Home Tags Posts tagged with "grammar"
Tag:

grammar

Education

‘Grammar plans’ caught by photographer

by Rajdeep
written by Rajdeep

Photo of the document proposing expansion of grammar schools.

Plans to open new grammar schools in England appear to have been accidentally caught by a photographer.

The document, photographed in Downing Street, proposes expanding current grammars before opening new schools.

It then raises doubts whether plans for more selective school places would pass through the House of Lords.

A government spokeswoman said it would be “inappropriate to comment on internal government documents”.

“The cat is out of the bag,” said Labour’s shadow education secretary Angela Rayner.

Liberal Democrat education spokesman John Pugh said: “It looks like a desperate plan to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and their inevitable defeat.”

‘Conditions’

The document, being carried into 10, Downing Street, seems to have been written by Jonathan Slater, permanent secretary at the Department for Education.

It refers to Conservative plans to “open new grammars”, although with the provision that they would have to “follow various conditions”.

Analysis: Education correspondent Sean Coughlan

What does this document tell us? And does it suggest that as well as more grammars, there could be a new style of grammar, admitting pupils on more than test results.

  • Education Secretary Justine Greening seems to want a slower approach, expanding current grammar schools before any plans to open new schools.
  • There is also a hint of distancing, wanting new grammars to be seen as an “option”.
  • Lifting the current ban on new grammars is not the same thing as opening lots of new schools.
  • This isn’t about returning to a selective education system, but an option to have a modest expansion in some selective schools.
  • Grammar schools would have some strings attached, presumably such as making greater efforts to include poorer pupils.
  • This could mean changes for current grammar schools, with the rather coded reference to “not disadvantaging those who don’t get in”.
  • The House of Lords is seen as a serious block to a return to selective education. Does that suggest no new legislation is imminent to permit new grammars?

There have been concerns that grammars have a disproportionately affluent intake – and these “conditions” might suggest that new grammars might have obligations to admit more poorer pupils.

There are also hints at a difference in emphasis within Conservative ranks – with the education secretary wanting to expand the current grammars before opening any new schools.

A long-running dispute in Kent was resolved this year when an existing grammar school was allowed to open another branch in another town, on the basis that this was the expansion of an existing school, rather than opening an entirely new school.

Education Secretary Justine Greening is described as wanting new grammars to be presented in the consultation document “as an option” and “only to be pursued once we have worked with existing grammars to show how they can be expanded and reformed”.

But the note says: “I simply don’t know what the PM [prime minister] thinks of this.”

And it says: “I simply can’t see any way of persuading the Lords to vote for selection on any other basis.”

Social mobility

Before opening any more grammars, the government would have to change the law, which at present outlaws the creation of new grammar schools in England.

If the government thought that this would face too difficult a path through Parliament, existing grammar schools could open such “satellite” campuses on other sites.

There have been suggestions that new grammars could be opened as part of the free school programme, which could be adapted to allow selection by ability.

The prospect of a return to grammar schools has had some strong support among Conservative backbenchers.

They have argued that admission by ability is more likely to promote social mobility, providing an opportunity for bright, poor pupils who do not live in the catchment areas of good schools.

But Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw said this week that the idea that poor children would benefit from a return of grammar schools was “tosh” and “nonsense”

Sir Michael said a return to selection at 11 years old would be a “profoundly retrograde step”.

Labour’s Angela Rayner said: “Behind closed doors the Tories are planning a return to the bad old days of grammars, ignoring all the evidence which has told us time and again that they do not aid social mobility.”

‘Back to the 1950s’ versus ‘Why ban something that works’?

John Pugh, of the Liberal Democrats, said: “This lays bare the desperate lengths the Conservative party are willing to go to deliver grammar schools through the cloak of expansion.

“The government should be ashamed of themselves. If they think this is the right thing to do, they should bring it to Parliament and win the argument.”

But Graham Brady, a leading Conservative backbencher and prominent supporter of grammar schools said: “Grammar schools are popular wherever they remain and opinion polls suggest that 75% of people in Britain want more of them.

“It must be good news that the government is looking at repealing a statutory ban new grammar schools.

“Why ban something that is proven to work and popular?”

Mr Brady said grammar schools should be available as “part of the mix where parents and communities want them”.

Kevin Courtney, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: “Theresa May said on the steps of Downing Street that she wanted ‘a country that works for everyone’.

“Yet now we hear of proposals to take education back to the 1950s, when children were segregated at age 11 and their life chances determined by the type of school they attended.

“Opening new grammar schools would not only be a backward step but is also a complete distraction from the real problems facing schools and education. For every grammar school there are three or four ‘secondary modern’ schools.”

A government spokeswoman said: “The prime minister has been clear that we need to build a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

“We are looking at a range of options to allow more children to access a school that lets them rise as far as their talents will take them.

“Policies on education will be set out in due course, and it would be inappropriate to comment further on internal government documents.”

