Bring back secondary moderns?

[user1471516728]

OK alternative tack on the grammar school debate. Assuming 80% of children would attend secondary moderns (not comprehensives) after a full roll-out of grammar schools, why would that be a great idea for those in the 80%?

"Prosperous area like Kent"

Have you been to Sheppey lately? Medway Towns? The coastal towns?

Thank you, BizzyFizzy. I hope it cleared up a few myths.

I think the link was misunderstanding Review and Appeal. The Review of borderline cases is undertaken without parents being involved. It looks at children who have usually achieved 120, but looks at 120/119 if there are lots of spaces because the number of (expensive) appeals are reduced. If the grammars are very full, the Review will not put through many children. After Review, the score is published and the child is not offered or offered a Grammar school place, parents can appeal. The Head of the primary school may well support this course of action but in Bucks the initial decision to appeal is never taken by the Head but lots of Heads support children at the Review stage. I think anecdotal evidence about appeal panels is a bit doubtful. However, it is likely some children will have been coached extensively to get 118 but another child has had no help at all but achieved 117. You might say the 117 child would be better placed in the grammar school when the appeal panel heard all the evidence. Frequently forums are populated by disappointed people who think the panel ŵas against them. I would like to see the evidence that lots of near misses are turned away in favour of lower scores.

I would be very wary of putting new grammar schools into some areas. Actually I would not do it. It would be clear that it would destroy the comprehensives' top streams. It is quite likely that some of these schools would be left with too few high achieving children but it would depend how high (or low) the grammar pass mark was set. The other problem is that in some areas, high achieving (the old Sats level 5) is not enough to get into the grammar school so there would be a false dawn for many families as there is in Bucks. It would not necessarily be a rural problem either. Some urban areas of high deprivation would have the same issues. Wherever there is a grammar school that does not fill up from the immediate area, it takes in children from a very wide area adversely affecting more and more schools. You only have to look at the effects of the Bucks grammars on some Milton Keynes schools to see this.

I do not support new grammar schools. Changing in Bucks would be an expensive nightmare and our schools are funded at rock bottom levels as it is. We cannot get any worse financially, so wholesale change just won't happen. Bucks is considerably less complicated than Kent regarding the exams etc. The truth is, when most children are in the secondaries, they like them. Few try to change. They do, mostly, get a good education.

Earlier, I named the very good ones, which are the majority. However, all the sec mod schools in Aylesbury have been RI recently and so was The Cottesloe and Buckingham has been in and out of RI like a yoyo, as have a couple of others. Sir William Ramsay has just been judged RI.

Also, why can't secondary moderns be good schools? Did I say they shouldn't be trusted with top set children? Although some have dubious progress for their high achieving children, If you look at the A level results at some of the schools, you will see they have them and do very well with them.

The big problem here is "closing the gap" and many of the secondaries need to work very hard at this because this is the big area of failure and I have no doubt comprehensives do better. It is a constant problem getting high quality teachers and SLT into some secondary mod schools but it is the system we have so it needs to be better where it currently lets children down.

I want the secondary schools to be as good as the grammars. Too many of them have struggled with poor leadership

The kids will be thrilled to be there because they will have understood there is no "failing" the 11plus. They will be assured they are at the right sort of school for them. They can be big fish in a smaller pond. And should they feel failures they know they can still get in at 14plus if tutored hard enough. It will be lovely .

I wonder how thrilled the 2/3 of middle class parents whose kids will get to go to secondary modern will be. I'm sure they'll be happy that their very bright, scoring 5s in SATs kids weren't among the chosen few and will accept that fate. Or maybe they'll start free schools for those above the country average, but below grammar.

Many schools do 3 year GCSEs now so 14+ entry couldn't happen.

Some areas have the middle school system. Would a grammar only cater for GCSEs onwards in those areas?

There are going to be kids who are going to end up sitting SATs, 11+,12+,13+ and 14+ out of parental desperation for a place which begs the question perhaps a middle school system might be better?

Another good article:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/07/thatcher-grammars-poison-theresa-may-tories

The middle class parents of the kids who fail won't be happy - they will be furious.

In our area as grammar is for a very small number it doesn't adversely affect the other schools. There is only one girls school and one boys plus you have to be on the edge of the borough to be within distance for grammars in neighbouring regions. Here it is just another choice and not devastating if the child fails as we have other good and outstanding schools. I think the system has changed a lot from the 'grammar or bust' era, there isn't always a simple line or either/or choice. Here you have faith schools, sports academies, technical colleges, comprehensives, grammar, colleges. It is all part of the mix and choice.

But the policy isn't for a lone grammar covering a wide area. The policy is for state comps deciding to become selective and for unis and independents to open up new grammars.

"Have you been to Sheppey lately? Medway Towns? The coastal towns?"
What are the secondary moderns like there? If they're still awesome, I'll be more convinced . . .

So. Am I misunderstanding, or is their another of the "3 impossible things before breakfast" of the grammar school supporters?

Fact 1) Grammar schools provide a specialized fast paced academic education for the able.

Fact 2) Secondary modern schools are geared to a more vocational, appropriately paced education for the less able.

Fact 3) Pupils will be able seamlessly to move from secondary modern to grammar in year 9.

People who post on these threads have never been near a secondary modern. They have no idea that A levels are available or that children get 55% and upwards of GCSE's at A-C including Maths and English. If any of you have time, take a look at Waddesdon, John Colet, The Misbourne, The Amersham School, Chalfonts and Great Marlow School and you will see schools you will not recognise as secondary moderns. Some have in excess of 30% high abilty children so why would they not offer A levels and academic GCSE's? It would be failing the children if they did not.*

So what is the point of grammars then?

