Cheer up, Bridget, your lucky day is nigh!

I just don't think we can go back and make valid comparisons with what schools were like when we experienced them in the past. And thats because of resourcing issues.

In the 60's Allira you are quite right many Sec Mods had decent class sizes and often very good technical courses that led onto apprenticeships, nursing and so on.

I know as my mum was a Sec Mod teacher all those years and I failed my 11+ and went to a Technical High School - incredibly well resourced as were the new comprehensives starting to be set up at that time.

In 1969 in Hull all the then grammar schools converted into comprehensives except for the private one and they were well resourced with subject streaming that meant academic children were still well catered for as well as technical studies.



Yes school sizes have increased. (current average, google tells us, is just over 1.000 pupils)

I'm not sure per se this is a bad thing - look at the largest school in the country, Beal High school which has an excellent academic record but also has
"Included on the Beal roll is the Beacon Communication School for students with a range of social communication difficulties including Autism and Asperger’s syndrome. This is heavily oversubscribed and has developed a post 16 provision. Many of the students are integrated into the wider school community for academic and social experiences throughout the week."

But Ds and DiL chose th local school with the less academic but cosier smaller atmosphere for DGS1.

Can’t find any reference on this thread to the appeal being lodged by private schools against the imposition of VAT. So best wait for the judgement before spending the money is my opinion.

"The Principal VAT Directive 2006/112/EC (PVD) makes it mandatory for EU Member States to implement certain VAT exemptions into domestic law, such as “the provision of children’s or young people’s education, school or university education, vocational training or retraining, including the supply of services and of goods closely related thereto"

So do I understand correctly, that if we were still in the EU, the rules would prevent the removal of the tax break for private schools.

So Brexit, which I didn’t vote for, has benefited Labour.

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

J52 our Grammar Schools have limited places available at 13.

The four Essex grammar schools do not take pupils at 13, except in exceptional circumstances.

Westcliff High School for girls definitely takes in at 13, I know of several who have entered at this age.

No exceptional circumstances, one girl lived 29.7 miles from the school, she was unhappy at her comprehensive so her parents tried their luck and she was accepted.

growstuff

Allira

growstuff

Allira

growstuff

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

And what about the not so able children (the majority) who missed out on grammar and direct grant schools?

It depends on the schools.

The secondary modern schools for boys and girls in the town where I grew up were excellent, far better than many comprehensive schools I have encountered in more recent years. They were encouraging and friends who went there achieved good results and consequently trained for good careers.

So presumably the children who went to the excellent secondary moderns didn't suffer when Labour took away their 'opportunity'. There's a bit of a contradiction here.

Thank goodness BIL stayed at his excellent sall secondary modern school where he took technical subjects, then did an engineering apprenticeship and eventually ran his own engineering company.

I think many children get lost in the comprehensive school system where the norm is often a couple of thousand pupils.

Comprehensives vary in size. A couple of thousand pupils would be a large school - it isn't the norm.

Can't you see the contradiction?

Can't you see the contradiction?
No.

Comparison, not contradiction.

Comprehensive schools here have 1,600 - 1,800 pupils, one has well over 2,000.
The secondary modern schools and grammar schools I remember about 400 - 500 pupils.

escaped

^It does sit uneasily with me, that children's education should be subject to VAT^
Of course, and I'm guessing that that statement could be uttered even by many Labour supporting people because this policy destroys the fundamental concept that there should be no taxation on education.

However, I've moved on from all the theory and ideals stuff because my concern now is that there will be little gain anyway. I honestly can't see 93% of our children suddenly receiving a greatly improved education on the small amount generated. That was my thinking yesterday when wondering what big difference could be instantly apparent when that windfall, £500,000,000, lands on Bridget Phillipson's desk tomorrow. Even ensuring that every child is seen to have the necessary stationery at school next week would be a start!

If more teachers are to be trained then that will take 4 years - five or more if np places are available.
I suppose some people could be encouraged to return to teaching or some people in industry could be persuaded to take a PGCE course.

Perhaps conditions would need to be improved first to encourage people to go into teaching.

Someone in my grammar school year was transferred from a secondary modern at 13.

Sadly it was not the person I knew from my junior school, who had failed the 11 plus after mistakenly turning over 2 pages of the exam booklet at once, and thus missing a large section of questions.

I subsequently made a point of telling dds who were facing any exam, to make 100% sure they didn’t do the same!

Allira

growstuff

Allira

growstuff

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

And what about the not so able children (the majority) who missed out on grammar and direct grant schools?

It depends on the schools.

The secondary modern schools for boys and girls in the town where I grew up were excellent, far better than many comprehensive schools I have encountered in more recent years. They were encouraging and friends who went there achieved good results and consequently trained for good careers.

So presumably the children who went to the excellent secondary moderns didn't suffer when Labour took away their 'opportunity'. There's a bit of a contradiction here.

Thank goodness BIL stayed at his excellent sall secondary modern school where he took technical subjects, then did an engineering apprenticeship and eventually ran his own engineering company.

