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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

Right, got to go do some work. But I will just say that Michaela does not agree that a 'grammar style education' would not work with lower ability children. It's bland certainties like that that they are attempting to challenge. Whether or not they are successful in terms of GCSE results, we shall see. However, the many visitors to the school nearly all seem to agree that they certainly are successful in many of the other objectives of a good education, including providing the children with the criteria for success recently listed on that thread in Secondary education as being most important.

Bert, what exactly did you mean, about a grammar-style education not working for lower ability children?

Do you mean something about the teaching style, the subjects offered, the number and type of qualifications taken? Because - although in general I agree with you on these threads - i genuinely don't see there as being a dichotomy between a 'grammar style' and a 'lower ability style' of education?

I suppose this is because iI live in a comprehensive area, and so there aren't stark differences between the education offered to different groups within the same institution. Yes, there are very slightly different routes for different groups of children - a second language vs small group English work in KS3, a range of options for GCSE and equivalents, including blocks for study support for some students. however, the 'style of education' is a characteristic of the school as a whole, not different for different groups?

In my experience, grammar schools tend to focus from very early on on a fast pace, independent learning and plenty of homework, quite a lot of pressure and plenty of "chalk and talk". A strong element of "devil take the hindmost" I am not sure that this would work for the lower sets in our school, for example.

Ah, so a particular 'culture' in terms of teaching and learning? (I do sometimes think that success in grammars must occur as much despite as because of the actual quality of the teaching)

I'm not sure whether that was what kesstrel was referring to - while independent learning and homework (as long as facilities are available in school for those without access to space / resources / quiet at home to do it there, and the move to independence is supported where needed) and the continued 'pressure of reasonable, high expectations based on knowledge of the child and their circumstances' aren't necessarily unsuited to a wider range of abilities, I agree that simple 'information transmission' in the form of chalk and talk will not necessarily be the most appropriate teaching strategy for all.

Oh, I am all for extremely high academic expectations!

(And the pace, obviously, needs to be adapted to maximise actual progress in learning for all ability groups ... together with a culture that says 'no, the hindmost matter too')

a bit off-topic but did anyone hear the philosophy prof. on radio 4 this saying we must teach philosophy at primary school onwards so children can challenge lies.

I was so wanting to be with her..... despite the fact that every single academic in the country could make an equally strong case for their own discipline.... until she said (when challenged)

"Ah, but we've got evidence! A study! Reviewed!.

I just abandon all hope when a philosophy academic has no concept of the irony of using political evidence generated for advocacy purpose to justify a subject that involves critiquing so-called evidence....

Sorry if this seems off-topic but it reminded me of lots of the "evidence" cited on this and other thread.

As someone once said, "If you torture the data enough, they'll confess".

By the way. I have not accused any grammar supporters of being "immoral". I am simply tired of them refusing to engage with the very substantial evidence that exists that grammars will be harmful to other children who do not attend them. It is wrong to state that there are not enough grammars in this country for us to be able to make informed decisions about them. Yes, I'm pro-comprehensive but I do my best to base that on evidence. What gives people the right to think they can simply ignore evidence when deciding what is right for other people's children?

I am not particularly against Michaela, I think they are making rather inflated claims before they have the evidence to back it up, but if there pupils are happy and come out with great results then fair enough. I don't see why my supposed views on Michaela are being used to attack me on an unrelated thread anyway.

I'm not really interested in talking about grammar schools, but rather about how we can improve comprehensive schools

Then why don't you start a thread about your chosen topic of conversation instead of coming on other threads and complaining when people are discussing something different?

I imagine you've seen this

How can we even be thinking about grammar schools when this outrage of cuts is going on? It really is appalling what is happening.

I imagine many Tory MPs are thinking the same thing. It's whether they can stand up to the cabal around the PM who are fixated on this.

Fairer funding is a completely different issue.

There has been a ridiculous amount of unfairness that is long overdue for this big change. For years London has had massive amounts of extra funding and it really needs to stop. Do you honestly think all schools could ever feasibly get the same per child as London schools get? The figures are massive. London will have to lose out whatever,the cat has been let out of the bag and however much they tweak things they simply can't go backnto the ridiculous state of affairs that was happening before.

Love the way the article focuses on London and only London not mentioning other schools up and down the land who have been underfunded for years and will get a lot less even after fairer funding. There are actually schools outside of the SE.Some schools in our area are going to quite rightly benefit,our grammars won't and will lose even though they have been underfunded for years and are in a now targeted area.

Re commenting on comps,sorry but both are interlinked and comps are discussed at will by the anti grammar brigade when it suits.

And "damaging" over dramatic or what. Depends on what stats you read.NI stats show the opposite. I would have thought there would be plenty of kids "damaged" ( if we're going to use that word)by the comp sector,educationally at the very least.

