Secondary moderns

[CookieDoughKid]

There's a lot of talk about new grammar schools 'destroying' the existing comp schools or creating terrible secondary moderns.

I would like some help to understand this better. I would also prefer that people didn't relay their experiences on what happened 50 years ago as the education systems have changed a whole lot since then.

Remove the friendship issues of kids being separated at 11.

How is it we have to rely on the top 25% of students to think we are creating terrible non-grammar schools? And if the wealthier students are getting in to grammar per se, surely that means better funding for the non-grammar schools?

I think I'm missing something entirely. If we have dedicated resourcing and teaching for the non-grammar kids -how is that a bad thing? I believe in selective education not necessarily in different buildings. However if comprehensive schools insist on whole ability classes for all their subjects then I'm against that. Not all comps are the same. I just don't understand this issue about bad schools being created if we remove top 25% of kids.

Why can't all kids do music and 2 foreign languages Sandy - you don't need to be academic to excel at either, nor do academic people necessary excel at either.

If it's more subject choice you're after bigger schools which set (flexibly) by ability in each subject separately (not stream) would achieve this.

Grammar school type systems are as weak an idea as streaming by ability instead of setting - they fail children who are brilliant at maths and science but dreadful at languages and literature and music, or the child who is gifted at music and has a talent for learning languages but struggles to even get a pass grade in maths and physics.

A lot of academic kids don't even want to do one mfl. Pick a school and look at what percentage of high attainers achieve the ebacc. Listen to the complaints on here when it's suggested their kid really should be doing an mfl!

The current curriculum in most secondary schools are adequate for the middle group , after all that is the D-C GCSE target group.

However, what is dam right stupid that some 'shit' Comps insist on putting C grade pupils in for '15' GCSEs when they are not going to even get a B in Maths/English.

'Funny' Noble Obviously not every child at the grammar but a large percentage would be able enough for two languages further Maths .

In many countries of course even the middle ability children do 2 foreign languages, "high" ability children do 3 mfl plus Latin...

If you're picking off the top 40% then the majority will not be able enough for further maths.
In fact some will be the C grade kids you want the secondary modern to concentrate on!

All of this is of course ridiculous because few children are high ability across the board, and plenty are weak in one area and high ability in others, plus lots of children don't find their wings academically until they are 13+ by which time it is too late in a system based on segregation at age 11

We can only work with what we have, its not the system I would design.

Yes I would only have the top 10% selection into grammar. Enough to make at least one (maybe 2) schools viable per medium sized area. I think that would keep the comprehensive system viable and still provide for genuine academics.

And then yes I would be brutal and test ever year to allow for late bloomers. If rich parents have to tutor for 14 years then good luck to them, I dont know if that's viable.

I would also have more 'special' schools for children that just refuse to learn or behave. Its really unfair on the lower sets in comps that want to try hard but get lumped in with the few extremely disruptive children.

Sorry if this is controversial but could we not put the bottom 10% as in those with SEN or behavioural problems - and I really mean the ones who have no interest in academics, the oned predicted to get U and E grades across board - could they not be moved out of mainstream entirely so that more specialist teaching be focused on them?

I do wonder if Sandy Holmes 40% is more about making sure many middle class children don't fail than about academic excellence.

So what will happen to these successful 'late bloomers' after testing?

Previous governments closed most of the special schools because they were too expensive though cookie and maths

There is a place for really good special schools with really high teacher to student ratios and lots of on site specific specialist help such as speech therapy and physiotherapy etc leading to reintegration into mainstream where appropriate and continued nurturing in small groups where it is in the child's best interest... But I'll eat my hat if Theresa May is about to announce funding for that!

Thanks 5. I can imagine these specialist schools would be really costly. It's shame as I think these kids need our help the most to integrate in society. I know a mum who's child is going through multiple suspensions as he has attention problems. He's throwing chairs across in the classroom at secondary school. But there seems no help for him and it's plain to all mainstream is not where he should be. His mum is at despair as he will be getting E grades there is no where else for him to go.

Deciding the course of your future with a couple of little tests at age 10 or 11 is clearly flawed.

What if you're bright but have poor exam skills? What if you're feeling tired or unwell? What if you're an early developer or a late developer? What if your brain development is 'uneven' ?

