Reintroduction of Secondary modern schools for majority of children.

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

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

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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"

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.