Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

No obieone, it strengthens the argument against them. My grandson went to a comprehensive , went on to university and achieved a first in economics , his sister is now at university studying history and English, his younger sister takes her A levels next summer and hopes to have the grades to go to the same university . They developed academically at different ages , grandson was in grade one maths from his entry to the comprehensive, youngest struggled with maths and started in grade three maths, she is now in grade one maths , they take all academic subjects in sets, art , music , games etc they take with their form , this means they have remained in contact with friends from nusery days , no child is told when eleven 'you have failed ' . They all move on from junior school together , no child is cast off as a failure , they developed in their own time at different ages ,

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?

It's highly likely that a grammar school will be further away from a pupil's home, because there are fewer of them. In any case, convenience should be very low down in a pupil's suitablity for a grammar school place.

I don't understand how grammar schools can 'spur on' 'mid range' and 'lower down' people. Grammar schools are intended for the most naturally able pupils, not those who have been tutored for a place. That's the whole point of them!

Universities do not feed from grammar schools more easily than from comprehensives. A higher percentage of pupils from grammar schools go to universities than from comprehensives, as they should, because they have the most able pupils.

When were you last inside a comprehensive school?

There are other reasons too.
A Grammar school may be nearer home, it could spur on some mid range people in grammar school, and those lower down. I am just playing devil's advocate really.
But if comps provide a grammar scholl education to their top sets, then that lessens the argument against them.

Ab, because some people want them.

dd - but, and this could be seen as either a positive or a negative, depending on your pov, universtities will feed from grammar schools easier than comprehensives.

Exactly, ab!

Have you had recent experience of a comprehensive school? Why don't you agree with it? My children certainly had an education as good as, if not better than I had.

The problem is that children don't fall into neat 'categories' at the age of 11. After they've been allocated a school, it's very difficult to move them, whereas it's relatively easy to change sets in a comprehensive school.

Children develop at different rates, so an 'average' child at 11 might catch up and be one of the brightest by age 13. Again, it will be very difficult to move the child.

Secondary moderns offer a dumbed down curriculum. Pupils don't have the opportunity to experience the richness offered to grammar school pupils.

A school without the most able 20% lacks aspiration.

Although pupils are usually taught in ability sets in a comprehensive school, they all have the opportunity to meet pupils of different abilities.

The majority of pupils/people are of broadly average ability (including some in grammar schools) with different strengths and weaknesses. A comprehensive school can cater for such uneven profiles. Grammar schools and secondary moderns can't.

I could go on...

The facts show that the outcomes of pupils in grammar school areas are worse than those in comprehensive areas.

It's impossible to have grammar schools as well as comprehensives. If a grammar school has the most able pupils, the other schools aren't comprehensive.

Why have grammer schools when children can receive the same opportunities in comprehensives ?

Comprehensives provide a 'grammar school' education to their top sets

Not sure that I necessarily agree with that. But if they do, what is the problem with having grammar schools as well?

Comprehensives provide a 'grammar school' education to their top sets. My son did 11 academic GCSEs with not one 'practical' or 'creative' subject. The difference is that, if he'd have wanted to do something more practical, he could have done - just as many of his peers did.

I work as a private tutor. In foreign languages, it can be useful, as classes of over 30 don't allow enough opportunities for speaking the language. There are also a variety of reasons why pupils can fall behind and find it difficult to catch up.

My heart sinks when I'm approached by parents of a child in an independent school or grammars school, because I know there is much less than I can do. Independent school pupils are already taught in small groups and genuine grammar school pupils shouldn't need spoon feeding.

I've marked GCSE papers from some of the most selective schools in the country and they don't produce anything that the best pupils in comprehensives don't.

I had a very interesting conversation yesterday with a friend who was a chemistry teacher. Taught only the really clever ones in the best grammar and private schools. I'd only seen things from my perspective, as one who'd failed the 11+. She saw the ones who'd just passed, who'd had extra tuition from loving parents in order to get to these 'best' schools. She was absolutely, vociferously FOR the comprehensive system because she'd seen the damage done to children being given the best academic education while what they really wanted and needed and would have been happy with was a the more practical route given in secondary and comprehensives. The ones who'd been pushed to get into the grammar bounced along the bottom and came out with worse qualifications than if they'd 'failed'. Often it paid to fail! It made me feel a lot better!

