Tories shit all over the comprehensive system with a return to the 1950s and a nationwide 11+

I'll wait and see.

I'm neither opposed to or in favour of grammar schools. I have worked in a comprehensive in a GS area and it was excellent. I am aware NI has the GS system and it seems to work well.

I think something needs to change. At the moment there are several threads about this started by noblegiraffe, all adamant that poor, clever children are well served under the current system. I disagree.

My dc's grammar is losing £500 k, they are not getting more money.

My area has only one comprehensive, the two neighbouring areas are the same so they are all likely to either stay comprehensive or all go down the grammar route as none will want to be the poor relation and be the only secondary modern, I imagine there will be a rush to convert as none will want to be the last to change. Thank god I have no primary school age children any more, the countries education system has systematically destroyed over the last few years and the only reason there are still success stories are the efforts of the teachers and TAs and other school staff who still believe in the children, unlike our pathetic government.

Grammars exist now in my area. We still have a genuine comprehensive system.
Why don't we wait and see what the proposals actually are and how they will manage the number of places in any particular area. It's ludicrous to think that a free for all level of conversion will be proposed such that all schools in an area have the ability to convert. How on earth would the governments aim of 10% be kept in balance.
How do you know that most people oppose new grammar schools. I have found no evidence for this.

If they're the grammar they'll find it easier to recruit and retain staff, they'll be more likely to be Ofsted Outstanding and they'll probably have an easier cohort because the kids with major issues don't tend to be entered for/pass entrance exams.

Agree about the Ofsted, and with attainment 8 they may not even be inspected but recruitment... I'm currently looking for work from September and I'm not applying to the grammars in the area. I have a tick list of what I want and a tick list of what I don't.

Grammar is on the 'don't want' list.

Mumski

How would you propose to allow areas to retain a genuine comprehensive system when that this is what they want? We can disagree on whether grammars will damage existing comprehensives and that's fine on Mumsnet. But if the majority of people in Anyshire believe with me then where will they have power to oppose a system which they believe will harm children? It seems like all the power is to be given to those who believe the other way, even if they're in the minority.

I think that once the proposals come out the clever bods at the Unions and anti-selection groups need to get their Heads together. For instance, what if all schools applied to become selective on the same day, what would this do to the system? I would like Heads to come together, consult with their governing bodies and parents.If they have agreement then they make a public commitment to retain comprehensive education in that area. In Surrey all but one secondary Heads wrote a letter opposing selection, so they ought to be able to come together on this. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of the few who will put their own interests ahead of the majority. They would then need to look at other possibilities, such as all applying to become selective to disrupt the system.

Whatever, we need to see a clear plan for protecting areas of schools so that where parents wish to retain the comprehensive system they are able to do so. This could also be a fertile area for amendments in the Commons and Lords - rather than endlessly circulating the same arguments where evidence and reasoning is never going to win we can expose the lie that grammars will only be "where people want them".

Bucks does not, by any definition, have comprehensive schools. Neither is the pass rate 34-40%. In your dreams! In the north of the county 1/3 of the grammar children are from out of the county so of course the results are good. The pass rate is not lowered, the distance from school admitted is increased. However many of the secondary moderns have in excess of 30% high achievers. By and large Bucks is a high achieving county. The major problem is the PP children who have been failed by the secondary moderns where they largely reside. More funds are going into this and the county is well aware it needs to improve. Bucks is usually near the top for attainment and progress 8 is high too. These are school results not resident results as they are not available.

No area should try and change to this system though. The new grammars will cause good schools to lose pupils and this is largely unfair. Bucks has 34 secondary schools of which 13 are grammars. Some of the secondaries are as good as many comprehensive schools and sought after by parents. Bucks does not have roads of empty houses where people are leaving because they don't like the schools. The opposite is true. Neither is there a huge sense of failure at not being selected for a grammar if the alternative school is good. I know university lecturers, doctors, accountants, company directors, teachers, M and S executives, BBC employees all with children at sec mods - and happy with them. It just doesn't need rolling out elsewhere in some sort of retro policy that suited the few.

tis just shit and horrid and lazy
Just give schools the money they need to get the best out of every child...whatever happened to 'every child matters'. 'Oh but the poorer kids can get on a bus to the grammar in the next town'not when they have caring responsibilities at home they can't letalone the fact that the grammar entrance will be so tutored up to its eyeballs (they will find a way to tutor to the test) that there is little chance of getting in anyhow.

Is this why Justine Greening was in the telegraph today, saying the government were concerned about parents being priced out of catchment for good schools?
She didn't actually.seem to be saying anything... And i was a bit about why the piece was there.

But there is no proposal to return to a grammar/ secondary modern system.

My understanding is that the target is for 10% of places to be selective not 35-45% as currently exists in areas with secondary moderns and there will be no compulsion to take the 11+.

To me this sounds more like my LA which has a small number of grammar places together with lots of good comps which still get excellent results. The system is unfair as many people in the south of our LA do not have access to any grammar school as they are not near enough to travel. Just one or two more in this LA would not result in any 'secondary moderns' and would bring the overall no of selective places closer to 10%.

noblegiraffe sigh that's not what I said.

1. I said the comprehensive system was my preference.
2. Yes some Uppers require improvement but so do some comprehensives - it is ridiculously simplistic to say that the presence of grammars means schools are in special measures. All schools should be good.

If you read my post I said this thread was hysterical shouting not that people wanting a good school were.

Well put across 'Olly Cat' .

I suggested on another thread , that the selective option will only be available if the local market 'desires' for it . I don't for instance see one opening up in 'Islington' no market for a grammar school.

I think there is mass 'hysteria' bordering on madness !

It's not the case that funding for all grammars has been increased. Our local grammar is having funding cut and is asking for voluntary contributions from parents and can no longer afford to buy text books for the sixth form students.

Funding for state comps has been utterly slashed to the bone this year.

However, funding for grammars and free schools has been increased.

There are secondary's in this area facing £300k cuts. £300k!! How the fuck are they meant to find that amount of money to cut when they are the main school for miles and kids are bussed in from outlying areas? There are nearly 2000 pupils in the school and they face having to cut staff and/or subjects.

But if your child goes to a grammar school then it's all fine.

My DD could have taken the 11 plus but I chose not to as she has ASD and wouldn't cope under that kind of pressure. However, she's exceptionally bright and aced her mock SATS (year 6). She is performing very well for her age and in top groups for every subject. So now I find myself wondering where the hell I send her to school after year 8 because I have no idea what state the high schools will be in by then.

I work in a secondary modern in a grammar school area. It is not good at all. The top are creamed off.

Grammar schools are currently no better funded than any other state school. The whole system needs more investment.

What evidence. Please can you direct me to your source as I am genuinely interested to analyse the data. I am still trying to form a balanced view on the issue but find it difficult when the existing systems vary so much around the country.

Calm down we live in a grammar area and get fab results however the other school last are great too. The standards are higher and the kids at the local comp get lots of opportunities

"The problem with any discussion on Mumsnet re Grammars is that no one ever listens to people who actually have children in grammar schools or live in a wholly selective education system "

I think that is because they are the winners. It would be interesting to hear from parents of children in secondary moderns/comprehensive schools in selective areas where their children either failed the 11+ or weren't entered for it.

"The existence of more grammars does not mean that other schools will become 'bad' schools if the system is properly funded at every level."

The key words here is "if they are properly funded at every level", which sadly no state school is these days.

I have not read any white or green papers but I don't believe that the rate of conversion will be unrestricted. That is a ludicrous suggestion. I have heard a 10% target discussed. The fully selective areas such as Bucks have up to 40% of places selective so they are not comparable.