Many Tory MPs have campaigned for fairer funding for their constituencies.

GreenGinger why do you think these schools in London were given this funding?

Maybe in part to support the many more SEN students in london or very deprived students, or looked after children etc?

What are you proposing should be done instead for these students if they don't have the funding needed?

London boroughs such as Tower Hamlets have huge problems with deprivation, and by having appropriate funding it has been shown that comprehensive schools even in the most deprived areas manage to do impressively well.

Instead of this rule and divide attitude between London & the rest of the UK (that gave us Brexit, and which is an attitude the Tories love), how about we argue for proper funding for ALL our schools, as needed?

And you don't think there was or is deprivation/ Sen in other cities? Other areas( towns too)have low aspirations on top.

Did you not see that comp in Manchester on the news last night? The vast majority of kids are several years behind with Sen and ESl. They have had half the funding for years. It's massively unfair and has been for a long time.

London demographics have changed.

Even after the fairer funding our schools will get 60% less than the Tower Hamlets and we're in an area that will benefit.

London is also hugely more expensive meaning that families struggle more to make ends meet.

Do you then believe that London is given more funding for no reason? Just out of favouritism?

Would you agree, given that other areas need more funding (which I would never disagree with) that funding in schools across the board is prioritised in our society and we fight for more funding, period, where and when needed, through more progressive taxation, rather than divide and rule?

And I'm not sure what you mean London demographics have changed. London still faces widespread, intense deprivation in many of its boroughs.

I haven't read all 15 pages but as an ex teacher, an ex grammar school pupil and a mother I am pro grammar schools if they are properly introduced and managed.
I don't really believe in the current situation where you can pay for an excellent education. Appropriate and excellent education should be equally available to everyone and what the original grammars did was provide the same opportunity to the pitman's daughter / son as to the professional's. I grew up on a council estate in a pit village but passing the 11+ gave me access to an education alongside the daughters of academics, doctors, lawyers etc and eventually to university and a career.
The real concern is for those who don't 'pass'. Germany has a tripartite system, equally funded, which provides for all abilities and aptitudes. In modern comps academic achievement is often undervalued by the pupils and the high achievers can be bullied by their peers, 'nerd', 'geek' etc until they camouflage their ability in order to fit in.
I can't imagine a new wave of grammars being comparable to the old but the comps really don't provide equality just an encouragement to mediocrity and 'fitting in'.

I thought we were only supposed to be concerned with those on pp and just above. Not the struggling middle classes who choose to live in London.

It's all relative.My dh would get double his wages in London,we still couldn't afford to live there. Would we be more worthy of consideration then if we moved? He gets vastly lower wages here but housing is still expensive as are living costs.

Yes I think there has been and is a London/ SE focus. Stats illustrate this and the boards on here which are dominated by London and SE posters and focus. A child in a private school in the North will do less well than a child in a comp in London. There has always been deprivation everywhere.

London has high levels of immigration which often brings high levels of aspiration. This has a big impact on schools. London gets the pick of teachers as it's the place to be and exciting. I actually think we should have a similar system to Australia where new teachers have to do a stint in the bush before working in the more preferable cities or higher wages in the less desirable areas to tempt the best instead. Other areas have the same Sen,deprivation but low aspirations on top so no I don't think London should get more just because it is London.

Green I'm not sure I understand your solutions.

1. you seem to be suggesting that people should just move out of London en masse given that it's expensive (which you know is a totally irrational argument for a number of reasons)

2. you also seem to be suggesting that London has "aspirational" families (whatever that means) so basically there is no problem.

So basically you are saying if I'm correct, there is no real deprivation in London, as people could either 1) leave or 2) use their aspiration to get out of poverty.

Appropriate and excellent education should be equally available to everyone

Totally agree which is why children shouldn't be separated at 11 but have excellent comprehensives for all. London has shown that with proper funding this is a realistic goal.

And also I wonder (as you didn't answer me before) what do you think is the reason that London schools have been given more funding? Surely governments didn't say "we just like London more, let's give it more money".
What arguments do you think they made? Why did they do it?

And by the way I agree with you green. Non London areas should improve in terms of funding. Don't take it from London schools. Just add funding as needed everywhere. Do you disagree?

An interesting issue to this Cheshire East is going to have the lowest funding ratio for all schools in England and Wales !

This is interesting because the 'Tories' are hitting their own with these funding ideas .

Then why don't you start a thread about your chosen topic of conversation instead of coming on other threads and complaining when people are discussing something different?

Because the perceived problems with comprehensives are one of the main reasons why such an astonishing proportion of the population appears to support grammar schools.

Which to my mind, makes it quite a central issue to the grammar school discussion, not something 'different' at all. Just because some posters seem to believe that the only reason anyone would support grammar schools is because they are Bad People, doesn't make their belief true.