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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

Pulling to the middle means different things in different schools.
Demographics are so different across the country. I have lived in one place where every mum I knew had a degree, and one place where I knew no one with a degree. The schools had a very different feel.

I think both systems have their disadvantages, we just need to recognise them.

it also caters (although is struggling more to do this with reduced funding and government targets) to those who are "not academic" and struggling

But that is the point! Why are they struggling?Because they are being pushe into a 'one size fits all' comprehensive curriculum, instead of focussing on the things they are good at

have lived in one place where every mum I knew had a degree, and one place where I knew no one with a degree

so whilst both those school might legally be classified as comprehensives, neither was!

why is it desirable for schools to push everyone down the academic route.?A functional level of numeracy and literacy is desirable in everyone, but there are huge swathes of jobs where nothing more academic than that is required.We have loads iof graduates waiting tables and stacking shelves never mind the less academic cohort!!
Some children are destined for an adult life of menial jobs that the country needs to make it work! There is no getting away from this inconvenient truth.

If you disagree with children being pushed down the academic route, then write to your MP. The plan was to make Ebacc compulsory for 90% of students by 2020 (may be revised due to a shortage of MFL teachers).

I did not, goodbyestranger. Flyingwithwings did and I told her she should delete her post. Yesterday at 21.40aimething. I await your apology.

angel exactly. There are comps and comps.
I think comps in some areas serve their population well but in other areas less well.
Ive found you need a much bigger population to draw from in some areas to get a sufficient number of students to make a top set or orchestra, or even find it normal to do "hard" A levels.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/01/19/secondary-school-league-tables-2017-1500-schools-failing-figures/

Grammar schools allow children to achieve their potential, new Government figures reveal, while the brightest 150,000 state school children do not excel at comprehensives.

Official data released by the Department for Education (DfE) shows that 94 per cent of children at grammar schools have made good progress by the time they are 16, compared to less than half (49 per cent) of students at non-selective schools.

The figures will come as a boost for Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans to overturn the ban on grammar schools imposed by Labour some 20 years ago.

academically gifted children must not be “held back by the dogmatic objections of the left-leaning educational establishment

"“I think it is very hard to see how the opponents of grammar schools can make their case when these figures show so clearly grammars help children develop ad fulfil potential," he said"

Oops, wrong thread.

Right Thread just addressing the wrong person !

We shouldn’t try to pretend that all children are the same.

Says the article about grammar kids making better progress, while trying to pretend that all students labelled 'high achiever' are the same. Grammars don't usually take all high achievers, only the top high achievers, who should get better GCSEs than your bog standard high achiever.

I am always puzzled by the "one size fits all" "we sholudn't pretend all children are the same" type arguments. Particularly when they are applied to the top 10-20%. It seems to be fine for the other 90-80% to be treated as if they are all the same!

Actually Bertrand i would not have the remaining 75/80% in one school, i would further separate it down to 40% each catering for different academic bands.

There would therefore be three bands of schools the top 25%/30% ,the next type of schooling would cater for C +to D grade pupils or 26%-70% .
The final type of school would take the 30% or so of kids who are not getting the most 'bang for their buck' out of the current curriculum .

The aim of these schools would be to engage in the vocational strengths of children and look to find them employment .

I believe these schools could serve the characteristics of the cohorts much better than a comprehensive system. A system that takes everybody based on Egalite rather than enactment !

goo.gl/images/yKngyX

Hope the link works on phone in lunch hour. It shows the normal distribution curve for IQ. If you look there is a much wider range in the top 25% ( of people, not the range) than in the middle 50%. I think there is a good argument that both the top and bottom 10% need special differentiation because the range is so wide.

Thats exactly the point i was making noble, what is labelled as high achiever us far too wide. I am pleased to hear about how the targets are set, however an A or A☆ which is what the prediction will be is still a blunt instrument.

From memory I think the DT article referred to the figures from Progress 8 - that these are better than in comprehensives. What is not mentioned however is that Progress 8 is not better overall in the selective counties so if "grammars being better for High Achievers" is correct then it really can only mean that that is at the expense of the 75-80% surely.

I have seen it argued that it is more important to educate "the brightest" than the rest so if people want to make that argument that's up to them. But it doesn't seem tenable to continue making the argument that the effect will not be detrimental to the rest.

Maybe more selective/academic sixth forms are the answer. So long as comprehensives can get able pupils to the A/A stars required to get into such institutions they can then get the extra push needed to access the top universities. Don't really know enough about sixth form provision to be sure if this is the answer - there are probably problems with it I haven't thought of - but why not give it a serious look?

"I am always puzzled by the "one size fits all" "we sholudn't pretend all children are the same" type arguments. Particularly when they are applied to the top 10-20%. It seems to be fine for the other 90-80% to be treated as if they are all the same!"

Agree with this

Yes, that has always puzzled me too.

More details here on Progress 8 scores

educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/10/provisional-ks4-data-2016-grammar-schools-reporting-fantastic-progress-8-scores-not-so-fast/

As I said previously if you believe that the education of the brightest is more important than the rest you can perfectly well use these figures to support your case. But you need to be honest about the cost to others. What is outrageous about the government's proposals for free schools is that it could allow those who will reap the benefits to impose grammar schools on those who will bear the costs, without those people having any say. And that is wrong.

The bottom 10% arent treated the same, they have EHCP's, special needs schools, booster classes etc. Why should those at the other end of the curve get some acknowledgement ?

Are we talking about children with SEN now? Children who cannot access the curriculum without extra assistance? Are we drawing a parallel between those children and the "grammar school" cohort?

B&R if you look at the distrubution curve i posted earlier then it is roughly the same proportion of the population eg:10% who will require some help at school- it isnt one size fits all. Not everyone who needs some extra help has SN.

Ah, so 10% at the top, 10% at the bottom.

It's ok everyone, it's only 80% who will all "specialise" in being trained in the labouring and service careers.

Hurray, that'll fund the NHS.

"Not everyone who needs some extra help has SN"

It was you who raised special schools and EHCPs!

And anyway, the top 10% do get recognition. They get fab exam results, access to fab universities and a chance at fantastic, well paid jobs. They have access to a world of literature and science. They are the lucky ones.