Should or will Labour abolish Grammar Schools?

[redexrt123]

So Labour have already confirmed that they will add VAT to private school fees as one of their key tax policies. Firstly they hope to raise revenue to fund improvements in state schools. Secondly, many in Labour are ideologically opposed to private schools as they believe they create two tier educational system that fosters social inequality, as most parents simply do not have the option to send their kids private. One of the problems with the new policy from a tax revenue perspective, is that some, perhaps many, parents who can just about afford current fees may decide to send their kids to State school. This could be just for primary or sixth form or could be for their full education. In any event the new policy is likely to increase the demand for state schooling. In particular as head teachers of grammar schools have already indicated, it is likely to increase the demand for entry into grammar schools. As grammar schools have a selective intake, they tend to have the best exam results in the state sector (although not nessarily the best Attainment 8 scores) making them an attractive alternative to private education for many. Labour have not stated that they will abolish Grammar schools (by which I mean abolish selective academic entry) but they have been and still are opposed to the creation of new Grammar schools. Indeed many of the reasons why the Left are opposed to Private schools apply equally to Grammar schools. They create a two -tier educational system. Grammars have less poorer students (i.e. Kids on free school meals) than your typical comprehensive. Richer parents can game entry for their children as they can more readily afford private tuition for entrance exams.

So do you think Labour should turn Grammar schools into comprehensives? More importantly, do you think they will do so in the next parliament?

@Oldcroneandthreewitches "We have to move away from ‘everyone is equal’ because we are not"

If we did think that then of course we'd have to move away from that. But this isn't about thinking everyone is equal. It's about the idea that what sort of person you are is set in stone at the age of 10.

@Oldcroneandthreewitches"We have to move away from ‘everyone is equal’ because we are not. But what we do need is different opportunities for different people that allow them to thrive instead of dumbing down society in the name of ‘equal opportunities"

Wanting a system that doesn't select at 10 isn't dumbing down society,nor is it assuming that everyone is the same. But dividing children at 10 is not going to give the best education,the different opportunities for different people that allow them to thrive that you want yourself, to all children.
I'm happy with setting in schools,that has flexibility which selecting into separate schools at 11 doesn't.I think that there should be equal opportunity,while accepting there won't be equality of outcome.

There are not dividing children at 10. They are offering chances of accelerated learning for those that want it and are able to do it.

It isn’t mandatory and the kids are not forced to do it.

BUT what would be wrong about tailoring studying according to strengths and capabilities.

Some kids are not academic- I wasn’t. However I excelled in delivering sports to children and adults. I now own my own business ( in a completely different field)

I didn’t learn by sitting and writing - I learned by actively doing something.

My best mate went to grammar and runs a HR business.

I got kicked out of school at 15 as I hated it. And as I said above I now own my own business.

We both do very well.

Expecting all children to learn the same and all fit in the same box is beyond limiting and short sighted.

No it isn’t. It’s about giving those 10 year olds a chance of accelerated learning because they are academically capable.

"There are not dividing children at 10. They are offering chances of accelerated learning for those that want it and are able to do it."
Dividing a peer group and offering accelerated learning to a minority isn't mutually exclusive. They are still dividing children.
Isn't "accelerated" learning possible in other schools?

If you had a child that was gifted at foot ball would you take away the chance of a scholarship because other kids like football too and they should all have the opportunity?

would you take away the chance for a music scholarship for an incredibly talented ten year old pianist because your kid liked playing chop sticks on the plastic keyboard at home?

Some kids will always do better academically than others.

And this goes for adults too. Some adults will always get on better than other adults. But there is a really weird theme in this country at the moment that no one is allowed to achieve more than someone else as it’s ’not equal’

@Oldcroneandthreewitches "If you had a child that was gifted at foot ball would you take away the chance of a scholarship because other kids like football too and they should all have the opportunity?

would you take away the chance for a music scholarship for an incredibly talented ten year old pianist because your kid liked playing chop sticks on the plastic keyboard at home? "

No and No.

Well that’s what you are doing by trying to dismantling grammar schools.

@Oldcroneandthreewitches "Well that’s what you are doing by trying to dismantling grammar schools."

No I'm not. Because I have said about 97 times I am in favour of setting.

Why shouldn’t late developers flourish in a SM if the SM is well run and interested in its pupils’ education?

Because of the myriad reasons already posted on this thread, to name a few:

• many sec mods don’t allow kids to take triple science
• many sec mods have limited language options
• many sec mods have shite options for sixth form
• some have a culture of not cool to be smart and spend a lot of lessons managing behaviour

It just doesn’t work taking out the top 25%

The kid that’s in the top 26% but not the top 25%% at the time of one test can suck it up tho hey 🙄

That’s an argument for reform and progress in the SMs. I can happily agree with that.

Generally, if non-selective state schooling wasn’t so widely shit - SMs and comps - privates and grammars would fade away anyway. Their persistence is a reflection of the lack of acceptable school environments elsewhere.

Out of interest, why do you think children who do want to learn should be forced into classes where pupils produce “…a culture of not cool to be smart…” and teachers have to “…spend a lot of lessons managing behaviour”?

"Generally, if non-selective state schooling wasn’t so widely shit - SMs and comps - privates and grammars would fade away anyway. "

If non selective schools are so bad
how come grammar counties do not out perform comp ones ?

Show me the curriculum of a SM school that we should aspire to ...
(I've already linked to Comps as a comparator)

I come from one of the poorest towns in the country (at one stage, one area was the poorest in Europe). Not a grammar area, our comps are dire. Ds1 luckily managed to get a place at a grammar out of area.

