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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

I have a very high opinion of teachers on the whole - obviously there are some weak or very weak ones, as in every profession. But if you think it's doing down all teachers to acknowledge the obvious truth that plenty aren't capable of challenging the highest ability DC in a good grammar the you have the wrong end of the stick.

goodbye the data shows that grammar schools find it easier to recruit and have a more experienced and stable staff.

educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/06/inequalities-in-access-to-teachers-in-selective-schooling-areas/

Novble, absolutely. i was trying to think of how to explain that.
The subject I struggled most to teach initially (at primary) was always the one I had ridiculously high qualifications in.

The ones I really can't do particularly well personally - like art, for example - I teach much, much better, because I found it much easier to break them down in a way that was easy for children to understand, because I knew EXACTLY what might be hard.

Teaching is not straight 'knowledge transmission' - if it was, the subject i was most knowledgeable about, which I understood the best and in the most depth, would have been the one that i taught the best from the off. As it was hard for me to break down, to see the difficulties, to see what 'needed to be taught', I actually taught it rather badly in my first couple of years.

So after a certain point, 'extra' knowledge in a teacher is less important than 'ability to teach'

I think for a school to be truly comprehensive, it needs to contain sufficient numbers of children at all ability levels.
Schools can be secondary moderns when they are in grammar areas, or where sufficient parents remove their children to selective private schools, or in areas where demographics mean fewer children are very able.

I think that it's good for a clever child at GCSE level to learn about being a self starter. It's a bit like practice for A Levels. Nobody will be hovering over them then.

So what' are the %ages of the different abilities in your school, Head?

Do I regret moving here? Yes because we had better schooling where we were - and I could have then been very positive about using a comprehensive (really a grammar school due to demographics). However, we were forced to move due to work. You can't always choose.

This 'good' grammar schools thing?

Again, looking at Progress 8 ONLY for able children, I repeat my list, containing 1 superselective, 4 normal grammar schools, and 4 comprehensives (sorry, added another of these).

0.57, 0.42, 0.52, 0.03, 0.41, -0.10, 0.12, 0.43, -0.06

Which are the 'good' grammars amongst these?

Bertrand I've only said it was creepy to let me know you knew my DCs' school! Which it is/ was - really bang out of order, I don't expect many posters would like it.I have certainly never labelled you a liar! It was also on another thread so not great to mention it here. Let it go. If I can I think you should be able to too.

Oh goodbye I was going to respond on that point about Bertrand on the other thread but it had closed.
From my reading it was obvious that she was suggesting you were oblivious to any entry requirements because that followed the general flow of the conversation, not because she knew anything about the school. In fact the comment makes more sense if she doesn't know the school.

Can a school with 0.7% EHCP's (national average 3.9%) be a good example of a secondary modern?

Yes noble but you haven't read the two deleted posts which confirmed exactly what I've said even if Bert now regrets it - or perhaps just being called out on it. Can we let it go please. It wasn't ok and I'd rather not dwell on it.

Oh I've just scrolled back and I think I missed a page - thanks to posters who defended me against accusations of not caring about bright kids :)

Head,

A school cannot become a grammar school due to demographics. Of the 4 'normal' grammar schools in my list, only 1 has over 10% of middle attainers, and none have any low attaining pupils. In contast, the absolutely leafiest of the comprehensives (and it is very, very leafy), has 8% low attainers, 41% middle attainers. That really is a very different profile.

I said that, noble, and she said I was lying. So go figure.

"Can a school with 0.7% EHCP's (national average 3.9%) be a good example of a secondary modern?"

I don't understand, bigmack - could you say more?

Less than a fifth EBac. She will be in GCSE sets where there will be a good percentage not passing.
And yes, it's quite possible for clever children to be a self starter. I know. I did that myself. But because a few do, doesn't mean it's a level playing field.

Noble as far as teacher recruitment goes I concede it's easier for grammars on the whole (geographical differences affect all sectors). But grammars are absolutely not immune from problems in recruitment - that was my point.

goodbye I read them at the time! I thought you were wrong then too, but the thread moved on and then it closed when it came up again.

What's Ebacc got to do with it?

cant it was more becoming a secondary modern due to the area.

You said grammars have the same recuitment problems as other schools, when that's not true.

I am interested in how bad you've got it though. Are you hiring unqualified teachers? Are non-maths staff teaching maths? Are you hiring from abroad?

EBac being a general measure of achievement that's all. I don't know the % at each ability.

Bertrand the two deleted posts showed exactly what you meant in your original post, ironically. Now please let other people get on with the thread - I didn't welcome your attentions but in the grand scheme of things it's very minor.

Sorry, Head. I honestly don't understand but I am perfectly prepared to accept I am being thick.What makes the school a secondary modern? What %age high ability for example?

You're missing one salient piece of info noble. Please let it go - it's not in any doubt I'm afraid.