My DC took the 11+ for two different counties and failed both disastrously yet is now predicted A in every single GCSE and has been assessed as 'Gifted and Talented' for several years. DC is actually top end of grammar school abilities. The 11+ fail was probably due to immaturity, poor exam skills, and being a late developer in maths.

Conversely, I went to a grammar. Most kids there were bright and motivated but there were some who should not have been there eg one friend of mine who couldn't keep up and therefore had a pretty unhappy time.

Comprehensives usually have a streaming system or put kids into sets by subject. Only the non academic subjects, like PE and art tend to be mixed ability.

Theresa May's grammar school plan is based on nostalgia rather than common sense.

"Grammar School curriculum :
Triple Science, Latin, two MFLs , Further Maths, Economics, Music E.TC." That's for the top 40%.
What curriculum are you suggesting for the next 50%? And the other 10%?

SnookieSnooks, You say, "Deciding the course of your future with a couple of little tests at age 10 or 11 is clearly flawed" and then you go on to explain how failing the 11+ didn't hold your DC back at all.

English , Maths, Science (non specific) Home Economics , Carpentry , Engineering Hairdressing , 'Applied life skills' (learning about debt, Mortgages , life and relationships , teaching children how to apply for jobs further education advice). I.e a vocational one that does not waste their time teaching French or other Modern languages 'irrelevant' History ( those who think Winston Churchill is a dog who sells car insurance ).

The bottom 10% need to learn skills and trades that will keep them out of prison basically !

Go figure what skills and trades we should teach them.

Or as the Liberal Democrats proposed 'Applied Prostitution Studies' !

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3794462/Liberal-Democrat-says-schools-able-suggest-PROSTITUTION-career-pupils.html

So apparently the top 40% don't need to learn about debt or mortgages, or careers advice, and engineers don't need to be very good at maths.

Sandy, you know from current Y7 the government expects 90% of students to take the Ebacc?

Maths DC is at comprehensive - hence not held back. We have grammars and comprehensives here.

...and Latin, wtf is it with Latin? Are there even enough qualified people to teach Latin? DD had lessons in Latin (at a bog standard state primary), there was a struggle to find someone to teach it.

Why should the bottom 20% be deprived of a chance to try to get >= B in their GCSEs? Why should the top 20% not learn DT -- isn't that rather useful for budding engineers??

But for me, more fundamentally: how is it a good thing to divide kids socially? Because the one bit of evidence that every quality study agrees on, is that selective education divides social groups. The poor kids mostly at the less academic school, the affluent kids mostly at the more academic schools. This is insidious.

Of course Engineers need to be good at Maths. It is a given that the top 40% of students would learn about 'Mortgages ,Debt Money via Economics/ Maths and related subject matter.

It is frankly crazy to expect students who can not even spell properly, to learn languages complicated Maths and Sciences at the cost of time learning Maths/English.

Total utter madness to expect 90% of children to do EBACC subjects.

And no i did not know that ...

The underlying assumptions from all those on this thread who support grammar, be they for the top 10% or top 40%, is that the current system is failing either the top or the bottom or both.

But there is no evidence that is happening at all. Comprehensives are able to cater for top, bottom and everything in between very successfully, and have the huge advantage of a) being enough in quantity so kids don't have to travel two hours each way to school, and b) most importantly late bloomers have classes to go to, top set kids CAN do further maths, two languages, Latin, triple science etc, and bottom set kids are taught with others of the same ability, and usually concentrating on fewer subjects.

There were a few issues with some practice in the past, but these have already been alleviated - progress 8 has ended being put in for 15 GCSEs, and first entry counts has ended kids doing exams in year 9 or 10.

THE SYSTEM AINT BROKE - IT DOESNT NEED FIXING!

How is it that 50% of school leavers can be expected to go on to University if only 20% have been selected as suitable for an academic education? The fact that some children from Secondary Modern schools make it to Uni shows that they should not have been 'failures' at age 11. (and many such children do feel that in the County I live in)

Mathsmum314 said:

"I would also have more 'special' schools for children that just refuse to learn or behave. Its really unfair on the lower sets in comps that want to try hard but get lumped in with the few extremely disruptive children."

What an idiotic thing to say, on many levels. Who the hell would want the stigma of having their kids in such schools. God, it would be hard to find teachers motivated to teach in such schools. Best to keep them in the comprehensive system.