To wonder what Teresa May's plans for secondary moderns are

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

That's it really.
I am a bit disappointed with her tbh.

goodbye I've had a look around quite a few grammar sixth form websites and can't find any that don't have entry requirements for internal candidates so your situation would seem highly unusual, if still in practice.

Most of us are a product of the school system, and where has that actually got us? To be honest by the age of ten I would say in hindsight I'd learnt about the only things worth knowing as in reading, writing, rithmatic to get by in this world. Barring one English teacher who's class was amazingly inciteful, the rest was boring "fact " remembering. And obviously plenty of authority acceptance training with punishments, bullying, and an array of other psychological miscreants, secondary school rocked! It really depends as a pp stated what outcome the state wants from the education system, ie. Skills required for the workforce.

"for instance, when grammar schools were popular, it is estimated that Oxford University took more than 60% of admissions from state-schooled pupils. Now, decades on, the prestigious university only takes 58.5%, according to 2011 figures."

A that's a VERY small drop percentage wise

B does it take into account the fact that ANOTHER big difference from them and now is the abolishment of the university grant system and the introduction of loans and fees (Oxford is one of the most expensive plus Oxford is an expensive city to live in)?

And as HPFA says are these even accurate?

"That reason alone is enough for me to want my kids to be segregated , in a different school" and what if your kids fail 11+ and still end up in same school as 'those kids'?

The idea that academically brighter kids behave better is snobbish and ridiculous and has no basis in fact.

As I said before, pro grammar people seem to be all about how great grammar schools are giving little thought to where that leaves the kids that will end up in sec mods!

Graphista are these even accurate?

They are definitely not accurate:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37250916

I once had a twitter "debate" with someone who claimed that there were more state educated MPs when we had grammars, another "fact" that a little quality time with google disproves. He ended up by calling me something like "a despicable leftie." The fact that prominent pro-grammar supporters don't even bother to research the effects of their policies on those attending the secondary moderns should tell you everything you need to know about their regard for these children.

I recently for another thread looked at how the current cabinet ministers were educated if I recall 6 out of 22 have been to ordinary state schools. One has been to a supposedly state school but it was initially a private school, is in a very wealthy area with the majority of students from very wealthy backgrounds and attracts good funding and teachers.

The majority have gone to VERY well know private schools (places like Eton) and the majority, even those that went to state school graduated from Oxbridge and a few other RG unis.

2/3 are from working class/poor backgrounds - one has a father who was a union leader and refused to support their child as a Tory mp candidate - bizarre!

Sorry got caught up in a movie last night. To be clear noble 48 is the external score, not internal. Soul account your kids school sounds great. Unfortunately the comps round here arent and none have sixth forms.

In my experience my childrens comp did not serve them well. Too few children play an instrument to create an orchestra, only 7 children turned up interested in doing an extra curricular play.
Entirely comp area. It's considered a good school.
My children were teased for being interested in learning.

Make-up of the current cabinet here:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/theresa-mays-cabinet-a-triumph-for-state-education-and-women-as/

Stillwish, and everyone, Is there another way to improve education for all? In an area where the comps are not great?

Is it the way people in thise areas (fail to) engage with education? Is it weak heads? Places where few good teachers live?

There are lots of good comps across our area, which is why I am so sure the model can work. There are less good comps too, and my reasons for not choosing them would be because I distrust some of the big chains, and a couple are marred by stuff from the estates (postcode stuff) that spills into school,

A group of experienced Heads have produced this document:

headteachersroundtable.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/htrt-the-alternative-green-paper-schools-that-enable-all-to-thrive-and-flourish.pdf

HPFA that article is almost a year old.

Current cabinet:

Theresa May - private (St Julianas), grammar (what a surprise), Oxford (geography)

Phillip Hanmond - shenfield (the nearest thing to a 'real' state school out of them all) Oxford (PPE classic choice for wannabe politicians)

Amber Rudd - cheltenham ladies college, Edinburgh (history)

Boris Johnson - Eton and Oxford (classics)

Michael Fallon - Epsom and St. Andrews (classics & ancient history)

Elizabeth truss Roundhay compregensive, Oxford (PPE)

Justine Greening - Oakwood comprehensive, Southampton (economics) London business school.

David Davis - Bec grammar school, Warwick (mature student molecular science/computer science)

Liam fox - St. Andrews & st brides high comprehensive (Scotland has a comprehensive system anyway) Glasgow (medicine)

Greg Clark - St. Peter's catholic school (think it was selective when he attended so effectively a grammar, now an academy) Cambridge (Economics) LSE

Jeremy hunt - Charterhouse and Oxford (PPE)

Damian Green - Reading School (Grammar academy. Ostensibly a state school but if you know it its very posh) Oxford (PPE)

Natalie Evans - Henrietta Barnet School (grammar academy, to give you an idea, head that left in 2013 went to Roedean, best state school in the country, a top school for RG entrants) Cambridge (social and political sciences)

Chris grayling - Royal Grammar High Wycombe, Cambridge (history)

Sajid javid - Downend comprehensive, Exeter (economics & politics)

David lidington - Haberdashers boys (private) Cambridge (History)

David mundell - Lockerbie Academy (again Scotland all state schools comprehensive) Edinburgh (Law) Strathclyde post grad (legal practice)

Alun cairns welsh comp school not even attempting to spell! Newport (MBA)

James brokenshire - Davenant foundation grammar, Exeter (Law)

Andrea leadsom - Tonbridge Girls Grammar, Warwick (political science)

Priti Patel Watford Grammar Keele (sociology and social anthropology)

Karen Bradley Buxton girls comprehensive, Imperial college (maths)

Not ONE attended a secondary modern, only a few attended what many of us would recognise as a 'bog standard' state school.

