Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

@dj

French 'collèges' are nothing like middle schools. They provide secondary education - more like the whole of KS3 and KS4 crammed into four years.

Two GC are at a comprehensive which sets pupils, though the younger one is in the 'fast track' group, now in Y8. When I was at school, we were streamed for three years and then in subject sets for Highers.

The only part of the french system that I've heard about (from parents) is the secondary system,especially the specialised colleges.
I gather though that teaching in the primary schools is very rigid, and aimed at encouraging the brighter pupils.
Not much provision for special needs children.
So in no way am I saying England should emulate the whole french system.

Daphnedill may I just say that I've found your posts very informative and interesting! Thank you!

dd thank you for the explanation about the French methods.

I agree that different routes at 14/15 could be a really good way forward; the University Technology Colleges which currently take children from 14-19 always seemed a good idea to me but I would still want all children to be able, if they are capable, to access good and relevant Further Education or Higher Education.

Could I pick everyone's brains a little more. We tend to take GCSE at around 16; do other countries do the same?

I have never been quite so hung up on study by age and, as I have said before, would rather the early exams followed a similar route to music exams. That way you be assessed for Level 1 knowledge in the subject in year 1 and so on with some children going ahead and others taking a couple of years at some points. Most children would get Level 9 by Year 9 with those who have gone ahead getting additional gifted and talented work while those struggling get additional help. As this would finish at 13 it would not be current GCSE level but would mean the pupils had a thorough grounding and then chose what to go on to - shall we call them University Technical College or stream or, University Grammar College or stream (although I am sure there must be a better names.)

Enough of my dreaming and thank you for filling in the gaps in my knowledge(so far, I shall no doubt have more questions).

I have been thinking a lot about UTCs recently. I think they're an excellent idea. Theŷ say they are non-selective, but as I understand it, they can only take about six pupils from each school as their places are limited (600 is a full house at the one in our city) so how do they choose which pupils they take if not by operating a selection system?

I think any kind of specialisation of schools during the years of compulsory education is to be deplored.

UTCs or comprehensive schools that specialise in one particular discipline, whether sport or languages or science, are going, by definition, to short change those children allocated to that school whose talents lie other than with the specialisation the school has chosen and similarly some children who would benefit will be unable to get a place because of where they live, or because the school is over subscribed.

All children should, in principal, be offered the same educational opportunities in every school while they are below school leaving age.

But currently they chose different subjects at GCSE and A Level M0nica, and some choose BTEC, etc., and to progress to these courses you have to have achieved certain qualifications at certain levels. To me the point would be that the courses chosen should be equally funded and resourced. Would you insist everyone did the same A levels?

Gracesgran in Australia pupils attend until year 12 and leave school at 17 (compulsory until 16).
Quite a high percentage of schools are Catholic schools (charging fairly low fees) and some are independent. I think there are 80% public (state) schools.
After completion of senior secondary school (Years 11 and 12) students sit for exams and receive an official certificate of qualification. The name of this certificate varies within Australia's state-based education systems but regardless of what the certificate is called, it is recognised by all Australian universities, higher education and vocational education and training institutions, as well as many institutions internationally.

More information if you are interested:
www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/global/australian-education/schools

Thanks Jalima. I hear about Australia first hand as my son and his family live just outside Sidney and have a five and eight year old , both are on their version of gifted and talented. As I understand it the population are generally very happy with their pre-school and primary education but there is a lot of concern about the state secondary. I think they are worth keeping an eye on to see if they decide to make any changes in the near future.

Most qualifications seem to have started out as school leaving qualifications - in our case this morphed into 'O' levels and then GCSE's vie CSE's - or University entrance which, in our case gave us 'A' levels. I suppose a lot of it depends on historical school leaving ages. Leaving school is far from the end of education these days but we don't seem to have got our heads round that.

I have put this on the Theresa May thread as it is about more than Grammar Schools

Theresa May’s incompetence is creating an opposition within her own party

But it’s over grammar schools that she has truly squandered her reputation for caution, competence or moderation. This bombshell dropped out of the blue sky without rhyme or reason, ignoring evidence, plunging schools into yet another bout of turmoil. Her oxymoronic “inclusive grammar schools” may focus-group well – until most parents realise their children will be rudely rejected. The 11-plus brands you for life: after admitting in print that I failed, I still get abuse, telling me that proves I’m too stupid for this job.

The UK has no problem with high standards for its top half of children, who do well on international scales. What drags us down is abject failure with the low achievers. We have cut further education courses, there are few good apprenticeships. Read former Tory minister David Willetts: grammars are no ladder to social mobility. This week’s report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows those “who don’t get into grammar schools do worse than they would in a comprehensive system”.

She goes on to talk about MTs use of the word “meritocracy”, about how you really get social mobility and the irrational thinking "in the extreme is her multiplying of faith schools"

My children did not have setting at school. I am aware of what this is and it did not happen. They repeated primary school work for 2 years and were still reading childrens books at 14. We had setting in my day. I also knew several girls who moved up schools Those who were borderline at the 11+ could take a 13+. In addition, brighter secondary modern children could move to a technical or grammar school for O levels, admittedly a year late.
We really need something to improve schools for everyone though I don't know of any modern ways of doing it, only the old way I grew up with. At present it seems comprehensives in some parts of the country are good and in others they are awful. Although most schools around here are now Academies and run privately and these are reputed to be better.