I think many children get lost in the comprehensive school system where the norm is often a couple of thousand pupils.

Comprehensives vary in size. A couple of thousand pupils would be a large school - it isn't the norm.

Can't you see the contradiction?

GrannyGravy13

J52 our Grammar Schools have limited places available at 13.

The four Essex grammar schools do not take pupils at 13, except in exceptional circumstances.

sall - small

growstuff

Allira

growstuff

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

And what about the not so able children (the majority) who missed out on grammar and direct grant schools?

It depends on the schools.

The secondary modern schools for boys and girls in the town where I grew up were excellent, far better than many comprehensive schools I have encountered in more recent years. They were encouraging and friends who went there achieved good results and consequently trained for good careers.

So presumably the children who went to the excellent secondary moderns didn't suffer when Labour took away their 'opportunity'. There's a bit of a contradiction here.

Thank goodness BIL stayed at his excellent sall secondary modern school where he took technical subjects, then did an engineering apprenticeship and eventually ran his own engineering company.

I think many children get lost in the comprehensive school system where the norm is often a couple of thousand pupils.

J52

GrannyGravy13

J52 our Grammar Schools have limited places available at 13.

Many of today’s Grammar schools do, it wasn’t the case back when most children took the 11+ as a matter of course.

Yes, one of my friends joined at 13. In fact, although she "failed" the 11+, her parents paid for her to go to a Convent school where she took the exam at 13 and then came to the Grammar School.

A popular policy

“The government has accused media critics of its plan to put VAT on private school fees of being detached from the real world after polling showed that the policy, which comes into force tomorrow, is strongly backed by the public.
The poll, commissioned by the Private Education Policy Forum thinktank, found 54% of people backed the idea, with 22% opposing it. This is an even greater margin of support than in similar polls carried out before the election.

The polling of more than 2,000 people showed wider disquiet with the status quo, with 57% saying they found the private education system to be unfair and 22% disagreeing. It also showed strong support for the idea of private schools being obliged to make a quarter of their places available free of charge to local children, to improve social mixing.“

It would be interesting to know the boy/ girl ratio of that top stream.

J52

I stand corrected! If there were places available you could enter Grammar schools at 13. Having shown ability in the Secondary Modern. They didn’t take entry at 13 at the selective Grammar school, that went to.
Mollygo your Grammar schools was unusually large and was it mixed?

Yes and yes.
The secondary modern schools were streamed and had a “top stream” from which children took the 13+.

I stand corrected! If there were places available you could enter Grammar schools at 13. Having shown ability in the Secondary Modern. They didn’t take entry at 13 at the selective Grammar school, that went to.
Mollygo your Grammar schools was unusually large and was it mixed?

GG13 I too remember new children arriving at our grammar school in the third year. Since ours was a 9 form entry grammar school, (9 classes in each year group) it made a huge school even bigger.

J52 I went to a Grammar School in London (1968) and I remember new girls arriving in the third year.

GrannyGravy13

J52 our Grammar Schools have limited places available at 13.

Many of today’s Grammar schools do, it wasn’t the case back when most children took the 11+ as a matter of course.

J52 our Grammar Schools have limited places available at 13.

Wyllow3

11 was far too young to give a life changing test which divided us all up into categories where the majority didnt "get in" to grammar school and cut off opportunities for pupil development of bright children who for whatever reason "failed" at 11..

Passing the 11 plus and getting into Grammar school was a failed concept and didn’t give equal opportunity.
Most Grammar schools had a small intake each year, often around 90 pupils per year in three or four stream entry. Thus keeping classes small.
In areas where there was only one Grammar school for boys and one Grammar school for girls, then only around 180 pupils could gain a place. Thus the cut off number was 90 boys and 90 girls.
Any child who did not achieve the marks above the 90 went to the secondary modern, even though your score might place you at 91.Also the pass mark was skewed so that more boys passed than girls.
In larger urban areas there were more Grammar schools so there was the possibility of getting into a Grammar school when you would be a pupil with a lower mark than your rural counterparts. For example, I did my 11+ in London in the early 1960 and could choose from several girls Grammar schools.

It does sit uneasily with me, that children's education should be subject to VAT
Of course, and I'm guessing that that statement could be uttered even by many Labour supporting people because this policy destroys the fundamental concept that there should be no taxation on education.

However, I've moved on from all the theory and ideals stuff because my concern now is that there will be little gain anyway. I honestly can't see 93% of our children suddenly receiving a greatly improved education on the small amount generated. That was my thinking yesterday when wondering what big difference could be instantly apparent when that windfall, £500,000,000, lands on Bridget Phillipson's desk tomorrow. Even ensuring that every child is seen to have the necessary stationery at school next week would be a start!

We still have Grammar Schools in my county (Essex) along with many of the Comprehensive Schools having their own tests for out of catchment children, which is basically a Grammar Stream within the school.

Sago

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

This exactly!

The grammar school system in the UK was outstanding.

Why has no party reinstated it?

Because it wasn’t outstanding, it was only good for some people?