Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

I think school leaving age is 17 in Australia (although I'm not sure if they can leave at 16 if they are going on to TAFE). 17 seems quite young to be going on to University although I know some people here in the UK who went at 16 and 17.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies seems pretty clear that grammar schools increase inequality amongst children. Whatever gains come from grammar schools are wiped out by loses from the remaining non-selective schools. www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8469

I think it's fairly pointless to compare post-war grammar schools to today, when sharp-elbowed parents will tutor their offspring to gain access to grammar schools or parents who currently pay fees for primary education access grammar schools to save money.

Only 3% of grammar school pupils are elegible for Free School Meals. That is not widening access for poorer children, it's excluding them.

Works well here Jalima, yes being moved down a set can cause upset but the child knows they can move up again , big difference to being written off age eleven .

My grandson had no problem with maths , had a first in economics, younger granddaughter finds maths difficult and is comfortable in her set but hopes to move up.

I'm not sure why having grammar schools will help poorer children achieve more. I think this is just an excuse to bring them back. I live in a small rural town with an excellent comprehensive giving a good education across the board. Wealthy and poor sit side by side. Norfolk kids next to Romanian. What would be the gain in separating the top form into a different school many miles away? And will it be just the top form since 50% of school leavers now go on to university, or will 50% be carted off to the next town ten miles away (also a very good school), while the bottom 50% get bussed in to the dim-wits school.

I failed the 11+ - just. And went to the local sec mod with the other 85% of failers. I could have retaken and maybe passed a year later but by then I was settled and would have had to board weekly at the grammar. I would have had no friends in my village and, as an only child my parents opted go with my wishes and to leave me where I happily was. The drawback was that, although I was top or second from top in the year for all subjects (except needlework) no girls did maths or science. We did Business Arithmetic and Human Physiology and Hygiene to make us good little book keepers or nurses. I wanted to be an architect. But of course I didn't know this until it was much too late. I did try to learn maths towards getting a GCE after I'd left school but without the basics I floundered and fell by the wayside. Yes, I have had a super life, and was a bloody good receptionist. (But I still doodle house designs!)

Until we know more about what Mrs May has in mind for the academic failures I don't think we can judge her plans.

Did anyone hear PM's Questions today? Evidently Corbyn questioned Theresa about grammar schools and she revealed she wasn't very clued up about what they entailed. Also her party is split, whereas the LP is united on this (at last!)
I missed this bit, but heard the discussion on the Andrew Neal follow-up.

Until such time as.we.effectively teach those "failing " our system will there be a benefit to society. We need to find ways to make school more productive and interesting for children who give up and despise it.

When I trained in the late 1960 we.talked about the importance of nursery education and we are still talking as if it is something new!!! Some of the best teachers need to work with Earrly Years.

It will.cost money, broadened minds and resources but not above the wit of man. Kids need to be treated as valued individuals and taught as such.

Our local.secondary school tips out the students just after 2.00. We.need to find a way of keeping the kids occupied and interested. Sport, ICT, cooking and other clubs after school. These should not be run by the teaching staff who work too hard as it is. It is cheaper to pay others to work in after school. Sports students, trained football people, some volunteers for ICT etc. May even bring back some retired teacher ( duck).

We have to be creative during and after school. "The devil makes work for idle hands."

Grammars can not work without a revamp of the system across the board.

Well, I suppose you could say that Corbyn is a grammar school failure who made good.
Not knocking him for that btw; many people did not succeed at school but did well afterwards.

All of these politicians are of an age where they will come with their own prejudices, however hard they try not to let it cloud their judgement.

I should know this, but are grammar schools being proposed for England only?

Adams.Grammars school looks independent to me, G C went there.

Mrs May said that JC was "harking back to the 50s" in PMQs, but I don't believe even her own side have any idea why that isn't exactly what her plans do. She did, after all, say today that the Grammar Schools were what got her and Corbyn where they are today. These where the Grammars of the 1950s and succeeding years so she seems to be defeating her own argument.

Why, oh why does she believe that we do not need success in all areas: vocational, technical and academic and a all the ways in which these so successfully cross in the world of business.

Jalima education is devolved to Scotland so Mrs May's policy won't apply here. However, the Scottish govt is now talking about meddling with our system again.

