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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

There is no formal means of transferring at 12/13 to a grammar even in Kent and will very much depend on where you are and if spaces are available. A quick look at the grammars in Kent where I grew up all state admissions in other years are very rare. Moving sets in a comprehensive on the other hand is very common.
This is essentially a vanity project of Teresa May's to appease a small vocal minority in her constituency campaigning for a grammar school annexe as it borders two selective areas. The reality is all bar one of the secondaries in her area are good.

"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"

Why does it have to be in a different school? Why do the top 25% in particular need stretching?

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

My only interest in this argument relates to highflying children who have no social and financial support

Not many of those in grammar schools. The 11+, and the existence of the 11+, selects against them.

And primary schools select against them too in some grammar areas they don't have help dc apply or get in

I an nothing in grammar area noble what should I do

Ok user I respect that you are open about not having a complete solution.

I think the take-home point I want to put to you is that a comp. in a grammar school area is not a comp, it's a secondary modern.

."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."

Individual parents will do what's best for their kids, governments should do what's best for everyone.

In my area its best for everyone if the government opens up grammar because 30+ years of different governments have not changed these comps. Because it's not fair that these schools continue to fail.

"And primary schools select against them too in some grammar areas they don't have help dc apply or get in"

In Kent, primary schools are expressly forbidden to. Because to allow them to rather belies the expressed assertion that it is an untutorable test of potential.

And anyway, what would primary schools not do while they were prepareing children in a very specific, narrow set of skills?

Iadore I don't know where you are. But write to your MP and ask what's being done about schools in your area. Protest the school funding cuts which will hit all schools disastrously over the next few years. Consider becoming a governor at your DC's school to help improve it. Join the PTA. Make use of the huge amount of free online resources to boost your DC's schooling. Hire tutors if you can afford it. Improve your kids' cultural capital.

I have a lot of sympathy for parents whose kids have to go to a bad comp, but grammars aren't the general solution to bad comps, they are a specific solution for a minority of children and make the situation worse for the rest.

"In my area its best for everyone if the government opens up grammar because 30+ years of different governments have not changed these comps. Because it's not fair that these schools continue to fail."

Why would it be best for everyone? In what way would it be better for the 90%, 80% or 75% majority?

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

you don't think parents have done that over 30 years. My dc is in excellent primary I don't need to improve it but even then she can't sit next to her friends as she is used to set good example to dc who are not engaged.
Id rather not ramble on another 30 years of failure thanks I just want a grammar school.

Iadore ok. Your area gets a grammar school. Your DD doesn't get into it. What now?

Well, tell the primary school you don't want that to happen!

Check you've got the story right, though. It would be embarrassing if you found out they were sat at ability tables...........

Incidentally, how are you defining "failing school"?

Oh goodness yes that would be embarrassing. No she is partnered with dc who are not engaged, mess around, don't pull weight on joint activities, constantly nudge her to ask what's going on, constantly ask her to explain things, generally peck at her all day. HER teacher left and it's happening again clearly I need to make it regular... Do not use my daughter for class control!! Dd says nealry all good ones have it though. She has same though in her maths group which is top set, sat with usually boys who mess around.

I don't know the noble, move house? KEEP trying, home school I will cross that bridge when come to it.

She said she waited a for the time he was was taken out for one on one with ta so she could get someone breathing space for a short time

Bertrand the Sutton trust report from ages ago which had been floated for years on these threads highlighted that primary in grammar area are letting down dc with potential to get in. If you are not mentioning helping all pupils who are able, who is getting their dc into you Kent grammar? Ummmm the ones with parents who know about it all and want their dc to go. So.... The dc with potential but no home backing, how on earth... Are they supposed to get into your grammar?? Then you have cheek to quote fsm stats the primary school is hobbling fsm pupils the primary school is starting your selection based on parents who are engaged and parents who re not engaged.
Force the primary to step up and bridge that gap, then you will see the fsm stats go up at grammar. I also think your being devious implying that the test is supposed to be a something you can't prepare for ie who should primary help. Most of us know exam technique is crucial, timing, how to approach questions you can't answer, all stuff that would help every child not just 11+ ones. This was all high lighted in trust report.

noblegiraffe - that was my whole point, that grammar schools no longer achieve their original purpose, being so scarce.

Iadore the schools near you if you are in an 11+ area are NOT comprehensives, they are secondary moderns in disguise.

Secondary moderns don't have the brighter kids going there to bring up their results, don't get the investment, support or best teachers. Therefore those students are disadvantaged not JUST because they were unlucky enough not to be born with the genetic ability to learn academic subjects but ALSO by having less money invested in them, getting less support and poorer teachers!

Also the 'learning styles' theory was debunked some time ago. Stop saying brighter kids learn in a different way to less bright kids it's NOT TRUE.

The major problem with a grammar school system isn't for the grammar school kids it's that it FURTHER disadvantages kids who are ALREADY disadvantaged!

And that's BEFORE you get into the issue of wealthier parents hiring tutors to get their kids through the 11+!! AND that it has an effect on university entry.

"to make sure all pupils with ability get the chance" and sod the ones without ability? Who struggle?

You keep on about kids who eg aren't good at maths but are good at English - they would fail 11+ and go to secondary modern. In a TRUE comprehensive school it's possible to have streaming BY SUBJECT so that child can be in top stream for English and a lower stream for maths (where they would get the extra help needed from a good teacher).

"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." Exactly!

You can't take the top 10% of kids out of the comps in the area without affecting them.

But why is it the responsibility of the top 10-20% to bring up the others?

Nevertheless, I don't think that's the intention, nor I hope would it be the result.

Comps are sufficiently evolved that they now stream, and their focus isn't on producing factory fodder. The world has changed.