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 can't see anything in that Sam Freedman thread about catholic schools?

If Sam is focusing on the wealth graph, it's because he wants to make it very clear to parents who are in favour of grammars - your kid probably won't get into one, and what will you do then?

Flying I think the point that was being made was that even if you are quite wealthy you still can't be certain your child will get into a grammar. Another tweet in the same series said that even the top 1% in income only have an 80% chance of getting in. Simon Burgess who produced the original data is apparently going to release a full report.

It's obvious on social media that many people are just assuming their kids will get in - finding a way of convincing them that's not the case is what people like me are trying to do.

At least Sam Freedman was genuine in his ideas about academic education for all - unlike his paymaster!

I've been thinking more about the free transport for poor kids to grammars thing. I think that in an area where there is a grammar system, and the poor kid passes, then they should get free transport to the grammar. It is silly that they only get free transport to their local school, if that local school is a modern and they qualify for the grammar. In a grammar system, you have to work with what you've got.

However, creating more grammar schools across the country with the deliberate intention of bussing poor kids back and forth for miles is a ridiculous waste of money.

Of course nobody can be sure their child would pass an exam that was designed to be passed by 10 ,25 or even 40% depending on the model used by the specific school!

I know from personal experience that many parents at both my DDs grammar in Buckinghamshire are likely to be two working parents earning each about £30k pa combined £60k

I also think it is relevant to inform that people , that personally i am in the ESA Support Group (ASD) so in some ways my girls are not typical . However, My girls don't qualify for PP or FSM because DH is quite a higher earner.

Talking of Sam Freedman and catholic schools though, he was behind the rule that new religious schools can only select 50% of pupils on the basis of religion. The rule that's about to be thrown out because the Catholic Church refused to open any more schools while in place, and the government is desperate for someone, anyone to open more schools now that LAs can't.

Green with reference to earlier discussion about tests, the new 'tutor-proof' 11+ has been found to not only be strongly biased against poor kids, but also against ethnic minorities:

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/12/tutor-11plus-test-grammar-schools-disadvantaged-pupils?CMP=share_btn_tw

flying Yes, you're right but while people know that consciously their phraseology often betrays that deep down they are assuming their child will pass. I've seen phrases like "Why shouldn't I send my child to a grammar if I want to?" Does that sound like someone who thinks their kid won't pass?

This is another interesting graph from same source

twitter.com/profsimonb/status/839072401082171392

It shows what you might expect - that if you're very low achieving you won't get in even if you're rich and if you're very high achieving you'll tend to get in anyway (although the gap remains) but for those around the middle of the top half the difference in being rich or poor is great.

Ultimately, the issue has always been that the well off have been able to buy good education, whether through private schools, tutoring or buying in a good catchment area, but everyone else is currently prevented from doing so. That's hugely unfair, and perpetuates the advantages the well off have but also the disadvantages the poor have. It's absolutely essential there are measures to ensure intake is skewed towards poorer children, however.

I wonder how long extra money will be available to transport children 15 miles away to a grammar school? Local Authorities are strapped for cash; what happens when Central Government funds dry up?

lavender I would expect a range of measures to prioritize disadvantaged children would be a pre-requisite for funding for new places.

Peregrina the money won't have to be found by the LA, it will be central government money - why should it dry up any more than funding for other policy objectives.

No-one on these threads (well possibly one honourable exception:)) ever really gets stuck into the issue of the well off buying their way into leafy comps and how to solve that. Same issues around easier retention of teachers etc. And noble, what sort of a comp do you teach at? Leafy or not?

goodbye - Government money announced with great fanfare - austerity - and suddenly it's the Local Authorities who have to pick up the tab.

I disagree. The government will have to provide the funding. It's well aware of the issues with transport budgets at the LA level and all the problems thrown up by that so it's not credible to suppose that they'll pass the buck.

We will have to wait and see, but I don't think the prospects for continued funding after the first few years are good. At one time converter Academies got more money - that's now dried up. This seems to be the way it goes.

Since when have this government worried about credibility when creating education policy?

So far their track record seems to be the less credible the policy the more likely it is to be implemented

There's a grammar school I was reading about (Rugby?) that introduced 10 reserved places for PP kids, with a 10 mark lower entry score. Only 3 out of the 10 places were filled. I really don't think it's as easy as saying 'prioritise poor kids then everything will be fine'.

Why did they not take the next highest scoring seven pupils regardless of the cutoff score !

pps.warwickshire.gov.uk/api/documents/WCCC-699-3

apps.warwickshire.gov.uk/api/documents/WCCC-699-341

Why did they not take the next highest scoring seven pupils regardless of the cutoff score

Possibly for the same reason that some Grammar Schools would rather have vacancies than lower the qualifying score in order to fill them.

Because there is no point in taking less bright kids into a school ostensibly for bright kids if they are going to struggle. If test score doesn't really matter then what is the point of the school?

Yes but noble you underestimate (or don't have experience of) the other strategies for encouraging disadvantaged students to apply and supporting them to achieve at primary. These things will take time but you really do insult the school leaders and staff who are promoting and implementing these things. Those who oppose grammars don't have a monopoly of virtue, and I think you have a lack of understanding about the politics of very many of those who support grammars and their reasons for doing so. It's all a bit black and white on these threads.

These things will take time

Gosh then wouldn't it make sense to see if they actually do work and have the stated effect rather than rushing headlong into a poorly thought-out policy opposed by pretty much everyone who works in education?

goodbyestranger Wed 08-Mar-17 11:05:10 strategies for encouraging disadvantaged students to apply and supporting them to achieve at primary.

I wasn't aware of any strategies being implemented to encourage disadvantaged primary children to apply to Grammar Schools. Perhaps you can elaborate?

The article is here;
www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/17/grammar-schools-could-be-fantastic-for-social-mobility-if-any-poor-kids-went-to-them
Only 11 out of 367 eligible pupils sat the test - it's a question of persuading the parents and primary schools to enter these pupils for the exam. That was back in 2015 - grammar schools are headline news now so more disadvantaged pupils may apply.