There's a lot of talk about new grammar schools 'destroying' the existing comp schools or creating terrible secondary moderns.
I would like some help to understand this better. I would also prefer that people didn't relay their experiences on what happened 50 years ago as the education systems have changed a whole lot since then.
Remove the friendship issues of kids being separated at 11.
How is it we have to rely on the top 25% of students to think we are creating terrible non-grammar schools? And if the wealthier students are getting in to grammar per se, surely that means better funding for the non-grammar schools?
I think I'm missing something entirely. If we have dedicated resourcing and teaching for the non-grammar kids -how is that a bad thing? I believe in selective education not necessarily in different buildings. However if comprehensive schools insist on whole ability classes for all their subjects then I'm against that. Not all comps are the same. I just don't understand this issue about bad schools being created if we remove top 25% of kids.
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
Join the discussion on our Education forum.
Education
Secondary moderns
167 replies
CookieDoughKid · 18/09/2016 11:05
OP posts:
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.