Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

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.

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 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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Tiffin. He always looked down on KGS.

Tiffin? or KGS?

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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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

@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.

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

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.

Ab, then no problem with grammar schools

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.

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

We have no grammer schools in Wales Obieone