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 suppose they can't be accused of looking after their own !

If we want to shut down the selective school issue for good and all, we will need to address those problems. Which is why I get frustrated with grammar school threads that are just endless recycling of the same points, along with a lot of sneering at anyone who suggests comprehensives might need improvement, or that there is are problem with their local comprehensive.

Of course there are problems with comprehensives. But they won't be cured by more grammar schools.

The difficulty is when people slate the comprehensive system not individual comprehensive schools.

Here is a comparison of achievement in Hackney and Bucks:

In Hackney High Achievers attain an average 67.3 compared to Bucks 67.6. The Progress 8 figure is higher at 0.35 (compared to 0.22) due to Hackney's pupils starting at a lower point. Middle Achievers get 53 compared to 48.9 and Lower get 32.5 compared to 25,2

So it is possible for a fully comprehensive area which is certainly in no way leafy to achieve results for the brightest which compare to those achieved in a wealthy area but without lessening the chances of those who do not make it to the grammars.

Fully agree that we have not yet made all authorities as good as Hackney but there seems no longer reason to believe that comprehensives cannot in and of themselves provide a great education for all.

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.

I don't think this is entirely true Kesstrel Social media is rife with comments from people basing their opinions either on their own long ago experiences or on media portrayals. Despite the fact that my daughter's school has a great reputation and great results out of my limited acquaintance of fellow parents I know 3 who are going private instead. They would certainly prefer a free grammar if it was there despite the fact that results at DD's schools for High Achievers are absolutely in line with grammars. What more is a comp supposed to do?

To answer you H no I don't think we should simply match everywhere to the same levels as London alongside making up for the years of underinvestment in comparison as the numbers of pounds we'd be talking about would by eye wateringly huge when we also need more money in the NHS and elderly care. I'm no Tory but even I can see how desperately we need to balance the books and are in a time of austerity.

I actually think London should take it's turn at being underinvested for a while.Those that have had years of over investment in comparison to everybody else just as needy should be reduced,those that lost out upped.

But it doesn't seem to be that simple.

And I wasn't complaining about anyone's views, supposed or otherwise, about Michaela. I'm very happy for people to have views about it, I do myself. Nor was I accusing a specific individual.

What I was specifically complaining about was the mockery, the sneering, the unjustified negative speculation, for example that they must be lying or misrepresenting their results or their intake, or that the headteacher is only after personal aggrandisement, etc.

So, it's not really Michaela itself that is the issue for me here. It's more to do with the irony of some people unreasonably denigrating an innovative approach to strongly academic non-selective schooling, while at the same time condemning as immoral parents who support grammar schools because their local schools are failing local children academically.

I think we need to be far more open-minded than that, more ready to listen to others, and to consider innovative ideas, if we really want to provide good comprehensive education for everyone.

HPFA I did say one of the main reasons. And I've seen plenty of comments on social media, including on the grammar school threads here. that make it clear that the poor quality of provision in their areas are why they have despaired of the comprehensive system.

I suspect another reason (again from my reading of social media) is that many people are fed up with the low-level disruption that pervades so many classrooms and schools, and takes away so much learning time (Ofsted has done a report about this, if anyone wants to look at the evidence). Rightly or wrongly, these people think that a grammar school wouldn't have that problem.

Schools could do a lot more to address this issue. There are a lot of teachers blogging about it, and how to improve it. The problem is how to get headteachers to take notice, and implement some of the solutions that have been shown to work.

why such an astonishing proportion of the population appears to support grammar schools.

Do they? MNHQ ran a poll and it came out against opening new grammars, and in the yougov poll only 38% of people were in favour of opening new grammars.

What I was specifically complaining about was the mockery, the sneering, the unjustified negative speculation, for example that they must be lying or misrepresenting their results or their intake, or that the headteacher is only after personal aggrandisement, etc.

That's interesting, because I remember that thread as being extremely interesting and thoughtful. I don't remember any posts (including yours) that did not seem to be in the right spirit.

I haven't read all of this thread, but just want to comment on this.

I did my own little survey on MN a few months ago and only 40% of those with kids at a G/S had paid for tutoring.

Only?!!!

Rightly or wrongly, these people think that a grammar school wouldn't have that problem.

That's a fair comment. But isn't the job of government to look objectively at the evidence and make decisions based on that?. In the end, we can all have our own opinions but the evidence on whether selection works to improve outcomes or not is pretty clear.

I read the Michaela thread too- and it seemed perfectly measured and interesting to me. It wasn't entirely populated by Michaela apologists, but neither was it mocking or sneering......

I don't think ANY schools should suffer under-investment. You realise that under the new formula only a tiny, tiny minority of schools will actually receive MORE money?

I looked at schools where family members live, coastal and rural deprivation big style. They will lose as much as our London comp.

London comps are not awash with cash. They visibly struggle. Education everywhere needs to be supported.

Blimey if you'd wanted to see a thread where people were actually slating Michaela and its head, you should have been on the one about the boy who wasn't allowed to eat lunch with the other kids because his mum hadn't paid his dinner money.

The one in Secondary Education was lively, but then so are ones about other named schools.

Do they? MNHQ ran a poll and it came out against opening new grammars, and in the yougov poll only 38% of people were in favour of opening new grammars.

However , if 90% of that 38% were prepared for the party that proposed them that would be significant in a GE . Through in a % who have opinions neither way and suddenly you have a policy that could gain large no of seats at a GE.

You should have seen the one about the merits of Winchester v Eton - if you think this one is feisty...

90% of that 38% were prepared for the party that proposed them that would be significant in a GE

An observation that seems completely pointless given that Theresa May is determined to push them through before the next GE, despite there not being a sniff of it in their manifesto.

Incidentally, why did the Tories have to u-turn on the national insurance rise for self-employed 'because it went against their manifesto', as if the manifesto actually counts for anything? They've already abandoned a bunch of education manifesto stuff as well as trying to implement a major policy that wasn't in it.

I also think Mumsnet is the least representative cohort of the countries views and opinions that has ever existed .

If Mumsnet was representative, i think we would still have a 1 party state. however it would be 'Labour' and they would still be looking at a 50 seat majority 'this being a total disaster ' because of Corbyn's leadership !

I take everything i read on here with an extreme pinch of salt, because it bears little correlation to what i see and hear in real life !

Hey i bet many of the posters on here that profess to be PC , therefore support Comps , Secretly would love the option of a 'Grammar' school !

Throw in from ( 2nd previous thread) Dam Dyslexia...

If the policy was so popular why was it not adopted by the Conservatives during 1997-2015? Someone must have tried it out in focus groups surely?

Cameron and Osborne is the answer to that HPFA.

They could not be 'arsed' because what was the point to much effort required for no gain for 'their' lot . I felt 'Sorry' for little Nancy having to go to 'State School' soley for being the PMs daughter and hence a hostage for his deceit.

The Tories have always had a love/hate relationship with Grammar schools, going where the 'wind' was blowing at the time.

Over the last 40 years they have been pro/against like a 'see saw'.

Anyway I thought Michael Howard and William Hauge will proponents for the Grammar system !

I also think Mumsnet is the least representative cohort of the countries views and opinions that has ever existed

Except the MN poll agreed with the yougov one.

I think you are also making a mistake in assuming anyone who hates the Tories is a automatically a Labour supporter.

Certainly the Conservative party is split on the issue. But that is presumably because they can't agree on whether it would be a vote winner or not. If there was compelling evidence for the policy's popularity I think it would have been adopted.