I call that unlucky. Much better to have excellent comprehensives.

We were lucky, as where we lived they kept their grammar schools,although I wouldn't call them grammar schools like they had in the 1960s, where one had to pass a much more difficult test than my lads did.

BMG is the same as yougov, all online polling, from people who have signed up to their panels.

You're right, dj. It was YouGov which came up with the 60%. However, it's not the only poll which shows support for grammar schools:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-labour-working-class-grammar-schools-crobyn-rayner-theresa-may-a7197971.html

One of the problems with YouGov is that they are only polling people who have the time and inclination to sign up to answer their surveys. Not necessarily a representative sample for any purpose.

Have you got the link to the YouGov poll? What other polls Daphnedill?
I joined YouGov for a few months just to see how it operated. Badly, was my verdict.
Endless invitations to fill in surveys about shopping and car buying.
Poor questionnaire design - suspect they don't pay a lot to the people who devise them.

Where do you get your poll information from, daphne?

If it's yougov, that's a self selecting poll.
The latest yougov said that 61% of parents who filled it in and attended a grammar school themselves would get their children to do an 11+ exam, but only 38% want more grammar schools built.

What kind of parent wants a sec mod for their children?

I just don't understand it. So two children of almost identical abily sit and work together for seven years in primary school. One is lucky on the day and passes, so is destined to become a barrister, a doctor, a CEO or whatever and the second is encouraged to become a clerk, a plumber or a shop assistant. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a clerk, a plumber or a shop assistant, but they're having doors firmly shut in their faces at the age of 11 as the result of narrow testing. The idea that children can be sorted into race horses and pit ponies at that age is just ridiculous.

So why do polls consistently report that about 60% support a segregated system? It's crazy!

In truth, do most parents of infants and junior age children think their child is in the top 10% of ability (say), and that they would be sure of a grammar place. Not sure that there is mass delusion on this scale.

I am appalled by the suggestion that we throw 11yr olds on the scrap heap! Theresa May was in the news tonight saying that parents wanted to have sec mod schools! (I think she means for 'other people's' children.

Whatever her rhetoric in her speech today, she doesn't want them all to benefit, just those who she thinks will be able to benefit from getting into a good school, those they will identify.

"years"

What a dog's breakfast it all is - more back-of-the-envelope policy making. It makes me despair - these are children's lives we are talking about.

I get so exasperated when ministers do not listen to the professionals who actually have to implement these off-the-cuff policies. What is the point of training teachers and then not listening to what they know and can tell us?

Educational standards will rise for ALL pupils if more money is allocated to education - in our area (rural) we get a ridiculous allocation per capita that takes no account of the extra costs of living out in the sticks and is far less than in cities.

We need good well-trained well-supported teachers working in well-maintained buildings with good resources; we need freedom and flexibility for teachers to exercise their professional judgement regarding their locality and school; we need a broad curriculum; we need paperwork to be reduced to a minimum.

I went to a grandparents' morning at my DGS's reception class. As we went around with him chatting and looking at what he had been doing, a TA was following us around with a clipboard so that she could note down what he had said and done and find categories of expectations to tick off. To those of you who have been nowhere near education for yours, you really would not believe what goes on. There are lists of categories of expectations for children from 'do they talk to their peers' to 'can they wipe their arses' - and you have to provide proof that these have been achieved. It is all quite crazy like some dystopian film. He had an achievement folder that had a list of criteria met and their reference number after each item - e.g. painted a picture (ref. shows manual dexterity; ref. knows colours; Ref * able to blend colours) - I expect you are getting the picture. For one of the activities there was three quarters of a page of criteria!

Reception class teachers know when their charges need a bit of help getting on with one another, or lack some basic social skills and they just gently help them along - all this proof and box-ticking is demeaning to both parties.

Oh - don't get me going on all this!