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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

Iadore if the new grammars select off the top 25% as it is now suggested they will (reports of 10% apparently being false), then mathematically around 1 in 5 kids will end up in the wrong school.

As for prepping FSM kids for the test:
Either the test objectively selects bright kids as it is supposed to
Or the test can be tutored for, improving the chances of the well-off.

If you accept that the test can be tutored for, then surely the whole idea of a grammar system is a dud? Instead of throwing good money after bad trying to tutor FSM kids to level the playing field (which will never level the playing field as the better off will simply raise their game), then surely the whole thing should be abandoned as a bad idea?

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 this area the tests are reasoning test NVR and VR. You do not need to be good at English or maths you just need to have a good way of thinking eg ability to identify patterns , visualise nets in 3D etc

"I also think your being devious implying that the test is supposed to be a something you can't prepare for"

I''m not saying that. I think it is eminently coachable. I was explaining why Kent primary schools are not allowed to coach. The LEA has to hold the line that it is a test of potential which is untutorable.

that grammar schools no longer achieve their original purpose, being so scarce.

There are particular areas of the country where there is still a two tier system, grammars are not scarce. These areas do not perform better than fully comp areas, and the grammars in those areas are very socially selective.

Iadore and angel are reminding me so much of that issue. Being a help, bringing the others up, the child as endless giver.

Except clever children don't want to used for social control and improvement. That's what parents and teachers are for. They want to be free to be clever.

Another of my points is that I don't believe in social selection. I believe in merit.

If you don't believe in social selection then you can't support the 11+.

I have been around long enough to remember lots of poor children passing it, without coaching.

The fewer kids taking it, the more socially selective it inevitably become, as the more "informed" parents realise they're on to a good thing. But what it is now doesn't resemble what it used to be.

It was all about social mobility, not social selection. But because everyone couldn't go, the poor have lost out.

*became

Or *becomes even

I have been around long enough to remember lots of poor children passing it without coaching

Yes, but what happened 50 years ago when no one tutored is totally irrelevant to what happens today, where tutoring is big business.

No noble. We have a school, ten dc could pass the test. However only five dc even know about it, and have parent who want them to take it. Parent has been watching child progress, sees all round ability, good exams results, quick to learn, good levels. Parent prepares dc through tutor, or exam technique or a few old test papers and puts child in.

What about those other five with ability?? Well they don't apply for test because they knew nothing about it. So that's that and they are five fsm.

UK guess actively blocking those fsm however is useful for some as then you can use them to for the stats to say.... Hey fsm are you nit getting in

You are so right, Iadore, and I am so weary of the counter-argument.

Soul
My Dc are in a comp that is due to lose nearly a thousand pounds per pupil in the new rip up. It is in a non-leafy S London area, has a high FSM intake etc. It does really well by ALL its pupils. Kids from very challenging backgrounds whose parents really wouldn't give a toss (I know them from primary) and certainly wouldn't sign them up for grammar, do well in top sets.
I am furious that May will trash the chances of kids in successful comps like this, that really do enable all kids to fulfill their potential (that's what social mobility is, surely), while constructing segregated little greenhouses for the kids of parents who can and will work the system.

Obviously the loss of funding is going to make things more difficult, and I disagree with the way the restructuring of funding is going to impact on many schools and the education they can provide for their pupils.

However, the fact that grammar schools may be introduced in your area may not automatically mean that your DC's comp will suffer (obviously the loss of funding may lead to problems but I'm not convinced that is directly related to grammar school expansion)- especially if the majority of parents locally would not sign their children up to such a school and therefore the intake would remain much the same. If the school is performing very well now with that student population, would that necessarily change because of the existence of grammar schools? If so, why?

I am on the fence re Grammar Schools. I think academic excellence needs to be encouraged and this is perhaps one way of doing it. Good comprehensives can be another way. Our local state schools are not great, especially for high school. Overall performance is not great, course choice options limited if not enough children want to do the subject after S2 and so on. I know that some children to very well, nonetheless. And I also know that many state schools have excellent results and some grammar and private schools do not.

Disclaimer: I chose to send DC private prep. It suits my DC, who loves the school, is academically stretched and has opportunities that would not have been possible in our state primary schools. Class sizes are small and although they do work in their "primary class", foreign languages, maths, science etc are streamed. The children are taught languages by a language teacher, they have excellent science labs and are taught science by a science teacher and so on. There are lots of extracurricular activities to chose from. I know many people disagree with private education, but for us, it was the right choice. I see a massive difference between the education by DC receives and the experiences of DN's.

I didn't day no-one tutored, noblegiraffe - A LOT of people had tuition - no-one I knew, but plenty of people I met in later life.

PS I am a little younger than that.

I keep going on about because I was that child!! Ergo talking about dc in sec moderns as write off is taking about me I am not, I just wasn't learning maths in the way it was taught. I needed different approach.

I live in an LEA that is wholly selective. The grammar schools are almost entirely populated by the middle classes. I could go into any primary reception class at pick up time and predict with fair accuracy which of those 5 year olds will be going to grammar school. Actually, I could probably predict without the kids being there if I could have a look at their coats and the contents of their lunch boxes!

If the school is performing very well now with that student population, would that necessarily change because of the existence of grammar schools?

Because grammar schools hoover up the best resources in terms of an experienced and stable teaching staff. Because the existence of a grammar school in the area could remove enough kids from a local school (with the funding crisis it wouldn't have to be many) which causes it to be unable to run a sixth form or at a lower level to put on particular GCSE options.

There aren't enough experienced math teachers to go around, for example. I teach in a comp. If a grammar opened locally, meaning my school stopped offering Further Maths GCSE, or Further Maths A-level, then experienced and well qualified maths teachers would go to teach there. They would not be replaced with experienced and well qualified maths teachers, more likely unqualified teachers or NQTs. This would not be good for the remaining kids who need experienced and qualified teachers as much as the grammar school kids.

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

user just because you can personally remember some poor kids getting into a grammar (and some will), that doesn't change the stats that show that mostly they don't, even with the same prior attainment as better-off kids.

There is a lot of wishful thinking about Grammar Schools -in the past, the clear evidence is they did not help social mobility for society as a whole

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37311018

and they will not now

blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2013/01/28/grammar-school-myths/?ft_site=falcon

As someone said above, parents make decisions for their individual children (and my DS has benefitted from selective, accelerated education which we pay for) but Govt makes decisions for the whole of society. They need to start doing evidence based improvements for the whole cohort rather than favouring the very small minority to the detriment of the majority

Yes Bertrand because your primary are stopping fsm from applying.

"Yes Bertrand because your primary are stopping fsm from applying. hmm"

It's not the primary-it's the LEA.

Justice isn't that what they have been supposed to be doing? After all not every authority has grammars. Yet we still fail top 10% ability in comps, we still have failing comps like mine... But you want to keep beating this stick

Lea then