"I could never send my dcs to grammar school....

[winkywinkola]

...because I think it's unfair on all those children who can't get in because they couldn't afford tutoring for 11+. But I will send them to prep and boarding school."

I was a bit perplexed to hear this from a mum at the school gate. Aibu?

Dunno limited because no one else was really in charge of them, go be honest. They were left to coast, pretty much, while the teacher 'taught to the middle' and I worked with the lower ability pupils.

As a non teacher, I would actually argue that the actual teacher should have been giving the input to the lower ability pupils, and helping them along, rather than me.

Plus, when working as a Cover Supervisor I was actually teaching pupils of all abilities. I do actually have the old fashioned C&G 730 part one and part two which did qualify me to teach in further education

I think you have some good points MacQueen.

It’s very disappointing when our talents aren’t recognised MaQueen. I have no personal experience of that, but among my many qualities is the ability to put myself in the shoes of others so I feel most desperately frustrated on your behalf.

I guess the school felt that you weren’t suitable to help the high flyers but still had something to offer the less able children.

I’d take comfort in that if I were you.

Ta margrethe

Right, off to perv at Aidan Turner in The Desolation of Smaug

Anyone would think that we had a secondary modern system the way it gets discussed on MN. (Why oh why is it always referred to as grammar school system? Surely the school that 75-80% go to is the most important?) Most of us are lucky enough not to have to separate our children and close their opportunities at the ridiculously young age of 10/11yrs.
It won't come back- why would 75%-80% of parents want to change their comprehensive for a secondary modern and remove the 6th form and the top end?
Stupid to say that your child would be bored in a comprehensive, when there are no grammar schools the brightest are in the comprehensive, unless your child is in the top 2% they may well struggle to keep up.
My son did a science subject at a top university and he wasn't invited on a special 'gifted and talented' weekend at his comprehensive because he wasn't outstanding - just a fairly good all rounder.
I think that people get stuck in thinking a particular comprehensive is normal, or one they see on TV is normal. They are not all bog standard.

bert not fair banding, ability banding.

Cheaper and easier to offer than setting in all subjects.

In fact, contrary to Mumsnet assertions, schools that offer je cobble setting across the board are not the rule.

I can't see why BertrandRussell should turn down a grammar school place for her DD and send her to a sec mod- peculiar suggestion. Obviously if she had the choice she would choose a comprehensive, but she doesn't have that choice.
I was lucky and able to move out of the 11+ area.

fresh no, when there are no grammar schools that isn't what happens.

No need to feel any frustration on my behalf limited. Typically TAs always work with less able pupils.

And the schools must have thought I had at least 'something' to offer pupils of all abilities else they wouldn't have also employed me as a Cover Supervisor to often take the entire class.

I'm sure the school probably thought you were quite good

The postcode lottery is a difficult one - because it is a chicken and egg situation.

Comprehensive schools, to a first approximation, reflect the postcodes that they serve. If those postcodes are green, leafy and affluent, then the comprehensive has a very different intake, and therefore a very different set of results from if the postcodes are deprived sink estates in post-industrial towns.

Ofsted ratings are, depressingly, a reverse function of the proportion of children on free school meals: if you rank all secondaries by the % of Pupil premium children, then with the exception of London (almost double the money per child than in other areas of the country) the 50 schools with the highest % PP have the lowest ofsted rating. At the other end, with the lowest %PP (interestingly almost all also selective schools), the 50 schools with the lowest %PP children are almost all rated as Outstanding.

Add this to the fact that a distressingly small number of people interpret data on school performance with any subtlety - ie they say 'good raw results = good school', without considering intake - and we have a situation where schools that serve deprived postcodes are regarded as 'bad' because of their raw results and Ofsted grade, despite the fact that BOTH of these are a straightforward function of their intake.

It is instructive to sort data tables in different ways - progress made by disadvantaged pupils is an instructive one, value added for the ability that your child is probably the best overall measure when selecting a school for your child - to really investigate which schools are genuinely good 9as in genuinely do something with their pupils) and which simply do the 'good intake = good results' thing.

