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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

The coursework thing won't be an issue after this year- exams will all be linear from next year.

Kestrel- be fair, you insinuated first!

Many may not like aspects of the school's approach, but what makes it 'grammar'????

The fact that its whole emphasis is on high standards of academic achievement.

I realise that it's bad form to bring in stuff from other threads, but I do think that on a subject like this we have to accept that most of us know each other's positions on selective education!

Massive, massive school cuts are planned (by Teresa May and J Greening).

I know grammars in Kent that are already withdrawing MFL because they say that as a small school they cannot afford to offer more than one MFL. Grammars! These new grammars will be relatively small schools, presumably. BEWARE PROVISION IN SMALL SCHOOLS.

Or is T May just setting up grammars in advance of massive cuts so that the country has a refuge for a few elite kids and the rest can take their chances?

"The fact that its whole emphasis is on high standards of academic achievement."

But that isn't what "grammar" means in an educational context. We can't just decide what words mean.....

It's weird that people here assume that because I've complained about the nature of grammar school threads, I must be a supporter of grammar schools!

My own position does not support grammar schools; however, I object to people accusing grammar school supporters of being amoral, because I understand the frustration of people who don't have access to good comprehensives because they can't afford to live in high-priced catchment areas.

"The fact that its whole emphasis is on high standards of academic achievement."

That does not make it a grammar.
Comps have that ideal too.

Selection defines a grammar school.

Michaela is non selective.

Therefore it is possible for non selective education to focus on high achievement.

As 'my ' comp does. Without requiring children to walk about with their hands behind their backs or following a prescriptive line of conversation at lunch

kesstrel,

So what you are saying - and apologies if I misunderstood you - is that what you want is examples like Michaela, where new schools are all comprehensives, and learn from examples of what works elsewhere? In this particular example, some of what they have chosen from 'what works elsewhere' looks 'grammar-like' to an outside observer - though of course many of the comprehensives that green mourns not living near could also appear 'grammar-like' in some aspects of their practice?

I fully understand the frustration if people with no choice if effective / good schools!

Presumably some of these people have middling or less attaining kids, who won't find the solution in a grammar.

Sorting out, investing in, rigourously supporting (rather than constantly imposing Ill thought out gvt schemes) failing comps stands a better chance of educating ALL our young people.

Soul, X-post, and I apologise, you have said what I mean.

A school that caters for all abilities from its community, without selection (by faith or aptitude / ability) is a comprehensive. As communities differ in their make-up, so do the details of the intake of each comprehensive school - and this is something that needs to be addressed, because the 'conventional' markers of school quality known by the general public (Ofsted and absolute results) are not independent of intake. However, as a matter of definition, a school is only a grammar if it is selective - in the same way that choosing to have a uniform that looks like a private school's does not make a school fee paying.

SoulAccount

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)

Have you read the thread about Michaela? The level of spite, bizarre accusations, and sneers is quite shocking. There are a LOT of people who would seriously object to that model being extended, and a lot of them work in education.

OK, I apologise for my misuse of the word 'grammar'. I guess I thought the context ("which takes all abilities, and offers a grammar-school standard of education") would have made it clear what I meant.

Kesstrel,

I haven't personally visited Michaela, and so would hesitate to comment. However, I would say in general that it is quite possible for something 'good' in a school, that could be applied elsewhere - a focus on academic progress for every child - to be accompanied by aspects that one might feel were less 'good' and one might not want to apply more generally.

So my DH might say of his own old school that he would love the amount of sport available to him to be applied in my DS's education, but he wouldn't necessarily want DS's school to apply the punishments common at the time. Equally, I might want DD to have had access to the quality of science teachers I happened to benefit from, but wouldn't want her to have the frankly degrading PE kit of aertex shirt and big knickers.

I would say in general that it is quite possible for something 'good' in a school, that could be applied elsewhere - a focus on academic progress for every child - to be accompanied by aspects that one might feel were less 'good' and one might not want to apply more generally.

Of course. But that doesn't explain the virulent nature of the comments directed at the school. The fact is they are offering something that many parents in areas with failing comprehensives would snap up (they are over-subscribed). Yet many people who teach in or have children in 'good' comprehensives fall over themselves to be nasty about the model they offer (while also condemning the morals of parents who think that having access to a grammar school might be better than only having access to a failing comprehensive).

Kesstrel,

I suppose i don't quite understand what you mean by 'a grammar-school standard of education', as if there is something 'magic' that happens in a grammar school that is totally different from what happens in successful comprehensives?

I think I am just puzzled about why you didn't simply say 'a high standard of academic education for all its pupils'?

Can't I think the answer you are looking for is explained by the fact that you felt obliged to put the word 'successful' in front of the word 'comprehensive'.

No one talks about 'successful' grammar schools and 'failing' grammar schools. It is accepted that grammar schools focus on strong academic standards and are generally successful in achieving them (even though that obviously has more to do with selection than with the standard of teaching).

So the grammar school I have referred to, with a negative progress 8 for high achievers, focuses on strong academic standards and is successful in achieving them?

I think I am just puzzled about why you didn't simply say 'a high standard of academic education for all its pupils'?

I don't know...maybe because the thread is about grammar schools? And I had grammar schools on the brain? Actually, thinking about it now, I think it flashed through my mind that Michaela advertises itself as offering a 'private-school' standard of education, but I decided that would needlessly complicate the discussion, and so just typed grammar-school instead. I'm regretting it now!

I agree that 'the general public' will see the word 'grammar' and ASSUME it does so, but is that true?

But a grammar school style of education just would not work with, say, lower ability children.......

I don't know enough about Michaela to comment. I take with a pinch of salt all the comments about the discipline methods and so on.

How are we judging Micaela's success , by the way? It hasn't done GCSEs yet, has it?

So the grammar school I have referred to, with a negative progress 8 for high achievers, focuses on strong academic standards and is successful in achieving them?

Why would you assume I think that from what I have posted? Have you ever heard of the fallacy of the complex question? Please don't put words in my mouth.

However, let me point out once again that I'm not really interested in talking about grammar schools, but rather about how we can improve comprehensive schools. And as I said above, I believe one of the things that gets in the way of that is the bizarre hostility directed at schools like Michaela from a significant portion of the education establishment.

Bert, I think that kesstrel meant something about 'aspirations' for all children, not 'teaching and learning methods for all children'.

So I think I agree with her that all schools should be comprehensives with high aspirations for the progress of all children, though there will be pathways, qualifications and teaching approaches that are different for different pupils at different times in order to achieve this.

Kesstrel, do you think that the hostility is applied to things that are 'core to the high aspirations for all children' or 'peripheral to, and potentially unnecessary for these aspirations to be realised'?

I do think it is simultaneously possible to believe that someone's aspirations, or even achievements, are admirable, while not being quite sure about the methods - like admiring Russian gymnasts of the past, but being a little queasy about some of their training approaches and methods.