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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

That said I don't think you can judge an entire national system on tiny bits and bobs all over the country which vary completely.

Many areas with grammar schools are a world away from the Kent model.

This has been discussed ad nauseum many times before BandR as you've asked it many times before.

"This has been discussed ad nauseum many times before BandR as you've asked it many times before."

It hasn't, you know.it has been studiously ignored.

apologies - as the OP (albeit name-changed) I should have known that TM wants to lower the entrance criteria for poor children

IABU to find that absolutely hilarious? I'm just wanting to see the faces of the parents who insist on unnecessarily taking the 11+ when the "rough families" leave our comp to go to the grammar.

I'll go back to being a nice person soon.

I would like grammar schools to take the top 10% 25%- -35% whatever % will allow my child in.

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 think there are very deep historical and psychological reasons behind the obsession with grammars. It's as if the actual passing of the 11+ test confers a recognition that you are a special type of person, an idea constantly reinforced by the media which declares that every successful person who went to a grammar is successful because of that school but every successful ex-comper got there "despite" their school. I don't think its actually a concern for the needs of "the bright" since as we've seen the pro-grammar supporters have no interest in the needs of the bright kids in the secondary moderns. And I have plenty of times on these and similar threads presented ideas (from better-qualified people than me) for improving provision for the most able in comps which have been totally ignored.

It's not really surprising that people want that special "magic grammar dust" for their kids - if I lived in Kent I'd want it for my kid too. But it's nothing to do with "need" as we can see by the fact that other countries have very successful educational and societal outcomes without it.

That said I don't think you can judge an entire national system on tiny bits and bobs all over the country which vary completely.

But you can surely judge say Oxfordshire and Bucks together. As I described earlier once you eliminate the effects of Bucks having many more High Achievers than Oxon there is no benefit to being in Bucks.

Wouldn't it better to just admit that there will be a disbenefit to those not attending grammars, as all the evidence shows? Then you can just argue that the benefits to the minority outweigh the disbenefits to the majority.

"IABU to find that absolutely hilarious? I'm just wanting to see the faces of the parents who insist on unnecessarily taking the 11+ when the "rough families" leave our comp to go to the grammar."

Spot on!

BertrandR: I have not seen this question satisfactorily answered. If GSs worked, as a system or a one off, I would expect Kent to show a significant overall higher grade %. Especially as MN is peppered with posts advising families with children as young as 3 to re-locate to Kent because of the great boon of the GSs. So presumably a high ratio of parents of bright kids and / or aspirational parents of bright-ish kids. And the intake of high attainers from the S London boroughs.

Good post, HPFA.

Thank you and you are completely right in your last post. There have been virulent posters on these threads who actually live near grammar schools but presumably their kids haven't got in. They never seem to conclude that their kid is clearly "suited" to the secondary modern, they just want more grammars.

You're only looking at the Home Counties. GB is s big and varied country.

ok time to 'fess up.

We're in a good comp. zone 15 miles from a pesky wart of a grammar over the border that creates unnecessary fucking drama every year and undermines a lot of the good work done by the teachers since the kids were babes to unify our diverse population.

I made it my sodding business to get a paid role in our primary working with kids who are, in the jargon "unlikely to get this chance elsewhere". i.e. certain things in their lives have been shit.

I'm often the only person talking to their parents on the playground.

I could get any one of "my" "tutored" kids into the stupid grammar school if we each had nothing better to do (well, except the ones with LD) and franky I'm quite tempted to now....

tee hee!

tee hee hee hee hee hee!

it's so brilliant it might just work!

Maybe Theresa is actually a fifth columnist? I knew I didn't hate her really.

"rough families" seriously.

Some grammars do that already and children/ parents thankfully don't have a clue re family background or care.

This is Sadiq Khan talking about his school - a comprehensive in London

It was a great school, it fulfilled my potential. I’m not one of these people who moans that I could have been this if I’d gone to this school. It was a great school, the teachers worked their socks off.”

