Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

Comprehensives provide a 'grammar school' education to their top sets. My son did 11 academic GCSEs with not one 'practical' or 'creative' subject. The difference is that, if he'd have wanted to do something more practical, he could have done - just as many of his peers did.

I work as a private tutor. In foreign languages, it can be useful, as classes of over 30 don't allow enough opportunities for speaking the language. There are also a variety of reasons why pupils can fall behind and find it difficult to catch up.

My heart sinks when I'm approached by parents of a child in an independent school or grammars school, because I know there is much less than I can do. Independent school pupils are already taught in small groups and genuine grammar school pupils shouldn't need spoon feeding.

I've marked GCSE papers from some of the most selective schools in the country and they don't produce anything that the best pupils in comprehensives don't.

Comprehensives provide a 'grammar school' education to their top sets

Not sure that I necessarily agree with that. But if they do, what is the problem with having grammar schools as well?

Why have grammer schools when children can receive the same opportunities in comprehensives ?

Have you had recent experience of a comprehensive school? Why don't you agree with it? My children certainly had an education as good as, if not better than I had.

The problem is that children don't fall into neat 'categories' at the age of 11. After they've been allocated a school, it's very difficult to move them, whereas it's relatively easy to change sets in a comprehensive school.

Children develop at different rates, so an 'average' child at 11 might catch up and be one of the brightest by age 13. Again, it will be very difficult to move the child.

Secondary moderns offer a dumbed down curriculum. Pupils don't have the opportunity to experience the richness offered to grammar school pupils.

A school without the most able 20% lacks aspiration.

Although pupils are usually taught in ability sets in a comprehensive school, they all have the opportunity to meet pupils of different abilities.

The majority of pupils/people are of broadly average ability (including some in grammar schools) with different strengths and weaknesses. A comprehensive school can cater for such uneven profiles. Grammar schools and secondary moderns can't.

I could go on...

The facts show that the outcomes of pupils in grammar school areas are worse than those in comprehensive areas.

It's impossible to have grammar schools as well as comprehensives. If a grammar school has the most able pupils, the other schools aren't comprehensive.

Exactly, ab!

Ab, because some people want them.

dd - but, and this could be seen as either a positive or a negative, depending on your pov, universtities will feed from grammar schools easier than comprehensives.

There are other reasons too.
A Grammar school may be nearer home, it could spur on some mid range people in grammar school, and those lower down. I am just playing devil's advocate really.
But if comps provide a grammar scholl education to their top sets, then that lessens the argument against them.

It's highly likely that a grammar school will be further away from a pupil's home, because there are fewer of them. In any case, convenience should be very low down in a pupil's suitablity for a grammar school place.

I don't understand how grammar schools can 'spur on' 'mid range' and 'lower down' people. Grammar schools are intended for the most naturally able pupils, not those who have been tutored for a place. That's the whole point of them!

Universities do not feed from grammar schools more easily than from comprehensives. A higher percentage of pupils from grammar schools go to universities than from comprehensives, as they should, because they have the most able pupils.

When were you last inside a comprehensive school?

I expect nearly all parents want their children to be able to fulfil their potential. Why should the parents of able children have an advantage?

No obieone, it strengthens the argument against them. My grandson went to a comprehensive , went on to university and achieved a first in economics , his sister is now at university studying history and English, his younger sister takes her A levels next summer and hopes to have the grades to go to the same university . They developed academically at different ages , grandson was in grade one maths from his entry to the comprehensive, youngest struggled with maths and started in grade three maths, she is now in grade one maths , they take all academic subjects in sets, art , music , games etc they take with their form , this means they have remained in contact with friends from nusery days , no child is told when eleven 'you have failed ' . They all move on from junior school together , no child is cast off as a failure , they developed in their own time at different ages ,

We have no grammer schools in Wales Obieone

All my kids went to a comp dd. Last one left 4 years ago.

I expect nearly all parents want their children to be able to fulfil their potential. Why should the parents of able children have an advantage

Bu they wont according to you if the top set in a comp is a grammar school education.

Ab, then no problem with grammar schools

What on earth are you going on about? This just doesn't make any sense.

I don't think there's much point carrying on this conversation.

