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?

Oh fgs. It’s like saying Keir Starmer should have eschewed any good state schools near his house because he should actively seek out deprived schools if he is ‘truly Labour’.

🥱

Everyone wants what's best for their children- comprehensive social justice warriors included so it seems 😆

They did further upthread.

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

@CaptainMyCaptain

The thing is, if you genuinely believe in selective education, Madrescue, then you presumably regard both parts as equally good, because they are equally ‘matched to each child’s ability’. So why us a parent who sends one child to each part ‘taking advantage’?

Or is this just showing that you think grammars are ‘better’ and it doesn’t natter if secondary moderns are ‘worse’, because those are for ‘others’? The value you seem to ascribe to each suggest as much?

Of course grammars are better than secondary moderns - this is not a reason to get rid of them. Just because some children are getting a good education through grammar school doesn't mean they should be pulled down to make a point. Focus on improving non grammar schools. Focus on more special schooling at the other end of the spectrum. Fact is, despite a generalised study stating that comps are as good as grammars, in many areas like the one I grew up in they are not. I'm very happy my child doesn't have to put up with disruptive behaviour and move slowly through the curriculum (yes, this is the experience of family and friends who have top set kids in comps in non selective areas).

The point is that many people, including the Labour Party, are saying that parents who use whatever means they have to send their children to a (private) school they think is best for their child should be penalised through VAT. On the other hand they then use whatever means they have (often being able to afford expensive houses and tutoring) to access free state schools and then say that is totally justified and fair. How can it be unfair to use money to pay for private education, but then entirely fair to use money to effectively buy your way into a decent state school?

But if, as studies show, the selective system conveys absolutely no advantage over a comprehensive system, even for mire able pupils - see studies linked upthread - why advocate for a system where the vast majority of pupils are destined for schools that you yourself believe are worse?

Yes, I am glad my children went to a good comprehensive school, and I see that as no barrier to wanting every child to have the same experience.

Because, as I've repeatedly said, this does not apply in my experience with comps in disadvantaged areas. I presume you don't live in one? I presume the comp you sent your kids to had reasonable behaviour, SEN support and a decent pass rate at GCSE?

Is your argument that comprehensive- supporting parents must also move house to ensure that they live in the worst possible catchments (as well as deliberately move out of any selective area their lives have brought them to)?

I agree that selective schools having a flawed and tutorable test is absolutely wrong. I strongly support admissions authorities who do everything they can to reduce admissions gaming / fraud and ensure that catchments as far as possible cover different socioeconomic areas. I believe comprehensive schools in challenging areas should get much more funding and support. I would support fair banding with sibling arrangements and an equal distribution of FSM and SEN pupils.

I do not, however, support the idea that I have to move house just because my local comprehensive is good.

@sashh Im in the US and my spelling is US based. It’s correct for my location which I know isn’t Uk based.

The critical thinking skills is where I see the biggest gap. I have 3-4 Indian graduates working for me each rotation and they are nearly always excellent. It might just be the small sample I have the pleasure of working with but I think it’s a function of their education system having a huge amount of competition due to their population size.

I bet you don't 😉

Because, as I've repeatedly said, this does not apply in my experience with comps in disadvantaged areas. I presume you don't live in one? I presume the comp you sent your kids to had reasonable behaviour, SEN support and a decent pass rate at GCSE?

I have also repeatedly said that comprehensive schools in deprived areas MUST have more money and support, including all other factors like health, social services and housing, in order to
improve them - because I do not believe that separating off 10% or less if the students from such areas while condemning the remainder to an even worse experience is the right way forward. I know you disagree.

Look, I know my reply to you was facetious, and I love your idealism. My life experiences have taught me that very few people live by such ideals when challenged. 'If we lived in a perfect world' and all that...

I would be entirely happy to enter a fair banding test and be allocated elsewhere, so your remark is not the gotcha’ you think it is.

Okey dokey! That halo needs polishing some more. As I say I love your idealism, but doubt many parents who have postcode access to the top comps would share it though.

I’m just a bit tired of being told I cannot believe in the comprehensive system just because of the house I happen to have lived in at the time. It’s just a cheap jibe.

Well, one reason might be what a pp said upthread against grammars that poorer children can’t afford the greater travel costs to get to a further-away grammar.

Whether that’s genuinely a factor I doubt. But if it is a factor, you can’t have it both ways.

Look, you can believe what you want as can I, but I think we all know that vehemently supporting the comprehensive system whilst living in a lovely postcode / catchment area is pretty a pretty privileged thing, just like me sending my kid to a grammar- we all like life's little privileges so own it.

@Whilemydishwasher you are correct- travel would have to be free.

‘How can it be unfair to use money to pay for private education, but then entirely fair to use money to effectively buy your way into a decent state school?’

totally agree with this!

Parents are generally only keen on grammars if they think their kids will get into them. If it becomes apparent that your child won't, suddenly they're a much less attractive option...

A teacher at the premium comp near me told me that quite a few sixth formers drive to school in much better cars than the teachers and take the piss out of the teachers’ cars.

I bet that’s common in the comps in better off areas with tiny, house-price-rocket-fuel catchments.

I do get sick of the ‘egalitarian’ comprehensive pushers. We all know those are predominantly people who’d shudder at the idea of their children going to a comp with a poor reputation in a disadvantaged area.

Take those studies with a serious pinch of salt. They are very, very flawed.

Pretty much true of the tiny catchment privileged postcode comps too though. Most don't have a chance of getting in. Most parents are happy with that.