Minor criticisms of the old grammar system resulted in the overthrow of that system, largely at the behest of the educational establishment. But it has been replaced with a system that lets down children and fails to drive aspiration.
If you had a dripping tap, would you abandon indoor plumbing?
Matt is spot on as usual. How are a Labour front bench full of grammar school alumni supposed to oppose this policy with any credibility whatsoever?
They know how socially destructive selective education is?
Both my parents went to Grammar schools, and both were delighted to see the end of selective education. My dad said his grammar (in a Lancashire mill town) was full of the worst snobs on earth. The middle class of the town controlled it and kept the poor out by the combination of expensive uniform and kit list, and ghastly snobbery to the few working class pupils.
I suspect that not much has changed in the last 65 years.
Well that was a problem that should have been addressed in that school, rather than a problem with the structure itself.
My parents both came from council estates, through grammar schools into the middle classes. Those same opportunities are much harder to come by these days, although Mr. Gove's work on expanding the Acadamies programme and more rigorous exams have been a step in the right direction.
Everyone says it is much harder to come through the system etc etc. But what is the actual evidence? Wilshaw (chief inspector) doesn't seem to think there is any - he cites in particular the London experience.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
What happens if after a couple of years the % of intake at a new Grammar drops below the threshold? Does the school cease to be allowed to be selective the following year? Or are some poor, thick kids who didn't pass the 11+ admitted to make up the numbers?
Clearly if this happens the school board will run round hysterically shrieking wah wah what shall we do we should have listened to Jeremy Corbyn rather than say take a few people from the catchment area who didnt take the entry exam by lottery draw or something.
Good old Theresa, given the Remainers something else to be miserable about and while not playing games like gideon did, used a matter of principle to set labour on the opposite side of the fence to their marginal voters more effectively than Osborne ever did.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
If it were so obvious they drove aspiration and improve prospects for the worst off bringing them back would not be controversial, so in essence your comment is really saying 'this policy I like is obviously fantastic, therefore opposing it makes no sense'.
Frankly, like with the NHS, I'm sure any proposal would end up a half baked fudge of an idea, would not be as effective as claimed or indeed as bad as claimed, so the main outcome woukd be to replay historically political fights. Jeremy Corbyn would approve, he also wants to fight the battles of the past again.
I honestly don't know if they will be a good idea, what I do know is a lot of time and energy will be wasted on it - people whinge about how good or bad grammars were already, so it feels like tossing meat to a hungry dog.
Minor criticisms of the old grammar system resulted in the overthrow of that system, largely at the behest of the educational establishment. But it has been replaced with a system that lets down children and fails to drive aspiration.
If you had a dripping tap, would you abandon indoor plumbing?
Not sure you can describe it as "minor criticism". People were incensed at the state of Secondary Moderns and the 11+ divide in society.
"Thatcher’s shadow education predecessor, Edward Boyle, had been roasted at meeting after meeting by furious Tories whose children had “failed” the 11-plus and found themselves dumped in secondary moderns. Boyle struggled to promise no return to the 11-plus, but it wrecked his career."
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
There is something about grammars that makes remainer liberals and lefties foam at the mouth with outrage most satisfactorily.
Maybe we should just have a referendum on the idea?
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theresa May's majority in Parliament is no bigger than David Cameron's.
She would argue the Brexit vote gave her (and all of Government?) a mandate from the many millions of working classes that feel left out of opportunities and the same chances in life that the middle classes too.
And I suspect she'll have very little time for middle-class whinging about grammar schools.
Nevertheless many people seem to have a real problem with academic selection by merit, as opposed to that on sport or music or art, so I expect a rather rough ride.
The main problem I have is that the evidence seems to show pretty conclusively that in aggregate grammar schools lead to lower educational outcomes and to entrench the social disadvantages that poorer children have.
That is of course why Conservatives adore them.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. One has to bear in mind that there are only c.160 across England, now, and the dataset is highly limited. Besides which, the only test is an exam of ability; not houseprice or wealth or 'who you know'.
We must find a way of testing and giving fairer access, yes, and the 11+ isn't the right way, in my view, but there's nothing wrong with the principle of academic selection. Indeed, I'd argue it's critical to our future. Many other countries do it and are baffled at our squeamishness.
I'll ignore the jibes at the Conservatives.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Disappointing to see the ludicrous May trying to undo all of Goves good work on education.
Thought "consent" referred to the negotiating position not the final deal?
I can't see why you'd think that.
Because it says the negotiating shall happen after obtaining the consent of the European parliament. I think. What's the full quote you had above?
The full paragraph is:
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
So the steps are: 1) Negotiate an agreement in accordance with blah blah blah 2) Get the consent of the European Parliament for the said agreement 3) Get a QMV majority in the Council
Presumably if you lose a vote at (2) or (3) you go back to (1).
I suppose if you smoked a lot of weed then stared at the sun for a long time you could just about read it so that "concluded" meant "conducted and concluded" and the "consent" meant, "agree that it's OK to have a negotiation", but that would be extremely weird, first because if that's what you meant then why not say it, and second because rest of the process doesn't read like it lets the European Parliament say, "Actually no, you can't have a negotiation".
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
Unsurprisingly a lot of us went to one and have successful careers despite coming from modest backgrounds, many, including me, from estates as well.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, but we need schools that support academic excellence just as we need schools that support other types of excellence.
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. O
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically' get in, they'd have to pass an exam, and, second, anyone else in the town or surrounding villages who wanted it would also have a chance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
You might want to hold off on the move, and invest the money in a bit of coaching instead. Save yourself a few bob, and also reduce the risk of your kids failing to get in and being bussed across town to the Secondary Modern.
Incidentaly, as I recall, school transport is only free to the nearest school, not to any school of parental choice. Is this another way for the middle classes to keep out the riff raff?
You can get free school transport to schools not the nearest on appeal if you have a good reason, sometimes quite significant distances away even.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
Unsurprisingly a lot of us went to one and have successful careers despite coming from modest backgrounds, many, including me, from estates as well.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, but we need schools that support academic excellence just as we need schools that support other types of excellence.
