Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

trisher I agree with you that many immigrant populations are committed to their children getting a good education and perhaps I could have phrased it better, but the problems I have outlined exist in the city I live in and present what must be an unwelcome difficulty for the schools they attend. As I said, there are partnership initiatives being put in place to help both the schools and the pupils.

Greyduster - your description of inner city schools is exactly what my children had. I reiterate, grammar schools would lift the brightest kids who want to work out of that environment.

And what about less bright children who want to work? Shouldn't they also get a chance in life?

Why not make school a positive environment for all pupils?

Exactly, Suedonim.
Unfortunately the only way they will get a chance is if those who are vociferous about a better school for their children have to try and improve their own local schools.
Not every chlid has parents who can fight for their chances of a better education. That's why we need to try and improve all schools for all children, not just provide grammar schools for the few.
Hence Penstemmon's OP which appears to have been forgotten about in praise for grammar schools.

Greyduster It seems that, along with every other ill in society, immigrants are to be blamed for falling educational standards. You stated that:

"At the other end of the scale, you have inner city areas with large immigrant populations, some of whom, even in their early teens, have never been to school. They have very little or no English and are not educationally socialised. These schools struggle to recruit decent teachers and when they can recruit them, they struggle to keep them in the face of constant disruptive behaviour which makes teaching a nightmare and no-one is working to promote any kind of ethos."

In fact these figures and following commentary in the Spectator in February 2016 show something quite different:

GCSE performance by ethnicity

Proportion of pupils achieving five GCSEs at grade A*-C, including English and maths (in England in 2013/14)
UK national average
74.4%
Chinese
72.9%
Indian
65.9%
Irish
62.2%
Any other Asian
61.3%
Bangladeshi
56.8%
White and Black African
56.8%
Any other ethnic minority
56.6%
UK national average

"The over-performance of ethnic minorities is striking feature of education in the UK ..... One recent study found that Black Africans underperform whites at primary school, but by the end of secondary school their attainment is about a third better. And yes, the Poles and East Africans may be wealthier than the average immigrant. But even Bangladeshis, one of the poorest ethnic groups in England, see their children’s attainment rise to a par with the average White British – not the poor White British – by the age of 16.

The figures I copied should start:

74.4%
Chinese

and end:

56.6%
UK National Average

(the actual graph would not copy)

I have already said I could have put my point over better and I am perfectly well aware of how much some immigrant communities value education, as I have said previously. I am not going to waste time trying to justify myself. However, I regard the point I made as being perfectly valid. I will let others rail against it as they will.

When it comes to social mobility my best friend at school had a widowed mother and, although she had to leave after A Levels, she went on to do very well, taking further qualifications while she worked. My other friend lived in a council flat, had working class parents, but went on to college with me and got a good job in publishing. They were both helped by going to a Grammar school but I think they would have done just as well at a modern Comprehensive - and probably had more choices of subject.

I used to live opposite this school in Hull in the 90s.

www.hymerscollege.co.uk/our-history

About 25% of the pupils now come from ethnic minorities which shows how much their parents value their education.
A shame it's a fee-paying school. Those parents could do so much to help other schools in the area.
When I was growing up round the corner from it in the 50s and 60s, there were no ethnic minority pupils going to it.

I just cannot get over the "my children are better than your children so should have better educational opportunities" attitude.

We move yet further to the right

My children and grandchildren are absolutely brilliant because they went to comprehensive schools and came out knowing that everyone was important as everyone else, as well as having a good clutch of grade As or A*s to enable them to do what they wanted to do in life.

Greyduster How can your point be valid when it's not true?

The worst performing authority, by far, for GCSE results is Knowsley in south Merseyside. It's been in this position for years. The population of the authority is 98.4% White British, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, as white British males are usually the worst performing group. Maybe Knowsley needs an influx of immigrants to boost results!

PS. Most academies are comprehensives with another name. What goes on inside them is usually the same.

It's the "my children are bright so will of course do well in a selective system" that I don't understand. Can these people not grasp that some very bright children miss out simply because of numbers, and some less bright children are coached in how to pass, so do better than others?

Theresa May says grammar schools promote social mobility.
If that's the case, why do they only have 3% of pupils on free school meals, instead of the average of 18%?

