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?

I agree. A lot of people who are anti private school and in favour of the VAT are in the fortunate position of having a decent state alternative. I suspect that if a lottery system was introduced, these people would claim it was unfair. A lottery system is the only fair way, to remove the postcode lottery. State funded schools should also not be allowed to discriminate based on religion - everyone should have an equal chance, regardless of whether your parents have been to church for a few years.

I have two grandsons who went to a comprehensive in a deprived area and got As and A*s in their A levels. Bright and motivated kids with family support will do well anywhere.

Anyone who thinks that a grammar school is simply a ‘free’ private school is mad. The funding disparity between the two is enormous, private schools get more than double the funding per pupil and that will have an impact on facilities, class sizes, extra curricular offers and so on. The graph below is a couple of years out of date so the situation will be worse now.

I am not sure about the practicalities. As in, I wouldnt want my child being allocated comp that was very far away with no easy transport option as I think it would impact on family life and the ability to do out of school activities. Walking to and from school and being able to eat tea together and do a sport has been very valuable to my son.

If we had been allocated a different school in the area it would have been a higher ranked school as at the time of chosing schools ours was one of the 'worst' in the county (ranked in the bottom 10 of around 170 schools). It would have been very annoying to get one of the other low performing schools but 2 hours away. It would have been less annoying to get the high performing, outstanding comp just 3 miles away. But my son enjoyed his time and did well in his low ranked one. There was a change in head and new behaviour policy that helped a lot with that and Id like to see other low performing schools turn around too. Before the new behaviour policy it was a bit crap. The problem wasnt my son being exposed to low ability or mid ability children either. He has some good friends who didn't get stellar exam results. Some bright children are still bullies that make life miserable.

Id have hated a school with a gang problem or sexual violence. But i dont really see, at a societal level, that saying low ability and mid ability children can be exposed to gang violence but high ability children cant, is ok. It makes sense for an individual to do anything they possibly can to avoid it, but i dont think its great society level planning. I'm never going to judge individuals for making the best of whatever system is in place.

Logically lotteries make sense... but how can they work logistically except in city centres? London it could work with its close by schools... but not elsewhere.

We live in a village... not remite in anyway, but it is a village. DD attenda the Village Secondary school, which covers 5 villages plus some farms etc.

2 miles away there is another village Secondary covering a different 3 villages. No public transport links the villages together.

Next nearest school is 5 miles.

Would you mix up the children in these villages, or continue with the catchment system including the school buses?

I chose a private school for my children. That was in part about discipline and behaviour in state schools which I did not agree with, along with issues about bullying and sexual assault. I agree that in theory a bright child can flourish anywhere, and went to s comp myself, but recall how tough it was if you were brainy, it seemed anti achievement, not by the staff, but by the pupils. Pretty much nothing was done about kids who didn't care, disruption of lessons, and bullying,

I think many parents probably feel this way to work so hard to get children into grammar or private schools.

There will always be some children who are the exception. There are far too many children who don’t reach their full potential in some of these schools though. Where children are subjected to daily violence, class disruption where the teacher is basically trying to crowd control rather than actually teach, there is no way that the majority of children can possibly do as well as they could in a calm classroom environment. There are lots of schools massively underperforming the national average; that’s not just because the children aren’t capable of achieving better, it’s because they haven’t had the opportunity.

Exactly the same here. We have experience of how hard it can be as a child who wants to work hard in a school where hard work is not seen as a good thing. It’s not an environment I would want for my children. That’s not to say that all state schools are like that, but lots are.

Well CaptainMyCaptain, if bright and motivated kids do well anywhere what's the problem with grammar schools existing alongside the comps? By your logic, if children like your Grandson's end up in a local comp or secondary modern they will do fantastically anyway. Parents who want to send their kids to grammar school continue to have that choice. Happy days.

