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

Certainly not so high that a normal teacher and school couldn't cope with it!!

and the top 0.1% would think the top 1% a bit dimwitted...

I'm apparently in the top 0.00007% (really!) so I hover above you all in a kind of astral plane of superiority.

It also means that I am not too impressed by IQ as a measure of anything in particular. Having taught many bright DC over the years I've not seen anything to convince me that we need a total restructuring of schools to house them elsewhere to 'normal' DC. One kid in a decade has been exceptional.

It's haardly surprising that kids who do well in high stakes testing at 11 also do well in high stakes testing at GCSE. That doesn't tell you much about intelligence or even academic ability. (The skills needed to achieve a PhD are completely different from the skills needed to pass the 11 plus or GCSE's).

I bow down to your natural superiority, oh noblegiraffe. No school is really good enough to contain you.

Have been offline as I have been setting/marking EOY Y9 and Y7 revision questions for sons.

I see IQ being mentioned, but certainly not something I mentioned. As far as I am concerned, and from parents I know whose children sit/sat the 11+ exam, they all aim for grammar schools because of the level of stretch, leading to better exam results, in-turn leading to better life choices for apprenticeship and university places. Maybe, IQ tests should be used fine entrance testing as they can be difficult to prepare for.

You'd think so, round and that I'd be so bitter about being in a school with people so totally beneath me that I'd be campaigning for super super super selectives.

As it was, my school was fine. I wasn't totally out of place or anything.

Yes, exactly - it's all about the parents. That's why you tend to get much less variety of social and economic background in grammar schools - the more the parents have been able to help prepare their children for it, the higher their children's chances. That's why they are not good for social mobility. They don't really test potential, they test what you have been exposed to so far in life.

That's what you think, noblegiraffe.

Going back to the thread's question: "Grammar schools proposal so appalling that a cross-party alliance forms to fight them".

I notice Clegg has his child at the much sought after Oratory. Sami Chakrobarty, another hypocrite who pours scorn on the 11plus, has her son at a much sought after selective private school. To quote Michael Corleone, "this is just another trick of the rich to keep the poor without it. "It" being affordable and credible schools.

I just hope that future grammar schools are mixed, and that there are 2/3 in each town/city.

And to quote an article from the TES in response:

"I know what it's like to miss the good old days, too. I can draw comfort from the remembered glory of an education vision with rigour and clarity. That rigour just vanished in a puff of distracting smoke from the chimneys of Number 10. Vanquished, ironically, by the very forces of populism that Michael Gove himself helped to unleash.

Grammar schools. They don't increase social mobility. The various fixes proposed don't increase social mobility. They are not "inclusive". They are the very definition of exclusivity: they are designed to reject large numbers of 11-year-olds on spurious grounds. They are not an escalator for the "poor but talented". They are another barrier thrown in their faces by the middle classes. The evidence is there for all to see.

But evidence doesn't matter, does it? This is about emotion. Nostalgia in particular. This is about anecdote and personal experience.

In no other sector would this be acceptable. If the minister for health proposed to increase state funding for homeopathy on the basis that it did wonders for his uncle's irritable bowel back in the 1970s – and must, therefore, be right for everyone today – there would be an uproar. This is a precise metaphor for the expansion of grammar schools. It is educational homeopathy. "

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/grammar-schools-are-education-what-homeopathy-medicine

I have heard and read that in Birmingham, 20% of Y7 grammar school places are allocated to pupils on PP, and at much lower entrance scores. I think that's more than enough not to unsettle the middle class "JAMs" demographic. If private schools weren't so expensive, if grammar schools weren't so few in number then the pupils from poorer families must have a better chance in the 11+ entrance exams.

The thing with lowering the pass mark for poor kids is: Either the 11+ results are meaningful and the pass mark identifies a clear boundary at which kids need a different education to the kids below it; or it's bobbins, it doesn't really mark anything and so kids can be taken who fail to meet the grade and they will cope just fine with the 'advanced' curriculum

And if they can, then why not other kids who don't make the grade. Why have the grade in the first place? Why have the different school?

