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's why they can transfer in at 12 or 13 or indeed 16. I was a high achiever in the top set at an inner London comprehensive in the 80's, yes I got my As, it was a miserable existence though. I would have been happier and possibly done better in a grammar school.

No, what if for some fluke reason your dd does not get into a new grammar, how would you feel?

Theoretically, as the new grammars won't be on stream in time for your dd. Sorry, I may have missed this: is she going to a grammar in September?

Grammars were great for social mobility when there were a lot of them.

Once privately educated Labour leaders demanded their abolition, the remaining grammars became more middle class, being scarcer and better providers of education. Middle class people are better at working the system.

So, grammars lost their value as providers of social mobility (except in regions where they had not been abolished wholesale).

The middle classes, frequently declared socialists, some serving in Labour governments, continued to use private schools and grammar schools for educating their own children, while simultaneously declaring that "everyone" (trans. other people's children) should have an egalitarian education in a comp.

Thirty years pass. The results of comping are visible to all but the most deluded. Tories decide the oiks need to have a chance again. Cue howls from "egalitarian" Labour. Rinse, repeat.

This country conflates education with class. It is a GIVEN that bright children from homes without educational resources and support need a chance at life. We understand this with sport. It is a very small leap to extend opportunity to education, yet Labour always howl it down.

I genuinely have no idea why, but it is the single reason, as a very bright oik, that I'll never, ever vote Labour.

I am sorry i cant agree that 50% A-C is acceptable. Half the 16 yo's leaving that school will be to all intents and purposes unemployable- how is that ok ?

But they don't leave education. They go onto further education which has courses suitable for those who don't pass their GCSEs. Look up your local college and see the range of courses available. Assuming that these kids are unemployable is bollocks. The national GCSE pass rate 5A-C is 53.8%. (Or it was in 2015, that measure has now been replaced with just A-C in maths and English).

And if you then moan about how appalling it is that the pass rate is so low - the GCSE pass rate for each subject is fixed so that basically it can't rise by very much each year. An exam that everyone passes first time has no value.

"That's why they can transfer in at 12 or 13"

Are you talking about Kent or aren't you? Because if you are, then this is not true.

The Education Minister who approved the closure of the most grammar schools was Margaret Thatcher.

And the school leaving age is not 16.

The fact that the national pass rate is similar makes it no more acceptable. What do we want for the future ? A low skills, low paid work force ? The fact that half of all 16 years olds cant pass a foundation level exam is testament that MOST schools are failing their pupils.(I accept that there are pockets eg London where things are very much better).

Yes B &R i have 2 friends whose dcs are doing so this year. Google in- year transfers.

It doesn't matter what happens to our failed children we just replace then now with hard working better educated workers from the eu.

The fact that half of all 16 years olds cant pass a foundation level exam is testament that MOST schools are failing their pupils.

That pass rate is for FIVE A*-C (or now 2, depending which measure is being used). The individual pass rates for various subjects is much higher, for example the pass rate for GCSE maths aged 16 is about 70%.

The fact that a certain percentage of students can't pass an exam is a testament to the fact that the pass rate is fixed before they set the exam.

Noble girrafe do you believe that all dcs have acsess to a decent education at the moment ? I dont.

"Yes B &R i have 2 friends whose dcs are doing so this year. Google in- year transfers"

It is always possible to move schools if you meet the criteria and there are spaces. Your post suggests that there are formal 12+ and 13+ transfer processes in Kent. There aren't.

user1471545174

Thanks for posting

But what would your vision be for the secondary moderns where the majority of us would go?

do you believe that all dcs have acsess to a decent education at the moment

No, of course not, there are some terrible schools out there. However they won't be fixed by opening a grammar nearby, will they? The vast majority of kids would still have to go to the terrible school.

The focus should be on fixing the terrible school, not giving the middle class parents in the area a get-out that doesn't require going private.

The stuff about minor tinkering of Kent just miss the point of the discussion really....

But it's not true that it cant happen- which what some posters are suggesting. Of course entry is selective, it was at 11, it will be at 12. The fact that 2 families i know have got spaces for year 9 suggests its perfectly possible.

Sorry noble as a parent what should I do. The two comps near me have been awful for a long time, we can't afford private. What should I do. How many people more than decades should these two ramble on? Put dd and hope to for the best? TM OPENS up grammar and I will say no dd, maybe this year is the year those failing comps will turn it around!!

Yes Noble as i said, i dont think the system is perfect. But i dont think taking the most able 25% and streching them can be a bad thing really.

Nice little bit of obfuscation there!

Your friends were very fortunate to find two year 9 vacancies, by the way, lucky them. I know someone who moved to the area and managed to get a year 10 grammar school place. This does not mean there is a 14+.

I think lack of imagination and teaching techniques are failing those at secondary moderns as said.

Out of interest, why do people think wholly selective areas don't have significantly better GCSE results than wholly comprehensive ones?

I would like someone to explain to me how grammar schools would work in rural areas where a choice of schools is unrealistic. Or where the best comprehensive (and most likely candidate for a grammar school) is religious school ?
It seems to me that we should concentrate on improving our current comprehensives.

Sorry noble as a parent what should I do

I'm assuming that you think that your kids would get into a grammar. What about the vast majority of parents whose kids won't? What should they do? You can be damned sure that they should be all-out trying to avoid the creation of a grammar, because grammars make things worse for the majority, and especially for poor kids.

If you campaign for a new grammar for your own kids, you have to accept that you are throwing most kids under the bus.

I'm not going to ask parents to sacrifice their own children on the altar of their principles, that's not going to work. If I lived in a grammar system I'd pull out all the stops to get my kids into one too, because you've got to work with the system that you live in. But I want these plans to be stopped before we get to that point because it's the best for all children.

Nevertheless,

Good question, why did nobody ask similar of Shirley Williams and Tony Crosland?

I don't have a vision as I live in the real world, not the world of ideals. I am positive that a comp will be better for most than a secondary mod would have been. Comps are the bathwater, which can be retained. The existence of grammars should not presuppose the existence of secondary mods. Secondary mods are unlamented.

My only interest in this argument relates to highflying children who have no social and financial support so cannot achieve their potential.