It is clear that a grammar school system in aggregate is inferior. There are some winners from such a system - primarily the middle class. They should not be allowed to outweigh the needs of the many.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
There is something about grammars that makes remainer liberals and lefties foam at the mouth with outrage most satisfactorily.
Maybe we should just have a referendum on the idea?
LOL. However, as a Remainer I can assure you I am not foaming at the mouth. Although it is only 8am.
Anything that's exam-based will favour those who can afford tuition. That disadvantages kids from poorer backgrounds. So, why not ensure all schools are excellent, not just some? Experience in London over the last 20 years shows it's doable.
Funny how that 20 years has coincided with working classes being driven out and reduced in proprtion to middle class immigrants who have moved there from the shires and abroad.
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. O
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the schoolchance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
You might want to hold off on the move, and invest the money in a bit of coaching instead. Save yourself a few bob, and also reduce the risk of your kids failing to get in and being bussed across town to the Secondary Modern.
Incidentaly, as I recall, school transport is only free to the nearest school, not to any school of parental choice. Is this another way for the middle classes to keep out the riff raff?
You can get free school transport to schools not the nearest on appeal if you have a good reason, sometimes quite significant distances away even.
How many appeal? In Southam there's one secondary school. There is no choice.
It does strike me as odd that Grammar is the chosen policy for the big first non-Brexit strike.
For a start it's not in Tory manifesto, so they will have a bad old time getting any of this through the Lords. Secondly, Greening has been in post about two months. Has she really prepared a detailed review of current policy and written a green paper? Hmm.
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically' get in, they'd have to pass an exam, and, second, anyone else in the town or surrounding villages who wanted it would also have a chance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
Anything that's exam-based will favour those who can afford tuition. That disadvantages kids from poorer backgrounds. So, why not ensure all schools are excellent, not just some? Experience in London over the last 20 years shows it's doable.
When I was at school 50 yrs ago, there were three streams G L and M G for German (and Latin) L for Latin (no German) and M for Modern that included a bit of French
There were inevitable referred to as "G"enius "L"earned and "M"oron.
It is clear that a grammar school system in aggregate is inferior. There are some winners from such a system - primarily the middle class. They should not be allowed to outweigh the needs of the many.
that's dangerous socialist talk. equality of opportunity is all. we don't care about outcomes. And if that just happens to benefit the ones who already have most of the money, well, that' clearly because they work harder/are genetically superior etc.
It does strike me as odd that Grammar is the chosen policy for the big first non-Brexit strike.
For a start it's not in Tory manifesto, so they will have a bad old time getting any of this through the Lords. Secondly, Greening has been in post about two months. Has she really prepared a detailed review of current policy and written a green paper? Hmm.
Parliament Act
Doesn't that involve a bit of back and forth? Or has it been amended.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
Unsurprisingly a lot of us went to one and have successful careers despite coming from modest backgrounds, many, including me, from estates as well.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, but we need schools that support academic excellence just as we need schools that support other types of excellence.
It is clear that a grammar school system in aggregate is inferior. There are some winners from such a system - primarily the middle class. They should not be allowed to outweigh the needs of the many.
Then fix the system so the middle classes can't game entry, I favour retesting at the end of 2nd form with the failures being shifted to the nearest non-grammar school and those from outside who pass can start at the grammar in 3rd form.
If that was the case then the middle class parents with thick children would be less likely to bother, or at least would ensure their thick children had to keep up instead of making it the school's problem.
First Brexit, then Corbyn, now grammar schools. There seems no end to nostalgia driven bullshit. Fully expect the government to have a plan to reintroduce rickets.
obtaining her own mandate at a general election might help her avoid the fate of her predecessors.
I expect that's exactly what she'll do.
In May 2020.
BREXIT talks aren't going to get serious until the French & German elections are out of the way......so Article 50 mid-to late 2017, deal wrapped up before 2020.....
May 2020 - 'You asked, we delivered' - meanwhile Labour & UKIP have torn themselves apart and Sturgeon has been too busy stoking up grievance and affront to either call a referendum or run her country properly.....
I wonder if we'll still have an EU Parliament election in 2019.
I guess we're a member of the EU until we're no longer a member of the EU......but we've already declined the Presidency next year - so sacrificing our MEPs a couple of months early could do no harm......it would be worth it for the squeals of protest as they're chucked off the gravy train......
I don't think it was clarified if the EU parliament votes on the final deal. If it does, we'd want to keep our MEPs up until the last moment.
I don't think there was ever any unclarity about this. The treaty says " after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament". Being a parliament they presumably consent or decline to consent by voting, rather than by a darts competition or whatever.
Thought "consent" referred to the negotiating position not the final deal?
I can't see why you'd think that.
Because it says the negotiating shall happen after obtaining the consent of the European parliament. I think. What's the full quote you had above?
No it doesn't. It says that the European Council sets out guidelines before the negotiations start. The deal is then concluded by the Council after getting the consent of the European Parliament.
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. O
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically'.
You might want to hold off on the move, and invest the money in a bit of coaching instead. Save yourself a few bob, and also reduce the risk of your kids failing to get in and being bussed across town to the Secondary Modern.
Incidentaly, as I recall, school transport is only free to the nearest school, not to any school of parental choice. Is this another way for the middle classes to keep out the riff raff?
School transport will also have to be designed such that it doesn't disadvantage those who can't afford transport.
I have no problems with my kids being subject to competitive pressures. That's what life is about, and will be in getting into good universities and good jobs as well.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
There is something about grammars that makes remainer liberals and lefties foam at the mouth with outrage most satisfactorily.
Even more than most political topics I feel with this one I could predict every point and counterpoint in my head beforehand. I think I'll duck off before we escalate to how grammars will save the world or see it sink into eternal night forevermore. Political nerds, by and large, just love this stuff. They don't really want the issue resolved, and one way proven to be better, as they couldn't argue about it any more.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. O
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically' get in, they'd have to pass an exam, and, second, anyone else in the town or surrounding villages who wanted it would also have a chance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
You might want to hold off on the move, and invest the money in a bit of coaching instead. Sav
You can get free school transport to schools not the nearest on appeal if you have a good reason, sometimes quite significant distances away even.
Will going to a grammar school be enough reason? And how are the councils going to fund it?
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. O
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically'.
