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.

It is absolutely disgusting to stigmatise 10 year old children as failures.... the 11+ is a blunt instrument. There can be no difference between those that pass by a couple of marks and those that fail by a couple of marks. Yet, the one that fails may well carry the stigma for the rest of their lives. Their GCSE grades are likely to be lower than they would be at a comp. There will be no top sets for them to aspire to. If they are bright then there will be fewer bright peers. The uniform will mark the out as being "thick" and every job application and CV will announce to the world their failure. Anyone in favour of grammar schools is only in favour of them because they think their child will go to one. Nobody would prefer a sec mod to a comprehensive.

"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".

What i question here is the findings about the highest earning 1% and 10%of families and grammar school entry.

This is because currently 7% of children are educated in the independent sector. This means the vast majority of these children coming from the wealthiest 1% of families must be educated in private schools .

If we are left with 20% of these children families choosing state education, the numbers involved are very small indeed !

Top 1% of earners= about 600,000 families. so 20% = about 120,000 of these families might use state education at Primary or Secondary level. They are very few grammar schools a across the country so the effect is minimal .

The top 10% of earners children will also be very well represented in private education .

The conclusion is the majority of children from these groups will be educated privately!

Otherwise how do you equate 7% of children in private education, if they are not from the wealthiest homes !.

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.

I remember having a similar discussion on one of the previous 10,000 threads on this one. I'm still bemused as to how people can't (or won't) see this.

Really, have any of you taught at a secondary modern?

Honestly, there is no stigma, and the children don't see themselves as failures.

When I first started to work there, I thought the same. I believed the new year 7s would be downcast and dejected, or angry and frustrated. I believed that we would be the 'poor relation' to the GS. I believed that we would not get any of the truly 'clever' ones.

I was so very wrong! The children were happy. That school did set, and had a special 'set zero' for those at the very top of the tree, so the ones who probably just missed a GS place (I don't know why it was called zero, but anyway!) The children were keen and bright and loved school. The ones who just missed a GS place rather enjoyed being the top ones. The ones who hadn't didn't even think about it, I don't think. There was a rivalry between the schools, but a very friendly one and the children had friends from both schools. At sixth form, there were a few places being swapped about.

Honestly, there is some initial disappointment, but this is generally forgotten about in the excitement of a new school and new friends.

and many thousands of children all over the country were disappointed with the comprehensive school they were allocated last week.

And many thousands won't have been. I was told last week that about 90% in Oxfordshire got their first choice of school. Some not getting first choice had put down ones which were completely unobtainable i.e. being too far from an oversubscibed school, or only putting one oversubscibed school down.

The originator of the research @SimonBurgess is going to publish full report sooner. Apparently he published the graphs a bit early because of the announcement.

The figures are taken from counties with over >20% of pupils at grammars.

A view from a headteacher who now fears that their successful comprehensive will become a secondary modern and the challenges that that will bring:

www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2017/03/headteacher-i-fear-return-grammars-will-turn-my-school-also-ran

The whole article is worth a read as they lay out the implications, but this bit nails it.
"I can’t quite believe it’s going to happen. It is policymaking by anecdote, with cheerleading from columnists such as Allison Pearson, whose outdated negative stereotypes of state education appear to be based on having disliked the comp she went to in the 1970s. It is against the overwhelming evidence from international studies. It is a senseless distraction from the opportunity to consolidate and stabilise improvements in the school system after years and years of reform. It disregards the views of the Education Select Committee and of the Education Policy Institute and of the vast majority of headteachers (you know, the ones that the government likes to claim it is empowering). It is a massive expense at a time when schools are already facing major cuts in per pupil funding. It is the antithesis of social mobility or if not, it is the kind of social mobility that is about letting a few into the elite, not about improving the chances of the many. People who claim to be in favour of high educational standards and giving working class pupils a chance are enacting a policy which will pull the rug out from under two decades of progress in the schools which have been working incredibly hard to do just that."

lavendarandrose

That's good to hear but we also have to respect the unanimous views of the Kent secondary modern Headteachers

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/dec/12/grammar-schools-plan-kent-headteachers-tell-education-secretary-deep-opposition

Lavender. Are you in Altrincham !

Absolutely we do.

Perhaps a better question might be how to avoid such a detrimental impact to children's self esteem in the first place. Primarily, it is the 'borderline' cases that are problematic - those who, with the wind behind them on a different day, would have got into a GS - and I do think they need special consideration.

However, one thing I am firmly convinced of is that something has to change under the current system. I don't think it works for anybody.

I was, flying :) have I outed myself?

how to avoid such a detrimental impact to children's self esteem in the first place.

Er, don't make them sit a ridiculous test to sort them into wheat and chaff aged 10? Easy.

I don't think it works for anybody.

Far from it - there are a lot of good comprehensives up and down the country which work very well for their pupils. By all means fix the ones which are broken, but don't break a whole system, to reintroduce a system which was well and truly broken 40 years ago.

"Talent alone should determine the opportunities a child enjoys". I am shocked and disgusted at this comment by Hammond and don't even know where to begin to comment on this yesteryear dismissive comment on the majority of children who don't excel by the age of 10 in a one size fits all education system.

I think using phrases such as 'wheat' and 'chaff' can be damaging for a start.

'The school best suited to your needs' , for example.

Some of their pupils, Peregrina

What would you prefer, Lavender? Bright kids and thickos? Successes and failures?

Let me guess: 'academic' and 'non academic', even though that's just bullshit.

Fannying around with the language associated with the test doesn't change what it actually does.

I disagree that there is no stigma attached to going to a secondary modern. Sure, the kids smile and get on with it but deep down everyone knows the truth.

'The school best suited to your needs' , for example.

Unless it's a comprehensive, of course.

It's not really relevant what I prefer. Speaking personally, I don't care what we refer to them as, but the point is that if the children hear 'wheat and chaff' and other divisive phrases, let's not then feign astonishment at their self esteem being knocked.

Children in set 6 know they are in set 6. The fact they may be in set 5 for Maths, set 7 for science and set 6 for English is semantics: they know it's "bottom, middle, top."

Four

I once thought this, too.

Honestly, it isn't the case.

Actually it is refreshing to hear a different opinion from a 'teacher' . this instead what appears to be the monotone that has been sanctioned by the Unions and the 'Education' Secretary without any academic qualifications (SHADOW)....

I shall tell my sister who is a HOD at a comprehensive in Stoke , that she is not the only teacher who believes in 'selective' education.

She dares not mention that in the staff room !

How stupid do you think children are to not realise that failing a test to get into a particular school means that they are the chaff and not the wheat? It's not the words that knock the self esteem (and actually I chose wheat and chaff deliberately when I posted originally), it's the whole shitty process.

lavender the school you were teaching at achieves better grades than every state school (non grammar school) within 50 miles !

It does :) Partly due to such a good catchment area.

Giraffe, no more so than the process they go through to set them.