You do seem to be making an argument entirely round the experience of two(?) children in, was it the 1980's? Your suggestions are to change the current system against a backdrop of what happened to a minority of children 30+ years ago.

To me this is neither reflective nor critical thinking so let's just hope the children of today are taught both skills earlier than they were some fifty years ago.

Re specialisation this was at one point simply another way of obtaining more funding for a school. Our local comp was a "language school" basically it had a very good language laboratory but the teaching of languages wasn't particularly good-it's now an Academy. Its all about the money, money!!

No, I am not suggesting that there should not be variation and options within a school,nor do I think children should study for the same exams, there are many ways for a child to reach there best qualifications, but I do not think that specialisation should be built into a school. What happens to a child with a flair for languages who has to go to a school which specialises in science? A school that specialises does so at the cost of other subjects, if it doesn't it is not a specialist school. These schools may possibly work in large conurbations where there can be a wide range of them, though I have my doubts, but outside the big cities, you end up, as I have seen in my area a deeply rural school proudly boasting that it specialises in languages, which is fine for those with a gift for languages, but if a child's gifts are for maths or science they are going to be short changed. The nearest alternative school is 10 miles or more away and no transport will be supplied because the child and their parents chose not to go to te local school, or may have no alternative but to use the local school.

It is like going to a grammar school or being able to afford a house in the right catchment area, it is giving some children an advantage at the expense of others.

How can it be that it's ok for those with sufficient means, which need to be extensive over many years multiplied by number of children in the family, can make the choice to pay for private education so why is it not ok to have the same choice if a child is academically bright? But with poorer parents. Or good at sport, languages, science. Technology? When comprehensives started they was seen as providing all children with good quality education, but with some exceptions, this has not generally been the case, there have been many and continuing concerns.

I live in a fairly deprived area which has grammar schools, house prices in the area are low thus not pricing anyone out. They give very bright children chances they would not necessarily have had to improve their opportunities. My children were lucky enough to go to these schools, without tutoring, and have benefitted from an excellent standard of education which because as public servants on very average pay we could never have dreamt of sending them to private schools. Think how many top jobs are taken by old Etonians and the like? How about a look in for other able children who with the best will in the world may not do as well in a comprehensive system.

I am not against comprehensives but if only the system had provided what it promised, we would notnow be having these debates.

Gracesgran I think a difference between Australian and British education is in the provision of tertiary education; many students do go on to University but many also go on to TAFE courses (Technical and Further Education) and these are valued far more than in the UK. They are aimed at students who have an idea of what they want to do career-wise, very good and very supportive as far as I am aware.
TAFE can also be taken up as part-time, flexible courses at any time of life.
We seem to have devalued this type of education in the UK and I think we are paying the price.

This bombshell dropped out of the blue sky without rhyme or reason, ignoring evidence, plunging schools into yet another bout of turmoil

Well, I think it is all designed to divert people's minds from Brexit.
Cynical, moi?

The current methods for selection, whether grammar schools, academies or specialist comprehensives still fail the poor but bright. It is not always evident that a child from a difficult home is as bright as they are - and difficult home circumstances can inhibit their performance even if identified.

I wonder if the problem with some comprehensive schools is that they are much too large?

Grammar schools do tend to be smaller; yes, I know they have creamed off those with academic potential, but I do think that very large schools can become impersonal and a child not reaching their potential for whatever reason could just be lost and thought to be of low ability.

Monica I don't disagree at all. I agree that we should be able to offer a cross of technical, vocational and academic. I wrote a long answer but it disappeared but basically it was to say that I just don't know how you do it. In our town two of the Comprehensives have a joint sixth form and this could be expanded but it would not work in rural areas.

The dreadful May is saying Corbyn believes in equality of outcome while she believes in equality of opportunity; I would say she is wrong on both counts.

The dreadful May is also seeming to suggest the old idea that a purely academic education is superior. In this day and age that is simply not true.

Jalima I am aware that Australia seems to hold "commercial" degrees (they would be business in our system) in much higher esteem than this country generally does, sadly.

In our High School children are not kept as one class throughout the year. they are taught in groups according to ability . A child who struggles with maths is not taught with children who do not struggle . My grandchildren started the day in their form for register then move into their ability classes throughout the day

jalima i agree that systems in other countries do seem less divisive. in germany parents choose with their children and sometimes the school (but no tests) whether or not they want to go to the gymnasium (grammar) school or if they are better suited to practical or vocational schools, all of which are considered equal and the gymnasium is not seen as 'best'. Yes, grammar schools are much smaller, thus more personal.
I went to a secondary mod. was top stream yet left at l5 with no exams taken. many years later i had the opportunity of completing a degree, but by then too late to make much difference to my career prospects.

That happened with my DC too Anniebach, years ago. They had the opportunity to move up through the sets before starting the GCSE course too (of course it meant some moving down, which may have been upsetting).
The DGC have a few years yet before secondary school and I am not sure if the same system will apply.