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?

8-6 isn’t unusual for a baby in nursery. Why is that seen as ok, but a teenager choosing to do those hours is not ok? It’s largely irrelevant anyway. Parents choose schools which offer lots of extra-curricular activities because they see that as a good thing, not because they don’t like their children! In any case, private schools have much longer holidays where the children aren’t at school.

a teenager choosing to do those hours is not ok

7-7 as a school day isn’t the same as a teenager choosing to do those hours, is it?

Noble: you suggested that the two 'Secondary Modern' Schools I highlighted had quite high requirements for Sixth Form. I don't think 5 grade 5 GCSE and 3 grade 6 GCSE are anything unrealistic . This because i thought the general consensus is grade 6 @ GCSE is perceived to be the minimum required to undertake any subject at A Level with Math's Sciences at grade 7 .

Blessed Thomas Holford actually got a grade 3 at its inspection last October. I do wonder what 'criteria' the Inspectors are using . Surely the school is doing outstandingly with both GCSE and A Level subjects.

I suppose some Ofsted Inspectors would grade a school grade 1 with 20% passing at grade 5 GCSE if it met the criteria !

Finally I would not want my children to go a school achieving less than 80% grade 5 English/Math's at GCSE . I know in most local authorities that 80% of pupils attaining grade 5 with English/ Math's is not possible in a Comprehensive. This without any filtering out of pupils results or creating a second school in which to put those under the grade 5 threshold. I believe selection is a crucial component in ensuring a sound and structured environment around a school.

Noble: you suggested that the two 'Secondary Modern' Schools I highlighted had quite high requirements for Sixth Form. I don't think 5 grade 5 GCSE and 3 grade 6 GCSE are anything unrealistic

Regardless of what you think, they are quite high entry requirements and so when the sixth form gets good results this is because of the requirements. The sixth form is definitely not a ‘secondary modern’ sixth form on that basis.

7-7 enables all the extra curricular activities, tutoring and time to complete homework. Most jobs are 8-6. This gives enough buffer to community and have staggered arrival and pick up so traffic congestion should be lower.

Im paying for private school and I pay extra for aftercare. What I get in return that I don’t get at the regular school are smaller classes, tutoring for my children at no extra cost, no need to drag 3 kids around town to complete activities and extracurricular activities of chess, robotics, student council, musical instrument practice (as well as band) and art.

I think it’s a great investment to make in our children and our future. Why should opportunity only be provided to those who can afford it? Equally those who don’t take advantage of the opportunities available should preclude others from benefiting.

*shouldn’t

Blessed Thomas Holford actually got a grade 3 at its inspection last October. I do wonder what 'criteria' the Inspectors are using . Surely the school is doing outstandingly with both GCSE and A Level subjects.-

As I thought, you have conflated raw results and quality of education.

Imagine, for simplicity, two hypothetical schools.

One takes in 100 pupils who are all achieving at a level where their projected grades are all 8 and above.

One takes in 100 pupils who are all achieving at a level where their projected grades are all 4 and below.

At the end of their time in the school, 80 of the 100 in the first school get 8 or above. The remaining 20% get 6s and 7s, below the grades their ability on entry preficts

On the other hand, in the other school, 80% get 5s and 6s. The remaining pupils get 4s, as their ability on entry predicts.

Which SCHOOL has done better by its pupils? The first school, despite its high results, has meant that 20% of it pupils fell below the grades they should gave got. The second, despite its much lower results, taught 80% of its pupils to exceed the grades they shoukd have got.

Ofsted USED to be far too swayed by raw results too. In the most recent round of inspections, the framework looks much mire at what the school actually dies with its intake.

Honestly FFS how about improving ALL schools for ALL kids?! What is WRONG with people ?!

Yes, let's make sure lots of people get to choose a failing, shit school for their children who are not do good as yours eh OP?

Do you not think that plenty of kids would be "more able" given the right circumstances?

What a bunch of selfish entitled c**ts there are on here!

Between school, homework and extra-curricular during the week and at weekends, my children almost certainly did 60 hour weeks (5x12 hours) throughout their secondary schooling. Dd’s hobby alone was 12+ hours a week. However, splitting the time between home, school, different extracurricular groups and different locations / peer groups was so much more flexible, and allowed each element to be much richer and in many cases of better quality, than remaining bound to a single school.

Apparently wanting this is not valid if one’s own children benefitted from a good comprehensive. No, I’m not sure about the reasoning there either, but I was told so quite forcibly.

I honestly can't believe that some of the entitled posters on here feel confident expressing their selfish views. WTF.

@Aintnosupermum makes a good point....

"Why should opportunity only be provided to those who can afford it?"

Indeed!

No wonder people keep voting in this arrogant self-serving bunch of tossers.

It's actually shockingly sad how self- involved people are. GYHAW!!

What’s entitled about objecting to rich people being able to buy houses that give their children entry to good schools, but the poorer can’t?

You’ve picked the wrong target.

The objection is that some people think the solution is to create schools that the rich people can send their kids to, to be surrounded by other rich kids, without having to spend money on an expensive house, or private school fees, just a bit of tutoring for an entrance exam.

Do you mean schools that allow any child of any background to sit entrance exams to a school, rather than just the rich being able to buy their way in? That sort of school?

And what is wrong with that !

Seriously no it is the creation of academically successful schools that offer many of the benefits of Private Schools. The state should have such schools readily available for whatever children can access them.

The people you call 'Rich' (well Rich is a comparative term in the same way that 12 Degrees Celsius is Boiling for a group of Eskimos .

However, when you use the term Rich i am assuming you mean the highest net paying taxpayers to the country, if so why should they not have the first access to the best schools.

Allowing children of any background to sit entrance exams is not the same as them getting into the school.

The evidence is that disadvantaged children disproportionally do not get into grammars.

Basically the rich buy their way in. That sort of school.

However, when you use the term Rich i am assuming you mean the highest net paying taxpayers to the country, if so why should they not have the first access to the best schools.

I would rather assume that the highest net paying taxpayers would be sending their kids to private schools.

Grammar schools are just as underfunded and run-down as other state schools.

Even assuming the data is right, grammars still allow, in all circumstances, the children from poorer families to try - and in plenty of cases succeed - for entry.

But not with colonised comps. There’s a Nelsonian blind eye about those schools - which, I suspect, outnumber grammars massively.

What are the FSM figures like at these 'colonised comps'? Can you name some?

You mentioned Dame Alice Owens as a school that well-off Islington parents try to get their kids into - that's got a PP figure of 5.2% where Altrincham Grammar for girls is 4.1% and for boys is 3.52%. So you've got more chance as a disadvantaged kid of getting in to the partially selective school you said all the well-off parents were fighting to get their kid into than the grammar schools that you say that give disadvantaged kids more of a chance.

Are figures available for average household incomes at different schools? Or any other metrics of parental wealth across schools?

Yes, one good metric of parental wealth is the number of PP kids in the school.

Can you name some of these colonised comps?