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 don't particularly agree with grammar schools but I don't think comprehensives serve any pupils that well. The best thing about them is that children aren't condemned at 11. Otherwise the less academic still feel like a failure and are quite likely to leave with few qualifications, whilst the bright ones miss out on a good education because of all the discipline problems. The middle ones are probably best served by comprehensives.

I'd be in favour of a large investment into schools providing a technical education. Not a scrapheap school but an attempt to really motivate all students in the things they are interested in and good at, whatever that may be. I'm sure there are loads of young people who can't be bothered sitting still in class all day but would excel at courses where they could learn practical skills. It would be expensive to provide this as you'd need much smaller class sizes and more resources. But it would be better in the long run as people will be trained in something they can make a good living out of.

Justice there was using teacher crisis just prior to gcses last year and a lady had to get tutor in for dd to get her through exams. Her dd has begged her mum not to make her go back for a levels. How much worse can it get? Grammar please Bertrand loads of reports re comps failing the top sets...... No comment, side step... I notice on many threads you ask questions and wonder why people now don't bother answering you .

Re tutoring in primary for tests... Again noble you have run off with extreme idea on it.....
A poster from grammar Area once said thier primary do support pupils who are capable of 11+ in various ways with help of parents. As I said before basic stuff, old papers, exam technique.... Open it up to all pupils not shut out fsm.
That doesn't mean draining all resources and taking all class time for it. We need more variety not less

Did you not hear when I said that in Kent-the biggest grammar area - primary schools are expressly not allowed to do more than one practice test? And please see noblegiraffe's earlier post about the difficulties of primary schools doing 11+ prep. And you have not said in what way comprehensives fail the top 10%. Do they get one GCSE grade less? Two? Half?

the bright ones miss out on a good education because of all the discipline problems

But the bright ones, in the top sets, will be exactly the same kids hoiked off to Grammar. So, are they behaving badly, in top sets, in comps, but the same bright kids behave better if put in a different building a bus ride away?

B&R state school students do better at university than their A-levels would predict. I got better A- levels than would been predicted by my GCSE's. I believe with the new GCSE grades this will become more noticable as they can differentiate better at the top end. I think it does matter- these are our future doctors, laywers, MPs - do we want them all to come from Eton for ever ?

"the bright ones miss out on a good education because of all the discipline problems"

It's like the grammar school parents round here who put their heads on one side and say to me "And how is miniRussell doing? How does he cope with all the ...." lowered voice, melting eyes "........disruption?

But other primaries manage to help all their pupils with potential I cant see how you can blame Grammars for low FSM when you know and acknowledge the primaries where you are BAN schools from helping dc with FSM.
How on earth are they supposed to get in if they don't know about it/ are not given more help?

And you have not said in what way comprehensives fail the top 10%

Because you asked this on another thread and when I provided links there was no response.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11284656/Ofsted-warns-state-schools-are-failing-their-brightest-pupils.html

"The education watchdog says almost two-thirds of the most able pupils in state comprehensives fail to fulfil their potential"

www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/13/state-schools-pupils-ofsted-chief

"Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools, has said that the failure by state schools to nurture their brightest pupils is "an issue of national concern", after an investigation found two-thirds of the most advanced pupils entering secondary education do not achieve top GCSE results"

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/comprehensive-schools-failed-working-class

Great article ^^

"The data of this failed egalitarian project is disturbing. Ofsted, England's schools watchdog, revealed last year that just 60% of white British boys on free school meals reached the expected level in English and maths. Wendy Piatt, director-general of the Russell group, has successfully identified the issue. She rightly points out that the real cause of the under-representation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds is "under-achievement at school and poor advice on the best choices of A-level subjects and university degree course".

"Unlike comprehensive cheerleader Tony Blair or Harriet Harman, who both infamously sent their sons to the grant-maintained London Oratory school, the working classes do not have any political influence to trade for a good school place. What they want is a strong, effective state school structure. Grammar schools, introduced at the end of the second world war, offer this opportunity.

These institutions, before they were snubbed by our political elite, gave working-class kids the opportunity to climb the social ladder.

"They have been demolished, though, because of one fallacious objection: that they segregate pupils at an early age, thanks to the 11-plus examination, but comprehensives do not. Really, the comprehensive school system is just as bad, but without the impressive results. In the 1960s, for instance, when grammar schools were popular, it is estimated that Oxford University took more than 60% of admissions from state-schooled pupils. Now, decades on, the prestigious university only takes 58.5%, according to 2011 figures.

"working classes have been educational guinea pigs of our political leaders for too long. It is time that they are given a school system they deserve"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38665551

Disadvantaged pupils (those qualifying for free school meals) made significantly less progress on average than non-disadvantaged pupils nationally during secondary school.

The Progress 8 score was -0.03 for all pupils in all state secondary schools, compared with -0.38 for disadvantaged pupils.

revealed last year that just 60% of white British boys on free school meals reached the expected level in English and maths.

What's that got to do with grammars? That's talking about primary schools.

You do realise that students on FSM from other backgrounds do much better than white working class boys? The problem there isn't the schooling so much as the homelife and culture, which is much harder to fix.

There was plenty of disruption at mine !

Actually the two things my 'Modern' (a real one 1980s style where the kids used to set Fire to the grass at lunch time) i.e not the schools that Bertrand chooses to describe was 'resilience' and the ability to blank out any miscreants !

I am so grateful my DDs don't go to my old school 'new name' . This is a school that the parents and kids are more interested in 'swearing' at staff and wearing correct uniform than embracing the ethos !

That reason alone is enough for me to want my kids to be segregated , in a different school.

