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

I think there is an argument that where there is little choice because of population it is probably best to have comprehensives, so that all the resources are funnelled into those schools and they are great balanced schools. Kindgsbridge does this really well in South Devon and it serves a large far reaching rural community. There isn't any other place to go. I do understand the issues facing these areas actually.

But, I think there is an argument for partial selection in London (be it a few more grammars or a grammar stream in a super comp), where, most people who live in £2mill houses are not the ones who access state education anyway. The wealthy in London mostly go private and there is a huge economic divide. The few grammars that exist in London are not full of wealthy kids.

HPFA- The school/s you refer to in Hackney that have been greatly improved, have been improved because they have an unbelievable Head and the school stays open from about 7-7, provides meals and loads of after school programs. It is doing as much social care as it is doing education. That is not the norm in most Comps in London, anyway.

"The few grammars that exist in London are not full of wealthy kids."

But I suspect they still have very few poor kids. It is impossible to argue that any form of selection does not militate against disadvantaged families.

Although some people still travel from kingsbridge to Plymouth or Torquay for the grammars. God knows why.

All schools in Hackney are now getting terrific results from their pupils and London comprehensives are now widely acknowledged to be an outstanding success story. Obviously many factors involved but some of those involved in the improvements have said that it's partly because they are comprehensive that they were able to do this. Sir Michael Wilshaw has repeatedly stated that if his school had not been a comprehensive he could not have achieved what he did.

I know I'm going to end up sounding horribly self-righteous but I just don't see how that can be put at risk because a few people want a "different " curriculum for their kids. Even if we're very lucky and the majority don't suffer any harm they certainly won't gain any benefits! If there is an ethical justification for putting the vast majority at risk by making changes that won't give them any benefits then I'm sorry I just can't see it.

Most of the outstanding comprehensives in London have some form of partial selection. Either academic, music, art, sport, languages, maths, science focus.

And, the schools that have been completely turned around have put in partial selection.

They have loads of low income families. Kids of teachers, bus drivers, builders, postal workers, etc. They aren't full of banker and lawyer families.

Advanced curriculum for those who are capable. We should be able to provide that for those kids just as much as we provide for SEN, who aren't the majority either, and the rest of the student population who are are being catered for very well in most schools.

What advanced curriculum do they need? What's not already on offer?

I'm sure someone will mention Latin or whatever, but that's a want not a need and given how few DC want to take MFL, would probably not be that popular. Certainly not enough to justify throwing the whole school system in the bin over.

If you look at GCSE and A level results in schools without partial selection you will see a difference to the schools that have it. I believe this is because the partial selection schools are able to have classes for children really working at a high level. This often means working outside of the syllabus and taking the kids past the norm.

If I just used the school down the road, which has no form of selection, from me as an example, the top set at that school would compare to the middle set at a partially selective school in the same area of London. The partially selective school will have a top set and they will also have the gifted set on top of that. Standards are raised across the board.

I think we may have different definitions of "low income families"

And I'd still like to have a definition of an "advanced curriculum".

Children do benefit from this and you will get kids from working class state backgrounds achieving the same as wealthy private school kids.

How is that a bad thing? I think that is great.

www.learningtrust.co.uk/admissions/Documents/Secondary%20School%20Admission%20Guide%202016.pdf

I cannot see any Hackney schools which use partial selection. Some have a banded admission system which is not the same and some use faith criteria which obviously is controversial but a different issue. But as far as I can see none give preference to academic ability or other aptitudes.

Surely SEN provision is there to a)enable children with particular needs to achieve the same as their peers without those needs b) if that is not possible to enable those pupils to make the maximum progress of which they are capable. What you seem to be talking about is investing resources in those already at the top of the achievement ladder to be pushed even further ahead of their peers.

If a child at a comprehensive emerges at 16 with 10 A stars why do they need more? They may "want" it but they don't "need" it. If you think these children need an extra push to get into medicine etc why can't we establish highly academic sixth forms?

By the way, this is not meant to be criticising you for what you might want for your own child. I'm not seeing how that translates into putting the education of others at risk and disrupting our education system.

"If you look at GCSE and A level results in schools without partial selection you will see a difference to the schools that have it."
If you have a higher number of A candidates in a school you're going to get more As. Obviously.

