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?

This. If socialism was about making sure no one fell too far behind the mean that would be one thing but all too often it seems to mean no one getting too far ahead either, even if their abilities warrant it and regardless of their background.

We deliberately chose a non grammar area when relocating when DD1 was 9. We knew grammar school wasn't the right fit for her, despite DH and I both attending them.

Very pleased with our decision now shes 12...
Shes in the top set for Maths and science, and gets extra help in English. She will have the choice of both vocational and academic subjects at KS4. The college shes most likely to attend is similar... a range of academic subjects plus vocational subjects.. and sends multiple kids to Oxbridge each year.

Its what a school should do... support all kids.

Having taught in both private and comprehensive I have to agree with anysoln about differences in teacher effort. The effort and work in the comprehensive school by the teachers was so much higher.
Obviously I’m being facetious but statements about the quality of teachers in private and grammars being better really annoys me because it’s absolute rubbish. Believe me, the expectations laid on me in the comps I’ve worked in are massively higher.

Most children I know in private school wouldn’t have a hope in hell of getting into a grammar.

@MichaelAndEagle is the abundance of good comps in your area at all mapped onto affluence? Or is your area disadvantaged with an abundance of good comps? Just asking because the latter is vanishingly rare

Unfortunately when it comes to teacher quality, grammars are more likely to have experienced and qualified teachers than the secondary moderns in the area.

The grammar offers an easier ride in terms of intake, and often offers the option to teach A-level, making it more attractive to job-seeking teachers than other schools.

don't grammar schools give children a different choice / experience and possibly an advantage towards one route?

I had a very disrupted early life and failed the selection for the local grammar, being told I should leave school as soon as I could. Fortunately we moved to an area with a good comp where the teachers were interested in helping each child meet their potential. 2 degrees, 2 post grad diplomas and a profession later, I am very very grateful to them. I think comps can be great if given the right resources, without those being leached off for kids whose ability is more a reflection of their parents abilities, than their own.

The point is people should have the schools they want. Schools therefore should be able to become grammar schools if the parents of pupils want them to be. The 164 Grammar schools along with the 20 or so Fake Comprehensives (the ones that have to let in 2 low attaining pupils each year are the best State Schools in the Country).

This tells you we should have these schools available to more than 5% of the school population. (Grammar).

isnt that an argument for comprehensive schools though? Then ‘better teachers’ will be accessible to all students?

The main reason private schools get better results is that the kids are brighter to begin with, nothing to do with the teaching. If there were only grammars, tiger mums would get their children tutored so they get into the grammar schools to the exclusion of naturally intelligent children.

Hate to break it to you but your kid is unlikely to be naturally brighter just have greater opportunities. There’s no gap to fill there’s a state system to improve.

Bulby

No doubt you are required to fight fires and if you are really good, they might let you have the A Level group !

The schools people want usually means ‘ the schools the middle classes want’. Which are at the expense of the disadvantaged and people who can’t afford to tutor.

@Luckydip1 private school kids are naturally brighter...? Good god. Teach in one!

If grammar schools did genuinely offer a route out of disadvantage for clever children from disadvantaged backgrounds then there may be an argument for them. But they don't.

I went to a grammar 20 years ago. This topic was discussed a lot and many teachers felt that GS was most helpful not for the super clever who will do qell anywhere but for the sort of kids who end up with straight As but not A* and go on to professions like nursing and teaching. Which is actually true as most of my class became teachers or health care workers!

I had an amazing time, realistically because the children there were pleasant and chose to be there (although WC as the area itself is very deprived, but probably upper WC/few FSM). It was also single sex so maybe it was solely due to no boys to chase!!

I've known people to be incredibly successfully having come through the grammar school system.

They can be selective and pick children with greater potential whereas state schools are non selective.

Yep - live in south east London, and there are children in DS’s school who have had a tutor since Y1 explicitly to get them into the Bromley grammars. It is bonkers, it really is (these are middle-set kids). Don’t even get me start on the Kingsdale music scholarship arms race.

Yep.

It’s a myth that grammar schools are for poor bright kids. They are for the kids of parents with the financial and cultural wherewithal to ensure that their kids get into them.

My kids are bright, and we’re financially secure but without anywhere near enough money for private schools. But if there were grammars we’d make sure we paid enough to tutors to get them in. That wouldn’t be fair. So instead they will go to the comp and be streamed in that.

I live in a county with no grammars and the options are either pay for private or fork out an extra £200k for a house in the catchment for the one decent comp in the city. Either way the ones with the money get the decent education and those who can't are thrown to the sharks in the crap schools.

I’m going to go back and read the messages properly after this post but had to respond! I usually don’t respond but just read things but I felt I have to in this case. just to note, I’m quickly typing this whilst doing 100 other things so this might not be as succinct as I would like. Please no toxic remarks about any spelling or grammar mistakes! I’m not reading through this just typing and posting.

I have extensive experience of state schools, private, grammar and even PRUS. Firstly not all private schools are the same, just like not all state schools are the same. There are Some amazing private schools just like some amazing state schools. In my experience as a mostly state school teacher I will be 100% honest with you - at secondary level there is no way I know all 30 (sometimes 32) kids in my class! That’s all teachers not just me, of course someone will come along to disagree. My focus is always the weakest kids and due to this the higher achievers and middle attainers come second. Of course when the head teacher is observing me I’ll have “stretch and challenge” activities for the higher learners and try to stretch the average students etc, but that’s not every lesson, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do this everyday. Of course someone will dispute this.

So let’s look at private school - the ones I’ve worked in, most of the kids are on the same level and behaviour issues are very very rare, again someone will dispute but that’s my experience. We quickly get through the curriculum as there no barriers to learning. We even manage to get all the mastery level learning done.

work load - I have a much higher workload in state. Much higher. I come home exhausted. In private I had energy and felt really good. Yes I seemed to do less work in private but that’s because it didn’t feel like work! I was working with kids that 99% of the time we’re happy and wanted to be there. Their enthusiasm etc. in turn made me a better teacher as I wasn’t screaming and shouting at them to listen. They were very happy and truthfully I felt like an amazing teacher.

There is so much more I want to write but I need to get my own kids to bed. If anyone wants to know more or has questions please ask. I won’t respond to toxic and aggressive questions. I’m willing to have a debate to challenge what I’ve written but won’t respond to any aggressive comments.

If grammar schools did genuinely offer a route out of disadvantage for clever children from disadvantaged backgrounds then there may be an argument for them. But they don't.

They did, I think. When the system was countrywide, so you didn't have to be rich enough to buy a house in one of the few grammar school areas, and when hothousing for the 11+ wasn't quite so common.

I teach at a grammar school in the NW of England. We do have quite a lot of bright girls from disadvantaged backgrounds and from poor areas. We also have a highly ethinically diverse intake even though the school is in what is generally a very white area, especially in the surrounding villages and more rural areas.

Sorry so my point was to the person saying private is a waste of money - it definitely isn’t! To the teacher who said she did less work in private yes that’s true but because you were not dealing with the crap all the time. To the people who say state kids can do even better than private - I do not disagree and have seen this. My point is don’t make private schools to be this waste of money that some people are trying to do.