[Source:- BBC]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Education

Wilshaw: new wave of grammar schools would take country ‘backwards’

by Rajdeep
written by Rajdeep

Wilshaw attacks grammar schools

Ofsted chief inspector today stepped up his attack on government plans, warning that every new grammar school would create three secondary moderns.

Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw has described the idea that a new wave of grammar schools would help the poor as “palpable tosh and nonsense”.

The Government is widely expected to announce plans to allow more schools to academically select in the coming weeks, with social mobility likely to be a key justification for the policy.

But in a speech this morning Sir Michael said: “I appreciate that many grammar schools do a fine job in equipping their students with an excellent education. But we all know that their record of admitting children from non-middle-class backgrounds is pretty woeful.”

The chief inspector highlighted the improvements of school standards in inner London and said: “If grammar schools are the great answer, why aren’t there more of them in London?”

He also pointed to the mix of the pupils in “the small number of London boroughs that have grammar schools”.

“The proportion of disadvantaged children in the four grammar schools in Bexley, for example, is around 9 per cent compared to 28 per cent in its non-selective schools. Similarly in Sutton, where five out of the 14 schools are grammar schools, the proportions are about 7 per cent compared to 25 per cent.

“The notion that the poor stand to benefit from the return of grammar schools strikes me as quite palpable tosh and nonsense – and is very clearly refuted by the London experience.”

His comments follow an interview on Saturday when Sir Michael also condemned the idea of more grammar schools.

Speaking to the Times, the chief inspector said: “I think we will go backwards if we return to a system where we only expect some kids to do well. Every time you create a grammar school you create three secondary moderns and no one is queueing up to go to a secondary modern.”

The government’s plans first emerged last month and have faced a storm of criticism from the education sector.

Sir Michael, who led two successful comprehensives in East London before taking up the job at Ofsted, went on: “If someone had opened up a grammar school next to Mossbourne Academy, I would have been absolutely furious as it would have taken away those youngsters who set the tone of the school. Youngsters learn from other youngsters and see their ambition; it percolates throughout the school.

“That is why we sent so many children to great universities. If the grammar schools had siphoned off those top 20 per cent, we would have floundered.”

“In Kent [which has selection] the gap in attainment between free-school-meals and non-free-school-meals pupils at key stage 4 is 34 points. If you go to inner London where there are no grammar schools, the gap is 14 points so it is socially divisive.”

Sir Michael used his Saturday interview to attack mixed-ability teaching, speaking out in favour of setting. “Mixed ability has also been a failure,” he said. “I don’t care what anyone says, it rarely works. It didn’t operate in the schools I led.”

He also revealed that:

  • He supported the recent resignation of Ofsted chair David Hoare, describing his comments about the Isle of Wight as a ‘Ratner moment’;
  • There was a growing problem with unregistered Islamic schools;
  • He voted remain in the recent EU referendum, praising the impact of immigration.                                         [Source:- tes]
0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Education

Grammar schools help poor claim is ‘tosh’ , says Ofsted chief Wilshaw

by Rajdeep
written by Rajdeep

Sir Michael Wilshaw

The idea that poor children will benefit from a return of grammar schools is “tosh” and “nonsense”, says the outgoing chief inspector of Ofsted.

Sir Michael Wilshaw said a return to selection at 11 years old would be a “profoundly retrograde step” that would lead to sliding standards.

He spoke out after reports that Prime Minister Theresa May favours changing the law so new grammars can open.

England’s Education Secretary Justine Greening is looking into the issue.

Supporters of grammar schools say that children from poor backgrounds are helped to make the most of their potential because entry to such schools is on the basis of raw ability.

But many argue that, in fact, the vast majority of those doing well in entrance tests are children whose parents have paid for them to be privately tutored outside school.

In a speech to London Councils’ education conference, Sir Michael praised the success of schools in the capital saying they had undergone an “amazing transformation” and lead the way in “narrowing the attainment gap between rich and poor”.

“It has maintained its status as the top performing region across all key stages when it comes to the performance of children eligible for free school meals,” he said.

The soaring success of London schools made “a mockery of the claim that opening up many grammar schools is the key to unlocking the potential of disadvantaged children and to boosting social mobility,” he said.

‘Pretty woeful’

“If grammar schools are the great answer, why aren’t there more in London?

“If they are such a good thing for poor children, then why are poor children here in the capital doing so much better than their counterparts in those parts of the country that operate selection?”

He said he appreciated that many grammar schools did a “fine job”, but added that their record of admitting children from non-middle class backgrounds was “pretty woeful”.

“The notion that the poor stand to benefit from the return of grammar schools strikes me as quite palpable tosh and nonsense – and is very clearly refuted by the London experience.”

He cited figures showing the under-representation of poor pupils in grammar schools.

In Bexley, he said grammar schools had 9% of pupils on free school meals, compared to 28% in non-selective schools.

