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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

Thank you for the link up thread. I won't post the numbers as it could identify, but suffice to say it confirmed my suspicisions that the two comps my children attend / attended had a different mix.

I think if we had bigger schools those differences would be less.

I think if we had bigger schools those differences would be less.

Definitely agree with you there. I think the worries about "big comps" are a leftover from the seventies. Good pastoral care can alleviate potential problems and some schools in Oxfordshire split the lower age ranges and the higher onto different sites.

Stillloving,

Great summary. Also it helped me understand how having the odd exception kind of proves the rule (let them have hope, but not too much as the bloke in Hunger Games said).

"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)."

I have never and would never use the term 'Chav' to describe people !

In which case I'm happy to withdraw the word.

The kids that don't go to a grammar school...

Can they still get jobs like nurse, dental assistant, goldsmith, farrier, accountant, go to businesschool, a physiotherapist, electrician, social worker, chemical laboratory worker, seamstress, florist, hotel managaress, interior decorato, cellarman, cook etc or...?

I reckon the whole grammar schools thing is something TM has put out there so that the Labour party and the left of the Tory party have something to vote down while their pushing Brexit through. It the same way as they have something daft in the budget that they have to back track on and we miss the other stuff

stillloving - Yes, that's an excellent summary. Thank you.

And such decisions are made at the tender age of 10!

The words that keeps coming up in these debates, especially from pro-grammar people, are 'academic' and 'non-academic'. Leaving aside the fact that 'academic' pertains generally to education and scholarship (so to all schools), if we look at its second meaning: 'clever and likes studying', well all children, properly cared for and taught, have the capacity to 'like studying'. And 'clever' - how can a narrow test at the age of 10 weed out the clever from the non-clever. It doesn't made sense; it's divisive and unnecessary.

Tirion: absolutely. I hate the word "academic" (as in a similar way I hate the word "musical"). It's quite interesting. In a lot of cultures these terms hardly exist, it is generally assumed that hard work is a very big part of learning, and that most kids under the right circumstances can enjoy learning as they can also, given the right support that suits their personality, can learn to play a musical instrument decently. Talent and inherent ability, in many cultures, is seen as a nice little bonus to have, not at all where the emphasis should be, rather than the massive importance it has acquired in this country, to the expense of all other factors. I am appalled when I am asked whether my DC is academic or not (in early primary!!!). What does that even mean? These comments which come even from the most well meaning and liberal people are so widespread! They really don't serve children well. They label them far too early, trying to fit them into little boxes, not allowing the importance of hard work and perseverance to be Central. And so many other things!

My dad passed the 11 plus. He went on to go to university, get a masters degree and earned a nice living.

His brothers did not. They have worked only very low paid jobs and have not had the opportunities he had.

As a result, my cousins (their daughters) have not had the same opportunities that my sister and I have had.

This division at such an early age is completely unfair and has implications for future generations.

At 11, I was really struggling with lots of subjects and think I would have failed an 11+. At 18 I got 4 A Levels at A grade because I had figured things out a bit more.

stilloving Your excellent posts are making any others seem redundant but I would just add - why is it that countries such as Finland, Canada and Ireland seem to be able to educate their citizens well without these divisions? Given that many comprehensives (not all leafy!!) and whole countries manage this it seems pretty clear that division is not necessary. What is so wrong with this country that our brightest "need" to be separated when those in Ireland don't?

"What is so wrong with this country that our brightest "need" to be separated when those in Ireland don't?"
It's all to do with social class. People pretend it isn't, but it is.

stillloving for Prime Minister!

It is absolutely and utterly to do with social class. Being with the "right people".

Just do a simple test. Try to convince a "middle class parent" (read: quite wealthy) living in a leafy area to send their kid to the outstanding comprehensive across the road in the "bad" area nearby where all the... ahem, "disruptive" (read: quite poor) kids go. It does happen in London, some really good secondary schools with inspired heads just won't be touched by a barge pole by certain parents. Several examples come to my mind.

stillloving - and the words 'artisitc' and 'not artisitc' too! What, in heaven's name, does that mean, especially when applied to a young child?

The Times letter page today was a classic - full of letters about how we can't drop the 11+ pass mark for poorer kids. Seem like grammars are going to do the magic for disadvantaged kids without them actually containing any.

Show me a reception class. Let me look in their lunch boxes and at the labels of their coats and I will pick out the 11+ passers with around 75% accuracy. Let me watch pick up or drop off and I reckon I could up it to 90%.

Can they still get jobs like nurse, dental assistant, goldsmith, farrier, accountant, go to businesschool, a physiotherapist, electrician, social worker, chemical laboratory worker, seamstress, florist, hotel managaress, interior decorato, cellarman, cook etc or...?

Are you suggesting that kids at 10 should be restricted to certain types of job?? Nothing wrong with any of these careers. But certainly shouldn't be decided at 10.

heron98 Tue 14-Mar-17 11:07:26

Just to counter your little anecdote there, DF is also one of three brothers and without any encouragement at all from his very WC parents who didn't like books or learning....he was told he should sit 11+ by teacher and did so - with the help of the school. He passed and his DP withheld his results from him, they were so upset. His other two db, one went to technical college and had fantastic career and the other one, went into business and also did very well. DF got degree and probably had most high flying career out of all three but probably the poorest now in ££ terms

His wc background has always been a distinct contrast in his personality to the first class education he received which at that time, was very much old boy network, public school etc. It elevated him and put him on a par.

So from my personal anecdote failing the 11 plus has not led to failure in DF family, far from it - they all seemed to end up taking the right paths for them and they were all successful in their own strengths and ways.

Maybe conversely because their parents didn't want any of them to take the test and didn't value learning, they weren't held back by their parents own prejudices?

Oh and the other DB also got a degree just via a different route. The third didn't and wasn't interested but still did well.

Why could they not all have gone to one good school? Again, what is so different about this country that we need to put everyone in different institutions.

I read a stat (admit haven't checked for myself) that nine out of the ten top performing countries in PISA are non-selective. Why don't we copy what they do?

"Are you suggesting that kids at 10 should be restricted to certain types of job?? Nothing wrong with any of these careers. But certainly shouldn't be decided at 10."

I think she is, yes.

In answer to the above question; nobody in Canada cares what elementary or secondary a person attends it's never a question asked. all children write the same final exam.
The high school you attend isn't a barrier to attending college or university if you want to go because upgrade courses are easily available.

Are you suggesting that kids at 10 should be restricted to certain types of job?? Nothing wrong with any of these careers. But certainly shouldn't be decided at 10.

I'm actually just trying to find out what exactly it would actually mean for a child.

Some people up thread pointed out they were "simply" prepared for factory jobs. Is this for example true?

Or would a job like accountant, dental assistant or horse trainer still be possible? It's just incredibly confusing.

I actually had a thread on mumsnet in order to understand what's going on, read up on it etc. But there just seems very little resonably unbiased info, tbh...

"But there just seems very little resonably unbiased info, tbh..."

Because it's a political question I suppose.