You might want to hold off on the move, and invest the money in a bit of coaching instead. Save yourself a few bob, and also reduce the risk of your kids failing to get in and being bussed across town to the Secondary Modern.
Incidentaly, as I recall, school transport is only free to the nearest school, not to any school of parental choice. Is this another way for the middle classes to keep out the riff raff?
School transport will also have to be designed such that it doesn't disadvantage those who can't afford transport.
I have no problems with my kids being subject to competitive pressures. That's what life is about, and will be in getting into good universities and good jobs as well.
First Brexit, then Corbyn, now grammar schools. There seems no end to nostalgia driven bullshit. Fully expect the government to have a plan to reintroduce rickets.
Its all the rage Jonathan, get with it.. My wife wants a retro fridge freezer..
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. O
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically' get in, they'd have to pass an exam, and, second, anyone else in the town or surrounding villages who wanted it would also have a chance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
You might want to hold off on the move, and invest the money in a bit of coaching instead. Sav
You can get free school transport to schools not the nearest on appeal if you have a good reason, sometimes quite significant distances away even.
Will going to a grammar school be enough reason? And how are the councils going to fund it?
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
Ifnce to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
Anything that's exam-based will favour those who can afford tuition. That disadvantages kids from poorer backgrounds. So, why not ensure all schools are excellent, not just some? Experience in London over the last 20 years shows it's doable.
All schools are in London are not excellent.
The vast majority have shown huge improvements. London schools in aggregate are now the best in the country in the state system. The work is not finished, but it is progressing very well.
First Brexit, then Corbyn, now grammar schools. There seems no end to nostalgia driven bullshit. Fully expect the government to have a plan to reintroduce rickets.
I am sure that the PB League of Empire Loyalists will have other ideas ahead of that.
Perhaps GP's should be able to select their patients on the basis of a few tests. No-one who smokes or has a BMI over 35 for example ;-)
Anything that's exam-based will favour those who can afford tuition. That disadvantages kids from poorer backgrounds. So, why not ensure all schools are excellent, not just some? Experience in London over the last 20 years shows it's doable.
Funny how that 20 years has coincided with working classes being driven out and reduced in proprtion to middle class immigrants who have moved there from the shires and abroad.
First Brexit, then Corbyn, now grammar schools. There seems no end to nostalgia driven bullshit. Fully expect the government to have a plan to reintroduce rickets.
I am sure that the PB League of Empire Loyalists will have other ideas ahead of that.
Perhaps GP's should be able to select their patients on the basis of a few tests. No-one who smokes or has a BMI over 35 for example ;-)
So long as you do it on a Sunday, ideally on a golf course, I am sure they won't mind.
You might want to hold off on the move, and invest the money in a bit of coaching instead. Save yourself a few bob, and also reduce the risk of your kids failing to get in and being bussed across town to the Secondary Modern.
Incidentaly, as I recall, school transport is only free to the nearest school, not to any school of parental choice. Is this another way for the middle classes to keep out the riff raff?
For most people school transport is free to the nearest school with places available provided it is more than 3 miles from home (2 miles if the child is under 8).
If the child is entitled to FSM or the parents receive the maximum WTC they will receive free transport to any of the 4 nearest schools provided it is more than 2 miles from home. If they want to choose a faith school they can choose the nearest school of the appropriate faith and receive free transport regardless of how many other schools are nearer home.
Just wondering if this is a 'look squirrel' or dead cat on the table event? Distract everyone from Brexit rows for the weekend.
May knows that further down the line she is going to have to disappoint a lot of Tory rightwingers on Brexit. With grammars she is seeking to build credit.
Headlines we have missed: 12th November 1918, The Prime Minister has no Mandate to seek an Armistice with Germany.
October 1st 1938, The Right Hon Member has no Mandate to sign an agreement with The German Chancellor in Munich.
13 May 1940, the Prime Minister has no mandate to offer blood, toil, tears and sweat.
To be honest, the Lords would have tried to block Grammars even if they had been in the GE2015 manifesto. The test is whether they can obstruct, not whether they should.
This just provides a more convenient excuse.
Of course they cant block it. You just send it to tbem in April and then use the Parliament Act after new session opens in June if they cause trouble.
Indeed. Wouldn't be surprised to see a steady trickle of Conservative peers appointed during this Parliament to try and redress the balance. I don't like over use of the Parliament Act - it's supposed to be reserved for key policies, not wasted on trivia like fox hunting.
Next you'll be saying that the NHS is anti consumer because it discriminates against healthy patients.
Oh, and no one seems to have understood the low income quotas.
No, it would be like select NHS hospitals refusing to treat patients with difficult complications or social deprivation issues and then poliicians thinking the 'amazing' success they have can be replicated everywhere.
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I do
I'll ignore the jibes at the Conservatives.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically' get in, they'd have to pass an exam, and, second, anyone else in the town or surrounding villages who wanted it would also have a chance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
We already have academic selection, by wealth, postcode, connections, religion etc. On the face of it, selection by examination seems fairer.
OTOH, maybe people are happier to have covert, rather than overt, selection while denying to themselves that such a thing exists.
Minor criticisms of the old grammar system resulted in the overthrow of that system, largely at the behest of the educational establishment. But it has been replaced with a system that lets down children and fails to drive aspiration.
If you had a dripping tap, would you abandon indoor plumbing?
Grammar schools were not popular with parents at large.
Just wondering if this is a 'look squirrel' or dead cat on the table event? Distract everyone from Brexit rows for the weekend.
May knows that further down the line she is going to have to disappoint a lot of Tory rightwingers on Brexit. With grammars she is seeking to build credit.
May isn't Osborne.
Whatever you think of the policy, I think May genuinely believes in it.
Just wondering if this is a 'look squirrel' or dead cat on the table event? Distract everyone from Brexit rows for the weekend.
May knows that further down the line she is going to have to disappoint a lot of Tory rightwingers on Brexit. With grammars she is seeking to build credit.
Is she really that cynical? Get the nations kids to take silly exams just to save her political skin?
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theresa May's majority in Parliament is no bigger than David Cameron's.
She would argue the Brexit vote gave her (and all of Government?) a mandate from the many millions of working classes that feel left out of opportunities and the same chances in life that the middle classes too.
