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?

I went to a comp and they just put us into sets, put at least you could move up and down relatively easily.

Also, this rather assumes everyone has the ability, if they work hard, to get into the grammar schools, and I just don't think that's true.

We should provide a good education for those that find school hard too.

Actually, sorry having re-read your post I agree in principle, that there should be schools more specialised to people's needs.

I don't think grammar schools and comprehensive schools are that though. That's one school for the smart kids and everyone else lumped in a zoo.

Labour gave the order (in 1965) to get grammar schools abolished. Over the following years, the majority were abolished. Not sure why some remain. If they are going to tax private schools, then they need to tax rich people in expensive houses using grammar schools as well. Many kids have tutoring from tutors or their parents to get in to fantastic grammars that most of the population have no access to. There isn’t a grammar for miles and miles around here. No surprise there are loads of privates instead.

the irony is of course that if labour hadn’t abolished the grammars in the 60s, we’d have far fewer private schools now. The grammar school that Keir himself attended turned into a private school whilst he was there and he continued to attend it as a private school for 6th form on a bursary. OK for him and his privately educated wife to buy a £££££££ house near a good school for their kids. Whilst vilifying those of us who have broken ourselves sending kids private.

There are both rich people and poor people in expensive houses where I grew up and live now who send their child to the nearest OFSTED rated "good" or "outstanding" comprehensive.

The schools have tricks, that have now been exposed but occurred for decades, of getting rid of underperforming pupils.

At some point - I can't remember when but at some point after my children were born 🙄 Kent had a parent referendum on the retention of grammar schools.
Not of all parents, but of the cohort that were approaching the 11+.Not surprisingly they voted in favour as many parents quite like the idea and don't consider the education of children who don't pass - or that that might be their child.
I remember thinking it was a ridiculous way of deciding g on an important issue for all families and for the future.

@FluffletheMeow
How do you decide which of these many specialist schools to send your child to
at 11
when you have no idea what they will be like at 17

Better to send them to a big school with sets and options
and let them find their own path

"They need to tax rich people jn posh houses"
Don't they pay tax already?

I think the two factors that make the biggest difference to children's school lives and outcomes are whether they are single sex or mixed (particularly for girls) and class/school sizes.
The selective element is a complete red herring I think - as you said OP, the achievement/progress scores of grammars and independent schools are not so different from high performing kids in state schools when you look at kids with similar SATs scores.
To me the distractions and behaviour issues that grammars and independents seem to have under control are by a long way down to single sex and class sizes.
Tbf parents' engagement is probably the 3rd (or perhaps higher) most important factor - out of schools' control obviously, but given the gruelling entrance exams and fees involved for grammars and independents, parents in those schools will naturally be way more invested in their child's education (recognising not all parents etc etc and no blame intended either - I just mean lots of parents in the worst performing schools do not/can not engage with their kids education in the same way).

I don't believe that is true - they believe in equality of opportunity and want to raise the standard of living

Rather than destroy grammar schools, better to make comprehensives great schools with top sets achieving good results, better behaviour and maybe keep them smaller. If comprehensive schools were good, then the demand would die out.

Most comprehensives do do sets already.

Having sets in the school pretty much requires that the school be a certain size, so not sure what making comps smaller is supposed to achieve. There is also no evidence that small schools do better than big ones.

Are you sure? My understanding is that GS/SM areas on average have more private schools than comprehensive areas. Partly because most areas where GS/SM were retained was in the Southeast, which is wealthier. And partly because, firstly, a lot of parents pay for prep schools to “get into” grammar, and secondly, parents with any money whose kids missed the cutoff line often send their kids to private schools to avoid the atmosphere of failure that hangs around SM schools.

Most grammar schools and secondary moderns that were turned into comps actually did so under Margaret Thatcher as education secretary under Heath’s government. I thought this was well-known; were you not aware of that?

I think they’ll be too busy dealing with bigger problems and fighting lawfare suits for the vast numbers of pylons (5x more than have been erected in last 30 years), onshore wind turbines and solar farms they plan to ruin the countryside with.

I’m delighted to hear that you have offered to give up using electricity. Where do you think it all comes from?

Fair point.

I was just conceding that a one size fits all approach isn't helpful, and may be worth looking at.

If everyone has the opportunity to go to the same schools, I'm not ideologically opposed to self-selection based on interest. I think sixth forms and tech colleges at 16 are a good thing.

On a practical level, yes, sets. But maybe a broader curriculum?

@FluffletheMeow
Comprehensive school curriculum :
https://www.priestlands.hants.sch.uk/general-information/curriculum
and another
https://www.petersfieldschool.com/curriculum/faculty-areas/
and another
https://www.bohunt.hants.sch.uk/curriculum/

All three schools have catchments and admit every pupil in the area
What should they be adding in your view ?

I don't know that I'm the best to answer this! It would mean talking to those who stood to benefit, which isn't me. (I would have had more languages, and been pushed more in maths and science).

I was simply responding to the fair point that some kids don't want to be in class and are therefore disruptive. I don't think grammar schools are the best answer to this, because I don't think it is only the most academically able that want to learn.

What would you propose?

Grammar schools do still assist some children with social mobility.

Although there are a good number of children whose parents would otherwise choose private education if their DC did not get into grammar, that is not the whole story - many poor families do still benefit from their DC getting into grammar schools, particularly if they live in areas with underperforming or a scarcity of comprehensives. Bear in mind that these poor families might be of different ethnicities to those that you might expect and might not appear outwardly poor (e.g. the parents might be poorly paid NHS workers rather than on benefits). These families are still financially struggling and might not have the option of moving to an inflated catchment area for a good comprehensive or even to pay for tutoring, so when their DC get into grammar school the boost to their life chances is relatively large.

I propose the middle class left-wing way: rail against private schools and grammars at dinner parties in the nice house you bought specially in the catchment of the best comp you could find: “Olly and Emily are doing so well at their school. It’s marvellously inclusive.” Sorted. 👍

lol so true!

Yes of course he lives in an area where houses are worth over a million and has access to a good catchment. It boils my blood, labour politicians lecturing us about equality while living in luxury areas, using grammar schools, and even sending their own kids private like Diane Abbott!

Fareham has significant levels of poverty and former council houses
yet the comp there manages to have this as a curriculum
https://www.camshill.com/school-life/broad-and-balanced-curriculum/

I propose properly funded and resourced non selective LEA controlled schools to cater to all children
with setting and options

Priestlands for example has significant farming intake so have the walled garden agriculture qualifications

I often tell the story of my aunt who is very very very left wing, went on a lot of marches, huge Corbyn fan etc, she used to lecture everyone on how awful selective or few paying schools are and how horrific the inequality in the UK is. She had a surprise baby late in life, and guess where she sent them? Yes - the local prep school followed by a very prestigious grammar 🙃 it’s ‘different’ for her, apparently, her child is ‘very gifted and I have to put my morals aside to do what is best for them’

I shit you not

🤣 Touché.

This could be me. But I like where I live. When my little boy is 11, should he pass the 11+, I will have a choice between the all boys' grammar school and the struggling catchment comprehensive. It's a difficult one, and I'll probably let him choose. Most parents round here won't have the option. I think it's wrong, and wish everyone went to school together. 🤷‍♀️