The reality is I doubt your grandchildren were at a rough comprehensive school in a deprived area were they? I'm sure it was in a nice location (not an area where less than 20% of kids get 5 GCSE passes), but please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Hmmmm... interesting that some people wouldn't want their children travelling to aid the social mobility a lottery system might bring ... I wonder why that is? 😂

@Another76543 - yes. I could not square the stated ambitions of the schools I went to who were comprehensive with actual experiences that I heard about. You can get good results but the environment affects children.

Eventually I transferred out of a comp and went to a private school. It was like night and day in terms of behaviour, perhaps because they did not have to keep you, and if you did not get good results you were out of the school. I can't say I liked everything about private schooling, but the actual day to day environment was totally different. It was set up for you to achieve.

They did well but weren't the only ones. It is a good school.

Fair banding is the opposite of being selective. It ensures a fair and representative distribution of ability.

It is a good school.

That’s why the results are good then. There are plenty of state schools which aren’t “good”

No one can possibly think that a child sent to a school with small, quiet classes, tailored education, surrounded by children who want to work hard and value education will come out at the end with exactly the same results as if they’d been sent to a failing comp where there is is minimal teaching because of behaviour problems and where children are bullied for trying hard, and where there is no aspiration.

Bang on @another

Funny how there's not many here queuing up for a lottery system, especially if their kid could be bussed into a failing comp in a rough area.

Haven’t read the whole thread but in my experience, affluent London parents with sharp elbows really know how to play the grammar school system, be that buying a house so they are in catchment or spending lots of money on tutoring.

I know one parent who is spending literally tens of thousands on music lessons/tuition to get her child into one of the ‘best’ partially selective state schools on ‘musical aptitude’ - doesn’t seem fair on kids who could be just as musically gifted but haven’t had such advantages.

So you would be happy with a lottery system with no distance consideration all together? Children spending 90 minutes each way going to a school at the other side of the county for example, just to be fair?

Yes, it’s funny how it’s apparently “unfair” that some parents choose to pay for private schooling (therefore not costing the state anything), but it’s apparently totally fair to spend money on tutoring and high house prices to effectively buy your way into decent schools funded entirely by the state. When people suggest closing that “unfairness”, it’s not met with quite the same enthusiasm…….

I can only see two direct responses to the lottery question. I appreciate my reply had more than one paragraphs.

But i pointed out that a lottery system would have likely sent my son to a better school as there was 169 better schools and only 10 worse. I still prefered that society raise standards at my cloest school and he could walk even which such hood odds from the lottery. I think there was little material difference between the bottom 10 other than journey time.

I didn't see the point about the lottery. If I had the job of reforming the education system, I would either go lottery or fair banding. And I live in an all selective area.

@Another76543 "That’s why the results are good then. There are plenty of state schools which aren’t “good” "
There aren't, actually.

It depends what you mean by ‘good’.

88% of all state-funded schools are Ofsted-graded good or above.

In that 88%, not all will be good experiences for all pupils.

Equally, the 12% may in fact contain many schools that offer a good experience for many of their pupils but do not meet the Ofsted criteria.

No school is totally ‘good’. Almost none are totally ‘bad’. Equally, almost none now have the money or support they now need to meet the needs of all of their pupils, especially as so many now have pupils whose needs should best be met in special schools.

This is just one article. There are lots of children who can’t access a decent state education.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/schools-regional-disparities-report-b1872086.html

I agree. My idea of “good” probably isn’t the same as ofsted’s. My idea of “good” is that a child gets an education suited to them, with enough staff who can pick up and act upon each child’s strengths and where children can learn in a classroom with invested teachers, alongside children who are keen to learn and do well. I’m less interested in whether they might have missed ticking a box on endless paperwork. The other issue is that there are a fair few schools which haven’t been inspected for years.

Parents who want to send their kids to grammar school continue to have that choice.

No they don’t. The schools choose the kids, not the parents.

The parents have the choice to put their kid in for the entrance exam, they don’t get to choose the outcome of that exam.