Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Grammar School policy is un-Conservative and will appea

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Grammar School policy is un-Conservative and will appeal to the wrong people

Theresa May is a grammar school girl.* That personal experience, combined with the success of her career, might well be at the root of her enthusiasm for the system which she so lauded yesterday; many who believe they benefitted personally from a system become advocates for its wider adoption. If so, her enthusiasm is misplaced.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Thirst for first
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Nineteenth!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    I was cheated! Cheated, I tell you!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    on topic - I sort of agree. Perhaps I am not old enough to realise just how great grammars were, and it is especially confusing if every school gets a chance to be a grammar.

    I think I need to go back to the bunker for reprogramming....
  • The Saturday thread.

    About one aspect of a Green Paper, that's yet to be published.

    And people say Theresa May doesn't do politics......

    Nothing else to talk about, is there?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited September 2016

    The Saturday thread.

    About one aspect of a Green Paper, that's yet to be published.

    And people say Theresa May doesn't do politics......

    Nothing else to talk about, is there?

    Yeah, the Spectator piece was quite good on that front. You can't suggest May is a boring technocrat who dithers! (oops, not the Spectator but the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/09/theresa-mays-school-reforms-could-force-her-to-call-an-early-ele/ )
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    hmmm.. I do wonder reading that article, what if this is a masterful ruse to call a snap GE after so hastily ruling one out? I'm getting all excited now!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    RobD said:

    on topic - I sort of agree. Perhaps I am not old enough to realise just how great grammars were, and it is especially confusing if every school gets a chance to be a grammar.

    I think I need to go back to the bunker for reprogramming....

    Rob, you forget that all our kids are above average.
  • MTimT said:

    RobD said:

    on topic - I sort of agree. Perhaps I am not old enough to realise just how great grammars were, and it is especially confusing if every school gets a chance to be a grammar.

    I think I need to go back to the bunker for reprogramming....

    Rob, you forget that all our kids are above average.
    The trick is to import enough below average kids.
  • MTimT said:

    RobD said:

    on topic - I sort of agree. Perhaps I am not old enough to realise just how great grammars were, and it is especially confusing if every school gets a chance to be a grammar.

    I think I need to go back to the bunker for reprogramming....

    Rob, you forget that all our kids are above average.
    The trick is to import enough below average kids.
    Each area needs one thunderously dumb kid, whose parents don't vote.
  • In other news, Liam Fox is an even greater numpty than I had appreciated.
  • On topic, I have sympathy for Theresa May on Brexit, which is the La Brea of the Conservative party, but to volunteer for this particular tarpit is bafflingly bad judgement on her part.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    On topic, I have sympathy for Theresa May on Brexit, which is the La Brea of the Conservative party, but to volunteer for this particular tarpit is bafflingly bad judgement on her part.

    Bafflingly bad judgement? Alright, easy on the hyperbole this early in the morning!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Its got the left chewing bricks, what's not to like.??.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Its got the left chewing bricks, what's not to like.??.

    Maybe May is trying to save Labour with this bonkers grammars for all policy. It's refreshing for Labour to feel united and closer to public sentiment.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Jonathan said:

    Its got the left chewing bricks, what's not to like.??.

    Maybe May is trying to save Labour with this bonkers grammars for all policy. It's refreshing for Labour to feel united and closer to public sentiment.
    Wait, aren't the polls heavily in favour of grammars?
  • On topic, I have sympathy for Theresa May on Brexit, which is the La Brea of the Conservative party, but to volunteer for this particular tarpit is bafflingly bad judgement on her part.

    She's volunteered Johnson, Davis and Fox for it.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited September 2016
    Jonathan said:

    Its got the left chewing bricks, what's not to like.??.

    Maybe May is trying to save Labour with this bonkers grammars for all policy. It's refreshing for Labour to feel united and closer to public sentiment.
    United? for Labour, its a solitary finger in the dyke that's leaking votes everywhere.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    Owen "I had to fight off hundreds of lads to get my wife" Smith, a winning strategy, but perhaps not one to win a leadership contest.

    I had thought Corbyn was clumsy, inept and a PR disaster, now Owen Smith turns himself into a bigger object of ridicule.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 885
    I am struggling to see the logic of this policy:

    Grammar Schools will be better than the other schools in the area.
    Other schools will be worse.
    Most people will go to other schools.
    Most people will go to worse schools.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Icarus said:

    I am struggling to see the logic of this policy:

    Grammar Schools will be better than the other schools in the area.
    Other schools will be worse.
    Most people will go to other schools.
    Most people will go to worse schools.

    Why will other schools be worse?
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    MTimT said:

    RobD said:

    on topic - I sort of agree. Perhaps I am not old enough to realise just how great grammars were, and it is especially confusing if every school gets a chance to be a grammar.
    I think I need to go back to the bunker for reprogramming....

