Bits of news on the grammar school issue

[HPFA]

Two snippets of news

schoolsweek.co.uk/film-company-targets-grammar-teachers-in-recruitment-video/?utm_content=bufferb7668&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Unclear exactly why grammar teachers are being targeted to tempt people into teaching. Perhaps to tempt recruits by suggesting they can have a nice career only teaching the easy kids.

And another piece of news:

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/exclusive-church-england-not-interested-opening-new-grammar-schools

This is perhaps hardly surprising. Since faith schools are already so heavily criticised for being socially exclusive it would hardly do the C of E's image much good to open up schools explicitly targeting the already advantaged. Still welcome news to those of us on the pro-comprehensive side.

No Taxation without representation phrase, generally attributed to James Otis about 1761, that reflected the resentment of American colonists at being taxed by a British Parliament to which they elected no representatives and became an anti-British slogan before the American Revolution; in full, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”.

In the case of the grammar school/selective school debate . The argument could suggest that the tax payers that wish for selective education are paying tax without representation.

them already writes for The Guardian in her spare time aged 20. It's amazing how comprehensive schooling opens so many doors....

It won't be such a good gig when they have to get on the 8.10 from Euston !

This is just a general question to those in the know. Are there any consultations that show the current year 7's containing info on the make ups of the schools since some grammars have recently opened up their intake (slightly).

Don't worry- anyone reading-"The majority of pupils in selective schools come from affluent families.

All that means is the highest tax payers are getting 'quite' rightly access to the best schools for their children !"- will realise instantly what "jumping the shark" means!

Can I just say I am disgusted at the 'quite rightly' comment?
We've discussed the social make up issue before. It is slightly more complex than just the tutoring issue. Many members of the general public believe you have to pay fees while you're at grammar!

If we return to grammars and secondary moderns then presumably Fiona Millar and others will get their children into grammar schools. Then the success of their progeny will be attributed to those schools. Or they''ll be like Chris Mullin who was sent private after he failed the 11+. The already advantaged will always have a better chance whatever system is used.

Noble Have I interpreted the figures correctly or do they show that the percentage of pupils form below income families is relatively stable in all types of schools including the the "top" comprehensives? Would this contradict the government's claims that only rich pupils can access the top comprehensives?

twitter.com/drbeckyallen/status/852275762728230913

I like this one. Haven't bothered to look up the reason why the author is not allowed to talk about selection.

As I've stated before the economic 'selection' comes before the test in my experience. Despite outreach from our school and attempts to get correct information out the students taking the exam are not hugely diverse. I would say the majority are state school but that there are more private school students percentage wise than the population would suggest.
When I sat my exam you sat it in your primary school, I think access was better then.

Would this contradict the government's claims that only rich pupils can access the top comprehensives?

The report is a bit baffling, to be honest. It's a clear example of policy-based evidence, yet it doesn't support their policy. Justine Greening is apparently going to argue today that grammars serve ordinary working families and not just the wealthy off the back of a report that shows even the highest attaining comps serve a greater proportion of kids from modest and low/no income families.
And she is deliberately excluding families on pupil premium who aren't currently receiving FSM from the definition of 'ordinary working families'.

I reckon Theresa May is under the mistaken impression she came from an ordinary working family, herself. Years of mixing with the publicly educated has addled her brain and she doesn't even realise that the majority of people in this country are beneath her contempt.

Donna is spot on. It's worth noting existing grammar schools are struggling financially (basic things like books) and unless they're in London they are also having problems recruiting teachers. They are very lucky that parents are more likely to buy books and pay for tutors but I doubt that's a great comfort to a teacher who just wants to do a good job.
The fact is that inequality starts in early years and the government would be better off investing in intervention at that stage and throughout primary if it really wanted to tackle it. The 11 plus will always be too blunt an instrument - you can't improve outcomes by making a system more divisive but allowing a few 'lucky' ones to escape. It's also far too early - the natural point for choosing pathways would begin around 14/15.
State education should aim for the best possible provision for the greatest number. It should be even better provision in areas of greatest need. Free school grammars will only appear in areas where people want to set them up - that isn't the basis of good policy and won't make any difference. It'll just benefit a few more people who pay for tutoring. I really think we're much more likely to see lots more religious schools than grammars.
Disclaimer - I went to two grammar schools. My dcs go to the local comprehensive. I teach with the Brilliant Club and in Further Education. I'm probably not supposed to have an opinion on anything!

