Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

The statistics being bandied about are interesting, apparently 65% of people want to see Grammar schools brought back, but then consider that only 20% of children will be selected for these schools. That leaves 80% who will be considered to have failed. It doesn't need a mathematical genius to realise that there will be a substantial number of people who will be very upset about this. Who knows Theresa May might be digging the Tories grave?

As I understand it the pass mark for girls was raised above that of boys during the first few years of the 11+ - the powers-that-be were knocked sideways by the fact that so many more girls than boys were passing. Presumably they would not get away with that now. It just demonstrates what a nonsense it is as a way of predicting future performance and educational needs.

What really gets my goat about the latest proposals is that they are being "spun" so dishonestly. If the Tories like grammars then they should just say so and stop pretending that it is a way of getting poorer bright children a better education. We all know that parents with money will get coaching for their children, where an equally bright child from a poor background will not have this advantage.

Also we will be in a situation where primary schools are not only teaching to the SATs rather than educating their pupils, but also training them in 11+ exam techniques and tying their learning down to whatever they are likely to encounter in the exam.

Interesting comments about the different pass marks between girls and boys. I must admit I'd never thought about it. When I took the 11+, there was an equal number of places for boys and girls at single sex schools, but I don't know what the pass mark was. I know that in Year 7, I was very careful how I set boys and girls and tried to avoid creating boy-heavy bottom sets. In languages, girls generally did better at that stage, but the boys caught up later.

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, Jess. I sometimes despair when I read Mumsnet threads about the numerous scholarship exams parents make their offspring do...and it will just get worse. I can think of at least three schools which will probably become totally selective, if this goes ahead. All are voluntary aided former grammar schools, which have semi-selective admissions policies now. They got round the ban on selection by becoming 'faith' schools. One gives preference to Christians and Jews, although it's situated in an area with a large Muslim minority.

Yes badenkate the inequity between boys and girls was common - happened in many boroughs where there were boys and girls grammars, with more places in the boys.
Daphnedill girls may be more socially mature but they are not better able to perform on 11+ type tests as a result.
My DH went to a boys grammar in Walsall, just at the time the comprehensives were being established. So a very small "cream off". He had to travel on his own on 2 buses and was bullied and lonely in the grammar school. Very young in his year did not help. He excelled academically (hard to keep those IQ points down) but left with a sense of inferiority - the poor boy who could not fit in with other males. His sisters went to the not very brilliant comps, did much less well academically but they are all bright, confident and motivated and have had excellent careers.
Comprehensives were much less good then. A least 2 of the 3 sisters would have gone to good universities if they had been in today's comprehensive system.
Seems to me that Gove and Morgan have made a complete mess of the English secondary education system with their piecemeal introduction of various flavours of academies (some part of big chains, some self-run, some small federations). Plus Free schools that were Gove's answer to improving standards. (I remember distinctly the phone conversation with the local Tory conversation - free schools are going to raise standards. This was the only policy in the manifesto in 2010.) With a little help from Blair who introduced academies (mark 1 - the kind with a rich sponsor who chipped in lots of money to build a new school) in the first place.
There were also moves under Blair to give schools "more freedom" - including more freedom over admissions.
In the last 6 years LEAs have been more or less dismantled and nobody is co-ordinating all the secondaries in English boroughs. They all set their own admissions policies and there is no ultimate democratic control or even influence over them.
PM May now talks of giving all schools the right to apply to be selective. Cue even more chaos. We will probably see areas (particularly dense urban areas) where there are several selective schools within travelling distance. Each of them will be running their own entrance exams and competing for the brightest children. Many more children will be coached and may end up at 10, being pushed to do multiple 11+ exams. Madness.

Not arguing at all daphnedill. Another 'problem' from back when I and DH went to grammar school, both in rural areas, is that the pass rate in both areas where we lived was around 20% of those taking the 11+ whereas in many urban areas it was well below 10%.

The trouble is, Badenkate, that girls tend to mature more early than boys, so comparing girls and boys at 11 is nonsense anyway.

I feel that there is possibly a case for different pathways at 14. By then, most children have a fair idea of their strengths. However, this already happens when pupils choose their options for GCSE and a big comprehensive should be able to offer a range of core, vocational and traditional academic subjects.

In Essex, there are four highly selective grammar schools. The competition for them is fierce. Next door is the unitary authority of Southend, which also has grammar schools, but it is a much smaller authority and so the demand is lower. Essex parents enter their offspring for the 11+ for both Essex and Southend.

The result is that schools in the South East of Essex have their most able pupils 'creamed off', while Southend parents, whose offspring fail the 11+, send them to Essex comprehensives. The remaining Southend secondary moderns really struggle and the Essex comprehensives in that area have a disproportionate number of 'average' pupils. It's crazy! I understand the same sort of issue arises in Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes. The only true comprehensives are where grammar schools don't skew the intake.

It was, of course, well known that the pass mark for girls was higher than that for boys, otherwise there would have been more girls than boys in the grammar school - and that would never do!

I worked in primary schools in a major city years ago and they did the 11+. I understood that the pass grades were directly linked to the number of places available in the grammar schools in the area. Once the local grammar schools were full, all other children were deemed to have failed. Imagine any LEA (as they were called then)telling parents,'Your child has passed, but we don't have a grammar school place for them.'? No, they were told they had failed.

So a failing child may have passed in a neighbouring LEA with more/bigger grammar schools. Many children were labelled a failure at that young age and some never really got their confidence back. They went through life feeling a failure and it was wrong then and it will be wrong again.

I feel very stongly that we place too much emphasis in this country on the ability to pass exams and those who can't being made to feel like failed human beings.

