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

roundaboutthetown Hmm. Still considerably less socially selective than grammar schools, then.

It would seem so:

Less than 3% of entrants to grammar schools are entitled to free school meals – an important indicator of social deprivation – whereas almost 13% of entrants come from outside the state sector, largely believed to be fee-paying preparatory schools.

www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GRAMMAR-SCHOOLS-FACT-SHEET.pdf

I am done with this thread now. I leave you with this missive.

I was at a comp in the 70s. It had converted from a grammar. Standards eroded after a decade, 20 years later it truly became a bog standard comp. Nationwide, I am sure many former grammars have gone the same way. That's what will happen if you aspire to demise grammars with comprehensivisation. Beware what you wish for. It will come true!

At the moment some grammar schools are trying to increase the number of FSM children attending but this won't show in their GCSE performance figures for another 3 to 4 years.

Is anyone pushing the socially selective comprehensives to do the same?

The socially selective comprehensives don't need to increase their FSM numbers, yet - grammar schools still have a long, long way to go before they catch up with the most socially selective comprehensives, let alone any other type of school...

But yes, I believe there is a lot of political pressure on such schools to widen their intake. Which sources of information do you read not to be aware of it?

It's only really this current government which appears to approve quite actively and vociferously in increasing social exclusivity through means of increased numbers of faith schools and grammars.

roundaboutthetown when talking about IQ, the vast majority of the top 25% bear far more resemblance to everyone else in terms of ability than the top 1%,

That's Y9 DD's world and I once ran the numbers, area under the curve etc., and it was a very good explanation for all the tales from a comp maths top set that I think is close to national top 25%.

She's lucky the other child like her is in the same half of an eight form entry school' with a parallel set structure. And they get to sit together and get along. I used to imagine a few others like them in the other top set, but now have reason to believe they don't exist.

Maths is a bit of a worst case subject in thise respect, but when it is your child favourite and best subject, the years of coasting becomes a quite serious issue.

noblegiraffe 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.

Fine, but I keep coming back to the very anti-grammar Rebecca Allen and her comment a couple of years ago: "Parents with highly able children living in areas of the country with comprehensives must know that their children will not be placed at a disadvantage to those with grammar schools."

Dissing nuGrammars is easy but they're on the menu because the status quo typically doesn't work for that end of the range (or the other end). Like many others I'm still waiting for some kind of consensus on what to do with them in comps. Assuming that, which is a big assumption given how long it has failed to materialise, we'll then have to wait for schools to do it and if the local comp is representative I wouldn't hold my breath.

There are more socially selective comprehensives than there are grammar schools. If these schools were pushed just as hard as the current grammar schools to increase their intake of FSM children then this would be a start.

Unless you want to send your child off to a new system of state boarding schools, PiqueABoo, you are always going to be hoping more for luck than design to get your child into a class with other children of similar ability.

Poundpup If these schools were pushed just as hard as the current grammar schools to increase their intake of FSM children then this would be a start.

Surely the focus should be placed on giving deprived DCs access to the best possible education available. If people are going to argue that Grammars offer the best possible education then we should prioritise getting deprived DCs into those schools.

Is anyone pushing the socially selective comprehensives to do the same?

Well it seems the Sutton Trust are. From the Sutton Trust report linked to above:

"House buyers willing and able to pay a substantial premium to live in the catchment area of a top school are likely, over time, to lower the accessibility of the school to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This undermines the nature of the comprehensive system, and introduces an element of de facto selection based on ability to pay. It has been argued that this de facto selection provides a good argument for expansion of the grammar school system. However, our research has consistently shown that grammars are even more socially, as well as academically selective, with extremely low Free School Meal rates of 2.5%. Instead, a reduced emphasis on geographical proximity, along with the right admissions policies (backed by outreach and transport access), can reduce socially harmful property-based incentives, and open up access to the best state schools, rather than adding extra barriers.
The introduction of the Progress 8 measure is also significant. With school accountability measurement changing to a 'value added' approach, this reduces incentives towards school admissions policies biased towards intakes with high prior attainment, providing an opportunity for change. As we have seen, there are substantial differences in the profile of the top performing schools using the new measure and the traditional 5ACEM measure, with the best Progress 8 schools having profiles of disadvantage much closer to the average comprehensive. Top Progress 8 schools are in fact half as socially selective as top 5ACEM schools.
However, changes to the measurement of school performance should not lead to complacency that the problem of social selectivity has been solved. While good progress is crucial for pupils, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is their absolute levels of attainment which will open up opportunities for them at university and beyond. The 270 schools in our lists which excel in terms of both attainment and progress are thus crucial for social mobility. Those schools continue to be socially selective, with Free School Meal rates of 10.2% and an average 3.5% FSM gap compared to their catchment area. It is thus imperative that the government, and schools themselves, continue to reduce social bias at the top of the comprehensive admissions system and increase access for all."

