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

it would be daft to blame grammar schools- it's a fault inherent in the selective system.

Such as?

"Unless actually those against grammars are simply using pp as an argument when actually the most disadvantaged are of lesser importance to the status quo being held in the comps their DC attend many of which are pretty selective in other ways."

Oh, for fuck's sake. Please let's not go down the "everyone opposed to selective education has their child in a leafy comp" line. It's so tedious

Why shouldn't comps be scrutinised in the same way?

They are. The attainment of PP pupils in comps is heavily scrutinised. Ofsted inspections are triggered if they aren't doing well enough.

Ds's secondary modern is heavily scrutinized about the progress of PP kids. It's an OFSTED focus.

Pretty tricky for the progress of PP kids to impact on the rating of most grammar schools- there aren't enough of them to be statistically significant.

However, if our 37% don't do as well as they should, we're proper buggered.

All I've read is that getting into grammars is hard for pp kids but once there they do very well.

Of course they do!! If it's very hard for PP kids to get in (10 got in to Bucks grammars last year) then it follows that those who DO get in are likely to have something a little extra. They may have parents who are able to help them, an exceptionally good primary school teacher or they may be naturally of a very high ability. Ironically, as the EPI pointed out, if you actually make it easier for PP kids to get into grammars you might very well find they start to lose some of that advantage. You can't compare this tiny group to a much larger group of PP kids at a non-selective school - there are way too many factors to take into account.

Incidentally, the one FSM child in my dd's year at grammar school was the very middle class daughter of a couple of penniless artists...............

Bertrand- your DD went to a grammar school?

"the one FSM child in my dd's year at grammar school was the very middle class daughter of a couple of penniless artists..............."

And... So what!!!

Yes, my dd went to grammar school.

So nothing. Just an anecdote.

I think she was questioning the mirth re a child being disadvantaged.

Perhaps you should list the circumstances of children being on pp and which are to be sneered at.

A couple live near me who are both Cambridge graduates but live on a low income because the father works for a charity who can pay him very little. I have no idea if their children qualify for anything but if they did you would hardly class these children as "disadvantaged" in the same sense as the child living in a B and B hospital because their mother had to flee a violent husband.

I wasn't sneering. I was remembering a circumstance that amused me - a grammar school being able to tick the FSM box without any inconvenience to itself. But I forgot that a sense of humour is verboten.

I do wonder whether, if the reduced entry requirements for pp children are ever more than nugatory, there will be a new specialism for accountants. With parents "spending a year dead for tax reasons" like Zaphod Beeblebrox..............

Then what is the point of pp?

If you are below a certain income you are supposed to be disadvantaged. Certainly not deserving of sneering and limited sympathy because of circumstances.

And violent husbands cross all classes.

I wasn't sneering.

I think the issue of grammar schools should take a back seat at this particular moment!

lets think about the 'Policeman's family' the poor woman mowed down to her death and the two reported French Teenagers in a 'critical' condition.

Yes flywithwings I agree, especially as I was there when it happened and this debate has lost a certain amount of credibility from some on this post.

Notenougheep- I am sorry you were there. It must have been awful.

But coupling that with your "credibility" remark is, frankly, unacceptable.

Bertrand I find your arguments unacceptable, especially when you yourself sent your own child to a grammar, but don't seem to think it's right to have that for more children, and you seem to rate a child's poverty as worthy or not of a decent education. That's a disgrace and only shows your true values.

The state system needs to provide more opportunities for children to thrive when they have the ability to do so. It isn't doing this at the moment because of stupid political rhetoric from hypocrites like yourself.

"you seem to rate a child's poverty as worthy or not of a decent education. That's a disgrace and only shows your true values."
Ballocks. And coming from someone who has just used a terrorist attack as a silencing technique it's a bit fucking rich, frankly.

I was there with a group of school kids playing there instruments at the Royal Festival Hall. Because I actually work with kids in the state system from deprived backgrounds, and I have children myself like many on this site, and I understand the private system and the university requirements both here and abroad and what chances these kids have.

What are you worried about, that some pp child on FSM is going to beat out your little Janey for a university place once they get the chance at going to a grammar school. That if standards are raised for the unfortunate it will mess with your status quo.

You are a load of BS.

notenough you've had an awful day, log off and take care of yourself, this won't help

That's not what Bertrand has said at all notenough.

FWIW my grammar school child is the one I am advising to think very carefully before applying to university (I think he's quite likely to hate it), whereas my mixed ability school one is the one I can see doing a full on humanities degree at Oxbridge/RG uni loving every minute of it and becoming an academic.

Which shows how daft selection at 10/11 is really. (11 plus here is done in September so most are 10 when they take the exam - some have only just stopped being 9 for a few weeks).

HPFA the comment about domestic violence is a bit limited. Middle class women are more likely to stay with an abusive husband than someone in social housing but I'm not clear which set of DC would be the more disadvantaged. Domestic violence obviously transcends wealth and 'class'.

So far as I'm aware, Bertrand has one child in a grammar school and one in a secondary modern. I think that makes her extremely well qualified to comment on the effects that grammar schools have on the education of children. I also think this is entirely the wrong thread to comment on the appalling events in London, today.