V.A.T, in school fees

Brings back terrible memories of German classes!

We didn't do German at my school but I think I can translate that daphnedill

I did do German at evening classes some years later but didn't progress as far as Goethe!

Actually, maybe I will have another go at German some day - post retirement project maybe! But like you Jalima, I'll probably stop short of Goethe!

Ja daphne, das war es und ziemlich einfach, nichr wahr? I remember we didn't go into it in any real depth at school. Give me Kafka or Thomas Mann any day!

Good idea* Fitzy*, seeing as Germany is about to take over Europe!

What....again!

If at first you don't succeed...

I got about as far as discussing the weather and going to do some shopping

4 million children are now living in poverty in ordinary working families.

Do you think that Greening realises how many grammar schools she will need to help all of them?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39291999

Free school meals will be cheaper.

Why is she in favour of grammar schools if she is the successful product of a comprehensive school herself?

Because it's the PMs pet idea. Not an original one it's true. But the PM sailed into Downing St saying she was on the side of ordinary/strugging/justaboutmanaging people and grammar schools is her "flagship" policy. (What else? Remind me are the Tories doing for this undefined group of people?)
Greening has got a poisoned chalice, with teachers, heads, education experts etc all saying that there is no evidence that grammars improve social mobility. And most people are not daft. Not possible for grammars to have a wide benefit if they are selective is it? The logic does not stack up.
Schools in England are having serious budget cuts with teaching jobs being cut - and the Tories are setting money aside to create grammar schools.

Spot on JessM. It seems that the grammar school idea isn't only opposed by all the groups you name but also, by the majority of tory MP's as well as all the Labour and Lib Dem MP's. I don't get the impression from radio phone ins that the majority of people think it's a good use of money, or will lead to greater social mobility.
Is there any chance of the idea being ditched do we think?

There's a bit of squirming going on as to how they are going to accomplish it. Local authorities in England are, I believe, forbidden to open new schools. New schools have to be "Free Schools" which are directly funded by the DofE.
So they could give permission for organisations to start "selective free schools" and give them lots of money. A huge amount of money has already been squandered on free schools, including cases where the DofE has apparently paid way above market rents for buildings. Many of the buildings are makeshift and unsuitable.
I think most people associate grammar schools with good quality buildings, with excellent facilities for sport and all academic subjects. I remember talking to a man once who'd been to an English grammar. When I said that the Welsh girls grammar I'd been to was housed in draughty wooden sheds and certainly no playing fields he was incredulous.
Many English boys grammars had fantastic facilities - like the one DH went to, which had been going since Tudor times.
However it is unlikely that any completely new grammars will have the necessary land and money... And the DofE would have to oversee the whole process.
The only other way to achieve this is to allow some schools - presumably "academies" that are already achieving very well - to become selective. Which would be a very gradual process, a year at a time.

Thanks for the information JessM. My heart sank at your final paragraph, about the notion of academies becoming selective. That sounds like the easily achievable option. I have concerns about the number of free schools and academies where standards have dropped, there have been concerns about financial shenanigans. Two schools we know well became academies, with the head teachers salaries frankly astronomical. Both have declining standards. One primary school head was squeezed out and replaced by a super head, leading two large schools. Both are in real difficulty with previous good behaviour management, work with parents etc gone and replaced with an exclusion unit on school grounds. I do wish the politicians would listen to the professionals in education, health etc.

Therre was talk on the news about comprehensives having grammar streams, which should be illegal.

I wonder if they will put all kids on free school meals into the grammar stream. That's the demographic they are suppose to be/want to be helping, after all.

I was glad to hear that the teachers' unions are intending to challenge this nonsense in court.

This government has never produced any evidence to show that their grammar school policy would not be a retrograde step, damaging the schools that most children attend and creating a more divided society.

What's the difference between 'grammar streams' and 'setting'?

The comp I worked at 'set' for English, Maths, MFL and Science. Pupils in a 'top' set for one subject might not necessarily have been in all the 'top' sets.

I wonder if having an entirely separate 'stream' might be difficult for timetabling. Anyway, I'm glad it's illegal; it would pose all the same questions as does having separate grammar schools.

A stream is chosen at the start of their secondary life and students stay in that stream. It's like having a school within a school.
Setting is within subjects. You can be in different sets for different subjects depending on ability or aptitude.

Setting is helpful in some subjects, particularly mathematics where learning is cumulative, building on what has already been learned. Children can and should move up or down sets depending on their progress.

The children in the top maths set are not necessarily in the top set for other subjects.

In a good comprehensive school tutor groups are mixed ability and some subjects are also taught in mixed ability groups where this works best and does not mean holding back the more able or making the less able feel out of their depth.

The important thing is that all of the children wear the same uniform, are taught by the same teachers in the same building and are not labelled publicly as being better or worse than other children. They play in the same sports teams and are free to build relationships with all their peers.

The research which demonstrates how much better the comprehensive system is for all children and for society is so extensive that it is really not worth posting links. It is a proven fact. Ask any educationalist.

This grammar school policy is just a pet theory of Theresa May and some of the right wing Tories which cannot be substantiated by any evidence and should be thrown out.

At the DC'S school they were put into forms at the start and stayed in those forms with the same form teacher throughout school; then in year 8 they took exams and were set accordingly; two upper sets, two middle sets and two lower sets. At the end of year 9 one or two could also be moved up or down a set a year before GCSEs.

They could be in different sets for different subjects as you said djen and went off to those for lessons.
Perhaps some schools operate differently and that was quite a long time ago now but it seemed to be quite a sensible way to set them and they also had the continuity of being in a form with the same form teacher.

From my experience, that's the norm Jalima, although the timing of assessments for setting will vary between schools. Some special needs pupils have special timetables.

Timetabling for streams is actually easier than setting, because the timetable doesn't have to include the same subjects timetabled at the same time to allow for flexibilty. A whole class can have lessons which don't depend on slotting in with other classes.

There are at least two scenarios for creating grammar schools which are not illegal and they're already happening.

1 One of the Kent grammar schools has opened a "branch" school in another town. The branch school is not deemed to be a new school, but an extension of the existing school.

2 Academy chains are accepting applications to the chain and not individual schools. Parents haven't read the small print. They apply to a specific school, then discover that their child is being transferred to another school within the chain, where (according to the chain) the pupils' needs can be met appropriately. What the chains are really doing is selecting.

Partial selection is not illegal.

Southend has four bilateral school:

Cecil JOnes College
Shoeburyness HS
St Bernards HS
St Thomas More HS

Essex has one, The King John HS.

All the schools require pupils to take an entry test like the 11+ and those who pass are put into a grammar school stream.

This obviously affects the intake of all the other schools in the area, in addition to the four fully selective grammar schools.

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/14/nut-weighing-up-legal-action-against-academies-over-grammar-streams

For anyone who wants to know what an ordinary working person is.

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/13/what-is-an-ordinary-working-person-pms-grammar-schools-report-has-the-answer

'As a result, the government has managed to come up with a definition of ordinary working people that excludes the very poor but covers a third of children, most of whom will be living in the Conservative-voting constituencies rather than the Labour inner cities.'

Is anyone surprised at this?

Hmmm! I don't fancy the NUT's chances very much. Schools have been advertising "Centres of Excellence" for ages and the NUT has never challenged them. They are nothing more than grammar school streams. Another way schools get round the spirit of the law is to state that they don't have a special needs department.