    Rob, you forget that all our kids are above average.
    More than that, Mr T. All our children are in the most brilliant 20%. The other 80% will have to go to secondary moderns, and the Conservatives have no plans for creating any of those.

    The fact is that, although the Conservatives are brilliant at sound bites, they are absolutely hopeless at thinking things through.

    First we had the EU Referendum, led by Tories on both sides, with no plans to deal with the outcome. Now we have highly selective grammar schools for absolutely everybody. Mrs May just hasn`t a clue.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 885
    edited September 2016
    Because Grammar schools will be better otherwise they would not attract pupils
  • Morning all.

    Interesting thread Mr Herdson, as they say, the devil is in the detail - which is yet to appear.

    OT. Another remarkable performance from Team GB on day two of the Paralympics. 3 golds in nine minutes according to the BBC, bringing the medal tally up to 27 and 12 golds.

    OOT. Liam Fox, well done, 5 years later and still making other MPs look like titans.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    PClipp said:

    MTimT said:

    RobD said:

    on topic - I sort of agree. Perhaps I am not old enough to realise just how great grammars were, and it is especially confusing if every school gets a chance to be a grammar.
    I think I need to go back to the bunker for reprogramming....

    Rob, you forget that all our kids are above average.
    More than that, Mr T. All our children are in the most brilliant 20%. The other 80% will have to go to secondary moderns, and the Conservatives have no plans for creating any of those.

    The fact is that, although the Conservatives are brilliant at sound bites, they are absolutely hopeless at thinking things through.

    First we had the EU Referendum, led by Tories on both sides, with no plans to deal with the outcome. Now we have highly selective grammar schools for absolutely everybody. Mrs May just hasn`t a clue.
    Whilst we have been distracted by Brexit fallout and Labour woes, this government has been chalking up a record number of policy u turns, and defeats.

    They are, in short, a bit rubbish. What is tragic, is that we don't have an opposition primed and ready to take over. Corbyn is flattering the govt.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Icarus said:

    Because Grammar schools will be better otherwise they would not attract pupils

    Hm, I'm not sure how the opening of grammars will make other schools worse? Are they planning on cutting funding or something?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Jonathan said:

    PClipp said:

    MTimT said:

    RobD said:

    on topic - I sort of agree. Perhaps I am not old enough to realise just how great grammars were, and it is especially confusing if every school gets a chance to be a grammar.
    I think I need to go back to the bunker for reprogramming....

    Rob, you forget that all our kids are above average.
    More than that, Mr T. All our children are in the most brilliant 20%. The other 80% will have to go to secondary moderns, and the Conservatives have no plans for creating any of those.

    The fact is that, although the Conservatives are brilliant at sound bites, they are absolutely hopeless at thinking things through.

    First we had the EU Referendum, led by Tories on both sides, with no plans to deal with the outcome. Now we have highly selective grammar schools for absolutely everybody. Mrs May just hasn`t a clue.
    Whilst we have been distracted by Brexit fallout and Labour woes, this government has been chalking up a record number of policy u turns, and defeats.

    They are, in short, a bit rubbish. What is tragic, is that we don't have an opposition primed and ready to take over. Corbyn is flattering the govt.
    I don't think May has been defeated in the Commons yet? As for U-turns, a certain change of direction is to be expected with a new PM.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 885
    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.
  • I hear the private school lobby is terribly upset with Mrs May.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Icarus said:

    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.

    But we have good and bad schools now as it is, and good schools are often in affluent areas, meaning that poor people are priced out of these good schools.
  • Icarus said:

    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.

    Not necessarily. It isn't a zero sum game.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Opposition from the private schools is one sign that the policy has some merit, if it can be thought through. Sadly however, as pointed out down thread, this does not appear to be the Tories' core competence. My feeling is that, however misplaced, May is simply trying to come up with some big enough specifics to tackle the ambitious social mobility agenda she tried to map out on the Downing Street steps.

    A piece in the Telegraph today argues that, because of the political opposition even within the Tory Party, and because the new policy has no legitimacy having not appeared in the last manifesto, either it isn't going to happen, or it actually points towards a new election sooner rather than later.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Icarus said:

    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.

    Not necessarily. It isn't a zero sum game.
    It is for the kid who fails thes test, forced to settle for second best and divided from friends and siblings.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 885
    RobD said:

    Icarus said:

    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.

    But we have good and bad schools now as it is, and good schools are often in affluent areas, meaning that poor people are priced out of these good schools.
    Exactly! We should be spending the money on making the bad schools better.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    Icarus said:

    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.

