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

Double whammy of goodness then.

Funding is different as it has an impact on all parents. Rich families not now being able to use their wealth to buy school places and shut poorer families out alongside a drop in prices if it happens is hardly going to cause much sympathy from the maj. The middle class bracket is huge,many of those on the lower rungs( who would be pushed out too)have defected from labour and would welcome some changes.

But it will win sympathy from the majority, because the grammars will be stuffed full of the wealthiest children, the formerly posh comps will remain relatively posh and the sink schools will sink further. It is 100% predictable.

So let me get this right. You want the wealthiest to keep the value on their expensive houses and places in the best comp but the lower middle classes to stay in the sink comp to help pull it up.

Sounds peachy.

Green I think you're slightly missing the point of what I'm saying. Any actual proposal to build a grammar will create winners and losers. MPs like to be on the side of their constituents in local battles against bureaucracies - nasty bureaucrats threatening local hospital for example. But when the new grammar has one group of parents supporting it and another one opposing it whose side are you on? The government has this crazy idea that somehow "parents" are desperate for grammars against an evil education establishment. But truth is, some parents, want grammars, some want comprehensives. And how does an MP decide which of those parents to side with?

Green- is your position based on a "given" that disadvantaged children will have equal and fair access to the new grammar schools?

roundabout Except when Solihull Council actually tried to convert a posh comp into a grammar it led to a vicious campaign against it and the Chairman of the Education Committee actually resigned. do people think that the Tories have resisted bringing back selection all these years out of the goodness of their hearts? Or because a system which cannot help but create winners and losers tends to have a downside? It doesn't matter how much you tell us secondary moderns won't exist or that they will be great for "our" children. We know that's not true and we do have votes!

Green,

You have a very odd picture of posh comps.

If you look at their demographics, NONE are as posh (in terms of lacking children on low incomes), or as lacking in SEN (as shown by their SEN data) as the grammars, and all have at least 50%, often many more, middle and low attainers whereas grammars have virtually none.

If a grammar opens up, the rich, high-attaining, non-SEN children will be disproportionately represented in its intake - so the parents will be buying access through bus fares, through coaching for the test, through access to better primary schools (or attending private primaries). The 'didn't buy into the catchment, just happen to have lived there for the last 20+ years' lower ability children, those with SEN, those on or just above the threshold for PP, will stay on in the school, which will no longer be comprehensive, and whose standards will decline (9there is also likely to be an exodus of staff).

If the 'posh' comp becomes a grammar, then all the low and middle attainers, virtually all those with SEN, and many of those on PP, will no longer have access - again, this benefits only those you have an issue with, namely those who are relatively wealthy.

I can't see how either makes education better?

It seems nice for many of you to have posh comps. There are no posh comps where we are. The few posh CofE/Catholic ones near Downing Street don't really count in my book as a normal London Comp (although they are fantastic schools), but I imagine they are similar to the holy grail of comps you are speaking of which can only exist in middle class/suburban communities. Somehow, I think many of you wouldn't want to consider the good comps in existence here in London with your talk of falling house prices, etc. Really? It's probably due to demographics and population that make your choices less in the selective system and that is a fair argument and probably one that should be addressed with your MP's regarding choice in education. But in London, where nearly every school is oversubscribed and there aren't enough schools period it is very different. With-in that inner-city system, many bright children are not getting the academic experience their minds warrants. I think trying to fix this problem is very important in our education system especially if we don't want to continue being governed by the Eton and Private School elite. And building a few more grammar schools or having some more selective grammar streams in comps for the very bright in London at least is a good thing. Because gifted (yes gifted) intelligent minds are being wasted in many of the inner city comps because there isn't a curriculum base for them.

Notenough,

I am a little puzzled by your reference to curriculum? All grammars and comps follow the same GCSE / A level curricula, so with the exception of a few minor subjects - Latin, Greek - the curriculum offer in the grammar and comprehensive sectors are the same? Comprehensives IME offer further Maths at GCSE and A-level, for example.

Notenough,

I do also think that you need to consider exactly who your proposed grammar schools with attract - is it genuinely the most gifted? Or the most gifted from the most already-privileged families?

