Nikki out, Justine in

A lot of smaller, targeted schools will not only cost more to run, but also trap kids into a progression steam identified for them too early on in their education.

A good comp should be able to cater for all streams accordingly, with scope to move up & down as required.

Partnership with a local technical college is a good way of getting the best outcomes for the less academic pupils.
(Basically like TalkinPeace already outlined).

I agree with Peregrina

I think that's huge. My school was three form entry, the DC's London Independents four forms. I think that's big enough.

ohtheroses
define huge?
1300 Eton
1200 most of the comps in the country

Frustratingly, neither Labour nor Tory have grasped the nettle about providing good quality vocational education. I am sure I have said this before, there have been a number of good reports commissioned about this, but they always get rejected because the focus is always on the 'gold standard' of A levels. On the whole we do OK for our academic children, but we have a long tail of underachievement of the rest.

But to roll that out Talkin the schools have to be huge and I think that's where the plot and individuals get lost completely. IMO it is better to deliver that in smaller schools and separately.

A comp SHOULD if properly funded
have at least five levels

• highly academic students aiming directly for Top200 Universities and beyond
• bright students aiming for mid level and Russell Group universities
• kids who may well go to university or directly into professional training
• kids who will leave education at 18 and go into work
• kids for whom the ebacc is a sick joke but who have technical and manual skills that we otherwise have to import

most of the country manages it just fine without selective schools
they just need more than £4000 per head to do it with

If comps are intended to fulfil the potential of all, it is essential their curriculums reflect a grammar offer for those able to engage with an academic education.

Very true OhtheRoses.

As a parent of a child who really struggles academically, I think there should be more options for children to study vocational subjects at GCSE level. At the moment he is studying 7 GCSEs most of which he doesn't stand a chance of passing. Luckily he also gets the opportunity to attend the local college for one morning and one afternoon each week, to study BTEC engineering, which is equivalent to 3 GCSEs. He is doing very well at this and is achieving distinctions which is boosting his self esteem immensely. However, I believe that this option is being either removed completely or vastly reduced. I really believe that there should be more on offer for children who are less academic, whether that be a two tiered system or greater choice at level 2.

Yes, the two years dd spent at a London comp were disastrous due to the continuous disruption, both low and high level which the majority were expected to put up with.

At least five or six of the cohort should have been permanently excluded. There needs to be far more resource plugged into this group.

What disrupts education more than anything else is a lack of funding

• no money for school trips
• no money for enrichment
• no money for happy qualified staff
• no money for support staff
• no money for decent meals

I'm not asking for much, just that every school place is funded fairly

and that LEAs are given back the power to provide places where there is a need that free schools and academies cannot meet.

I went to selective private schools. We were horribly disruptive.

Selection and segregation are not the solution to disruption.
Proper resourcing and support for disrupted kids is the solution there.

I suppose it's more that I'd like the teachers to be able to effectively address disruptive behaviour in the classroom, whichever school they are in. It seems they have neither the tools nor confidence to do this and I'd like to see that change (again, not sure how!)

The thing I never get with the Grammar School argument is that why should only the academic children not have to put up with disruption? Why shouldn't the conscientious child of so-so academic ability have the chance to achieve their best in an orderly classroom? (Not that Grammar School kids are necessarily not disruptive, though, but at least can't be said to be switched off from education because they don't see its relevance.)

My worry for my dc is that they'll have to share classrooms with disruptive pupils who won't engage for one reason or another. I'd like to see this problem resolved (not sure how though!)

No-one wants this but secondary moderns are certainly no less likely to have disruptive children and quite possibly they would be more likely.

The idea that selective education either increases academic attainment or promotes social mobility has been completely disproven. There's loads of reports around but this is probably the best blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/. If you find the graphs confusing (I certainly did) then this is a good article summarising the research www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/06/selection-results-in-lower-grades.
I know we're all supposed to know better than the experts these days but can't we agree that someone working as a data expert for the Financial Times might know what they're talking about?

I suspect we afford it, if we bothered to chase after some of the tax dodging companies.

But in an economy which is dealing with the Brexit fallout we probably can't afford increased school spending without significant tax rises.

(I wonder how much the Brexit ministry is going to cost.)

My worry for my dc is that they'll have to share classrooms with disruptive pupils who won't engage for one reason or another. I'd like to see this problem resolved (not sure how though!)

what needs sorting is the funding formula for ALL schools

Yes, and this means bringing the spending level up of the poorly funded ones to those which get the most. If TM is serious about her statements about life chances then the money needs to be found.

Don't say we can't afford it - it would be a sound investment for the future.

I am hoping that the incoming government can see that the academy/free school programme is not helping, and that many parents are unhappy with the rapid and chaotic changes to SATS/GCSEs/A levels.

It's pretty obvious to most parents that the real problems in education are the ones listed by Talkinpeace. I really doubt that grammar schools are going to be a massive vote winner in marginals, but trying to solve some of these problems could well retain the marginals in the next election.

Average spend state sector: 6.5k rising to 8.3K in some parts of inner London?

Yup in Hampshire, schools get £4000 per pupil

no wonder London schools get higher results - they get double the money

what needs sorting is the funding formula for ALL schools

what needs sorting is a MASSIVE programme of increasing te LEA places where they are needed

what needs sorting is the utter disaster of Teach First for actually filling staffing rolls

not twiddling with a bit of the system that is not broken

I went to a Grammar in the 80s (11+ area) for first 3 years of secondary (we moved to different part of country so changed to Comp at that point).
The Grammar gave me a great grounding academically, but I actually much preferred the comp as it had more variety.

My kids now go to a local comp - it's great.
Good variety of subjects, paired with local technical college for pupils that aren't super academic, an 'extra period' is also added on to the normal school day for those that want to do an extra GCSE (for eg my son is doing drama as an extra).

I hope Nikki Greening doesn't piss about getting distracted with Grammars & instead gets stuck into getting all schools into good shape.

'The main flaw in the abolition of the grammar system was that they allowed the continuation of faith schools to select. That's every bit as bad as selection by academic ability.'

That and the continued existence of private schools, including some of the old grammars that went private and continued to hoover up large numbers of their old intake, because while many parents of bright children can't afford to pay, there a quite a few who can.

The comp system only works if there is NO segregation. The main flaw in the abolition of the grammar system was that they allowed the continuation of faith schools to select. That's every bit as bad as selection by academic ability. If we want comps to be the answer, then all forms of selection have to be scrapped.

In our town, the non-selective comps are all failing. That's not helped by the "parents who care" turning religious to get their kids into the 2 "outstanding" faith schools in the next town which are both huge. Parents just turn up at church enough times to get a few points and hey-presto, they're in a good school! Yes, there is also a grammar in that town, but their intake is tiny compared with the two faith schools. The remaining comps in our town don't stand a chance, so it's a vicious circle!

Considering that religion generally is declining, it shows the education system is a mess when the two faith schools have grown massively over the past few decades - both were small and unpopular in the 60s and each now has 2,000 or more pupils - you can't tell me that their intake are genuinely religious!

It was a pretty stupid thing to do to allow faith schools to continue to be selective when they scrapped grammars and brought in comps. It's just allowing "selection" by a different criteria and when that's happening the normal "comps" don't stand a chance.

There's evidence from the US that integrating children from across the social and ability spectrum raises overall attainment for the majority of children and significantly reduces drop-out rates.

If that's the case then shouldn't we be promoting it here?