Grammar schools proposal so appalling that a cross-party alliance forms to fight them

[noblegiraffe]

Former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (Lib Dem), former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan (Conservative) and former Shadow Education Secretary Lucy Powell (Labour) have written a joint piece for The Observer condemning the plans by Theresa May to open new selective schools.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/help-poorer-pupils-selection-social-mobility-education-brexit-grammar-schools

"The formation of their cross-party alliance against grammar school expansion, which is opposed by about 30 Tory MPs, spells yet more political trouble for May on the domestic front. Last week, chancellor Philip Hammond was forced by a revolt in his own party into a humiliating budget U-turn over national insurance rises for the self-employed, and Conservatives lined up to oppose planned cuts in school funding.

Launching their combined assault, and plans to work together over coming months, in an article in the Observer, Morgan, Powell and Clegg say the biggest challenges for a country facing Brexit, digitisation and changes to the nature of work, are to boost skills, narrow the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers and boost social mobility. By picking a fight over plans to expand selection in schools, May will, they argue, sow division, divert resources away from where they are needed most and harm the causes she claims to be committed to advancing.

Before a debate in the Commons on social mobility this week, the three MPs say it is time to put aside political differences and fight instead for what is right. “We must rise to the challenge with a new national mission to boost education and social mobility for all,” they write. “That’s why we are putting aside what we disagree on, to come together and to build a cross-party consensus in favour of what works for our children – not what sounds good to politicians.”

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/18/cross-party-alliance-grammar-schools-theresa-may

The sort of children whose parents understand how the system works and know how to get one of the vanishingly small number of 100% bursaries available are not the sort of children I mean!

More PP kids in the bottom 10%, more SEN in the bottom 10%, so more funding should be going to them.

"Also, at our primary there were so many things in place to help the bottom 10%. It often felt like that was where most of the funding was going."

Well, as poverty and low achievement go hand in hand and that's where the pupil premium funding goes, then possibly. I am sure you wouldn't begrudge them that, though......?

Yes, I know, all the more reason, why state schools need to improve across the board. I'm not saying the bottom 10% shouldn't have more funding, I'm saying there should be a system that can meet the needs of all pupils.

And no I wouldn't begrudge them that at all. I do loads of reading and maths with those kids as a volunteer because the funding is so poor. It's needed for the great good of society. But equally, I don't begrudge parents who understand how the messed up system works, trying to get a good education for their kids either.

Why would anyone you waste limited provisions on the bottom 10% of the ability range ! How is society going to benefit from this.

Unfortunately the truth is there is nothing that can be done with this group, apart from keeping many of them out of trouble.

If there is any money available , i suggest perhaps it should go in to helping pupils with HFA or other pupils with genuine academic potential , not a group of 'losers' .

It turns out that it is bloody expensive keeping the bottom 10% out of trouble - if they are not taken care of appropriately in childhood (which is expensive), and given some support later in life, they go on to be even more expensive still, later on. Or are you advocating some kind of final solution, flyingwithwings, or deprivation of human rights?

That's really harsh and unkind. I do think things can be done with these kids, and some schools do this very well.
Equally, schools can't just leave the most able to themselves because they are deemed ok and not a worry. They need to provide academic rigour for those kids, and many middle of the road Secondary's don't do this. It's the truth. So people can't be angry at others for going elsewhere if they have the chance.

Having gone through the process, I can tell you elbowing doesn't make any difference. Your kid can do it and is at that level by the beginning of year 6 or they aren't. You can't cram it. And, children who don't get into those selective schools can do very well at less selective secondaries when the schools are run well and have a good curriculum with good teachers. I think that is what the government should be focusing on.

A large no of those pupils in the bottom 10% are there because they don't give a toss , you could throw £1000s of pounds at them and see no calculative difference in them. Many of them will be a burden on the state from Cradle to death. Money be wasted in the wrong places, the Jeremy Kyle Culture will always win in the end for these pupils.

However, there are pupils perhaps wrongly labelled in the bottom 10% because teaching methods have not diagnosed their SEN such as Autism ! These children given the right teaching and support would challenge the top 10% for academic achievement.

