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.

You don't get F/G grade GCSE kids being taught with A/A kids.*
Yes you do, there are several GCSE classes in my average sized DC comp where there is only enough children doing the subject to run one class. The work they do is severely affected.

minifingerz, I am not making it up as I go along. I have seen the rooms and children in school where they put the unteachables. One teacher baby sits them and SLT teacher guards the door to stop them getting out. They can be there for several months before they are able to get them out of the school.

Well, that's a good thing, surely, mathsmum? They've taken the "unteachables"out of the classroom so they won't be disruptive.............

Personally, I don't think the recent proposals for "improving" the standard or education in this country is anything to do with "improving" the standard of education in this country. I think it is merely an exercise in finding an alternative way of funding schools. Why else would existing Grammar Schools (in fact all schools for that matter) be saying they are struggling financially. Surely this would suggest that any new Grammars would be in the same situation?

For all those rubbing their hands in glee over the idea of a Grammar on their doorstep, how many Grammar schools will £50 mil. actually buy?

What makes you think that most of the new selective schools won't be faith schools?

For all those rubbing their hands in glee over the idea of a Grammar on their doorstep, how many Grammar schools will £50 mil. actually buy?

Considering that state grammars get the same funding as state comps, a new grammar should cost no more than a new comp. Lots of new schools are needed to cope with the rising population, so I can't see any difference in cost whether some of those new schools are grammars, state comps, or state faith schools. They all work under the same funding formula and grant eligibility.

Badbadbunny

I think you completely missed my point. I will make it more simple for you - How many schools will £50 mil buy?

To address another point you have made:

Lots of new schools are needed to cope with the rising population

So you think that building schools that admit only the top 25% will improve this? I think you will find that the demand will likely be increasing across the ability range and imagine there are far more middle ability children than high ability children (the bell curve that everyone keeps talking about). I'm sure you are already aware that Grammar Schools don't necessarily drop the pass mark, they are just as willing to increase the catchment area in order to fill spaces. This does nothing to increase the number of school places for local children.

"I have seen the rooms and children in school where they put the unteachables. One teacher baby sits them and SLT teacher guards the door to stop them getting out. They can be there for several months before they are able to get them out of the school."

Are you a cleaner or a secretary in a school or something mathsmum?

My dd was one of those 'unteachables' as you call them. She has a personality disorder and PTSD and was removed from some of her lessons, sometimes all of her lessons, for long periods of time because she couldn't cope and was disruptive. She spent most of her time in the internal exclusion unit at school, where people like you would have perhaps seen her as 'unteachable'.

In the end she was hospitalised around the time of her exams, but still sat a few. Got 2 B's despite not having been in lessons for months or done any revision. She's back on track now in college and hopefully will be heading to uni some point fairly soon. Clearly not so 'unteachable'.

It depresses me how the grammar lobby doesn't seem to see some children as fully human. Hence referring to them as 'unteachable'. No child is unteachable. but maybe some adults are

Meopham school in Gravesend to become a mixed Grammar in 2018 !

www.kentadvice.co.uk/peters-blog/news-a-comments/item/925-meopham-school-consultation-on-becoming-a-grammar

meopham.kent.sch.uk/

file:///C:/Users//Downloads/Meopham-Grammar-Initial-Consultation%20(2).pdf

SEN children removed to .... where?

Who cares!

Local middle and low achieving children shipped off to the only nearby school with places - 6 miles away down narrow country roads. Replaced by high achieving children from out of area

Who cares!

Oh my god, it's vomit inducing.

They appear to have delusions of grandeur based on one years results 71% GCSE this year 2015 41% 2014 38%!

You could not get a Mortgage on one years earnings, so how come you can become a grammar !

We all thought it was going to be school getting 90% GCSE every year , to be the trail blazer instead its a 'bog standard' Kent Comprehensive with an EGO the size of Jeremy Corbyn !

ww.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/exclusive-kent-school-among-first-102558/

www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/news/exclusive-kent-school-among-first-102558/

sandyholme Mon 19-Sep-16 13:55:18

Interesting comment below the article:

"This area is one of the few where you can enter the kent and medway tests, and thus has at least 4 grammars"

I will quickly add that I have no idea if this is correct.

