, the 11 plus will be a challenge. It suits all rounders better. Don't imagine grammars are the natural home of SEN children either, they are not. Physical disability yes but not learning disability so much.