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 SMs bad?

Are less academic pupils (at 11) more inclined to bullying, violence and disruption - or even just apathy? Is that why teachers don’t want to teach at SMs? That would seem a very unpleasant attitude to have about children.

If a less academic child doesn’t take the 11+ they’d go straight to a SM without any sense of failure, surely? (And why don’t they resent being in the lower stream at a comp?)

Why must the solution be to have schools that mix these supposedly disaffected pupils with cleverer more engaged ones? Where has this counsel of despair come from?

I genuinely cannot fathom why we haven’t got over the vacuous ‘60s modishness about the ‘evils’ of selection.

FWIW, I reject the ‘clever children will do well anywhere’. It’s utter bollocks.

That seems a very dismal outlook.

If a less academic child doesn’t take the 11+ they’d go straight to a SM without any sense of failure, surely?

Tell me you don’t live in a grammar county without saying you don’t live in a grammar county

Heard of school buses? School uniform? Kids looking down their noses at kids from other schools? Often it’s the parents that are the worst. Often overheard in primary school playground by DC.

And anyway what are you meaning by “less academic child”? One whose parents haven’t paid thousands for tutoring? Or one that is in the top 26% but not the top 25%?

Why must the solution be to have schools that mix these supposedly disaffected pupils with cleverer more engaged ones? Where has this counsel of despair come from?

Because it provides a fairer education for all. You aren’t dumping 75% of kids aged 11 in a sink school to fail. Why set up 75% to fail and have lifelong issues with self esteem just to appease the other 25%?

Yeah, you got it. I don’t live in a grammar county. 👍

Where I live the local comps have been colonised by well-off middle class parents who still spend a lot on tutoring and crammers. A teacher at one of these schools told me that sixth formers laugh at the cars that teachers drive because their parents can afford better cars for their kids.

Away from these enclaves the comps are rough as fuck.

My questions are about my surprise that we are so incapable of constructing a system that says “if you’re book smart go here, if you have other skills go there; you’re all equally valuable and precious - and, if you want to, you can achieve in one what you can achieve in the other.”

@FinalCeleryScheme "FWIW, I reject the ‘clever children will do well anywhere’. It’s utter bollocks."

The problem is that the statistics prove that they do. Easily measurable.

What isn't easy to measure, but is patently obvious to anyone who wants to see, is the societal and psychological damage caused by dividing children into successes and failures at the age of 10.

@RidiculousPrice how can 75% be dumped to fail?! That's by far and away the majority - are you saying there's no high performing comps? Of course there are- just few and far between sadly.
I think we all need more choice of schools. There should be schools for kids who strive to do well academically and who thrive on mental challenge, there should be schools where there's more focus on vocational skills, small schools for kids who find enormous factory schools overwhelming and schools with amazing sports focus etc.
By year 6 you can tell how "book smart" your child is and getting into a grammar takes huge motivation from the child and support from the family.
By me there's loads of grammars, by far and away attended by children from 1st/2nd generation immigrant families who place huge importance on education- most are not rich- there's a load of clapped out cars on the school run but they've put aside the £1500 or so for tutoring for a year or done it themselves at home.
I think there should be support for kids to access tutoring instead of closing the schools. These kids are the doctors dentists lawyers of the future. You can see the gangs of geeks making dorky jokes together- they are thriving together where in mainstream school they would probably be ok but who wants just ok for their kids?
Nothing wrong with choice to make sure they get the best they can out of their education.
There's different ways to support low income families - pulling other people down isn't the way, there should be targeted support for gifted and talented kids, just as there should be more mental health support, and more choice of schools.
I bet teachers would be happier in smaller schools with a more targeted cohort of students too. Not many places attempt to cater for the masses and get it right - teachers are stressed beyond belief trying to do their best for mixed ability classes. How the hell are they supposed to teach classes of 30 where they're expected to provide stretch and challenge to the handful of high achievers, manage behaviour issues of a few kids who don't cope with school, get the mid-high kids to focus and do better and get the low-mid kids to engage enough to pass their exams?
One size doesn't fit all, especially at this age range where their emotional development is paramount and they're all affecting each other.

My questions are about my surprise that we are so incapable of constructing a system that says “if you’re book smart go here, if you have other skills go there; you’re all equally valuable and precious - and, if you want to, you can achieve in one what you can achieve in the other.”

@FinalCeleryScheme I totally agree 👍

@Userxyd "are you saying there's no high performing comps? Of course there are- just few and far between sadly."

Of course there are. Just not in areas which have a selective system.

@Userxyd " You can see the gangs of geeks making dorky jokes together"

What a depressing and reductive characterization of clever children!

Problems will not go away with the "top 25 %" in a school all they do (whilst segregate away in their streams and top sets) is push figures higher.
We are not in a grammar area technically but we are next to one and can apply.
I know lots of dc who have tried for it including heavily tutored and didn't pass
Others have had some light intro to nvr and passed.
Dc who didn't pass don't always care I've not spoken to a single parent who has said they do.