Unfortunately any true 'Comprehensive' school will have a number of these parents and kids.

The leafy Comps are able to keep these out.

I am waiting for a grammar school to send home 50 kids on the first day for 'pink' hair or wearing trainers !

Good grief, I couldn't work out exactly who was talking about Oxbridge admissions but it is categorically untrue that there were more state school entrants in the 1960s

The House of Common Library has analysed this question in papers titled “Oxbridge Elitism”, the most recent published in June 2014. It found that the proportion of state pupils at either Oxford or Cambridge was 26% in 1959 and 37% in 1964. This rose to 43% in the early 1970s, when the majority of students would still have taken the 11+. By 1981, when two thirds of students overall would have started in comprehensive schools, it jumped to 52%. In 2012 the Telegraph reported that 55% of admissions at Oxford and 66% at Cambridge were now from state schools, though the Cambridge figure did slip in 2013.

And the Progress 8 figures for disadvantaged pupils are actually worst in counties which have retained the selective system - Bucks is -0.64 for instance.

The fact that supposedly intelligent people like Directors of the Russell Group do not bother to do even basic research before making their claims demonstrates better than anything else their callous indifference to those will be consigned to failure under a selective system.

Flying I don't really understand why you would describe the horrors of a secondary modern in order to persuade us to have more of them.

Nobody is blaming grammars for not having many/any pupil premium kids! That would be stupid.

So, actually, FlyingithWings, what you are interested in is more of a behaviour selection than academic?

Because why should hardworking well behaved kids in middle and lower sets be disrupted? Do we only care that top 10% or top 25% kids are rescued?

Many schools are not as they were even 15 years ago. My DC go to a comp which is certainly not in a leafy area, and by and large the behaviour in class is good. Attainment is good, outstrips targets, at all ability levels. Schools CAN get a handle on behaviour, and they owe it to ALL ability kids to do so.

I think the teaching in my kids comp is good, mine will do v well in GCSEs. My argument is with the curriculum and what education has become at GCSE level. I think that is a result of a shortened range of measurement over a wide range of ability, and I don't think that the English Literature GCSE, or French, for example, push able kids as far as they can go. But from what I see grammar kids doing it isn't actually any different to what my top set comp kids are doing.

My DC go to a comp which is certainly not in a leafy area, and by and large the behaviour in class is good.

I think you must be new to the grammar threads SoulAccount. If your kids are at a good comp it must be leafy, then your experience can be discounted. I used to spend ages searching out non-leafy good comps but then found they were always dismissed for some reason.

Today 20:26 BertrandRussell

Efteling- as a point of information, your guardian "article" is in fact an opinion piece, with no more credibility than if you or I and written it.

Soul account i dont think thats true.Ds will take GCSE maths at the end of year 10, then start the A- level sylabus, i think the learning is faster and broader than in a comp. There is also a wide range of trips and extra curricular activities.

Ds will take GCSE maths at the end of year 10, then start the A- level sylabus,

Oh dear god I thought grammar schools were supposed to have the best staff, not ones that would make terrible decisions like that.

"Ds will take GCSE maths at the end of year 10, then start the A- level sylabus, "

And this is a good idea exactly why?

Why is it a terrible decision ? They all got A☆ last year genuinely puzzled ?

So the most able arent kicking their heels for a year ? So they can take A2 aged 17 and come out with 4 A levels ? Therefore having a broader education ?

Because if they have just finished GCSE then it would be better to take a bridging qualification in Y11 such as further or additional maths.

The leap to A-level is big. A-level is designed to be taken by sixth formers who are only studying 2 or 3 other subjects. Students who start it early usually don't do as well as those who sit it at the correct time and end up having to resit modules. This may put off students, especially girls from taking the full A-level. Students who have taken half an A-level by the end of Y11 are then stuck if they want to switch schools for sixth form. Students who take a full A-level by the end of Y12 then may have to pick up another subject for AS from a limited selection. Students who finish maths A-level in Y12 who go on to study science or so on at uni will have had a year with no maths which isn't good.

There is also a wide range of trips and extra curricular activities

Probably because the school has a much wealthier than average group of parents to fund these rather than because trips are something only bright kids can manage?

My old school is in many ways 'good' with an outstanding head. unfortunately because she has become a bit of a 'media' personality she has allowed herself and the school to become open to attacks on LBC.

The 'idiot' parents ringing up a radio station to complain about their children be sent home, or the fact the school has refused to see any parent without an prior appointment. This is because school reception staff have been sworn at by 'irate' parents.

I now live 70 miles away in Bucks .

The sad thing is if the school could remove the significant minority of children and parents , the school could become outstanding.

If the school was able to do 'remove' these obstacles , the school would in effect by 'selecting' its pupils !

Not by academic means, but by behaviour and attitude.

Selection of pupils , whether by academic or other means is vital for any school to be successful .

This is why i am opposed to the notion of throwing every child together, in some kind equality driven 'panacea' !

Ok, ds is at an all boys school. The majority of pupils who take maths A level get an A , lots will be doing futher maths so will have on going maths in yr 13, certainly those doing a maths degree would. I dont really buy that for a science degree as.plenty of students will have a gap year. They have been doing this for years and I trust that they know what they are doing. Thats the grammar.school deal really - they have been doing it with good results.for decades, when your dc goes there you sign up to the ethos i trust they have the expertise to get the best from the boys.

I thought Colyton (presuming) were going to stop taking GCSEs in year 10 ! I thought they were going to a more traditional GCSEs at yr 11.

Invicta Grammar in Maidstone were doing GCSEs at 15 , but have reverted to 16 recently.