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]

A school which only serves the top 20% in terms of wealth would, by definition, have a %PP of 0.

This is demonstrably not the case. I know that you are frustrated because you cannot buy a house similar to your own in the catchment of one of the 'top comps' that you covet - though whenI did research your figures, 4 bedroom family homes were available for very significantly less than the £500k you kept mentioning as the absolute minimum. However, those families who have always lived in those catchments do get in, regardless of their wealth - just outsiders can't cheaply buy themselves a place, which I realise you resent.

[cantkeepawayforever]

Yes, anyone who LIVES IN THE CATCMENT can attend. If your family has lived in an area for 10 or 20 years, then the current value of your house is not at issue - you live in it, you are in the catchment, you attend the school. The house prices - driven up by people like you, of course - mean that incomers find it more difficult to buy a place. Permanent residents, however modest their house, can get in.

[GreenGinger2]

Oh so there is no problem? Sutton doesn't agree.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39076204

Think I'll leave you to it,going over the same old ground. My bed is calling.

[roundaboutthetown]

The top grammar schools exclude the most deprived more successfully than other state schools. Why spend lots of money on shit grammar schools for poor people that rich people are delighted to avoid? Opening more grammar schools will either just provide more school places for parents with the means and wherewithall to elbow everyone else out of the way, or result in the less well off missing out even more than they do now, as the 90% more deprived children who don't get to the grammar schools will end up at schools with even lower aspirations than the ones they are in, now, and the other 10% will end up in the grammar schools everyone else is avoiding.

[HPFA]

Should be noted that the "top comps" people like the Sutton Trust refer to are simply those with the highest results. Despite the introduction of Progress 8 that still tends to mean the ones with the highest attaining students to start with. It doesn't necessarily mean that these are "better" than others or that an individual child won't do equally well at another school.

People seem to think that the Sutton Trust has somehow identified the "best" schools but it hasn't.

It's one of the problems that comps have - that even if we had a perfect measure of pupil's progress and every pupil was making the progress they were "supposed" to people would still believe that some
comps were better and that their child "should" have access to them.

[HPFA]

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

Yes, that pretty well sums it up.

[HPFA]

If Noble's still around this is the reason none of the founders of the alliance are "allowed" to speak about comps.

NM's parents sent her private, so she's not allowed to have her own opinion.

NC - as above and his child's comp doesn't count because it's too good.

LP- went to inner city comp and her children also go to inner city comp (the same one) but apparently she did A-Levels at a state sixth form college held to be good in Manchester so that means she's not allowed a voice either.

Couldn't make it up.

[SoulAccount]

I agree, the Sutton Trust definition is problematic, and highlights a somewhat circular situation.

The stats about access to schools rated Outstanding are an issue. (Though I thought our school was better when it was still rated 'Good' ).

Wealthy parents avoid failing schools, by moving away or going private. Non wealthy parents do not have that leeway.

The solution is investing in better schools / better comps that serve all our children well.

Mind you, we have outstanding rated schools in our borough that white mc families avoid. A school can be outstanding in it's management and teaching, have great Progress 8 and still low average A*-C results.

[cantkeepawayforever]

GreenGinger,

Just thinking of an analogy that might illustrate the point we are making:

If you look at the stats, many of the schools that 'outperform the norm' are Catholic.

The current proposal for grammars is very analogous to the government saying 'we propose that every area should have a new Catholic school, with restrictive entry policies based on evidence of practising Catholicism. We will make extra money available for this, but no money to improve or enlarge any other schools'.

Would you regard that as a wholly fair and reasonable approach, which benefited all children in all areas? (Tbh, it is less divisive, because Catholic schools don't discriminate against those who are the poorest, might well have average numbers of children with behavioural difficulties, and wouldn't be relative magnets for good teachers... )

[Piglet208]

At a time when most teachers are criticising the over examination of young children it seems uninformed for May to be proposing to g backwards to an education system which will segregate by the results earned at 11. Cue all the disenchanted teachers leaving comprehensives to go and become 11 plus tutors. Believe me that comprehensives will be disadvantaged more than ever by being left with such a majority of children who are struggling and the children who only just missed passing their 11 plus exam may never reach their full potential. I was a working class grammar school girl who benefited greatly from an excellent education but many of my friends at the l cal comp suffered.

[HPFA]

The problem for the government is that they really have no coherent or intellectual basis for what they're trying to do. You can make a logical argument for extreme superselectives on the grounds that this caters for outliers or you can go for the full Flying model and ensure that on any reasonable definition of "the brightest" they will all get in! Instead they seem to be coming up with some mad hodgepodge which will put a selective school in Maidenhead where not only are the comps very good but people can already access grammars in the next county!

[noblegiraffe]

apparently she did A-Levels at a state sixth form college held to be good in Manchester

And now she wants to pull the ladder up after her? What a hypocrite..

Don't forget Angela Rayner isn't allowed to talk about grammars because she left her comp pregnant and with no GCSEs so is too thick to talk about social mobility

[HPFA]

I will get off here, I promise.

