Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 .

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!!!

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?