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

HPFA- Thanks for providing the letters. It is interesting to hear your local heads perspectives. Perhaps, Maidenhead isn't the best place to try out this pilot, being a relatively leafy middle class area. I'm pro-comp for a variety of reasons, but in my area of London we have the worst Secondary schools. There are no selective schools in our borough. Many of them seem like they are in lock down, the curriculum at these schools is very mediocre. They are comps essentially, but you would probably lump them as Secondary Moderns if you looked at their stats. The vision of the schools are poor. The demographic is vast and poverty is very high. There is 1 decent Secondary school in the borough, where house prices are very high. It is catchment only. If you don't live near that school and want to go state for political reasons or because that is your only option, what other options do you have other than trying to get into the really good neighbouring borough's Grammar or Selective stream for which competition is fierce, yes? Most people in our borough get paid/year what it costs to attend a private school, and you have a bright child, not just mine, there are bright kids from very poor backgrounds who aren't getting access to the education that their mind warrants. I do think the grammar model is a good one. It is the type of quality education and broad curriculum that will develop sharp minds. Many more children are capable and deserve a better education than they are getting access to. I think something has to be done about this. At least in my borough, where most kids who go to the local comps don't go on to university or higher education. Which is a real shame and waste, as I know from working with these kids in primary school that they are capable, but they get lost once they go off to the school down the road and then you see them a few years later and it is too late. Our borough needs to figure something out. So, I'm a defector, yes. I have one child going to the very good comp in the neighbouring borough on a selective place and she is getting a quality education there. I have another child who will attend a grammar in the other neighbouring borough. I think they are lucky, but again it frustrates me, that I know there are kids that they went to primary school with, who have great minds and will just be given a ok education. I just think curriculum and standards must be raised across the board.

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

I didn't think it would improve schools by removing the most able children, I merely questioned would removing the most able make the school experience for the children 'left behind' worse.

Does removing the top 20/25% make the educational experience for the other 80/75% worse? If it doesn't, is it the case that it's about improving the education of the top 25% and then leaving the education for the other 75% exactly the same?

Is it that's unfair because we should only be striving to improve education for all 100% of the children, and if we can't do that, not do it for anyone?

People seem to be ignoring the fact that the existence of the grammars will make recruitment for the secondary moderns harder. Where do you think the well-qualified maths teacher will want to teach?

Probably not because they may not be up for the grammar education anyway, and then they can focus on what they might be good at and probably be top of their game in it.

And lets not forget, there is a lot of movement at 6th form. Kids who may not be ready for the 11+ for a selective school first time around, do make it into the more advanced schools at 6th form. Especially if they are lucky enough to attend a decent Secondary modern or comp or whatever you want to call it. I call it a good school with good teachers a good ethos, and opportunities to learn.

How does selective education benefit the 10/20/25% who are not selected for grammar school?

Well qualified teachers want to teach a schools where leadership is strong and they are supported by the heads. Many very good teachers will teach in the toughest schools where there is good leadership and support.

Sorry. How does selective education benefit the 90/80/75% who are not selected for grammar school?

When there is partial selection in a school, there is an advanced education model in place and higher quality teachers who teach across the spectrum on abilities. I think all the kids benefit from this in these schools. And it works very well if a child is great at one subject, but not at another. They can be stretched and challenged in the more advance subject and supported in the one they need help with.

Well qualified teachers want to teach a schools where leadership is strong and they are supported by the heads.

Are you saying that grammars won't be?

Well qualified teachers often also want to teach A-level and top sets. There are hardly any qualified maths teachers, so will they choose foundation and resits or A-level and further maths?

A better question, might be: How do you improve a non-selective school?

They teach both in a school that has the curriculum and the students to learn it. That can only happen if you attract to top learners as well.

Bertrand - I was asking the other question - how does selecting and removing 10/20/25% of the most able children make things worse for those not selected? Does it have an effect to remove them or not? Obviously it doesn't make things better for them, does it make things worse?

