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

[GreenGinger2]

Yes you constantly bang on about Bucks and Oxen. 2 very affluent counties in the SE. Life exists beyond.

Bucks is fully selective. Full selection is not being mooted.

If you want to look at the fully selective model look at NI.

[HPFA]

Comparing with NI is surely a less good comparison than comparing similar counties within England. You would have to take account of so many differences between the societies it would be hard to pick out the specific effects of selection. If we did not have selective counties in England then we would have to use NI but we should use better models when they are available.

That is the reason for comparing say Oxon to Bucks, they are quite similar so the effects (good or bad) of selection can be seen more clearly. People have compared Kent to Hampshire, but I don't know the counties well enough to know if that is a valid comparison.

My daughter's school is a great comp and is nowhere near a grammar. Does that prove comps are a good thing? Why is it that one bad comp makes the case for grammars but one good one isn't allowed to make the case for them?

[HPFA]

I "bang on" about them because it is a fair comparison. If I compared Oxon to Kent or Lincs I would get better results from my point of view. And so far we haven't had the White Paper so we have no idea what model is being proposed.

If someone can suggest a good county to compare with Lincs then I will number crunch for that.

[noblegiraffe]

GreenGinger bangs on about how underfunded grammars are compared to other schools ignoring the reason that they are 'underfunded' compared to others is that they have hardly any pupils who qualify for pupil premium money while arguing that grammar schools are a good idea because they will give poor kids a chance of getting into good schools.

[GreenGinger2]

Life is very different in the SE to many places elsewhere in England.If you choose to ignore NI,I'll ignore your examples thanks.

Re funding I have simply pointed out that contrary to your attempts to insinuate that grammars are hoovering up all the cash they're not,they are in the same boat ie struggling.

[noblegiraffe]

I didn't say they were hoovering up all the cash, I said they were hoovering up all the best resources - the most interested and involved parents, and the most experienced and stable workforce.

How do you justify arguing for grammars as a solution for getting poor kids into good schools when the evidence (and the money!) shows that they overwhelmingly don't get in?

[HPFA]

I'm not ignoring NI, as well as the previous reasons, you have yourself stated that NI has a 40% grammar model. As you are proposing a 10% grammar model (I think) how would that constitute a valid comparison?

[flyingwithwings]

If you compare Oxon and Bucks because you say they are similar in demographics why don't you compare Warrington and Cheshire East with Trafford !

You only want to use the stats that support your argument and disregard anything that question them.

[flyingwithwings]

Interestingly Trafford operates a 40% model and like 'NI' its non Grammar schools are among the most successful non selective schools in the United Kingdom.

However, i expect someone to once again come along and state a 'million' reasons why Trafford does not count but rather 'ingeniously' use Lincolnshire !

[CauliflowerSqueeze]

I wouldn't say the best resource is necessarily the most experienced and stable workforce.

I agree with GreenGinger that it rankles being lectured to by those who have benefitted from selective private schools for themselves and their children.

If all grammars were directed to change their oversubscription to ensure that pupil premium had first priority then that would be good.

[noblegiraffe]

I wouldn't say the best resource is necessarily the most experienced and stable workforce.

Tell that to kids taught by an endless succession of unqualified supply teachers!

[Crumbs1]

For the record there are plenty of comprehensive schools offering Latin, classics, further maths, early entry to A levels and even Russian. Not all comprehensives only offer foundation tier exams and are full of knife crime!

[GreenGinger2]

Measures are being used to counter this although actually pp kids aren't the only kids that count. The middle classes are a massive bracket and surely mobility within it counts too as does giving the richest at the top a run for their money.

Pp kids are being given priority in some grammar schools and it has been mentioned as a measure that should be everywhere,the exam is being scrutinised and changed,buses for pp will be paid for.....

Do we really have to go through all this again? The same points have been listed over and again.

[CauliflowerSqueeze]

Noble - I'm not saying that a series of supply teachers is better. Just that the best resource is not always experienced staff.

[PassiveAgressiveQueen]

I hate grammar schools with every ounce of my being, but i am sending my son to the best school in catchment, i am not going to cut off his nose to spite my face.

[Fourmantent]

How can going to a secondary modern improve social mobility?

[noblegiraffe]

Measures are being used to counter this

Except they're not working. The tutor-proof test turned out to be worse for social mobility than the original one!

And how will buses for PP kids be paid for when councils already can't afford transport for SEN kids?

We have gone through this so it's odd that you keep wheeling out the same arguments.

[noblegiraffe]

Just that the best resource is not always experienced staff.

Probably the best resource is a wealthy intake, but what would you rather have than an experienced and stable workforce?

[GreenGinger2]

Oh come on surely the more favoured comps in towns( there is always one less favourable) and those in the leafier areas do their share of attracting staff.

If it makes you feel better my DC have had loads of supply teachers too.

[GreenGinger2]

Perfectly reasonable arguments to the same points you keep reeling out.

Said changes to exam are new measures,surely it's a marathon not a sprint. It can surely be improved further.

As was mentioned buying a few Bond books is easier than buying a £2 million house or turning Catholic.

[noblegiraffe]

Obviously some schools and areas find it easier to attract staff than others. The solution to this is clearly not to create schools that are going to drain staff from the rest, but to incentivise teaching in the struggling schools (like Teach First does), and to sort out the bloody teacher recruitment and retention crisis so that schools don't have to fight over getting any maths teacher, let alone a good one.

[noblegiraffe]

It can surely be improved further.

Well given that the tutor-proof test was actually a backwards step, then I expect so. But shouldn't you wait until there have been improvements before confidently announcing this is possible?

Incidentally, the minutes of the Grammar School Heads Association indicates that the terrible funding cuts that are facing schools means that the outreach programmes to recruit more poor kids will probably be axed.

[IrenetheQuaint]

"If all grammars were directed to change their oversubscription to ensure that pupil premium had first priority then that would be good."

It's really hard to do this. How much should schools lower the pupil premium entry score by, compared to the non-pupil premium entry score?

Lowering it at all will cause protests, and be unfair to families who earn just above the PP cut-off. Lowering it enough to let a large cohort of PP children in will cause massive outrage amongst parents and cause resentment and confusion among non-PP (but not necessarily well off) children who don't get in while PP children they know to be less academically successful do.

Plus, not much fun for the PP children who get into the grammar via positive discrimination and in some cases will then struggle to keep up.

[HPFA]

As requested a quick comparison between Cheshire East and Trafford.

The academic breakdown of the children is as follows - in Trafford 50% of children were High Achieving at KS2, 40% MA and 10% LA (rounded obviously) in Cheshire East those figures are 35%, 50% and 15%.

Results are for Trafford, Attainment 8 score of 56.7 and GCSE 75.4%
Cheshire East A8 score of 51.7 and GCSE 67.4.

So given that Trafford has quite a lot more high achieving children to start with these figures are roughly what you'd expect if either grammar/secondary modern made no difference and most kids just score what their entry levels dictate or it could be that kids in the grammars are pushed higher and those in the secondary moderns are pushed lower. They don't in themselves prove a case either for abolishing selection in Trafford or establishing it anywhere else.

[Crumbs1]

We should just use the free school/grammar school money to boost funding for schools serving poorer communities. That is the only fair way to improve social mobility.