Conservatives lie about grammar schools in their manifesto. What else are they lying about?

[noblegiraffe]

Here's the quote from the Tory manifesto about bringing back grammar schools:

We will lift the ban on the establishment of selective schools, subject to conditions, such as allowing pupils to join at other ages as well as eleven. Contrary to what some people allege, social research shows that slightly more children from ordinary, working class families attend selective schools as a percentage of the school intake compared to non- selective schools. While the attainment gap between rich and poor pupils stands at 25 per cent across the country, at selective schools it falls to almost zero.

Let's break this down:
Yes, slightly more children from 'ordinary working class families' get into selective schools as a percentage of intake. 36% compared to 35%. However this is because they've excluded anyone who has claimed FSM in the last 6 years from their definition of 'ordinary working families', which is a shocking omission.
If you include families who have claimed FSM in the last 6 years, but aren't currently claiming, then we have 52% of children in non-selective schools being from 'ordinary working families', but only 42% in grammar schools.

Secondly, yes, the attainment gap between rich and poor is much lower at grammars than at non-selective schools, however, poor kids overwhelmingly don't get into grammars. There is a sleight of hand going on here. They've said that ordinary working families are well-represented in grammars (only if you twist the definition of ordinary working family) and then they've followed that up with a comment about poor children, leading an unsuspecting reader to think that lots of poor children benefit from grammars, where in the main, they don't.

Apart from that, allowing children to enter grammars at an age other than 11 seems to be an admission that the 11+ is a load of rubbish as a selection tool. That wouldn't happen anyway because it would be an adminstrative nightmare.

[HPFA]

It just seems so much simpler to accept that grammars/secondary moderns aren't a good system. All the agony that goes into FSM percentages, 13+ entrances, why not just put that effort into good comprehensive schools? We may not be there yet with good comps for all but it seems much simpler than trying to make these divisions work. And I've yet to see any explanation of how secondary moderns will work for those children who are gifted in one subject , like History, but wouldn't have passed the Maths part of the 11+

[minifingerz]

Re: grammars taking children later on, my nephew failed to get in to a grammar at 11, but a couple more years in an academic private prep, along with lots of tutoring got him in at 13.

Meanwhile in state schools the foot comes off the pedal in years 7 and 8, so the gulf between the level of attainment between state and privately educated children is probably wider at 13 than at 10.

[HPFA]

One commentator pointed out on Twitter that TM never takes an opportunity to talk about grammar schools. Perhaps she didn't want to provoke this sort of examination?

[noblegiraffe]

God the papers are a bit slow off the mark aren't they? I posted this thread 9 days ago - they should read Mumsnet!

The Tories didn't just exclude children on FSM from their definition of 'ordinary working families' (which I suppose they could have justified by saying if the kids are on FSM the families aren't in work?) but they also excluded PP kids who aren't FSM, which are mostly kids who have been on FSM in the past 6 years. Given that a third of children qualify for FSM at some point in their school career, saying that these kids aren't from ordinary working families is extraordinary.

[user1471451327]

False data in Tory Manifesto also now featured in the Independent www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/tories-grammar-schools-theresa-may-false-data-claims-education-expert-a7763686.html

To exclude children on FSM to gerrymander the statistics is shocking

[HardcoreLadyType]

My DS failed the 11+ by a few marks. This was because he got in a muddle with the answer sheet (they are computer read) for one of the tests. So, it was one where you had to say which two items were the same as each other (a transformation of some sort, I guess) and he entered both answers on the same box, but should have used two consecutive boxes. This was for a series of five or six questions. He realised the error too late to change his answers.

We are lucky that we had other options, but it goes to show how easy it is to miss out on a grammar place.

[DriftingDreamer]

13 plus awful for schools they leave from as well...scrape off the academic at 11 and then grab a few more at 13. Bastards.
Whole Tory grammar school farce a nightmare and so damaging to current [inclusive ethos] schools if it goes ahead.

[noblegiraffe]

although is there a link to the 'top comps' evidence?

Yep, this graph from the DfE shows that even the top comps for attainment have a significantly lower proportion of relatively affluent families than selective schools.

Independent schools seem to manage this with no problems whatsoever

So? Independent schools have shedloads more money. State school admissions are set up for Y7 entry. To stick an 11+ in there in areas where it is not currently available would be an adminstrative and expensive nightmare. Just because there are schools that already do it doesn't mean it will be an easy task to start from scratch. And introducing a 13+ would be a nightmare even for current grammars. Do they keep places empty in Y7-9? Do they boot failing kids out for the new intake? Does the whole system of appeals and so on start all over again?

[HPFA]

This is very interesting.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/370515/response/984020/attach/2/Meopham%20Grammar%20School%20Report%202017.pdf

It's the result of the consultation on Meopham school becoming a gramma. Majority were opposed but comments very interesting - although the fact that 5 comments in the "pro" section seem to be against and at least one in the "against" section is pro might make you doubt the accuracy. I'm intrigued that 12.5% of the staff don't feel that the change to a grammar would alter the school (why do it then??).
Basically, though the comments show what a local decision it is - parents understandably most influenced by the thought of what would happen to their child. I'm amused by the parent in favour of the proposal because their child had failed the 11+ by two marks. Why didn't she conclude that her child was clearly best suited to the secondary modern?

[HardcoreLadyType]

Clavinova, those Maidenhead parents are in favour of grammars on the basis that they hope their child will get to go to them, because they are likely to be the best schools in the area. Ask them later, when their DC have failed to attain a place, whether they are for or against. I suspect they would be less positive.

You see it quite often on MN - "we were thinking of moving to Kent for the grammars". It doesn't seem to occur to them that their children might fail to get in.

[KittyOShea]

pink and orange roses works in NI? We have both the highest and the lowest achievement in the UK in NI- not working for everyone is it?