Notenough - you clearly know nothing of the challenges facing communities outside of London which have to provide an education to all social classes of children on half the funding per child of the schools to which you refer. Rural communities face one set of challenges, down at heel coastal towns others. Cities other problems still. Anywhere anywhere near London has its own specific issues to deal with, given the huge disparities in funding between London schools and everywhere else. Grammar schools are not a solution to the educational woes of communities throughout the UK.

Also- are there really enough gifted children for comprehensive schools to be able to sustain or even need a special separate stream for them? How does a gifted stream differ from a top set?

cantkeepawayforever perhaps by curriculum Notenough is referring not to subjects per se but to the type of teaching of the curriculum in her local schools.

Also, as I said last night, all grammars, old and new, will have to deliver on the admissions front or they won't have a future. Lots of the arguments on these threads cease to hold weight if the grammars do deliver, and I've absolutely no doubt that the intention on the part of the heads is to deliver and that the motives behind it are sincere not cynical. Why people think that grammars are headed up by hard right Tories I really don't know.

goodbye,

Grammars delivering FOR THEMSELVES is incredibly easy - they select the brightest, easiest to manage children with the most engaged parents and fewest social issues, so they have absolutely no right to fail.

The point is, will the new selective system deliver FOR EVERYONE - ie will the system as a whole, including grammars PLUS the other schools containing all the other children, deliver more than the current system? That is MUCH harder to achieve, because in existing selective areas, for every winner there is a corresponding loser, as there is NO net benefit.

goodbye - my db teaches in a grammar school; I went to a grammar school; despite having children within the top 1% of the ability range, I actively chose not to live in a grammar school area. I know exactly the sort of people who head up grammar schools and I know perfectly well what they do well and what they do less well.

They aren't getting the same quality of teaching in advanced subjects, yes. And, they are often in environments that hinder learning because of all the socio-economic issues in London Schools. Overcrowding and poor behaviour can make it very hard for even the best teachers to give these kids what they deserve. In our area just making more comps won't solve this problem. They have been doing this and those schools are failing. The ones that work in London have some form of selection.

London schools do the best in the country by miles.

roundabout who exactly are they then and (less interestingly) what do they do well and less well in your opinion. I'm not convinced that going to a grammar some years ago or choosing not to put your children into a grammar will keep you especially up to date.

can'tkeepawayforever it's not about delivering for themselves though is it, it's delivering on the government's targets for admissions and then following through with results to enable those children to prosper in a way they aren't doing now. Equally, the rest of the sector has to do a proper job too - the responsibility isn't solely on grammars.

This is nonsense. London schools are extremely successful. Results in Hackney for all levels of prior attainment and socio-economic background are better even than the wealthy selective counties and way ahead of the poorer ones.

We really can't damage all our children to provide some rather vague notion of an advanced curriculum.

Lots of the arguments on these threads cease to hold weight if the grammars do deliver,

As Theresa May has chosen to base this fight on spurious social mobility claims we have to be able to fight her on these grounds but it should not obscure the fact that there are many other reasons for opposing the unethical and academically unjustified division of children at age 10/11.

You say spurious HPFA, others don't.

So how are the new grammars going to fulfil their social mobility brief?

Simplest thing Bert is to look at the model the most successful universities use and assume the same sort of thing. Obviously support needs to go in well ahead of the age of 10 and the DC need to apply. Since you'll belittle all the strategies being suggested it's probably not worth going over them here - hence my suggestion that you look at the university model.

Will newly created grammar schools be able to change their 'Raison 'detre . For instance could a Coed-Comprehensive become a girls grammar school.

This is worth noting because the original proposal for 'Weald of Kent' Sister school was for a Co- ed Grammar. This was turned down, because that was not the Cohort of the Weald of Kent school in Tonbridge !

So how are the new grammars going to fulfil their social mobility brief?

It appears that there have been a number of different approaches to increasing the number of disadvantaged DCs:

educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/09/there-is-not-yet-a-proven-route-to-help-disadvantaged-pupils-into-grammar-schools/

I have to admit that I still don't know what a "leafy" comp. is. Is it any high performing comp. or just one located in a rural area or is it one that is surrounded by £2m houses? GreenGinger2 what would your definition be?