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 the Birmingham Grammar schools only changed their admissions policies in 2014/15 - the DfE tables haven't caught up yet with the increased numbers of pupils on fsm.

Some grammar schools in Gloucester have also changed their admissions policies;
www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/8203-girls-from-poor-families-guaranteed-a-grammar-school-place-at-stroud-high/story-30152368-detail/story.html

That Birmingham link doesn't say lower scores for PP pupils, it says they have to achieve the same qualifying score as others but will then be given priority. Or have I read it wrong?

Noblegiraffe, read the second URL, and scroll to the bottom of the page:

www.birminghamgrammarschools.org/node/29

The table with max PP places? What does that show? That they don't all have to be filled?

Noblegiraffe, the Birmingham section of the 11 plus forum shows they are filled.

I can feel the collective pig-headed unwillingness on this thread to believe that some of the iniquity has been addressed, by the fair-minded gesture of offering 20% of places to deserving PP students.

But that doesn't mean they lowered the qualifying mark for PP kids.

noblegiraffe, strewth, go to the bottom of this page:

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

If that's what you're talking about then why the bloody hell were you linking to a different page? The different page still says that the PP students have to get the qualifying mark. The pass mark. they have not lowered the pass mark for PP students which is what was being said in previous posts.

Giving priority to PP kids among those who have passed the pass mark isn't the same thing, even if it means that PP kids with a lower score will get in over others.

Although to be honest I'm baffled as to why they set a pass mark if you need to get much higher than it to get a place.

They have usually worked out from analysis that below a certain standardised qualification score, children will struggle with the pace and quality of work. That mark is the pass mark. Each year, depending on a variety of factors a lot of the scores maybe just above that pass mark or significantly over it.

It's open to question whether it will impact the school performance. I know already at my son's school (non PP), a lot of the lowest entry scores are poor performers. Laudable as PP is, it will not benefit the school if PP entrants, with much lower entry scores, dilute the standards of their cohort. TBH, I would not expect this to happen.

I can feel the collective pig-headed unwillingness on this thread to believe that some of the iniquity has been addressed, by the fair-minded gesture of offering 20% of places to deserving PP students.

Perhaps because some of us find the whole notion of a minority of deserving PP students a little hard to swallow - especially as they are going to be unceremoniously kicked out if they should subsequently prove undeserving.

HPFA, historically any pupil who consistently has shown that he/she has shown as not being able to cut the mustard has been given the boot. Why should it be any different for the PP student. Who would want to be in a place where they are struggling and unhappy.

But that could so easily be abused portico You let in a whole load of PP kids in order to show off to everyone how inclusive you are and then quietly boot them out a bit later when no-one is looking on the grounds that it's for their own good .

No one gets booted up in Y7 or 8. Usually, the odd one would get kicked out in Y9/10. Can you imapagine the uproar from the guardianistas and mumsnetters if that happened to a PP student. It would be reputational suicide for the school. Don't worry for two reasons. Firstly, I doubt very much any PP kid would not cut the mustard, academically. Secondly, I bet there is some PP metric that will show the progress of the PP cohort in some positive context.

^www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/21/gcse-pupils-secondary-schools-lost-ofsted^

It's not just grammar schools that quietly lose low achievers to be fair, about 20,000 of them have disappeared from state schools altogether by the time they sit their GCSEs. Some schools seem to be shuffling low achievers out aged 14 to studio schools and UTCs (which would be why they seem to get such poor results).

The kids that are encouraged to leave mentioned by portico are probably only a small proportion of those who do leave grammar schools. I've seen plenty of posts on here from parents who have removed their child from a grammar school after it was a 'bad fit' or the child struggled with little support.

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/mar/21/gcse-pupils-secondary-schools-lost-ofsted link

HPFA! You miss the key point. Grammar schools genuinely want a more inclusive intake. There was no pressure upon them to do anything beyond pay lip service to progressive liberalism's definition of social mobility. A grammar school will do all it can to demonstrate the success made for the PP cohort. I am sure extra PP funding per PP pupil is good for student and school.

I'm now a bit confused. If schools are not going to have different entry scores for PP pupils how are they going to substantially increase the numbers? In Bucks for instance only 10 PP pupils passed the exam last year. So even if you tripled the number it's still going to be low.

Those of us who either support or oppose selection on other grounds aren't in the end going to be too bothered but if you're claiming as the government is that this will somehow increase social mobility then I can't see it.

Well, I have been reading a lot about Birmingham. They are the pioneers Keith PP inclusivity. They run outreach programmes with schools in poor catchment, their pupils and parents. They provide insight into the exam and how to practise for it. It's not a silver bullet, but it's a lot better than most other grammar school counties.

The disadvantaged pupils at Handsworth Grammar School (for example) appear to be doing better than the others - why would the school kick them out?
www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/103549

Grammar heads have said that those outreach programmes will be unaffordable with the school spending cuts and be one of the first things to go...

Schools do have different entry scores for PP in Birmingham. See the bottom of the page on this URL:
www.birminghamgrammarschools.org/content/results-and-offers

PP funding is supposed to be spent on the children themselves and is often in the pp policy as to how eg individual support if needed.Pp kids do well at grammar schools. It isn't a waste of time getting them in.

Noblegiraffe, I did not know that. I am sure the middle class will not gain those places. There's a multitude of ways to kick them in the balls, and hamper nay aspirations they have for their kids.

In Bucks for instance only 10 PP pupils passed the exam last year.
I think that figure was claimed by a local anti-grammar school protest group for the 2014 entrants, not last year. Has it been verified? It doesn't tally with the DfE figures for YR 11 2016 - some grammar schools have 10 pp pupils each.