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?

But why are comps better than secondary moderns? It can’t be the clever kids, surely. Otherwise the only equality of opportunity you’re after is the opportunity for children not to be among others like themselves academically.

Well, I think it is actually very important for kids to be exposed to others who aren't like them academically. But that's beside the point.

You are assuming that all of the "clever kids" will get into the grammars and be with others like them. I do not accept that that is the case. The 11+ test is deeply flawed and doesn't select by ability alone.

@StarieNight

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.

I agree, and the same applies with Faith schools, where the "parents who care" will go to Church for the requisite amount of time to earn enough points to secure a place at a more successful church school than the local comp. Likewise with parents who move house to the catchment area of a better comp. That's just the same as tutoring for the 11+. Yet we don't see the same amount of complaint/criticism about Faith schools nor moving into catchment areas.

"Parents who care" and who want to engage with education, and "encourage" their kids to get the best education they can, will ALWAYS find ways of getting their kids into the best school possible. They're not going to accept the local bog standard crap comp!

• caveat, many parents can't engage with education because of undiagnosed sen, /disengaged with education /poor experience /poverty cycle /mental health /language issues and so on.

It's just more helpful if parts are on board and yes, it's obvious if parents have gone that little bit further they will.

This is true for around here. If the child isn't bright enough for the grammar school then they go to the local private school. Grammar school parents tend to be educated professionals. Private school parents tend to be self employed, trades that have done well for themselves.

The points made about setting in comprehensives are great in theory, but in practice my DC's school put pupils in sets at age 12 and rarely changed them, especially not during GCSE years 10 and 11, when quite a few of the pupils in the second sets were outperforming those in the top sets, but those pupils were not moved up - I assume this was because it would make the pupils in the top set who had peaked before GCSEs sad and/or cause an imbalance in male/female pupils in the top sets which was frowned on by senior female teachers. So DC got stuck achieving 9s in set 2 with a significant number of pupils who couldn't get above a 6 and the teachers were aiming their teaching at ensuring those pupils got their 6 rather than a 4/5 and not ensuring those at the top of the set got a 9. The higher achievers in the second set were sacrificed for the egos of those in the top set, to avoid too many boys in the top sets which would offend female teachers and parents of girls, and to ensure that the pupils who were accurately placed in set 2 achieved the best they could.
The local grammar school sets according to ability alone and doesn't care about the visuals of more boys than girls in top sets. Also the local grammar school doesn't give out detentions so I guess the behaviour is dramatically better, whereas the comprehensive is a detention factory.
I do think that secondary moderns sound a bad idea for those pupils who end up there and are late academic developers - at least the days of only being able to take CSEs at SMs are gone though, so all pupils have access to the same qualifications no matter where they go to school.
Edited to add: the boy/girl imbalance only seemed to matter in one direction and obviously wasn't a problem when it happened the other way around.

That's just not true! Labour were responsible for getting rid of lots the grammar schools in 1965, under Wilson.

Thank you to those who answered my question as to why they want to abolish grammar schools. It appears to me that the main reason is to aid in the education of others. I don't agree with this as it isn't for other children to improve others education.

I feel that our education system needs a complete overhaul. There is such a push to get yp people to uni and often other qualifications and paths are seen as lesser which is wrong. We should be extending the offering that we have. Let yp start practical skill based qualifications in their teens if they choose to and extend apprenticeships whilst placing value on this route.

We have one grammar school which local children can attend and it's ooa. Ds1 passed the 11+ and got a place there. The local comp has metal detectors on the entrance. I am very grateful that he got a place at the grammar.

The education of others (including social skills) isn't lost on me. Ds2 has complex needs so I understand the impact that other children can have.

Grammar schools do not benefit the pupils within them enough to outweigh the harm done to those excluded from a full curriculum by an arbitrary test at 11.

If they did Grammar counties would out perform comp ones.
They do not.

A true comp with setting for subject clusters and a full curriculum
gives every child the chance to excel in their areas
and ensures that all children benefit from a diversity of viewpoints and experience
(both those at the top of the academic heap and those at the top of the vocational heap)

It is also the case that not selecting at 11 benefits late developers, summer babies and those with disrupted home lives.

Secondary modems ("upper schools") in fully 2 tier counties often don't offer many languages or triple science & rarely offer such a good range of academic A levels as the grammar schools.
This will certainly disadvantage those not "chosen" at 11.

@Perzival "Thank you to those who answered my question as to why they want to abolish grammar schools. It appears to me that the main reason is to aid in the education of others. I don't agree with this as it isn't for other children to improve others education. "

Thad's not the main reason. The main reason IMHO is that the selective system entrenches inequality and is inherently bad for society.

