今天（2016年9月9日）梅姨已经确认英格兰会成立更多的公立Grammar School而且会允许一些Comprehensive实行入学考试！
这是公立中学系统的重大改革，有些报纸说是革命性的，这对目前没有Grammar school地区的中国家庭是个非常好的消息。我个人认为有下面的好处。
（1）把想好好读书的孩子和不想好好读的孩子分开让想好好读的孩子专心读书，目前Comprehensive的一个主要问题是有一些根本不想读书的孩子在学校里面，个别几个捣乱的孩子让别的孩子无法学习，听到过多次中国孩子就因为学习好在学校里面被公立甚至欺负的，分流以后这种问题就会减少了。
（2）给想读书的孩子有一个正常的读书环境，孩子受环境的影响很大，如果很多孩子都不学习以考C为目标，那要让少数孩子多努力一些考A非常非常困难。
（3）学校分流，让不同能力的孩子按照不同的速度和方式来学习，当老师的人都知道，把不同能力的孩子放在一起根本无法教，如果老师用适合能力差的孩子的教学方式来教那能力强的孩子就失去了兴趣就会成为捣乱孩子，如果教学方法适合中上水平的孩子那能力差些的孩子就失去自信心完全放弃学习了。
（4）Grammar的入学考试可以促进小学的成绩，有考试目标的压力学生和老师才有动力。
（5）减少买学区房的压力，如果入学是靠孩子的能力不是靠家长的住址，那买房时候就不需要考虑中学阶段的学区。
（6）减少中产阶级家庭送孩子上私校的压力。
看看媒体的报道
May’s school revolution: PM says EVERY school can become a grammar, new faith schools can be 100% selective and universities will have to open secondaries
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3780627/Theresa-says-school-grammar.html#ixzz4JlOaw8AP
The prime minister wants to end the ban on new grammar schools. Quite right too
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/09/grammar-school-selection-academies-comprehensives
May heralds expansion in school selection by ability
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37311023
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
9月6日，好消息好消息好消息，泄密的政府文件说明英格兰成立更多的公立Grammar School完全可能。
中学期间上免费的公立Grammar School是很多中下收入阶级家庭孩子的目标，可惜的是英格兰一共只有168所这样的好中学(英格兰一共是3000多所公立中学），很多地区都没有，苏格兰威尔士没有北爱很多。
自从1960年代工党政府取消Grammar School系统以后，法律不允许成立新的Grammar school，工党一直是反对Grammar系统的，1998年工党Tony Blair治下立法不允许建立新的Grammar，保守党政策变化过但基本是支持扩大Grammar系统，2015年Kent那边的一个Grammar School成立了一个分校，这就给grammar school扩大甚至成立开了一个口子，中学上Grammar的Teresa May一直是支持扩大Grammar系统的，她成为首相以后自然谣言不断，最新泄露的政府文件表明政府已经在划在英格兰扩大现存Grammar school和成立Grammar school，政府的意图非常清楚，下面就是怎么在议会法律通过的问题了，保守党是党的政策，工党的话Jeremy Corbyn肯定强烈反对，虽然他自己是Grammar school出来的但他反对最厉害，当年因为他的美女老婆要送孩子去Grammar他就和老婆离婚了，工党内很多senior的人是grammar系统出来的应该有不少人会支持，最后结果怎么样大家拭目以待吧。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
关于什么是公立Grammar School以及历史看这个贴 https://bbs.powerapple.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2571658
还有BBC 网站Grammar schools: What are they and why are they controversial? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34538222
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
‘Grammar plans’ caught by photographer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37286475
Plans to open new grammar schools in England appear to have been accidentally caught by a photographer.
The document, photographed in Downing Street, proposes expanding current grammars before opening new schools.
It then raises doubts whether plans for more selective school places would pass through the House of Lords.
A government spokeswoman said it would be “inappropriate to comment on internal government documents”.
“The cat is out of the bag,” said Labour’s shadow education secretary Angela Rayner.
Liberal Democrat education spokesman John Pugh said: “It looks like a desperate plan to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and their inevitable defeat.”
The document, thought to have been carried by Earl Howe, deputy leader of the Lords, seems to have been written by Jonathan Slater, permanent secretary at the Department for Education.
It refers to Conservative plans to “open new grammars”, although with the provision that they would have to “follow various conditions”.
Analysis: What does this document tell us? And does it suggest that as well as more grammars, there could be a new style of grammar, admitting pupils on more than test results.
Education Secretary Justine Greening seems to want a slower approach, expanding current grammar schools before any plans to open new schools.
There is also a hint of distancing, wanting new grammars to be seen as an “option”.
Lifting the current ban on new grammars is not the same thing as opening lots of new schools.
This isn’t about returning to a selective education system, but an option to have a modest expansion in some selective schools.
Grammar schools would have some strings attached, presumably such as making greater efforts to include poorer pupils.
This could mean changes for current grammar schools, with the rather coded reference to “not disadvantaging those who don’t get in”.
The House of Lords is seen as a serious block to a return to selective education.
There have been concerns that grammars have a disproportionately affluent intake - and these “conditions” might suggest that new grammars might have obligations to admit more poorer pupils.
There are also hints at a difference in emphasis within Conservative ranks - with the education secretary wanting to expand the current grammars before opening any new schools.
A long-running dispute in Kent was resolved this year when an existing grammar school was allowed to open another branch in another town, on the basis that this was the expansion of an existing school, rather than opening an entirely new school.
Education Secretary Justine Greening is described as wanting new grammars to be presented in the consultation document “as an option” and “only to be pursued once we have worked with existing grammars to show how they can be expanded and reformed”.
But the note says: “I simply don’t know what the PM thinks of this.”
And it says: “I simply can’t see any way of persuading the Lords to vote for selection on any other basis.”
Social mobility
Before opening any more grammars, the government would have to change the law, which at present outlaws the creation of new grammar schools in England.
If the government thought that this would face too difficult a path through Parliament, existing grammar schools could open such “satellite” campuses on other sites.
There have been suggestions that new grammars could be opened as part of the free school programme, which could be adapted to allow selection by ability.
The prospect of a return to grammar schools has had some strong support among Conservative backbenchers.
They have argued that admission by ability is more likely to promote social mobility, providing an opportunity for bright, poor pupils who do not live in the catchment areas of good schools.
But Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw said this week that the idea that poor children would benefit from a return of grammar schools was “tosh” and “nonsense”
Sir Michael said a return to selection at 11 years old would be a “profoundly retrograde step”.
[b]Labour’s Angela Rayner said: “Behind closed doors the Tories are planning a return to the bad old days of grammars, ignoring all the evidence which has told us time and again that they do not aid social mobility.”
John Pugh, of the Liberal Democrats, said: "This lays bare the desperate lengths the Conservative party are willing to go to deliver grammar schools through the cloak of expansion.[/b]
“The government should be ashamed of themselves. If they think this is the right thing to do, they should bring it to Parliament and win the argument.”
A government spokeswoman said: "The prime minister has been clear that we need to build a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few.
"We are looking at a range of options to allow more children to access a school that lets them rise as far as their talents will take them.
“Policies on education will be set out in due course, and it would be inappropriate to comment further on internal government documents.”