And I suspect she'll have very little time for middle-class whinging about grammar schools.
Nevertheless many people seem to have a real problem with academic selection by merit, as opposed to that on sport or music or art, so I expect a rather rough ride.
The main problem I have is that the evidence seems to show pretty conclusively that in aggregate grammar schools lead to lower educational outcomes and to entrench the social disadvantages that poorer children have.
That is of course why Conservatives adore them.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. One has to bear in mind that there are only c.160 across England, now, and the dataset is highly limited. Besides which, the only test is an exam of ability; not houseprice or wealth or 'who you know'.
We must find a way of testing and giving fairer access, yes, and the 11+ isn't the right way, in my view, but there's nothing wrong with the principle of academic selection. Indeed, I'd argue it's critical to our future. Many other countries do it and are baffled at our squeamishness.
I'll ignore the jibes at the Conservatives.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
What? It is literally the producer getting to stop 'undesirable' consumers using their service.
It is the most pro-producer anti-consumer move imaginable.
Ah, another one who wants to ban credit scoring.
Yes, because 11 year olds are completely analogous to people wanting a loan.
Really, the government could make this grammar school re-introduction much more palatable by introducing some reforms/safeguards:
- only re-introduced into areas that clearly want it - ensure that in grammar school areas pupils get the same funding whichever school they go to - scrap the 11+ exam and instead base entry into grammar schools by academic performance during primary school years
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
Unsurprisingly a lot of us went to one and have successful careers despite coming from modest backgrounds, many, including me, from estates as well.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, but we need schools that support academic excellence just as we need schools that support other types of excellence.
It is clear that a grammar school system in aggregate is inferior. There are some winners from such a system - primarily the middle class. They should not be allowed to outweigh the needs of the many.
Then fix the system so the middle classes can't game entry, I favour retesting at the end of 2nd form with the failures being shifted to the nearest non-grammar school and those from outside who pass can start at the grammar in 3rd form.
If that was the case then the middle class parents with thick children would be less likely to bother, or at least would ensure their thick children had to keep up instead of making it the school's problem.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
Just wondering if this is a 'look squirrel' or dead cat on the table event? Distract everyone from Brexit rows for the weekend.
May knows that further down the line she is going to have to disappoint a lot of Tory rightwingers on Brexit. With grammars she is seeking to build credit.
May isn't Osborne.
Whatever you think of the policy, I think May genuinely believes in it.
So much so that she has never previously referred to it!
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
Ifnce to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
Anything that's exam-based will favour those who can afford tuition. That disadvantages kids from poorer backgrounds. So, why not ensure all schools are excellent, not just some? Experience in London over the last 20 years shows it's doable.
All schools are in London are not excellent.
The vast majority have shown huge improvements. London schools in aggregate are now the best in the country in the state system. The work is not finished, but it is progressing very well.
It's great to see that the education reforms made by the Conservatives since 2010 have been a huge success.
Anything that's exam-based will favour those who can afford tuition. That disadvantages kids from poorer backgrounds. So, why not ensure all schools are excellent, not just some? Experience in London over the last 20 years shows it's doable.
Funny how that 20 years has coincided with working classes being driven out and reduced in proprtion to middle class immigrants who have moved there from the shires and abroad.
Middle class immigrants :-D
Whatever class they are they have a middle class attitude to education and work their socks off. When you come from a country with no social security whatsoever, education is the only way out of poverty.
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
Ifnce to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
Anything that's exam-based will favour those who can afford tuition. That disadvantages kids from poorer backgrounds. So, why not ensure all schools are excellent, not just some? Experience in London over the last 20 years shows it's doable.
All schools are in London are not excellent.
The vast majority have shown huge improvements. London schools in aggregate are now the best in the country in the state system. The work is not finished, but it is progressing very well.
I doubt if the government could afford to match London's funding per child across the country as a whole.
Just wondering if this is a 'look squirrel' or dead cat on the table event? Distract everyone from Brexit rows for the weekend.
May knows that further down the line she is going to have to disappoint a lot of Tory rightwingers on Brexit. With grammars she is seeking to build credit.
Is she really that cynical? Get the nations kids to take silly exams just to save her political skin?
Odds are she thinks it is a good policy which also happens to be politically good for her.
Eh, I won't dismiss a policy just because it has a cynical aspect to its proposing, but I will say advocates tend to seem a bit overblown on the issue.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
"The son of a postman, Wilshaw grew up in a Roman Catholic household in south London in the 1950s. He went to Clapham College, a south London grammar school. "
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Maybe all the luvvie types objecting should stop auditioning for their plays on ability...
..I thought not.
Are people so thick they cannot spot the difference between child education and adult life.
Why not select at age 5? Have Grammar primary schools? What's the logical argument against them or do you hate raising educational standards and are a communist?
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't think that's what the evidence shows. O
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We '.
Y
School transport will also have to be designed such that it doesn't disadvantage those who can't afford transport.
I have no problems with my kids being subject to competitive pressures. That's what life is about, and will be in getting into good universities and good jobs as well.
Good grief.
If you think I should be shocked by what I wrote, or your reaction to it, then I am clearly missing something.
Identifying and selecting those with talent is how one develops throughout life. I sat exams from the age of eight (on a Saturday morning, I might add) and quite enjoyed them.
If our children turn out not to be academically gifted then we will, of course, need to identity what they are good at and work with it to identify a suitable good education route with them.
Just wondering if this is a 'look squirrel' or dead cat on the table event? Distract everyone from Brexit rows for the weekend.
May knows that further down the line she is going to have to disappoint a lot of Tory rightwingers on Brexit. With grammars she is seeking to build credit.
May isn't Osborne.
Whatever you think of the policy, I think May genuinely believes in it.
So much so that she has never previously referred to it!
I think she has, actually, and has been dropping hints on it for months.
I guess we're going to find out how many Conservative MPs are opposed to grammar schools. Since Theresa May has no mandate for this policy, any MP who disagrees with it will have no difficulty in expressing that disagreement in the House of Commons.
Theres.
.
I don't.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
Wivate school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
Ifnce to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
Anything that's exam-based will favour those who can afford tuition. That disadvantages kids from poorer backgrounds. So, why not ensure all schools are excellent, not just some? Experience in London over the last 20 years shows it's doable.
