Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

Tiffin? or KGS?

Tiffin. He always looked down on KGS.

I knew several lads from Tiffin and girls from Tiffin Girls which I failed to get into .....

My comprehensively-educated son was in a team which beat Tiffin Girls in the finals of an economics compertition run by the Bank of England last year. He he he!

From reading Mumsnet, it appears pupils don't get in without being tutored these days.

My Dad went before the 1944 Education Act, so it was selective, but not so competitive as it is now. He failed to win a scholarship, so his parents paid.

When he died, I found boxes and boxes of the Old Boys Magazine and some records of the subscription he'd been paying for years. It appears that they raise thousands (maybe millions) of pounds from parents and old boys.

This is the problem- why should one school look down on another? If they look down on another grammar school goodness knows what they think of the sec mod (despite the fact that the sec mod will have some pupils cleverer than the grammar)
If you have comprehensives, with an even spread of ability then you don't have one school 'looking down' on another.

No grammar schools, then, in this session.

www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2016/nov/01/another-education-u-turn-this-is-dangerous-driving-from-theresa-may

Department of Education in meltdown I assume after being told to draft legislation to introduce grammar schools that were going to be specially fair to poor children and, in the same bill, legislation to make all schools become academies.
Embarrassing for May who has by now probably twigged that this was not one of her best ideas. (I bet ministers really love it when the PM springs things like this on them.)
Did anyone else notice the story this week about David Cameron's team making up policy announcements "on the hoof"?
"We need to do another announcement chaps, quick someone, come up with a good one... Anyone...?" "Um, Prime Minister, if I may, how about a promise not to raise taxes before 2020?" "Even better PM, how about you pass a Law that stops you doing it?" PM chortles "That will play well in the shires. And it'll piss off Gideon as well. Why not? Let's go for it!"
The stuff of scathing political satire you might think. But no.

I think that comprehensive schools would be a great idea, if only they would offer real training to young people who are not so academically gifted. I am thinking, courses for potential hairdressers, beauticians, electricians, builders etc. These choices should be made available to youngsters from the age of 16 who do not want to pursue academic subjects beyond that age. Real comprehensive education should be about offering the right choices to all, instead of trying to get everyone into a university. Perhaps then the universities would not have their current problem of accepting students who are not of a high enough standard to complete their courses. Just saying!

A more vocational approach was in advanced stage of planning in 2010. This was dumped by Michael Gove in favour of going back to a more academic and formal secondary education for all.
There is a down side to a vocational approach which is that some kids from poor backgrounds will, at 14 -16 opt to do something like beauty therapy because they have low aspirations, due to a deprived childhood, rather than get a wider education and keep other options open. Nothing wrong with being a beauty therapist but making a career choice at such and early age is concerning.

I was part of the pilot scheme for that vocational approach. It was a good idea and would have allowed all students to gain relevant qualifications. Also there was a life long, qualification points system for all students which would have given incentives.
The basic start was a qualification in Maths and English.

A pity it was just dumped, a waste of time for those of us who had spent time ( much of it our own) preparing for it. No extra money was given to schools to run the courses, we had to be inventive and bid for funds from charitable trusts, businesses etc.

I agree with you, JessM. There's a very fine line here. My own feeling is that traditional academic routes should be kept open for as long as possible, so that pupils don't inadvertently close doors.

Some schools still do offer vocational courses from the age of 14 and most genuinely comprehensive comprehensives offer vocational courses in the sixth form or have arrangements as part of a consortium.

If I had a magic wand (which I don't), I would scrap GCSEs and introduce 14 (or 15)-18 pathways.

This has all gone a bit quiet with all the Brexit and Trump stuff in the headlines, but it seems that May hasn't changed her mind.

I must admit I'm a bit baffled. A grammar school education has traditionally been liberal (in the old-fashioned sense of the word) and has encouraged pupils towards university to become experts and then on to good jobs (the elite).

It would appear that both libralism and elitism. As liberalism, expertise and elitism are now apparently out of favour, what's the point of a grammar school education?

good question daphnedill.
I live in hope that this idea will not get through, it will be voted down like the plan to privatise children's services.

And now nearly 50% go to university, what IS the point of grammar schools?

To keep one's offspring away from the oiks for seven years and then to get them into the 'better' universities. See Mumsnet for the 'angst' caused by university league tables and how to get Tarquin or Jemima into Exeter, Durham or Warwick if they're not good enough for Oxford or Cambridge.

