David Laws to Grammar School Heads Association (19th June)

[mystery]

I think david laws was making the point that no one had properly looked at why the percentage of fsm children in grammar schools is so much lower than the percentage in the population as a whole. He says he got some people in the dept to look at the stats in more detail. They identified that the proportion of fsm children getting level 5 and above is much lower than in the general population. He says this is the biggest barrier to fsm children entering grammar.

I think this thread is missing this very significant point.

[loopylou]

It is true that there is a much wider problem but these admissions reforms are very specific. They are only aimed at PP children who reach level 5 and have the ability to pass the 11+. Such children don’t tend to enter grammar school as wealthier children at the same level of ability would.

Whilst it is true that fewer PP children achieve a level 5, these reforms are not aimed at that issue. Admissions changes at secondary level will have no impact at all on raising the primary school standards of children eligible for FSM and they are not designed to. Other interventions are needed at a much earlier stage to address that separate failing. They too are being implemented and discussed.

[mystery]

My impression is that David Laws' speech was written to gently point out that this is a very easy problem to overcome and will not benefit many children at all. He specifically says:

But what about those disadvantaged children who are academically able and do already achieve level 5? In wholly selective areas fewer than half of pupils eligible for FSM achieving level 5 go into selective schools, compared with two-thirds of non-FSM pupils. This cannot be right. We calculated it would require a shift of just 200 level 5 FSM pupils to go into grammar schools in wholly selective areas to remove this particular bias - the failure to recruit pupils who should already be able to access your schools based on their attainment.

It's not very exciting is it? Yet there's been yards of media space over this and tonnes of thought gone into it - and I'm not sure that the many grammars in the areas to which he is referring (wholly selective areas like Kent, Bucks and Trafford) have done anything much about it. If you totalled up the number of grammars in these wholly selective areas and shared out 200 extra FSM children who were on level 5, without even making them take a test, it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to the schools concerned.

I detect on this thread that many grammar type parents also think that achieving level 5 is a good measure of "ability". It's probably not.

The whole subject is fraught with misunderstandings and poor assumptions and I don't think the GHSA or the Sutton Trust really want or intend to make much difference to the lives of the less fortunate. To be fair though, his speech is pointing out that mostly it is not the problem of the GHSA - it's more one for primaries.

Apart from the strange stuff about research into fairer testing for grammars involving the University of Durham, I thought this speech was quite good .... maybe a bit too subtle. Wonder if it got the GHSA thinking or not?

The other important point, of course, is that it might be no bad thing for the children themselves, or the non-grammars, if children who are of grammar ability don't go to grammar. The very sad thing is if children - FSM or not - don't achieve much at all of what they could have achieved if they'd had a decent primary and secondary education. That's what matters most - not whether they go to grammar or not.

I think if you read the testing framework for KS2 for the new national curriculum you can see that an effort is being made from the Government end to raise standards for all at the end of primary. Whether schools are in a position to deliver this or not is another matter. Writing a curriculum and a test framework is only one part of the picture.

[magwich2]

Well, DD1 is just about to commence a Primary PGCE course and if the twaddle on the reading list is anything to go by I don't think Primary education will be improving anytime soon!
Not to mention that many of her prospective colleagues are still posting pictures of themselves on Facebook with their tongues stuck out - not a great measure of maturity or intelligence at the age of 21!!

[southbucks3]

Well, DD1 is just about to commence a Primary PGCE course and if the twaddle on the reading list is anything to go by I don't think Primary education will be improving anytime soon!
Not to mention that many of her prospective colleagues are still posting pictures of themselves on Facebook with their tongues stuck out - not a great measure of maturity or intelligence at the age of 21!!

I don't know, I'm in my forties and often feel like sticking my tongue out on here and in general life! I think is shows a level of reserve, if your tongue is poking out it is impossible to speak either aggressively or nonsensically at your aggravator.

[Guest55]

Magwich2 - what a fantastic support you are to your daughter undermining the course she has chosen ...

[Amber]

Has your daughter thought of studying abroad Magwich? It is much easier for UK students to do these days (just got back from a fact-finding trip with DD myself) and there are many places where the study of education is done differently from here, with more emphasis on things which some believe are now missing from the English teacher training curriculum.

[mystery]

Well, DD1 is just about to commence a Primary PGCE course and if the twaddle on the reading list is anything to go by I don't think Primary education will be improving anytime soon!
Not to mention that many of her prospective colleagues are still posting pictures of themselves on Facebook with their tongues stuck out - not a great measure of maturity or intelligence at the age of 21!!

This made me laugh.

21 is young and people are young when they start teaching at 22. They look like babes in prams to me now.

A propos the reading list - that doesn't surprise me in the least. A lot of teaching courses are made up of twaddle, unfortunately, and nothing much that will really help you to teach and manage effectively in the classroom. It's not just primary either - I recently did an OU module from the M Ed that was no use to man nor beast either.

Don't personally see any harm in saying these things - people pay for courses from age 18 up these days and if students became discerning consumers who did question some of the content of the poorer variety it would be no bad thing. It's all part of being an "engaged learner" isn't it? Sometimes, one has to learn it to get by during one's school days too - if you can't spot the weaknesses in the teaching you are receiving (if there are any of course, there might not be) things can turn out pear-shaped despite your best efforts to listen and learn.

Maybe David Laws needs to speak to teaching training providers next? Perhaps it's why you can qualify in the classroom now without going anywhere very close to a teacher training provider? This feels dodgy too though - you're very dependent on learning from the school you are placed in.

Being able to observe and learn from a huge variety of outstanding teachers (in all subjects - doesn't have to be your own) would be great.

But back to the subject --- have any schools in the likes of Bucks / Kent / Trafford done any of the easy job of getting those 200 extra level 5 FSM children into grammar school?