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 suspect that many outside the education / care sectors would have no picture of the amount of time and effort taken up by even a few children from these extremely difficult circumstances, and thus have no inkling of the amount of senior leadership / SLT / pastoral staff / SENCo effort and time devoted to them

Annandale It's streaming on steroids in our case. The academic magnet swaps out high school classes for ones taught at the local university. When the program was set up they set aside one third of the places for children who attend the middle school in the poorest part of the district and they favor children from poor, non-white backgrounds.

It makes sense to me. We have streams for art, music, graphic design, aestheticians, welders, culinary arts, crane/forklift/grader driving, cyber security, coding, healthcare, law, engineering, robotics, at various high schools around the district, why not a stream for academics?

It means the district doesn't have to pay additional money to support a bunch of new, small, specialized schools. Students have the flexibility to switch streams in most cases. It would be hard to switch into the academic magnet because the math is two years ahead of the regular students. Students have access to superior facilities as they have to be good to meet the requirements of the specialized classes.

Don't forget that the PP and SEN children do have extra funding. They are not a complete drain on resources. I certainly think that the lower tier of secondary moderns where I live have suffered from poor leadership and not enough good teachers - it was sad to hear Michael Wilshaw say the same on radio 5 this morning. He also used very selective data on 'closing the gap' for Bucks secondary schools. The gap here is huge but the numbers are relatively small. When you consider some secondary moderns have well in excess of 30% high achievers, the PP children are a relatively small percentage.

The poster that suggested the old level 5 is a benchmark for 11 plus success - think again. It is not. The factors that count are more than the national curriculum and SATs results, and that is in a county with 13 grammar schools.

Ah, God, you're right - I should have said setting, not streaming, throughout my post! What a numpty I am. So ds's school SETS much less than it used to because it says evidence suggests it doesn't help outcomes. It still seems to set for languages, maths and possibly English. I find it surprising that setting is not supposed to help tbh.

Yes can'tkeepawayforever and one major issue here is that a couple of posters seem to think that they and only they possess that experience, which is possibly a mistake.

Don't forget that the PP and SEN children do have extra funding. They are not a complete drain on resources.

Children with SEN only get extra funding if their needs exceed £6000, schools have to fund the first £6000 of support themselves. Therefore a school which has a higher number of children with SEN than the average will certainly find their finances struggling. Money isn't removed from schools with a lower number of children with SEN, so there's a definite financial incentive to be in a school which discourages children with SEN from applying.

Goodbye, why on earth are you being so cryptic? Speak up and shame the devil as my grandmother used to say.

Bert I hope this is uncryptic enough for you, but I won't hold my breath: it very obviously means that I know what I'm talking about here, exactly as I new precisely what I was talking about with my DCs' school's sixth form entry requirements (or rather lack of, until 2018). Not sure if you read that exchange of posts....But while we're on it, slightly creepy of you to mention the fact that you know where my DCs attend school, since I don't mention it myself.

Ha! Knew. Oops.

"But while we're on it, slightly creepy of you to mention the fact that you know where my DCs attend school, since I don't mention it myself."
I absolutely did not do this

Looked after children are at the top of the admissions criteria at our "leafy" comp. Unfortunately, many of these students do require a lot of extra input from pastoral support, TAs, SLT, class teachers, SENCO, Head of Years, outside agencies, etc. Likewise students with SEN, some of whom are refused EHCPs despite clearly needing a lot of extra support.

So Goodbye, from what you say, you are, or are very closely associated with, a teacher / member of staff / governor / someone in some way professionally associated (e.g. in pastoral or support services) with a ?grammar school? and thus have personal and professional insights to share with this thread? In the same way, Bert is closely associated with a secondary modern, Noble with a comprehensive secondary, I am with primaries, and Talkin (through her OH) has less detailed but much wider experience of a very large number of schools [I don't think I'm giving anything away here, as all of those are very open about their backgrounds - please ask this to be deleted if I have stepped over a line).

I don't know why, if this is the case, you need to be so cryptic, as all of us come to this argument bringing both professional and personal experiences, and most of us talk about that openly?

I'm not sure opinions need verification can'tkeepawayforever and anyone can claim to be anything too, so it means very little. Some posters also wildly overstate their own importance in the scheme of things. If I choose simply to say I'm involved in education that's my call - especially given what I said above about creepy posts. Perhaps leave it there?

How has the thread ended up getting so tetchy?. As far as I can see its over whether grammar school students can have problems such as mental health issues and whether students in a school with a higher percentage of students from lower socio-economic groups might have more challenges connected with that than a school with a lower percentage? Both of these seem common-sense to me, although obviously I wouldn't want to over-state my own importance.

Bert the post you wrote which I find creepy is the one where you refer to my DCs' school's sixth form entry requirements. You didn't name the school but you referred to the fact that you evidently know where they go, which I find uncomfortable.

Just wanted to leave this here

Secondary school league tables 2016: Grammar school children excel while comprehensives fall behind, figures show

"Grammar schools allow children to achieve their potential, new Government figures reveal, while the brightest 150,000 state school children do not excel at comprehensives.

Official data released by the Department for Education (DfE) shows that 94 per cent of children at grammar schools have made good progress by the time they are 16, compared to less than half (49 per cent) of students at non-selective schools.

Gareth Johnson MP, who is leading the campaign for grammars, said the figures “highlight very clearly the strengths of grammar schools” and show that academic children “flourish” in selective schools.

“We shouldn’t try to pretend that all children are the same. We need diversity in education and grammars play an important part in this,” he said.

“I think it is very hard to see how the opponents of grammar schools can make their case when these figures show so clearly grammars help children develop ad fulfil potential," he said.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/19/secondary-school-league-tables-2017-1500-schools-failing-figures/

ladore
do you have a link to the actual DFE data that support the Torygraph's opinion piece?

Bert you're confused.

BertrandRussell Sun 12-Mar-17 08:52:20
I suspect that goodbye has just not noticed the entry requirements for her childrens' school's 6th form because the pupils routinely make the cut........

Creepy, given that I don't name my DCs' school.

The comment you're referring to was about some other poster on the other thread and has no relevance to me.

I'm not bothered about an apology but I do object.

You misunderstand me. I was saying that presumably most children at your school routinely make the cut for 6th form- as do most children at most if not all grammar schools. I have no idea what school your children go to and care even less. I am very opposed to posters being outed. As my other comments should attest.

Sorry Bert that's disingeneous. I expect you posted too quickly. Please just respect others' privacy.

Thanks.