Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

I went to secondary modern. Got 5 GCE's (that was it was in those days). Did what I wanted in life and have been quite satisfied. Older sister went to Grammer school and I was never allowed to forget that she had made it. She has been a pain ever since but apparently did what she wanted in life. Oddly enough and rather to my satisfaction (although I shouldn't say it) she only got 4 GCE's. I personally feel they gave you a good broad education and outlook on life.

Granny23, I must be somewhat older than you. My Scottish Academy took children from the age of 5 to the end of their school education, under the one head teacher (known in Scotland as the Rector). At 11 we took the qualifying exam (the Qually) and according to results were separated into 5 streams. The top three stayed in the Academy; the also-rans (only five from my class of 40) went to so-called 'junior secondaries' where they learnt useful things like typing and carpentry. The topmost stream took Latin in addition to all the usual subjects. After two years we were allowed to give up cookery and needlework - much to my relief! Children from other primaries joined us in first year of secondary; and more from other secondaries in the north of the County arrived in fourth year.There was a certain amount of movement between streams. No, it wasn't by any means comprehensive, but had a wider range of ability under one roof than most grammar schools.

"village colleges" used to be the terminology in Cambs. But they are probably all now academies. This means there is no overall co-ordination by the LEA on where the places are and where more are needed as academies can set their own admissions policies e.g. feeder schools not geography.
It also hacks me off when politicians spout about "choice" for parents. In many areas there is only one local choice. Not everyone lives in a big city.

A bit dated now, I know, being five years old, but have you read Melissa Benn's book School Wars.
In the last chapter she says "But if we are seriously to reduce the differential outcomes of the better-off and the poor, we have to move towards a genuinely non-selective system.....All the highest-performing systems delay setting and streaming until later in adolescence. Similarly, the more poorly performing national systems divide and differentiate their pupils at too young an age."

We haven't ever had a genuinely non-selective system in this country. Perhaps we ought to give it a try!

Goodness Jen I think you would be hissed out of the Conservative Senior Common Room. They really don't want local communities involved in education!

In Cambridgeshire I think most of the high schools are still called Community Comprehensives, Granny23.
The idea of the local community seems to be missed in talks of grammar schools. I always though it more important for my kids to go to the local school with all their friends.
Maybe that's what the opposition should be focusing on.

Granny23 thank you for that about Scotland. I moved here as an adult so didn't know about the system you speak of.

All four of my children have (mainly) been through the Scottish system. Two are now professors at prestigious universities, one heads up a large local government team and the 'baby' is a student medic. It's hard to see how grammar schools could have improved their education.

Where is the opposition when you need it, someone asked.
They were in parliament yesterday having a debate on the subject.

www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2016-09-08a.468.6

Bags There were 'Grammar' Schools in Scotland except they were called High Schools or Academies. The selection process was via the 'Control Exam' and there was not really a stigma in going to the 'Tech', in fact it was the few (5 from my class of 40) who went to the Academy who were mocked, declared 'posh', outsiders. The Academy was geared towards academic excellence with the expectation that pupils would attend for 5 or 6 years which meant that those of us (mostly girls) who left at 15 had no qualifications whatsoever and had to attend evening classes to take Os and Highers but mainly shorthand and typing (not taught at the Academy) in order to compete in the job market with our well trained sisters from the Tech.

By the time my DDs reached Secondary School age the comprehensive system was well bedded in and served both daughters well, giving them a broad education and self confidence. A bonus was that the Comp with its locality based intake was only 2 miles away, whereas the Academy, which served the whole county was sited on the periphery of the County Town requiring a bus journey and long walk for almost all pupils.

I am very glad that Ms May is not in charge of Education in Scotland. I am not sure she understands this as she keeps referring to the 'whole Country' and Britain. Unfortunately for those in England, when this legislation comes before Parliament it will be debated under EVEL rules, with NI, Welsh & Scottish MPs (mostly in favour of a Comprehensive system) excluded from the debate.

In our large village we have a primary and Secondary school, both outstanding. The village has a mixture of owned and rented housing and would appear to have a diverse population. The majority of children go to the local schools, which are expanding to meet a growing population. Everyone seems to be happy with the current arrangements.

So now what will happen in the future? Will the secondary school be encouraged to be a grammar school and spoil the harmonious environment of the village. I hope not.

Read somewhere that the main force behind the foundation of comprehensive schools was the fact that to offer a smaller number of children a large range of academic subject was too costly.
Having said that, I taught in a selective school abroad. My Eng Lit classes had 50 pupils and involved me in a horrendous amount of marking and hours spent in the school with only 2 free periods a week. However, with pupils all able to study at the same academic level, the amount of ground covered was huge and the exam results excellent

Good facilities do not necessarily a good school make. Where we lived before, our local comp was a failing school with poor discipline, poor buildings, no facilities and a pathetic excuse for a head teacher. They rebuilt it at enormous cost with state of the art sports, IT and gymnasium facilities. Guess what! It was still a failing school, in special measures, for years after until they sorted out the teaching staff (got rid of the dead wood) and installed a new head teacher. It's still not brilliant, but it is improving. No-one is fighting to get their kids into it though.

How is it being wrapped up as something to help poorer chlldren?

I am wondering if there is one upside to sec modersn compared to decades ago.

