To think it is hypocritical for parents who are anti 'Tory elitism' and are Labour voters to send their child to a grammar school?

[Liketochat1]

Aibu to think a parent who is a Labour voter and anti 'Tory elitism' and private schooling, might be hypocritical to accept a place at a grammar school for their child? If you have left wing views, would you accept a grammar school place?
This is not about me by the way or anyone I know. Just a hypotheitcal question I've discussed in the past and found interesting.

Sorry I meant Old Labour types, not Lord Labour types (though some became both of course).

I thought that both the Conservative and Labour parties were opposed to grammar school education.

I don't see anything anti-socialist about supporting grammar schools. Cuba has a grammar school system.

And who is against elitism in every situation anyway? If we are deciding who gets to carry out brain surgery, then people with the skills and education required to carry out brain surgery get to carry it out - it is an elitist occupation. We don't let any random person wander in off the street and have a go at it. There is nothing anti-socialist about supporting elitism in some selection procedures.

Social mobility has seriously stalled since grammar schools were abolished.
I agree with this.

I also agree with thebody that there are very good comps and, when they work right, they work great. Ideologically I'm all in favour of comprehensive education. Sadly, though, it seems too few schools have the capability to nurture the whole gamut of childrens' potentials.

One slightly awkward thing: my grammar modelled itself slightly on the private system at the time (compulsory Latin and some classics; a fair amount of 'deportment'; lacrosse) and, much as I might deplore social exclusiveness, I think that helped with the mobility aspect.

The Labour party (Blunkett I think, when Education Secretary) promised that there would be 'no more selection under Labour', which could only mean the abolition of the grammar school system, but were ultimately unwilling to take on the battle and lose the votes of Middle England.

The Conservative party promised that there would be no expansion of the grammar school system, preferring to focus on academies and free schools instead.

Just typed a long post and deleted it....basically, the most staunch Labour supporters I know would accept a place at a grammar school for their child, if their child had got in fair and square. Why not? The system maybe crap, and only 2 or 3 % of DC in the catchment may benefit, but if that just happens to be your child, then I don't think it's on the same leve as sending your DC to an independent school.

Bradford Girls' Grammar, an independent selective school, is supposedly becoming a state , selective free school. So selection in state schools will have expanded under the Conservatives.

peaks - that's not the only one, my point was really just that the Tories never said that they would abolish grammar schools but the Labour Party did (but then didn't).

And I really cannot see how grammar schools can fit into a socialist ideology - only 1-2% of grammar school pupils are eligible for free school meals, so the 'passport out of poverty' argument is nonsense.

There are very good state schools and no doubt very expensive houses around them in thw catchement area. Dont suppose many Labour supporters would object to buying house in the catchment area - as many do.

I know a few Labour supporters hwo have DCs at private school. LibDems are often much more hypocritical on this issue though.

Personally I would prefer every child in the country to have access to a good grammar school or good vocational technical school with proper apprenticeships from age 14.

Its never going to happen in my town or in my lifestime and so we send our DCs private. I dont vote Labour either.

YABVU.I have voted Labour all my life.I grew up in a North Eastern pit village where I was taught that education was the only way out.The grammar schools gave a quality of education equal to any private school and it is wicked that poor children no longer have those opportunities.
The harm was in neglecting the non academic schools in terms of resources and perception.
I believe in the socialist principle of "From each according to his means and to each according to his needs". To me that means access to grammar schools for those who would benefit and vastly improved funding for all non grammar schools.

If you disagree with selective education, then yes, it's hypocritical to take advantage of it for your children.

Or is a comprehensive education all right for the hoi polloi, but not for the left wing intelligentsia?

And I don't think it's accurate to refer to the school system in Cuba as a grammar school system - everyone completes secondary education and then chooses whether to continue on a 'pre-university' route or a more vocational route, at - I think - age 15 or 16.

thegreylady - I agree with you, but then why have you voted Labour, as they talked about abolishing them completely?

Adeu, whether or not 1-2% of children in grammar schools are entitled to free school meals is in itself, irrelevant. We would need to know whether or not selection at 11 is more or less fair than any other method we use to select students.

So is the eleven plus more or less likely to select with a bias based on parental wealth than GCSEs, A levels, catchment area, university entrance and so on?

I know that selection by catchment area is more elitist in terms of wealth than selection by the eleven plus. The most high achieving comps are more socially selective than the remaining grammars.

That isn't an argument in favour of grammars. But it is certainly an argument in favour of grammars rather than catchment selection.

As for Cuba, I don't think free choice is that likely. If somebody really isn't seen as capable of university education, I doubt they would be allowed to continue. And it is hardly a dividing line of socialism - is it okay to select people at 11, 15 or 18? At some point, everybody thinks there has to be some selection, it is just when that selection takes place and how fairly it is done.

it's quite possible to be totally against financial elitism or class elitism but in favour of academic or ability elitism (meritocracy).

for the record, i believe that comprehensive education is a better approach but to be honest, when people move house to choose their school catchment we don't have a comprehensive education system.

if you are in a selective LEA then your kids are in the system anyway - why is it worse to go to grammar than sec mod? 'Comprehensives' can't be if they're alongside grammars

No it isn't hypocritical. OK, the system isn't perfect (for one thing I would prefer the 11+ was a 13+) but I think it's better to select by academic ability than by financial means - the comprehensive system is selection by financial means because only the better off can afford a house in the catchment area for better schools.

When you have limited places in good schools and explicitly prevent selection by ability - it implicitly encourages selection by wealth (ie buying houses in catchment areas or paying to go private).

Surely covert selection by wealth is even more of an anathama to socialists?

So, by the same argument you would also think all Tories who support the free marketare hypocrites for using the nhs? As for Tory MPs claiming expenses from the public purse...!

is it hypocritical for parents who are anti 'Tory elitism' and are Labour voters to send their child to a grammar school?

yes. they should donate their children, and their children's futures, to the local comprehensive.

if the children are hardworking, intelligent little treasures, they will come out with a string of A*s and As at gcse, just ready to go on to A levels and university. but if they're lazy, arrogant supercilious little so-and-so types, they'll mess about for five years and then their parents can whine about the 'poor school' and the 'incompetent teachers' and go on about how they kept to their principles even at the expense of their children's education.

My grandmother went to a grammar school a very long time ago (I imagine 1920's) and when she left she was advised to go into service (she refused). My sister went to a grammar school in the early '70's. No coaching, she was just bright. She thought at last she would receive a stimulating education. She was disappointed, and lasted 2 years before my parents put her in an independent school. I'm not sure when this golden age of grammar schools was, but it seems to be a very small window.

Aren't Grammar schools publicly funded? Therefore it's just a better version of a state school. Being Anti-tory elitism and a labour voter doesn't make you anti decent education.

Coming from someone who is neither anti tory or a labour voter, i just don't think your point is rational.

Adeu because I hang on to the dwindling hope that one day some Labour Leader will realise that the best way forward for poor bright children is through an appropriate,targeted education.
I think the golden days of the grammar schools were the 15 years between 1945 and 1960.