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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

smash

I know. But for an immigrant/foreigner/expat trying to find out what's going on with a DH that has rather strong opinions... It's quite difficult. And I don't just want to parrot his stance (obviously)

i don't think going to a secondary modern automatically precludes you
any career. Being middle or low ability might- but that would apply in any sort of school. The psychological effect of the sheep/goat thing at 10 can run deep, though. Prophesies can be self fulfilling. And the opportunities at a SM are bound to be restricted-
the absence of a top set makes for an unbalanced school.

But Betrand no two schools with different teachers and different neighbourhoods in different parts of any country are the same.
No school is balanced and perfect for every child.
From what I read on hear the issue is low level disruption. No one wants their child attending a school with unmotivated underachievers with behavioural issues.
Is the issue really with schools or students?

One question I've asked several times and if anyone's answered it I apologize for missing it- if the selective system is so good, why don't wholly selective areas like Kent have significantly better GCSE results than comparable wholly comprehensive areas?

chippie to be a registered nurse you need good A levels and a degree.

I have no particular interest in separating my children from others, but I would appriciate them to be able to learn amongst children of similar ability- and interests. Preferably within one institution but it needs to be of sufficient size to be able to offer both lots of choice and setting to do so.

It isn't always about GCSE results. I don't think my eldest "suffered" academically due to attending the comp she did. However I wanted her to enjoy school, to make friends that valued her and share interests.
You can make a journey in bit a BMW and a motorbike. Both get you there, but are different experiences.

You can make a journey in bit a BMW and a motorbike. Both get you there, but are different experiences.

I don't really know where to start with that one. Not the job of the state to give a free private education to a lucky few.

So the state should give the top 10% a free BMW?

Incidentally, do we know it's going to be 10 %?

No, it's back to being 25% apparently.

I would like Grammar schools to take the top 35% !. This would allow for access for 'near' failures as well as allowing for children that 'messed' up the exam. There would be scope for the child's school or parents to prove the child was of 'selective' ability , despite the poor one off result !

I didn't say that the state had to pay for private education. I was saying the is end result or destination is not always the be all and end all, sometimes the journey is important too.

I wish people would stop referring to grammar and comp. If there kids fail 11+ they will go to a sec mod, not a comp. No proper top set to be in in any subject.

Indeed.

Hello BertrandRussell! I've also asked about Kent multiple times - no one has ever answered me
Kent has had a selective system since well before I went to secondary school in 1970 , it is a lovely control area and if all children do better in a selective system Kent should prove it.Never seen anyone show it does though...

Of course Secondary moderns have top sets. What a strange thing to say.

I don't think it's a very good control area at all. Schools are not wholly responsible for the academic achievement of their pupils.
As has been stated academic ability has a lot to do with inheritance and family set up.
many areas, even counties have very different demographics.

And a complete piece of garbage here from Graham Brady:

twitter.com/Ed_Dorrell/status/841732058133213186

Of course setting by subject within schools is not the same as forcing children into different buildings. Is this really the best argument he can come up with?

It's not going to be 25% and since no-one is proposing a return to the Kent model there aren't going to be secondary moderns. These threads are based on a completely false premise.

bigmack,

In a secondary mopdern, 10-25% of the ability range simply aren't there - or rather, there are a few outlier representatives who didn't pass the exam on the day, moved house or country at the wrong moment etc. So rather than being a 'normal' distribution, the distribution of ability within a secmndary modern will be more of a cliff edge - a sudden drop from 'normal' levels of a certain ability down to almost none.

That means that a class of 30 to form a 'highest group' from the year group in a subject will not have anything like the same makeup as a 'highest group' in a comprehensive or a grammar school - the lowest ability in that group will be lower, and it is likely (because of the shape of the ability curve) that there will be a large group around this lowest level, with outliers - e.g. those who excelled at that subject but not across the whole spectrum of the 11+ - in small numbers at higher abilities.

So it will be CALLED the top set - because it is, in that institution. But it is not the same as the top set in a school with a comprehensive or selective intake.

This will not be as true in subjects such as art, for which ability is independent iof '11+ measured' ability, and will be truest in subjects most closely tested for in the 11+.

Goodbye,

The 'other' schools in grammar areas, whatever you WANT to call them, ARE secondary moderns - they are the schools that take those who do not pass the 11+, and they do not contain a full ability range as a result.

There are a few, in counties with very few grammars, that are strong enough in their own right to pull in those who pass, or do not take, the 11+. However, that is most likely where the grammars take 2-%% or less of the pupils, rather than those that take 10%.

can'tkeepawayforever I'm basing that on the rules prescribed by TalkinPeace on the sister thread and you said she knew what she was talking about because her DH works in schools. She said comps needed to be within five miles of a grammar to be classed as a secondary modern. Outside that five miles it appears that they're bona fide comps. She didn't distinguish between rural and urban areas but as you said she knows her stuff, so I'm going with it.

Can I just say also that no grammar takes the top 2% only. Where are you getting your figures from?

I'm not actually convinced that even a school such as Westminster takes only the top 2%.

Sir Michael Wilshaw: "if you're taking away the best kids from the comprehensive system you're creating, by another name, secondary moderns. You can call it what you like. You can call it a technical school, a creative school, a red white and blue school. but people will know that the brightest children, the most academic children, are not going there"

i don't think going to a secondary modern automatically precludes you
any career. Being middle or low ability might- but that would apply in any sort of school. The psychological effect of the sheep/goat thing at 10 can run deep, though. Prophesies can be self fulfilling. And the opportunities at a SM are bound to be restricted

Thank you very much. From what I know DH and his friends don't seem to agree with the majority (?) of the people on this thread.

I guess I'll read through it and hope I'll understand a bit more.

Because currently I'm stuck nodding or saying nothing.

Makes me feel really foolish, tbh. (not that I want to have an argument or anything...)