    Not necessarily. It isn't a zero sum game.
    And the key point is that, as every parent knows, we have a hierarchy of top and bad schools now, with selection based either on wealth (house prices within catchment, or the ability to pretend to live locally) or religion (actual or pretended).
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    In other news, Liam Fox is an even greater numpty than I had appreciated.

    Minister disgraced former Minister Liam Fox who resigned in disgrace who is now a Minister?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Icarus said:

    RobD said:

    Icarus said:

    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.

    But we have good and bad schools now as it is, and good schools are often in affluent areas, meaning that poor people are priced out of these good schools.
    Exactly! We should be spending the money on making the bad schools better.
    Isn't that what has been done for the last ~20 years?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Icarus said:

    RobD said:

    Icarus said:

    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.

    But we have good and bad schools now as it is, and good schools are often in affluent areas, meaning that poor people are priced out of these good schools.
    Exactly! We should be spending the money on making the bad schools better.
    Yes, the mistake May has made is to have nothing to say about the non-grammar schools at the same time as launching the new policy (although to be fair this appears to have arisen from a leak, which might of course have been deliberate). All the Tory tinkering with structures and governance has had little appreciable impact on overall standards and there is a big vacuum where the policies for better education for all should be.
  • What has Liam Fox done?
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 885
    Oh and faith schools should be discouraged -was going to say banned but that would be illiberal of me.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Icarus said:

    If grammar schools are better -the point of the exercise - the others must be worse.

    Not necessarily. It isn't a zero sum game.
    Oh right, we just move all the best pupils, parents and teachers to one school, shift the worst pupils out of that school to the others and the schools drained of talent and taking extra of the most difficult will magically stay just as good.

    Gotcha.
  • Fat_Steve said:

    What has Liam Fox done?

    Liam Fox, the minister charged with promoting UK businesses around the world has called them 'fat and lazy'

    Did you know, Liam Fox is Latin for 'end of a bell'
  • Good morning, everyone.

    I am shocked to hear reports that Liam Fox is a moron.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited September 2016
    Every cabinet needs its hate figure. Fox was born for that role.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Fat_Steve said:

    What has Liam Fox done?

    Liam Fox, the minister charged with promoting UK businesses around the world has called them 'fat and lazy'

    Did you know, Liam Fox is Latin for 'end of a bell'
    To be fair, when you've had the meteoric success of Liam Fox the rest of the world must look pedestrian. We can only imagine how it must feel to be him, the last genuine colossus.
  • Morning all,

    PBers might be interested to hear that the Newstatesman is reporting a rumour that Seamus Milne as Corbyn's press officer will stand down this autumn and be replaced by Paul Mason.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    The strange thing is with free schools, parental choice and the tightening up of standards, the Tories already had a decent right wig education policy that united most of the party.

    Introducing grammar schools divides the party - two former education secretaries and the former PM against - and risks Mays 1 Nation appeal - she only cares for you if you were born academically bright.

    We know May doesn't play political games - so this cant be about forcing an early GE, distracting us from Brexit, or smoking out the remaining Cameroons. So that leaves us to conclude what about May?
  • Fat_Steve said:

    What has Liam Fox done?

    Liam Fox, the minister charged with promoting UK businesses around the world has called them 'fat and lazy'

    Did you know, Liam Fox is Latin for 'end of a bell'
    I might not have used those words, but, I think he has a point.

    We suffer from some awful management - particularly in innovation, and R&D - the "British disease".
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009
    I've never in my life heard an explanation of how grammar schools achieve anything that can't achieved much more efficiently by streaming within comprehensives.

    In comprehensives you can stream differently for different subjects and move people between streams if necessary. In a grammar system you make a clumsy, once-and-for-all decision based on a single test at an arbitrary age.
  • Morning all,

    PBers might be interested to hear that the Newstatesman is reporting a rumour that Seamus Milne as Corbyn's press officer will stand down this autumn and be replaced by Paul Mason.

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/773538654119665665
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    I Think he also said something about no import tariffs or restrictions and that Uk industry will have to sink or swim. So if you voted Brxit because you wanted to protect the UK steel industry...
  • Mr. Royale, perhaps he does.

    That said, I spend a fair bit of time correcting my own work and beta-reading for others. This essentially involves pointing at every other line and saying "This is shit", but rephrasing it in a more positive way ("This is an area for improvement" etc).

    Even leaving aside that, a trade minister criticising British trade is only going to get one sort of coverage.
  • JonathanD said:

    I Think he also said something about no import tariffs or restrictions and that Uk industry will have to sink or swim. So if you voted Brxit because you wanted to protect the UK steel industry...
    6/1 on being first cabinet member to exit. Ladbrokes.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    JonathanD said:

    The strange thing is with free schools, parental choice and the tightening up of standards, the Tories already had a decent right wig education policy that united most of the party.

