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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

:)

Well quite obviously, Flying, 76% of children do not get into grammar.

And if it is just 'above average' intelligence required, why on earth do these children require special segregated schools?

Obviously not, but the point is if you are focused as a child and a family it can be achieved ! At the time that DD1 6 years ago DH had lost his job and money was tight i was on ESA (i still technically am but only receive PIP because DH is doing well now)! Yet we managed to get DD1(YR12) through to grammar in Bucks with a score of '123'.

However, perhaps there is some correlation between 'affluence' and higher scores because three years later (more comfortable financial position) DD2 scored '128' and yet she will have to perform above her 'level' to equal no1s 6 A* @GCSE.

An individual child doesn't suddenly become less intelligent because a parent loses their job and money is tight, any more than they suddenly become uber- brainy after their parents have stroke of good fortune. Passing the 11+ can only be achieved in proportion to the number of places available so if 76 % of your friends' DC passed, that is a very skewed sample! What does, 'but the point is if you are focused as a child and a family it can be achieved!' even mean?

The whole sec modern argument seems so last century.

We could have grammar schools, technical schools, faith schools, sports schools, specialist schools.... Its a whole new world. Parents will have a bit of choice. That's great, its called progress.

Oh no wait, bugger that, lets only have rich family's access to these schools.

How much choice does a parent get if their kid fails the 11+ and they haven't put in 10 years of pew time?

It's an illusion of parental choice when the schools get to pick the kids not vice versa.

We used to have grammar/ sec moderns where I live 30+ years ago. There is still resentment felt by those who felt let down by being shunted into a second rate education at 11, which has resulted in not as great job opportunities. I can see that happening again. Just another way people can be played off against each other. Conservatives love to divide and rule

Oh, not this choice thing again. People can see in the selective counties that anyone who possibly can tries to get their child into the grammar and that that's the prestige option. Do you honestly think that in Kent anyone whose child has passed the 11+ has ever tried to go to a specialist sports college instead?

And why is it that it's always those who are sure that their own child will get into the grammar that are so keen for the rest of us to have the choice of sports schools and all the rest? When has there ever been a thread that started "How do I get my five year old to pass the test for the sports school?"

And we're back to ignoring the lack of choice in the comp sector and how the affluent triumph in it alongside only looking at the Kent model of grammar schools and the Home Counties.

OK, Green I will compare the grammars in Lincolnshire to the comps in Oxfordshire then you can say "oh, you're comparing a poor area to a richer one" The reason I'm comparing Bucks and Oxon is that I do make some effort to be fair-minded, I could easily compare Oxon to Lincs and get better statistics to support my case.

I woke up in a bad mood this morning so I'm going to say this - The refusal of yourself and other grammar supporters to look at the actual evidence surrounding this issue simply proves that you have a total lack of concern for any children other than those who will pass the grammar school test (who will overlap with but certainly will not be confined to "the brightest"). We have more than enough grammars in different areas of the country to make informed judgements about them and any decisions about their expansion should be based on that evidence.

HPFA

I woke up in a bad mood this morning too, so I'm going to say this - The refusal of yourself and certain other posters on this thread to look at the actual evidence of what Michaela school (which takes all abilities, and offers a grammar-school standard of education) actually does, preferring instead to sneer and speculate, simply proves that you have a total lack of concern for any children other than those who are privileged enough to be able to access good comprehensives.

We can all play the virtue signalling card, and condemn the morals of those who disagree with us, but does it really get us anywhere?

And the refusal by you and others to look at the huge unfairness and inequalities in the comp system illustrates how some just don't care about children other than your own.

These are kids whose parents can't buy into the system,who are completely excluded from the only Outstanding comps which truly compete with the private sector by mileage and cold cash, kids who locally miss out on allocation day and get the lesser choice,kids whose parents can't bus them out to the preferred comp,kids whose parents can't buy music/ sport tuition to get in by closet selection......

Where are the threads and petitions demanding a lottery system,demanding places for pp kids in the best schools,demanding help,support and priority for pp kids in the top sets.......

The numbers and inequalities are bigger and harder to break down but funnily enough there is just complete silence.

Absolutely, Green. I've read so many of these grammar school threads, yet as you say there are none about how we can improve sink comprehensives. Indeed, there is a strong tendency on the grammar school threads to deny that there is any problem with comps at all. I remember my mouth falling open when one poster, told of chaotic behaviour in a comprehensive classroom, implied it was nonsense because at her school, she'd just ring the Head and he'd sort it out.

