to think most would not really want a secondary modern

[inkyfingers]

OK, tell me why the 'grammar school system' is good for the 85% who don't get a place? I love the pace and challenge etc the GS offers (as many MNers tell me), but how does the alternative serve the huge majority of pupils? (cos surely a 'system' has to benefit as many as possible??).

If it's a really good wheeze, then the GS supporters would surely be happy if their own DC don't get places?

I'd run a mile from mixed-ability classes. In primary it's accepted and other factors outweigh disadvantages, like having lots of TAs around.

In secondary it must be a nightmare. In the hands of a fantastic teacher it could work and maybe impressively, but otherwise why make life hard for everyone. That's why the educ theorists will say it's good because someone somewhere it was great

Mixed ability in a secondary school (at least in languages, which is what I taught) is unachievable ime. Or rather, achievable only at the expense of roughly the top 30% and bottom 10%. Or rather is is achievable, but only if the teacher spends over an hour per lesson producing interesting and challenging materials to engage and titivate every member of their class. With a teaching load of 35 hours + marking (5hours/ week) + parent contact (1.5 hours/week) + extra curricular stuff (2.5 hours/week), finding an extra 30-35 hours a week (total work time: 70+ hours) to prepare exquisitely differentiated resources for each lesson is just not possible. I did it for 2 years and it damn near killed me (and I have the chronic health problem to last me the rest of my life to show for it). Yes, it is just about possible, but only if you want all your teachers to burn out within 5 years.

duchesse from where i sat, in a mixed-ability science lesson where i was told i would need additional lessons in lunch time if i wanted to get an A, i would have to agree with you.

the TA in their class simply isn't equipped to help them with their work (I'm not scoffing at them, sometimes their maths work confuses me).

That's because the new methods are so blooming complicated very few children actually get it, it's damaging to the DC's confidence and as soon as they get to grammar schools they revert to the old ways, the comp kids have to keep struggling on from what I can gather.

I have to say that having taught in grammar schools the picture painted by LeQueen does not match the reality I have experienced. We did not have classes of 6, we did not spend our lesson time guiding and providing individual tuition. The kids are well behaved self starters, so we set a class off working and get on with the marking from the previous class. When coursework was due in I was given very detailed writing frameworks and encouraged to coach for exams rather than teach for a love of learning. I found this rather sad tbh because the kids desperately wanted the freedom to go beyond the exam. Whenever I tried to do anything different was viewed with suspicion and in the end I gave in and became a dull chalk and talk who marked once I had set the class off working.

I hope and pray that all grammars are not like this but I have taught in a few. They do get good results, you cannot take that away from them, but I suspect most grammar students would get those results in all but the worst schools.

I don't think there is anything wrong now and again in students helping each other out, it is a good way to check understanding. It should not be happening often though.

Well good luck to MrLeQ, because he's in the minority in my experience, plenty of parents we've discussed the matter with cannot make head or tail of it and they are far from stupid people, an accountant for HMRC in one case, I hope he's good at Maths.

I agree 100% it is not good practice which is why I left the grammar system as I could feel myself sucked into being that kind of teacher working in an environment where that was the norm.

I am not a teacher who begrudges taking home with me at all.

Good LeQueen I am glad, I clearly chose the wrong grammar schools to work in. Such is life!

The grammar school was probably the best tool for social mobility, unfortunately a lot of them were shut down and it seems to me that most of the ones in the more deprived areas have been shut. Could it be a reason why social mobility is so poor

I am struck by how high quality teaching early on can influence a child's academic ability and so influence a child's performance in the 11 plus as well as more broadly. A child's self belief is also hugely important.

I don't agree with LeQueen. Those with an average IQ, if that's what you want to call, it can't 'become' Grammar school material. Grammar schools are streamed so those that grasp concepts extremely quickly will be separated out but disagree that the 'average' (whatever that means) will struggle.

What you 'believe' you can do with hard work and determination etc is far more important. I've spoken about Mindset by Carol Dweck before and notice that this book is now being recommended by schools. All should read it and buy it in my opinion.

Our local non selective prep early ALL bar about one of the children achieve level 5s at KS2 or above. Not all are natural geniuses.

Take comprehension as an example of how great teaching can make a real difference; at my school, when we were about 10 years old, this was introduced to us. We were told to read the question and the passage twice. This was where our teaching began and ended.

We had laminated cards to complete in our own time. We received no feedback apart from our score. A high score over a few weeks meant we moved to the next graded level.

A good teacher will explain that in order to do well in comprehension and get the most from it a child should read broadly. A child should perhaps aim to read most of the children's classics by the age of 11. Why not? If they get stuck they are being taught in class, on an ongoing basis, how to make some sense of the text. Hopefully their teacher or an interested adult will help them if they get stuck.

They are taught how to infer from the text, they are taught how to identify key words, how to understand genre. They are taught how to 'read' the passage in a helpful way. They are taught how to underline key words and skim read. What about the characters? How many are there? What are their traits? What might an examiner want to know?

After a good time these questions will be in their heads and become second nature. A sense of confidence will be instilled in the child. 'I can do this'.

All aspects are broken down to simple parts that most will be able to understand in time. If they have to identify an unfamiliar word they are taught to think about similar words with similar roots, beginnings etc for context. So on and so forth.

A child that is given the laminated card approach may do well but there will be plenty more with 'average' scores that could be taught to do extremely well over time. You can be taught how to 'think' and how not to have self limiting beliefs.

Or if your local comprehensives tackled the poor discipline problems within the school so that well behaved children (of any ability) would enjoy being there.
Putting in another Graamar school would not solve the discipline problems in the comprehensive, and well behaved children who want to learn, and enjoy learning, but are not in the top 10-15% would then still have a great school experience.

I am not anti grammar but can see how the system could be flawed. At my comp we had a A and a B stream. 3 classes of 30 in the A stream and 3 classes of 30 in the B stream. Exams at 11 decided who took O'levels and who took CSEs. 50% did the O's, 50% CSEs surprisingly few took a mixture.

At around 14 a few from the B stream moved up to attempt the O'level in a few subjects. Nearly all moved down again as they didn't see themselves as bright or capable enough. The jump in expectations was too huge at this point and they were daunted. The B stream also got teachers who were not so capable & enthusiastic by and large. Resources were limited so why waste valuable resources of children who were not going to enhance exam statistics etc?

The problem is where do you draw the line? There were probably about 20% in the B stream who were academic enough for university who chronically underachieved in life due to a fairly arbitrary decision at 11.

You can't make a decision at 11 about who is 'academic' and who is more suited to being an 'artisan' as you put it. Grammar schools are usually streamed anyway.

All deserve every opportunity to blossom and late developers are as uncommon as many seem to think.