In a normal comp they don't always have the resources to offer enough sets for the top 25% or further maths etc.

@CurlewKate even more depressing to hear of bright children being in a minority, scared to do well, bullied and huddled together strength in small numbers at lunch.

It does read as though grammars are being scapegoated for the poor performance of sm's or comps or even worse of the children that attend those schools. It reads as resentment.

I agree that rather than pulling down academic schools other types of schools need to be created and sm's/comps need to improve their offering.

If part of the argument to abolish grammars is that some bright kids have a bad day on the test day or don't bloom until after the 11+ then surely these children who are of grammar ability will be in the sm's/comps?

I would also imagine that if children are being tutored for the 11+ those parents will still invest in their child's education if grammars are abolished. As other posters have said all that will happen is the stats of the sm's/ comps will improve, this doesn't necessarily follow through that all children will improve. I would guess that those who would have been in a grammar would perform worse than if they had of done. Why should their education be sacrificed for someone else's?

@StarieNight "@CurlewKate even more depressing to hear of bright children being in a minority, scared to do well, bullied and huddled together strength in small numbers at lunch."

That's an argument for the effective management of bullying, not for perpetuating a psychologically and societally divisive education system.

A greater argument for understanding what can be done to assist dc who arnt in the top of 25%.

However I don't like using that stst

No. They just want equality of opportunity. It's called being fair. Really not sure what's complicated about that.

Or MAYBE they'll aim to make all schools excellent.

I mean, imagine if little Rafferty and Ottilie could just go to normal school, like the other 93% of kids? Crazy huh 🤔

Re the “clever children always do well…”, what measurement could you possibly use to show this? How do you identify and record clever children, and how can you know what a child would have achieved in a different school environment?

As to good comps being out of grammar areas, the division of comps in richer areas v poorer areas is starkly obvious. There’s no levelling of opportunity. The bias exists in house prices - and spending on tutors, crammers, foreign holidays and theatre trips. I accept that may not be true in very rural areas, but it’s a huge effect generally.

And if good discipline would solve the problem of disruptive children in comps and instil a greater willingness to learn, why can’t that apply to SMs?

Grammars have a markedly higher proportion of BAME pupils than comps. (Though I accept the BAME breakdown is very unlikely to reflect the BAME population homogeneously). It’s always seemed a bit racist to me to tell BAME parents who place a premium on academic education that they must be denied selective schooling for the (supposed) good of the comprehensive ideology.

Putting bright children in comps is false inflating figures it doesn't make comps better, it doesn't help those who arnt streamed away in the top sets... It just makes the stats look better.. Hence crack sec modern and all education will boom.

In ye old days teachers could put forward students, tell them to weakness and assist, the school assist in plugging those gaps.. That helped to break cycle stronger holds of lower achievements.. And I've met many a successful older person who went through a grammar and camera from the North in London.
You wouldn't get that now because getting in whether tutor or not is largely upto the parents.

. The Sutton trust said this year's ago, that grammar need to focus more outreach to support dc who don't have parents support to get in.

Unfortunately Labour have done this and pulled the ladder up away and made it into this unfair system.

Even if school ran nvr classes a week few times that would help dc and covered all the maths needed for the test.

@FinalCeleryScheme If you look at the stats, clever children in selective LEAs achieve similarly comprehensive LEAs with comparable demographics.

idealism sadly

I’m not sure I trust stats like that, though I might be persuaded. But that’s not actually the question. How many clever children have under-achieved because the comp they were forced into had a pupil culture of rejecting achievement?

@RidiculousPrice but the 75% are what they are why does putting 25% on helping them?
Why not concentrate on getting theirs attainment up

Rafferty and Ottilie are much more likely to go to the middle class comp with a sky high house price catchment. And their parents will be the ones preening themselves about their egalitarian values.

I can only speak for myself. I was a straight A* pupil at primary school, always in the class top 5 for basically everything.

I went to our town's crap comp. It had just converted from being a grammar (1970s) and they were peddling the lie that as a comp it would give everyone a "grammar" education.

Year by year, my grades dropped and I ended up failing all my O levels. That was due to serious bullying (not just name calling, but physical abuse, theft, assault etc). The place was like a war zone. I ended up bunking off as much as I could and physically hiding at breaks and lunchtime to avoid being beaten up. Teachers hadn't a clue how to control the pupils and several went off with nervous breakdowns. The problem was that they closed the "sec mod" and just threw them all in to the (newly extended) grammar.

It was only after I left that hell hole that I pulled myself up, did self study and evening courses for O levels, then A levels, and (a few years late) got a good training job and eventually became a chartered accountant. None of that was due to the crap comp!