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

[Neverthelessshepersisted]

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

Tell me about these failing comprehensives. What makes them failing? ?

And how do we fail the top 10% in comprehensives?

Yes noblegiraffe, I have acknowledged that several times; it is because of the current scarcity of grammars.

But grammars aren't scarce in Kent.......

user your scarcity of grammars point completely fails in areas like Kent which operates a two tier system so there is no scarcity of grammars, yet the grammars are still socially selective.

Bertrand you asked me that the exact question and when I posted loads of links from ofsted and others over the years saying..... We are letting down the bright dc in comps you didn't respond. Shall I go to the trouble myself again of googling them all and re posting? Or will you be just ignore again?

Exactly q on another thread

Yes socially selective because the primary schools /lea are making them so. They are stopping your fsm can you see that?

So if we are letting down the top 10 % in comprehensives, why don't selective counties do better than comprehensive counties?

You mean socially selective because the 11+ as a concept is a failure.

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

When was this golden age and what measure of poverty are you using? I don't recall this and I'm in my 50s.

The 'poor' children often cited as the rationale for grammars generally came from skilled trades/C2s/regular-work or impoverished but educated families. Thatcher's aspirational working class who could actually see the ladder to climb, sometimes as a result of unionisation providing educational opportunities for workers in regular jobs. Tutoring/coaching was rife, even at this time.

The very poorest never got a sniff because in the unlikely event they passed the 'objective' 11+ the costs were too high (not just the uniform and the cost of supporting an unemployed teen but the loss of an positive income from that child at the earliest possible opportunity). At best one boy might be sent, never the girls though.

Do you know why primaries are resistant to coaching for the 11+? Because it would be an absolute nightmare.

Do they tutor all kids or just FSM kids? Do they tutor all FSM kids or just those they think will pass (nightmare! And introduces a bias straight away)
When do they tutor? In school time taking them out of stuff that's actually educational, hindering their performance there? After school which would need parental co-operation introducing another bias?
Who would tutor? Teachers who then waste time that could be spent planning lessons and marking? Hired help? How much would that cost?

And even then the FSM kids couldn't hope to compete with the middle class kids going for three hours a week to an elite, experienced tutor with a pass rate splashed all over their promotional materials.

The very poorest never got a sniff because in the unlikely event they passed the 'objective' 11+ the costs were too high (not just the uniform and the cost of supporting an unemployed teen but the loss of an positive income from that child at the earliest possible opportunity). At best one boy might be sent, never the girls though

My aunt came from a low-income family. Neither parent had any qualifications, or education beyond age 14, though both were employed, in low-skilled jobs. Apparently there were just 7 books in the house. However, my aunt scored very highly in the 11+, one of the top three girls in her large town, and was awarded a full scholarship to the local private girls' school. Her parents (my GP's) were very proud and my DGF took on extra shifts so they could buy the uniform.

I'm in my 50s too and went to a grammar - no tutoring, in the 1970s. There was one boy I knew on the council estate I lived on who had also passed but his dad said he couldn't go as that was "where the snobs went". Fast forward to the early 21st century and my uni lecturers were spouting the 'only well off/can afford tutoring' myths and I gave my example and those of the other people I had met whose parents stopped their dc from going to grammars due to the "snobs" (only men btw). My lecturer's response was well you must have been very bright then. Hmm...maybe...anyway. My ds wouldn't have passed an 11+, I'm pro-grammars and pro-secondary modern if they will offer a more technical, artistic and/or work-orientated curriculum for those whose abilities aren't academic.

softsheen well yes but they are the regular work category (with additional work available to supplement income) - not well off but not bottom of the heap either if they had means to sustain a child at home and not send them out to work at 14/15 to contribute to the pot.

As another poster pointed out elsewhere when we talk about the golden age of grammar schools we are talking about a time when 75% of the population were classified as working class. Most of their contemporaries would not identify as working class these days and yet the myth that grammars drove social mobility rather than wider societal change is routinely trotted out. Many more people at the lower end did benefit from the educational opportunities provided by unionisation /WECs - not sure why this is so rarely pointed out.

