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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

Noble, they are just obsessed with the rich and helping them. If you can get the children into a flagship grammar , it saves them private school fees and then they can spend the money elsewhere. Not sure if this the ultimate aim, but it will happen.
The normal secondary schools will be chucked the bones of whatever is left over!

Good point Noblegiraffe, hadn't thought of the time wasted and stress. We live very close to a good comp, I think we all want something different to what we have, but don't fully think through the ramifications.

As far as I was aware, there will be comps, free schools and grammars. No SMs.

You can't take the top 10% of kids out of the comps in the area without affecting them. Some sixth forms may fold.

I know repeating myself, but still confused why scrapped in some areas and not others, or is it that the population has grown and with it new towns and they are the ones that don't have them as didn't originally?

"Surely it's unfair for the areas that don't, why is this so?"

No. It's unfair to the areas that do!

I honestly don't think TM is corrupt etc. In many ways I admire her.

How can such an obviously bright woman think this is a good plan?

I think it's not a real answer to say "because she only cares about money".

Is it attachment to her own schooling? Is it some kind of misguided belief that the best way to deal with the poor is to pluck the few deserving ones away from the rest?

Rabbit the education system used to be much more locally run than it is now. A lot of local authorities started to abandon the Tripartite System (grammar and sec mod or grammar, technical and sec mod) before there was a national initiative on it. There was a period when comprehensivisation was compulsory with a national order but some local authorities resisted. Margaret Thatcher removed the compulsory element when she became Education Secretary.

It's incredible how much more centralised government is these days.

Why are the Labour opposition not demanding the closure of existing grammar schools?

Grammars only exist in a few areas. We don't have them in Hampshire or Cornwall & we still manage to produce perfectly well-rounded children. In theory I could have pushed DD to sit the 11+ for the girl's grammar in the county next door, but there's no point as we have great comprehensive schools and I loath the idea of determining a child's future at age 11. Despite being taught in mixed ability classes (shock, horror) she was still predicted a string of grade 8s at parens' evening this week.

roarityroar:

As far as I was aware, there will be comps, free schools and grammars. No SMs.

A comprehensive school serves all children, of all ability levels, and of all social backgrounds

If there are grammar school system, the top 10-20pc of scorers in an exam are not at the comprehensive school. Therefore is it not a comprehensive school. It is a secondary modern but they just won't give it that name.

I went to a comprehensive school in London. A Vietnamese girl joined us at 14 with very little English. She would not have been accepted at a grammar school. She now has maths and economics undergraduate and masters degrees from Oxford and LSE and a PhD from Harvard. This was because it was a comprehensive school who could adapt to children developing at different speeds rather than making an arbitrary decision at 11.

Point of order, a couple of posters have said that GSs determine kids' futures at 11, but nearly all kids are 10, some barely so, when they sit them in early September.

Looking at a possible wider view - govmts have over the years seen a decline in educational achievements, we all know that figures can be interpreted one way or another depending on what the reader wants to see and presented as such. Govmts will have commissioned research as to why, when schools are 'more highly funded than ever before' I wonder if the research is bringing in other factors - 2 parents working, divorced households, high number of 'latch key kids', parents attitude towards education etc.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are trying to re-introduce the competition factor at this age to get parents to be more pro-active in getting DCs to attend school, better attitude towards their teachers, better behaviour etc in order to brag on facebook that their child attends a grammer.

No sorry I don't believe may is doing this for any 'kind' reasons.

Tories always just look after their own and the rest of us have to feed on the crumbs!

I moved to my first high school (a comprehensive) part way through the school year having moved from primary school (Scotland where we go up to high school a year later), it was a fantastic school but because they didn't understand the scots system they initially put me in bottom stream. Before the end of the year I'd gradually been moved to top stream. I then moved to a grammar school area and because I was too old to do 11+ I was put in the secondary modern - which was shit! I was put in top stream (there was streaming in sm's too), they used the same system of text books as my previous school and the top stream was at least a year behind in all subjects. Bottom stream was at least 2 years behind.

My brother was the right age to do 11+ and went to the grammar school. He hated it! We hated being in different schools and he hated and didn't cope well with the pressure (tons of homework and expectations of taking part in extra curricular stuff).

It's elitist, divisive, damaging to children and damaging to the education system.

A school cannot specialise in everything! Grammar /modern split seems reasonable enough to me

A Grammar school isn't specialist, it teaches the same GCSEs to the same curriculum as a Comprehensive. But a comprehensive teaches the top sets in the same building and can enable children who didn't pass the exam on the day to move sets if they should later on.

"Surely it's unfair for the areas that don't"

Quite a few people, myself included, have moved where we live to be away from them.

"A school cannot specialise in everything! Grammar /modern split seems reasonable enough to me"
Yep. Grammars specialising in the children who matter. Secondary modern s "specialising" in everyone else.

There is a boys high school in the next town to us - selective, but never referred to as a grammar school in the all the years i've lived around here. It probably works on the same lines, but the sign outside says 'high school'
However, overheard a lady at the bus stop last week say ' my son goes to xx grammar school.'
It is a very good school, no doubt about that, but the snobbery factor is rife and the yearly dramas for spaces ( as one poster put it) seems to be gathering even more pace now than ever before. I am so glad my two have done with secondary schools! ( more pressure on kids and parents all round)

There was an interesting radio discussion about this. A speaker made the point that if your politics are focused on what's best for the individual, grammar schools make sense as everyone theoretically has the potential to access a better education, and obviously there are people who personally benefited from grammar schools. If your politics are focused on what's best for society, you start questioning what happens to everyone who doesn't get in and the broader implications in terms of inequalities. He actually raised point of secondary moderns but presenter seemed determined not to engage with that.

Agree with majority of points about problems with the 11+.

I imagine that with no effective opposition the torys are spending all their time trying to appease the right wing of their party and neutralise ukip. That's what got us into this brexit mess and is pushing us toward grammars - not evidence that they are a good thing for children. It's all political

The current government love inequality it seems. Tories always have.

I used to teach in a secondary modern. It was excellent.

Have a colleague who told me about her mum and another close relative ( 1950s) one passed the 11+ and went to the 'very good school' the other one didnt and went to the 'not very good local school'. Her mum was inconsolable, wanted to be with her relative ( they were really close) , she ended up doing a 13 + exam and got into the 'very good school' in the end! The family were so upset, how could she not pass? what was wrong? Why could one pass and not the other child? a sad tale, but one that will be repeated no doubt!

great replies duly noted.

This is an infuriating debate because the arguments pro secondary modern are so incoherent!

So maybe it is just about neutralising ukip? (A worthy cause but...)

As said above, we need a proper opposition.

Will grammars be popular wth ukip voters?

Ukip like the grammar school / sec modern set up. Carswell was being interviewed the other month on the radio and seemed in favour.
Considering most of their party are privately educated, i can imagine they are on board with all of this!