    Introducing grammar schools divides the party - two former education secretaries and the former PM against - and risks Mays 1 Nation appeal - she only cares for you if you were born academically bright.

    We know May doesn't play political games - so this cant be about forcing an early GE, distracting us from Brexit, or smoking out the remaining Cameroons. So that leaves us to conclude what about May?

    Yes I think this is right. The free school battle was fought and won, plus the academy thing. You could say the right have had their way in education.

    And aside from the arguments good and bad for grammars, it would surely be yet another tinkering with the education system which I understand is much of the problem in the first place.
  • Stop criticising Liam Fox.

    I know how a perfect excuse to do a thread slagging him off.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    edited September 2016
    There are three mistakes people keep making with the grammar school policy, and will probably continue to make no matter what Theresa May, or anyone else, says:

    (1) The return of Secondary Moderns
    (2) The return of the 11+
    (3) The fact they will benefit the Middle Class only.

    Theresa May has explicitly ruled out the first. There will be no return to Secondary Moderns. There will continue to be a diverse provision of free school, faith school, academies and non-selective schools.

    On the second, the plans include for children to join not at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well, and take on students from non-selective schools for certain subjects.

    And, on the third, there will be a requirement for grammars to admit a large proportion from those on free school meals, or from poor backgrounds, or directly sponsor a non-selective school in a poor area.
  • Morning all,

    PBers might be interested to hear that the Newstatesman is reporting a rumour that Seamus Milne as Corbyn's press officer will stand down this autumn and be replaced by Paul Mason.

    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/773538654119665665
    Well it was just a rumour. Still what's that expression about a denial?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Stop criticising Liam Fox.

    I know how a perfect excuse to do a thread slagging him off.

    Why not write a piece celebrating his achievements? Quick to do.
  • Mr. Royale, Sky News had a snap poll on grammar schools, suggesting they had relatively good support, certainly more than their opposition.

    Speaking of news, I was surprised the North Korean nuclear test was so far down the running order on the (BBC) News at Ten.
  • Mr. Royale, perhaps he does.

    That said, I spend a fair bit of time correcting my own work and beta-reading for others. This essentially involves pointing at every other line and saying "This is shit", but rephrasing it in a more positive way ("This is an area for improvement" etc).

    Even leaving aside that, a trade minister criticising British trade is only going to get one sort of coverage.

    The bigger question is why he's still doing speeches to Conservative Way Forward.

    In my experience, it's a rather unpleasant and dogmatic branch of the Conservative Party that filters every single issue through a 'what would Maggie have done?' lens, rather than thinking of itself, and imitate the worst aspects of her behaviour - seemingly, in homage - as well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    The policy is a very conservative one actually, parents should be able to choose new grammars for their children if wanted, alongside new academies and faith schools. As for secondary moderns, selective Trafford has above average overall GCSE results and excellent high schools. It is a policy backed by a plurality of voters and especially by Tories, particularly those who might switch to UKIP

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    There are three mistakes people keep making with the grammar school policy, and will probably continue to make no matter what Theresa May, or anyone else, says:

    (1) The return of Secondary Moderns
    (2) The return of the 11+
    (3) The fact they will benefit the Middle Class only.

    Theresa May has explicitly ruled out the first. There will be no return to Secondary Moderns. There will continue to be a diverse provision of free school, faith school, academies and non-selective schools.

    On the second, the plans include for children to join not at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well, and take on students from non-selective schools for certain subjects.

    And, on the third, there will be a requirement for grammars to admit a large proportion from those on free school meals, or from poor backgrounds, or directly sponsor a non-selective school in a poor area.

    Don't be daft. In a town served by two schools, one becomes a grammar. What happens to the other? Will it become a grammar too? If not, it becomes a de facto secondary modern.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    There are three mistakes people keep making with the grammar school policy, and will probably continue to make no matter what Theresa May, or anyone else, says:

    (1) The return of Secondary Moderns
    (2) The return of the 11+
    (3) The fact they will benefit the Middle Class only.

    Theresa May has explicitly ruled out the first. There will be no return to Secondary Moderns. There will continue to be a diverse provision of free school, faith school, academies and non-selective schools.

    On the second, the plans include for children to join not at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well, and take on students from non-selective schools for certain subjects.

    And, on the third, there will be a requirement for grammars to admit a large proportion from those on free school meals, or from poor backgrounds, or directly sponsor a non-selective school in a poor area.

    I think that if you have a selective grammar then you de facto get a secondary modern (1). And if the grammar is also non-selective (3) why are you bothering in the first place?
  • Chris said:

    I've never in my life heard an explanation of how grammar schools achieve anything that can't achieved much more efficiently by streaming within comprehensives.

    In comprehensives you can stream differently for different subjects and move people between streams if necessary. In a grammar system you make a clumsy, once-and-for-all decision based on a single test at an arbitrary age.

