To worry that under Mrs may plans some children will have no school place

[ReallyTired]

In my town there is a huge pressure on school places at primary level. In a few years time secondary schools will have the same problem. I suspect that most comps will become selective to avoid becoming the secondary modern.

It it really fair that the low ablity pupils might be forced to travel long distances to crap schools? Why are low ablity children less deserving of a good school?

This hasn't been thought out.

YANBU. Where I live there is one school for a large (mixed) rural catchment area. Is there anything stopping schools like that becoming selective and forcing 80% of children in the area to travel up to 15 miles to school in an overcrowded (due to influx of new students) school? Add to that religion and May is creating a setting where many areas won't have a local school.

Who is Mrs May? She's not your teacher.

Wow ReallyTired pure ignorance at its best.

The funding for support for children with SEN is complicated, but there seems to be a threshold where schools are expected to fund the first £6k for those requiring support. Many children with SEN won't require anywhere near £6k of support, but obviously some do, particularly when they need a 1:1 TA. It's therefore unsurprising, but thoroughly depressing that some schools try to avoid taking pupils with higher levels of SEN. A commitment to genuine inclusion is important.

I'd assume that there will be some sort of approval process for schools to become selective, otherwise you could end up with most schools claiming to be selective.

I'd hope that the heads and governing bodies of most comprehensive schools are committed to comprehensive education.

Although I don't agree with the OPs post on special needs - I can see where it is coming from though- children with special needs can struggle in a MS classroom and can use up more than their "fair share" of resources through no fault of their own, or of the school.

Ds has just got an ehcp so now the school will be helped to cover the costs of his daily therapy, support in lessons and help to get changed in PE. Of course though the system whereby the school has to fund the first chunk still means that some of the funds are being ring fenced for one pupil to meet his needs. It's a shame in that sense that the lea doesn't control the funds more BUT then that would make it harder where pupils don't get the ehcp so it's a no win situation in that sense really.

Where a pupil is able to cope in mainstream - happily and making progress - that should be the ideal, with the support in place so that they can cope.

I do think some people's ideas of "unfair" and "others missing out" comes down to some sort of jealousy that other pupils are getting more time/attention. I have heard other parents complaining that the TA was spending time working with ds each day out of the classroom and why didn't her child get that

Heads and governing bodies might be committed to comprehensive education, but they are also committed to the future success of their school. Any heads would be looking carefully at the schools in the surrounding area and trying to decide if they'd apply to be a grammar. If they think they might, then there could well be a race to get their application in first, to avoid becoming the secondary modern.

The CEO of the Harris Academy chain have already said that they don't agree with the proposals but would apply for their schools to become selective if necessary.

On the other side, the Ark academy chain have already said that they would not be converting any of their schools to grammars.

'Average' children wouldn't get into a grammar school. In isolated towns with only one secondary school (as it is where I live) children would end up travelling 10 - 20 miles to school if their local school became a grammar school. It would also cost the LA a fortune in transport costs.

Rather interestingly, this might force Grammars to become more inclusive and less selective. If there are more Grammar places then there will be less competition to get into them.

Don't get me wrong, I am for inclusive comprehensive education. It is just the thought of Grammars having to become more inclusive to fill their school places and keep afloat amused me .

The premise of the op completely wrong. If most comps become selective to avoid being the only secondary modern in the village, then most grammar schools will be 80% empty, and lots of children will have no school to go to!

If only 20% of children pass the 11+ they only 20% of schools will be able to function as grammars. Unless you get rid of the pass fail element and just use raw scores to select, then every school can select and no school is a secondary modern.

The suggestion that local children will have to travel long distances because their will be a large influx of clever children, is very weak. It suggests clever children are also going to travel long distances to get into a grammar.

The idea that all grammar schools are good schools is wrong, and the corollary that all non grammar schools are bad school is also wrong. So to ask, "Why are low ability children less deserving of a good school?" is a bad question because its premise is completely wrong.

YABU to write a thread title and then a completely different post underneath! Govt is obliged to provide school places so of course there will not be children without places. However YANBU to be worried about plans to create grammar schools. Many people are unaware that Mrs Thatcher got rid of a lot of grammars in the 70s when she was education secretary because the system was not working. I went to school in the 70s in London and there were no grammar schools. Children were streamed within schools however which was OK as you could move between streams. This makes sense to me and is what my DC did.

