If Labour make private schools charge VAT then they should allow new grammar schools to be created

[iPaddy]

I live in an area with zero grammars, no real choice in secondaries other than (often failing) local comprehensives or private.

I appreciate the arguments against private schools (creates unfair advantage) but what about areas with grammars? That's also an advantage. I'd love the option of a grammar school for the kids locally. The bright ones are being let down by the current situation. Has Labour said how they will address that?

As I said before, disruptive children from lower sets were babysat in higher sets (with more experienced teachers perhaps).

There is a problem with the size of schools at the moment. Financially perhaps you get economies of scale but my thought is that socially there is a disconnect of the relationships needed between teachers and pupils. This creates problems with discipline that impact the whole school community.

Lots in London, yes. We're doing applications at the moment and it's so complicated it's overwhelming. One school has a verbal reasoning test, another a non-verbal one, others music aptitude, I think some have language aptitude, some the banding (which is fairer), then there are the religious criteria with bands according to denomination (was going to become a Quaker, but then realised that barely qualifies in the C of E or Catholic schools).

Looking at sats results if 10% of non disadvantaged got exceeding. But 3% of disadvantaged got exceeding. They are already starting secondary less likely in top sets.
I wpuld expect numbers of fsm kids in grammar to be low.
It is very hard to believe almost 25% of kids are/have been fsm. Im convinced that is a lot of self employed creative accounting etc as the limit is like 8k!

Here re secondary buses are almost 1k per year comprehensive. For 10-15min /30 min per day.

Existing Grammar schools in England has the lowest Free School Meal percentage take up across all other type of schools, the support for lower end or disadvantaged background but bright students are even worse than private schools with good busrary provisions. It would be unwise for the government to charge the VAT on private to fund a specific group of affluent middle class who want to save private school fee for more selective feature secondary schools.

Whenever people ask for more grammar schools to be created to supposedly facilitate mobility for "bright but poor" children, I always feel like saying "OK, we create new grammar schools BUT they are exclusively for children from non-graduate parents with household income below a certain (low) level - how about that?"

Needless to say, such an idea goes down like a cup of cold sick with most people - for all the vague patter about "bright but poor" kids, the demand for GSs comes from middle class families who basically want a "private school that's free."

Has anyone else read Ken Clarke's memoir ?- very humble beginings. I was surprised.

It’s such a load of bollocks. My DCs go to a secondary school that has historically had terrible results, in the grammar days was the local secondary modern. Pockets of real poverty in the catchment. Parents from my local area would nearly always send their DCs out of the catchment to other secondary schools nearby. Like most of the parents we applied to do the same with DC1 and there was shock, horror, panic when barely any of the kids got places in the usual out of catchment schools. Most of the kids ended up giving the school a go and they sat their uni-entrance level exams this year - every one that I know has done extremely well. Basically this relevantly advantaged subset of kids have taken their advantages to the catchment school and it’s that that has made the difference, not the school. A friend of DC1’s had recently clocked how low DC1’s school has been ranked and commented on it therefore being really surprising that DC1 had done so well. DC1
was “WTF?”, also told friend they thought the teaching was really good at DC1’s school and there was a lot of support because the school knew a lot of the kids didn’t have a backstop in the form of tutoring - although most of the kids from DC1’s primary will have been able to and many will have.

The UK had one of the best education systems in the world. I benefited from it greatly and I’m not particularly smart. The traditional private system taught me how to be disciplined and apply myself.

Today I’m working with recent graduates and I’m appalled at the lower standard. Graduation from a good degree program has become the new A’Level standard.

It’s a shame the focus is on charging VAT rather than utilizing the drop in population to allow class sizes to naturally drop to 15 max in a class. I also think a school day 7-7 would solve a lot of problems. Serve all 3 meals at school, support homework and do an hour of exercise a day. It’s expensive, so find the money and make it happen. It’s a lot cheaper to have children in school 7-7 than fixing gang related violence, drug running and young girls being abused because their parents are working so can’t adequately supervise them.

The thinking behind grammars was that there were not enough 'officer class' people to do managerial jobs so some plebs with a bit of something about them could be given a better education.

Today I’m working with recent graduates and I’m appalled at the lower standard. Graduation from a good degree program has become the new A’Level standard.

Programme. 'A' level.

I went to a comp that had been a secondary modern.

It's just unworkable though, isn't it? How do you define the right kids? Our classifications are too blunt. What happens if their circumstances change, do they have to change schools? By marking a school out "for poor kids" a lot simply won't want to go there because of the stigma.

And I think it's actually really healthy to have children from all backgrounds in the same school. I know the sure start centres got a lot of stick for being invaded by middle class mummies and not helping the right families but my experience was that it was really mixed and actually, everyone benefited from that.

Implications for your proposal @user1477391263 people might think "better not earn more in case my kid can't go to that school". Or women with degrees on low wages (not uncommon) wouldn't be eligible to send their kids there.

This is interesting:

https://fullfact.org/education/social-mobility-selective-education-era/

Grammar schools have always widened the gap between rich and poor in society.

I teach at a ‘leafy’ comp. I teach the full range of socioeconomic background and ability. Any poor behaviour means immediate removal from the classroom. This means that 99% of children can learn in peace, and the 1% who can’t follow rules either get with the programme or spend their school career being babysat by a pastoral leader.

How about making all schools better for all pupils.

Rather than just some.

@sashh "The thinking behind grammars was that there were not enough 'officer class' people to do managerial jobs so some plebs with a bit of something about them could be given a better education."

Yes, this. You only have to read writers like Evelyn Waugh to see what the "officer class" thought of grammar school types.

