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.

No I can't elaborate now because I'm due elsewhere but it's not rocket science. Look at the sorts of things elite unis do to support disadvantaged students and extrapolate - that's it, broad brush. This isn't brand new thinking in response to the government's plans. Arguably it's the other way around.

Actually we are talking up to ten marks below so about '110' would achieve entry to the grammar schools !

A score of '110' is half way between average attainment of '100' and the usual '120/121' requirement of 'Bog Standard' grammar schools !

110 is a score a bright child even from a poor or disadvantaged family should achieve.

There are two ways you could analyse the fact only three passed with in the boundary limits !

Firstly Maybe there are not that many children receiving pupil premium or on FSM that are bright enough for grammar schools!

I understand saying that would bring the wrath of the Mumsnet Gods down on me !

So secondly maybe the reason why only three pupils passed was because very few pupil premium pupils took the Exam.

This being down to the perceptions about not being for the 'likes of us' and such views being promulgated in to the views of bright poor children and their parents!

I understand saying that would bring the wrath of the Mumsnet Gods down on me !

The error there is assuming that the 11+ is an accurate, untutorable test of brightness, which we know isn't true.

I suspect that people who are against grammar schools are probably mainly opposed to the entire principle behind them. I know the statistics around social mobility because you can't avoid it if you're going to participate in the debate but it wouldn't change my views - I believe the idea behind separation at this age is flawed, that it's wrong to make children believe that they are "not academic" and that the binary system is far too inflexible to cope with the variations and changes in children's abilities which take place in these years.

HPFA. The system might be binary but it is a representation of where somebody is educationally at a certain time in their lives !

Failing the 11+ or even leaving school without qualifications does not prevent someone from gaining a Degree or going in to a rewarding career later on in life !

This needs to be understood the '11+' is not final in determining where someone will end up . It is just a statement of where someone is at 11.

To many people use it as a 'crutch' to

define why they have not achieved their goals in life.

The school leaving age was 15 up to 1974, so in the early days of the grammar/sec mod system it really did make a difference to people's life chances, because pupils left sec mods without having the opportunity to sit O Levels. Comprehensives became popular from the late 50s, because children who were late developers or who decided to work harder and do better were able to stay there after 15.

This is an article on the latest academic research on the chances of a person getting into a grammar school based on their socio-ecomomic status (SES) theconversation.com/grammar-schools-why-academic-selection-only-benefits-the-very-affluent-74189

The most deprived families living in grammar school areas stand only a 6% chance of attending a selective school. Only the most affluent families – the top 10% by SES – have a 50% or better chance of attending a grammar. While those pupils at the very top – the 1% most affluent – have an 80% chance of attending a grammar. This is irrespective of their primary school performance.

User
I don't think anyone can really comment on this research yet as it hasn't actually been published or read by anyone except the authors. The article says it will be published in a few weeks time.
One point though - there is every indication that the new grammar schools will be required to reserve 10/15/20 % of places for disadvantaged children which will obviously increase their chances of gaining a place.

obviously increase their chances of gaining a place.

Not if they don't apply. And there is a danger associated with reserving places with lower scores for PP kids. Given what people are prepared to do to get their kids into a grammar in terms of tutoring and so on, expect a stint on FSM to be the new trend. That's your kids' entry covered for the next 6 years, so if they are close in age, you only need to do it the once.

I don't know what the answer is re FSM. A family member was on these as she openly admitted she did not want to work - she was in receipt of regular bankrolling from her dad. She got DS into a great grammar based on FSM. I know it's an exception but yes the system can be manipulated. She also lived in a v exclusive postcode.

Re Grammar: one twin in this year one, twin not. very similar ability. It's made me realise how unfair the system is. It's been gut wrenching to see one feel like a failure. They (and I) wanted to do the test, now I just want all schools good. All schools invested in and not to be tested at 10 and a few montha like this. It took me to experience that to see that we cannot write kids off on the basis of not being the 1 in 20 who doesn't get in by me - he scored 77 per cent and was deemed not worthy.

Middleoftheroad
But 90% of state educated children in your area go to comprehensive schools - and many thousands of children all over the country were disappointed with the comprehensive school they were allocated last week.

Crikey there's a bloody big difference between not getting into a school because you don't live near enough and not getting in because you, personally, have been weighed and found wanting.

The problem with stating all the problems with grammars and secondary moderns is that nearly all the arguments also exist for setting and for streaming, which almost all secondary schools do now.

If you've got 6 'choices' on your CAF form then I imagine it can be very much like 'winning' or 'losing' the lottery and just as painful judging by the appeal posts on this forum; several posters have mentioned their crying or tearful children. In 2012 83 schools in the London boroughs allocated places using academic banding tests which distributed children according to ability.

There are massive differences between setting and grammar schools (most schools set rather than stream). Sets are in the same school so that you can move between them rather more easily than change schools, and also you can have different groupings for different subjects so the maths genius who struggles at English can do an appropriate level of work for each.

Oh and sets are generally based on actual work done in that subject and ongoing assessment, not a crappy test done aged 10 under exceptionally stressful circumstances.

But Clavinova, it's not the upset child's fault in that scenario. Failing the 11+ can knock children's self confidence so much that they still talk about it decades later.

Noble, quite a few schools set quite rigidly based on SATs.

It's true that theoretically a child can be in set 2 for Maths and 1 for English, but realistically, the movement doesn't move much beyond one or two sets: it's most unusual for a child to be in a bottom set for one subject and a top set for another. What is more common is that the same children are mixed between the first and second set, meaning friendship groups and social activities tend to be with these same children.

It also means the struggling, poorly behaved children are in one group while the academic, keen and well behaved are in another.

I have taught in a secondary modern in a grammar school area and certainly didn't teach any distressed children.

And lots of people my age are still bitter about the shit comprehensive school they went to decades earlier!

Another point, which I don't think has been covered, is that I think being a 'big fish in a small pond' can damage children's perceptions, which, especially in some quite small and inward looking communities, can be problematic (I am from a small and inward looking community myself, so not knocking it!)

quite a few schools set quite rigidly based on SATs.

Do they really? When people ask on here about whether SATs really count, the vast majority of posts are replying that secondary schools know that SATs are bobbins and set based on their own assessments.

I've taught many beautifully behaved 'struggling' children, and also plenty poorly behaved and lazy academic types, btw.

So have I, giraffe, but I also think it would be disingenuous to claim that poor behaviour isn't also linked to poor literacy skills (in particular) and that rampaging set 1s are the norm whilst bottom sets sit meekly and docilely.

Setting based on SATs results is indeed something I've seen. Of course, it isn't always the case, but nonetheless, children are set based on some form of assessment, and arguably the entrance examination is if nothing else entirely objective.

The national figure for disadvantage is about 30%. I'm not sure you can reserve only 10/15% of places for children on FSM and still pretend that this has anything to do with social mobility or providing opportunities for poor children.

arguably the entrance examination is if nothing else entirely objective.

Except it seems to be biased against poor kids, and the latest iteration appears to be racist.

No more so than setting, which I also dislike, incidentally :)