One problem is that many or most people form their opinion from their own experience. Personally i went to a public school and then a grammar school - both were rubbish academically. The O level and A level results at my grammar school were appalling considering it was selective. The comprehensives i have taught in were in my opinion much better s chools and certainly the results were far better overall allowing for the fact that they incuded all abilities. Also my children went to comprehensives, and got top marks and went to top universities. So I strongly disapprove of grammar. schools.

I was wondering what is happening in Wales SueDonim where the DGC live.

In the 1950s/60s Adams Grammar School was a voluntary-aided school; however, it started out as a Haberdasher's centuries ago.
It is now a selective state school (boarding and day).

sorry, should have said thanks Sue
I think it is devolved in Wales too.

I think I am right in saying that Wales does not have any grammar schools or academies. Or "free schools". One of the unexpected benefits of devolution.

I can't think that it will get anywhere.
People seem to forget that the system was highly unpopular which is why we went comprehensive.
I know far more families that had children in both grammar and sec mod than one or the other- including twins who were split.
If something isn't good enough for people's children then it isn't good enough for anyone else's children either. We want an excellent education for ALL children and not a second class one for 'so called' failures' when they are only 10 yrs old!! That is not an education fit for 21st century.
Why are only the academic supposed to be socially mobile? Are the rest just supposed to know their place and stay there?!

When someone manages to call for the return of secondary modern schools then I might think there was some point but it is always, always, always, the return of the grammar school when 75% won't get one.
Why would parents want to swap a comprehensive for a secondary modern school? I certainly wouldn't and can't think of one good reason.

Why is it that so many are home-educating their children these days then?

There does seem to be a dissatisfaction about state education generally among a lot of parents - not saying more Grammar Schools would solve the problem, but the comprehensive system obviously isn't working for all.

On Question Time tonight it was stated that Theresa May isn't proposing that there just be an exam at 11 which would determine who could go to grammar school. No, there would be the chance to take an exam at 11, 12, 13 and, I think it was stated, 14. This sounds ridiculous to me. How would a grammar school know the number of places that would need to be allocated or how it could accommodate gaps in students' subject knowledge if there is a possibility of there being an influx of young people at different points in time and of various ages? Wouldn't young people who entered a grammar school at the age of, 13 or 14, find themselves on the back foot by joining a school that presumably would be at a different stage in many subjects? Having moved schools several times myself, it was difficult enough to adjust to schools of the same type, never mind moving from a secondary modern to a grammar.

Whatever system is put in place to supposedly try and ensure that young people (the majority) consigned to a secondary modern do not see themselves as "failures", I think there is still every chance that a fair number of them will consider themselves in that way.

I agree with the young woman in the QT udience who said that at a time when it is reported that more and more children are experiencing anxiety, depression, self harming, etc., to place even more competitive pressure on them will only exacerbate the problem.

It's impossible to generalise about the people who choose to home educate their children. I know a few and I don't think they would be happy with the return of grammar schools either. I'm not going to write an essay about the different reasons they have, because they're so diverse, but I do believe that the vast majority of people are generally happy with their children's schools.

I would be the first to admit that there are problems in schools, but they won't be solved by segregated children at 11.

I agree with you, Eloethan. I think young people today have more competitive pressure than before. It's very easy for older people to dismiss their concerns, because 'they don't know how tough life used to be'. Having worked with teenagers for over 30 years, I honestly think they experience an increasing amount of pressure, which is ironic, because I also think that parents themselves are under increasing pressure to get things right.

Assuming of course that the children can actually get into a school close to where they live. My granddaughter will be going into secondary education next year but I have it on good authority that if she doesn't get into a local feeder school (on appeal) then she hasn't a hope in hell of getting into the local comprehensive either.

The whole system needs a good shake up.

What the system needs gillybob is more school places. While vast sums of money have been thrown had Academies and Free Schools over the past few years (often in areas where they are not needed), Local Authorities have not been allowed to build and open schools where they are needed.
The biggest issue surrounding this ridiculous debate about bringing back grammar schools, is that there is no focus on the two major issues facing education; the shortage of school places and the shortage of teachers.

I don't see how children will be able to move at 12,13,14 as there will be a finite number of places. It will be a competition to get there in the first place and then a competition for the few available slots which come free as children move out of the area or don't make the grade. I feel the pressure on those at the lower end of the grammar schools will be enormous. Frequent testing will be necessary to make sure they're up to standard, or they'll be moved out to make room for the late developers.

It won't work!