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

As for pupil premium children, it is a fact that relative poverty alone does not cause a child to underperform academically - the link between pp and underperformance is largely down to the reasons for the poverty. Our statistics and funding criteria are far too crude to ensure the money and support always ends up where it is needed, and grammar schools are no solution to that fact.

Bertrand says she has had a daughter in a grammar and a son try for the grammar but not succeed despite an appeal. This DS is now going to a grammar for sixth form, or has applied at any rate. It would be possible to argue that the Russell DC could have opted out of the heinous system altogether - not everyone in Kent sits the 11+ after all.

goodbye I did write in a hurry and could probably have found a better example. I was just trying to say that disadvantage can mean many things - having a low income because of choices freely made (as in the couple mentioned) isn't quite the same as having it forced on you.

I mean, I consider DP and myself fairly well-off although we don't have a high income because our living costs are very low. A young couple with two kids and an enormous mortgage could earn the same yet be really struggling. I would think it very patronising of DP and myself to claim the same sympathy as should be accorded to the young couple.

Hope that makes more sense.

Goodbye,

There are no comprehensive schools in Kent. Where should a believer in comprehensive schools send their children, if they cannot move from Kent?

Bertrand believes neither in secondary moderns nor grammars. She believes in comprehensives, but is unable to send her children to one. So she has to send BOTH children to schools she believes should not exist.

We use '#against grammars' as a shorthand, but what people like Bert are is 'against the selective system' - both parts of it, because the two are not separable. So it is no more ideologically 'wrong' for her to send her child to a grammar than to send one to the secondary modern. They are both 'wrong', because they are BOTH inseparable parts of the selective system.

Goodbye Have to disagree with above -sorry. If you're living in Kent you don't have a choice of comprehensives - I can't see how its hypocritical not to choose one if it's not available to you. I've also seen plenty of Mumsnet threads titled "Where do I live to try for grammar and have good comp as backup?" These threads invariably advise living in a comp county close to a selective one so you can have the best of both worlds! Is it hypocrisy to want the "benefits" of a grammar whilst avoiding the downside of the secondary moderns that some people don't have a choice but to use?

It might be fair to accuse the likes of Seamus Milne of hypocrisy (children at superselective grammar when comprehensives were available) but not someone in one of the fully selective counties.

Thank you, goodbyestranger. Would it help you to know that I have two cats, a dog called Mabel and a very elderly pony, no parents living, red hair, have a part time job baking and decorating cakes, vote Labour and am very keen on Dorothy L Sayers? You know, just in case you even need to fill in the gaps on any other thread? None of those things are deep dark secrets either, by the way, but if it would give you pleasure to "reveal" them, who am I to stop you?

Bert, I know it is off topic, but I NEVER imagined you with red hair! In all these depressingly familiar arguments, that is one source of genuine surprise to me today!

Bertrand those facts are things you've told us over and over again, don't be precious. The fact that you participate in the grammar part of the system is relevant, to a degree, since you could so easily opt out as others do. I myself don't think it a huge deal but there you go.

[Am with you on Dorothy l Sayers. As a very minor claim to not very much fame, I used to live just round the corner from the cottage where her illegitimate child was fostered....]

Yes me too can't. Mine's brown, not nearly as exotic.

what, more of a surprise than the dog called Mabel? Or the cakes? The cakes usually surprise people IRL- people who have heard me pontificate speak in public find the sugar flowers a bit cognitively dissonant.

Goodbye, nobody in Kent can opt out of the selective system, because there are no comprehensives, so sending a child to a secondary modern is no more opting out than sending a child to a grammar. Both are parts of the system, using either would be seen as 'taking part in the system'. The only opting out would be home educating.

Yes, I know I have, goodbye.

And if you can think of a way of opting out of the selective system in a wholly selective county, then I wish I had known it 11 years ago.

can't I did say I don't personally find it a huge deal. It would be less hypocritical to go to the non grammar option though, since apparently the grammar is the part of the system which does the damage. You know, spread the love and all that. I could make an argument for either side, hence not being that bothered.

