Government's new plan on Grammar Schools

[Aristide]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't non-grammar schools in Grammar school

> counties also out perform comprehensives on

> average too? or is that propoganda? genuine

> question but I saw it somewhere

I don't think so, look at the secondary moderns in Kent they have some of the worst results in the whole country.

[Earl Aelfheah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Don't non-grammar schools in Grammar school

> counties also out perform comprehensives on

> average too? or is that propoganda? genuine

> question but I saw it somewhere

The exact opposite is true. Overall attainment is reduced.

[Earl Aelfheah]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think what the links from rah^3 state is that in

> grammar counties, the poorer kids slightly

> underperform their peers in non-grammar counties,

> while the brightest pupils do marginally better.

> That's in the current system.

>

> There is no evidence about widespread grammar

> introduction (obvs. - it hasn't happened yet, and

> 50 years is a long time).

>

> As far as university entrance as a measure of any

> kind of academic achievement, I'm unconvinced.

London does better all round. Evidence is that grammar schools are bad for social mobility and bring overall attainment down. A significant number of their intake come from the private sector also, which has a bearing.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Besides, common sense should tell you that dividing kids based on a single test at age eleven, as opposed to having ability sets for different subjects based on ongoing progress and attainment, isn't sensible.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I've an idea. We could run a pilot (say in Kent) and see if it increases overall attainment and social mobility.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Some excellent analysis by the FT http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/

[miga]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Evidence is that

> grammar schools are bad for social mobility and

> bring overall attainment down.

A few things. Firstly - that's not evidence, that's an assertion. Secondly, if you look at the painstakingly non-partisan Full Fact summary you linked to, they're careful to refer to the "current" and "existing" grammar system. (What happens when a lot more grammar places free up? What shape will the new grammars take?) Thirdly - the conclusion they draw is very qualified, it's really not that black and white - it includes words like "slightly" and "marginally" in front of "worse" or "better". (I mean, why are the comprehensives in Kent worse than in other areas?) Finally - social mobility is a generally good idea, but it's only one aspect of what education is about.

[JohnL]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Evidence is that

> > grammar schools are bad for social mobility and

> > bring overall attainment down.

>

> A few things. Firstly - that's not evidence,

> that's an assertion. Secondly, if you look at the

> painstakingly non-partisan Full Fact summary you

> linked to, they're careful to refer to the

> "current" and "existing" grammar system. (What

> happens when a lot more grammar places free up?

> What shape will the new grammars take?) Thirdly -

> the conclusion they draw is very qualified, it's

> really not that black and white - it includes

> words like "slightly" and "marginally" in front of

> "worse" or "better". (I mean, why are the

> comprehensives in Kent worse than in other areas?)

> Finally - social mobility is a generally good

> idea, but it's only one aspect of what education

> is about.

But the general perception about schools (I maybe wrong)

is that most people pass and most people pass well and

then most people go on to university. Most parents now

care about there children's education.

On the old criteria almost everybody should go to grammar.

In my day (1980s) 50% passed no matter what the marks were

and there was a large swathe of children who didn't care

about qualifications (only half in my year were in the 'O'

level stream - the rest did CSE or nothing).

Times have changed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Evidence is that

> > grammar schools are bad for social mobility and

> > bring overall attainment down.

>

> A few things. Firstly - that's not evidence,

> that's an assertion. Secondly, if you look at the

> painstakingly non-partisan Full Fact summary you

> linked to, they're careful to refer to the

> "current" and "existing" grammar system. (What

> happens when a lot more grammar places free up?

> What shape will the new grammars take?) Thirdly -

> the conclusion they draw is very qualified, it's

> really not that black and white - it includes

> words like "slightly" and "marginally" in front of

> "worse" or "better". (I mean, why are the

> comprehensives in Kent worse than in other areas?)

> Finally - social mobility is a generally good

> idea, but it's only one aspect of what education

> is about.

It's an assertion based on evidence and analysis (not my own: http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/).

Its true that full fact talk about the current system, that's what they've based their anaylsis on (what else could it be based upon). As you say, they are incredibly careful to be objective and stick to the facts. By the same token, they are of course cautious in their conclusions, but never the less are clear that the assertion that grammars are good for social mobility is not evidence based.

That said, all the analysis of the long term pilot of grammar schools in England (not just Kent btw), come to the same conclusions - that attainment goes down and that social mobility is harmed. If it might only be a marginally worse system, is that a good reason to re-introduce it?

The most important thing here though, is that the burden of proof when making a huge change to the existing system, sits with those proposing the change. Why would you totally uproot the education system, with no evidence that it will (as has been suggested) improve social mobility - indeed with all existing evidence seemingly showing the opposite.

You suggest that we can't be sure until we role out grammars across the whole country - but on what... a hunch? Nostalgia?

[????]

Anyway, Corbyn easily won PMQs on this yesterday (which is a first)

[Earl Aelfheah]

It would have been hard (even for him) not to have come out on top considering the proposal under discussion.

[LondonMix]

I wish I'd seen that quids!

Rahrah-- I don't actually disagree that the current system harms social mobility. The government on some level seems to acknowledge that as they seem to want to create feeder schools for grammars from poor communities and / or introduce socioeconomic quotas for admission to ensure a minimum number of disadvantaged children gain admission. A targeted approach to capture the most talented disadvantaged pupils could work. However, Grammars should never, even reformed as outlined above be more than 10% of schools so the idea that any school at will could become selective is utter madness.

