Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

I disagree with the generalisation that bright people have no 'common sense' and less bright people it and go far. I've known all sorts of people who wouldn't fit into any category, as I'm sure most of us have.

There are so many facets to human character which can't possibly be measured, especially by a couple of tests at the age of 11. A good education should seek to develop any positive characteristics, whether academic or not. Schools aren't just about training children to slot into some predestined slot in the hierarchy. Unfortunately, the obsession with academic league tables doesn't encourage nurturing the whole child.

The ethos of grammar schools can't apply to all pupils. Their whole 'raison d'être' is that they aren't inclusive and exist only for the most academically able. Comprehensive schools have a totally different philosophy.

Penstemmon's take is the logical corollary. Grammar schools can't exist without secondary moderns, whatever you like to call them.

Daphne - I did say 'very often', not all. Our second son is a good example, very bright intellectually but socially and emotionally he finds it hard to cope.
I understand about the reference to Sec Mods now. The one my husband went to was very well run - they had courses like car mechanics, metalwork, carpentry etc with a with well equipped workshops and properly qualified teachers.

I think the govt. would do well to look at this system:
www.french-property.com/guides/france/public-services/school-education/upper-secondary/vocational-lycee/

Theresa May says her system will not look back to the fifties and sixties. Her grammar schools are looking to the future.
So how is it that everyone on here who supports them is looking to the past?
Apparently one of May's ideas is to allow a grammar school providing the provider opens up a non-selective school nearby, and allow pupils to move from one to the other at different times.
Anyone else see the problem here? Do you also see the solution?

@TriciaF

My experience of French education isn't positive . However, I do think think the system of different routes at 15 is worth consideration.

All pupils go to comprehensives until 15, then go their separate ways. That happens with GCSE choices in the UK, but there could be a case for specialist schools where the numbers are too small in some areas to run some courses.

By the age of 15, most children have a general idea of their strengths, which is different from the snapshot 11+.

I think Theresa May has taken a course in double-speak or gobbledygook (not sure which).

I think Theresa May is using the grammar school debacle as a dead cat strategy. I'd like to know what she is wanting to deflect our attention from.

a dead cat strategy

What on earth...?

Common sense would be a very difficult personality trait (or whatever) to manage. However if you call it making good judgements when making every day decisions then I would say that education probably helps. As might having a strong intellectual ability to understand the complexities of today's world and see the wood from the trees.
I know some very clever people who make daft decisions and some very clever people who make good ones.
Teresa May could well want to deflect us from the mediocre nature of Academy results (the scores won't be public until some time in the winter... but they signs so far are not good, inasmuch they don't seem to be doing any better than LA schools). Or then there is the total mess that her party has made of the referendum and its aftermath.

Following up your comment dd on the link Tricia put on about French education. All is obviously not well there and I think the whole world is looking at education as employment makes such great changes. This was what caught my eye.

In 2015 the French government is proposing controversial educational reforms to the collége system (middle school for ages 11–15), to make it less elitist and give all pupils, whatever their background, the same educational opportunities. These involve the teaching of modern languages and history, encouraging teachers to work together to teach topics across different themes in interdisciplinary classes (the traditional French way is one teacher-one subject), reinforcing secular values and allowing schools to set part of the curriculum themselves. Teaching unions and right-wing political parties oppose the changes, and have enacted strikes against these reforms.

Interesting that they are talking about less elitism. It is surely the only way to get many more better educated citizens.

I do appreciate it is now 2016 so it would eb interesting to know what did happen

or 'be'

Ana ... a political term ... you throw a dead cat on the table and it distracts everyone from the difficult/controversial stuff. You may bury it later.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/09/12/the-sorry-state-of-uk-politics-is-laid-bare-for-all-to-see/

Someone on here mentions throwing raw meat into the lion's cage.
Doesn't mean the same. That's not to distract people, but to pacify her own backbenchers.
However, like me, they are wondering what she is distracting us from.

Gracesgran, I wonder why the unions are against those ideas.
I would be for them. It sounds similar to middle school teaching in this country, although the age range is bigger.

Gracesgran - the big difference is that France is a Socialist, secular country. Even the Communist party is quite strong, especially in rural areas.
The Unions still have a stranglehold, so it's win on the swings , lose on the roundabouts.
Having said that, the far right are beginning to get more support.

I have yet to see on here anyone advocating changing bad comprehensives by introducing streaming. I maybe right wing, old fashioned etc. but I still feel strongly that no child does well in a school where all classes are mixed with children from the brightest to least able. When we had grammars, the 11+ put kids into a grammar, technical school or different streams of secondary modern. The grammars. technical schools and higher streams of secondary moderns taught an academic curriculum biased towards exams and the lower groups had a more vocational education. There was opportunity to move up classes or schools. I believe this old system from the 60s worked whilst the mixed class comprehensive from the 80s and 90s did not work.
Can you ladies please enlighten me as to how mixed ability classes work and allow children to do their best as I see a lot of people here who like comprehensives and don't want a return of grammars.

I taught in comprehensive schools for nearly 30 years and my younger child has just finished at one. In all that time, I never came across a school which didn't have some form of setting. Setting is similar to streaming, except that pupils are set for individual subjects, so they could (for example) be in a top set for maths, but a lower set for English. The only subjects taught in mixed ability classes were PE and some small option groups, such as music. At my children's school, even PE was set.

I know of no comprehensives with totally mixed ability classes.

As I have written before, both my children did as well as I did at a comprehensive school, even though I went to a highly selective grammar school.

When I was at school, I didn't know of one child who moved schools, because he/she was a late developer.

Pupils in comprehensive schools are not in mixed ability classes GrandmaMoira. They are in sets for academic subjects. For example, my Year 9 granddaughter is in top set for almost all subjects and the second set for one subject.. She is in a mixed ability group for some non-academic subjects. I have not come across any secondary schools that do not have setting.
Streaming was far less effective because it did not allow pupils to work to their strengths in the same way.

Cross-posted DD.

Grandmamoira, my four children have (mainly*) been educated by the state in the Scottish non-selective system.

Two are now professors at prestigious universities in London & the US. One, still in her 20's, heads up a large team in a local government authority. The youngest is a medical student.

I'd like to know how grammar schools could have enhanced their achievements.

*two of my dc had some private education when we lived in developing countries for my dh's work, but the majority of their school career has been in Scotland.

Minibags is at a comprehensive school. It has setting for Maths and English. She thinks there is a large proportion of pupils who are scornful about academic ambition and she finds that hard to deal with (though she's getting better at dealing with it, I think).

@Gracesgran

The French system has primary schools, followed by four year 'comprehensive' secondary schools, then pupils go their separate ways to different lycées.

I don't think the school organisation is going to be changed, but the teaching methodology and curriculum organisation. The curriculum is directed from the centre. Teachers have no say about how they organise and teach their lessons. Teaching is also very teacher-directed with no differentiation for different pupils. It's like university lectures, even for the youngest.

I've been into a number of French schools and, in my opinion, the teaching is appalling, but I do think the organisation of the schools, with different routes after 15, has something to commend it.

I don't see that socialism (or even communism) has anything to do with it. I expect the unions object, because French teachers are going to have to change their methodology to something more child-centred. I don't understand the reference to secularism.

@thatbags

Unfortunately, she'll experience that throughout life.