No, as HFPA (I think) above explained so carefully, it is the selective system - as a system - that does the damage. The idiocy of the current plans is the belief that you can create one part of the system (the grammars) without creating the rest or doing the damage that the system does.

Bert by opting out I mean not having your DC sit the exam, whereas you consciously had them sit the exam, then appealed and now want your DS to go to a grammar school sixth form. Some people in Kent do opt out. I'm not surprised you didn't I'm merely observing that you could have done.

can't the White Paper is imminent and there won't be a full grammar system put back in place so many, many arguments on these threads won't be relevant.

Those grammars that there are or will be will have to prove they can deliver - their ascendancy will be very transitory otherwise.

What do you mean by a 'full grammar system'?

Even in counties with only a few grammars - Gloucestershire is one discussed on this and other threads - the effects of the selective system are clear to see, especially in the areas around the grammars. Compare the 'other' schools in the places near the grammars with the schools furthest from them.

Surely they will have to prove they can deliver without harming the standards of the non-selective schools around them? They won't be like widget manufacturers, where the most successful kill off the competiton: their "competiton" will have to drag along, damaged, in their wake and they will be unable to take over these damaged schools, because their whole point is to go out of their way to avoid educating the sort of children that go to the other schools...

And this is where I'm hoping that we will be able to get some traction with wavering Tory MPs. In practice I think it will be impossible to somehow site a new grammar in a way that won't affect existing successful comprehensive schools and therefore won't create losers. We should be able to do some modelling (I've done this on another thread for Oxford) that shows how schools could be affected in each Tory MP's constituency.

One regular poster cites the example of a town "needing" a grammar that has one "posh" comprehensive school. Of course the vast majority of people using the new grammar will come from the group who would have used the posh comp. I'm sure the residents living near that posh comp will quickly realise that they now have only a 20% chance of getting in the grammar and their posh comp will look rather different now it more closely resembles a secondary modern. Do you imagine these people will sit back quietly and accept it's in the interests of "fairness" for them to lose their posh comp or do you think they might protest just a little to their Tory MP?

And before anyone says this won't happen, this is precisely why attempts to bring back selection in the 1980s (notably in Solihull) failed.

In my area, I fear the posh comp may convert to grammar status if they are allowed. The school my ds goes to is in more disadvantaged area but shares some areas of catchment. The result likely to be very depressing....
School my ds goes to prides itself on inclusiveness the nearby, more middleclass one, does not...

HPFA having family members excluded from the posh comp I jolly well do hope a new grammar would upset the status quo. What are the alternative plans to sort the current system of selection?

Even if you aren't in a full grammar area you can be pushed towards using the grammar.

When we chose school's for ds2 we needed one that ds2 could get to easily himself because his older brother is severely disabled and had no guaranteed time for school transport (changes each year). That left 3 schools. One was having a terrible time - head teacher left under a cloud, money had gone missing, pupil numbers (& therefore funding) right down and it's a faith school (we're not religious). So that wasn't top of the list - leaving the grammar and and a comp. we liked the comp but ds2's good friend was going to the grammar (none to the comp) so he wanted to go there. By the time ds3 had his turn a fourth school had opened within reach and he chose there.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather the grammar wasn't a grammar - but when it's within walking distance of your house it means the number of easy to get to mixed ability schools is reduced.

Drifting It may, but then don't you think the people living in the area of the posh comp might realise that now they only have a 1 in 5 chance of getting into that school rather than guaranteed entry? Are they just going to quietly accept that?

Green Fine if you're living in an area with a Labour MP -he can deal with all the furious complaints from parents. If you're in a Tory area then what will the MP say to the action group formed in support of maintaining the posh comp as it is which is full of well-heeled parents who would normally tend to vote Tory? Tell them they should be thinking of the greater good? Look at the way MPs are starting to respond to the campaigns on school funding. Ordinary backbench MPs can't ignore large protest movements in their own constituencies - it doesn't work that way.

There seems to be a rather odd belief that people who have bought expensive houses to get access to good schools will happily give up that access without protest when told they now have only a one in five chance of getting in.

And the value of their house will drop!