New grammars by 2020 which will exclude 90% of local kids

Highly gifted dyslexic kids are not in the bottom performing 10% are they!

Well how is it any different to the 11 plus as a means for determining who would be in the top ten per cent.

" The ones that perform worst in the sats ."

Like the highly gifted dyslexic kid?

The ones that perform worst in the sats .

and equally a bad use of resources.

Who will decide which kids go there ?

They can still be great at art or sport but in an environment with smaller classes more tai,ores to their need. Same as grammar school but bottom rather than top ten per cent.

Different schools take different groups and they take around 5% of kids who cannot fit into mainstream schools

Comps are good at differentiating and often specialise in their support areas

Segregating kids out who might be great at art or sport is a waste of resources

No, special schools take children with severe learning difficulties and there are insufficient places for those that need them.
Not the same at all as the bottom 10%.

they are - its called special schools of which there are many hundreds in the UK

I would rather that the bottom 10% were catered for seperately in schools with smaller classes focusing on the basics.

According to the government website schools have to offer an MFL option at GCSE so I don't see how any comprehensive could not be offering one :

www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/key-stage-3-and-4

You yourself have been saying that schools in Stoke are not good enough yet these might be considered secondary modern schools since Stoke has a grammar. It seems rather odd to highlight supposed failings of secondary moderns to argue that there should be more of them.

A nice demolition of selection at 11 where pretty much all kids are in selective schools
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-39032961

There are 'Comprehensives' that don't offer even 1 MFL for GCSE due to the 'appalling' take up rate.
Names please as otherwise I do not believe you.

There are 'Comprehensives' that don't offer even 1 MFL for GCSE due to the 'appalling' take up rate.

This again is not being mentioned. These discussions always compare the best 'Comprehensives' with the worst 'Modern' schools.

The posters never compare a 'Shit' Comprehensive with the best 'Modern' schools . They are however more than happy to compare the worst Modern's with the best 'Comprehensives' to advance their position.

• "Interesting that in general most pro-comprehensive people are quite open about the fact that they would use the grammars if the choice was between that and a secondary modern " What choice do you have if you have a high ability child? Secondary Moderns / high schools often don't offer more than one MFL, or Triple Science or Further Maths, So why would you opt for secondary modern if your kid wants to do those things?*

I agree entirely - that's the point I was trying to make but clearly didn't explain myself very well. Been following a lot of Twitter threads where people are being accused of hypocrisy for sending their child to a grammar when they are pro-comprehensive. But in the selective counties you don't have a choice.

Someone pointed out that if you support nationalising the railways you're not expected to give up rail travel.

I think the distance cut-off only came in 2/3 years ago so it's not that. The local school has been in special measures at least twice and possibly 3 times in the last 12 years, but this time they seemed to have turned the corner and got Good in September. Parents' that appealed to get into other schools are now apparently applying to move their child into it.

They really didn't want my DS1 though. Fortunately we've got him a specialist ASD placement.

FrayedHem Tue 21-Feb-17 12:11:08 There local secondary has a long history of poor results but is currently enjoying a turn around and outperformed the next nearest secondary.

Is the turnarond down to the fact that the high ability DCs not being creamed off by the Grammar or has the school replaced its SMT and all the teachers?

Dixiechickonhols Mon 20-Feb-17 21:40:45 I can't see a grammar in town would make situation any worse.

But it migh not make much difference either unless there is a sufficient number of high ability DCs wanting (or rather their parents wanting) to go there.

DCs need to pass an exam to get into a Grammar school. Would sufficient local children get the pass mark? Do the local primary schools do well in the yr6 SATs?

I live in a grammar county but the part I live in now is quite a distance away from either of the nearest. One now has a distance cut-off so children living here are treated as outside the area. There local secondary has a long history of poor results but is currently enjoying a turn around and outperformed the next nearest secondary. Still nowhere near the grammar results though.

A couple of years ago there was a piece in a local paper where one of the grammar head teacher's called for pupil premium funding to be scrapped. He felt it wasn't fair his school got less than others.

Pitch in!

Anyone mind if I get involved in this thread?

Sorry, posted too soon;
"Interesting that in general most pro-comprehensive people are quite open about the fact that they would use the grammars if the choice was between that and a secondary modern "
What choice do you have if you have a high ability child? Secondary Moderns / high schools often don't offer more than one MFL, or Triple Science or Further Maths, So why would you opt for secondary modern if your kid wants to do those things?

Glad I am not in a grammar area. Summer born, anxious DS probably would not have made a 10% grammar intake aged 10, but he is predicted a row of A* / 8 etc, except for literature . And he would get 8 for that if he would actually read the damn book!

I am the parent of a high ability DS. As a science enthusiast he had covered the whole GCSE curriculum by Yr8, just out of his general interest. He is now bored and disaffected in Yr 11.

A Grammar school wouldn't have sorted this out. He is in high achieving top sets with bright kids in a good comp.

What would sort it out (I think) is a more challenging curriculum, more open thinking required in course work, and GCSEs that cover a wider range of abilities, from top level, to 'foundation'.

I am horrified by the Literature GCSE compared to the essay writing that I did.

"Interesting that in general most pro-comprehensive people are quite open about the fact that they would use the grammars if the choice was between that and a secondary modern

I read these threads with interest but don't often post. Most mumsnetters don't live in deprived towns. In the northern town where I work best non faith comprehensive pass rate is 50% 5 A-C gcse (worse 21%). The one faith comp (RC) school gets 58%. There isn't a grammar school and no private secondary. As soon as child is junior age all talk turns to what you are going to 'do'. Options (a) go to church for 2 years (C of E) to get child in the C of E comp in next town - 75% pass rate. Bus is £540 but warning on council website they may withdraw the subsidy so full rate £900 could be payable soon. (b) Luckily have a baptised catholic child or move your child to a catholic school so they are in a feeder for best school in town (c) Move a couple of miles to get into the next catchment area of decent schooling, the number of school buses and teens in the morning there is ridiculous (d) Try to get place at Grammar in the 3 neighbouring areas, but child needs to pass very highly to get an out of catchment place. (e) several small private secondary schools in nearby towns starting at £10,000 a year mark.
Sending child to closest comprehensive isn't the done thing. I can't see a grammar in town would make situation any worse. They have thrown money at it - £250 million super schools initiative, a £10 million UniversityTechnical College (UTC) for age 14 plus which is closing after 2 years. If no grammar school then I imagine there will be a move to open Muslim high schools like the very successful ones in nearby Blackburn.

More children achieve enter from comprehensive than from selective divide.
People buy into grammars.
Comprehensives get some very, very good results. Many send children to Oxbridge/medicine/vets. A higher proportion of those considered bright in fact than from those where 'top 10 %' are creamed off.
Admittedly the 'slightly bright' might do better with the focus at a grammar but the truly bright will do well wherever they are educated. My eldest daughter's year at a 'bog standard' comprehensive sent 5 to medical school, 2 to vetinary school, 9 to Oxbridge and many to Russell Groups. It held its own against the 'top 10' independent school my youngest went to.
What comprehensive can't do is provide an elite peer group.