I absolutely think it's the right move to push grammars schools to widen their intake. I'm just saying that the current performance measures do not currently reflect the changes that some grammars schools have made as those children have not got to year 11 as yet.

I'm also aware from current news articles that the focus to open new grammars will include a higher FSM number. I'm just stating that I am not sure that all areas need new grammars but maybe the more selective comps need to open their access a little more. This should negate the need for new grammar schools.

To sum up existing selective schools should be encouraged to open up access as should existing socially selective comprehensives.

roundaboutthetown you are always going to be hoping more for luck than design to get your child into a class with other children of similar ability."

I am in the sense that anything that could happen will be too too late for DD, but the only significant obstacle to solving a great deal of this is stubbborn ideology.

I know quite a lot about tech and I'm also a serious Luddite regarding it's use in schools, but this is one place where it could be useful.

You don't have to put them in the same physical classroom, just a virtual classroom that can be accessed from anywhere. You can do that for subjects where it matters most and wouldn't do that for many of the others e.g. DD does much less coasting in her English top set than Maths.

It would, or with public-sector rip-offs in mind should be relatively cheap. It avoids that horrible problem with selection and 'spiky skilled' children. It mitigates the problem with tutoring and error bars around a selection threshold e.g. you can be more generous around who does it and if they can't hack it then they're still in the same school and it's much like moving between sets.

it's obviously not the same as having some similar ability, like-minded children sitting next to you, but I think it would be a significant advance and make it much better for some of these kids. Nothing will be a perfect solution, but that's not a reason to do nothing.

To sum up existing selective schools should be encouraged to open up access as should existing socially selective comprehensives.

And to sum up further, if we want to improve social mobility, we should not open up more grammar schools, because they are the worst for social selectivity.

Fair banding and lottery. Sorted.

Not sorted, however, in terms of traffic congestion, pollution and who pays the transport costs of the disadvantaged children.

Was there a really a poster upthread who suggested letting in poorer kids in to grammars on a lower exam mark and then just kicking them out when they failed to live up to the mark??

PiqueABoo - I can see a limited use for that. However, a virtual classroom is nothing like proper face to face learning with like minded peers. Computers are great for distance learning at your own pace, largely on your own, with occasional inferior opportunities to interract slightly with other students and a tutor, or to send messages to be answered later, but not for knowing what the hell is going on in 20 different places at once while unable to see everybody properly.

"Was there a really a poster upthread who suggested letting in poorer kids in to grammars on a lower exam mark and then just kicking them out when they failed to live up to the mark??"
Yep.

There also seems to be a belief that some grammar schools let pp children in on a much lower pass mark.

"Not sorted, however, in terms of traffic congestion, pollution and who pays the transport costs of the disadvantaged children."

Yes, I am sure middle class parents would suddenly develop a previously undiscovered interest in air quality!

"Was there a really a poster upthread who suggested letting in poorer kids in to grammars on a lower exam mark and then just kicking them out when they failed to live up to the mark??"
Yep.

There also seems to be a belief that some grammar schools let pp children in on a much lower pass mark.

See for yourself over in Birmingham:

www.birminghamgrammarschools.org/content/results-and-offers

Just scroll to the bottom of the page of the URL link.

Look for "CUT OFF' SCORES"

I believe some schools in Warwickshire do this, too.

Re Birmingham, HPFA and BertrandRussell may also be interested in the numbers gaining PP places

www.birminghamgrammarschools.org/node/29

Scroll to the bottom of the page