I agree resources should be spent in early years, but what is early years. Is that nursery at age 3-4. If nursery is a half day, and would be useful to extend to whole day to bring on those who need extra help.

Loose I think we've pretty well established that no-one is allowed to be in favour of comprehensives. It is annoying, however there are grammar supporters on this thread who don't use this line - best just to have reasoned arguments with them!

Noble I think there will be a lot more articles like this one. cogitateit.wordpress.com/2017/04/13/voodoo-statistics/
Won't make much difference as the government will simply invent a new set of "facts" Glad to see Justine Greening's chosen line of "New grammar schools which will be open to all" is getting the mockery it deserves.

As for the not supposed to have an opinion , well it seems like a never ending one way street or monotone of posters, media getting airtime decrying selection !

At times it appears i am a lone voice putting forward selective schooling , or is it anyone favoring selection has been shouted down by the left wing establishment !

The consequence of which means on forums like this we have one 'world' view backed up by even posters that work in grammar schools !

Bertrand Being 'Autistic' irony and sarcasm don't compute ,so i was rather pleased that you believed at one time my posts were 'quality' .

Flying If you look on social media there are plenty of people who do support grammar schools.

You're always honest and don't use the "you're not entitled to discuss this because your grandfather went to a grammar" so I think you should stick with the thread, even if you do feel like a lone voice.

Flying with wings, I favour grammar schools, too. Both my boys are at a superselective grammar school.

Angela Rayner seems to have done a good job here:

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/greening-targets-ordinary-families-in-grammar-schools-drive

"“This is a classic case of policy-based evidence-making. If your kids get free school meals or qualify for the pupil premium, the government doesn’t think you’re an ‘ordinary working family’,” Angela Rayner, Labour’s shadow education secretary, said.

“But however they try to fiddle the figures, the facts are clear and simple. There is no evidence that new grammar schools will do anything for social mobility.

“Instead of wasting time and money on Theresa May’s pet projects, they should be solving the real problems facing our schools and keeping their promise to protect funding for every child.”"

Both my boys are at a superselective grammar school.

By the same logic as applies to comprehensive supporters this should really disqualify you from having an opinion on grammar schools! However I can't remember you ever using "the line" so it's fine by me!! I would put on the joke face if I could work out how to do it.

I still can't get over Clavinova disqualifying someone from arguing against selection because they went to a crappy college instead of a sixth form.

I mean, that really is desperate, having to come up with bizarre reasons to try to discredit people instead of their arguments.

HPFA, I am honest hence why I get into trouble on this forum a lot. Previous posts will show how pro grammar school I am. But I was never pro for social mobility reasons, it was more to fame the best possible state school for the boys. Sorry.😟

Game not fame

I've been hauled over the coals on many a grammar thread!
I will just say, it increasingly sounds like what they're suggesting isn't grammar school in the sense of the one I work (or the one I went to). For super selectives to be super selective there will not be many of them. Super selectives are my favoured model by the way (prepares to be attacked). For a start the large catchment minimises the impact on local secondaries meaning they pretty much are comprehensives.
However, now is not the time to messing around in this ridiculous expensive way. The schools we already have need more money. All state schools need more investment. And soon. It really is quite desperate. The thought that a PM is more concerned with pissing money away on a vanity project makes me sick.

I can see the argument for super selectives. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. I just can't see any argument for other selectives. That's why I have respect for people who say straight out "yes, I think it's a crap system but I support it because it's best for my child". I deplore their mindset but respect their honesty.

All I know was superselective was definitely the right choice for me. I was lazy but had a competitive streak. I also love where I teach.
I also loved my first placement school (comp in Hayes). Hated my second placement (girls comp in Surrey). But there we go.
Regardless of all the above Teresa May's current policy plan is rubbish and a waste of money.
When there's a element of educational policy on selection that has me agreeing with Betrand and Noble then I think we can say with confidence that it is a bloody stupid policy.

I also govt does not pay lip service to technical/stem schools. They are key for those who may have a different focus