Final solution comment is vile.

I have reported my previous post to be deleted ...

So, flying, should we be making efforts to find which of the bottom 10% have SEN before, or after, we decide not to 'waste limited provision on them'??

I teach Y6, the year group at which you are suggesting they be segregated by ability. Let me tell you, absolutely none of my bottom 10% are there because they 'don't give a toss'. Perhaps because their parents don't give a toss, but that's entirely different. Perhaps they don't give a toss by the time they get part way through secondary because they realise that the current education system has nothing to offer them and they have been written off by people like you.

As to why you'd invest in the bottom 10%, because by providing them with some form of qualification or training, you are giving them an option, a potential future. Those that entirely disengage with education are much more likely to resort to crime. Surely this is obvious?

To me, little Johnny getting an A* in Latin at the grammar rather than an A in French at the comp (and by the way, children at he sec modern pay for his success with their own) is going to have less of a lifelong impact that bottom 10% Ben given the opportunity to learn a skill or trade.

And to those that suggest that secondary moderne would allow for this, literally no one is suggesting any investment in the sec moderns. The sec moderns would simply be the local comp (apparently not good enough for your child) but worse, as lower aspirations, lower quality of staff etc

It seems to me that flyingwithwings' attitude is at the bottom of the government's plans, except that the government would like to write off considerably more than 10% of children as not worth spending education money on, if it only could.

It is actually quite refreshing to have some honesty on this subject. Although I suspect 10% is much lower than many people's ideal figure.

There is another poster who is quite open about the fact that she doesn't want her child sharing a dinner queue with a middle/low ability child.

I'd frankly rather have that than the "Oh, it's just about finding the right school for each individual child" shizzle.

What about kids with autism and learning disabilities? Are they part of the burden or are they deserving of reaching their (non-academic) potential?

Some of the posts above are shocking.

I can't see any justification in spending more on the highest achievers (& one of mine is at grammar and I went to Oxbridge from a grammar). I don't see any justification for grammars tbh. Agree that education needs to be made relevant for all (ds3's mixed ability school seems pretty good at doing that). Unfortunately the the changes in testing etc are just making it ever less relevant to even more pupils.

Who said they didn't want their dc to share a dinner queue with a medium ability child? Must have missed that. The lowest 10% quite rightly do get extra funding. The highest don't get extra ,far from it, nor will they just because a few of the new free schools will be grammars.Just to point out there are kids on the spectrum in grammars and the ethos is actually quite beneficial.

Green, the 'ethos' that you ascribe to a grammar school isn't exclusive to grammar schools.

Maybe but it certainly isn't widespread.

The lowest 10% do not easily get the funding to meet their needs.

Not going to name names, Ginger. But it was a different poster to the one who referred to 11+ failures as the "dregs". That was a bit too honest, even for me!

Actually I think the Government has given due consideration to the less able, SEND or more technically minded student within its limited March budget:

Extra £500m for 16-19 technical students;
feweek.co.uk/2017/03/08/budget-2017-sector-hails-hammonds-breakthrough-budget-for-skills/

Extra £215m for SEND;
www.specialworld.net/2017/03/08/215-million-capital-fund-to-ensure-no-child-is-left-behind/

This is on top of the recent requirement that those pupils in education and training retake their Maths and English GCSEs until they achieve a 'good pass' (grade C/4/5?) for which I believe the Gov provide £480 per pupil per subject - so an extra year (or 2) of English and Maths teaching.

Not forgetting that nearly 30% of pupils with SEND are on fsm so they get double funding (plus English as a second language funding where applicable) which schools across the land including comps have pointed out in the scramble for fairer funding.

These figures compare with the extra £320m for new free schools which include possible grammar schools.

Amusingly my 'dreg' is more academic than my one who passed the 11 plus.

Mind you my eldest must be in the bottom 0.00001% so presumably should be killed off for being too expensive.

I think people who categorise children in this way just reveal their own ignorance and lack of values TBH Bertrand.

There are many hardworking, sweet, kind, innocent, vulnerable students in the bottom 10% flying. They deserve our empathy, care and support, rather than be described as "losers".