Petts you are aware that this policy won't necessarily bypass your area just because you've got a grammar? More grammars could open/convert which would then affect the surrounding schools and you'd be in a worse position for school choice.

PettsWoodParadise Fri 16-Sep-16 08:10:19 In our area as grammar is for a very small number it doesn't adversely affect the other schools. There is only one girls school and one boys

I thought St Olave's was a super selective, is that not the case?

Here it is just another choice and not devastating if the child fails as we have other good and outstanding schools

I think some parents may be devistated when their DCs don't get in. Particularly those living approx. 1 mile from St Olave's or approx. 1 1/2 miles from Newstead but get allocated:

www.compare-school-performance.service.gov.uk/school/138114?tab=absence-and-pupil-population

However, as I don't live in the area, I could be very much mistaken.

I doubt it.

Yes St Olaves is superselective, my point is that as it takes so few it doesn't slice off all the bright kids nearby. Also nearby Darrick Wood is an outstanding school so there are nearby excellent choices rather than secondary moderns in the old sense or Kent sense.

Yes, but what if Darrick Wood chooses to become selective? (I don't know these schools at all, btw). Or some other school nearby. Suddenly it's slicing off more bright kids. Then another school in the other direction. There doesn't appear to be anything to say that couldn't happen.

There's space for a co-ed grammar in our area. Supply and demand. I know the rules for grammar academies have to give the parents the option of voting to convert to non-selective and I suspect there will have to be agreement with a wide range of people to do the opposite to convert to selective. For many it won't be attractive. I know our local girls grammar reports on high teaching costs as NQTs etc don't fit the needs of the very bright and confident girls. This they say is similar to other grammar schools when compared. They have scruffier buildings older equipment. I think when schools look at all the facts converting to grammar isn't all rosy.

I think you're being very naive.

Converting to a grammar isn't all rosy? Given the nice cushy intake, the guaranteed brilliant results and the easier ride to Outstanding status and being left alone by Ofsted?

Oh I'm sure schools will be clamouring to be the secondary modern

Oh, but noblegiraffe- think how unfair it'll be when secondary modern gets all that pupil premium money and the grammar gets none...............

sashs - To answer your point, it is because the grammar schools here take nearly all the high, high achievers. High achievers are not all the same. Some are tutored to become high achievers and others are very bright and nuturally quick. Bucks has very many high achievers! The grammar schools, however, are not full of Bucks children. Where my old school is situated, there is one secondary modern (plus now a tiny free school just opened) and one grammar of roughly the same size. However, 50% of the children in that area do not go to the grammar! The grammar, by law, has to be open to any child that passes the exam, firstly in the catchment area then secondly, outside the catchment area by distance. Several towns in Bucks are exactly the same as this, eg Marlow, one grammar and one secondary modern. The short-fall in the high, high achievers are made up from the out of catchment children. Basically Maidenhead where Theresa May wants a grammar.

It is difficult to get your head around unless you live here! However, it is clear to me that any new grammars will make a mockery of a comprehensive education unless they only take, say 2-5% of children in a huge area such as the grammar schools in Devon that do not adversely affet the other schools (so I have heard).

The very big issue is how do you get FSM and PP children into grammar schools (should they come into being) if these children cannot access tuition and cannot afford the transport. In Bucks, if you do not go to your nearest school, whether you have achieved the magic 121 or not, you pay for transport. Transporting 50% of FSM and PP children to a new grammar school would cost a fortune. What size of catchment area would be needed for this?

Also, no, there cannot be a 14 plus! Usually it is 12 and 13 plus for obvious reasons. The secondary moderns may do 3 year GCSEs, but the grammars do not. They cover more topics in the subjects fom Y7-9 and teach quickly in Y10-11 to cover the GCSE syllabus and, at the moment, that is not changing.

The secondary moderns really do not lose many pupils for Y9. There is no seamless move to a grammar for very many children becuase they do not want to go! It is utterly wrong to think that hundreds of dissatisfied parents are queing up to move their children into a grammar school at 12, 13 or 14. It is simply not the case. The children make friends, enoy their school, make good progress and can do well and go to university. Many parents consider that going to the grammar will mean their child is bottom of that particular heap - and they do not want that! I know parents who are university lecturers, teachers, Charity executives, Accountants and other well educated professionals whose children go to secondary moderns and none of these children have transferred elsewhere when clearly capable of going to a grammar school and obtained A*s at the schools they were at, at A level.

What is evident though, is the pecking order of secondary modern schools and the huge number of appeals against allocations to the "wrong" ones. Being in the right area is not down to house prices either. Waddesdon is much cheaper than Beaconsfield but guess which has the best secondary?

There is, today, news of a Kent school (not sure which one) applying to be a grammar.

Errr.... the secondary moderns get nearly all the PP money now! Very little in the grammars, as you would expect. This means the grammars get less funding per pupil.

Bertrand I am not naive about the education in my area. I have always couched my explanations as being from my experience or those close to me. I did a lot of research before DD moved to secondary school and find the choice in our area an amazing combination that I believe others should be able to have. Idealistic I may be but I am rather hurt by the word naive.

What I meant by being naive is your assumption that schools will not want to become grammars. And even if they do this will have no impact on the provision in your area.

No where did I say that you are the one making assumptions.