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

Yes describing the most vulnerable as 'losers' is erm a little bit strange.

But you can't be in favour of selective education if you have a problem with dividing children into winners and losers. The concept is embedded in the system.

cantkeepawayforever

You said your kids were in a school 'with very high Progress 8 for all abilities, higher than the grammars for high ability pupils.' Surely then your moral standpoint, 'I fundamentally value the common good' comes from the advantage of having your own kids in a faith school or a school with very low fsm??

There are several anti-grammar school teachers on this thread who seemingly have higher moral standpoints than the rest of us mere mortals - but they appear to work in very leafy, high achieving schools - why don't they really make a difference and actually work in a low achieving, high fsm school?
Couldn't possibly be that any of them have guaranteed places for their own dc at these high achieving comps and they want to make as much noise as possible to prevent these schools becoming grammar schools in case they lose their child's future place and they have to send them to the local school instead (the bog standard comp they want to avoid)?

Everybody who can't afford to go privately loses without selective education. Everyone. Even those in the bottom 10%. The schools that work cater to those kids just as much through a decent banding system and a broad curriculum and they often have smaller class sizes where it is needed, special workshops/tutotials and teachers, instead of just throwing everyone into the same pot. You can see how this stops working around year 4 in primary schools. Equally, those at the top deserve the education their mind requires. Always playing to the middle doesn't do society or these kids any good in the long run.

Would any of the pro grammar posters be happy for their child to attend a secondary modern? If the answer is no then I don't understand how they can be pro grammar as you cannot have one without the other.

Personally, I wouldn't mind my DS going to a grammar or a comp but I would not want them to go to a sec mod. Therefore I am against grammar schools.

I'n not in favour of selective education. Have used it for ds2 (up to GCSE - I think he wants to move for 6th form as it's not a very creative school - his area of interest), but would prefer it not to exist.

My youngest's mixed ability school is in an area of high social deprivation - I love his school and ds3 is doing well so definitely not a case of preserving the status of leafy comps.

Notenoughsleep Where are the students with high ability in one area going? The gifted mathematician who cannot spell? The late developer? The History specialist with no maths ability? The gifted dyslexic writer? These are students who may well be "at the top" yet would best suited to a comprehensive school (not one with the top sets removed). You cannot accurately divide at 11.

"Always playing to the middle doesn't do society or these kids any good in the long run"

I do wonder why people are always saying this. Why do people think that A* kids are forced to get Cs in comprehensives?

The high ability kids scatter. We are in London and, so there probably is more choice than the North (where my husband was educated in the local school), but I still wouldn't have liked my kids to go to our school up the road, because it wouldn't have done anything for them because it isn't set up to help all of the kids, from the bottom to the top. They won't get parents like me if they don't improve their curriculum and provide challenges for the able kids.

You can measure where a child is at 11, what they know, and what their aptitude potential is. 11+ is SATS essentially. My DD is in a comp with a selective intake of about 20%. Everyone else is catchment and Looked after children and SEN kids get priority. The school moves the kids around the sets and is constantly evaluating their progress. They invest in their teachers, so guess what, good teachers want to work there. So you can have a maths genius, who didn't get in on the test in the very top set for maths and then possibly in the lower set for English or even SEN. But, you can't do this if the schools don't provide it and many don't in my area. I think more schools should be like this. The school isn't perfect, but it serves it's students and families well. It has a fantastic head and management team. The follow up of the kids going on to higher education and/or apprenticeships is noble. You feel like they care about the kids. There are other versions of this type of school scattered around London and a few grammars. The kids who can get into these usually try, but ideally, I think it would be better to raise the bar across the board. So that the local school looks great from an education standpoint. It isn't there yet in many areas.

"Always playing to the middle doesn't do society or these kids any good in the long run"

Because it doesn't. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact. When a kid is applying to university it will not matter what school they have gone to for the most part.

The schools will be looking at the essays, the personal statements, the grades, the subjects those grades are in, how many difficult subjects were taken and they will make snap decisions. It's competitive.

Why wouldn't you want to give that chance to kids who have the ability?

You can see how this stops working around year 4 in primary schools.

But primary schools are nothing like secondary schools. They are much smaller for a start.

I have a question along the "would you be happy for your DCs to go to a secondary modern?" theme - I went to a large comprehensive in an area without the 11+, that was large enough to stream properly, which in practice meant that as a solid "B" student, I wasn't in the same classes as the group who were all in the top sets from the Christmas of year 7 onwards (except for PE!).

Obviously in the 60's there were issues with Grammars being better funded per child than secondary moderns and there not being a National Curriculm so SM children didn't have the same chances.