Obieone, why not put the money for new grammer schools into the schools already in use

@obieone

I'll try and explain what I mean by 'reaching potential'.

Years ago, I had a mixed ability tutor group in a comprehensive school, who were taught in sets for most subjects.

I recently bumped into two of the pupils who were in that tutor group. One was a very able linguist and was in top sets for both French and German, which I taught. He went on to university, qualified as a teacher, travelled round the world and is now the Headteacher of an international school in China.

The other boy wasn't very academic, didn't do that well in exams, but was football crazy and played in the school and local teams. The school encouraged him to develop his talents. He left school and worked first as a builder then as a gardener, a job he loves. He's also the coach/manager of the local youth football team, which often wins cups and other prizes. His photo is often in the local paper. He has three lovely children.

I would say both those former pupils have fulfilled their potential, but in different ways. Both men are still good friends. They had been to primary school together and could very well have drifted apart if they had gone to different secondary schools.

I agree with all of that. Not sure what your point is though.

My points are:

a) to explain to you what 'reaching potential' means;

b) to demonstrate that comprehensives can develop each child's individual potential;

c) to give anecdotal evidence that two children not separated by ability at the age of 11 can continue to be friends in a way they probably wouldn't have done if they had gone to different schools.

I have never been able to get anyone to explain why my 3sons, of very different abilities, needed different schools. Why?
The comprehensive was great- and was able to treat them differently according to their needs.
There are only 163 grammar schools left. Comprehensives are successfully sending pupils to top universities.
My son went to a RG university from a comprehensive and he wasn't unusual!
I can't see why the academic need a separate building. Why?
The beauty of the comprehensive is that they are in sets and can move at any time- up or down.
They can go to a neighbourhood school and keep their friends. Why should my son in lower sets lose his friends in higher sets? I know there are people who think that those in lower sets shouldn't or don't have friends in higher sets!!
I think that people forget how families were split between pass and fail. It was very common to have a child in a grammar and a child in a sec mod- I know 2 sets of twins divided, despite being very similar in ability. Despite this grammar schools generally only do things socially with other grammar schools and never the sec mod with their siblings and neighbours.
We are in 21st century and can't afford to go back to a system where you throw 10/11yr olds onto a scrap heap and close off opportunities . It was bad enough 50yrs ago but now money 'buys' your place.

The 11myths of grammar schools
I do wish that the government would look at the evidence rather than rely on personal experience and nostalgia.
We all know someone from a deprived background who did well in a grammar school- it us never discussed how many could have done equally well but chances were denied them because they failed some tests on one particular day when they were 11yrs- or only 10 in many cases.
It was never based on ability but always on places. Your mark that got you a place may have been a failure in the next town or in the following year. Boys generally had a lower pass mark or there would have been too many girls- that being the reason they needed single sex schools, generally. The talented mathematician would have failed if poor at English- you needed to be 'all-rounders'.
I think pro grammar school people may well change their ideas when their own, very bright, child is given a sec mod place! Secondary moderns are always for 'other people's children. If something isn't good enough for your own child then it certainly isn't good enough for anyone else's child!

I am trying, and failing, to imagine why 75% of parents with children at a comprehensive would want to swap it for a sec mod. I'm not really sure why 25% would think it a good idea.

My old grammar school,which my niece now attends, is asking for parental 'contributions' of £30 to £50 a month for the school life of the child.
www.theguardian.com/education/2016/oct/02/latymer-school-grammar-parents-financial-shortfall-theresa-may-education-policy
This is just to cover the shortfall and claims it doesn't have the finances to expand in the way that Theresa May suggests.

I have posted on a previous thread about teaching years ago in a secondary modern in a town which still has selection. We were starved of funds as the capitation for the grammar schools was much higher than ours. Our school had a lot more vocational style courses which often required more expensive equipment and materials and really needed equal, if not more generous, funding.

My father went to a grammar school in Kingston upon Thames. It's one of the ones frequently mentioned on Mumsnet as a highly desirable school. Until his death at the age of 83, my father paid a subscription to the school fund. I expect other old boys paid more. I really wonder how much extra the school received from such donations - to make it such a highly desirable school. I bet the secondary mods in Kingston don't receive that kind of funding.