I am not talking about the theory, Lurkedforever1 I have had 3 DCs go right through the comprehensive system and that is exactly what happened.

On the 'what can be done about it', the most straightforward, given the above, is to give children in receipt of Pupil premium the highest priority in admissions criteria after SEN and LAC, and provide them with free transport to the school that they are admitted to.

This would do a lot to equalise the number of PP children across all schools, which might in turn have an interesting effect on the Ofsted ratings....

That's very true, Teacher.

It's depressing that secondary moderns are judged by the same OFSTED criteria as grammar schools- which means it is incredibly difficult to get "Outstanding" because many of the kids will never make enough "levels of progress". Even if, as individuals, they do brilliantly. And people will still look at our slightly less than 50% A*-C and shake their heads, while applauding the Grammar's 99%. I know which one I think is the better achievement.

I find the attitude that 'I could never send my children to a grammar school' quite baffling and in fact is just a soundbite . Bertrand is a case in point continually stating her opposition to any form of selection . This being evidenced by the fact her DD went to grammar school . Bertrand could have acted on her beliefs and been a 'conscientious' objector to a system she believes to be unfair and unjust.

I know all about a Secondary Modern education having endured one myself in the 1980s .

A school that failed to pick up any of my learning disabilities ASD/Dyspraxia Dyslexia.

However, that school is now excellent and provides an appropriate education for its pupils.

I wish posters would stop calling non selective schools in grammar areas, Secondary Moderns. Posters would do well to consider that the majority of them today are not a refuge of last resort . The term is used to 'rubbish' or downgrade a school and ironically is mostly used by those seeking perceived fairness with a comprehensive school system.

"I wish posters would stop calling non selective schools in grammar areas, Secondary Moderns"

What would you like to call them?

teacher that's exactly what our grammar does: highest priority for PP DC after SEN and LAC, and half the cost of any transport if the LA doesn't provide it already.

High Schools..

"teacher that's exactly what our grammar does: highest priority for PP DC after SEN and LAC, and half the cost of any transport if the LA doesn't provide it already."

A pretty safe commitment, considering how few PP children pass the 11+!

Basically the children with the best homes get the best education and get a grammar school place. Of course certain parents like that- they get the very best education for free! They think it perfectly OK because, in theory, a bright child from a disadvantaged home can pass the exam BUT it is hardly a level playing field with no chance of tutoring or supportive parents doing test papers etc.

All children deserve the very best education- if something isn't good enough for your child then it certainly isn't good enough for anyone else's child!

People then say that the comprehensive system depends on house prices, forgetting that the secondary modern depends on the same thing.

It allows the odd child, very few, to have social mobility and escape their background. I think that the system stinks if only the academic child is given this chance and the message is loud and clear 'the rest should know their place and stay there'!

We need the best for all children and not have a lottery according to luck of birth where those with the most loving and supportive homes get the best of everything and the rest get substandard. Obviously it is the interests of those with the best to keep it to themselves!

However there are only 164 grammar schools, and so the 11+ is irrelevant to most of the population and it won't come back because 80% of parents don"t want it.
If it was a wonderful system there would be calls of 'bring back the sec mods' but all we ever hear is 'bring back grammar schools' .

It is the 21st century and we need an education system that fits it and not to give up on the majority and cream off the academic top for the best of everything.

MN , Kent, and a few other places have an obsession with selection- luckily the vast majority of us escape it.

"High Schools.."

I try to avoid euphemism.........

Of course they are secondary modern schools!

In my day my grammar school was the High School for Girls- that is what they were generally called.

You can call it what you like but if you have a grammar school you can call the other school whatever you like,but it is a secondary modern.

I fail to see why BR should send her DD with a grammar school place to a sec mod (or High School if it makes people feel better) - she is still in the system! The only way to opt out is to go private or home educate.