I've just discovered there's another system in modern schools which is worse than the old ways. I took 11+ with a chance of passing to Grammar school (which I did), my kids took London Reading Test which determined your ability level so all comprehensives took an equal number of pupils at each level - this meant brighter kids had little chance of a decent school - the opposite of the grammar school system. Now each academy school sets its own tests so children have to take a test at each of their four choices, not just one test at their own primary school, with the same result as before - brighter kids have less chance of getting into better schools - but more stress in taking all these tests.

I think you are making that up, grandmaMoira, about comprehensives taking an equal number at each level. Most comprehensives have always taken those that live closest. In fact all the ones I taught at and my sons and grandchildren went to did exactly that. So if they take all those who live locally, how can they work out equal numbers of each level?

Brighter kids have as good a chance of a good education at a comprehensive as anywhere else, grammar schools or academies.

Not sure what you are describing GrandmaMoira. Or where or when.
Certainly the case that academies, if they become selective grammar academies, will have to set their own tests because who else is going to do it. Local authorities are certainly not going to be running a borough-wide 11+ for schools that are outside their control.

Teaching in inner London in the late 70s early 80s, I administered the London reading Test. I can't remember it being used for the purpose described.
If I remember correctly, it was a booklet of short passages, with visual cues and then close passages to be completed for answers.

The point being, The ratification and norms reflected the language usage of inner city children.

Many reading and IQ tests previously used ( and some are still used to day ) had norms that were based on the outdated language use of decades before.

GrandmaMoira,

Academies don't set entrance exams, although a few are allowed to reserve a number of places for children who are gifted in (for example) music. They use it as a backdoor selection policy, which actually means that children of pushy parents are more likely to get into 'good' schools.

A few schools use assessments such as you describe to try and achieve a balanced intake, but this practice has almost died out since schools have become responsible for their own admissions policies. It was an attempt to avoid people moving into catchment areas just to get their children into the so-called 'best' schools. It didn't mean that brighter children had less chance of getting into a good school. It meant that all schools had the chance to be good schools.

Where did you hear this, GrandmaMoira? If your grandchildren live in or around London, they're taking tests, because so many of the schools are voluntary-aided and semi-selective. Children don't have to take the test, but the sharp-elbowed middle classes choose to make their children do them, often paying tutors a fortune to spoonfeed them and causing themselves a deal of worry. The population density also means that it's relatively easy to go to a school in a neighbouring authority, where a handful of grammar schools still exist. People also play the faith game.

@JS2

That's what I understood, so I'm glad you confirmed it. I did my PGCE in London when the ILEA still existed and that's how the London Reading Test was explained to me.

I remember there was some discussion about having balanced intakes in London, but I don't think it ever came into being. I know some cities in America tried it to avoid neighbourhood sink schools.

I do know of one school which uses assessments to achieve a balanced intake. It's a former selective fee paying school, which became a state-funded comprehensive. In order to ensure a comprehensive intake, it does use assessments, but it doesn't stop bright children going, because most of them wouldn't have gone anyway unless their parents could pay the fees.

In any case, there's no point in any of it, because if children work hard, become educated and get a good job as an 'expert', nobody will take any notice of them anyway and tabloid readers will sneer at them. The playground bullies have won.

Of course, another use of such assessment is to help indicate any pupil who shows signs of dyslexia, which should have been identified earlier. Those pupils then can get appropriate support.

Pupils who do very well, in the assessment, can also be supported in their achievement.

Not all tests ( assessments) are used for negative purposes!

I agree with you, J52. It's quite interesting looking at the profiles of Year 7 pupils. I've always worked in schools where CATs tests were administered plus a reading test (I think it was called DE). It's not uncommon to see uneven profiles and in the schools where I worked, pupils with very uneven profiles were given further test.

For example, a child with a very high reading score but average non-verbal score is often from a supportive family, which has encouraged reading, although the child is not inately that bright. Sometimes such a child will initially do well, but then tail off when higher level cognitive skills are needed. Conversely, a child with high CATs scores, but low reading, might have been underachieving for a variety of reason.

Children whose CATs scores didn't 'match' their SATs results were often retested. It could have been that they came from primary schools which spoonfed for the SATs tests for their own league tables. We knew which schools did that, which is why we preferred CATs to SATs.

Until the 1970s and 1980s it wasn't uncommon for specific learning difficulties not to be recognised.

I'll be happy when all school leavers and/or university graduates can spell, punctuate and use grammar correctly.

What's the point of 50% going to university? Really?