How many times have you seen Boris Johnson's success in life being attributed to Eton? Or the wretched Corbyn to being a "grammar school boy"? But no-one has ever attributed Sadiq Khan's success to his education in a comprehensive school.

A London comprehensive school. DH and I are his age,ours were shit.

So in other words GreenGinger you are claiming that despite the fact we have 163 grammars in this country and three (possibly four) counties that are wholly selective we cannot in any way use that as a reliable guide for what might happen if we expand selection.

Sorry, but I find that completely untenable.

Greenginger Well, obviously that should trump all available evidence about actual schools today.

Bertrand, I like your killer question.

Indeed, I like a lot of the posts on here because there are so many flaws in any selection system within education.

Going back a few pages someone mentioned Finland which doesn't test its kids through school. I don't think USA has an equivalent 11+ system either but what it does have is a fine post compulsory system (post high school). The rules in Illinois (did a study tour there many years ago) state that no-one can be denied entry on the basis of ability. That means if someone turns up who cannot read or write, the Community College must provide education for that person. Entry test is used only to decide which point in the syllabus they join.

'those of higher ability' – I can't help having a giggle whenever I see that phrase, or the similar ones, 'bright', 'clever', and topped by the opposite, 'oh, but he's good with his hands'. It may be a shock to some but our hands move because we have a brain to guide them!

Our kitchen has a door to a hallway and across the hallway a couple of feet away is our downstairs loo. I watched a guy cut soft backed 'lino' in one piece – no joins – to cover that area. Clever, certainly. High ability, oh yes. Or our lovely SiL, bricklayer, jobbing building, dry stone walls, all highly skilled arts. And at Christmas make sure you're in his team for Pictionary.

And oh look apparently the money for the new grammar schools will eventually come from underfunding comprehensive schools (or new secondary moderns as they will soon be)

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-grammar-schools-education-budget-unfunded-places-treasury-philip-hammond-labour-a7630276.html

It really is time for Tory MPs to stand up to the unelected advisors trying to steamroller this. If the welfare of our children isn't enough to motivate them perhaps they could consider that parents whose school crumbles whilst they watch prep school kids march to the shiny new grammar also have votes!

I wish we could distill the arguments on this excellent thread and present them to the Minister and to those local authorities (like mine) that debate the grammar school issue from time to time (at the same time as acknowledging the very real possibility that funding cuts may lead to shorter weeks for many of our secondary schools).

HPFA - thank you for your excellent posts. And this last one - I agree with Sir Wilshaw and suspect that he's bright enough to know that there's something rather odd about referring to children as 'most academic'. But that is indeed the word that's banded about in this debate.

The damage this government have done already with
under-fundng of the NHS
cuts to school budgets,
academisation,
curriculum and assessment change,
their failure to keep their promise about care home fees
reducing council budgets so servces are slashed for the most vulnerable
bedroom tax
benefit changes

have caused layers of damage to the most vulnerable in every age group- which will take generations to repair. We have been moved backwards decades as a society.

It's very difficult to get people to remove the stars from their eyes and realise just how small their chance is of winning the grammar school lottery.

Really when the actual proposals come out there needs to be some modelling done of what will happen to schools once they have the intake of an average secondary modern and really concentrate a publicity effort around those schools with most to lose. But given the disorganised state of the opposition and the fact that the teaching unions are battling with so many other issues is there anyone who can actually run an effective campaign?

It's very difficult to get people to remove the stars from their eyes and realise just how small their chance is of winning the grammar school lottery.

Of the 13 children of family and friends i know that took the 11+ 10 of them 'passed' this is a 76.9% pass rate !

You make it sound like you have more chance of winning the Lottery !

What it does take is 'aspiration' from family , hard work from the child and above 'average' intelligence , not 'genius' level .

We should go and see our MPs more maybe.

They like it when you come.

These are the actual facts about the chances of a child getting into a grammar

ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/09/grammar-schools-why-academic-selection-only-benefits-the-very-affluent/#more-6875

My MP might as well be replaced with a nodding Churchill dog when it comes to government policy