Noblegiraffe, at least it's a start giving ca 30 pp children at each of the 7 grammar schools a chance of entry. That's just over 200 PP places. Time will tell if the PP kids cope. I hope they do, as I am shown they will be shown the exit, just as they normally do with poor performers.

Well, obviously, noblegiraffe, so that the upper classes can still look down on everyone and the middle classes will still be able to look down on the "working" classes (if this term can still be used when computers and machines are set to take over their jobs...).

they will be shown the exit, just as they normally do with poor performers.

Crikey, some more unexpected honesty. The grammar schools protect their results by booting out any kids who may damage their headline figures...but they are supposed to do so well compared to other schools!

It's all about league table standing. They know for everyone student they let go, they will have tens more ready to undertake a bespoke entrance exam to take that place. It jeeps us parents, and in turn our kids, on their toes.

We are probably only talking one student in a given year who is politely told to FO. Any more than a couple a year would call into question and yield an updating in the rigour of the entrance exam.

As with pupil premium children in other schools, pupil premium children in grammar schools tend to perform less well on average than their peers. So, at what point will they be deemed to be letting the school down, rather than the school letting them down?

I don't see the problem with grammar schools. Private schools sure - why should the rich get to pay their way to a better education? Education should always be free. I strongly believe in meritocracy though, so don't see why the more intelligent kids shouldn'the be given that chance. Of course it's up to the parents and if your grammar school isn't much better than the local comp, then probably best not to bother.

My Grandparents wanted me to go to grammar school but I refused the test because nobody else in my class was doing it.

So, at what point will they be deemed to be letting the school down, rather than the school letting them down?

The institution always wins. They will probably put the poor performer on report card (performance management regime), so that they can show they have followed policy and offered the student help. If the student performs well, all is dandy. If they don't, they are performance managed out. And the institution has an air tight documented performance management process to protect their arses.

Grammar schools are not the only schools to ask people to leave. Have a look at the 6th form admissions for popular schools which offer A levels. Some non selective secondary schools also have been accused of 'losing' pupils prior to GCSES.

The secondary school system is complicated with so many different types of school. Personally, I'm still on the fence about the reintroduction of selection in schools. On one hand I would not want schools to be turned into secondary moderns but I understand that not all schools can be good despite money being allocated to them as it is more down to the mindset of the parents. If you are unlucky enough to live near one of these schools then you do look for a school with parents that you feel share your values. Be it in a faith, selective or private school.

portico Noblegiraffe, at least it's a start giving ca 30 pp children at each of the 7 grammar schools a chance of entry.

The number of deprived DCs at the Birmingham Grammars is as follows (accorcding to the DfE performance tables):

Bishop Vesey’s Grammar School - 8
King Edward VI Aston School - 19
King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys - 7
Handsworth Grammar School for Boys - 40
King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Girls - 15
King Edward VI Five Ways School - 10
King Edward VI Handsworth School - 22
Sutton Coldfield Grammar School for Girls - 23

Interesting article on the 11plus forum, on dare I say, the selective nature of selective comprehensive schools.

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=50444

portico Interesting article on the 11plus forum

Yes, particularly the following points:

Socially selective schools which control their own admissions policies such as converter academies, faith schools and single sex schools are all over-represented in the top 500 schools.

Faith schools are among the most socially selective group of top schools, more than three times as selective as non-faith schools, and make up 33.4% of the list.

Converter academies admit the lowest rate of disadvantaged pupils of the main school types, and comprise 63% of the top schools, compared to just 40% of all secondaries.

There are indications of improvement in the composition of top schools, with the average 9.4% FSM rate up from 7.6% in 2013. In that year, 57% of the best schools had FSM rates lower than six per cent, but the number below that mark has fallen to 39%.

The best schools measured by the Department for Education’s new ‘Progress 8’ measure have FSM rates much closer to the national average (15.2%), and are less socially selective, with a third of these schools actually admitting more FSM pupils than their catchment area.

Hmm. Still considerably less socially selective than grammar schools, then. So, is the argument that social exclusivity works, so let's increase the number of schools that are socially selective and make them more socially exclusive still, by bringing back grammar schools? Or are you now arguing that this is a bad idea and we should keep comprehensives, but expect them to operate a banding system if their FSM rate falls below 10%?