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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

But why does it rob dcs of their cs ? Thats what we need to find out, i am sure it doesn't have to. Just accepting thats the way it is- therefore grammar schools shouldn't exist- doesn't move the discussion on ?

Because in secondary modern areas, progress 8 is -0.1 and in non-selective areas it's zero. So effectively grammar schools steal grades from the the majority of kids who don't go to them.

Surely all kids matter equally ? They should all be able to reach their potential. They need to go to a school thats right for them.

That should be in secondary moderns in selective areas progress 8 is -0.1.

Surely all kids matter equally?

Well then don't create schools that give more to students who already have lots, and take away from students that don't?

I meant what causes that effect, not how is it statiscally proven - i think its quite a well recognised phsnomenon.

Grammar schools hoover up the best resources and take relatively easier kids, leaving a concentration of lesser resourses and more resource-intensive kids in the other schools.

See this is what i dont understand Grammar schools are cheap, have high ratios. What is being taken away ?

But you and B&R posts quite openly say that bright kids matter less. Why would anyone who had a choice send their child to a school that thought like that ?

But why does it rob dcs of their cs ? Thats what we need to find out, i am sure it doesn't have to. Just accepting thats the way it is- therefore grammar schools shouldn't exist- doesn't move the discussion on ?

I think you need to accept the evidence that it does and make a justification for that. It could be that its the act of making a cut in itself that results in the advantage/disadvantage rather than a percentage of pupils "needing" to be education separately. In superselective counties the top 5% (roughly) "need" to be separate, in the selective counties its about 20% and apparently in Northern Ireland its around 40%. All show an advantage to being selected and a disadvantage to not. If you have your 10% grammar schools why shouldn't the next 30% complain of being "sacrificed?"

If you take a percentage of kids, tell them they're smart and give them a school where teachers would like to work, its not surprising they do well really. But how does anyone decide who "deserves" to have the adavantages and who "deserves" the disadvantages?

What is being taken away?

More experienced and well-qualified staff. More interested and motivated parents.

And we know that grammars take nowhere near their fair share of disadvantaged kids.

But they don't Hoover up the best resources as they get less money.

And sorry but I don't think massive classes of bright kids are necessarily easy to teach.

And as regards progress 8 you need to look at the school itself and not hold kids responsible for a job schools should be doing themselves.

But you and B&R posts quite openly say that bright kids matter less. Why would anyone who had a choice send their child to a school that thought like that ?

They have never said anything of the sort.

Come on. We are NOT talking about "bright" kids here. (Whatever that means, as we know from all research that academic ability is 90% parental input and social class and opportunity and 10% natural aptitude). We are talking about already privileged middle and upper class kids who will be the vast majority entering grammars. And who we want to advantage more! They are not the disadvantaged ones, surely.

Maybe i dont want ds to go to a school where he is expected to be "easy". I want him to challenged and also challenging. Why shouldn't he get his fair share of the resources ?

"But you and B&R posts quite openly say that bright kids matter less. "

I don't think we do, actually....

Re disadvantaged kids measures are being put into place.

What is the comp sector doing re redressing the very unfair balance of the top wealthiest 20% hoovering up the very best places and the sharp elbowed middle classes doing their best with the rest of the best places?

BandR most certainly has on other threads.

My points are much more nuanced than that. But hey ho- why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Noble reffered to someone not reaching their potential as poor diddumz and B&R said they should be happy with less teacher time. To me that is being less valued than other pupils.

IQ is 80% heritable published may 2016 in JAMA pysch sorry can't remember the authors. So not 90% parental input.

I don't think B&R is talking about 'bright kids' at all (which is a term as I mentioned above that I take huge issue with). I think B&R is saying, if I understand correctly, why should we be privileging the needs of the 10% most advantaged kids, at the expense (as all research shows) of the 90%. It's not about "brightness". It's about money and parental input. Go and see which kids go to schools like Latymer / H Barnet / QE boys in London etc. Either kids or very pushy / middle class parents who massively value education or wealthy kids. With the rare exception. And they are mostly all tutored. Kids whose parents value education so much are advantaged already. As are wealthy kids.

I personally don't worry about them. I worry about the disadvantaged kids.

Sorry by bright i guess i mean a composite IQ of above 120 or in the top 10% of the population.

Still wish: IQ is a massively contested concept. Are you personally convinced though by what you are saying? And if so, if IQ (as you say) is "mostly genes" how do you explain the massive lengths middle / upper class parents go to, to educate their kids, to make sure they do lots of extracurriculars, to go to the "right schools", to be tutored etc? Why if it's all genes?

I'm am really interested in getting involved in this debate. To understand better the disparity between gramma s and secondary moderns I started a thread a while back asking what the difference was beteeen the two, to u derstand why people don't want them. The surprisingly overwhelming responses I got were that they were the same , not what I was expecting. I think I recognise some of the posters on this thread.

Now this thread is asking what the plans are for sec. modern s, so clearly they are not the same. I'm more confused than ever.

Logically should grammar be for the top 51% - that means the majority will benefit from them?

"hey should be happy with less teacher time. To me that is being less valued than other pupils."

Of course brighter children.get less teacher time! If you only have to have something explained to you once, then you can go and do it while the teacher explains it again to the people who don't get it. Have you never taught a group of people anything?