Part of me wonders why on earth she'd choose such a contentious and wrongheaded policy position at the start of her tenure.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I wonder whether, in the absence of a viable opposition, she's looking to create one within her own party.

[Aristide]

>

> Part of me wonders why on earth she'd choose such

> a contentious and wrongheaded policy position at

> the start of her tenure.

takes your mind off Brexit though doesnt it? Especially to the majority of little englanders that voted brexit to prevent immigration, there not going to get that, but they might get their grammars back.

Smoke and mirrors

[Earl Aelfheah]

What happened to evidence based policy? Government Ministers should take a Hippocratic oath - first do no harm. Big systematic changes should always be trialed and outcomes properly analysed, before being implemented more widely. Shake ups in health and education should only be made on the basis of good evidence that they'll be effective, otherwise patients and children suffer, just to ministers can enjoy tinkering. There is just so much random on the hoof policy announced, seemingly based on little more than the 24 hour news cycle and the wim of some minster or other. Where are the grown ups?

[LondonMix]

I suggested that to my DH and he told me that was crazy. Even if it doesn't distract the public, it might distract certain MPs... Its just so bizarre if its not tactical in someway

Aristide Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Part of me wonders why on earth she'd choose

> such

> > a contentious and wrongheaded policy position

> at

> > the start of her tenure.

>

>

> takes your mind off Brexit though doesnt it?

> Especially to the majority of little englanders

> that voted brexit to prevent immigration, there

> not going to get that, but they might get their

> grammars back.

>

> Smoke and mirrors

[Earl Aelfheah]

I can't believe it's to distract from Brexit - I mean that's going to be a hell of a slow burner. The sh*t isn't going to really hit the fan for at least another year or two. I honestly think there is just a lot of stuff made up on the hoof without that much thought given to it depressingly.

[miga]

Aristide Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> takes your mind off Brexit though doesnt it?

> Especially to the majority of little englanders

> that voted brexit to prevent immigration, there

> not going to get that, but they might get their

> grammars back.

>

> Smoke and mirrors

What a condescending line of thinking. Does it compute that some immigrants think selective education is a good idea and Brexit wasn't? Mind....blown!

By the way, it's "they're", not "there".

[Aristide]

englanders and brexit should probably have been capitalised, capitalised should probably have had a Z but hey, its a forum little Miga (caps ok?) ok ok or should it have been OK or Okay?

I suppose it depends upon whether they are being beaten to death on not.

i hope you can unblow, (suck) your mind before the weekend, would be a shame not to.

[Aristide]

Oh, it should really be '' rather than "" as I wasn't actually saying it, but thanks anyway!

[uncleglen]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What happened to evidence based policy? Government

> Ministers should take a Hippocratic oath - first

> do no harm. Big systematic changes should always

> be trialed and outcomes properly analysed, before

> being implemented more widely. Shake ups in health

> and education should only be made on the basis of

> good evidence that they'll be effective, otherwise

> patients and children suffer, just to ministers

> can enjoy tinkering. There is just so much random

> on the hoof policy announced, seemingly based on

> little more than the 24 hour news cycle and the

> wim of some minster or other. Where are the grown

> ups?

Given that politicians are power crazy, vote-seeking self-serving brainless fools in the main- and the prime objective is toeing the party line and keeping the power- there are no grown-ups.

I myself walked the walk and talked the talk on 2 occasions, and managed to get myself ensconced and 'powerful' twice in left-wing circles- I soon realised what the heck was going on during the first sortie- the second sortie was purely out of self-interest, but I was successful- despite being a dyed-in-the-wool Tory

[Earl Aelfheah]

Aristide Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> takes your mind off Brexit though doesnt it?

> Especially to the majority of little englanders

> that voted brexit to prevent immigration, there

> not going to get that, but they might get their

> grammars back.

>

> Smoke and mirrors

It's interesting looking at the Ashcroft poll following Brexit. One of the most polarised aspects between remainers and brexiters, was their views on whether things were better now or 30 years ago (with Brexiters clearly thinking things were better before). It was a vote for the past, for nostalgia, for an old England long gone. It's no coincidence that older voters voted overwhelmingly 'out'. Well May's government is going to give it to them, grammar schools and all. A backward looking, nostalgic little England. I blame bloody bake off.

[BrandNewGuy]

Hmmm, but I suspect nostalgia for most people isn?t about the Empire and spinsters cycling to church and all that. Take the mid-70s ? despite industrial strife, this country was ?happier? than at any time since 1945* - or since. Mass unemployment hadn?t hit and many working class (and lower middle class) people were feeling better off than at any time before. Interestingly, it?s also the era when income inequality across the spectrum was at its lowest level. So if you want a rough approximation to the nostalgia of many people, you might be better off thinking of Bob and Thelma in ?Whatever Happened To The Likely Lads?? rather than some bombastic imperial vision.

* http://newhistories.group.shef.ac.uk/wordpress/wordpress/article-1-gb/

[Earl Aelfheah]

I didn't mention empire. Anyone who thinks that income inequality will be tackle by a conservative government, is in cloud cuckoo land.

[????]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't mention empire. Anyone who thinks that

> income inequality will be tackle by a conservative

> government, is in cloud cuckoo land.

Income equality just did precisely just that - in terms of Income. Wealth - reflecting an increased in asset prices didn't but I think income has....