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

What noble says is true re- kids being herded into computer rooms, and it also applies to some non-selective comps in less desirable areas (not leafy comps), where a large proportion don't go on to A levels, get poor/mediocre GCSE results and even though they are supposed to stay in school or have an apprenticeship until 18, don't. And it isn't just maths. It's many subjects.

One could argue that the high ability teachers are at the partially selective comps and grammars, yes.

One could also argue that many kids aren't ready for a rigorous Secondary School in year 7 because for whatever reason they are re-learning what another child grasped in year 5/6. And that child who is ahead of his peers is sitting in a class dying of boredom and slowly become disinterested in school as a whole because they are in the minority at their school. So, they get sent to a computer room ( because they don't have the capacity to teach that child due to funding, etc.) to learn on their own and are further isolated for being a swat, which really sucks for that kid and I think we should do better by them in the state system.

I think it extremely unlikely that a non graduate would be employed to teach in a state school Bert. The private sector has been able to recruit non qualified teachers for ever pretty much, it's a recent thing for the state sector. I'm not sure you're being specific enough - do you mean teachers with a degree in the subject they're being recruited to teach? That's very different from non graduate teachers.

Given the shortage on maths specialists and that you are one noble, why were you asked to teach another subject on top?

"The ad posted by South Leeds Academy said: "We are seeking to appoint an enthusiastic, reliable and self-motivated unqualified teacher of maths to join the South Leeds Academy, starting as soon as possible."

It continued: "Ideal candidates will possess a minimum four GCSEs (A*-C) including English and maths or equivalent." The government benchmark requires pupils to pass five good GCSEs."

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/nov/22/south-leeds-academy-unqualified-maths-teachers

goodbye it was a long time ago and it was only 3 lessons a fortnight.

Well I see from the article that Boris backs up my point.

I see, you're suggesting that Boris was taught by people with 4 GCSEs on 15k a year?

No idea. Possibly. £15k in 1978 was a pretty fair wage and the independent sector could employee absolutely anyone it chose.

I completely don't accept that teaching in the independent sector is better - on the whole - than it is in the state sector. Some will be excellent but I'd bet quite a bit that a lot of the teaching is incredibly weak.

I meant could employ, obv.

Notenoughsleep- please could you give an example of the partially selective comprehensive schools that are accessible to disadvantaged children you were taking about earlier?

The 15k and 4 GCSEs was a recent job advert. Do you think it would attract the kind of candidates who would have taught Boris at Eton?

Do you think Eton has to dredge the bottom of the barrel to put a warm body in front of the class?

Let's face it, there are unqualified teachers and unqualified teachers.

I can't believe that anyone would even suggest that Eton has the same kind of staffing difficulties as the inadequate South Leeds Academy that last year got 27% A*-C E&M.

And yet the DfE and the government have their head in the sand over this, constantly parroting that teaching remains an attractive profession and wasting millions on shitty projects that are doomed to failure.

I don't think that teaching in the private sector is always better than in the state sector.

Bu the teaching at Eton is fucking amazing.

Graveney, Chestnut Grove, Kingsdale, Chelsea Academy, Ashcroft to name a few. All have some form of selection.

IME State school teachers who are on their game are the best. They have a lot more checks and have to deal with much more. The good ones are usually very passionate and caring, because it is a hard job.

A couple of points to make here. I must also declare I have two DS in superselective grammar school.

1. Nowadays, where grammar schools are available Parents choose grammar schools to stretch their kids. This is not always possible in a comprehensive, which has to cater to mixed abilities. I would not want mine being dragged down, especially as we are in a globally competitive world universities/jobs market.

2. I don't think anyone who seeks out grammar school places sees the sec mod or social mobility side of things. The grammar schools are only as good as the teachers and senior team. Beyond the top 20 grammar schools, by results, the rest are no better than the best comprehensives - ours falls into this category of outside the top 20.

3. Most of those who decry grammar school, would be be amongst the first to get their kids into one if there was a grammar school, locally.

That being said most of us all would go all out for a grammar school place.

"Dragged down" FFS - this is EXACTLY the sort of arrogance I see coming out of ds2's superselective. It's one reason why I think ds3 is getting a better education at his mixed ability school.

"I would not want mine being dragged down"

I will add that to my collection of moments when the selective school supporter's masks slip.

I did also mention our grammar school is nothing special.

Ffs, they were dragged down at state primary in having to buddy up with and help the poor performers. Should have been the duty of the teacher to do this. It is only enriched cement work at home that stretched them. We need grammar schools to provide stretch. We need technical schools to help to meet future demand in STEM subjects. We need comprehensive schools to cater for the majority.But, we don't need comprehensives for all.

Edited to address typos

Ffs, they were dragged down at state primary in having to buddy up with and help the poor performers. Should have been the duty of the teacher to do this. It is only enrichment work at home that stretched them. We need grammar schools to provide stretch. We need technical schools to help to meet future demand in STEM subjects. We need comprehensive schools to cater for the majority.But, we don't need comprehensives for all.

That being said most of us all would go all out for a grammar school place.

The grammar schools are not the problem - it's the secondary moderns they create. There are no campaigns to bring them back.

Technical schools are closing down as fast as they open across the country. Someone needs to tell the parents that that's what they need, because they insist on sending their kids to schools that do a normal academic curriculum.

"Research also indicates that peer learning activities typically yield the following results for both tutor and tutee: team-building spirit and more supportive relationships; greater psychological well-being, social competence, communication skills and self-esteem; and higher achievement and greater productivity in terms of enhanced learning outcomes."