I'm a bit sceptical about that link @TheOutlaws, the organisation is not all that it seems.

I was speaking to an ex civil servant from the department for education last week and his view was that the data was a pretty flawed when it comes to education and social mobility. For example, it typically excludes women because having children disrupts women's careers at exactly the time the social scientists are trying to collect data on the benefits of a degree.

@iPaddy @user1477391263
You both make valid points but the idea could be developed into something that would work.

You know there are schools that ensure a representative spectrum of ability by setting an entrance test but rather than taking the 250 highest performing applicants they divide the applicants into e.gm 5 bands of test score and take 50 at random from the highest performing, 50 from the second band, 50 from the 3rd band etc.

You could theoretically do the same using a scale of affluence/advantage to create a selective school which preserved accessibility across all socioeconomic bands.

All applicants would take the same exam but there would also be a banding questionnaire which asked for parents level of previous education, total amount of capital (including home equity, savings and investments) and household income, and this information is used to place all applicants into one of 5 bands of afflence and privilege. The school then takes the top 50 from the most privileged band, the top 50 from the next band and so on. This would mean that those who pay through the nose for tutoring are competing only with each other, and their strategising doesn't affectcthe chances of those who can't afford to tutor. That coukd genuinely lead to a grammar that didn't make things worse for the least advantaged children in the area.

But personally I would rather have well-funded truely comprehensive schools which each have a grammar-level stream for the best performing students. I'd rather not see efforts to create more grammars, but if there were more grammars then a banding approach could work.

@YireosDodeAver totally unworkable, expensive, opaque and open to challenges from families.

We have very, very blunt data to decide "privilege". E.g. my friend, a commander in the Royal Navy and therefore his kids are entitled to FSMs, is anything but disadvantaged! That's just one example.

Imagine looking around and wondering "who was in what band?".

I definitely don't trust school administrators to make that judgement call.

I find the comments saying "I got to go to a great grammar and my sister had a crap time at a crap secondary modern, therefore grammar school is terrible!" odd. Surely the secondary modern was terrible. Instead of getting caught up blaming one school or another on why some kids get a bad education, we need to properly fund all schools (Inc grammars which receive the least funding, but especially special schools which are grossly underfunded) so that all schools can educate our kids well.
The terrible secondary modern went comprehensive a few years later and improved somewhat. My old Grammar, funded by the CofE, went comprehensive in 1981. The proper funding of all schools is what I want too. My point in the comparison is that dividing children into grammar school/non Grammar at the age of 11 is nonsense and has little bearing on intelligence.

When I read of coaching for the 11+ on MN I despair for those children really. Do they end up in a school with only the children of parents who have paid for this service regardless of actual ability? Is that what the parents really want? I suspect it is.

I also think VAT should be charged on Private School as it is a luxury and a Grammar school should not be a Private School on the cheap.

A Grammar school under state funding will never provide the education that private school does. It is not a "free private". It is merely a selective school that some parents want.

I'm absolutely unashamedly thrilled that my bright, hardworking DD has just started at grammar school. I do not apologise for the fact that I don't want her to spend another 7 years of education bored whilst teachers focus on kids with a whole host of special needs and behaviour problems. That is the alternative in our area so high performing leafy comps don't come into it. I also think that people who think comprehensive education would work if only private / grammars were absolished and comps funded better, need firsthand experience of going to a shit comp or having their child go to one.

I say this as someone who grew up in care and lived in one of the most deprived areas of the country. 12% of children achieved 5 A* - C grades. A lot had shit lives (as did I), but a lot were bone idle, violent and thoroughly unpleasant, and took the easy way out at every turn. Frankly, hell would freeze over before I glamorise or sentimentalise working class comps to my own kids (I realise most on here will have access to a 'better sort of comp' anyway). I guess that a lot of posters lack this first hand experience.

The thing us that if you live in an area with grammars, you cannot possibly have experience of a comprehensive- as the ‘other’ schools in grammar areas are, by definition, not comprehensive as the most able / better prepared / better supported children are educated elsewhere.

The extent of ‘non-comprehensiveness’ varies - other schools in eg Kent, where 25% or so attend grammars will be different from eg Gloucestershire where that proportion is lower. It will also vary from area to area - 4 of the Gloucestershire grammars are inn1 city and 2 in another town, so those areas have ‘other’ schools that are more affected.

However, it remains true that a comparison between a grammar snd the ‘other’ school in the same locality is not a comparison between a grammar and a comprehensive.

If that was directed towards me, the area I grew up in was fully comprehensive with no grammars. I now live in a different area of the country.

I think you probably need four types of schools Grammar for the top 25-30%. A second school which should oversee the mainstream and engaged next 50%. A Grammar school type environment that is adaptable to academically able children with Special needs/mental health issues who can't currently/ permanently cope in mainstream settings.

Finally there needs to be a institution where the 15% or so who are making teaching and school life intolerable for the majority of staff and pupils can be educated in.

I don't mean PRU units either because they obviously take less than 1% of problem children and are seen as a short gap solution.

If you provide really well in a wide range if special and short stay schools for the children who have most difficulties - socially , academically, behaviourally - and also provide expert advice and support for different types of SEN, plus social support for families, health and housing and remove all those responsibilities from schools, then there is no reason to further split schools over snd above an expanded special school sector and well- funded comprehensives.

@Madrescuechicken good luck to your DD ❤️

This thread has glossed over problems in primary school. My friend teaches 30 Y5 kids, 20 of which have SEN or significant family/social problems. One classroom TA. She does her best but no doubt the bright kids will be bored.