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]

But Irene you're surely only talking about the brightest pp kids who could keep up,same as any other kid. Ours has said measures and has higher pp kids than the national average in grammer schools. Not seen any protests.

Parents could protest all they liked but admissions criteria are set in stone,just like catchment areas for comps.

[noblegiraffe]

has higher pp kids than the national average in grammer schools

How much higher than the national average in grammar schools, given that the nature of an average is that some will have more and some will have less?

[IrenetheQuaint]

Exactly what measures are those, GreenGinger? I am really interested to hear. And what sort of area are you in?

[SkeletonSkins]

The thing is, I have not seen it stated anywhere that the funding used to create more grammars will be matched with funding used to improve these 'terrible' comprehensives to make them the amazing secondary moderns you're promising. How exactly are people proposing that by removing the top 10% and providing no extra funding (in fact, if anything funding will be cut) these schools will improve?

It's the selfishness of grammars that astounds me. How, in a time of huge cuts to school budgets, people can justify such a huge investment being spent on just the top 10% in a way that is known to actually disadvantage the other 90%.

To parents that say, my child needs pushing, needs better opportunities, what about the other 90%? Don't they?

To me, if you're going the plough a heap of funding into one group of children, it has to be the bottom 10%?

[flyingwithwings]

Thanks HFPA for showing those figures !

I agree those Trafford figures don't prove the case for or against selection. However, i just think it is fair to show that different areas have different results and outcomes for all pupils !

I do wonder though if a 40% model works for the reason that all the 'near' misses in a 25-30% model i.e (those that are capable of grammar school admittance but don't make it , would be swallowed up in a 40% model).

A 40% model presumably takes in a much broader ability range and admits most if not all of those that 'aspire' for a grammar school education !

[flyingwithwings]

Warrington has a very similar dynamic as Cheshire East 63.6% GCSE .

The Cohort as such 34% High
51% Middle
15% Low.

Perhaps there are two conclusions for why Trafford scores so highly with 50% High Ability pupils as opposed to Cheshire East/Warrington 1. More Focused teaching at Primary School ?.

2. I believe about 20% of Cheshire east pupils are educated at private schools as well as some traveling in to Trafford . so maybe Some of Trafford' 50% high attaining pupils are Warrington's and Cheshire Easts children !

[HPFA]

I do wonder though if a 40% model works for the reason that all the 'near' misses in a 25-30% model i.e (those that are capable of grammar school admittance but don't make it , would be swallowed up in a 40% model).

Yes, I actually find your model for 40% grammars more logically coherent than the 10% model for this reason. I think if you're going to have grammars either make them incredibly selective like the Tiffins or just go the whole hog!

[Crumbs1]

The national picture is that a higher proportion of children do better in non selective areas.
The ASCL recently heckled Greening as the overwhelming majority of heads are against selective education.
Parental influence and aspiration is single most effective predictor of success.
Grammars probably do best by the just above average kids with pushy parents. Truly bright kids do well anywhere.

[GreenGinger2]

But Skeleton they need to build new schools regardless. They'll be building other new schools too.The kids in said new schools will have the same price tag on their backside wherever they end up.

The bottom 10% already has a lot more funding ploughed into it.

[SkeletonSkins]

So if they need to build new schools, why do high attaining children get to be the only ones who benefit?

And you're not answering the question as to how exactly these mediocre comprehensives that high ability children need rescuing from are going to improve?

[SkeletonSkins]

The bottom 10% certainly do not have schools built for them to cater for their needs. If you argue that comps are failing high attaining children, they are definitely failing low attaining children who end up with no qualifications. What do you suggest should be done for them? Or are they okay just to be left there?

[GreenGinger2]

There are special schools and large amounts of Sen funding.

[noblegiraffe]

Special schools aren't for the bottom 10% and you don't need to be low attaining to be diagnosed with an SEN.

Plus the first £6000 of funding for each individual student with SEN has to come out of the usual school budget.

[Devilishpyjamas]

'Large amounts of SEN funding' ??? Are you having a laugh?

[GreenGinger2]

You know what I meant collectively it's quite a lot of money albeit not enough.

So should all schools which exclude children be held accountable for those who can't access them?

[cantkeepawayforever]

I do think collective responsibility by all schools in an area for all children in an area would be an interesting way forward - so yes, GreenGinger, your grammar could be involved in the collective responsibility for why your local comprehensive does not serve higher ability children well, there would be partnerships between schools where good practice was shared, so the successful model in some areas where comprehensives form pairs or groups to learn from one another could be expanded, the sixth form admissions across all schools could be made a level playing field, with all applicants treated as if they were internal 9rather than e.g. grammar schools or popular schools differentiating between their own y11 pupils and others).

Could be co-ordinated by an LEA ... oh, wait....

[SkeletonSkins]

I think the government needs to look at the budget, look at the funding available and then prioritise by need.

The idea that there is 'mountains' of SEN places/funding is laughable. Also, the fact that you think the bottom 10% are all SEN or would be covered by SEN funding says a lot.

[noblegiraffe]

On another thread someone was moaning about how unfair it was that poor kids got extra resources, now it's unfair that kids with SEN do.

[GreenGinger2]

Who has said it's unfair?

I have a child with Sen who has benefitted from support.

[SkeletonSkins]

Do you realise it is getting more and more difficult for SEN children to get that support due to funding cuts? Yet at the same time are happy for so much money to be spent on grammar schools? There isn't enough money to go around - it needs to go to those most at need. Sorry but it does.

[GreenGinger2]

The money is going to be spent on new schools regardless,some will be grammars . Every child comes with a price tag,where they end up with that price tag doesn't make any difference. They won't get any extra because they go to a grammar.

Some kids don't go to their local comp because they prefer a different one,others go to grammars.

[noblegiraffe]

The money will be spent on new schools, I really can't see the logic behind making those schools automatically inaccessible to the majority of local children.

[GreenGinger2]

Wasn't the plan to have wide catchment areas.

Aren't some comps inaccessible to many children?

[cantkeepawayforever]

Some kids don't go to their local comp because they prefer a different one,others go to grammars.

Green, you talk about 'preference' in the same breath as 'grammars', as if children can go to grammars just by expressing a preference for them...

90%+ of children CANNOT choose a grammar, because they do not pass the entrance test.

[GreenGinger2]

Yes thanks Skeleton I do realise that. So I'm guessing you'd like money taken off more affluent comps with few Sen and PP in order to be sent to those with many?