But how would a modern Secondary Modern experience be different from a Comperhensive with the top set removed for the B/C grade children?

Is there genuinely a benefit to children who'd always be in Set 2 or 3 to there being children brighter than them being educated in a different classroom in the same building rather than in a different building across town? Would the education those middle group children get be different once a grammar system is brought in?

Or is it just the fear that some children who are bright enough to get in the top sets might do badly on the day of the 11+ then not have the scope to move up/down sets?

If your child isn't able to work at the top level, would the grammar & secondary modern/high school system be a worse educational experience than a comprehensive where they stayed in sets 2/3 throughout their school career?

My DD is in a comp with a selective intake of about 20%.

The evidence for partially selective schools is very poor:

schoolsweek.co.uk/low-attainers-at-partially-selective-schools-do-worse-at-gcse-study-finds/

here 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"

The majority of the kind sweet and hardworking pupils in the bottom 10 %(probably one in ten of the them ) probably have un -diagnosed HFA Autism due to the lack of knowledge ! Given the right support and teaching style , most would not be in the bottom 10%

The 'Majority' that don't have any un-diagnosed SEN are there for no other reason than because they don't give a toss !

One of the worst things that can be done for pupils genuinely suffering from SEN or other difficulties is to throw the '9' out of the 10 pupils in the bottom 10% with them !

The further i get with education , the angrier i become with the fact that i was 'deemed' to be in the bottom 10% of the ability spectrum based mainly on a lack of understanding of Autism by professionals

However, 90% of the bottom 10% have no 'SEN' issues affecting them.
It is very convenient for those with a 'Socialist' outlook to ascertain that everybody at the bottom is there through no fault of their own. This is patently not true and damages people who with help would not be there at all.

And those with autism and learning disabilities?

That would suggest you are pro-what then?? You're not pro grammar. Fine. What do you think should be done for the top extremely bright children in the state sector. There are a lot of those kids being failed by the current system in mediocre schools.

Couldn't possibly be that any of them have guaranteed places for their own dc at these high achieving comps and they want to make as much noise as possible to prevent these schools becoming grammar schools in case they lose their child's future place

My kids are still quite young (one in Y3, one not yet in school), but I'm one of those MNetters who thinks their kids would get into a grammar as I've had enough people telling me how very bright they are. So it's not out of concern for my kids that I'm anti-grammar. I'm also not sure I'd want them to go to my school either.

Invisiblekitten- I'd be more that happy for my kids to go to a type of Secondary Modern you're suggesting. I don't have one in my area. I'm very pro-state, but I don't pass judgement on those who go privately. I get it, but it infuriates me that some state heads and governors have such poor aspirations for their own community.

noblegiraffe- you very well may change your stance when you start the Secondary School process. It really depends on whats out there, what your child is capable of, and where they are going to thrive within your means and boundaries.

Yes, of course it is so utterly logical to think that mediocre schools are improved by removing the able children from them.

It is self-evident that people talking about "catering for the middle" have bugger all idea of the capabilities of the "middle," or what the "middle" even means (or they genuinely think 90% of children are in the "middle"). They obviously have an equal capacity to understand the needs of the "top" and "bottom" 10%, too.

noblegiraffe- you very well may change your stance when you start the Secondary School process

It's because I'm already thinking ahead that I don't want grammar schools. I have a friend who lives in a grammar school system whose DD is just starting the whole tutoring rigmarole and it sounds like an absolute fucking nightmare. I am very lucky that the schools near me are comps, not faith schools or grammars/secondary moderns.

What does worry me is that the government is determined to fuck up schools entirely by totally underfunding them, and fuck up the schools near me by introducing selection. I am also worried that the school that I teach at will convert to a grammar.

Mediocre schools are improved by vigorous teaching and a broad curriculum. Everyone within a school benefits from this. You won't get able children at mediocre schools if you don't provide for them as well. Do you want them or not? If you don't, fine, but there needs to be a provision for those kids as well. Otherwise the system is letting them down and not allowing them to reach their potential.

If the parents and primary schools are doing their job, a child shouldn't need much if any tutoring. It won't benefit them if they get into a selective school if they have been heavily tutored. They will struggle.

I'm not in favour of more grammar schools, but there should be some. I'm in favour of better comps. There are many that do work and those should be modelled. And yes, they do have some selection, in the sense that they make a program for the very bright, that others can get into as they go along as well. It isn't exclusive. But, if you don't have that type of program in existence at a school, what are you doing for the most able.

I would also add, that the comp my DD attends which is what I've described above has an excellent SEN and support department. It is funded heavily.