His friends who didn't try for grammar and were just as bright at primary, went to the local comp. None of them performed as well at gcse. They're all now in the local 6th form college, ds1 stayed at school. None if them are expected the same grades as ds. They arent able to take four a-levels even if it is with the aim of dropping one at Christmas.

I am incredibly grateful to ds1's school. Ds1's aspirations are so much higher as he's been pushed and been with children who enjoy and value education. We would never be able to afford private education for him. His future is already a million times better than it would have been without. Grammar schools should be rolled out across all poor areas, I think the fact that they're primary in the South speaks volumes.

@Perzival
Since when is Lincolnshire the South ?

The answer is not more random selection at 11
it is better funding for EVERY pupil
in schools with setting and broad curriculum choices

from triple science
to tractor driving

During Covid we found out who the "key workers" were

@Talkinpeace I said primarily in the South as most are. I'll concede to South and East?

What have keyworkers in covid got to do with grammar schools?

I agree increasing funding is required but it needs to be spent wisely and putting all children together when they all have different ways of learning and different aptitudes isn't the answer. Although clearly removing grammars would make some parents feel better. Doesn't it also make sense to get the best value for the funding they do have which for children like my son is to be in a grammar. Why decrease his standard of education to make a parent feel better about their child/ child's education?

By the same token you could argue that sen schools should be abolished with those children who need the most support or adaptations placed in comps too. Those being the other end of the education spectrum. This doesn't work either as what they require is different to what the bog standard comp can offer too.

Schooling based on aptitude and need is miles better than everyone getting the same.

I love how parents with precious eggheads are quite happy for the bottom 75% to be tractor drivers

Jesus wept

How about making society fairer for all? Not just the ones that do well in a test when they’re 10

You don’t make society fairer by dumbing down everyone.

You make society fairer by giving every one different opportunities that match their capabilities.

I would also argue it is in society's interest to have a well educated (and I do mean academically well educated) 75%. Even assuming you can test for what that is, which, of course you can't.

Perhaps it would help if the teachers, police officers, nurses, care assistants (etc. etc.) of tomorrow were taught to think critically too.

And to understand the pros and cons of the membership of the European Union, labour or tory government, first past the post voting system... grammar schools vs. comprehensives.

I'm glad to hear that you support comprehensives with sets, then.

Because that's how you can achieve the above.

So I’ll ask again for the third time, what pray are the opportunities to a kid that’s in the top 26%? But not the top 25.

I do. Much fairer than the rotten grammar/sec mod system

I wish they would get rid of any selective state school. I doubt it though.

@Oldcroneandthreewitches
"You don’t make society fairer by dumbing down everyone.

You make society fairer by giving every one different opportunities that match their capabilities."

Two points. Do you genuinely think that people's capabilities are set in stone at the age of 10?

And you have accurately described a comprehensive school!

We currently have a huge number of tiers to our education system.

(1) The highly academically selective privaye schools which are generally accessible only to the wealthy when the child is very bright

(2) The somewhat less academically selective and more nurturing private schools where the children of the wealthy who are somewhat less bright or have additional SEN may go

(3) Highly selective grammar schools "superselectives" that take only the very brightest children from across a wide area

(4) Medium-selective grammar schools with a wider remit taking the above-average-bright children from a smaller area

(5) Faith school comprehensives which don't require money or examination for entrance but do require determination and careful attention and adherence to selection criteria from parents up to 5 years before their child needs a place, thus biasing intake towards the children of the comfortably-off and well-educated who have time and energy to invest over several years

(6) Leafy suburb comprehensives where there is selection by wealth due to house prices in the catchment area being circa £200k more expensive than houses of the same size in areas without an attractive school

(7) A motley selection of other often-unique schools that in some way attract a particular category and often thrive in doing so (e.g. music specialist)

(8) The comprehensives that take all the children who don't qualify for any of the above or whose parents aren't sufficiently engaged with education to care much where they go.

(Obviously also Pupil Referral Units and SEN schools too)

It's obvious that the schools in category 8 are going to end up with a mich higher than average proportion of more challenging pupils and are often a very unpleasant environment.

Labour have already worked out that they can't abolish (1) and (2) - taxing them will make them less accessible and will make the scramble for places at categories (3) to (7) more challenging and cut-throat - this may have a minor knock-on effect of category (8) schools taking a higher number of those who tried and failed to get a place at (3) to (7) type schools which may bounce them a little higher but may not.

All the children in type-(8) comprehensives deserve the education and opportunities that their contemporaries in types (1) to (7) are getting - even the ones who are disengaged with education and are disruptive and chaotic deserve better. It's not like a 13 year old has the maturity to make an informed decision that education isn't worth it for them.

The idea of trying to level the playing field by getting rid of all these different types simply can't work - the legal battles would be ruinous. Getting rid of any one or two categories would not stop there being a multi-tier system so it has to be all-or-nothing. When tony blair got in with "education, education, education" one of the best things they did was to increase category (7) with all sorts of specialist academies with USPs that made them attractive, many of which are thriving and are highly in-demand within their region.

Surely the solution is to do even more of this - gradually managing the unattractive undersubscribed schools to close from lack of demand while creating a plethora of inspiring specialist schools that have a lot of different ways for children to discover and grow their potential without having the number of high-grade GCSEs being the only measure of success.

Unfortunately this will require a lot of money and with 14 years of the wealthy and powerful creaming off everything they can to line their own pockets and make it easier for the rich to get richer while cutting and cutting education (along with all other public services) it will be a long time before any such initiatives can be launched. I think it's more likely that at first it will be as much as labour can be expected to do just to slow down the desperate spiral of decline in the sector

It's not set in stone age 10 and if the idea is they are set in stone that's the fault of the culture and attitude of the school they end up in.

All dc should be infused with a sense of motivation and hope and that doesn't come from having them all in the same school then streamed.