Is selective education being reintroduced by the back door?

I agree Iam64 . It is the most unfair system. I was borderline and my marks would have got me a place in the next town, or if I were a boy. My primary Head immediately got me a resit but there were 2 places and I was 4th.
It irritates me no end that the people who want them assume their child will get a place and don't care about the rest. If a secondary modern isn't good enough for their child how dare they think it is good enough for other people's children?
It is far too young at 10/11 years.

That simply isn't true Eirel - I am still upset by having failed some 63 years later - I feel that we were thrown on the scrap heap. One day you can be anything and the next people say 'can you still do that?' as if you have to change your ambitions when you are only 10 or 11 years old!! I didn't change my ambitions and I got there in the end,but it was hampered by not being sent to the grammar school in the first place.
Parents will never agree in Maidenhead because 3/4 of them will get a secondary modern.
I will believe in a selective system the day that people clamour for 'bring back the secondary moderns' but they are never mentioned!

That is dreadful Iam64; that person should not have been teaching.

My friends who went to the Secondary Modern School seemed to have done very well and achieved success in their careers later on.
We had teachers (mistresses!) at the High School who made us feel like failures, told us we had brains like sieves and if we did not want to teach we might as well be on the scrap heap!

It was an era when children were not allowed to get 'too big for their boots' or conceited.

I was unfortunate enough to move many times during my school years. I arrived at my 6th primary school just before the ll plus. I'd had no preparation and failed. I must have only just failed because the head teacher (we moved again) at the sec.mod I went to put me straight into the A stream and said I should have been at the grammar school. My parents hadn't made a big deal of the ll plus Eirel and didn't make a big deal of me failing, other than to tell me I could do anything I wanted.
The first week at that school, my class was in detention because of being noisy in the corridor. The student teacher who put us into detention spent some time explaining to us that we were failures, that we'd never achieve anything and the most we could hope for was to have unskilled jobs. He pointed to the grammar school across the road and told us, that's where the successful people will be.

Last week I caught up with an old friend, now ged 67. We drove past our old sec.mod and she began to talk about the sense of failure she had when all the other girls on the avenue she grew up on, went to the grammar school and she didn't. She said she always felt ashamed walking to school in her uniform.

I feel so strongly about this. It is wrong on every level to treat large numbers of children as 'failures' at 11. Who could justify returning to a system where a small number of children benefit from an excellent education whilst the majority are given sub standard opportunities.

I used to live in Middlesex.
That could get very confusing trying to find my way home.

As they go through school, they'll realise that the grammars schools get better results, have a better reputation, etc.
That's why a lot of parents love them.

Peter Prior doesn't sound as if not passing the 11+ has held him back at all.

Well pardon me for not realising that I do not live in Bucks. It is amazing that I manage to find my way home as I clearly do not know where I live.
The historical geographical county is what I and many understand by "Bucks," and I did not say Bucks County Council, but I defer to your superior knowledge.
I still think it is misleading to describe "Bucks" as "fully selective".

Sorry, Elrel, I don't think 11 year olds are that daft. When they see their friends being tutored to go to a school which is regarded as superior, of course they'll be devastated to think they're not good enough. As they go through school, they'll realise that the grammars schools get better results, have a better reputation, etc. Going to grammar school is not an option for the majority of pupils.

Bucks is fully selective. Milton Keynes is not part of Bucks County Council. Howeve, I don't see how that's relevant. The point is that Berkshire want to open a grammar school and have asked a Bucks school to open an annex, so that it can get round the prohibition on opening new grammar schools.

Children 'devastated' at not having been selected have most likely been hyped up by their parents. Since the man mentioned was privately educated and became a success in business one wonders what his (or his parents') aspirations at 11 were.
If parents didn't build children up to worry about the 11+ but presented it as an option they would not feel they had 'failed'.

I don't really see your objection if there is one.
Having taught in North Bucks /Milton Keynes since 1987, my point was merely that to imply all of the administrative county as fully selective Buckinghamshire is misleading. As you say, "the rest of Bucks is selective" so are we/how are we in disagreement?

Milton Keynes is a unitary authority, whose schools haven't been controlled by Bucks County Council for about 20 years. I don't understand why that's relevant. The rest of Buckinghamshire is selective.

The point is that the government has promised not to reintroduce selection, but is allowing existing grammar schools to expand, eg Kent by building 'annexes', which are effectively new grammar schools. All a tad hypocritical!

Bucks is only partly selective (Aylesbury Vale) the other (MK) end has had comprehensive education for the last 40+ years.

Your point is?