Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

Was not even so clear cut as that. I had some friends in local secondary (even the name is second class) moderns and they had a 6th form. I remember she did the sciences at A level and went on to teach.
I was impressed at the time as the girls also had career choices at o level. The could go down what my friend described as the commerce Road and were taught shorthand and typing ad well as all things business like bookkeeping and stuff. Or they could choose the nursing route where they did a pre-nursing course -the school fed the local hospital. A levels were also an option. Our Grammar was stuck in the past and not nearly so forward looking with the result that those leaving had not nearly so much to offer except the fact they had been to grammar school which wasn't much when you think if of other than at 11 we were a minority chosen to attend the local grammer.

Isn't it amazing Notsoold the way the passage of time can create an illusion of a golden age in which grammar schools provided people with an automatic passport to university?
It would be great if some more ex-grammar-schoolers could remember what percentage went on to sixth form.

My grammar school experience chimes with NotTooOld's and JessM. Unless you were amongst the elite top quarter, which I wasn't, you just bumbled along, with no one taking much notice of you.

I can't recall how many forms there were per year, four, maybe? There were two six forms so I suppose about half stayed on.

The idea that TM using the grammar school discussion as a sop that she doesn't expect will ever be passed into law is interesting. If it is the case then I'm rather inclined to give her some credit for more political deviousness than I thought she had (not that I'm a TM expert; she's an unknown quantity really). She has to get all her MPs on board somehow. The government doesn't have a big majority to play with.

I went to a grammar school which, unless one was Oxbridge material which I wasn't, was not very good. I don't remember any of us staying on for 6th form and most of us went into run-of-the-mill office jobs. However, I have always found it a benefit to put 'grammar school' on my CV and in later life I made up for my paltry haul of GCEs and gained various professional qualifications. I do think my grammar school education was what gave me the confidence to do this but I don't think I could argue convincingly to bring back grammar schools. I wish the government would invest properly in the education of all our grandchildren and in the training of our teachers so that they all have the same opportunity to succeed - and then leave the whole thing alone, stop fiddling with it, let teachers do their jobs without all this constant interference.

On a long road journey DH and I were discussing our respective grammar schools. He said he was horrified at being sent to a school where he had to wear a cap! It was a 3 form entry boys grammar and about 2/3, he thought, stayed on to 6th form.
This set me thinking - mine was a four form entry girls grammar - so around 120 admitted at 11. In the 6th we had 2 registration groups - arts and sciences, with sciences nowhere near 30. I'd estimate therefore than of the 120, 50 at most stayed on - the ones that were headed for University or teacher training college.
Not very impressive really.
Anyone else remember how many stayed on to 6th? (rushes off to find school photo...)

It probably shows what she thinks of some of her MPs if they are so easily persuaded.

Yes, Iam64, I've also read that Theresa May is using the grammar school subject as a way to bring into line recalcitrant MP's, whilst knowing she won't be able to get it into law. Risky tactics, though, I'd have thought!

I've been away and just caught up with about 4 days of posts on this thread. It's so good to see the majority of contributors feel strongly that the proposed expansion of the grammar school sector is divisive and also, that this kind of segregation isn't beneficial.

I agree with the view that Mrs May is after Ukip voters, as well as traditional tory voters who are struggling with increasing fees at private schools so see this as a way of getting in effect, private education paid for fully by the state. Including of course, those parents whose children are excluded at 11.

I wonder whether Mrs May has allowed this suggestion to run as a sop to her right wing and to encourage Ukippers back to the tories. She is a bright woman, surely she knows it's unlikely to get through a vote given all of Labour, the Lib Dems and many tories oppose it.

I suspect it's about grabbing back votes from UKIP.

I've always been somewhat bemused by the fact that Farage, who lives in Kent (a grammar school area) chose to have his own children privately educated. I wonder why the grammar schools weren't good enough, or maybe his children weren't bright enough.

There was some discussion about the increasing costs of a private education on TV recently. It is possible that this policy is aimed firmly at those who cannot afford true private ed but will invest in tutors and extra help to get their child into a grammar school. In other words it is nothing to do with education but is a vote spinner. The platitudes being trotted out about providing for bright children from poorer backgrounds are just there to make you feel that the Conservatives are a caring party.

I agree with you about the dividing lines DD and with WW's excellent post.

How vain to think that, when you take over as leader of a party and PM, the government has to be in your image. Grammar schools were not in the Conservative Manifesto so who, exactly, does she think she is? Perhaps she will be trying walking on water shortly.

I would also add that the dividing line between 'academic' and 'vocational' has become increasingly blurred. Engineers and IT professionals need to be able to do maths. Electricians need to understand physics, etc etc. Even the traditional 'liberal' subjects, such as history, are essential for an understanding of the society in which people live.

Hear, hear!

TMs speech when first becoming leader indicated that she recognised the life limiting chances that the poorer members of society have to contend with when aspiring to better themselves. I found myself nodding in agreement.

Fast forward over the summer holidays and one of the first indicators eminating from TMs new government is that she will look favourably on grammar schools.
Children with good academic ability must always be encouraged. However what we must not forget and it is in this area that I think we have been weak, is that there are other sorts of equally valuable strengths in individuals that contribute greatly to the society in which they live. Once again academic ability appears to be being valued above other abilities that favour a more vocational approach. This is a lesson we have never learned from countries like Germany where academic progress whilst valued is not rated more highly than those children who are gifted in other ways, making good engineers, carpenters, electricians.

In proposing that grammar schools be brought back, the weakness so far in this argument is that she has failed to recognise the enormous contribution that the non academic individual makes to the country. In accepting that the academic child should be better catered for, I feel that has to be balanced with the recognition that the non academic child deserves equal consideration. Schools that concentrate on more technical subjects that turn out future engineers, electricians, computer engineers etc

Silly statements like TM may look favourably on grammars, do not help her aspiring poor one jot. Looking at the strengths in the existing system and building on them whilst sweeping away the weaknesses will help every child, as TM indicated she wanted, to achieve.

Oops - forgot the second * and upset the system!

Sorry Gilliybob I was going by what *Eloethan head on Question Time that children would be tested at 11,12,13 and 14.

It's ridiculous!

Oh Jen, you are asking for a rational politician

Didn't she know what was in the manifesto?

Farage's former aide has just defected to the Conservatives and said the same thing.

Ms Phillips, who is now a member of the Conservative Party, said: "I'm extremely impressed by Mrs May's conviction when it comes to selective education.

"I am currently reassured by what she's saying about Brexit, and I'm also optimistic about Britain's future energy security because I know that she's willing to go ahead and say, 'Right, let's have exploratory drilling for shale gas.'

"I think those three key issues are in the UKIP 2015 manifesto. They're now actually being conducted in Parliament, which is excellent."

This suggests that selective education doesn't work anywhere in the world, so why should May expect it to work here?

theconversation.com/does-selective-schooling-work-anywhere-in-the-world-65252

Farage has just said something similar at the UKIP Party Conference. There seems to be talk of them placing themselves as a "libertarian" party - again to the right of the Conservatives - they seem to sum "libertarian" up as 'small government, low taxes'. That seems to me very like the Tea Party in the USA.

I read an article a few days ago that said that Farage must think his job is done now; first he gets us out of the EU, then he gets grammar schools back on the agenda.

Actually after reading this, I am wondering if it is a purely political move to capture the UKIP vote?
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/16/nigel-farage-aide-says-ukip-supporters-have-flocked-to-tories

'wrapped up to help poorer children' - I thought it was promoted as 'giving parents more choice' which doesn't make sense to me.