All schools are in London are not excellent.
The vast majority have shown huge improvements. London schools in aggregate are now the best in the country in the state system. The work is not finished, but it is progressing very well.
It's great to see that the education reforms made by the Conservatives since 2010 have been a huge success.
:-) It started way before that at the fag end of the Major government then accelerated from the late 90s onwards.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Like my son, you were lucky with your parents. Sadly, a lot of kids aren't.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically' get in, they'd have to pass an exam, and, second, anyone else in the town or surrounding villages who wanted it would also have a chance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
We already have academic selection, by wealth, postcode, connections, religion etc. On the face of it, selection by examination seems fairer.
OTOH, maybe people are happier to have covert, rather than overt, selection while denying to themselves that such a thing exists.
And those same middle-class people, who never leave their nice middle-class areas, don't understand that the parents on the other side of town will do anything to get their child into a good school, rather than the local comp.
Just wondering if this is a 'look squirrel' or dead cat on the table event? Distract everyone from Brexit rows for the weekend.
May knows that further down the line she is going to have to disappoint a lot of Tory rightwingers on Brexit. With grammars she is seeking to build credit.
May isn't Osborne.
Whatever you think of the policy, I think May genuinely believes in it.
So much so that she has never previously referred to it!
I think she has, actually, and has been dropping hints on it for months.
It did seem trailed, though I'd be hard pressed to recall details. I feel like the whispers have been out this was on the cards, certainly it came as no surprise.
Really, the government could make this grammar school re-introduction much more palatable by introducing some reforms/safeguards:
- only re-introduced into areas that clearly want it - ensure that in grammar school areas pupils get the same funding whichever school they go to - scrap the 11+ exam and instead base entry into grammar schools by academic performance during primary school years
They could even interview children for latent talent through creative reasoning, and questioning, on top of their primary school track record. This would need to be done in a way that didn't select on 'confidence' but drew out the inner abilities of the child, and perhaps took their social background into account as well.
Although some would object to that as much as a written exam.
Watching PMQs yesterday made me realise that we now have two weak leaders at the top of our major parties.May is clearly out of her depth and her hesitant replies and weak jokes suggest this.Corbyn is also uncomfortable and unappealing in his role. I can't see any resolution in the near future.
First Brexit, then Corbyn, now grammar schools. There seems no end to nostalgia driven bullshit. Fully expect the government to have a plan to reintroduce rickets.
I am sure that the PB League of Empire Loyalists will have other ideas ahead of that.
Perhaps GP's should be able to select their patients on the basis of a few tests. No-one who smokes or has a BMI over 35 for example ;-)
So long as you do it on a Sunday, ideally on a golf course, I am sure they won't mind.
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
There's something about the subject of grammar schools that shrivels the brains of rightwingers. The evidence is clear, yet all they are interested in is a torrent of anecdotes.
And the same applies for leftwingers as well.
I can't even begin to describe my zen neutrality on grammar schools here in the centre.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Like my son, you were lucky with your parents. Sadly, a lot of kids aren't.
Your wife must be a saint, for sure. I'm frankly doubtful about the good fortune on the paternal side.
I genuinely don't understand why educating our children has to be so complicated. Governments of all stripes have failed abysmally to tackle the problems, and generally just tend to mess things up more and teachers and the unions must take a share of the blame as well. Schools in my area advertise on local radio, and have "business managers" to promote them. Why? What the flying feck does a local Comp-sorry- "Academy" -need a bloody business manager for? Can't we just have good schools in every area, educating pupils to a high standard? Or am I being naive?
Watching PMQs yesterday made me realise that we now have two weak leaders at the top of our major parties.May is clearly out of her depth and her hesitant replies and weak jokes suggest this.Corbyn is also uncomfortable and unappealing in his role. I can't see any resolution in the near future.
I can't remember a time when the overall political leadership in this country has been so poor. The utter mediocrity of the government front bench is being masked by the joke that Labour has become, but there's no getting away from its desperately poor quality. A cabinet in which Fox, Davis, Johnson and Leadsom all feature is not one to write home about.
Just wondering if this is a 'look squirrel' or dead cat on the table event? Distract everyone from Brexit rows for the weekend.
May knows that further down the line she is going to have to disappoint a lot of Tory rightwingers on Brexit. With grammars she is seeking to build credit.
Is she really that cynical? Get the nations kids to take silly exams just to save her political skin?
Odds are she thinks it is a good policy which also happens to be politically good for her.
Eh, I won't dismiss a policy just because it has a cynical aspect to its proposing, but I will say advocates tend to seem a bit overblown on the issue.
I'm afraid whatever the merits I am left with a queasy feeling that a major education policy change is about to be enacted that wasn't mentioned in the GE campaign or in manifesto. Indeed, seems to be about tearing up the last set of policies on academies and free schools.
So the Tories want to bring back failure as an educational criteria. What question are they asking when grammar schools become the answer? In our small West Country town we have an excellent comprehensive where we had a secondary modern and grammar system, no one is clamouring to bring back selection. Where is the evidence for this proposed travesty?
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically' get in, they'd have to pass an exam, and, second, anyone else in the town or surrounding villages who wanted it would also have a chance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
We already have academic selection, by wealth, postcode, connections, religion etc. On the face of it, selection by examination seems fairer.
OTOH, maybe people are happier to have covert, rather than overt, selection while denying to themselves that such a thing exists.
And those same middle-class people, who never leave their nice middle-class areas, don't understand that the parents on the other side of town will do anything to get their child into a good school, rather than the local comp.
I think it's fairly common for people to condemn what they privately approve. I wouldn't call it conscious hypocrisy, more the ability to hold two completely contradictory sets of views.
School selection at 13 might be a decent compromise. 11 is perhaps a touch young, my prep school was always giving us "common entrance" (13+) papers as it went to 13.
The thing about Grammar schools is that surely all those middle class left of centre voters that live in the metropolitan areas won't consider sending their Children to them anyway. Surely their ideological purity and the belief that mixing with people from all classes of the social and educational strata is good for their children's development will override the possible educational benefits.
This would then mean that the demand for Grammars is only in places where the population generally vote Conservative anyway, and will welcome the return of selective education. Everybody will be happy.
