Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

Common sense would be a very difficult personality trait (or whatever) to manage. However if you call it making good judgements when making every day decisions then I would say that education probably helps. As might having a strong intellectual ability to understand the complexities of today's world and see the wood from the trees.
I know some very clever people who make daft decisions and some very clever people who make good ones.
Teresa May could well want to deflect us from the mediocre nature of Academy results (the scores won't be public until some time in the winter... but they signs so far are not good, inasmuch they don't seem to be doing any better than LA schools). Or then there is the total mess that her party has made of the referendum and its aftermath.

a dead cat strategy

What on earth...?

I think Theresa May is using the grammar school debacle as a dead cat strategy. I'd like to know what she is wanting to deflect our attention from.

I think Theresa May has taken a course in double-speak or gobbledygook (not sure which).

@TriciaF

My experience of French education isn't positive . However, I do think think the system of different routes at 15 is worth consideration.

All pupils go to comprehensives until 15, then go their separate ways. That happens with GCSE choices in the UK, but there could be a case for specialist schools where the numbers are too small in some areas to run some courses.

By the age of 15, most children have a general idea of their strengths, which is different from the snapshot 11+.

Theresa May says her system will not look back to the fifties and sixties. Her grammar schools are looking to the future.
So how is it that everyone on here who supports them is looking to the past?
Apparently one of May's ideas is to allow a grammar school providing the provider opens up a non-selective school nearby, and allow pupils to move from one to the other at different times.
Anyone else see the problem here? Do you also see the solution?

I think the govt. would do well to look at this system:
www.french-property.com/guides/france/public-services/school-education/upper-secondary/vocational-lycee/

Daphne - I did say 'very often', not all. Our second son is a good example, very bright intellectually but socially and emotionally he finds it hard to cope.
I understand about the reference to Sec Mods now. The one my husband went to was very well run - they had courses like car mechanics, metalwork, carpentry etc with a with well equipped workshops and properly qualified teachers.

The ethos of grammar schools can't apply to all pupils. Their whole 'raison d'être' is that they aren't inclusive and exist only for the most academically able. Comprehensive schools have a totally different philosophy.

Penstemmon's take is the logical corollary. Grammar schools can't exist without secondary moderns, whatever you like to call them.

I disagree with the generalisation that bright people have no 'common sense' and less bright people it and go far. I've known all sorts of people who wouldn't fit into any category, as I'm sure most of us have.

There are so many facets to human character which can't possibly be measured, especially by a couple of tests at the age of 11. A good education should seek to develop any positive characteristics, whether academic or not. Schools aren't just about training children to slot into some predestined slot in the hierarchy. Unfortunately, the obsession with academic league tables doesn't encourage nurturing the whole child.

Tricia, I don't think Theresa May said anything about secondary mods. That was just Penstemmon's take on grammar schools being brought back.

If the ethos of grammar schools needs to be brought back, surely it should apply to all pupils. After all, it was May who said she was for all citizens, not just the rich middle classes.

What we need is more teachers in all schools, more money spent on all pupils, smaller class sizes, more intervention for special needs.
In other words, better resourced comprehensives.

I suspect that announcing this divisive policy now is mostly an attempt to divert attention from the fact that TM and her government have not got the first clue how to deal with Brexit.

@TriciaF

Theresa May is conspicuously silent about those who won't have places in these new grammar schools.

Aww! Thanks, Gracesgran. It's a subject very close to my heart for personal, professional and philosophical reasons.

Theresa May has a job on her hands fighting off the right-wingers in her party and I suspect she has announced this to appease them. By using the argument that grammar schools benefit poor pupils and social mobility, she's done it in a way designed to counter more egalitarian critics.

