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?

@FinalCeleryScheme
The vast majority of people do not move for schools
its a MN myth put about by the super rich in London.

The school my kids went to took 1/3 from out of catchment
(now its 1/4)
Why would I bother moving when bus fare is cheaper ?
(kids outside London do not get free buses remember)

You must know that that’s not what I asked you. Of course many don’t move for schools (I don’t know if it’s the “vast majority”, but I very much doubt it). The reason many don’t is because they can’t afford to.

Opposition to grammars is partly built on an argument of the better-off middle class benefiting from grammars.

It’s people like those - and in fact also less well-off parents but at least those with enough money and options to make the choice - who do move into catchment areas. It’s incredible that anyone disputes this.

”A myth put about by the super rich in London”. That’s a joke, right? The super rich are all private schoolers.

Do you think schools stream kids for every subject? Usually maths and science, sometimes other subjects but I don't think it's ever all of them.

Grammar schools do not add value
its really that simple
sharp elbowed parents hate to admit that the tutoring was not worth it

Comp areas have less tutors and less stress
but the same overall results

I did not move for the right state comp
I just paid bus fare
(4 miles worth each way)

But what about the average/below average kids? Why are you just focussing on the top kids? They all deserve to do as well as they can and not just in exams but sport music drama art etc too.

So by the beginning of year 6 she had taken he 11+ and you were expecting her to get in, then you appealed and she did get in.
So by year 6 you had an idea that she was book smart and you were right!
Not quibbling grammar schools, just that she passed the 11+ so is obviously clever! And motivated, hard working etc and you are supportive involved parents 👍

I actually began to feel somewhat ambivalent before they took their A Levels. Our eldest got the grades to study English Literature at a good university but in the end they decided on art school and the school was not impressed.

Not at all. I'm saying it with affection and awe that they have found their tribe and are enjoying school together- often these kids wouldn't be in a gang together in a state comp and would have a more lonely experience of school.

And re the high performing comps - there's one near us that is in a grammar school area but house prices are v high there while our local comps aren't doing so well

@Userxyd "But what about the average/below average kids? Why are you just focussing on the top kids? They all deserve to do as well as they can and not just in exams but sport music drama art etc too."

I absolutely agree. Which is why I am strongly opposed to selection. The problem with Mumsnet is that generally posters assume they will have grammar school children, so the others are not their problem....

MNers are - despite what some on here say - strongly skewed middle class. Sometimes that’s aspirational middle class; often it’s comfortable, progressive middle class.

The comfortable progressives tend to choose to live near good comps.

Not correct. We didn’t assume she was book smart. What she was was determined. She wanted to take the 11+ and we didn’t stop her.

FWIW 97% of her class took it at primary school. About 40% passed.

Reductive

Do you live in a grammar county? Thought not.

Still none of the pro grammar/sec mod system lot have answered where you draw the line between academic and non academic. And how, if academic cut off is 25%, you stick the “non coordinated” 26%ers in a vocational school and how that works out for them or the late developers.

The system is not fit for purpose and the only reason it hasn’t been abolished completely is cost.

I’m not sure what you mean about where you draw the line. Do you mean ‘how can you separate the more academic from the less academic?’ If so, I would have thought the 11+ is your answer.

If you mean ‘no test will be perfect’ I agree with you. But that’s how exams work.

Why shouldn’t late developers flourish in a SM if the SM is well run and interested in its pupils’ education?

If your child is bright enough to go to grammar and wants to go then should be given the opportunity to study amongst their peers.

If you wouldn’t want your child to grammar then it’s no concern of yours. If your child isn’t bright enough to get in then tough shit - they wasn’t bright enough.

We have to stop taking those educational opportunities away from children because some adults can’t cope with natural selection.

Labour used taking away private schools for adults jealous over children but now those same adults don’t even want children to have that higher learning for free because their child didn’t cut it.

It really is a case of ‘if my child can’t have it - neither can yours’ - it’s bitterness and jealousy and really not pleasant.

I have two kids in prep - eldest leaves for secondary this month. She took the 11+ and even though she got fantastic results the grammar nearest us had a very high pass rate to get in as it’s in the top ten in uk. She would have passed for the other grammars but we are out of the catchment area for them. She is now going to a lovely secondary. Youngest schools fees won’t be an issue as we not paying for two now. She will also try for the grammar - if she doesn’t make it she will go to the same secondary as her sister.

No grudges held.

I just wish adults would stop trying to dismantle what other children are doing because their kids can’t have it or didn’t reach the mark it’s pathetic

Has a survey ever been done re tutors and state school, any state?
One of my dc has had to have extra support in a subject for years because the school couldn't do it. Primary.
And I know s few parents who have had to supplement thier dc learning in state schools secondary due to lack of teachers consistently and poor teaching/ behavior and so on a general lack of care also.

I'm fully prepared to expect to have to get tutors in also when it gets near to gcse.

People definitely move to catchment areas!

@Oldcroneandthreewitches except many labour mp have utilised the best schools for their own dc. Dare I mention Diane abbot etc.

*forgot to add loads of my dc friends have been tutored in primary not for 11 + just every day stuff

@Oldcroneandthreewitches "It really is a case of ‘if my child can’t have it - neither can yours’ - it’s bitterness and jealousy and really not pleasant"

It absolutely isn't. It's thinking about an education system that works for everyone and for society at large. And which doesn't label 75% as failures at the age of 10.

No one does label them failures at all.

@StarieNight "Dare I mention Diane abbot etc." Of course you can mention Diane Abbot. I was disappointed and angry that she sent her child to private school. Next?

@StarieNight "No one does label them failures at all"

Course not. Despite the fact that is a pass/fail exam. That "getting to grammar" is something to celebrate. That there are many adults who still remember the feeling of failure. (Michael Rosen is interesting on this subject) I could go on!

At my kid's school there was a family of 4, Numbers 1 and 2 failed the 11 plus, Number 3 passed - they hung banners on the house - "well done DC3 !!" "DC3 passed!," etc.
My daughter's friend's Dad told his daughter in my DDs hearing that if she didn't pass she'd end up working in Tescos.( he was a teacher...)
I'm pleased that DD came home saying "why would that matter" but neither of our DC took the 11 Plus,as they struggled academically (SpLDs) and that wasn't the messageI wanted them hearing.
There is a strong Pass/Fail undercurrent.
I grew up in Kent, and when I was at school it was called the Kent Test officially,they wanted to move away from the pass/ fail feel - that didn't alter the outcome.( I passed so experienced the whole thing from the other side. I thought it was wrong then too)

No one gets labelled failure - AND - not all children are the same academically.

Same as adults.

I agree the education system is set up wrong. Not all children cope well with written work/reading/academia. Some children are better suited to kinetic jobs - doesn’t mean they are thick. All contribute to society- we are not all destined to set the academic world alight!

We have to move away from ‘everyone is equal’ because we are not. But what we do need is different opportunities for different people that allow them to thrive instead of dumbing down society in the name of ‘equal opportunities’

Would you prefer to get away with ‘winner medals’ too?

This is dumbing down society not to upset little hearts - and parents.

My dd 2 didn’t pass the entrance exam for the grammar we wanted. Her entire school was itching for it as it’s a prep - she’s currently looking forward to her new school. Maybe parents need to manage it better

"@Oldcroneandthreewitches "Would you prefer to get away with ‘winner medals’ too?"

Nope. Happy with winners medals. Happy with prizes for achievement. Happy with setting in secondary schools.