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?

This is what I don't understand. I'd love for someone to tell me how putting the 25% more academic ones in the same school as the other 75% actually helps the 75%.

I view it the same as how putting the kids who have two left feet, co-ordination problems and are unfit will be helped by putting them in the same sports class team as the school's own competitive team consisting of those who are really good at their chosen sport. Playing football as a defender (fat, two left feet, etc) isn't going to be improved by playing alongside the school's top defender who's playing competitively against other schools!

Yes, my strong feeling is that many who do well after comps achieve despite the comp, not because of it.

In theory I agree that grammars are bad for equality of opportunity, testing at 11 is unfair etc. However my personal experience is:

• my parents both from working class, poor families both got into grammar schools and this was transformative for them. They both went to university (first in their families), got professional jobs...I had a v middle class upbringing. Very different life from my cousins. So in my personal experience they can undoubtedly contribute to social mobility. This was in the 60s before most were abolished
• I went to first a comprehensive, then we moved areas and I went to a grammar. The comprehensive experience was miserable, I was bullied horribly as a result of being 'book smart', It was not cool to be 'clever' or to do well. This was a comprehensive not a secondary modern. The grammar was a totally different story - there it was definitely cool to do well, be top of the class etc. I was not bullied and had lots of good friends who had similar attitude to learning. It was great (for me).

We now live in a (different) grammar area. My daughter seems to be quite academic and I think will probably pass the 11+. We are lucky enough though to live close to a v good (CoE) non grammar in case she doesn't. I would definitely send her to the grammar based on my own experiences of both systems despite, in principle, knowing the system is unfair to others.

I agree with others who have said I think we should have a variety of different types of schools, to suit different types of learners. There should also be able to be movement between the schools at say 13, to account for late academic bloomers etc. In fact this used to happen in Kent. My sister initially failed the 11+ but was transferred to the grammar later, based on reports from her comprehensive, and I had several friends that transferred in at later dates too. I understand there are some very good comprehensives that are able to cater to all, but I think unless all subjects are taught in sets (often I see it is just maths), then you still risk bullying of the academic types, and completely unsuitable education for the non-academic types, who are forced into studying subjects they will never thrive in or have interest in and would be better off studying eg agriculture, mechanics, or something vocational along with functional maths and english. I don't think there are many comps that offer all of that and many pupils have to suffer through the academic stuff until they can get to college.

A 3 things that I always notice about threads on this subject. People always focus on the perceived impact on the 25% rather than the 75% People always assume that their child will be in the 25%. Most examples give people are from their own experience-which is usually at least 20 years old.

I always notice that comprehensive enthusiasts never admit that the system is gamed by the well-off and is in many respects a fraud.

Life isn’t as precise and linear as just book smart and other skills though is it?

What about late developers? What about the kids that are top 26-30%?

The sec moderns do not cater well at all for either.

By year 6 you can tell how "book smart" your child is

Nope. Totally not our experience. DD failed phonics test, was always midway in class through primary, failed 11+ by a whisker but so wanted to go to a particular grammar we appealed and got her in. Cue loads of “OMG you are setting her up to fail, she will struggle, it’ll be bad for her self esteem, she will be bottom of the class, you will have to riot her through secondary blah blah”. She went to the open day for the sec mod and I had to collect her at lunchtime as she had a panic attack about going there. Never had one before or since. It wasn’t for her.

Anyway, she’s had a stellar time at the grammar. Predicted 3 As at A level now and had 5 offers from top unis.Fabulous set of friends all the way through. No tutors or interventions or any extra help needed.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind this wouldn’t have been the case if she’d gone to the sec mod.

She is a late summer birthday and a late developer.

I actually find this quite offensive. So you are correlating a child in the top 26% with a kid with coordination problems?

Jesus wept.

No, I'm pointing out that kids are different and should be treated differently.

Putting an academic child in a class of non academic ones won't improve the non academic ones.

Just the same as putting a "non sporty" kid, for whatever reason, alongside highly competent sporty team players won't improve them either.

And where pray do you draw the line between academic and not academic?

People always focus on the perceived impact on the 25% rather than the 75%

Your fate as a nation depends on the success of the top 25%

People intuitively understand that you cannot make a soccer star out of a normal kid. Somehow, only academics is something that most kids should excel at … and that if you put enough ‘resources’ into the matter, they will all succeed (by some measure or another)

Not entirely.

The 75%’s ability to interpret what is written in the side of a bus seems highly influential.

And why 25%? Why not 30%? And why waste the chance to make sure everyone has a chance to have the broadest academic opportunity?

And are the 25% negatively affected anyway? My high achievers did v well in an ordinary (well run) non-leafy S London comprehensive.

Maybe, but they won't succeed simply by being put in the same room as the more "academic" ones!

The 75%’s ability to interpret what is written in the side of a bus seems highly influential

This is done with a basic, no frills primary education.

And why 25%? Why not 30%

The innovations that develop your society are, at best, probably found by a tinier percentage than 25.

And why waste the chance to make sure everyone has a chance to have the broadest academic opportunity

You could say this about soccer. Why not develop every child’s soccer skills to their full potential? (Because it is a waste of time and energy outside of making sure every child knows the value of physical fitness and has the skills to join a community soccer league … )

And are the 25% negatively affected anyway? My high achievers did v well in an ordinary (well run) non-leafy S London comprehensive

You’ll just have the American public school problem where public schools in high-income areas are really amazing and public schools in low-income areas are really shit (it has nothing to do with their funding btw).

No chip on my shoulder, as we could have afforded private school, but I'm privately educated and have reservations about that system. Also our local grammar was stronger academically and exam results better.

It's important to remember that "comprehensive"and "mixed ability teaching" are not synonyms.

@Arraminta @Also our local grammar was stronger academically and exam results better"

Of COURSE the exam results were better- they had the entire top set!!!!

Epic amounts of hyperbole in this thread.
When a school catchment is 12 miles across it picks up every type of family.

Do, please tell me where Priestlands or Burgate or Cams Hill get it wrong.

Do please show me how the setting and extension work fails academic kids
and fails to support vocational kids

Do please show how areas with 5% house sales in a year are gamed by parents

Yes, obviously. But I mentioned it more to explain why we opted for the grammar rather than the private route.

There is nothing like a private school post or grammar school post to set MN teeth gnashing at the thought of other kids having something better than theirs.

My kids had a better education - academically, socially, pastorally - than I had
for MUCH less money than my parents paid for mine :-)

Being in a comp county made the choice simple :
Local sink comp school - no
Decent slightly further comp school - yup
Good equidistant comp school - definitely

and then they went to the 6th form with the 12,000 mile catchment

On your last para, are you saying that people don’t move for schools? In substantial numbers?

Among the smart and informed arguments on MN are some amazing blind-eye refusals to admit the obvious and that are persisted with come what may. This is one of them.

Hmmm, having watched both of our children go through the grammar school system I now have some reservations. If your sole goal of sending your child to a grammar is to garner excellent exam results then you'll be pleased. But I slowly became aware that our DCs were being (superbly) taught to just pass exams and that their school was essentially a highly successful exam factory. I became ambivalent about that approach although I couldn't argue with their academic results. In retrospect I would have preferred them to have a more rounded education, something like the Baccalaureate.

Probably easy to say now they’ve got amazing exam results…