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 do not hear about anyone introducing secondary moderns.

The issue seems to be that the wealthy who can get their children into leafy comps don't want grammars, and the rest who have to put up with bog standard comps wants the option of grammars.

Seems to be the liberal elite want to keep the working class in their place.

"Bertrand the two deleted posts showed exactly what you meant in your original post,"

No they didn't. I have no idea what your agenda is, but it is very strange. As anyone who read that thread will know. The poste were deleted, I presume, because I mistakenly named another poster as trying to out you, when in fact they were trying to out someone else. They were nothing to do with you at all. And I was happy to leave it, but you weren't. And carried on "misrepresenting" me. So just stop digging before you get in any deeper.

noble there are the same recruitment problems in the sense that there are problems recruiting in the same shortage subjects so no doubt my wording was careless. Then there are different problems in recruiting, such as the one I've mentioned about requiring teachers to have the capability to challenge the most able in a good grammar, especially at KS5.

Well, it's billed as a comp, bert but doesn't have large numbers of pupils achieving good grades. If it did, then it would have better showing in the league tables and have higher % gaining EBAC.

HPFA . Has said % of High Ability pupils has nothing to do it !

This therefore could in theory allow a 'Secondary Modern' such as Wellington in Trafford to admit no low attaining pupils and still be a 'Modern' . Currently only about 5% low ability students at Wellington .

If a school has no Low ability pupils can it still be a Modern....

Head, it's easy to look up using

this tool

Once you've found your school, scroll down and click on 'performance by prior attainment'. that will give you the numbers at each ability (or rather, each level of attainment at the end of KS2) and you can either post them as numbers or % here.

Give it a break Bert. Learn and move on. Please just don't do it again - but I don't think you will.

That argument doesn't make any sense when it would be cheaper for a wealthy elitist to buy a place for their kid in a grammar school, than to buy one of these mansions that you have to apparently purchase to get your kid into a top comp.

'Seems to be the liberal elite want to keep the working class in their place'

By Jove i think she's got it !

Anon. Welcome to the Guardian Online.

The wealthy elitist needs a bright kid. That might put a spanner in the wealthy elitist's works.

Head- the Ebacc is a pretty flaky measre of attainment- for example, my dd's excellent school had a rubbish EBacc figure because a lot of schientists chose RE as their humanities subject and it didn't count! My ds's school has a pretty rubbish EBacc figure because only the top set does a language. And so on and so on.

It's easy to find out what %age of each ability group you have, by the way. Go to the league tables, and look at "pupil population".

Not necessarily. The data shows that the wealthier you are, the more likely your kid is to get into a grammar school.

Stop calling me a liar, goodbyestranger.

Head, that's hard. Hope it works out ok for your kids.

I haven't Bert. I've simply objected to what you did and I'm asking for you to leave it at that, apologyless. It must be very tedious for other people on the thread who are trying to discuss things other than MN etiquette.

You've obviously got to be bright enough to pass the test noble. Wealth won't do it per se but it will buy a house in the catchment of a leafy comp.

Or you can pay for a prep school in a grammar area who will prepare their pupils to pass as best they can.

Right.

I need to read this whole thread. MAny of DH's friends and colelagues seem to have really strong opinions about this. I think I'll read it tomorrow on my way to work.
(I'm not from the UK. And am currently still reading up on your school system in general)

"What this means in real terms is that children from the most affluent families performing in as low as the 35th percentile of the Key Stage 2 distribution have a positive chance of accessing a grammar school in selective areas."

ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/grammar-schools-why-academic-selection-only-benefits-the-very-affluent/

I think it's similar back home.

But we have 3 levels and the middle level has still a chance of a very successful career and somebody in the lowest can still get a good job. As long as they still have good records/attendance.

I need to read up on this stuff.

I have read all this thread with interest.

To me it boils down to this.

Either we believe that the top 1-10% of society are there essentially because they deserve it, because they have 'good genes' and 'have inherited their parents' intelligence'; conversely, in this model (the Tory model, really) we believe that the 'poor' or 'lower classes' are also there because they 'deserve it' (ie worse genes / less 'naturally clever). In which case, if we follow this model, we push to have segregated schools for the 'bright / wealthy' kids (ie grammar schools) & 'technical schools' for those who are 'not bright / not wealthy' ie keeping them in the place within society & teaching them 'practical' things that they will need in their jobs as builders etc. This is the essence of it really: that these two groups (bright/wealthy versus not bright / poor) have essentially different characteristics that should be catered for separately, with no hope or wish in fact to work towards social mobility. In such a model, if there is an exceptional 'bright / poor' kid, they will manage against all the odds to get to a grammar school (no mention in this model of the countless poor / medium kids who will never manage).

Or alternatively we believe in a model which says that wealthy people are wealthy largely because of their parents' privilege, because of luck, because of hard work yes but luck and inheritance as central. In that case, if we oppose the horrid inequality in our society, if we believe that all kids deserve a chance in a good educational system that is truly for all, then we properly fund our schools, segregate kids as little as possible, mix all social classes as that is the best model worldwide to help the majority and to help social mobility.

I find the idea that wealthy people are naturally more intelligent so far from my everyday experience and also so far from my political / social beliefs that I naturally am opposed to the first model and support truly good and well funded comprehensive schools within which children of all abilities & talents can thrive. Yes to the expense perhaps of maintaining the horrid inequalities of the current system (ie the most wealthy / most bright may not maintain THAT much of their privilege) but to me that is a price well worth paying.

And before anyone says that I'm arguing 'all children are the same'. I am absolutely not saying that. I believe that each of us human beings has a temperament and a certain drive. It is has to specify what that amounts to. Within one's 'natural' temperament though, the social class in which they are born, the parental input, the extracurriculars money can buy, the group of peers money can buy, the area one lives in, the stability of their home etc... all these will essentially determine this person's future, to a very large degree.

Which in essence distils to the same thing, that wealth / family stability / social class matter much more than temperament. (And much more than schooling for that matter.)

(or rather it is HARD to specify what that amounts to).

Flying Not everyone agrees with my definition of secondary modern but I think it is logical since it relates to the impact the 11+ might have on the expectations and confidence of the children. I suspect a lot of children at Wellington are affected by that, although fortunately they clearly have an excellent alternative.

We keep talking about grammars and the brightest as if that solves the problems identified by Ofsted, as if its all about the As and A stars in grammars and C/Ds in the moderns. But there will be plenty of High Achieving children in the secondary moderns - why is it supposed to be easy to meet their needs there but so impossible in comprehensives?

The lovely Peter Hitchens has a solution to this - re-introducing O-Levels and CSEs. Because apparently comps are doing too well at GCSE and this doesn't show the superiority of grammars. The fact that this would mean secondary moderns teachers having to teach two entirely syllabuses presumably hasn't occurred to him. I would hope none of the pro-grammar supporters on this thread would agree with this but it does show the indifference there can be to those in the secondary moderns.

Flying *'Seems to be the liberal elite want to keep the working class in their place'

By Jove i think she's got it !*

I think that's pretty ironic since under your previous name you were making no secret of the fact that you wanted grammars to get middle-class kids away from the "chavs"