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%?

agreed. Setting is fine - that gives scope for almost all to be taught within their ability level for each subject with the option of sliding between sets, whilst being together for everything else.
Splitting off by ability at this age into different schools - not ok. Age 16, when they all start to specialise in different areas is a good point to do this.

One could of course have an admission system purely on parental preference and then move children around a year in, much more reliable. But this is exactly what many comps now do, moving children between sets, so grammars would just make the process much more complicated.

But of course most people don't really want that, they want a nice, middle class school with nice middle class peers for their kids. Ideally one that gives them a leg up for university admission by teaching stuff some other schools don't. But even that is catered for by comps, parents of clever, but not outstanding middle class kids who want them at university will advise their kids to do A levels in traditional subjects and tutor accordingly.

"I think that you are missing the point in that the children who used to get 5c at Sats, and were classed as high achievers by the Govt, are not quite as high achievers as those who get selected for the grammar schools (by and large) and the 11 plus is not the same as Sats anyway."

I agree. Which is why I think that even the very small advantage in terms of GCSE grades found by the Sutton Trust to be associated with grammar schooling is suspect, because the cohort of 'high achieving' children in comps that the evidence pits against high achieving children in grammars were categorised as such on the strength of being level 5 across the board.

"The comprehensive system is broken."

Are you arguing that an extremely able child categorically can't get a decent education in any comprehensive, because they are mixed ability?

Because that can easily be proven to be false. There are thousands of children who have achieved at the very highest levels in comprehensives across the UK. My dc's comp sent children off to do PPE and English at Oxford, off to study medicine, law at Russell group unis, music at Purcell and Guildhall. It happens all the time.

I still want to know what a 'gifted academic' is?

Someone who gets all A* at GCSE?... at age 12?
IQ of 160+?
Or merely someone the teachers gush about.

Ds' (very mixed demographic, non-leafy, high FSM, high EAL) comprehensive has plenty of pupils who go off to do "good" degrees at "good" Unis. Most years one or two kids go to do medicine/veterinary science. This year's dux is at Dundee Uni doing medicine.

(Not so many applying to Oxbridge now, given that they'd then have to pay fees).

It's apparently 11th in Scotland (not sure if that is all schools or just state schools) for its Advanced Higher results.

But just as importantly, the school supports the less able to ensure that they too have "positive destinations".

And, what I like the most, is that it also encourages and celebrates sporting, artistic and volunteering achievements, as it sees it as its duty to develop rounded individuals, not just exam fodder.

yeOldeTrout Mon 19-Sep-16 19:40:42 Or merely someone the parents teachers gush about ;-)