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?

@Isabella32 that's the theory but it's against Labour policy to enable this kind of segregation.
The proper place for a highly able child is helping to raise the average in a mixed-ability environment, according to Labour philosophy. They tried to abolish grammar schools before in 1965 but failed because schools were under the control of LEAs not central government and Tory councils refused to phase them out. Some older grammar schools that had voluntarily been part of the state system were able to retain Grammar status by becoming independent schools instead. Labour enacted legislation to ban new grammar schools in 1998. I have no doubt they will create plans to further restrict all academically selective education when they can, but it's not happening this year at least

Based on that philosophy, Labour doesn't need 6500 teachers; they can use mine and the other children instead.

They're mostly setted for everything at comps so the previous set 1 would be the new set 2 etc - still segregated.

Pointless and loss of the whole school ethos that it's safe to be academically focused here. A case in point: Bridget Phillipson was bullied for being too focused and bright at secondary school.

I know the history. There are so few grammar schools left by comparison and no money to extract from them, I have a feeling they'll be left alone.
Hope so anyway!

I hope Labour abolishes the Secondary Modern system, yes.

@Isabella32 but don't you see that putting all the students who are academically focussed in one school is inextricably the same thing as making it worse in the surrounding schools who then have fewer academically focused pupils? Leaving the ones who do have academic focus but weren't as lucky on exam day to have a worse struggle as part of a smaller minority?

Grammar School exams require pupils to shine in both maths and english at the beginning of y6. The secondary school that lost out on those pupils will still have bright pupils - those whose parents weren't organised enough, or couldn't afford the grammar uniform, those who just needed another couple of terms for something to "click", and there are plenty who have higher academic ability in one side of the curriculum and not the other, so it's not at all the case that the grammar pupils would just become the top set at the comp.

Our local comps only set for maths and english anyway. Everything else is mixed ability at least for Y7&Y8.

But they wouldn't abolish by closing schools. They will just rename them and ban them from running exams, possibly creating a lottery-based admissions code instead so as to avoid selection-by-house-price, so that the new y7s the subsequent year are mixed ability.

6500 new teachers is an average of 0.5 teachers per school. It's a tiny drop in the ocean of what needs to happen to fix our education system. There will definitely be more big changes coming.

I do think Labour will go after Grammar schools, but independent schools will take the first barrage. They will want everyone educated exactly the same way, equality will be used as justification but in reality it’s to go alongside the lowering the voting age to 16 where indoctrination education will be a key priority for them. I also expect some sort of diversity/equality roles to be mandatory at every school so we can keep an eye on what everyone is saying.

I hope they will in the future-but I think that it's not a priority at the moment.

Hello all, what's your latest read on this topic. Is the government likely to retain grammar schools or scrap them?

It’s not as simple as closing them down. No more will be built, that’s fairly certain with this gvmt.

If you close them down you have to build something else and the system changes required are ££££. This is certainly the reason Kent haven’t done it.

If they really don't want to be elected again, scrap them.

Or focus on raising attainment in comps ( won't happen) before they destroy other areas

I doubt most people will care there are only 163 in England the vast msjority of kids hsve been taught in Comprehensives and more recently Academys since the 1970,s.

Yes, but rather more will take just about anyone whose parents can pay the fees.

If the smarter kids are with other smarter kids it pushes them to strive to better themselves.

Why should the smarter kids be held back and attend school with people far below their level?

If the child who is 89% percentile above-average smart is in a school where the top set is people who are 90-100% it pushes her to strive to better herself and get into the top set. This can't happen if the 90-100% decile are in another school.

If average kids are educated with smarter kids it pushes them to strive to better themselves.

Why should the majority of children, around the average point of ability, be held back from aspiring to catch up with the most able, told that they are in a different category altogether and have no hope of becoming exceptional?

Why are the kids whose parents can afford tutors a higher priority to you for receiving a better grade of education?

