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

Outside central London , how many pupils that live in £2 Million plus homes go to Comprehensive Schools!

I know a few that send their children to Grammars , mostly due to ' Kudos' or bragging points over their friends who have had to pay for education.

A leafy comp is one that is considered "good" in any way so that when people try to defend comps on the grounds of personal experience they can be told "Oh, yours must be a leafy comp.

The opposite of a "failing comp" which is nearly all the others. Apart from the ones that are "shit comps".

goodbye since those people have yet to provide any convincing evidence for those claims I will continue to use the phrase. If you would like to link to the evidence that the selective SYSTEM improves social mobility then I am sure we would all be happy to look at it.

Of course one sensible way to proceed would be to trial the new methods in one of the selective counties and then make a proper assessment of whether they had worked. If you're simply looking for a way to get more grammars regardless, you would just promise that "things will be different " and steam on.

HPFA I'm not one of nature's linkers sorry. I find link fights tedious and as I pointed out on an earlier thread, when you linked to a particular grammar schools association, even the best intentioned links can be very misleading.

I'm not sure the preferred model going forward is to have fully selective counties though, so why trial new methods there.

To be fair, we've trialled comps long enough, for the groups in question.

And apparently its just about to be debated in Parliament! Beginning at around 3pm
schoolsweek.co.uk/nicky-morgan-nick-clegg-and-lucy-powell-to-lead-grammar-schools-debate/?utm_content=buffere2467&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

"goodbye* Actually the link was not misleading. I misnamed the particular grammar schools association in my description but there was nothing misleading in the link itself, unless you're suggesting that the person in the article was making a false claim?

If you have not researched the evidence as to whether the selective system promotes social mobility I am a little surprised at you defending it so vigorously. I tend to stay off Brexit threads because even though I have a belief about it, I don't feel I've got the knowledge to defend my position properly (and I might change my mind if I did that research, who knows?). Don't you worry that you may be innocently defending a system that is wrong?

HPFA the link was misleading unintentionally, in that you cited the author of the comments as the leader of the grammar schools heads association therefore implying that he spoke for the majority, which he does not, any longer.

I don't think I've defended the selective system anywhere especially HPFA even though I know a good deal about it. I do support it generally but I equally support excellent schools in any sector. I think there are poor grammar schools in the selective sector too and I wouldn't like to see a multiplication of those. But the best grammar school model seem to me to be best placed to give the best education to very able but disadvantaged DC.

But you're assuming that grammar schools won't damage the education of other children even though there's very strong evidence that they will. I absolutely get that you wouldn't want that to be the case but I don't think you can ignore that evidence.

I just want somebody to explain to me how grammar schools can be anything but a disaster for any group except the clever and privileged.

No HPFA because the way I hope it will pan out is that the grammars will be placed in such a way geographically that the impact will be negligible.

I also think there's a very, very strong case for moving away from the current curriculum model for certain other children too - it's extremely ill suited. That's another end of the argument though.

Anyhow, about to go into DC7's last ever parents' evening at the grammar - nearly seven down only only one to go. Hurray! I'll leave you to it :)

Grammar schools don't aid social mobility though.

Can i just say watching the debate on BBC Parliament Channel and that 'Lucy Powell' is excellent (this is how a opposition MP should be regardless of whether my opinion is different).

How the 'hell' has 'Angela Raynor become the Shadow Education Minister with people like Lucy Powell around the Labour Party.

Or does the promotion of Angela Raynor ,say all that needs to be said about the moron Corbyn...

Shadow Education Secretary....

She's Lucy Powell, not 'Lucy Powell'. I know it's totally infra dig to criticise someone else's punctuation or writing style, but your arguments are weakened by these random quotation marks. When reading your comments, it's like having someone do those bunny quote finger gestures in your face.

I think if the only thing i can be picked up on is my poor English skills, i have done very well considering where i started from

It's not poor English particularly, it's that the sense of what you're writing - it would be the same if you wrote in capitals. Given that it's more of an effort to add them in, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve.

Lucy Powell was Shadow Education Secretary, she resigned post-Brexit when half the shadow cabinet resigned and no-confidenced Corbyn. Then it was Pat Glass for about a day before she resigned, then Angela Rayner took over.

I like Lucy Powell too and as comp attender and having children at a comp you have to do extensive research to find a reason to discredit her,

Nick Clegg being a bit waspish:

twitter.com/FCDWhittaker/status/844944862847873025

But he has son at leafy comp so feel free to ignore him.

Well, this is interesting.

twitter.com/heidiallen75/status/843493585286844417

A Tory MP doesn't want grammars in her constituency but seems prepared to consider them elsewhere. Doesn't this sound rather like nimbyism? If grammars are going to be so popular why does this MP not want one? And what happens if a group of parents in her constituency want one?

No HPFA i think it means as i have pointed out, that parents in the areas will be the deciding factor in whether a grammar school happens.

However, i presume South Cambridgeshire pupils could possibly attend the Chelmsford grammars and maybe the comps attain the 75-80% GCSE pass rate !

This means there is no need to shake up their Rosy garden as i stated earlier.

No HPFA i think it means as i have pointed out, that parents in the areas will be the deciding factor in whether a grammar school happens.

No flyingwithwings, some parents wanting a grammar in the area will be the deciding factor. If existing Free schools are anything to go by it may not need a majority vote, just enough of them expressing an interest may be sufficient.

Mum Exactly, and that's why I think this is a very good line to pursue in the anti campaign. If Tory MPs are starting to worry that most parents in their own constituencies won't actually want grammars then pointing out that they could well be forced to have them might be a very good way of enticing a few more into the rebel group.

And Green seems to have missed that while she might not care/be happy about someone's house price dropping, the person who lives there won't be, and they will also have a voice.