Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

think not thin (sticky keyboard - my excuse anyway).

I tutored a boy, who had moved from Kent. He's bright, but didn't settle that well to school work at primary school. His parents employed tutors and he did pass the 11+ and went to a grammar school. However, he still didn't do that well at school.

After two years his family moved to a comprehensive area and he went to a school which hasn't always had a very good reputation. He was put into top sets for most subjects, except French, which is why I was employed. After two years of French at a grammar school, he was behind the level I would expect of a pupil of his ability.

He's now in the Sixth Form doing A levels. He's settled really well and is hoping to apply to Cambridge next year. Grammar schools obviously don't suit everybody, even the brightest.

vice chancellor rubbishes Theresa May's plan for universities to open local schools

... Ms May has said that universities in England will be asked to establish new schools or to sponsor “an existing underperforming” one if they want to charge higher fees. She included the proposal in a previous speech on social mobility and education, in which she set out her goal of opening new grammar schools.

In the interview Vice chancellor Louise Richard said:
... “There are many wonderful teachers and head teachers throughout the country and I think it’s frankly insulting to them to suggest that a university can come in and do what they are working very hard to do and in many cases doing it exceptionally well.”

But they don't send them to no go areas in the middle of rough council estates. Not many grammar schools there, Suedonim.

It's the parents of bright pupils in the middle of rough council estates who might be won over by the promise of grammar schools. I can understand why. For them, it's an escape route from a school which might do very well with deprived children, but not have the time/resources/skills to deal with the most able.

If Theresa May can think of spending lots of money on building grammar schools, why can she not just put that money into the schools that are already there and improve the lot of all pupils?

www.independent.co.uk/voices/grammar-schools-theresa-may-private-schools-selection-a7314631.html

Did you read this link as well, Gracesgran?
Grammar schools are a good idea as they will kill off private schools.
I think It's possibly tongue in cheek as it's written by Rosie Millard.

Do you think May will take notice of the experts?

www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/23/theresa-mays-grammar-school-claims-disproved-by-new-study

The reason for the expansion of the Grammar School is more Aspirational than Educational. Many voters want what they perceive to be the best for their children and they see that in the Selective or Private system. Many people do not like it, but it is a vote winner.

Very tongue in cheek Jen

My first view of who May actually is does not lead me to think she would listen to anyone who did not agree with her. This may be harsh so I am prepared to moderate my views if she becomes less dictatorial but we shall see.

I totally agree with your summary Beammeup.

Realistically, if an area has very low performing schools, it takes a huge push to improve them all. Knowsley, just outside Liverpool, is the worst performing area in the country. There are now no sixth forms in the area and pupils have to travel to a neighbouring authority.

One of my sisters went to a grammar school in the area before it became comprehensive. That school is still the best performing school in the authority. I would imagine parents go to great lengths to get their children into the school, but those who don't get in are then left with schools where fewer than 37% achieve five A*-Cs at GCSE.

In reality, there are some seriously deprived areas in the authority and curriculum planners have a problem. They can provide a core of maths, English, science and functional skills type courses, which some would say are appropriate to the pupils, but others would say patronise the most able. Each school probably has too few pupils to make more academic courses viable, which is what's already happened with their A level choices. Alternatively, the schools could run academic courses for all, which wouldn't be appropriate for the majority.

When my sister was at school, she studied mainly academic O levels and went on to do A levels, but she would no longer be able to do those subjects. It's a real dilemma for schools in areas such as Knowsley. Ideally, the schools would receive extra funding for their brightest pupils, but that's not going to happen, because most schools spend extra money on their least able pupils and the brightest find themselves in bigger classes with less teacher attention.

I agree with you absolutely, beammeupscottie. I also believe that the biggest problem in schools isn't segregation by ability but discipline (or rather, lack of). Very few people want their children to be in classes which are constantly disrupted. Michael Wilshaw isn't my favourite person, but by introducing super firm disciplne at Mossbourne, where he was head, the school has consistently produced excellent results with a number going to Oxbridge. I don't like the way he treated the staff, whom he ran into the ground, but it shows that it can be done.

When you consider that A* -C is the O level equivalent, the idea that 37% passing 5 subjects from a poor comprehensive is considered bad is very strange.
It shows how well teachers are doing, in my opinion.

Yes, it does, but I wouldn't be happy to send my children to a Knowsley school, because they can't offer a full range of academic subjects.

I can't find the 2016 results for Halewood Academy, but in 2014 they were 24% for 5 GCSEs A*-C including Maths and English. In schools with a low ability intake, teachers just do not have the time or resources to stimulate the more able.

In the school where I was governor we had an intake that were not in any way advantaged. We got the 5 a-cs including English and Maths from about 15% up to 40%. This took several years and needed a certain amount of staff turnover and good recruitment, along with demanding more from teachers. Then forced to become an Academy and plummeted nearly back to where we started.
It is pretty hard if your intake is nearly all from a poor council estate to get the kids through English and Maths. It is also hard to recruit good staff in unattractive areas. Sometimes it is hard to increase staff at all.

I don't think May is thinking of building grammar schools jen - just getting existing schools to apply for permission to have a selective entrance criterion and then give them a better budget.
Bet there are a bunch of civil servants in the D of E scratching their heads about how it will work.

www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2016-09-29/fraud-investigation-underway-after-11-plus-exam-leaked/

Anyone live in Plymouth?

There are already schools with a semi-selective admissions code, where a certain percentage is admitted because the pupils have a talent in music or languages (for example). They are currently not allowed to use an ability test such as the 11+, although of course, pupils whose parents have arranged music or languages lessons before the age of 11 tend to be middle class and 'pushy'.

Such schools call themselves 'comprehensive', but they are nothing of the sort. They achieve high results, so there's a snowball effect. Pushy parents practically knife each other in the back (metaphorically) to gain places in these schools.

The above type of schools are likely to be the first to be allowed to select by ability, if the proposal goes ahead.

Head of big academy chain came out as critical of the idea today.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/sir-michael-wilshaws-speech-at-the-london-councils-education-summit

Well worth a read to get one thinking.

Good speech, particularly about grammar schools.

Now we just need the London challenge to roll out all over the country.
Did London schools get extra finance?

Megabucks when compared to the rest of the country. I believe the programme was rolled out in Manchester, Birmingham & Liverpool but less funding I believe. Who says money doesn't make a difference ....

Same with transport. Khan asking for more money for London Transport, and in the North East we get peanuts.

School spending per capita in the North East is roughly in line with the rest of the country, apart from London.

The figures are here. I can't link directly, because it's a spreadsheet, but it's Table 8.

Do a search for Main tables: SR48/2015 - Gov.uk

Both Cambridgeshire and Essex, both of which I know well, receive less per capita than anywhere in the North East.