Grammar schools are part of a wider policy driving improvement and aspiration in the education sector.
That is of course why non-Conservatives dislike them.
How does getting special schools for middle class parents who can afford tutorial for their kids drive improvement across the whole education sector?
I don't accept your classist comment, but it drives improvement because it prioritises the consumer over the educational establishment.
No, it means schools get to choose who their customers are. It's 100% producer interest.
Hang on. I'm just about to buy a 4 bed detached house (hopefully) with my wife in the catchment area of one of the top 10% state schools in the country. We are certainly paying extra for it.
Why? Because we can afford to.
We could move to a cheaper house elsewhere in the town, outside the catchment area, and then either send our children to a poorer school and supplement heavily for private tuition, or work hard at our careers in the hope we can afford to send them to private school.
If you're poor, these options are not open to you. You are stuck with what's in your neighbourhood and that's it.
If these changes went through, and the school we want turns into a grammar, firstly our kids wouldn't 'automatically' get in, they'd have to pass an exam, and, second, anyone else in the town or surrounding villages who wanted it would also have a chance to get in through the same exam.
I accept there are challenges on the age/type of exam, ensuring poorer pupils aren't disadvantages in it, and what happens to the residual school network but, overall, I'd say that's fairer.
We already have academic selection, by wealth, postcode, connections, religion etc. On the face of it, selection by examination seems fairer.
OTOH, maybe people are happier to have covert, rather than overt, selection while denying to themselves that such a thing exists.
And those same middle-class people, who never leave their nice middle-class areas, don't understand that the parents on the other side of town will do anything to get their child into a good school, rather than the local comp.
...apart from vote for parties that will destroy the Blob and enforce discipline and standards in education...
I've always been puzzled by the left's antipathy to grammar schools.
In the sixties, it was the public school lefties (Crosland et al) who were most against them.
Discriminating by ability ... bad. Discriminating by parent's wealth ... fine. And that was when coaching for the 11-plus was virtually unknown. if I were a cynic, I'd suspect they had a personal interest.
Watching PMQs yesterday made me realise that we now have two weak leaders at the top of our major parties.May is clearly out of her depth and her hesitant replies and weak jokes suggest this.Corbyn is also uncomfortable and unappealing in his role. I can't see any resolution in the near future.
I can't remember a time when the overall political leadership in this country has been so poor. The utter mediocrity of the government front bench is being masked by the joke that Labour has become, but there's no getting away from its desperately poor quality. A cabinet in which Fox, Davis, Johnson and Leadsom all feature is not one to write home about.
I disagree, May is tenacious, ruthless and blessed with low cunning. The ever-increasing ridiculousness of the people who are supposed to be making Brexit happen is a feature not a bug.
Labour is clearly having some difficulties, but it's a phase oppositions seem to need to go through.
School selection at 13 might be a decent compromise. 11 is perhaps a touch young, my prep school was always giving us "common entrance" (13+) papers as it went to 13.
That, I think is the best solution along with middle schooling instead of extended primary teaching we have now. Would be huge change for teachers and the country though.
First Brexit, then Corbyn, now grammar schools. There seems no end to nostalgia driven bullshit. Fully expect the government to have a plan to reintroduce rickets.
Way ahead of you.
'Rickets soar as children stay indoors: Number diagnosed with disease quadruples in last ten years'
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
As someone who failed the 11 plus but went to a number of Grammar schools and got a degree, I would agree with you. There are a few places such as Dorchester where they have middle schools and they seem to suit kids better.
Schools in my area advertise on local radio, and have "business managers" to promote them. Why? What the flying feck does a local Comp-sorry- "Academy" -need a bloody business manager for?
To extract money from the public purse. That academies are notionally non-profit is a hilarious joke.
Au contraire to all this, I think May won a leadership election, by a knockout rather than on points. As Corbyn is going to win the labour leadership in spite of the plp no confidence vote, they are debarred from arguing that anyone else has a defective mandate.
I also think that her task in delivering Brexit is slightly easier than is sometimes suggested. The differences between the various Brexits on offer are so anorak ish that not one voter in 50 could explain what they are; provided we get to a position where the list of EU members ends, alphabetically, with Sweden, she will have done what we voted for. If it turns out to have been a dreadful mistake it will take time to do so and it is May's successor who will take the flak.
Children fail exams for any number of reasons, not just because they are thick. My middle son - currently at Nottingham University - struggled for years at school because he was born at the end of August. It was only when he was 16/17 that he finally and fully bridged the gap with kids born earlier in the school year.
31st of August, reporting for duty!
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Here in Central Bedfordshire we already have that system - despite the government doing everything it can to dismantle three tier education.
Means we keep village schools as they only go up to nine so can be small.
Middle schools get kids into secondary school education at nine and get taught by secondary qualified teachers from that age.
Upper school (13 onwards) is more of a college ethos and with less years and more kids per year can do a broader subject range - one of mine is doing GCSE agriculture on the school farm (yes jt has livestock).
Its a comprehensive but started out as a secondary modern.Personally I wouldnt be tempted by a grammar school but there are plenty of places a grammar school would provide competition for a mediocre compo, goading it into driving up its standards
First Brexit, then Corbyn, now grammar schools. There seems no end to nostalgia driven bullshit. Fully expect the government to have a plan to reintroduce rickets.
Way ahead of you.
'Rickets soar as children stay indoors: Number diagnosed with disease quadruples in last ten years'
I feel like aging neck beards and country squires have been wanting to argue about grammar schools again for donkeys years. This is manna from heaven as far as they're concerned.
It's rare I pull out this particular cliche, but hasn't the country got better things to be getting on with?
Than driving aspiration for all children, and especially Improving the prospects of the worst off?
I'd say that is pretty worthwhile.
Or should we be diddling around the edges and manage our decline?
"The son of a postman, Wilshaw grew up in a Roman Catholic household in south London in the 1950s. He went to Clapham College, a south London grammar school. "
Hmmm. Clapham College 1950s. My Grandfather probably taught him
School selection at 13 might be a decent compromise. 11 is perhaps a touch young, my prep school was always giving us "common entrance" (13+) papers as it went to 13.