Here are some stats form you gov which show that contrary to popular myth people from private and grammar schools are much more likely to want grammars than those who've been to comprehensives

d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mg1zhmw24j/TimesResults_160915_GrammarSchools_withEnglandBreak_Website.pdf

So it's pretty odd that those who went to the supposedly awful comps seem to prefer them to a return to selection.

And also, how come it's not OK for people who went private to advocate FOR comps (because "they don't know anything about them") but it's fine for the same people to be AGAINST them even though they presumably don't know anything about them?

[bojorojo]

Obviously Maidenhead is a special case as it is Theresa's May's constituency. It does illustrate the point very neatly that free schools are often not where they are needed. The one thing that comes out of this debate, every time, is that parents want a good local school. People who do not have a grammar school think the grass is greener if there is a grammar school. It can just be envy. More Grammar schools are not needed, but excellent local schools which can teach every child to the best of their ability are needed. The way out of the problem is to have many more excellent teachers. This is the difference between a poor school and a good school in very many cases. Why is there a concentration of poor schools in the North and Midlands? Who is addressing that? Urgently. School improvement has little to do with grammar schools taking the highest of the high achievers because the rest of the schools will struggle even more.

Also, PP children are not necessarily poor. They are also service families and parents can be Pilots or Majors.

[Notenoughsleepmumof3]

BOJOROJO-'School improvement has little to do with grammar schools taking the highest of the high achievers because the rest of the schools will struggle even more.'

I agree with this statement. Schools need improving and need to be much more aspirational. The normal state secondary schools in our area are good for an average student or a SEN pupil, but if you have a bright child, there isn't a lot on offer. If they want to do advanced work, they most likely will be doing it independently at our local school or on the computer (that's not a great school experience). And the primary that feeds into our local secondary school is working towards average standards. Hence the last 2 years of primary school for a bright child is pretty poor.

So, from my perspective, I'm pleased there are some excellent state possibilities for my own children which have a selective stream and/or are a grammar.

What's on offer for my kids at these selective schools is equal to a private school and the teaching is excellent. The kids want to learn and it is not disruptive in the classroom.

Something needs to be in place for the bright, just like things need to be in place to SEN. Otherwise those minds will be lost from boredom and we will continue to have people in power who are the privately educated and really do not have a clue what it is like for the majority of the country.

I think more schools should try and attract the bright kids. It helps raise attainment for everyone. And the curriculum needs to be better for these schools.

[minifingerz]

"Something needs to be in place for the bright"

What - you think 'bright' kids need better teaching and a less disruptive learning environment than less able kids?

[flyingwithwings]

Bright kids have more to lose from disruption than less able Kids !

I say that as a child that had Undiagnosed SEN and was near the bottom of her 'Modern' school in Kent !

[DriftingDreamer]

What?!!!!

[minifingerz]

"Bright kids have more to lose from disruption than less able Kids !"



Bright children are better at learning. They pick up ideas more quickly, are more able to work independently, and on the whole get vastly more parental support outside school. They absolutely DO NOT have more to lose than children who may struggle to process new ideas. They absolutely DO NOT struggle more to learn in challenging classroom environments than less able children.

[noblegiraffe]

We've had the deserving and undeserving poor, now we've got the deserving and undeserving child.

[minifingerz]

Noble - there is an unshakeable belief among son MN that 'bright' children are few and far between and that they are most definitely 'special'.

My personal experience is that lots of children are 'bright' and have amazing potential. Some of these bright children may be high achievers at school but some won't be. There will be 'bright' children in the lower sets in a primary school and some averagely bright but very hard working and well supported children in the top sets.

[SoulAccount]

I went to a grammar, and it is because of my experience that I do not believe a return is warranted.

My DC go to a comp, and I observe their experience and education closely, and because of this I believe that we should invest in comps and ensure that every comp gives every student the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

My experience of a grammar in the year dot is not remotely comparable to what is happening with selective schooling now, and my DC's comp is certainly not like the horror comps of the 70s and 80s.

Experience from the 70s and 80s is just not relevant now, either side of the debate. What we see NOW is relevant.

[HPFA]

A follow on from the house price and school issue

twitter.com/Jack_Marwood/status/843582260787994624

Ignoring the perhaps overdone sarcasm, pretty well sums up the ludicrous over-simplification of Sunday Times headline.

[flyingwithwings]

Disruption might cost a bright child the chance of A grades !

How much time is lost for instance when a teacher has to keep giving 'pupils' pens and paper (a game played by pupils not bringing pens on purpose). This is not down to 'poverty' but is done for amusement only.

I wonder would that even get put down as 'Malignant' behaviour destroying the classes potential education. Whereas if child shouts out an answer in class , they are liable to be admonished .

Finally a child in a GCSE class for 'Tokenism' reasons, future is not going to be affected if they achieve a U instead of an E grade .

We need to get away from a belief pattern that an E for a non academic pupil is equal to an A for an academic pupil !

[flyingwithwings]

Soul Account. It would have been worse experience at the 'Comp' or Modern...