To think that Secondary Modern schools had an unfair reputation of failue and post Brexit, this type of school could provide the vocational training post brexit(11 Posts)
First time poster !
I have been reading a lot of threads and posts on here about the merits of creating more grammar schools. Within these debates there is always an outlying belief that the creation of extra grammar schools, will create 3 times as many poor schools.
This unquestionably always comes back to denigrating such schools as not the school i want my child to go to. However, i do believe parents and as a country we are missing opportunities, especially post Brexit. This is because 10-15 years down the line we are going to have few plumbers, bricklayers or skilled craftsmen .
This surely means that any parent opting for their child to go down a vocational pathway at school , could find such skills as plumbing bricklaying ETC highly sought after. These very skill sets that have had hugely devalued since 1997, could potentially become far more monetary valuable than a first from an RG uni.
Therefore if we create more grammar schools, why not create an evolution of Secondary Modern schools, that could help create the new craftsmen of tomorrow,
Posters continually ask this question if you ask to bring back grammar schools, would you ask to bring back Modern Schools.
I say yes bring back Secondary Modern schools , even give them separate and unique exams . This meaning pupils from Modern schools would have skills employers would pay a premium for.
The parents and pupils that have chosen to go down the grammar /University pathway would require a substantial time frame to catch up in employabilty.
I think we need to channel more clever DC into trade. A school system that selects on the basis of academic skills at 11+ and then pushes all academic DC towards university won't ensure clever people go into trade/small business.
Ok, i'll bite
I dislike the idea of labelling children at an early age, of determining a career path for them, in an age where it is quite likely they will have several careers, not to mention the opportunity to travel. I do not believe that there will be a dearth of tradespeople in 10 years time either. Colleges are full of people retraining, or gaining new skills. Where I live, degrees are not commonly taken, but there are lots of people working in trades.
I think they need to look at vocational qualifications generally - I don't think they need grammar schools to do so.
I also think that current bring back grammar school policy doesn't mean proper investment in secondary moderns is on the cards with practical skills and industry country wide recognised qualifications being brought back.
Plus 11+ comes with association of failure because that's how our society currently views it.
Apparently in past it often wasn't just 11+ there used to be 13 + as well which if you passed you went to technical college so there was often a level between secondary modern and grammar school.
I do think they need more well sign posted alternatives to university but I don't see anyone talking about that.
Plus Brexit is looking like less money in economy for a variety of reasons - so less money to drop into changing school system in any fundamental way. Plus despite Brexiters view of the world we aren't 1950 Britain so going back to the schooling system of then rather than looking forward to where we are now seems odd.
Makes sense to me. Different people have different skills/ways of learning and schools should cater for this to bring out the best and shoe every child that they have value beyond the standard academic approach.
We have technical schools were i live. I don't understand why these are deemed acceptable but a school catering for those who are academic are not.
The issue to me is that there is a viewpoint by some that a comprehensive is for stupid children (not one that I share). It should be that style/methods are different but those studying are equally valuable.
That said, I think 11 is too early to start splitting kids off in different schools.
I think you are absolutely correct in suggesting that 'some' non grammar schools should be largely vocational based (Secondary Modern is a term i hate and out of time) . I will come back to why i believe some and not all later.
However, when the question of extra grammar schools is asked, the first response from posters is what about the pupils who don't reach the grammar. The respondents seem to believe failing the 11+ is the equivalent of a judge donning his black cap and sentencing the poor child to death !.
This ignores the reality that i have posted about many times before (NC) that many non selective schools in selective areas are academically excellent. Many of these excellent 'academic' schools would in in effect become grammar schools in a 40% academic selective model proposed by me a number of times on 'Education threads' . The reasons i believe in a 40% selective system i have espoused on numerous threads.
There are some 'Comprehensive' schools in inner city deprived areas that should be converted to the type of schools suggested.
Schools offering such an education to children, that in reality University if they reach it is a 'pointless' exercise.
Many children (controversial statement here) from inner city schools end up doing the wrong 'Degrees ' at the wrong Universities and end up working at Waterstone's or Costa!
These children have been sold a illusion garnished with 'debt'. The educationalists suggest it is right that these children should advance to University .
The reality is many of these children would have been better being taught to be Crafts people , plumbers Brick layers and technicians.
I agree but are there jobs for all these vocationally trained people to go to?
Schools offering such an education to children that is in their best interests and aligns with realism. As opposed to the reality that University, if they reach it is a 'pointless' exercise for them.
We desperately need better vocational education instead of forcing everyone into the Ebac. However 10 is way too young to make that decision. Some pupils are late developers and some are the opposite and a system that doesn't take this child development into account is not in the best interests of every child. We need a big shake up of our education system to give more choice and pathways at 14 like some of the best systems in the world. When you look at the best systems, they all seem to have a general pathway up until 14 and then a range of options with a variety of pathways which all can lead to higher education and further training.
The best way of doing this is with comprehensive schools working together and funding rural schools more generously so they can offer a wide variety of options with smaller numbers at 14. A few years ago, lots of other schools used to buy in provision from my school for hairdressing, catering, horticulture, construction etc. that has all stopped now thanks to the Ebac and the downgrading of many of these qualifications not counting for progress 8.
Don't have any problem with ds doing a trade but I would strongly resist him being allocated, channelled or labelled in any way at TEN years old.
I think the three tier system makes sense but with the separation coming at 13 not 11. 11 is too young and doesn't allow for the late bloomers.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.