I went to a grammar and would not seek to deny any child what I had. The problem is not grammars themselves, but what happens to the vast majority of kids that don't make it to them. That's where I'd like to see discussion focus. Grammars mean extra choice for around 20% of parents. So what about the 80%?
One thing's certain. A return to grammar schools will be very expensive. The Tory magic money tree will no doubt bridge the gap.
Why is that certain ? It is not uncommon now for a grammar school to receive less per pupil finding than other schools in the same local authority area. And why would you assume that the progress towards 'fairer funding' will be halted ?
The creation of new schools is certainly expensive, but I would be very surprised if any policy which finally emerges results in the creation of very many new schools (not least because the money isn't there), rather than the conversion of existing ones.
One of the prime reasons for the legacy of bitterness from the original postwar grammar/secondary modern system was the glaring disparity of resources allocated between the two. It's extremely unlikely that will be replicated.
Has an air of videogame micro-transactions, paying to win.
The forthcoming Nasdaq listing of F1 should at least improve the transparency of the sport to the public. The excellent Joe Saward has a series of posts on the takeover, and what differences we might see coming. https://joesaward.wordpress.com
School selection at 13 might be a decent compromise. 11 is perhaps a touch young, my prep school was always giving us "common entrance" (13+) papers as it went to 13.
Swings and roundabouts imho – I think for independent preps schools, 8-13 is the norm, so a new 13+ would disproportionately advantage this group and impact on available places at the new grammars, unless there are blocks put in place in the new legislation.
obtaining her own mandate at a general election might help her avoid the fate of her predecessors.
I expect that's exactly what she'll do.
In May 2020.
BREXIT talks aren't going to get serious until the French & German elections are out of the way......so Article 50 mid-to late 2017, deal wrapped up before 2020.....
May 2020 - 'You asked, we delivered' - meanwhile Labour & UKIP have torn themselves apart and Sturgeon has been too busy stoking up grievance and affront to either call a referendum or run her country properly.....
I wonder if we'll still have an EU Parliament election in 2019.
I guess we're a member of the EU until we're no longer a member of the EU......but we've already declined the Presidency next year - so sacrificing our MEPs a couple of months early could do no harm......it would be worth it for the squeals of protest as they're chucked off the gravy train......
I don't think it was clarified if the EU parliament votes on the final deal. If it does, we'd want to keep our MEPs up until the last moment.
EU Parliament has to ratify any deal.
By clarified I mean whether or not the British MEPs get to vote on it.
I don't think there's anything in the treaty to suggest they wouldn't.
True. It is however also true that in other respects we are excluded from participating in decisions relating to the EU side of the Brexit process.
On the proposed reintroduction of secondary moderns. We've already ended up with what I think must be just about the most fragmented, inconsistent, uncoordinated and unaccountable system of school governance in the developed world. What is now being proposed seems only to add to that hotch potch, removing even further the limitations that once prevented headteachers becoming a law unto themselves. The system doesn't deliver at the moment on educational outcomes, nor will the changed one. Also, the idea that this new set of changes will open up rather than restrict further social mobility is risible.
So, instead of just digging a deeper hole, let's tear the whole thing up and start again. Look for developing countres with manifestly high educational outcomes, in a society with relatively high social mobility. Pick the organisation of the schooling system in one of these, it doesn't particularly matter which, and just import it lock, stock and barrel. Go with what works, but do so in its entirety rather than in a piecemeal fashion.
School selection at 13 might be a decent compromise. 11 is perhaps a touch young, my prep school was always giving us "common entrance" (13+) papers as it went to 13.
I went to a grammar and would not seek to deny any child what I had. The problem is not grammars themselves, but what happens to the vast majority of kids that don't make it to them. That's where I'd like to see discussion focus. Grammars mean extra choice for around 20% of parents. So what about the &0%?
This is why May's plan is a work of political genius to rival Brexit Means Brexit. *All* the schools can become grammars.
What is the mechanism by which selecting for ability improves educational outcomes? It simply seems to be adding an extra layer of faff amd waste. Just focus on making all schools well disciplined and with teaching that stretches all pupils. Grammars just seem an admission of failure.
obtaining her own mandate at a general election might help her avoid the fate of her predecessors.
I expect that's exactly what she'll do.
In May 2020.
BREXIT talks aren't going to get serious until the French & German elections are out of the way......so Article 50 mid-to late 2017, deal wrapped up before 2020.....
May 2020 - 'You asked, we delivered' - meanwhile Labour & UKIP have torn themselves apart and Sturgeon has been too busy stoking up grievance and affront to either call a referendum or run her country properly.....
I wonder if we'll still have an EU Parliament election in 2019.
I guess we're a member of the EU until we're no longer a member of the EU......but we've already declined the Presidency next year - so sacrificing our MEPs a couple of months early could do no harm......it would be worth it for the squeals of protest as they're chucked off the gravy train......
I don't think it was clarified if the EU parliament votes on the final deal. If it does, we'd want to keep our MEPs up until the last moment.
EU Parliament has to ratify any deal.
By clarified I mean whether or not the British MEPs get to vote on it.
I don't think there's anything in the treaty to suggest they wouldn't.
True. It is however also true that in other respects we are excluded from participating in decisions relating to the EU side of the Brexit process.
I'll try and dig out the legal position again if people need it, but UK MEPs will have a vote on the final draft of the agreement.
Comments
If you had a dripping tap, would you abandon indoor plumbing?
Luckily for May, he is going this Autumn, iirc.
Good old Theresa, given the Remainers something else to be miserable about and while not playing games like gideon did, used a matter of principle to set labour on the opposite side of the fence to their marginal voters more effectively than Osborne ever did.
Frankly, like with the NHS, I'm sure any proposal would end up a half baked fudge of an idea, would not be as effective as claimed or indeed as bad as claimed, so the main outcome woukd be to replay historically political fights. Jeremy Corbyn would approve, he also wants to fight the battles of the past again.
I honestly don't know if they will be a good idea, what I do know is a lot of time and energy will be wasted on it - people whinge about how good or bad grammars were already, so it feels like tossing meat to a hungry dog.