But mathsmum in N Yorks there are already a few grammar schools that children travel a long way to get to. Fortunately (in terms of distance) they are in large towns each with another school. From this (and the fact that children travel up to an hour to get to private schools in the area) I believe that yes, parents would rather their kids commute than get what they perceive to be a poorer education. And for those that live next to a grammar school but do not get in the LEA have no choice but to fund their transport to the closest school they get into.

But DrinkMilk, that is not what the op is implying. "low ablity pupils might be forced to travel long distances", implies that the policy is to make low ability pupils do the traveling. If the op had said NO child should have to travel long distances to get to school then they might have an argument.

I disagree - in the above scenario the high ability/religious pupils are choosing to travel long distances to school (as their intelligence/belief has granted them the gift of choice) whereas those that are neither are forced to travel long distance to get into a school that will take them, even if they live next door to a grammar/catholic school or whatever. If it was the other way round and a bright child lived next to a non-selective school they are not being forced to travel long distances to a grammar but are choosing to.

There is a difference between parents making the choice to send their child to a school which is a distance away as they feel that is the best school for them and parents being forced to because the local schools won't accept their child.

I'm a bit uneasy about the number of threads that are talking about secondary modern and grammar schools as if this is already a done deal and the only questions are when and how.

The green paper proposing a return to selective education is a consultation document. There's a long way to go before it would even get to parliament where it appears to have lukewarm support and where the government has a very small majority. It's far from being a shoo-in.

This is not to say we shouldn't talk about it but please let's also register opinions in the correct place and while we still can. I believe the consultation continues until December and a poster has already linked to it on the previous page.

DrinkMilk, clever children are being forced to travel long distances because their isn't a grammar school close to them. So by your thinking the answer would be to open more grammar schools so children don't have to travel long distances.

All sorts of categories of children have to travel long distances for all sorts of reasons, to single out low ability students as being a group that should be protected from traveling is just special pleading.

That is not what I meant at all. High ability children are not being forced to go to a grammar school! Their ability is not barring them from the non-selective school nearby but they (or their parents) are making the choice that they would achieve more highly at a selective school. I think the problem would be solved by a non selective system whereby everyone goes to their local school actually.

In a selective system it is only those without choice that have to do anything. No one is prevented from going to their local school for being too clever.

To answer the OP, I think YABU. How do you know it hasn't been thought through? You are worrying about something which hasn't happened and which you (it appears) know very little about. Once more is known about the exact proposals, let's have a proper debate then.

If you want to know the exact proposals I linked to the green paper upthread.

I think that's precisely what May - and a number of MNetters, if the last thread was anything to go by - wants. School places will only go to nice 'deserving' children, and the rest who don't pass the various entrance exams, tests and interviews, whose faces simply don't fit, whose names don't fit, whose ethnicity or background simply just doesn't fit, you do understand... well, they can go to some sort of 'leftover' school, or perhaps none at all. Homeschooling's popular these days.

I think the Tories feel it's a lot easier to pull up the drawbridge and let us commoners suffer rather than help any of us get nearer to their wealthy ideals.

DrinkMilk, so your saying all selection should be banned and everyone should be forced to go to their nearest school?

What happens when you live 1km from a good school and 6km from a bad one? Then dozens of rich middle class parents move into area and suddenly you only get into local school if you live 750m from it. Suddenly your faced with the current selection by wealth! Is that fair?

I don't get your example, math.

If your rich parents are going to take all the places to narrow the catchment then they would need to be buying houses from poor people without kids who don't tend to own houses that rich families want to move into.

And if the good school was a grammar they'd still take the extra places anyway because their kids are more likely to pass the test than any poor ones in the neighbourhood.

Well no not forced to go to their nearest school! You're right in that I don't believe in selection within the state sector, however I still think parents should be able to select school preferences yes. If, as in your example, there is a choice of two schools with the further away one being better I don't see a problem with a parent choosing the further away school as long as priority is given to those that live closest first. Again that is a choice.

However the crux of the argument is that in this country there are both good and bad schools - eradicating that division and ensuring all schools are well resourced with good teachers would also prevent your scenario occuring.

if more schools are opened (regardless of their selection process) then there are more available spots for children.
obviously some people in some areas will have more choices available to them but that is the case for many situations.
what I don't get is the attitude or lack of parental involvement (or so it seems on mn) for parents to work towards improving their local or allocated school.