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

[cantkeepawayforever]

If a family has lived in a particular place, in the catchment of a particular school, all their lives, then whatever their ability and income, they can attend it.

Yes, i know that you think it unfair that not every family can instantly move into the catchment of any school at low cost and get into that school - but that's slightly different, isn't it?

[SkeletonSkins]

But what I'm saying is why should the top 10% be the only ones to benefit from the new school? Why them?

[cantkeepawayforever]

Green, that is in fact what the new funding formula does, quite effectively. Certainly in the area I live in, the comprehensives in more affluent areas will lose significantly, while those in more deprived areas gain somewhat.

[GreenGinger2]

And many are excluded from the comps they want due to being priced out either by property or transport.

If said grammars get no extra funding why the angst anyway if they don't suit that 90%?Many wouldn't give you a thankyou for a place in a grammar.They're not missing out on anything. The many many more who miss out on their preferred choice of comp however are.

[GreenGinger2]

Skeleton how are they benefitting?

[GreenGinger2]

But Can't what if they live in a shit area with shit schools? They should be able to move to a better one. Many can't because of the cost.

[SkeletonSkins]

Because you yourself by advocating grammars are saying that the comps they are currently at do not feel the bill. A poor comp is a poor comp for all the kids, not just the top 10%. Why do only the top 10% get the better school?

So say you have an area with an oversubscribed mediocre comp. You build a grammar, the top 10% get the better school (unless you're suggesting creating an equally mediocre grammar? Which would seem a bit bizarre). You build a really good comp, children of all abilities have a shot at getting into the better school.

[SkeletonSkins]

Green but surely the answer to the shit area shit schools scenario is spend the money creating great schools open to all in said shit area.

[GreenGinger2]

A poor comp is not necessarily crap for all kids,progress 8 levels can vary.Sometimes they can suit the middle just fine.

You can build a fab new comp however there will be a catchment area and some will be excluded.

What is also wrong with sending your kid to a grammar just because you want to in the same way some prefer the comp on the other side of town or the more sporty,musical,religious comp....

[GreenGinger2]

How do you do that Skeleton? It's not as simple as just writing a cheque?

[cantkeepawayforever]

Green, why should only the top 10% be able to 'parachute' themselves out of the area with poor schools? Why not spend the money either building a better school or on enabling the poor schools to learn from the good schools elsewhere? That would benefit all the children?

[cantkeepawayforever]

Green, IF the grammar is open TO ALL WHO WANT IT, then there is no issue. If, on the other hand, it 'buys' its 'better school status' at the expense of the 90% of children it actively excludes, that is obviously wrong.

[GreenGinger2]

Just writing a cheque won't work.Re the poor learning from the good,doesn't that already happen?

[SkeletonSkins]

Hahahahha so a poor comp that is 'good enough' for the middles is the answer then.

It would be much cheaper to enhance existing good comps to support higher attainers.

[GreenGinger2]

If the comp is open to all who want it there would be no problem either. That doesn't happen.

[noblegiraffe]

Well opening up a grammar then necessitates the need for a grammar test which then creates a huge amount of admin, unnecessary stress for 10 year olds, and a no-doubt booming tutoring industry, plus it will line the pockets of any local prep schools.

And after all that, it won't even reliably pick the 'right' kids, any test throws up loads of false positives and negatives.

[SkeletonSkins]

But shouldn't our goal be to provide a quality education for all? It is unnecessary to put higher attaining children in a different school in order for them to do this - the existence of successful comps proves this.

The idea that we shouldn't built nice new comps in poor areas because some won't get in as an argument FOR grammars is laughable.

[SkeletonSkins]

To make my stand point clear, I think if you're going to benefit one group of children over another, the high attaining children are absolutely not the most at need. No where near.

[GreenGinger2]

Yeah Nick Clegg's school looks fab,sadly only an option for the wealthiest 20% as are the rest of the top comps.

[GreenGinger2]

So you just build a shiny new comp,in a poor area and bingo the residents get an Outstanding school that pushes all to the highest standards. Wow who knew it was that simple.

You keep talking about benefits,what are the benefits of attending the tiny number of grammar schools suggested?

[cantkeepawayforever]

Green, in the course of looking at the schools you mentioned that you would have liked your children to attend, I did see that one of them was paired with a comp close to it that had been in difficulties (RI / Satisfactory). Said comp is now Good, with results improving year on year. Ofsted specifically refers to how link with its partner school has contributed to this improvement.

[noblegiraffe]

If the London Oratory is only an option for the wealthiest 20%, how come it has a FSM rate of 9.5%?

[GreenGinger2]

Sorry not sure what you mean.

[cantkeepawayforever]

"only an option for the wealthiest 20% as are the rest of the top comps."

Are you sure that only wealthy children attend the out of London 'top comps' that you repeatedly refer to? The lowest %PP I have found for any of those schools has been 8% - which would rank as 'extremely high' if compared with PP levels at grammar schools.

[GreenGinger2]

So anybody without access to social housing could attend?

Same pp figures as our grammar,you don't need social housing,a religion or a £2 million house to attend though.