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?

Personally, I think they should but I don't think they will.

But they are super selective schools, often with no catchment, rather than a two tier county like Bucks & Kent, where there are only grammar schools & upper schools.

My local comprehensive school has about 35-40% FSM rate whereas it is 2% at the nearby grammar school.

Abolish.

No they should not abolish grammar and they should be looking to expand a variety of tschools rather than having a one size fits all approach.

To increase social mobility they should bring back a more teacher led approach like in the 50 s and 60s and airing children with no parental support to apply for the test.

The four grammars in our county aren't super selective. 11+ pass rates are typically 70-80% which is way below the super selective criteria.

I think grammar schools should exist but it should be based on a child's natural ability. Maybe they need to come up with a test that children can't be tutored for.

How is academic ability any less an accident of birth than having parents with money?

If it can be worked towards it can be tutored. If not it's equally unfair.

I'd just abolish them all.

For those who want them abolished may I ask why? (Genuine question as I can't see the problem with streaming children on ability).

A few of things.

• I suspect the grammar schools attract better teachers and resources. (If not, why the extra effort to go)?
• I think 11 is very early to stream for ability
• Why a set for a small subsection of the population and everyone else together?
• I think this is hard on kids that are very good in one area, but not great all-rounders.
• I think there is value in mixing with all sorts of people, outside of steamed lessons.

I do agree streaming by ability within schools is useful and necessary.

I am in favour of setting by ability in comprehensive schools. Not streaming. Not all kids are equally good (or bad) at everything.

As to why I want state grammar schools to go, it is mainly about offering equality of opportunity for all children within the state system.

I don't think the 11+ is an effective way of identifying the brightest children. It massively favours those who have access to tutoring or other forms of help and disadvantages bright children from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

I don't think ability is necessarily "fixed" at 11 either. Some kids are precocious at primary and then plateau at secondary. Others are late bloomers. All children deserve a fluid environment that can respond effectively to their needs at any point in time.

I don't think it's helpful to tell kids at 11 that they are "failures" and to put limits on their aspirations for no good reasons.

I don't think it's helpful to tutor kids like crazy so that they get into grammar schools only to then find that they consistently feel inadequate because they aren't as bright as some of the other kids.

I do think it's beneficial for "bright" children to learn that people who are not highly academic may have different strengths and talents and are equally "worthy".

The oddity is that anti-grammar people say that grammars do not do better than comps. Then they want to abolish them. 🤷‍♂️

Also, why are comps superior to secondary moderns?

I'm not sure why this is presented as a response to my post when you haven't actually engaged with any of the points that I made?

I have already explained why I think comprehensives are better in my previous post. I don't believe in segregating children at 11 on the basis of a very flawed test that favours children from certain backgrounds, and I also think that children benefit from being in a comprehensive environment with a mix of different abilities.

Because the grammar schools do better than the secondary moderns. (I assume, but if anyone has some data to prove I'm talking nonsense happy to be proved wrong).

Say you're 11 and have failed the 11+ by a whisker. Perhaps you were ill on the day. Would you rather go to the comprehensive or the secondary modern?

Yes, fair enough. I should have been more specific about your reference to “As to why I want state grammar schools to go, it is mainly about offering equality of opportunity for all children within the state system.”

My - mild - question is what is the opportunity that grammars offer if comps are just as good? Tutoring happens in comps. All the benefits to the offspring of richer families happen in comps. Why not just leave grammars to those who believe in them? The sec mods can be improved if they need it, irrespective of the 11+.

Why are the sec mods bad? If it’s funding, fund them more.

I only speak for my area of Kent, but the secondary moderns are “bad” because you can’t do triple science easily, A levels aren’t an option as it’s a watered down version of IB, hardly any languages on offer, a lot more poor behaviour than at the grammars which means that rules are much stricter than normal and classes are disrupted much more.

It’s also not cool to be clever or work hard like it is at the grammars and smart kids if they don’t keep under the radar are bullied.

They are well funded. The stuff that’s wrong is that the top 25% achievers are missing.

Sorry, I didn’t answer your question. Why would any child care, or their parents, if they went to the secondary modern rather than the comp? We’re told that comps are just as good as grammars, so the logic must be that secondary moderns are as good as comps: the student cohort makes no difference, apparently.

I would care. Because the comp would have everyone, including the smarter kids, who I would still want to associate with.

And I'm not sure funding would cover it. Because it will still, by definition, be the school for people that are not good at school. 80% of the population or thereabouts.

Thank you. Do I take it from the last two and a half of your paras that the problem is that too many secondary modern pupils don’t want to learn?

Seems a bit unreasonable to rely on other children to set them an example and be their guides. (Or more likely to suffer the bullying you mention.)

Because I believe that it is fundamentally better for all children to attend schools with a mixed range of abilities, and grammar schools get in the way of that.

Again, I have already explained the issues that I see with the grammar system. I don't really want to have to reiterate the same points in different words.

Yes, bright children with educated parents will do just as well in the comprehensive system, but you can't have a properly comprehensive system with grammar schools in place. And secondary moderns cannot offer the same environment as a comprehensive because a certain cohort of children have already been segregated off. It isn't rocket science.

In all the years that I've seen this issue debated, it is always people arguing in favour of grammar schools. Nobody is ever out there extolling the virtues of the secondary modern. Why do you think that is?

If parents want their kids to go to selective schools dominated by the middle classes, then that's what private education is for. I don't see the value in a two-tier systemwithin the state sector.

Either the student body makes a difference or it doesn’t. You’re saying it does: your child would be cut off from other clever, diligent children. I think that’s what grammar parents feel about comps!

I can buy the argument that it’s good for all kids to experience the full social range at comps (except they don’t) but I will never accept that ‘a clever child will do well anywhere’.

This is utterly illogical. Secondary moderns are not as good as comps. If they were, this probably wouldn't be such an issue.

It's hard to make assumptions on how children feel.
A heavily tutored child who may not necessarily be top of the class may still benefit from their peers.

Many, many children who are are heavily tutored, do, not pass. Many dc do not pass the 11 plus.

What you are doing is putting more children with (,for whatever reason reason) invested parents into one place.
Behaviour and all the rest isn't eradicated by being in privates or grammar school but I think there is perhaps more parents on the same page when it comes to learning and discipline.

At the moment the 11 plus system almost entirely relies on parents in put.
Why not remove it and offer all dc help?

Yes, I think the student body makes a difference.

And there were some very clever, diligent people in the comprehensive school I went to.

(And lots of other wonderful people, who would never have made it to a grammar school)