    No idea what things are like now, but my experience in a 1970s comprehensive was there was no streaming until the third or even fourth year in subjects. Bright kids were left with little to challenge them in the first few years, and therefore were automatically well behind kids of same age who went to private or grammar schools.

    I gather quite a few independent schools now have the kids do GCSEs and 'A' levels a year or two early so they can do more and also have time for Oxbridge.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Chris,

    "I've never in my life heard an explanation of how grammar schools achieve anything that can't achieved much more efficiently by streaming within comprehensives."

    You're missing the point. This is all about emotion not logic. Streaming by ability (and not ability to pay) is a no-no for both main parties.

    To summarise and generalise ... Grammars must be sacrificed so that Tories can continue to pay to ensure their kids aren't disadvantaged. Grammar schools would undercut this and provide the poor with a level playing field.

    Labour want to dumb down so that their kids that aren't going to fee-paying schools aren't left behind either.

    It's an instinctive defensive mechanism, so no reassurance about remaining comprehensives having access or being of good quality will work.

    We'll dealing with virtual children (the adults) and real children.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Jonathan said:

    Its got the left chewing bricks, what's not to like.??.

    Maybe May is trying to save Labour with this bonkers grammars for all policy. It's refreshing for Labour to feel united and closer to public sentiment.
    She will be announcing unlimited apprenticeships for young chimney sweeps soon to complement her Grammar school policy.
  • Jonathan said:

    There are three mistakes people keep making with the grammar school policy, and will probably continue to make no matter what Theresa May, or anyone else, says:

    (1) The return of Secondary Moderns
    (2) The return of the 11+
    (3) The fact they will benefit the Middle Class only.

    Theresa May has explicitly ruled out the first. There will be no return to Secondary Moderns. There will continue to be a diverse provision of free school, faith school, academies and non-selective schools.

    On the second, the plans include for children to join not at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well, and take on students from non-selective schools for certain subjects.

    And, on the third, there will be a requirement for grammars to admit a large proportion from those on free school meals, or from poor backgrounds, or directly sponsor a non-selective school in a poor area.

    Don't be daft. In a town served by two schools, one becomes a grammar. What happens to the other? Will it become a grammar too? If not, it becomes a de facto secondary modern.
    How will they decide which one becomes the grammar?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Mr. Royale, Sky News had a snap poll on grammar schools, suggesting they had relatively good support, certainly more than their opposition.

    Speaking of news, I was surprised the North Korean nuclear test was so far down the running order on the (BBC) News at Ten.

    Still one of my favourite The Onion stories

    theonion.com/article/waiver-wire-ep-5-35
  • Mr. Royale, Sky News had a snap poll on grammar schools, suggesting they had relatively good support, certainly more than their opposition.

    Speaking of news, I was surprised the North Korean nuclear test was so far down the running order on the (BBC) News at Ten.

    I guess its not news that the Hermit Kingdom is testing yet another nuke.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Chris said:

    I've never in my life heard an explanation of how grammar schools achieve anything that can't achieved much more efficiently by streaming within comprehensives.

    In comprehensives you can stream differently for different subjects and move people between streams if necessary. In a grammar system you make a clumsy, once-and-for-all decision based on a single test at an arbitrary age.

    No idea what things are like now, but my experience in a 1970s comprehensive was there was no streaming until the third or even fourth year in subjects. Bright kids were left with little to challenge them in the first few years, and therefore were automatically well behind kids of same age who went to private or grammar schools.

    I gather quite a few independent schools now have the kids do GCSEs and 'A' levels a year or two early so they can do more and also have time for Oxbridge.
    Locally kids are streamed from first year in core subjects. Exams are taken early. All in state comps.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Jonathan said:

    There are three mistakes people keep making with the grammar school policy, and will probably continue to make no matter what Theresa May, or anyone else, says:

    (1) The return of Secondary Moderns
    (2) The return of the 11+
    (3) The fact they will benefit the Middle Class only.

    Theresa May has explicitly ruled out the first. There will be no return to Secondary Moderns. There will continue to be a diverse provision of free school, faith school, academies and non-selective schools.

    On the second, the plans include for children to join not at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well, and take on students from non-selective schools for certain subjects.

    And, on the third, there will be a requirement for grammars to admit a large proportion from those on free school meals, or from poor backgrounds, or directly sponsor a non-selective school in a poor area.

    Don't be daft. In a town served by two schools, one becomes a grammar. What happens to the other? Will it become a grammar too? If not, it becomes a de facto secondary modern.
    As previously they will become dumps that don't educate, luckily we have real politicians up here and will not need to worry
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    There are three mistakes people keep making with the grammar school policy, and will probably continue to make no matter what Theresa May, or anyone else, says:

    (1) The return of Secondary Moderns
    (2) The return of the 11+
    (3) The fact they will benefit the Middle Class only.