In Sutton, where five out of 14 schools are grammars, the proportion is about 7% in grammar schools and 25% in non-selective schools.

In a BBC interview this weekend, Mrs May did not answer directly a question about whether she planned to bring back grammar schools.

But she said Ms Greening was looking at the issue of new grammar schools as well as other areas of education policy.

Labour banned new grammars in 1998 amid concerns they were dominated by middle-class pupils whose parents gave them a head-start with private tutoring.

England’s first “new” grammar for 50 years in Sevenoaks, Kent, was only approved last year as an “annexe” to an existing school using a loophole in the law.

Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner described Sir Michael’s comments as “an embarrassing rebuke” for the Conservatives.

“The Tories should be concentrating instead on raising standards in all schools and improving education for all our children, regardless of their backgrounds.

“They are failing to do so. But they want to return to a system in which children were branded as failures at the age of 11 and which only increased division in our society.

[Source:- BBC]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Education

‘The meritocratic ethos associated with grammar schools in the 1960s is today subverted by the hard cash of tutoring’

by Rajdeep
written by Rajdeep

grammar schools

In the current climate the promotion of selective education will have none of the benefits that were associated with the 11-plus system of the 1960s, writes one leading sociologist

It is unfortunate that the debate on grammar schools has become so intensely politicised and so dramatically polarised.

Grammar schools are either reviled as an instrument for deepening inequality or celebrated as a medium for promoting social mobility. This ‘either-or’ posturing has dominates the discussion in response to reports that that Theresa May favoured an education policy oriented towards scrapping the ban on new selective schools.

Yet the impact and influence of selection in education is an empirical question that depends on social context, the pedagogic approach adopted by the schools and on wider cultural attitudes.

Consequently the experience of the era of the ‘golden age’ of grammar schools offers little guidance for policy-makers today.

Family background was irrelevant

During the 1950s and the 1960s grammar schools were associated by many ambitious working class and lower middle class people with the prospect of social mobility. It probably was a vehicle for social mobility. I use the word ‘probably’ for the simple reason that this was an era where in any case there was greater potential for social mobility than today.

The contribution of grammar schools to social mobility in this period of relative prosperity is far from clear. However at the very least grammar schools promoted an ethos of meritocratic education and promised an environment in which intellectually capable children could be stretched, regardless of their family background.

11-plus tutoring was unheard of

At any rate the meaning and consequence of selective education in the fifties and sixties is manifestly different to now. Unlike today, children sitting the 11-plus tended not to perceive the test as a matter of life and death. The kind of intense private 11-plus tutoring to which far too many children sitting this exam today are subjected was unheard of.

Individuals who succeeded in getting into grammar schools in the 1960s and early 1970s report that they felt a sense of achievement. Those who were not successful naturally felt disappointed but did were not necessarily overwhelmed by a sense of failure.

The current unhelpful distinction between successful and failed/sink schools had not yet taken hold.

Comprehensive education enjoyed greater valuation than today. Moreover, the relation between the different type of schools was far more fluid than today.

For example, in some parts of the country grammar schools worked closely with secondary moderns. In some cases individual students who showed that they were capable of a high standard of achievement in a secondary school were given the opportunity to move over to a grammar. Such opportunities for entering a grammar school from a comprehensive are far less likely today.

Grammar schools today will have negative consequences

In the current climate the promotion of selective education will have none of the benefits that were associated with grammar schools. They would have the negative consequence of distracting attention from confronting the challenge of raising expectations of all children and stretching them to the utmost of their abilities.

Worse still the introduction of a new generation of grammar schools today would simply reward those pupils whose parents have the resources to finance private tutoring and penalise those able children whose families do not have the cash for this purpose.

The experience of Kent demonstrates the socio-economic and cultural problems associated with the 11-plus.

Parents who wish to prepare their children for a grammar education understand that employing a private tutor is essential for the realisation of their objective. Consequently a key determinant of success is the availability of financial resources rather than what a child has achieved through the course of their schooling.

The intake of most Kent grammar schools is composed of two types of children.

First, here are those who have proven themselves to be the most successful at learning and taking advantage of the opportunities provided by their schooling.

The second group consists of children who have been methodically trained by private tutors to pass their 11-plus. Without the input of their private tutor it is unlikely that they would have gained a place in a grammar school. Sadly many children, who are no less able than those who make up this second group but whose parents could not afford to hire a tutor have little chance of getting into a grammar school.

Grammar education rewards cash, not achievement

Consequently the meritocratic ethos associated with grammar education is today subverted by practices that reward hard cash rather than achievement.

Even worse in the current competitive climate dominating education, schools that cater to children who do not pass the 11-plus are not regarded as different but as inferior to grammar schools. In such circumstances selection is likely to intensify socio-economic inequality rather than assist the objective of social mobility.

[Source:- tes]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
error: Content is protected !!