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.

And if we're comparing with setting, bottom, middle, top - the process for grammar schools is if you're not top, you're bottom. Different school, different options. And for the different school, 28% of them are officially rated inadequate. But who cares?

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

Oh that's weird, because I teach a setted subject and I don't recall a make-or-break test aged 10.

Unfortunately people do make assumptions based on things like whether or not you failed your 11+. Grammar = good, academic, passed test. Sec Mod = bad, non-academic, failed test.

I'm often intrigued by how convinced many are that in itself, testing is wrong. Testing is what the school system is based on. Fail at ten = don't get into GS; fail at sixteen = compromised life chances. Does the same apply to every other system of passing and failing - driving tests, tests for entry to the army, to medical school, for swimming?

Tests are a part of life, and they are not, strictly speaking, "fair" insofar as they test you on that day - someone can be a perfectly competent driver but nervous - but I don't see this test, in itself, as being an unmitigated source of misery, stress and unhappiness.

In my view, we start to divide and separate pretty much as soon as children hit reception through reading groups, and this remains pretty consistent throughout their schooling. Some will argue that the test at the tender age of ten will damage children's psyche irreparably in a way being placed into bottom sets will not. I disagree. I think it has the potential to do that, but then I don't agree that children are not harmed psychologically through setting. However, the benefits of such are felt to outweigh any potential negativity.

Certainly, if a child is told she is a failure, is non academic, she will feel that. If she reassured she did her best, that many people peak later and that she's now going to be the top of her new school, she won't. As with most things, the bigger deal we make out of it, the bigger deal the children do.

I don't think testing is wrong. I think high stakes testing, with a faulty test, aged 10, then using the results of that test to determine the secondary schooling path for that child is wrong.

We know from many studies and international research, that selective education perpetuates social inequity, with the earlier the selection, the worse the outcomes. It's undeniable.

And yet people keep trying to polish a turd.

If going to a sec mod is so great then why would anyone bother to go through all the rigmarole of trying to get their kids into a grammar? Is there anyone out there who is fine with their child failing their 11+ (by 2 marks) and going to the secondary modern?

Do we only have one shot at a driving test then? I would have been OK - I passed first time. Neither DH nor DB would have been - both failed first time. Perish the though if I had had to spend 40 years driving DH around.

Four. Lavender has answered you question....

Indeed fourmantent - look at the angst from people on MN threads - there is one going at present about how soon to start preparing a 5 year old! Admittedly, that is extreme.

If getting into a secondary modern was seen as fine, just the right school to suit your child's needs, then 11+ tutoring wouldn't be such big business.

noblegiraffe speaking sense as usual.

The grammar school system is so inherently flawed, it is exactly like polishing a turd. To subject children to high stake tess to sort them into 'clever' and 'not clever enough' in a test that they can never take again, and that brings about a decision on their schooling that can never be undone, is nothing like the usual testing/setting we do throughout school.

Academically it's proven that setting has a negative impact on poorer students, high stakes testing has a negative impact on progress for all students.

I get that everyone wants the best for their kid, but the best at the expense of others? All children deserve access to a good education.

lavenderandrose Wed 08-Mar-17 17:09:41 Honestly, it isn't the case.

My son must have been mistaken when he said that class mates were in floods of tears at school after allocations day (which lasted some weeks due to wait lists).

The 6th Former must have been making it up when he told me that he was still gutted that he didn't score high enough for his preferred school (despite getting a string of A & A* in their GCSEs).

Perhaps a better question might be how to avoid such a detrimental impact to children's self esteem in the first place.

But I thought you said there wasn't any:

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

Mum, I thought it was clear I was explaining my own experiences. Since apparently it wasn't clear, and since of course I'm not accusing you of lying, I'll rephrase altogether. Stigma associated to not attending a GS and children seeing themselves as failures for not going to one, is by no means a given.

I understand this is a topic that elicits strong feelings, but I do feel we aren't going to get very far in discussing it being sarcastic and caustic to one another. We all care about children. Let's not claim one viewpoint is automatically the only moral stance to take.

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

Interesting you should say that. I haven't taught in a secondary modern, but I was educated in a full grammar system and had friends across both types of schools. It's the line we were told about how the system works. It's the line we parroted back to teachers and other adults when people discussed it with us because that's what we thought they wanted to hear and it covers the self-esteem issues nicely.