    Theresa May has explicitly ruled out the first. There will be no return to Secondary Moderns. There will continue to be a diverse provision of free school, faith school, academies and non-selective schools.

    On the second, the plans include for children to join not at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well, and take on students from non-selective schools for certain subjects.

    And, on the third, there will be a requirement for grammars to admit a large proportion from those on free school meals, or from poor backgrounds, or directly sponsor a non-selective school in a poor area.

    Don't be daft. In a town served by two schools, one becomes a grammar. What happens to the other? Will it become a grammar too? If not, it becomes a de facto secondary modern.
    How will they decide which one becomes the grammar?
    According to May both can. Bonkers.
  • A popular education policy? One that educates my children better than it does yours. No ifs, no buts.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009


    On the second, the plans include for children to join not at 11, but at 14 and 16 as well, and take on students from non-selective schools for certain subjects.

    OK - so not a once-and-for-all decision. Another bite at the cherry three years later, and another two years after that.

    But obviously still far less flexibility than with streaming in a comprehensive system.

    As for pupils travelling to a different school for certain subjects, once you're driven to that kind of thing, isn't it a signal that something is badly wrong with the system?


    And, on the third, there will be a requirement for grammars to admit a large proportion from those on free school meals, or from poor backgrounds, or directly sponsor a non-selective school in a poor area.

    Well, if it really were a large proportion, that would produce a bizarre situation in which large numbers of more able pupils were being rejected by grammar schools just because they were middle-class. But perhaps the proportion wouldn't really be that large.

    In any case, there's obviously an admission there that academic selection intrinsically tends to disadvantage pupils from poor backgrounds.

    Why do it?
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    HYUFD said:

    , parents should be able to choose new grammars for their children if wanted, alongside new academies an As for secondary moderns, selective Trafford has above average overall GCSE results and excellent high schools.

    How does a parent choose for their child to go to a grammar? The school itself gets to allow in who it wants. That's the opposite of Goves school revolution where schools were the ones who had to compete for pupils or die.

    Secondly Trafford does well because of the parents who move there, not just because of the quality of the schools.
  • HYUFD said:

    The policy is a very conservative one actually, parents should be able to choose new grammars for their children if wanted, alongside new academies and faith schools. As for secondary moderns, selective Trafford has above average overall GCSE results and excellent high schools. It is a policy backed by a plurality of voters and especially by Tories, particularly those who might switch to UKIP

    No one has, until your post, commented on the angle that May is offering unresistable bait to UKIP voters to return to the conservative fold.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    The fact that people like David are expressing such strong and fundamental reservations about this half thought through policy shows how stupid this idea is, especially at this time. It will not unite the Tories, it will divide them. It will unite Labour It requires legislation that is going to be difficult to get through and is likely to bog the government down and it is a distraction from Brexit which is hard enough. Poor judgment and poor tactics. Hey ho.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Breaking News, May to apply education policy to the NHS.

    At the new "grammar hospitals", doctors will be able select the cases they know they can treat. Results are going to go through the roof.

    The more difficult, chronic and terminal cases will be able to go to "faith hospitals".

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    HYUFD said:

    The policy is a very conservative one actually, parents should be able to choose new grammars for their children if wanted, alongside new academies and faith schools. As for secondary moderns, selective Trafford has above average overall GCSE results and excellent high schools. It is a policy backed by a plurality of voters and especially by Tories, particularly those who might switch to UKIP

    No one has, until your post, commented on the angle that May is offering unresistable bait to UKIP voters to return to the conservative fold.
    But why should she need to? The moment there is a GE she gains 50-100 seats with or without the Kippers.
  • Mr. Topping, there isn't an upper limit to political ambition.

    In this regard, seats are like chocolate. A PM always wants more.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Icarus said:

    Because Grammar schools will be better otherwise they would not attract pupils

    Not neccesarily, iirc @Mortimer reckoned his grammar was underfunded.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited September 2016

    Mr. Topping, there isn't an upper limit to political ambition.

    In this regard, seats are like chocolate. A PM always wants more.

    As @DavidL notes, she has her hands full with Brexit, the Kippers' raison d'etre. If, in their view, she gets it right, they will come over; if she doesn't, then no amount of education policy tinkering will bring them onboard. And this policy seems to be causing problems everywhere.
  • Chris said:

    I've never in my life heard an explanation of how grammar schools achieve anything that can't achieved much more efficiently by streaming within comprehensives.

    In comprehensives you can stream differently for different subjects and move people between streams if necessary. In a grammar system you make a clumsy, once-and-for-all decision based on a single test at an arbitrary age.