In a properly Comprehensive comp, with no nearby grammar schools, the most able pupils still get to be educated with other highly able peers because they are in the top sets. So long as the comp has a fair and representative cross section of all ability levels (without the cream being skimmed off to other schools) they get the same benefits AND the rest of the kids benefit too.

There’s no evidence to suggest that the ‘smarter’ kids at 10 will still be the smarter kids at 16, 18 or 21. Quite the opposite, in fact.

what the 11+ mostly tests is the ability to pass the 11+.

If kids become smarter later on they can join the grammar school later at year 9 entry or for A-levels

I have read a fair few posts on this forum recently about the dire situation in standard state schools. From teachers and parents, so first hand experience. I’m astounded by what I read.

Causes me to be grateful I was able to make a different choice for my DC.

There are no Grammars in by area. All changed to state years ago. And not for the better I might add.

Labour might try to abolish Grammar. They like the race to the bottom.

Maybe, in some cases. But all that hassle and stress can be avoided simply by having good Comprehensives where pupils can move up and down sets accordingly within the same school, thus eliminating issues of changing schools and the upheaval that entails.

Grammar schools are state schools.

They receive the same funding per head as all state schools.

Their results reflect the cohort: studies have demonstrated this and overall results between grammar areas and comparable non grammar areas show no meaningful difference.

Schools need to be better funded, better supported, teachers encouraged and empowered to use their teaching ability with less interference from Gvt ministers who are not educationalists, or managers who have never been teachers.

There are two constant refrains from posters for and against grammars. They both suppose that children will be pushed upwards academically by their peers.

It’s nonsense both ways.

In selective schools the upwards push is from the school’s expectations.

In comps there is no upwards drag at all.

The reality is that the pace of learning among pupils is a product of the school, not the pupils collectively.

Cleverer children are held back in comps by appalling discipline and low expectations. Streaming can help. But that’s just locating selection inside a school. It’s an admission that selection is beneficial.

I’ve never heard a good answer to the question of why more academically able children should be forced into classrooms with less able children, i.e. why the more academic children should be considered ‘prizes’ for other children and their parents to benefit from.

That said, comps do tend to produce more worldly and less priggish young adults than private schools. That’s not true of comps v grammars though.

When DS went to a grammar he went to being the smartest kid to being a small fish in a big pond. He was with people on his level (and honestly quite a few above)

The people at DS's primary weren't all that great. The kind of school where all the underperforming kids (a lot of them) had to be taken to a separate room to be told the answers to the Year 6 SATs.

I'm glad he got to go to a good school where his education and intelligence was nurtured.

Going on about grammars is just a deflection. Like private schools. Labour are trying to deflect any blame re comps, and prefer to blame private schools or grammar schools for the crap comps. Grammars and privates AREN'T the reason some comps are crap. Scrapping them won't make the crap comps better.

@FinalCeleryScheme
I’ve never heard a good answer to the question of why more academically able children should be forced into classrooms with less able children.

“They aren’t- that’s what setting is for. And incidentally, there is sound research to say that a comparison between comparable “top
set” cohorts in grammars and in comprehensives shows only a marginal improvement in GCSE grades in grammars.”

Thank you. But why the quote marks? Is it to show that I’ve received a ‘good answer’?

I’m very suspicious of academic research into schooling. It’s a playground for academics who despise selection.

What are “comparable” top sets? That sounds like a typical fudge. Middle class enclave comps - where selection is by house price - no doubt.

Is there any research into the academic failure of children forced into comprehensives?

I think the problem with grammar schools now is that parents get tutors for their children to help them pass the 11 plus.

It should be done on natural aptitude like it was in the past. They were originally for the top 25% of children. Now they are more for children of parents who can afford tutors.

@FinalCelerySchemeThe quotation marks were supposed to be around the extract from your post- I haven’t mastered the new Mumsnet yet. Nothing more suspicious than that!
I don’t understand your suspicion of “comparable cohorts- it’s a pretty standard way of comparing groups. It just shows that it’s not grammars that add value, it’s the demographic of the cohort.