There is no evidence from then or now to suggest that the poorer classes in modern society would benefit from a selective system rather than be held back by it.

Why is it that i a 1980s Kent Secondary Modern educated pupil that left with 2 GCSE E grades is a vehement pro grammar supporter !

I find it quite ironic that i am probably the only poster on here, that was educated in one , and yet posters that have never set foot in one post their assumptions !

It is also very telling that the people who like me that had a very 'limited' educational experience would sell their 'kidneys' to get their children in a grammar school ! This applies even if a Comprehensive School is an option in a neighbouring area or county.

Why are we suffering from 'Stockholm- Syndrome' !

Why do we favor a system , which 'supposedly' failed us ..

Because there's always turkeys who will vote for Christmas?

Actually a major factor is the parents don't want their children, socialising or interacting with their teenage self, hence popularity of schools that close that option !

I'm pro-grammars and pro-secondary modern if they will offer a more technical, artistic and/or work-orientated curriculum for those whose abilities aren't academic.

Well, that will really suit my DD who might well have failed an 11+ due to her Maths but whose best subjects (in which she is predicted, all being well, to get very good grades) are English, History, Languages and RE.

My DC were lucky to grow up in Kent. We couldn't afford a house in a nice area but the grammars took from the whole town - no catchment. Yes one of my 4 went to the secondary modern and we were very happy with it. Sadly change of SLT after he left plunged the school into chaos.

Littlest DC is not growing up in Kent. There are many highly-favoured schools where we live but you have to be living next door to them to get in, and guess what? we can't afford the hefty houseprices that feed to those schools.

Why is it wrong to select on ability and not wrong to select on parental income?

"Why is it wrong to select on ability and not wrong to select on parental income?"

Hmmm, that's a point...

What do others think?

Efteling
There is every chance that, should the proposal to create a few more Grammar Schools in comprehensive area go ahead, that most of the remaining comps will deteriorate, and most of the non- pupil premium places for the new Grammar School in the area will go to children of people like mine.... who currently go private. So a lot of the working and middle class Tories/UKIP supporters kids will not go to the Grammar they agitated for and end up at worse schools than they are already.

Some places will go to a handful of on-paper poor kids (but only really those with parents with the social capital to jump though the hoops). The kids who will really lose out are the averagely bright, the ones who are only good at maths or english, the late developers, the kids in care, those who move around a lot, child carers, those with SEN, plus all those who end up in the even less funded, less favoured other schools.

Historically, in the 1960s secondary moderns were funded significantly less per pupils than Grammars and there is every chance this will be repeated.
burningourmoney.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/real-disgrace-of-secondary-moderns.html

If we are trading anecdotes, in my comp, there was a lad taken into care at 9 who started year 7 (then 1st year) in the 4th stream (CSE standard) and was up to top stream by 14- he got 10A levels.

My school had previously been a secondary modern, no exams were taken and it had disproportionate more girls (as there were less grammar school places for girls than boys). If it had been earlier when this boy went to school, he would not have gone to Grammar and left school with no qualifications. By going to a comp, he did significantly better than under the system you advocate for.

I can see for a handful of very high performing pupils like my son, a super selective Grammar School education would be helpful. But he is Maths Olympiad/grade 8/9s in everything standard and most of the Grammar school supporters kids are not (not a boast just context). The Grammar schools were largely abolished because too many parents were not happy about their kids (who they felt were too clever for a secondary modern education) failing the 11 plus and it became politically difficult to justify the divide.

I do think that many comps could do more to stretch the very able (like facilitating them to start university courses on line ) but this is a wasteful and retrograde step.

"Why is it wrong to select on ability and not wrong to select on parental income?"

Both are wrong. And frequently, anyway , they amount to the same thing.

School admissions should be by a combination of fair banding and lottery.

Sorry the boy got 10 As at O level, not 10 Levels.

Justice Woman. There are now more places for Girls at Grammar schools than for Boys so that chestnut has flipped !

Girls are more likely to get in to a grammar school than boys, this has happened because a lot of former boys grammar have become fully Co-educational ! By contrast the girls grammars might allow sixth form entry for boys, but the take up appears low !