Half? the children go to unis? A majority of them will have to come from the sec moderns?

Which ,in decades past, didnt happen or rarely?

Jess your cynicism warms my heart. It's all very well praising grammar schools but those of us who grew up in that era know the pressure to pass the 11+, and the feeling of failure if you didn't.

The even more unforgivable thing is that this is being wrapped up as something to help poorer children. In reality there will be a lot more coaching going on in families that can afford it, thus minimising the chances of a place for kids on FSM.
Comprehensive schools are incomparably better than the secondary modern schools that were around when I was young. One such was housed in 1/3 of the building that also housed my junior school. They had half a school yard for exercise, they had no sports facilities, science facilities etc etc. Girls left at 14/15 with no qualifications. Adult illiteracy rates were high. Now the vast majority leave with several GCSEs.
The real problem with education is a shortage of good teachers.
I think the PM wants a nice headline grabbing policy to distract from two things:
Academies are not proving to be the magic bullet that will lead to improved attainment. More and more evidence is coming out on this.
Brexit is a mess. Headless chickens. Please someone! Come up with a policy! Ah Justine my dear! That will play well with the press, lets go for that!

I agree that the 11-plus was horrible and devisive. I failed and our next door neighbour's son passed and my mother never let me forget it. From that point on she never took any further interest in my education though fortunately my father was always a fount of encouragement. I would like to see all comprehensives be like my secondary school - good discipline, a happy atmosphere, a brilliant headmaster and inspirational teachers. Unfortunately they aren't and in some areas never will be no matter how good the teachers are. It's the nature of our society today. It is no coincidence that the top four comps in this city are former grammar schools and they are the ones that parents fight tooth and nail for their children to get into. House prices in their catchment areas - and those of their feeder primaries - are astronomical. Even this does not guarantee them a place. There is nothing wrong with parents wanting the best education for their children, whether it is in a private school, a grammar school or a comprehensive. I'm sure this aspiration is not confined to those on high incomes only, but good teachers are reluctant to take up places in struggling schools in poor areas, where they feel giving of their best is a waste of effort, but until we improve the ethos, the discipline and overcome - in some schools - enormous language barriers, we will never have a level playing field.

In an already divided and very unequal society, the proposal to widen the availability of grammar schools and in effect do away with comprehensive education is, in my view, a backward step.

In this day and age, when we are told there are fewer and fewer unskilled and semi-skilled jobs available, I believe we need to ensure that a first class, all-round education that will equip young people for the modern world is available to all.

Being defined at the age of 11 as being less able/intelligent/academic is, I think, a sure-fire way of alienating young people, turning them off education and limiting their future prospects. As children develop at different rates, often due to external circumstances rather than innate abilities, this means that some people who might have been a great asset to the country in various fields of endeavour might never achieve their potential.

I failed my eleven plus. I went to the secondary modern school. It's a dreadful thing for an eleven year old to think she's a failure. All my friends went to the grammar school. I found out, years later, that my mother went to the junior school to see by how much I had failed. It transpires that had I got one more question correct I would have passed. The headmaster told my mother that I would have been offered a place at the grammar school had there been any more available. As it happens, I have been much more successful than many of my old friends, having trained in mental health nursing, which gave me a good life long career. I still remember the hurt I felt when I failed the eleven plus. I wouldn't like another child to go through it. Bringing back selection is a retrograde step in my opinion.

There isn't one grammer school in Wales

No grammar schools in the area where I live, but pockets of them in various counties, which has always seemed odd to me, why not a National agreement to either have/don't have them, which would be better.I think on the whole, we would be doing the best for children to have all Comps, and aim for really good standards ( which, to be fair, is what they are doing.) There will always be schools doing worse of course, inner cities etc where a lot of teachers wouldn't want to teach/live, but generally I think a lot of schools have been turned around by good Heads in the last few years.

gillybob the reason for the lack of proper provision of primary and secondary school places is the direct result of the policies of Michael Gove when he was education minister and he syphoned money from LEAs into Free schools. It isn't really your LEA's fault they are struggling to provide for the majority of children, Gove provided money for the minority.

The Labour Party is not divided over grammer schools , they will vote against.

A bit off topic I know, but think the whole school entry system needs a damned good shake up.

Have been told my DGD has zero chance of getting into the local comp (10 minutes walk away) if she does not get into one of the 3 feeder primaries. She can't get into the primaries as they are apparently full. It's like knocking your head against a brick wall talking to the idiots (and they seem to be) in the LEA. One gent said yesterday "oh don't worry she will get in with her sibling connection" SHE IS THE BLOODY ELDEST SO HOW CAN SHE HAVE A SIBLING CONNECTION ???

I think the poor old Lords may have to provide the opposition yet again Iam while the Labour Party continues to argue whether or not JC sat down in the corridor of a train when there were or were not empty seats. I will be looking out to see what the other parties come up with on this and I am sure I will not be the only one.

What I can't get my head round is that May could be offering something (if this is really the reason she is doing it) at 14 which would appeal to all parents including the so called "left behind" group, although I have problems with this definition. Really good academic schools which also offer experience at this stage and really good technical schools which still offer really good academic teaching which can be self selected would do far more good for all and should leave future advancement available to all. Why does she have the idea that division at 11/12 into excellent academic teaching and, presumably, poorer academic teaching will help?