I can understand it, trisher. Resources for state education are finite. Individuals will try to grab as many of those resources for their own children as possible. Those who work in schools and those who allocate resources have a different perspective and will try, as far as possible, to allocate the resources according to a formula. Those who can afford it will override the system and pay for the resources they want - but only for their own children. The same thing happens with health.

What I don't understand is the obsession with 'bright children'. Education isn't like the Olympics and winning medals, although I have no doubt that competition motivates some pupils. Education should be about encouraging every child to fulfil his/her potential and that's not going to happen when there's an arbitrary cut off point.

Grammar schools weren't invented with the 1944 Education Act, but had existed for many years beforehand, in some cases centuries. The difference was that people no longer had to pay for them or win scholarships. Education beyond elementary level just wasn't available for those who wouldn't/couldn't afford to pay or didn't live in an area where grammar schools existed. The 1944 Education Act made grammar schools free and there was an obligation on local authorities to provide grammar schools in their areas.

It's no wonder that the first generation of free grammar school pupils benefited from them. Life changed after WW2. There was a rise in the number of white collar jobs and there weren't enough grammar school places for the rising number of baby boomer children. The first areas to introduce comprehensive education were the leafy shires, where there were more aspirational parents.

Today's grammar schools are different from the post-war ones, because all children do now have an opportunity for a higher level of education with exams. CSEs weren't introduced until 1965, so before then, secondary modern pupils didn't usually have any accreditation for their years in school and had to go to FE college to take exams (usually vocational). Now every child can take exams when at school.

Nobody's denying that some comprehensives are better than others and/or provide an education suitable for the majority of children they teach. This is a problem where a significant proportion of the most able have been 'creamed off' to go the grammar schools or semi-selective schools which still exist. Sink schools are created and, not surprisingly, few people are happy to send their children to such schools. The demise of local authorities has made the situation worse, because they can't intervene to support sink schools. Meanwhile, some pupils have no choice but to attend them. Grammar schools might provide a solution for the minority, but not for the majority.

@dj

Theresa May is wrong.

What an excellent summary of the situation dd.

Even if you believed that dividing children into academic achievers and others at the age of eleven was a good idea (and I don't), how can you reconcile sending 85% to secondary moderns with the aim of sending 50% of eighteen year olds to university?

In the early sixties when the eleven plus was still common, less than 5% of school leavers went on to university.

Every child should have the opportunity to have the best possible education - and that means a well resourced, well run local comprehensive school where each child can progress according to their aptitude in each subject. The child who does well in English does not always do so well in maths, art or PE. A good community school is a strong cohesive factor in an area and so many studies have shown that the outcomes are much better.

This policy is just plain wrong and we must hope that enough of the Tory MPs who agree will combine with all the opposition parties to throw it out.

Daphne D I agree with you about this emphasis on bright children. Very often they're all brains and no common sense so can't cope anyway.
OTOH many of those who went to Sec. Mods have loads of ambition and common sense and go far. My husband is an example - he's dyslexic and failed the 11+ but after leaving school at 15 worked hard and did well.
What does Theresa M. mean by Secondary Modern schools? Does she mean, get rid of all the large comprehensives, and go back to the old fashioned model of small Sec. Mods?

Aww! Thanks, Gracesgran. It's a subject very close to my heart for personal, professional and philosophical reasons.

Theresa May has a job on her hands fighting off the right-wingers in her party and I suspect she has announced this to appease them. By using the argument that grammar schools benefit poor pupils and social mobility, she's done it in a way designed to counter more egalitarian critics.

@TriciaF

Theresa May is conspicuously silent about those who won't have places in these new grammar schools.

I suspect that announcing this divisive policy now is mostly an attempt to divert attention from the fact that TM and her government have not got the first clue how to deal with Brexit.

Tricia, I don't think Theresa May said anything about secondary mods. That was just Penstemmon's take on grammar schools being brought back.

If the ethos of grammar schools needs to be brought back, surely it should apply to all pupils. After all, it was May who said she was for all citizens, not just the rich middle classes.

What we need is more teachers in all schools, more money spent on all pupils, smaller class sizes, more intervention for special needs.
In other words, better resourced comprehensives.