May has got her Grammars.

[ScrubTheDecks]

Despite widespread lack of support from the education sector. Despite not having got a majority for her manifesto determination on this. Despite the Tories having cancelled BSF. Despite schools budgets being SLASHED.

She has introduced a 'slip it past' programme of expansion for existing grammars. So: no access to the newly funded grammars in areas where they don't exist. Weasel words about lowering standards for disadvantaged pupils to ensure access....so, admitting they don't bloody work as agents of social mobility or inclusion!

Why not invest in Outstanding comps all over the country that are doing well by all students, including the disadvantaged? Why not invest n comps all over the country that are struggling to recruit teachers and need standards raising?

A nostalgic move by a grammar school educated vicar's daughter (faith schools expanding too - hooray, what a great move for the religiously declining, multi-cultural C21st that is!) for a golden age of grammars that never did what they were supposed to do in the first place - except for a minority of lucky pupils.

I am utterly disgusted by this. Totally anti-democratic move.

I understand those MN-ers in a grammar area where you have no choice but to buy into the grammar system, or those who have, on an local level, poor schools and for those with bright kids, grammar is the only salvation. But grammars and disadvantaged / under achieving schools are to an extent are symbiotic .

Good comps getting their budgets cut should go on strike right now. Oh, but they can't / won't because of the public exams. Nifty timing, T May.

Is there a march I can go on?

to actually actively tutor for grammar.

You mean instead of teaching the actual curriculum? What would you like removed to make way for tutoring?

As a life long Tory voter I am absolutely seething at this. May has been a rubbish leader as it is but this is the final straw and I will never EVER vote Tory again!!

I’m very annoyed they didn’t even read the consultation responses and got a computer to do it for them instead. I spent bloody ages on mine and they couldn’t even be arsed to look at it.

Peregrina this is very true. My dad was a working class boy who passed the 11 plus and did very well. My mum failed and always felt inadequate. I had a few friends whose dads failed but got on in life by going to night school.
I totally agree if the government really cared about social mobility, they'd be putting in place some formal system to admit pupils from underprivileged areas.

I’ll be interested to see whether the conditions attached to the £50million actually make a difference and whether any applications are rejected.

Heard an excellent debate on radio five live yesterday between the chief exec of the academy trust in Walsall which has 2 comps, 2 grammars and a 14-19 college. He gave evidence that in this urban less affluent area, grammars did work in part, but that they are just as commited to their comps. Fair play. The unfairness was shown by the other contributor, the head of The Cotswold comp in Gloucestershire, a grammar school area , with super selective grammars too (Pates). He stated that out of all the kids going into year 7 grammar places in Gloucestershire (approx 850) this year only 34 qualify for free school meals. THIRTY FOUR!!!!!! Just over 1 class for the 5 grammar schools. How does that increase social mobility????

I agree that in fully selective areas such as Kent and Bucks, the fact that state primary schools often pretends Grammars and the 11+ doesn't even exist disadvantages the less affluent. The middle classes might pay for a tutor or buy some resources and self-tutor, but if all schools had to provide some basic preparation/familiarisation, bright children from less affluent backgrounds would have a stronger chance of getting in. In these areas, we are not talking super-selective, but the top 30% ish, so bright children who have had some preparation (doesn't need to be loads, just familiarity with the question styles and papers)would push out some of the less bright, but tutored children.

And why don't primary schools provide advice about which schools might suit children at the next stage, when there are selective schools as a possibility? If Secondary schools provided zero info about uni applications or refused to write references for those application there would be an outcry, but somehow it is acceptable and encouraged that primary schools pretend Grammars don't exist and refuse to discuss if a child might have a chance of passing the exams or no hope.

Primary schools are damned if they don’t and very damned if they do.

If primaries tutored, then well-off parents would take the free tutoring and still tutor on top. And imagine the fuss if the primary said their kid wasn’t good enough for the tutoring and the parents thought they were? If the primary tutored, they’d also get the blame for kids who didn’t get in.

And it takes time away from the actual job of teaching the kids. Primary teachers are not 11+ tutors.

Plus, there’s a myth that needs to be perpetuated that it’s ability not tutoring that gets kids into grammars.

Testing on VR and NVR is not testing who is naturally bright, it is just testing who can afford tutors or can do DIY tutoring for things not taught in the curriculum.
Stopping the pretence that this tests some innate ability would help.
The number of man hours ten year olds must waste on improving their ability to do these useless, stupid puzzles would be better spent actually learning English or maths. Then at least those in lower income families would be assessed on something they are learning at school.

So what happened to your DM's contemporaries Whisperquietly, who didn't pass the 11 +? I don't doubt that some made good, because the economy was expanding.

So what’s your objection to grammars Peregrina?

I don’t doubt you’re right in your assumption, but I thought the objection to grammar is that the alternative is so dire.

"I’m very annoyed they didn’t even read the consultation responses and got a computer to do it for them instead. I spent bloody ages on mine and they couldn’t even be arsed to look at it."

