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

there not their

The release of today's news article about the DfE research into selection by house price indicates that the government announcement is due anytime soon, so don't all exhaust yourselves before noble's next announcement related thread.

We'll always have the energy to go round the argument one more time! Seriously though the fact that the government is willing to issue completely misleading data in this way ought to depress the hell out of us all, no matter what side of the argument we're on.

On my last post,not correcting anybody else

"Parents do the best they can."

Yes, the sharp-elbowed do - disregarding the equally valid needs of all others.

What would you suggest that someone living next door to you should do, if they had an 11th centile child (ie a marginal grammar fail) rather than a 10th centile child (a marginal grammar pass)? Do they deserve to have one less school to choose from than you do?

notenough, how can a school improve its provision for children 'like your DS', if children like your DS do not attend it? It's a bit of a circular argument, surely?

hat would you suggest that someone living next door to you should do, if they had an 11th centile child (ie a marginal grammar fail) rather than a 10th centile child (a marginal grammar pass)? Do they deserve to have one less school to choose from than you do?

I have answered that by suggesting grammar schools should take up to the top 40% !

Why are clever privileged children more important than anyone else?

same applies at every margin - 39th vs 41st, if you like. 24th vs 26th in Kent.

The point Green is making is that she NEEDS an extra choice because the schools near her aren't quite as good as she would like them to be. I was asking whether she thought it was fair that someone living next to her, with virtually indistinguishable ability but based on a single test day, would not have that choice.

noble in your last thread you hotly denied that a main plank of argument of those opposing grammars is that the DC at the non grammars do less well if the brightest are removed

Did I? I've argued quite a lot that puttting bright kids in a separate school makes the remaining schools worse so that doesn't sound right.

before noble's next announcement related thread.

Should I start a new thread to discuss the revelation that there isn't enough money in the budget for all these new promised grammars?

Well in my road kids go to two or three different comps and two grammars. Most houses have one in the grammar and one in a comp. I doubt they'd give a shit.

And re sharp elbows you want sharp elbows when it counts. Your argument for having a few bright kids that don't in reality ever sit in the same classes as everybody else in a school is their sharp elbowed parents and the benefits they bring.So some parents can only be pushy in order to help other people's kids but not their own.

Sorry but the middles classes are a huge band. The top rich have money and contacts,those on pp have a priority allowance ( in grammar schools only not comps)and other support. Sharp elbows are all the rest of us have. My kids won't have a private education to fall back on and open doors,they won't have money and contacts to buy internships and jobs. All they will have is hard graft,our hard work and our sharp elbows. I refuse to apologise for any.

that if you define the "best schools" using raw figures of exam results you will always find the "best schools" are in wealthy areas.

Indeed. If the DfE wanted to sort this out, they could just stop publishing headline figures and only publish progress figures, so that parents wouldn't keep getting a potentially false impression of whether a school is any good or not.

I would love to see the horror at 'DfE league table decision caused my house to drop in value by £45k'

Should I start a new thread to discuss the revelation that there isn't enough money in the budget for all these new promised grammars?

How about one to discuss the fact that we were repeatedly told that the new grammars "would only be where people want them" yet apparently the government already knows that we will want about 140? Or the fact that people will be able to choose to have a grammar but won't get a choice to keep their local comprehensive?

Yes if you look back noble you did say exactly that. I thought it was odd at the time.

Green If I lived in your area and wanted to have all comprehensives I'd have to get 25% of parents to sign a petition and then there would have to be a ballot in which a majority of parents agreed to abolish the grammars.

But if you were a grammar supporting parent in my town (once the government has its way with free schools) so long as you could get together enough parents who agreed with you that would be enough. Existing schools would become secondary moderns and that would be that. Even if 80 or 90% of parents wanted to keep the comprehensives the way they were they wouldn't have any power to do so.

How is that fair?

Ah, OK Green.

That's why we will never agree on these threads - because I,. fundamentally, value the common good, and you, fundamentally, want the best for your children and don't mind about the rest.

It's OK, it's just different value systems, and i don't think will be able to change your value system any more than you will be able to change mine.

I've looked back, goodbye and that's not what I said. I disagreed that the main plank of the anti-grammar argument is that 'the most able encourage the less able'.

I still disagree with that. I don't think 'encouraging' is much to do with anything.

But any new free school can poach parents from existing schools regardless of how many parents wanted to keep the status quo.

I think the meaning is identical isn't it noble? That the brightest have to lose out to bring up the rest? I think that was the terminology used.

The thing is, at the moment free schools have the same - comprehensive - status as other schools. Allowing them to cherry-pick only the brightest children by making them grammars is very significantly different.

(It appears that attempting to make free schools successful in some areas by removing free bus passes to well established 'catchment' schools because a village happens to be slightly closer to a totally unproven free school wasn't quite successful enough for free schools to be heralded a wonderful educational bright new dawn)

And re sharp elbows you want sharp elbows when it counts. Your argument for having a few bright kids that don't in reality ever sit in the same classes as everybody else in a school is their sharp elbowed parents and the benefits they bring.So some parents can only be pushy in order to help other people's kids but not their own.

That is a very valid point Green, interesting.

There does sometimes to be a sort of superstitious thinking going on- that somehow the presence of middle and lower ability children drains the power of the high ability children. As if some sort of equilibrium has to be reached- an academic valency. And high ability children have to be whisked away to protect them from the process...................

I think the meaning is identical isn't it noble?

No, not at all. I think identifying one school as the desirable school and the other as not so desirable will make the non-desirable one worse, whether the desirable kids is 'just' for bright kids or not.

Ah we forgot your moral superioriority and caring for the common good Can.

Of course absolutely nobody who supports comps puts their kids first and forgets about the rest.

You know diddly squat about my value system or what I give towards the common good thanks. I know several parents with kids at grammar and you'll be pleased to know their value systems are fully intact and many do an awful lot for the common good.

Ginger, you just said in terms that you made no apology for putting your own child first and utilizing your elbows. You can't get stroppy when people agree with you!