"Thatcher’s shadow education predecessor, Edward Boyle, had been roasted at meeting after meeting by furious Tories whose children had “failed” the 11-plus and found themselves dumped in secondary moderns. Boyle struggled to promise no return to the 11-plus, but it wrecked his career."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/07/thatcher-grammars-poison-theresa-may-tories
Maybe we should just have a referendum on the idea?
1) Negotiate an agreement in accordance with blah blah blah
2) Get the consent of the European Parliament for the said agreement
3) Get a QMV majority in the Council
Presumably if you lose a vote at (2) or (3) you go back to (1).
I suppose if you smoked a lot of weed then stared at the sun for a long time you could just about read it so that "concluded" meant "conducted and concluded" and the "consent" meant, "agree that it's OK to have a negotiation", but that would be extremely weird, first because if that's what you meant then why not say it, and second because rest of the process doesn't read like it lets the European Parliament say, "Actually no, you can't have a negotiation".
I'm not saying the system is perfect, but we need schools that support academic excellence just as we need schools that support other types of excellence.
G for German (and Latin) L for Latin (no German) and M for Modern that included a bit of French
There were inevitable referred to as "G"enius "L"earned and "M"oron.
If that was the case then the middle class parents with thick children would be less likely to bother, or at least would ensure their thick children had to keep up instead of making it the school's problem.
I have no problems with my kids being subject to competitive pressures. That's what life is about, and will be in getting into good universities and good jobs as well.
Give me AV any day.
Perhaps GP's should be able to select their patients on the basis of a few tests. No-one who smokes or has a BMI over 35 for example ;-)
If the child is entitled to FSM or the parents receive the maximum WTC they will receive free transport to any of the 4 nearest schools provided it is more than 2 miles from home. If they want to choose a faith school they can choose the nearest school of the appropriate faith and receive free transport regardless of how many other schools are nearer home.
OTOH, maybe people are happier to have covert, rather than overt, selection while denying to themselves that such a thing exists.
Whatever you think of the policy, I think May genuinely believes in it.
- only re-introduced into areas that clearly want it
- ensure that in grammar school areas pupils get the same funding whichever school they go to
- scrap the 11+ exam and instead base entry into grammar schools by academic performance during primary school years
Saw the first half or so of Corbyn and Smith on Question Time. Surprised there wasn't a green mist, given how poisonous the atmosphere was.
..I thought not.
Eh, I won't dismiss a policy just because it has a cynical aspect to its proposing, but I will say advocates tend to seem a bit overblown on the issue.
"The son of a postman, Wilshaw grew up in a Roman Catholic household in south London in the 1950s. He went to Clapham College, a south London grammar school. "
I know that specific struggle, but then again I remember sitting down with my dad before I started and essentially he said that for the first time I wouldn't automatically be the smartest in class, but I still needed to work hard. Words to live by.
Personally I would be much more radical with school changws and create middle schooling from age 8-13 and start high school/secondary school at 14-18 with a much broader selection criteria, rather than judt academic achievement. Our system is too inflexible.
Why not select at age 5? Have Grammar primary schools? What's the logical argument against them or do you hate raising educational standards and are a communist?
Identifying and selecting those with talent is how one develops throughout life. I sat exams from the age of eight (on a Saturday morning, I might add) and quite enjoyed them.
If our children turn out not to be academically gifted then we will, of course, need to identity what they are good at and work with it to identify a suitable good education route with them.
Although some would object to that as much as a written exam.
I can't see any resolution in the near future.
Schools in my area advertise on local radio, and have "business managers" to promote them. Why? What the flying feck does a local Comp-sorry- "Academy" -need a bloody business manager for?
Can't we just have good schools in every area, educating pupils to a high standard? Or am I being naive?
This would then mean that the demand for Grammars is only in places where the population generally vote Conservative anyway, and will welcome the return of selective education. Everybody will be happy.
In the sixties, it was the public school lefties (Crosland et al) who were most against them.
Discriminating by ability ... bad. Discriminating by parent's wealth ... fine. And that was when coaching for the 11-plus was virtually unknown. if I were a cynic, I'd suspect they had a personal interest.
Labour is clearly having some difficulties, but it's a phase oppositions seem to need to go through.
'Rickets soar as children stay indoors: Number diagnosed with disease quadruples in last ten years'
http://tinyurl.com/qxzrsjm
Perhaps they can cut out the Secondary Modern middle men and send the 11 plus failures straight up chimneys.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37310850
Has an air of videogame micro-transactions, paying to win.
I also think that her task in delivering Brexit is slightly easier than is sometimes suggested. The differences between the various Brexits on offer are so anorak ish that not one voter in 50 could explain what they are; provided we get to a position where the list of EU members ends, alphabetically, with Sweden, she will have done what we voted for. If it turns out to have been a dreadful mistake it will take time to do so and it is May's successor who will take the flak.
Means we keep village schools as they only go up to nine so can be small.
Middle schools get kids into secondary school education at nine and get taught by secondary qualified teachers from that age.
Upper school (13 onwards) is more of a college ethos and with less years and more kids per year can do a broader subject range - one of mine is doing GCSE agriculture on the school farm (yes jt has livestock).
Its a comprehensive but started out as a secondary modern.Personally I wouldnt be tempted by a grammar school but there are plenty of places a grammar school would provide competition for a mediocre compo, goading it into driving up its standards
It is not uncommon now for a grammar school to receive less per pupil finding than other schools in the same local authority area. And why would you assume that the progress towards 'fairer funding' will be halted ?
The creation of new schools is certainly expensive, but I would be very surprised if any policy which finally emerges results in the creation of very many new schools (not least because the money isn't there), rather than the conversion of existing ones.
One of the prime reasons for the legacy of bitterness from the original postwar grammar/secondary modern system was the glaring disparity of resources allocated between the two. It's extremely unlikely that will be replicated.
Plans for the area's first directly elected mayor have been scrapped and the relevant legislation withdrawn.
Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland councils said they remained committed to the plan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37312978
So, instead of just digging a deeper hole, let's tear the whole thing up and start again. Look for developing countres with manifestly high educational outcomes, in a society with relatively high social mobility. Pick the organisation of the schooling system in one of these, it doesn't particularly matter which, and just import it lock, stock and barrel. Go with what works, but do so in its entirety rather than in a piecemeal fashion.