Additionally in the area I teach- the secondary modern school has over 50% of pupils on FSM- the grammar- less than 5%.

GS not working for the majority as a state education system should

[HPFA]

Interesting that the education adviser in Maidenhead felt that her opposition to grammar schools put her in a minority - suggesting that most parents in Maidenhead are in favour of grammar schools;

"However, while I was standing in that sunny Maidenhead field, I was in a definite minority...In the local playgrounds and among my mum-friends it’s the same."

There's been no survey of the parents in Maidenhead so we simply don't know what the majority think. Polls done by the national companies show a majority of people of parental age are opposed to new grammars but of course things might be different in a particular area.

This whole issue's simple to resolve anyway. Any new grammar should be subject to a ballot among primary school parents within a given area (not independent schools as this would allow parents a safe bet - their kids will be able to avoid the secondary moderns if they fail). If people want schools to stay comprehensive then they will have that right. If they vote for grammars and secondary moderns then that is also their right. I will campaign for schools to stay comprehensive, clavinova can lead a campaign for the opposite.

[Clavinova]

As per the previous rhetoric I would never have thought that as much as 45% of pupils attending grammar schools come from families earning less than the median - your other statistic doesn't surprise me as that's what we've been told all along, although is there a link to the 'top comps' evidence?

I think it's Labour's pledge that's been undercosted;
"Extending free school meals to all primary school children would cost around £950 million each year. It would not directly benefit the poorest children, who are already entitled to free lunches."

"allowing children to enter grammars at an age other than 11.... wouldn't happen anyway because it would be an adminstrative nightmare."

Why would it be an administrative nightmare? Independent schools seem to manage this with no problems whatsoever - dozens of independent schools in my county hold both 11+ and 13+ exams with hundreds of pupils attending for each set of exams (not CE exams). Realistically, each grammar school will only be able to admit an extra 20-30 pupils before the sixth form which is a similar number to several very academic private schools that I can think of whose main intake is at 11. Also, I think some of the Bucks grammars do this already.

[noblegiraffe]

You find it quite promising that the majority of kids in grammars are from more affluent families, unlike in top comps?

And your praise for the use of evidence to support free breakfasts is rather undermined by the fact that the Tories have woefully undercosted that particular policy and appear to be asking schools to give pupils a 7p breakfast staffed by nobody.

[Clavinova]

educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/breakfast-clubs-found-to-boost-primary-pupils-reading-writing-and-maths-res/

[Clavinova]

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9202

[Clavinova]

Actually, I find it quite promising that 45% of pupils currently attending grammar schools come from families earning less than the median - whatever the composition of that group.

Interesting that the education adviser in Maidenhead felt that her opposition to grammar schools put her in a minority - suggesting that most parents in Maidenhead are in favour of grammar schools;

"However, while I was standing in that sunny Maidenhead field, I was in a definite minority...In the local playgrounds and among my mum-friends it’s the same."

Also, in the last paragraph of her article is a link to research that supports Teresa May's plan to means test free school lunches/provide free school breakfasts instead - which the anti-grammar school adviser in fact calls 'credible, robust evidence' - so not 'any old crap';
IFS and EEF findings on the limited benefits of free school lunches compared to breakfasts.

[noblegiraffe]

The arrogance with which TM approached this election was breathtaking. So confident of a landslide victory, she thought she could spout any old crap and it wouldn't make a difference because this election was all about Brexit. Fox-hunting, FFS, what was she thinking? The vast majority of the population hate fox-hunting and the rest vote Tory anyway. Gobsmacking that she would just toss it out there.

I really hope that when looking at the polls this week she actually had to contemplate the possibility of a loss. She won't lose, but at least it might prompt her to treat the electorate with a bit more respect and less utter contempt.

[HPFA]

'Hang on Nick, that's shit, leave it out'.

The knives are out for NT, there's no doubt - the manifesto is universally held to be a disaster - it will be down to the size of the majority whether he hangs on I imagine.

I think people got so used to the government lying about the evidence they sort of shrugged their shoulders at just a little bit more. The one thing I've enjoyed in this election is people realising just how useless TM is. (Times editorial pretty scathing this morning).It isn't just that I dislike the policy (although I do). It's the insult to our intelligence of her putting her own emotional connection to the grammar school myth above the interests of our children. The fact that in the Commons she's been screaming "Where did you go to school?" at the Opposition benches like some low-brained Twitter troll. I went to an election education hustings on Saturday where I actually felt sorry for the Tory candidate - an intelligent woman who clearly knew it was garbage and yet had to pretend to defend it. Why has she put her candidates in this position?

[noblegiraffe]

Oh look, someone else has spotted the lying about grammar evidence in the manifesto, it's about time this got some press:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40043891

[TestTubeTeen]

If the evidence was there in support of the reintroduction of Grammars, I would change my view.

I would accept that my experience in a grammar and being the parent of Dc in successful comps, in a tricky area of London, where the schooling makes a contribution to social cohesion, and where in my work I have contact with a wide range of comps, is anecdotal in the grand scheme of things.

Decisions about education should not be made unless based on evidence.

[noblegiraffe]

I don't know. We're still waiting for the responses to the Ebacc consultation to be published. They're about 18 months overdue. Guess what's in the Tory manifesto without them being published?

If they can be FOI'd then Laura McInerney will be on it.

[TestTubeTeen]

Can a FOI request force the release of the Green Paper consultation?

[noblegiraffe]

I saw that. Appalling. Grammar schools were Nick Timothy's idea, and we all know what else he was responsible for - the dementia tax. That was also shoved in as Tory policy at the last minute without anyone else being briefed about it because they'd go 'Hang on Nick, that's shit, leave it out'.

What dirt has he got on TM that she is so beholden to him?