Daphne D I agree with you about this emphasis on bright children. Very often they're all brains and no common sense so can't cope anyway.
OTOH many of those who went to Sec. Mods have loads of ambition and common sense and go far. My husband is an example - he's dyslexic and failed the 11+ but after leaving school at 15 worked hard and did well.
What does Theresa M. mean by Secondary Modern schools? Does she mean, get rid of all the large comprehensives, and go back to the old fashioned model of small Sec. Mods?

Even if you believed that dividing children into academic achievers and others at the age of eleven was a good idea (and I don't), how can you reconcile sending 85% to secondary moderns with the aim of sending 50% of eighteen year olds to university?

In the early sixties when the eleven plus was still common, less than 5% of school leavers went on to university.

Every child should have the opportunity to have the best possible education - and that means a well resourced, well run local comprehensive school where each child can progress according to their aptitude in each subject. The child who does well in English does not always do so well in maths, art or PE. A good community school is a strong cohesive factor in an area and so many studies have shown that the outcomes are much better.

This policy is just plain wrong and we must hope that enough of the Tory MPs who agree will combine with all the opposition parties to throw it out.

What an excellent summary of the situation dd.

@dj

Theresa May is wrong.

I can understand it, trisher. Resources for state education are finite. Individuals will try to grab as many of those resources for their own children as possible. Those who work in schools and those who allocate resources have a different perspective and will try, as far as possible, to allocate the resources according to a formula. Those who can afford it will override the system and pay for the resources they want - but only for their own children. The same thing happens with health.

What I don't understand is the obsession with 'bright children'. Education isn't like the Olympics and winning medals, although I have no doubt that competition motivates some pupils. Education should be about encouraging every child to fulfil his/her potential and that's not going to happen when there's an arbitrary cut off point.

Grammar schools weren't invented with the 1944 Education Act, but had existed for many years beforehand, in some cases centuries. The difference was that people no longer had to pay for them or win scholarships. Education beyond elementary level just wasn't available for those who wouldn't/couldn't afford to pay or didn't live in an area where grammar schools existed. The 1944 Education Act made grammar schools free and there was an obligation on local authorities to provide grammar schools in their areas.

It's no wonder that the first generation of free grammar school pupils benefited from them. Life changed after WW2. There was a rise in the number of white collar jobs and there weren't enough grammar school places for the rising number of baby boomer children. The first areas to introduce comprehensive education were the leafy shires, where there were more aspirational parents.

Today's grammar schools are different from the post-war ones, because all children do now have an opportunity for a higher level of education with exams. CSEs weren't introduced until 1965, so before then, secondary modern pupils didn't usually have any accreditation for their years in school and had to go to FE college to take exams (usually vocational). Now every child can take exams when at school.

Nobody's denying that some comprehensives are better than others and/or provide an education suitable for the majority of children they teach. This is a problem where a significant proportion of the most able have been 'creamed off' to go the grammar schools or semi-selective schools which still exist. Sink schools are created and, not surprisingly, few people are happy to send their children to such schools. The demise of local authorities has made the situation worse, because they can't intervene to support sink schools. Meanwhile, some pupils have no choice but to attend them. Grammar schools might provide a solution for the minority, but not for the majority.

Theresa May says grammar schools promote social mobility.
If that's the case, why do they only have 3% of pupils on free school meals, instead of the average of 18%?

It's the "my children are bright so will of course do well in a selective system" that I don't understand. Can these people not grasp that some very bright children miss out simply because of numbers, and some less bright children are coached in how to pass, so do better than others?

PS. Most academies are comprehensives with another name. What goes on inside them is usually the same.

The worst performing authority, by far, for GCSE results is Knowsley in south Merseyside. It's been in this position for years. The population of the authority is 98.4% White British, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, as white British males are usually the worst performing group. Maybe Knowsley needs an influx of immigrants to boost results!

Greyduster How can your point be valid when it's not true?

My children and grandchildren are absolutely brilliant because they went to comprehensive schools and came out knowing that everyone was important as everyone else, as well as having a good clutch of grade As or A*s to enable them to do what they wanted to do in life.