I would absolutely agree with you, kesstrel and Green, that the whole grammar school debate - and the grammar school proposal by the current government - is a total distraction from what ought to be being done, which is a total, rigorous focus on what works in the best comprehensive schools - by which i mean those who create the best progress based on their intake, not those who are traditionally thought of as the best in terms of raw results - and how that learning can be applied in similar schools which do not create as much progress.

As I said on the other thread, there are comprehensive-intake schools with 75%+ PP children which have astonishing Progress 8 results. Some of them are in London, which obviously has the advantage of much higher money per head (this might form part of the solution for other schools...) , but not all of them are. Where is the drive to learn from these.

So yes, let's all drop the grammar debate, and let's all - government, parents, educators - put everything into improving comprehensive schools for everyone, based on the best practice models that already exist and are proven to work.

So Green, for example - since you know that your local comprehensive does not stretch its higher attainers as well as it might (does it have poor Progress 8 for this group), could you be asking the grammar and its governors to look into how to work with this and other comprehensives to share good practice in this area?
Are the 'Outstanding' comprehensives that you would like to attend partnered with other comprehensives that historically have not done so well?

I happen to be writing to my MP today around this issue - what are you doing?

Where is the drive to learn from these.

One problem is that basing judgments on current Progress 8 results would potentially be flawed, due to the cheating on controlled assessments that goes on in many schools. Not to mention the amount of tutoring. Also, there are suggestions that the London improvements have more to do with the nature of the intake (high level of aspirational immigrants) than the amount of money spent. (I mentioned this on a previous grammar school thread, and got a curt demand for 'evidence please' from someone who then never returned to comment on the link I provided.)

What is really needed is to take careful heed of what limited actual quality evidence we have, and then organise schools based on that. Ideally, there would be trials of different models. However, as I mentioned in my comment above, there are a lot of people involved in education who are very hostile to models that don't agree with their preconceived ideas, however much they may be based on evidence from cognitive science about learning.

"So yes, let's all drop the grammar debate, and let's all - government, parents, educators - put everything into improving comprehensive schools for everyone, based on the best practice models that already exist and are proven to work"

That would be fantastic. I agree!

"However, as I mentioned in my comment above, there are a lot of people involved in education who are very hostile to models that don't agree with their preconceived ideas,"
Yes, this attitude is very prevalent among the supporters of selective education.

And we're back to snide insinuations and we're-better-than-you sneers, rather than a willingness to seriously discuss the problems that impede the improvement of comprehensives.

kesstrel,

I do absolutely agree that basing 'what works' on London alone is hugely flawed - it has not only extra money, but also a particular population, and many employment opportunities. that's why I think it should be based on 'matching' schools as far as possible - which schools are working well in coastal towns, in post-industrial areas, in sparsely-populated rural areas? Which are working well for similar prior attainment vs those not working so well for the same?

I mention Progress8 because it is better than raw GCSE results - I agree that both can be affected by sharp practice by schools. There will be better 'fine' evidence which is not publicly available for 'matching' schools, both in terms of local demographics and e.g. exams taken.

Is selective education - especially its impact on those just below and above the 'cut off' point, e.g. the 9th and 11th centiles - supported by cognitive evidence on learning, kesstrel?

I also presume that you don't just think it is comprehensives that need improving? The school with the lowest progress for higher prior attainment children in one area I looked at was actually a grammar school (the highest was a comprehensive, as was the second lowest, the second highest was a grammar), so I am sure that you would want that looked at as well, and feel that it should learn from the other grammars in the area, which have much better progress for that group?

Kesstrell: the Michaela school takes all abilities and offers a comprehensive style education! I.e good education for all pupils, pushing them to achieve their potential. Many may not like aspects of the school's approach, but what makes it 'grammar'????

Of course there is an acknowledged problem with many comp schools. What comprehensive advocates generally say is "our comp does work, despite being non leafy, therefore the model CAN work, so let's focus on making all comps good, so that kids of all abilities everywhere get a good education (much like Michaela , for example) rather than just throwing a lifeline to the top ?% and pulling them out of underperforming comps"

can't Why do you assume I am a supporter of selective education? I've been talking about comprehensives on this thread.