It isn't necessarily the bright children who are selected MargaretX it is the children whose parents have paid for tutors and who have been carefully coached in how to pass the test. Poor bright children with less parental support won't do as well. Why wouldn't the boy you knew have been equally as successful in a comprehensive?

What are you going to do with the bright children? Put them altogether in grammar schools and teach at a faster pace or leave them in a comprehensive and put them into sets - once again where the pace is faster. Some children are bored at school and don't make progress because everything is too slow for them.
I was never for comprehensives but the grammar system must make allowances for children who mature at 13 or14 , some boys much later.I remember a boy in the church youth club who passed but was a poor student - really hopeless and a worry for his parents. I learned many years later that he suddenly woke up at about 15 and is now a famous nuclear scientist.His luck was that he was at a grammar school

Gillybob are any of the schools academies? The LA has no influence at all on academies, as I suspect you know.
I suggest it is time to become a community activist and mobile opinion in the vicinities of these schools and put pressure on them to change their admissions criteria.
There is also an appeals process in admissions procedures (well there always used to be) and it is possible that the LA might be able advise on best approach.
Your problem highlights that things worked better when LAs had more control of how the schools on their patch were run.

I decided to drop Latin after 3 years and an exam result of 50.5%. I requested that I should be allowed to take Technical Drawing instead as I had, at that time a notion of being an architect. Request was refused because 1) I would be 3 years behind the rest of the class and 2) Technical drawing was only offered to boys.

When DD2 was forced to spend a 6th year at secondary because although she had sat and gained 5 highers in 5th year she was still only 15 and a half, the comprehensive school pulled out all the stops to allow her a 1 year crash course in Art to complete her portfolio and a bonus Higher in Food and Nutrition. A large Comp can be much more flexible than a smaller Grammer School.

I have been advocating that for years, Izabella. There seems to be a blind spot regarding vocational education in this country.

I went to Sec. Mod and left with nothing. I have since obtained 3 excellent degrees, all self funded and had a long and varied career. My sister went to an Intermediate school got several GCE's and has done little with her life, but her choice.

I am not going to get involved in a grammar vs. Comp. debate, but I feel there should be a much wider curriculum where less academic students can achieve in a more practical way.

Do the criteria vary from area to area? I believe the main criterium for the school my grandchildren go to is proximity to the school. It seems rather silly for children living very near a school to have to travel some distance to go to another school. I suppose, though, it goes some way towards preventing people moving to an area simply to access a popular school, whilst others living further away have to take pot luck.

I don't know what a fair resolution to this issue would be, except that all schools should be good. Perhaps giving more resources and paying more for highly experienced teachers with a proven track record to work in more disadvantaged catchment areas might help, but I've a feeling something like that already happens.

As for grammar schools, I disagree with them and think this is a retrograde proposal which I hope will not get through.

The debate that durhamjen gave a link for (thanks) was very interesting. I agree with Angela Rayner's comments, especially:

"The Prime Minister has said this policy is justified because we already have social selection. Quite how making things worse by bringing back grammar schools as a solution remains a mystery. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us why she is not ensuring that all children get a decent education?

"This policy will not help social mobility but will entrench inequality and disadvantage. It will be the lucky few who can afford the tuition who will get ahead and the disadvantaged who will be left behind—a policy for the few at the expense of the many. I was told that the Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I do not even think they know that anymore."

And the feeder shcools have the same priorities in the same order?

T May is ridiculous. First we have the meaningless "Brexit means Brexit" and now we have the idea that this will "not be binary". Yes it will [softly screaming] If there a 'pass' there is a fail and if you fail it doesn't matter how good the school you go to it is not a pass. Pass/fail ... that's binary!!!

The schools are very popular with those from the next villages/town and further afield due to their league tables, their fancy uniform ( yes it's true) and the schools beautiful surroundings. There are 4 qualifications to get into the secondary school .in priority order of
1) highest priority given to children from 3 feeder schools ( which they can't get into)
2) second priority. sibling connections ( what if you're the eldest child?)
3) third priority. children in care
4) last priority. children living close to the school
Even the guy st the LEA said my eldest DGD has a very slim to no chance of getting in even though the next school is miles away .

Apologies for keep banging on about this but it's so frustrating and horrible for the children who have such a struggle to get up and from school everyday .

Gillybob that must be very frustrating for you and the school must have a strange admissions policy. Our local schools are definitely for local children.

I dont understand how they get in and the nearest pupils dont.

My son and DiL live in a lovely village J52 with a village primary school and a village secondary school . Both very high in the league tables and favoured by the "yummy mummy's and daddy's" in the posh villages nearby meaning that the children who live nearest the schools can't get in . It makes my blood boil.

Just because some schools are selective by house price is not a good justification for having some schools where entrance depends on the ability of the parents to pay for private coaching for the entrance exam.

Anno My Academy also had a primary school attached under the same Rector as did my DH's High School but both of these primaries were fee-paying. Probably worth the expense for parents who could afford the fees as almost all the pupils from these primaries progressed to the non-fee paying Academy or High School. We also had 5 streams A to E in the school but during my second year the other Academy in the County was downgraded to a Junior Secondary and the best pupils from there were redirected to our school forming a new class (of mixed abilities) called IIA2 while we were designated as IIA1. After a year, when we made our subject choices, these pupils were split across the spectrum according to ability. Only a couple of them made it into IIIA, the rest were placed across the streams or along with others in a new stream IIIF. Those of us placed in the A stream had Latin from 1st year while the other streams had Domestic Science or Technical but secretarial studies e.g. Accounts, typing, shorthand, were not taught at all.