We recently looked at the assertion that grammar schools are 'good for social mobility' as various politicians claim. We found that grammars have far fewer pupil premium students than do comprehensives, which rather undermines that claim.
Now, the Institute of Education have published a study that finds that grammar schools have been no more successful than comprehensives at helping to ensure their pupils gain a university degree or to graduate from an elite higher education institution.
It goes on to support our assertion above, in finding that a grammar school education also does not appear to have increased working-class pupils’ chances of getting a degree.
It's a challenge to schools to deliver free school meals to infants, but most heads seem to be generally in favour. OK, there are dissenters: aside from being a pain to implement, with no obvious benefits to school performance (no, the pilot studies did not show anything convincing, being too insubstantial and with a very narrow profile of schools involved) and with very many other things that £1billion could be spent on (like more school places for example). but who could argue with giving children free food?
Unfortunately, this question seems to have formed the basis for the development of the school meals policy. The Lib Dem argument goes something like this: feeding children crap makes them perform badly in the afternoon, so let's feed them better.