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?

Labour is unlikely to get rid of grammar schools. Most areas do not have them, and Labour did not take up previous opportunities to get rid. Taxing private school fees is a different situation designed partly to raise revenue.

Ha, ha, ha! If you truly ‘let him choose’ then I’m a tractor wheel

And to follow that up that’s what my aunt said. ‘But she really wanted to go to the local indie, so who was I to stand in the way of that?’

If you truly believed non-selective education was the best option you wouldn’t be giving your son a choice - you’d send him to the comp.

At least be honest, like me.

Where there are grammars - Kent, Lincolnshire, Buckinghamshire
there are no Comps

The whole point of comps is
no admission test at all other than age and location

1. not religion
2. not academics
3. not sport

It's difficult because when I went to the local comp, lots of other smart kids also went there, because no grammar schools. I had male friends, female friends and friends of all academic abilities, rich and poor. I'd like that for my son.

And I am being honest, but maybe naive, it's a way off yet!

@FluffletheMeow
There are many, many solid comp counties that still have exactly the sort of school you envisage.

As my friends said - free schooling leave more money for nice holidays ;-)

They should but they won’t.

Labour has never closed grammar schools when it's been in power before, so why would it now?

I grew up in a grammar school area and my children are growing in an area with no grammar but excellent comprehensives, and of the two, I much prefer the comprehensive. DC1 didn't stay at the comprehensive for sixth form and is doing her A-levels at the local college which attracts pupils from all over the county and she tells me that from talking to the other students there it's clear that her comprehensive was not typical. So I suppose I want a system of comprehensives that are all as good as our local ones, backed up with excellent PRUs and other specialist education services for those children who need them.

Sounds great. Let's do that 👍

I think we will most likely see a more subtle approach where grammar schools are pushed to take a gradually increasing % of kids who are FSM by offering lower pass rate requirements to this group. If you keep going in that direction, eventually the division between grammar schools and the alternative secondary becomes meaningless.

Not the point of this thread at all but I went to Priestlands, left there 26 years ago, and I just want to say thanks for posting that link - you’ve sent me on a lovely trip down memory lane.

@MrsWolf39
Happy to have made you happy.

There is a massive misconception that towns like Lymington are all rich yachties.
Priestlands is a fab school that caters to every child in a 5 mile radius
and even serves their own school reared bacon in the canteen.

Those who live in cities with the madness of multiple multiple school choices
do not realise the benefits of a single school big enough to look out for all kids of all abilities and resources.

This argument always get trotted out, but it is not entirely true!

We live in a county with NO comprehensives, only grammars and secondaries, it is wholly selective.

There are a lot of primary pupils who are tutored and don't pass.

My DS (a long time ago - he's 32 now), passed the 11+ with no tutoring. I was a single mum on benefits in a council house, the very opposite of what was expected. Only two others in his year passed and quite a few who failed were tutored.

DD, who's in Yr9 goes to a grammar school. She was also not tutored and we are nowhere near middle class, nowhere near. Lots of her year were tutored, but again failed.

There is more children who are tutored than not, but my children prove that is not always necessary.

It's also common that if one child gets into one grammar (single sex), then their siblings tend to also get into the other. As there are richer pupils at these schools, it perpetuates the myth that money and tutoring buy places. My DS went to the single sex school, my DD goes to the other, so we've proved that myth, but it certainly wasn't due to money, privilege or tutoring, I guess they may both be quite bright.

They both have been given the opportunity to mix with children they'd never had the chance to if grammars were abolished, as the schools near the estate we live in are traditionally rubbish.

If private schools need to be taxed because they offer some children an unfair advantage, something needs to be done about grammar schools too.

It's not on that the public purse funds what is considered (not saying it actually is) for those who are tutored to pass the 11+ whilst the majority of children receive a secondary modern education which is considered less good.

It could also be argued that state schools should be allocated by lottery to prevent parents from gaming the system through property. Either everyone gets a fair opportunity to access their preferred school or we allow some parents to buy the best place via fees/turoring/property. Whatever the policy is, it should be consistent.

Neither Lincolnshire nor Kent
(the only true grammar counties due to geography)
get better results than the Comp counties next door

but tutor companies make hay while the sun shines

I teach in one of the secondaries in Lincolnshire. Sink school area too. I'm new to Lincolnshire so the whole grammar school system is new to me. It's absolutely shocking, the state of the non-grammers in the area. All of them, not just the one I teach in. Also, children's services in the LA is at breaking point too. It just cannot carry on like this.

Many Counties have got rid of them a very long time ago, as well as the 11+. About time others followed.

Considering a lot of hypocritical labour MPs make sure their kids are in the best grammar schools it would seem an own goal to close them down.

Considering much of the country does not have Grammar Schools
that is unlikely

I agree. They won’t be seeking out grammars. They’ll be seeking out the best comps they can find in their constituencies and moving into their catchments.

(A handful will pay for private schooling even after the imposition of VAT.)

I hope they don't close the grammar schools.

If anything they should open more of them around the poorer areas and give some of those children a good shot at a social mobility.

@Perzival Grammar schools do absolutely nothing for social mobility.

Plenty of other areas where grammars co-exist alongside comps.

I'm not a Labour voter, but statistically and ideologically, that's bollocks.