    In creating the EBacc, Gove had already effectively forced schools into streaming so it makes the hard division of grammars / the rest even less logical.
  • Mr. Topping, UKIP voters aren't a hive mind. Whilst some will want a close relationship with the EU after leaving it, for trade, others will want a greater degree of separation.

    It's a mistake to look at parties' voters as having a single view.
  • Liam Fox is absolutely correct. It's another reason why I opposed leaving the EU, more specifically the single market. It's not the EU holding us back, it's the fact that not enough people around the world want to buy our stuff. There are two reasons for this: (1) it's not good enough; (2) too many British businesses do not put the money, time and effort into finding new markets. In both cases management is primarily to blame. All leaving the single market does is punish those companies that have made the effort to build overseas (while forcing them into creating a presence elsewhere in the EU to stay in the single market), while doing nothing to encourage those which haven't. In being correct, therefore, Fox has shown himself to be an idiot. No surprise there!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009


    No idea what things are like now, but my experience in a 1970s comprehensive was there was no streaming until the third or even fourth year in subjects. Bright kids were left with little to challenge them in the first few years, and therefore were automatically well behind kids of same age who went to private or grammar schools.

    Ok - you're saying you think streaming started too late in your comprehensive.

    I'm really asking about the differences between the two systems in principle. There's nothing in the principle of a comprehensive system to say when streaming should start.

    But I accept that in a more flexible system the flexibility may be exercised in a way people don't approve of. I suppose in a selective system you are guaranteed a form of streaming - albeit crude and inflexible - from the moment of selection.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited September 2016

    Mr. Topping, UKIP voters aren't a hive mind. Whilst some will want a close relationship with the EU after leaving it, for trade, others will want a greater degree of separation.

    It's a mistake to look at parties' voters as having a single view.

    If there is one party whose supporters are closest of anyone to having a single view, then surely that is UKIP!!
  • Fat_Steve said:

    What has Liam Fox done?

    Liam Fox, the minister charged with promoting UK businesses around the world has called them 'fat and lazy'

    Did you know, Liam Fox is Latin for 'end of a bell'
    I might not have used those words, but, I think he has a point.

    We suffer from some awful management - particularly in innovation, and R&D - the "British disease".

    Yep, we sure do. And leaving the single market will not help one bit. It will merely increase costs of British companies that do business in Europe and force many of them into creating a physical presence in one of the remaining EU member states, so reducing UK investment and job creation.

  • Mr. Topping, on leaving the EU. And that vote has been done.

    I do not think all UKIP voters have the same view on the single market. Some even wanted to stay in the EU (I think about 1%, but still).
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Fat_Steve said:

    What has Liam Fox done?

    Liam Fox, the minister charged with promoting UK businesses around the world has called them 'fat and lazy'

    Did you know, Liam Fox is Latin for 'end of a bell'
    I might not have used those words, but, I think he has a point.

    We suffer from some awful management - particularly in innovation, and R&D - the "British disease".

    Yep, we sure do. And leaving the single market will not help one bit. It will merely increase costs of British companies that do business in Europe and force many of them into creating a physical presence in one of the remaining EU member states, so reducing UK investment and job creation.

    It's a price worth paying; all you ever think about is money.

    :wink:
  • I wonder if it is beginning to dawn that June 2016 not May 2015 was the real catastrophe for Libreralism.

    One faction of the old Liberal Party did badly in 2015, but the other two factions, the Liberal Unionists and National Liberals (known as Wets in the 1980s) who had captured the Conservative Party under a self declared ('I am a Liberal conservative') Liberal prime minister David Cameron, continued Liberal policies like supporting Europeani integration and opposing grammar schools.

    Now they are gone and it is becoming clear that PM May, who few knew her real political philosophy - she was clever enough to make liberal noises of talismatic liberal issues like Gay Marriage and give tepid support to the party line on the EU so retain a great office of state through the Liberal government years - is a very traditional and conservative Conservative whos pitch is to the lower middle classes at the upper echelons expense and is building a power base of essex men type voters who defected from Labour under thatcher and recent labour defectors to UKIP.

    The right have won the civil war that started when thatcher was deposed.

    Ultimately this is because the Liberal wing of the party who took control in 1990 could never win more tban a wafer thin majority and were denied the large majority needed to purge the right.

    Now as May parks her tanks on Labour and UKIPs lawn, it is the right who will soon have the large majority.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    TOPPING said:

    Mr. Topping, UKIP voters aren't a hive mind. Whilst some will want a close relationship with the EU after leaving it, for trade, others will want a greater degree of separation.

    It's a mistake to look at parties' voters as having a single view.

    If there is one party whose supporters are closest of anyone to having a single view, then surely that is UKIP!!
    Certainly in the HoC.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Chris said:

    I've never in my life heard an explanation of how grammar schools achieve anything that can't achieved much more efficiently by streaming within comprehensives.