Me too, NobleGiraffe.

It was hard because so many of the questions were 'when did you stop beating your wife' in structure. Like the question and answer I quoted below:
"Others were concerned that selective schools may not necessarily be better placed to
support attainment in non-selective schools. Many of these respondents suggested that,
in their view, non-selective schools may have as much, if not more, to offer selective
schools than vice versa. " I was one of those respondents .

Have the government responded to this:
"Specific objections to the
expansion of selective schools centred around perceived concern with the accessibility of
selective schools, the impact on other surrounding schools and children who are not able
to attend, and requests for government resource to instead be focused on supporting
non-selective schools." Maybe not - as there was no question around this. No question that said "how can the government ensure that a choice of modern languages and triple science remains available to student remaining in so-called comps once another tranche of children are removed into expanded grammars"

This policy of more cash for grammars only is a disgrace. All schools need adequate funding. Not extra, not above and beyond what they should get - but actual ADEQUATE funding. They've not had this for years now. Having been at the coal face, approaching state schools for GCSE options and year 12 admissions it is obvious that many schools are having multiple problems, from concentrating their smaller budgets on teaching rather than building maintenance, to reducing teaching staff because they simply can't afford to pay them, to cancelling subject courses they traditionally offered. There are less subject options at GCSE and less subject options at sixth form than five years ago.

A continual obsession on here about free school meals !

All free school meals tells us is a family don't have 1 parent or a combination of two parents working a total of 40 hours on minimum wage.

It is not definitive in deciding who is in poverty and who is not.

There are a number of reasons excluding the obvious ones as to why grammar schools have low FSM % which in reality tell us very little.

The obvious one being 'aspirational' people that are more positive or want improvement are likely to find work in whatever way that entails.
I know this view plays badly to a left of centre political demographic here.
In the majority of cases (disability, mental health serious illness E.T.C aside ) People can not find employment down to their inadequacies .

On a personal note the so called nirvana of comprehensive education left my son attaining/struggling @ around level 1 at Maths/English GCSE . This being a school rated as outstanding and particularly good with children with educational difficulties.

Therefore why is that the Independent school (though not selective) that operates in a similar way to my DDs grammar. This being in behavioural standards amount of homework required each night detentions etc.

The 'grammar' ethos school has got a child with a 'supposed' IQ of 72 up from level 1GCSE Maths/English to 4/5 in 18 months !

So what’s your objection to grammars Peregrina?

My objection to grammars was that so many children were written off at the age of 10. You state "if the alternative is dire" - is that really acceptable for 75% of children? Nor was my own grammar all that good - good in parts was the best description, but it had a very good opinion of itself and some extremely silly rules. It's now considerably better as a good comprehensive, and that is the sort of standard that should be available for all children. It isn't in an especially wealthy area either.

I think the "obsession" with free school meals is that it is one objective measure. Would you like selection to be by whether you don't live in a council house, or speak with the right accent?

If you have one at grammar letstalk then was your comprehensive really such, or was it a glorified secondary modern?

The only problem with grammar schools is the current bum fight they entail regarding accessing them. This totally being down to the lack of availability of places.

A bad school doesn't suddenly become a good school because it is a comprehensive !
I think academic people on the political left believe comprehensive schooling is a testament of their own 'noblesse oblige ' to the masses !

Now it was a full comprehensive school. This is because it was located 15 miles in to a non selective area !.

I used to spend over 2 hours a day in the car travelling 40 miles a day for DS to attend that school.

Two girls at the same grammar Peregrina.

A bad school doesn't suddenly become a good school because it is a comprehensive !

Indeed not, but nor are all grammar schools good!

How do you know whether people are on the left or the right? Don't forget that Maggie Thatcher as Education Minister approved the most comprehensives - because middle class children were failing.

What is a bum fight? Do you mean bun fight?

A 'Bum' fight is when you use engage your bottom to achieve advantage over another human being !......

This is instead of a 'bunfight' : the meaning of is to suggest Victorian children squabbling over buns and cakes at tea time.

In the context of grammar school exams, this could equate to blocking the school car park. This therefore meaning Syreeta's mum could not access the school or enable Syreeta to take her 11+ !. The effect being to substantially reduce the competition for your child.

I think there needs to be another measure of low income used in addition to FSM and PP. A child whose parent(s) end up on benefits for a short time will become a PP child if I understand correctly? But a child whose parent(s) have worked for the minimum/living wage throughout their schooling is classed the same as a middle class child with a much higher household income.

DS is at a state grammar and we didn't tutor at all. We did a few prep books but that was it.

(although for transparency he did go to a prep school from 7 - but they don't prepare for 11+).

I think grammars are great...I went to a really dire comp where people did not want to learn and spent 5 years being bullied because I did.

Just to add.. someone said why do we need them. We need to give bright children from poor backgrounds the real chance to have a better opportunities than they would otherwise get and if someone is really bright they will get that.

justicewoman that's a brilliant post!