It's not the line that came out in conversations outside of school. The children from the secondary modern definitely saw themselves as second best and affected how they saw themselves

We need to be careful about drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and that those on the wrong side have 'needs' that can't be met in a grammar school. Because while as adults we can see that an arbitrary line is bollocks, children won't. Especially if their teachers and parents are telling them that they are in the school that's right for them and it isn't the 'academic' one.

HPFA
"We also have to respect the unanimous views of the Kent secondary modern headteachers."
Except that only 33 head teachers signed the letter and there must nearly 70 secondary moderns/non selective schools in Kent - so not unanimous.

No. Not solely. I have heard 25% mentioned. However if you are looking at FSM/PP children then how you find enough to fill 25% of the intake of a grammar school is beyond me unless the catchment is massive. The Govt says only 10% of the children will get a place. Not sure what the 10% actually refers to. Those who take the exam or a massive catchment area? How do you ensure a catchment throws up 10% of the school population who pass the exam? How do you design a catchment that delivers 25% PP and FSM? I can foresee no catchments, just a massive free for all. I think poor will have to mean benefits. I think the gifted poor are a very small group of children. 40-50 years ago it was different. The gifted poor of those days are the well paid professional people of today.

The sad thing is that there will still be poor schools that other children have to go to. Until teaching quality in all schools is improved, the education for all children will not improve. If grammars take the best teachers, and they do, there are even fewer good teachers for everyone else.

While I agree that the whole schools policy is fucked up, we have a situation where we live that there has been a lot of investment in a deliberately vocational brand new Studio School in our nearby town. So actually it feels like we do need a new grammar locally to redress the balance.

My kids are only primary, but given my and DH's academic backgrounds, I don't foresee that being the best school for them.
Assuming they are even vaguely academic by Year 6, our only choices at the moment would be:
• Vocational school
• Really shit comprehensive, academy, poor academically, poor pastorally, poor leadership.
• Church school for a religion I don't really agree with, let along practice (atheist family)
• 2 hour round trip commute
• Move house or downsize/remortgate for private (probably not feasible)

You could equally argue why should academically able children be excluded from a good education with all the recent investment here going on vocational schools?

"academically able" children fail their 11+.

Well they might, they might not, but at the minute we don't have that choice.

vocational brand new Studio School

Don't worry, it will probably close down soon

But you illustrate a good point, Minesa. All this focus on 'parental choice' and what it actually ends up as is no choice unless you fall into a neat little box.

Grammars are nothing to do with parental choice. The parents don't get to choose.

What makes you say that giraffe? As far as I know it is sucessful at what it does - which is great. But it is already selective in the sense of only teaching to a sector of the population.

I think things are exaggerated here by the fact we are rural and the main academy is diabolical. Kind of in-the-news diabolical.

But opening a grammar won't make it less diabolical - it will make it even worse. Everybody deserves a decent education.

Seems to me that the problem in the UK is the complete lack of investment in technical and vocational education - and the low status of many technical and vocational occupations. This means parents are desperate to get their DC into academically selective schools because they perceive the academic route as the only one which will offer their DC a secure future.

I would not claim that all is perfect with the German system - far from it - but technical and vocational schools do offer young people with little talent or inclination to study academic subjects with alternative paths they can adopt far earlier than UK students. Technical and vocational jobs also offer good pay and job security so the choice of school at 10/11 is easier. There are of course still a disproportionate number of white rich children in the grammars - but white rich families with children who are not academically inclined but interested say in electronics or engineering see the technical route as an attractive option. There is not that sense of you are doomed if you do not get to the grammar.

The job market is inflexible - you have to train for years to do a job that would require a few weeks traing at most in UK - but it seems to deliver more to a greater percentage of the population than the UK system.

MinesaLattecino Wed 08-Mar-17 18:19:26 You could equally argue why should academically able children be excluded from a good education

Erm, shouldn't your question be why should any children be excluded from a good education? After all there will be some children left who will have no choice but to go to the "Really shit comprehensive, academy, poor academically, poor pastorally, poor leadership" (although it won't be a shit comp. any more, it'll be shit sec.mod), or are you proposing the shit school be closed and replaced by a Grammar?