V.A.T, in school fees

That'll do; as long as you are still rebelling a bit against the system you have gone into.
I remember your history on this thread.

dj I'm not sure what you're asking me, but I speak from experience of both sides of the fence.
I was educated at an inner London comprehensive - very mediocre teaching, gained a place at a top university - totally out of my depth socially, but achieved a good degree thanks to the teaching, took up a job in the private sector, became Headmistress and chose private schools for our own children.
I really couldn't care less what sort of educational establishment I went to. I'm just glad I was able to have a soul as well as a brain in each of those settings. A subversive person, NOT, but maybe a bit of a rebel now and then.

Lillie. have you bought into the system, or are you a subversive?

www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/15/demanding-workload-driving-young-teachers-out-of-profession

Parents who owe 50p for school dinners have been threatened with court proceedings.

No, a realist. These kind of arguments have existed ever since I started teaching and admissions criteria have sometimes been challenged. I'm afraid I think the NUT's statement is a lot of hot air.

In the list of highest achieving so-called comprehensives, four of them are openly partially selective.

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gcse-results-2016-best-state-schools-top-100-grades-uk-secondary-where-are-a7211931.html

Others are selective by the back door, by (for example) reserving places for music students, which favours those whose parents can afford music lessons. There's one school on the list, which insists that all pupils have their own ipad.

www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/85-of-top-comprehensives-with-best-gcses-are-socially-selective-but-schools-where-pupils-make-most-progress-are-much-less-so/

I wonder whom the NUT is intending to take to court. AFAIK schools are their own admissions authorities, which would mean that the NUT would have to prosecute individually every school with partially selective admissions criteria.

Such a pessimist, daphne!

They've been breaking the law for decades, but nothing has ever been done.

It's NUT lawyers that are saying this.
The government should be taken to court over it, as they are breaking the law.
They have to be challenged some time.

These are the admissions criteria for another school I know. (I think you might know it too.) Note the first priority for Group B.

Group A - A maximum of 120 places will be allocated in the following order of priority:-
1. ‘Looked After Children’ or a child who was previously looked after, but immediately after being looked after
became subject to an adoption, residence, or special guardianship order. A Looked After Child is a child who
is (a) in the care of a local authority in England, or (b) being provided with accommodation by a local
authority in England in the exercise of their social services functions.
2. Children of worshipping members of the Church of England or Methodist Church (maximum of 74 places).
(See notes B & C, below.)
3. Children of any member of staff employed by the Board of Governors of the School at the time of
application:
a) where the member of staff has been employed at the School for two or more years at the time at
which the application for admission to the School is made and/or
b) the member of staff was recruited to fill a vacant post for which there is a demonstrable skill shortage.
4. Siblings of children attending the School at the time of application. (See notes B & D, below.)
5. Children of worshipping members of other Christian denominations or of other faiths. (See notes
B & E, below.)
6. Children of any other applicants to the limit of places available, places being awarded to the child(ren) living
close(st) to the School as indicated by a straight line from the main school reception entrance to the child’s
home, as calculated using Peterborough City Council’s GIS process.
Group B - Pupils selected by ability as measured by the School's assessment procedures in merit order for a
maximum of 15 places.
1. 12 of these places will be selected on overall academic ability.
2. 3 of these places will be selected on musical ability.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.