Offering Latin is the de-facto criteria for deciding if a secondary school is top notch its the equivalent to a 5 star Hotel offering full Al-A Carte room service!
It just lifts a school up above the crowd.

However, despite my frippery , what offering Latin does show is that a school take languages grammar and appearance very seriously !

Bertrand, your kids at grammar school are most likely getting a much better education than the children at the non-selective comp down the road from me. I would argue, so are the kids at the Secondary Modern that isn't good enough for your son that you keep banging on about. Many things will factor into this, not least of which, you are obviously middle class, and probably in a very home county environment. The two don't compare. What happens in the classroom doesn't compare.

"Children do benefit from this and you will get kids from working class state backgrounds achieving the same as wealthy private school kids."

I'm really baffled now. How is this going to happen? Disadvantaged children don't get into selective schools. How are they going to get into the "gifted" stream of a partially selective? Maybe you could give the name of one of these schools?

I agree Flyingwithwings.

Yes they do. You are wrong.

Notenoughsleepmumof3 This often means working outside of the syllabus and taking the kids past the norm.

I'm curious, care to elaborate?

"Yes they do. You are wrong."

Talk to me about these selective schools that disadvantaged children get into?

Bertrand I think they must be the same kids on the other thread who could pass the 11+ and thrive at grammars but wouldn't be able to get into the top sets at comps.

And I really don't want to get into personalities again but I do not "bang on" about my ds's school not being good enough for him. He is absolutely fine. Because he is a very privileged child who would have done well wherever he went .What I do "bang on about" is a system which "systemically" fails children who do not have the advantages our children have, and who only have one crack at education.

Notenoughsleepmumof3 I agree Flyingwithwings

Really, so schools like this are considered top notch?

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/140049

Is this a "leafy comp." then?

I was going to say the definition used above of low income families wasn't one I would use. I think if your parents are teachers you're not going to struggle to access tutoring.

And to come back to Latin -my youngest actually wanted to study Latin. His school doesn't offer it. His brother (at the grammar) couldn't wait to give it up after an enforced two years of it. Ds3 is about to start distance learning Latin via the Cambridge schools project. If you have a desperate need to study Latin it's actually one of the easier one to organise.

Ds2 (at the grammar) has previously moaned at me for sending him to a school that doesn't offer a dance gcse.

So it rather looks at if there isn't one curriculum that suits 11 plus passers and one that suits 11 plus failers. Whatever people like TM might think. Which rather argues for funding comprehensives to provide a wide range of options.

That was precisely the problem several of my friends had at my grammar school, Devilish - the narrow minded approach, relatively narrow choice of subjects and inability to give helpful advice to people not wanting to enter traditional professions. These children's parents would not countenance sending them to the secondary moderns, however, where they believed children to be badly behaved and the schools incapable of catering to their children's actual abilities. In the meantime, lots of children in the secondary moderns were likewise constrained by lack of academic choice and ambition and lack of expertise in advising the more academic children, all because of a silly test at age 11.
Tbf, nobody ever really seemed to give a toss about what secondary moderns focused on, because they were for the "non-academic," therefore presumed good at nothing much, children... despite the bloody obvious fact that nevertheless appears to be lost on so many people, that "intelligent" and "academic" are not the same thing, and the 11 plus is woefully inadequate in any event both at identifying natural intelligence, and academic interest and potential.

People keep arguing that the alternatives to grammars will not be secondary moderns, whilst airily refusing to discuss what they will offer to justify their separation. The same as the grammars, but with less good teaching?! Or lower expectations?!

If schools are not good enough for the top 10%, it is because they are not good enough for any children.

Yes -agree roundabout - ds3 is my academic one. Unfortunately he is distinctly average at maths (literally - got bang on the average for maths sats) which isn't good enough for the 11 plus. He is however extremely good at writing (far better than grammar school ds2) and is completely obsessed with history - just the sort of person I can see becoming an academic - wouldn't surprise me at all.

Ds2 meanwhile is looking at post 16 options. We looked at a very creative diploma at a local art college and they asked ds2 to tell any school friends about their courses. Afterwards I asked him whether he could think of anyone he might tell and he said 'er no, they all want to be heart surgeons and accountants. I'm not really like the rest of my friends'. I expect he'll escape post 16 and go somewhere a bit more creative.