It might well do, if it's a case that the 'best' teachers go to the grammars, or if by spending all the 'new build' money on setting up grammars there's nothing for refurbing the older schools, or something else I've not thought of.

But if it's just the case that it's effectively the same experience for the 80% if the top 20% are in the same school or not, the fact they don't benefit doesn't seem to be an argument not to do it.

If a non-selective school doesn't have the ability to teach a child A-level and further Maths and the child is capable of doing this, why would they want to attend that school. Your political stance will only further divide the education system and you will end up with a 2 tier system, yes.

A compromise must be met which I believe is partial selection and a grammar model, not necessarily grammar schools.

All schools/students would benefit from the well-rounded curriculum that is offered in grammar schools.

"When there is partial selection in a school, there is an advanced education model in place and higher quality teachers who teach across the spectrum on abilities. I think all the kids benefit from this in these schools. And it works very well if a child is great at one subject, but not at another. They can be stretched and challenged in the more advance subject and supported in the one they need help with"

Haven't you just defined a good comprehensive school?

Yes, I have, but there are school defined as compressive schools in my area that don't do this and the ones that do, have partial selection.
They have a gifted stream that you get into by test which is the 11+ in many ways. So it is a compromise.

comprehensive. sorry I typed that very fast.

As I said before, the comprehensive school down the road from me, is not very good, doesn't have great teachers, or an advanced curriculum. Therefore, they don't attract the bright kids. Those kids go elsewhere.

If they improved their curriculum, offered more sport and arts, actually had a music program, and had partial selection so that they could actually have advance maths and English and science in a classroom rather than the few kids who do still go there doing it in a room by themselves linked into a classroom somewhere else on a computer isolated. If they offered classics and economics, etc. It would be transformative for the area and the community. But they won't, because it isn't their ethos. So as a parent, I'm afraid I'll go elsewhere yes. And so does everyone else who has the chance.

They teach both in a school that has the curriculum and the students to learn it.

That would be a comprehensive. If you think that a grammar school will have foundation GCSE and resit kids I think you've missed the point of grammars.

"They have a gifted stream that you get into by test which is the 11+ in many ways. So it is a compromise."

Blimey. Do they actually call it the "gifted stream"????????

What's an "advanced curriculum"?

And why would teaching classics be "transformative"?

not what do you think the chances are of your local not very good comp being allowed partial selection over one of the high achieving comps going fully selective?

Never mind Bertrand-Just do your research on University placement. Read what is on offer at Grammar Schools. Read what curriculum is on offer a partially selective Comps which are just as good to me. Read what is on offer at shit schools. Read the stats on kids from poor backgrounds, on FSM, with English as a second language who's lives are transformed when they get lucky enough to go to a selective school. Also research what privately educated schools do in terms of curriculum as a comparison. Draw your own conclusion, but you're living in the dark ages of the 70's.

InvisibleKitten - yes of course it makes the experience worse for the children left behind. You only have to look at the comparative underachievement of less well off children not in grammar schools in selective counties to see that. Comprehensive counties do much better by these children. Take the most academically engaged out of a school and what do you expect? A sudden improvement in attitude and behaviour of those left behind? or the risk of a change in culture for the worse, as those left behind realise that nobody expects much of them - there's another school for the children expected to achieve?...
My best friend failed her 11 plus, got into my grammar school a year later and spent the entire of the rest of her school career telling everyone she was stupid. It can seriously knock a child's confidence for an extortionately long period of time to feel judged academically at the age of 11.

I don't think they will ever go fully selective. It's not that type of area, nor do I feel that's a good thing. The partial selection allows the school to have teachers and classes for advanced subjects.

The not so good comp down the road doesn't offer any of that. If a child is interested in a subject, they will facilitate a computer link if they can, but they don't have the numbers to teach it in the school. It's not a priority.

"Read what is on offer at shit schools"

Ah, Right. That old mumsnet chestnut- where "shit"and "comprehensive"are synonyms, and all can be made better with a bit of Latin........