Sandy - "They appear to have delusions of grandeur"

Those GCSE results might be astonishingly good, depending on the intake of the school.

Because you know, even Eton wouldn't get the GCSE results it currently does if 50% of its intake was low/middle achieving.

71% for a secondary modern school is very good indeed.

Its up there with Waddesdon and Wellington, however is it a one season wonder !. Waddesdon and Wellington have been getting in the 70% for a few years now.

Disgusting immoral and not what is needed in the area.
it is in nobody's interest to destroy a good non selective school, for the sake of an academy trust to save face.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37384819

I am very worried about what will happen to the Sen provision there if this happens, as it's the only mainstream provision in gravesham borough. Do KCC have a say in this as they fill the unit? PETER; This is an excellent point, I will ask the question and am incorporating it in my article shortly. Sadly too many academies in any case would like to lose SEN responsibilities. One other operating locally, that is under pressure from government tries to get rid of SEN children from their main stream schools as they now carry a financial cost.

Sun shield, there are also positives in having grammar schools. There is much pent up demand out there.

portico Mon 19-Sep-16 21:42:01 Sun shield, there are also positives in having grammar schools.

Please feel free to elaborate.

I live in an 11 plus area, next to two other 11 plus areas. I'm all ears.

portico Mon 19-Sep-16 21:42:01 There is much pent up demand out there.

Again, feel free to elaborate...

I cannot base my perceptions from cold hard statistics, but in speaking to parents from many LEAs, and I know many are keen on grammar schools (gs) over comprehensives (cs). Why? Because being in a stronger academic cohort is more likely to lead to better top end exam success at GCSE and A Level. Yes, there are disruptive kids at gs, so no different from cs. Yes, it is understood that 3% of gs kids are eligible for FSM/PP. most gs now have in place outreach programmes and policies to ensure 20% of students are PP ones (who can get in based on lower entrance exam scores). Outreach programmes aim to identify PP children with potential by pairing up with all local state primaries, as well as reaching out to parents of PP children.

For all those who talk about the negative impacts of having gs, we need to ask whether the axing of some 1100 gs has improved the outcomes of students in cs, over the last 30 years. I and many parents I have spoken to think not. Almost all are in favour of gs, but rather like a guilty pleasure, not one they wish to freely admit to.

I have two children who attend a gs some 30 miles away. We do not have gs in our LEA, but I have noticed a huge spike in applications to gs, via FOI enquirers to my local LEAs and other nearby ones, and realised the applications to sit the test have gone up correspondingly.

Why do we choose gs, especially are there are some very good cs ( but not many), however, these are faith schools or ones in leafy catchments that many cannot afford to live in. Given the grades at grammar schools are generally better for GCSEs at EBAC, and even more so at superselectives, you can see why many are inclined to plump for gs. We all realise the impacts of creaming off the academic kids from cs to gs, or normal cs to leafy catchment cs, but many also realise that those with academic potential and those that need stretching aren't always catered for in most cs. They will be stretched in most gs. I can see why that would upset parents of children in non gs, but there are many parents out there, including myself, who still knowing this enthusiastically plump for gs. Sorry.

"Because being in a stronger academic cohort is more likely to lead to better top end exam success at GCSE and A Level."

Maybe they need to look at the evidence on this from the Sutton Trust, which suggests that attending a GS only makes a very small (if any) difference to GCSE grades.

"we need to ask whether the axing of some 1100 gs has improved the outcomes of students in cs, over the last 30 years"

There is clear evidence that vastly fewer children now leave school with few or no GCSEs.

Mini finger said "There is clear evidence that vastly fewer children now leave school with few or no GCSEs."

So the demise of 1100 grammar schools has no no impact on GCSE outcomes then for cs children!