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

[This is at a school with raw results that are pretty good, and progress 8 for all abilities that are higher than most grammars]

So no setting in Geography,History,French,German,Chemistry,Physics or Biology?

Tutoring for Sats happens in many primaries too.

Yes they can HPFA if built in the right area.

Well, that's good because of course I can trust a government which cynically misuses data and ignores evidence to protect good schools when a small group of parents decides that they want a school without rough kids.

Chemistry Physics and Biology are covered by Science surely?

I can't speak for other schools but in mine we set for English, Maths and Science with very broad setting in French. Everything else is mixed ability.
I teach history, we don't set and I would fight any attempt to implement setting in my subject tooth-and-nail. It's neither necessary nor desirable.

Sciences are set, as I said. GCSE geography and history are 'lightly set', because they are available in multiple option blocks so once the timetabling is done, setting is somewhat light touch. Languages are, again, lightly set for GCSE.

Oddly, setting is much more prevalent in Y9 than once options are chosen.

By 'lightly set', I mean that double lingusts are in the same GCSE sets, but the rest will depend on timetabling at GCSE.

So how do you teach those writing GCSE grade A essays in year 8 with those struggling to write in the same class. How do you push both to the best of their ability and stop the top from disengaging,losing interest and sitting back?

And surely Eng,Maths,2 languages and 3 sciences are quite a lot.

Thanks for the link, I suspected it might have been Peter Read's blog.

Because there is considerable movement between the West Kent towns to attend grammar schools, I am looking at West Kent as a whole in this article. There are certainly some opportunities for young people from NS selective schools to transfer to grammar, with Weald of Kent taking in 28 last year and Tunbridge Wells Boys 15, Weald admitting boys and girls. However, after Tunbridge Wells Girls with 7, the other four grammar schools, take in just 10 NS students between them, all schools looking for the highest performers at GCSE. Of the three Tonbridge NS schools, two Hayesbrook and Hillview account for every one of the 36 students moving on to grammar schools, with Hugh Christie none. Of the four schools that market themselves as comprehensive, Bennett Memorial lost 13 (although still attracting by some way the largest number of A Level students of any NS school in Kent) and St Gregory’s just three, with Knole and Mascalls both seeing seven students transfer. Hillview School for Girls, which lost 19, still has the second largest A Level numbers of any NS school in Kent at 133, At the bottom, High Weald saw two and Hugh Christie, none, although the latter is running a successful A Level Sixth Form of its own. Mascalls with its A Level number at 81, had the best Grades of any NS School, higher than eight six grammar schools.

Last modified on Sunday, 12 March 2017 19:45*

He specialised in grammar school appeals for pupils who didn't pass the 11plus, very successful at it. I recommended him to two friends who used him and got girls in to Weald.

Low ability does not equal SEN.

DS has 2 totally mixed ability GCSE subjects, and 3 that are essentially divided mainly by timetabling but, as he's a double linguist, he is with the other double linguists in the 'shared' language [3 main languages offered, but due to choices of which to study, there is a 'central' language which all double linguists do]

DD will have 3 totally mixed ability, 2 mostly by timetabling.

As I say, very high Progress 8 for all abilities, higher than grammars for high ability pupils.

I don't really know how we do it but seemingly we do a better job of pushing the brightest than the local super selective manage with settled groups of super bright kids.
In all seriousness, it's about getting them engaged with the content and pushing them all to think about big ideas and aim for gcse-style structure. The weaker ones won't quite pull it off but we don't have foundation papers so they'll all be doing the same stuff at gcse anyway so it's best that they get as much practice as possible aiming for that style of writing.

Tbh, I don't know how it is done - I presume exactly as I teach children who can just read all the way up to those exceeding late KS2 expectations in my class: differentiation, support and planning.

The other grammar's that he refers to are superselective, so that follows really.

I've done that, know how horrendously hard it is and not that great for those at the top or bottom.

Green, it depends by what you mean by 'not that great' - if you mean 'they don't make the progress they are capable of', the progress 8 results absolutely contradict that.

Great that your comp pulls it off but it certainly isn't the case for all. Not surprised really as it must be horrendously hard to do.

I thought Wilshaw was a huge fan of setting.

"Why are clever privileged children more important than anyone else?"

How about specialist schools for the bottom 10%, instead? At this level, you might actually have good reason to argue that a less academic education would be appropriate.

They would probably need more funding than other schools, though.

This thread is moving so fast. It is a heated topic, which shows that what is out there obviously isn't working for the greater good of everyone.

Can't keep away-I believe all schools need a music/arts program that is supported by the head. This shouldn't be set. It encompasses many skills and subjects. This is waning in state schools. The government doesn't deem it important, even though it has been proven to raise attainment across the board. They need decent science labs as well as a curriculum that challenges the most able as well as those struggling. They need more advance math, languages and English lessons. They need to have behaviour under control so those that want to learn can. They need a better all around curriculum that includes sport. Many kids find themselves in sport and the programs at many Secondary schools are very minimal or hardly there at all. Many kids only get this if their parents have time and money to invest in it after school and on the weekends. All the more reason to have it provided in the state system.

I have an older DC in a very good comp which does the above mentioned. Doing well socially and academically. It gets great results and provides good opportunities. Not my local school, but DC got in on the selective banding test.

My 2nd DS will get the above mentioned at the grammar he is attending in September (which is in the top 5%, not the 25% figure listed by HPFA). That's a big difference. I don't think our local school would do much for him.

What I find incredibly unfair, is that the children at our local school won't get the above as well, because the ethos of the school is different.

My children going there isn't going to make a difference to the school or to the learning of the other kids. What would make a difference to the kids at the school is a better curriculum. A better curriculum would begin to attract better students, but a banding system balances this out so better doesn't just mean top sets.

I often think that the irony of private schools is that the children who would most benefit from them are the children who would never in a million years get to go to one.

Ps I would be against the idea, just testing the logic of the separation of both ends of the spectrum from the masses...

If I had a gun to my head and had to separate off 10% for special treatment it would be the "bottom" 10% every time.

BertrandRussell, I agree with your irony comment, but at least some of the very good privates schools in our area do offer full bursaries, for those who can't pay but have the ability. I know some lovely children who are getting their education that way, from single parent families and low income.

Also, at our primary there were so many things in place to help the bottom 10%. It often felt like that was where most of the funding was going.