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'm a bit intrigued as to how people "know" what model it will be when the government hasn't actually issued the regulations yet.

I can't see the context there HPFA but people on this thread are using the term secondary modern in a pejorative sense, harking back to the 60s, purely for emotive reasons.

The government has said easily enough to work out what the proposed parameters will be.

I've seen plenty of references to the "first wave" of grammar schools. And plenty of references to the domino effect of schools racing to be the first to go selective before others grab all their top pupils.

And why should I trust a government that's introducing a policy with zero evidence that it will be beneficial seemingly because the PM's adviser liked his own school?

I didn't say 'top 2%'. I was referring to the absolute numbers of pupils within the effective catchment taken by the grammar school - apologies for being unclear.

So a school with a 30-50 mile effective catchment, taking only 120 - 150 pupils (we looked at Pate's Grammar on the other thread), draws in less than 2% of the possible cohort, leaving 98% of the cohort for the other schools in that effective catchment. I agree that they don't reliably identify the TOP 2%, but the other schools are relatively less affected than e.g. schools in Stroud or Gloucester, where the less selective grammars have smaller effective catchments (and have a much greater total intake, with 4 and 2 grammars respectively) and thus have a greater impact on the other schools, because a greater percentage of the overall cohort is take into the grammars.

Oops, again unclear - i think Gloucester has 4 grammars and Stroud has 2? Open to being corrected, I just looked at in the context of the other thread.

I also think...back in the day - teachers - and childs own record also gave good indication of who would benefit from GRAMMAR school and thrive there. A more round picture than soley relying on test.

cantkeep The government will never admit that other schools will be secondary moderns because then it would have to admit that people who want comprehensives should have rights in any discussion about new grammars. They have to say that existing comprehensives will be unaffected so that all the power can be given to those who want grammars.

If you're going to say a comp can't cope with High Achievers if they're only 20% of the cohort, then you can't also say that having a new grammar reduce a comp's HA % from say 35 to 20% won't have an effect on that school. It's contradictory.

It's like I was trying to say about the top sets - if purely due to its limited numbers, a small selective grammar serving a very, very wide catchment area leaves a significant proportion of high ability pupils in the other schools - taking SOME, but not ALL, across that top 10-20% band - then the shape of the ability curve within the school has a less 'cliff edge' look. On the other hand, if grammars are numerous enough to be able to admit e.g. the vast majority of the top 10%, then een if the ability range within the grammars is still top 10%, the numbers involved mean that the cliff edge drop off in ability, with only a few remaining outliers, is much more obvious.

HPFA, exactly. Nor can they admit that even if they perfectly select the 'absolutely exact' top 10% of ability, it will simply create a new set of 'relatively high achievers' within the remaining schools, who will now be the ones who 'aren't catered well for'....but of course they matter less...

What about the news last week that MultiAcademy Trusts are already putting plans together to open grammar schools for Pupil Premium students.

You are poor but passed the exam so can go to the school for clever poor children
You are poor and failed the exam so you can go to the school for not clever poor children.

What are this government doing! Their education policy is divisive and destructive and written on the hoof.

I think parents also need to be really aware that this could close down their local school's sixth form. Sixth form funding is in dire straits and losing pupils to a new grammar could be the nail in the coffin.

The whole policy seems to have been scribbled on the back of an envelope. We're supposed to be having these new grammars for poor children but Tory MPs are trying to stop proposals for getting more poor children into existing grammars. How does that square?
I guess this is what happens when you're pushing a policy for purely political reasons rather than one that has any underlying rationale.

cant the ability distribution is what I was taking about. some comprehensive schools are more comprehensive than others.

noble lots of sixth forms are going to be lost anyway because of the imperatives of funding - it's just a question of which.

The whole policy is about securing the Tory vote not about the best education for all children. Huge waste of money to set up new grammars and free schools whilst underfunding other maintained schools. Particularly since a good proportion of free schools close within two years. They are funding transport to the new grammars but stopping funded transport for children with special needs to attend specialist provision. The faith schools lost transport funding a while back meaning it is only more affluent who can afford to send their children in many areas. Sixth form colleges are really struggling despite being the provision with the best track record of supporting social mobility. Just appalling.

Losing sixth forms due to either a grammar or insane budget cuts isn't something to be shrugged off. If my school lost its sixth form, it would lose me, and a load of other qualified maths teachers as we would go to a school where we could teach A-level.

I'm not shrugging noble I'm simply saying it's going to happen as sixth forms become unviable.

Goodbye,

The thing is, if the 'viable' ones left are in grammar schools ... who discriminate against external students entering at 6th form, by setting the effective barrier much lower for their own students ... then that's a real concern in terms of universal 6th form provision for appropriately-qualified students....

Going back to the "top set" thing. Grammar supporters say that high ability children need to be taught separately because, among other reasons, the ability spread in the top set of a comprehensive is too wide for them to be taught effectively.

However, they seem to think it's perfectly possible to teach the top set of a secondary modern effectively, which by definition will have an even wider spread of abilities...........

BR, the more this discussion goes on, the clearer it becomes to be that these proposed changes have nothing to do with the interests of the vast majority of children, ie how to make comprehensive schools better including how to fund them properly, and all to do with the perceived needs of the 10% who are "not doing as well as they could". It is perverse to argue that, for the whole of society it's preferable to care for the tiny minority rather than the vast majority. It just does not make sense.

I also happen to believe by the way that being segregated from their peers of different social classes does not in fact benefit children. What "benefits" children should not be measured on the basis of access to Oxbridge or the number of A* achieved, what makes a good life and preparation for it is a much wider and more complicated subject.

It's odd that the brightest kids are doing really badly/not reaching their potential in comps, and yet the bright kids in grammars are only doing 0.3 of a grade per GCSE better than them. That doesn't seem to be the sort of gains worth all the effort and expense that this will cost. Even once the schools are a set up the admin associated with test administration will be huge.

Time for my trademark question again.

If selective education is so effective, why don't wholly selective areas, like Kent, get significantly better GCSE results than non selective areas?

Noblegiraffe: yes, surely it must be easier and cheaper to raise the average at a comp by 1/3 of a grade than build, run and manage tests for a whole seperate school.

I think the new grades 8 and especially 9, coupled with progress 8, are going to encourage comps to push more for top grades for high attainers.

I can see that the standard 5 A*-C statistic does focus attention on getting the borderline students to a C in our target driven league tables.

Northern Ireland does.

Northern Ireland is a very different society - the selective counties in England are surely a better model.