    In comprehensives you can stream differently for different subjects and move people between streams if necessary. In a grammar system you make a clumsy, once-and-for-all decision based on a single test at an arbitrary age.

    That's a very fair point. What I would do is ban schools from having different class sizes. My Year 11 maths class (top set) had 38 of us in it. Why should resources be concentrated on those on the C/D border?
  • Pulpstar said:

    Icarus said:

    Because Grammar schools will be better otherwise they would not attract pupils

    Not neccesarily, iirc @Mortimer reckoned his grammar was underfunded.
    They have fewer disadvantaged children so they get less money per pupil.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Still can't help feeling that the clever grammar school kids have been moved out and the secondary modern stream has taken over. Would Osborne have allowed the government to lose focus like this when (a) the Labour Party has become a source of amusement or despair according to taste and (b) the government has so many hard yards to work through?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited September 2016

    I wonder if it is beginning to dawn that June 2016 not May 2015 was the real catastrophe for Libreralism.

    One faction of the old Liberal Party did badly in 2015, but the other two factions, the Liberal Unionists and National Liberals (known as Wets in the 1980s) who had captured the Conservative Party under a self declared ('I am a Liberal conservative') Liberal prime minister David Cameron, continued Liberal policies like supporting Europeani integration and opposing grammar schools.

    Now they are gone and it is becoming clear that PM May, who few knew her real political philosophy - she was clever enough to make liberal noises of talismatic liberal issues like Gay Marriage and give tepid support to the party line on the EU so retain a great office of state through the Liberal government years - is a very traditional and conservative Conservative whos pitch is to the lower middle classes at the upper echelons expense and is building a power base of essex men type voters who defected from Labour under thatcher and recent labour defectors to UKIP.

    The right have won the civil war that started when thatcher was deposed.

    Ultimately this is because the Liberal wing of the party who took control in 1990 could never win more tban a wafer thin majority and were denied the large majority needed to purge the right.

    Now as May parks her tanks on Labour and UKIPs lawn, it is the right who will soon have the large majority.

    Yes, the Cons lost the WWC after Fatch and it's perhaps no surprise that May is overshooting rightwards on policy in order to bring them back.
  • Jonathan said:

    PClipp said:

    MTimT said:

    RobD said:

    on topic - I sort of agree. Perhaps I am not old enough to realise just how great grammars were, and it is especially confusing if every school gets a chance to be a grammar.
    I think I need to go back to the bunker for reprogramming....

    Rob, you forget that all our kids are above average.
    More than that, Mr T. All our children are in the most brilliant 20%. The other 80% will have to go to secondary moderns, and the Conservatives have no plans for creating any of those.

    The fact is that, although the Conservatives are brilliant at sound bites, they are absolutely hopeless at thinking things through.

    First we had the EU Referendum, led by Tories on both sides, with no plans to deal with the outcome. Now we have highly selective grammar schools for absolutely everybody. Mrs May just hasn`t a clue.
    Whilst we have been distracted by Brexit fallout and Labour woes, this government has been chalking up a record number of policy u turns, and defeats.

    They are, in short, a bit rubbish. What is tragic, is that we don't have an opposition primed and ready to take over. Corbyn is flattering the govt.

    Yep, this is - at best - an utterly mediocre government. It couldn't be otherwise with figures such as Fox, Johnson, Davis, Greening and Leadsom sitting round the cabinet table. As I wrote in my piece last week, this may actually help get rid of Corbyn in the end. Trailing a hapless, right wing Tory government in the polls and losing out to it electorally will eventually lead to the non-lunatic Corbynistas (arounf 50% I reckon) to question their support for Corbyn. That process has clearly begun among the pre-September 2015 cohort.

  • Do I take it that those Conservative supporters here who oppose creating new grammar schools are also in favour in abolishing the existing grammar schools ?

    And if not why not ?
  • Chris said:


    No idea what things are like now, but my experience in a 1970s comprehensive was there was no streaming until the third or even fourth year in subjects. Bright kids were left with little to challenge them in the first few years, and therefore were automatically well behind kids of same age who went to private or grammar schools.

    Ok - you're saying you think streaming started too late in your comprehensive.

    I'm really asking about the differences between the two systems in principle. There's nothing in the principle of a comprehensive system to say when streaming should start.

    But I accept that in a more flexible system the flexibility may be exercised in a way people don't approve of. I suppose in a selective system you are guaranteed a form of streaming - albeit crude and inflexible - from the moment of selection.
    People believe that there is something inherently different in a Grammar school. This includes vast numbers of parents, if surveys are to be believed (see: https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/big-debate-case-and-against-grammar-schools)

    I guess they mean the ethos, the subjects taught, the quality of teachers etc etc.
This discussion has been closed.