Its crackers to describe Justine Greens Rotherham Comp or Alain Cairns welsh comp as Privileged !

That's the cabinet? Fucking hell, how depressing. What a narrow bunch of experiences and degrees.

What would you prefer !
A C.V
something like this

Left school at 16 without any Qualifications
Vicious bully that commits street robberies
Gets Convicted
3 years inside Holloway Prison for street robbery

then perhaps join the Labour Party be elected and be given the role of Shadow Secretary for Justice !

Judging by Corbyn's shadow Cabinet , that could happen....

I would prefer MPs to have a wider range of workplace experience prior to becoming MPs, as opposed to the large number of career politicians we have now who have a more limited experience of life outside politics. I think it weakens government, and parliament, in some ways because they don't have a wide range of knowledge and experience in the way there once was. There are so many "identikit" politicians now who just toe the party line.

Oh of course flying, the only choice is obviously between a violent thug and a priviledged toff

So many humanities graduates for a start. It's worrying that the cabinet appears to be so short on scientists. It does explain their resistance to using evidence to inform policy though.

But once Theresa May gets her way, against the will of the entire educational establishment who, unlike her, know what they're talking about

Nope. I am a teacher of over twenty years' experience and I - and many of my colleagues - have always been pro-grammar.

That's funny. I don't know any. I've not seen any pieces in the news by education professionals arguing for further selection either.

I didn't describe them as privileged! I said they weren't sec mods!

They might not be privileged exactly but they're not sink schools!

Almost all their degree subjects are directed toward politics.

Mp's should have a wide range of different educational backgrounds and work/life experience I really don't see that represented in the current cabinet.

And I'm no labour supporter, the shadow cabinet aren't much different!

To get back to the grammar vs comprehensive school debate, would it not be possible to design a system that does not replicate the previous secondary modern? As I said, I am on the fence re grammar schools- I can see the attraction of placing all the brightest children together in a very academic environment, specifically to cater for that. I also think there is room for error in any selection system and that this could disadvantage younger children in the year, those who don't find exams easy but are still very bright or those who just mature later. In addition, the education for children who don't get into a grammar has to be just as suited to their needs.

With that in mind, I don't think it is the case that if grammars were to be introduced that it would have to go back to the grammar + secondary modern system exactly as it was. Is it not possible to provide a high quality education suited to those who are not academic enough for a grammar and a more technical education for those whose talents lie in that direction?

I understand many people feel that comprehensives do that, all under one roof, so what is the point of a grammar? I went to a comp (in Scotland, so just have comp or private) and it was streamed after Y2. It was a rated as a good school, I have many good friends and achieved well academically. But the first 2 years had quite a few disruptions with the mixed ability groups. There was also quite a lot of bullying/teasing about "swats" and "snobs" and so on aimed at those who were studious, took part in extra-curricular activities like choir etc. Generally dropped off after 4th year and much improved by 6th year, as fewer of the disruptive young people stayed on. I know some, particularly boys, who could have done so much better if they hadn't been intimidated or worried about being seen as "uncool". It wasn't always the best environment.

My DCs (private but non-selective) school is the exact opposite- doing your best is expected and the norm. It's not perfect, but DC are being educated in an environment I would have loved- and is thriving. I don't think she'd have got that in our local state school. I suppose that is what I think a grammar might have that would be better than a comp- providing an academic environment. I suppose really good comps could also do this. I will get splinters with all this fence sitting!

I support grammars because of personal experience. My dad escaped a horrendous council estate because of the opportunities afforded by his grammar education. It meant he could afford my private school.

I think everyone's opinion is coloured by their experience, good or bad.

Will noble doesn't that show how to limited your circle is then

Edith of course because Grammar and Public Schools have different rules – if Secondary Mods and Comps were allowed to run in the same way it would be far easier. The difference? If a pupil/student is a bit of problem they can be expelled and there's only one place to go – local Comp or Secondary Modern and they can't throw anyone out. They are required to provide schooling for all.

OP, I liked your heading a lot. Yes, if she's going to have Grammar Schools what happens to everyone else? There's a similar MN thread on selection on which I've posted because I believe it's not possible to test kids in the same way as (say) testing cars on a production line. Kids develop at different rates, as do adults. and studies show any form of selection is flawed.

www.indy100.com/

The fundamental criteria for 11+ selection was so very basic and one which no-one has mentioned – how many chairs are there in the local Grammar School? Back in the day when I taught in Primary anyone who scored between 121 and 160 was eligible for the Grammar. Unless of course, the cohort in one year was larger than normal and the lower score was moved to 125 or whatever. So one year someone scoring 122 would be considered highly intelligent, but next year a similar score meant they weren't.

As well as Primary, I taught in FE, later University and there alongside a brick layer, electrician, printer who had all failed the 11+ but by part time and evening study obtained degrees to enable them to teach at that level.

You don't have any relevant experience of grammars, roarity. Education was a very different picture back in your dad's day.

Iadore can you link to some newspaper articles by education professionals (of equal calibre to those arguing the opposite side would be good) arguing in favour of increasing selection?