God what utter tripe! Makes me think you have a chip on your shoulder that you couldn't manage the private school yourself. As a former Grammar school pupil myself, I think the model is completely outdated and GOOD comprehensives with proper streaming are the way forward. All education needs to be properly funded though. Where I live (abroad) there is also much more focus on technical schools so that kids who maybe struggle with "academic" subjects can focus more on vocational skills whilst also trying to ensure they achieve the necessary literary and maths qualifications they need for life. No child should be written off at 11 - especially when richer parents can pay for tutoring and skew the entrance levels. I don't know the answer to the catchment scenario issue though - I know certain towns in UK did it by lottery?

There are inequalities all the way through life, it's part and parcel. Abolishing grammar schools will mean that certain comps will take on their role unofficially, thee will be some better comps and some not so good. There will still be inequality. All that will happen is that those children who would have benefited from a grammar education won't be able to.

If anything we need more grammar schools right across the country so more children can benefit.

Yes, and no.

Yes, because grammar schools are socially divisive. No, because most of them send their own kids to grammars so they can claim they are ‘state educated.

This

I think there should be a variety of different specialist schools out there to choose from in the state sector. Forest schools, steiner schools, mechanic based schools etc etc. Let schools specialise. Just like they do in the private sector.

How on earth would that work outside the biggest cities ?

Priestlands catchment area covers the whole south of the New Forest
https://www.hants.gov.uk/educationandlearning/findaschool/schooldetails?dfesno=4129
over ten miles side to side

Small schools are not viable
Large comps with a broad curriculum give every child the chance to try everything
without being "categorised" at age 11

Do people realise that there are only about 150 grammar schools in the country?

Sword I couldn't agree more and I said so earlier. Personally I can't stand these huge school factories, usually uninspiring ugly flat blocks shoving everyone in.
They are also overwhelming frightening places and they are huge.

I, can't understand why secondary moderns being bad is blamed on grammars.

Why not just focus on making them better.
.I'd say them being bad is really the reality of schools without the grammar cohort.
And if we can work on making secondary moderns excellent, we can crack the conundrum rather than mix all pupils to falsy rely on that top cohort to inflate figures.
Surley that's where the energy needs to go.
Once they have it, roll it out to comps as well.

Yes ideally we need to move away from these huge blobs of schools and have school with more specialisms like production arts or sciences.

Most of the country does not have grammar schools. They persist in very few areas, yet somehow loom large for MN in the collective imagination.

You know there are loads of specialist schools already? That's what academies have done.

I hope they do abolish them. The majority of children are tutored heavily to get into them, thus selecting on parental ability to pay, not the ability of the child. And that's before you even start on the inequity of supposedly basing life chances on one day when you're 10. Anyone telling themselves it's a meritocracy is deluded.

If lots of clever kids don’t get into grammars they must be going to secondary moderns. So what’s the problem?

You can't do much to improve a school when the raison d'etre is essential We Are Here For the Kids Who Couldn't Pass The Test. The whole place is likely to stink of failure, the expectations will be low, and the school will struggle to find and retain good teachers.

Comps with sets avoid the above problem to a large extent, as there is the potential to move up/down sets (which gives hope to those who are slower to mature, while also ensuring that those who are higher achievers don't just "relax" and take their status for granted...potentially an issue with those who pass the 11-plus).

Sets also ensure that a kid who is (say) poor at maths but great at languages can be in classes which reflect their abilities--in an 11-plus system, such a child will inevitably be in the "wrong" classes for some of their subjects.

Finally, children in comps can all benefit from the same quality of teachers, whereas in 11-plus systems, secondary moderns get worse teachers than grammar schools, as teachers with the best teaching skills and most experience understandably prefer to teach in the grammar school.

All these reasons are why parents in most parts of the UK demanded an end to the 11-plus system, which is why Thatcher as Ed Secretary was forced to comprehensivize the system across most of the UK. She didn't want to, but parents demanded it, because the 11-plus system is, and was, shite.

I'd like the remaining ones to go. Perhaps by stealth - require the GSs to take on an ever-growing % of FSM pupils until the difference between them and the SMs effectively ceases to matter.

You really can't see a problem with a clever kid being told (in effect) "You are a bit thick," and then being stuck in a school which can't get or keep good teachers, and where the average ability level is so much lower?

My mother was in an area where there were "too many girls" passing the 11-plus, so she was told she had to go to the SM instead. Her parents ended up spending a lot of money on a (not very good) private school because the SM was so bad and there was no way she was going there.

I wouldn’t like to guess why that is. It just is.

I compare stories of kids at the sec mod with stories of the grammars and the behaviour thing is wholly different. It is like a school
culture - how is that created? Head teachers probably like to think they create it, but inevitably it’s the kids themselves.

When the top achieving 25% are missing then it changes the culture.

Not just clever kids being told that - what about the other 75%? Consigned to the scrap heap at 10, publically.