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?

Whether grammar schools help children in the poorest sections of society or not is not the point!

The point of them should be to any child regardless of wealth or background who passes an exam (whether that child has been tutored is irrelevant) . The only point that should be considered is that the child at the point of taking the exam was of Selective ability.

I suspect one reason why large numbers of the poorest children don't get to grammar schools, is that many of their parents have no interest in schooling full stop. Thus, send them to the nearest school where they can do as little school work as possible and grow up to the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party !

Alternatively you could be have been an extremely bright girl, brilliant at Chess but have teacher parents, continually putting 'chips' on your shoulders whenever you visited a Private or Grammar School !

Because they are the ones who aren’t able to reach their full potential in a mixed ability class in the local comp. There are other options, of course, which some schools do use, like streaming from year 7.

I completely agree- my experience too!

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.

I too have taught in private, comprehensive and grammar. I agree that the workload is much worse in state. However, at the grammar school, apart from the workload, I sort of have the best of both worlds - largely very engaged and well-behaved kids and highly qualified, committed and excellent colleagues, but without feeling that you're only providing a good education for the rich. I know there are grammar schools where most of the students are wealthy, but mine genuinely isn't like that.

The private girls' school I worked in was just bliss though. Better pay, longer holidays, zero behaviour problems, amazing facilities, highly intelligent delightful students. Even largely appreciative parents.

I suspect one reason why large numbers of the poorest children don't get to grammar schools, is that many of their parents have no interest in schooling full stop.

And you're wrong. They have not yet managed to create an entrance exam for grammar schools that doesn't select for wealth over ability, despite many attempts to do so.

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

Depends on the private school. Pretty much all of the students I taught at one private school would have coasted into grammar school. It had a tough entrance exam, interviews etc. The other private school I worked in... not so much. That school was mostly about whether you played rugby or not.

@Luckydip1
I've known people to be incredibly successfully having come through the grammar school system.
I've known people to be incredibly successfully having come through the grammar school system."

Of course you have. But they would have been equally successful in the comprehensive system. And I BET they weren't from significantly disadvantaged backgrounds.

I just reject your notion that bright children are let down by comprehensive schools. Grammar schools belong in the past. Move to a grammar area if you are so in favour and deal with the fall out if your bright child has a bad day on the day of the 11+.

Morley
What is the evidence for this? Or is this just your view? I could equally say that low attaining kids are not reaching their full potential or middle ability kids are not reaching their potential or kids from this group or that aren't. It really is utter rubbish to suggest that bright children should have more resources than others.

Good post @Reeet33

My older relatives experiences is very much that grammars enabled them into university and professional roles. Maybe it's changed.

Instinctively it feels like there should be different types of schools on offer for different children. Not all children learn the same way or have the same aspirations.

@Coldcaller "I suspect one reason why large numbers of the poorest children don't get to grammar schools, is that many of their parents have no interest in schooling full stop. Thus, send them to the nearest school where they can do as little school work as possible and grow up to the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party!"

You know, when I read posts like this, I never know whether they are spoofs. So I never know whether to reply seriously or not....

Funnily enough, I’ve known loads of people being incredibly successful coming through the comprehensive system.

@CurlewKate you are not suggesting that grammar schools are no better than comps?

@iPaddy "Instinctively it feels like there should be different types of schools on offer for different children. Not all children learn the same way or have the same aspirations."

Do you also thing that a teachable test at the age of 10 is a good way to decide the best school for a child?

Grammar schools are largely private school by stealth. You need parents with the time and money to coach through their children. It is less about academic children and more about if you can afford private tuition and have the luxury of not having to work full time so you can devote time to supervise your child to study.

@KingscoteStaff yes exactly this.

Nobody ever calls for a return to secondary moderns. Yet the reality of a selective system is that the majority of children go to these.

FWIW, I live in Kent. My dc attended grammar schools. And I wish we lived in a comprehensive area.

And yet when this is done, what always happens is that the kids of the well-off get 'selected' for the academic curriculum, and the disadvantaged kids get 'selected' for something more 'vocational'.

In many different iterations in many different countries.

I doubt that Labour would wish to spend tax payer money on providing a two tier state education system either! Think you should save up some more cash to pay higher fees if this is v important to you.

I agree children learn differently but that's not a hurdle that the 11 plus identifies.

Dyslexics will be found throughout the ability range but they deserve to be educated differently too.

We should fix the comprehensive system with better resourcing to allow areas needing investment to get it.

Give ALL the chance to thrive

The reason that there aren't so many voices in support of grammars is that the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. The majority of the places go to already-privileged kids, and then the kids left at comprehensives (plenty of whom are equally bright, but less well-off, have areas of exceptional strength and others much lower, perform less well under stress or just had a bad day), are left in comprehensives with a far lower standard.

That worked when they only needed a smaller number to finish a levels let alone get to uni.

Much much better now to improve comprehensives, to the point they have the resources to stretch the academically gifted as well as provide the fundamentals for the less academic.

The difference for dd in the wrong set - too slow pace, hadnt even started the topic was huge. The kids were getting less than50% on y6 work in y7. So as say science and eng and languages arent set 1/3 of the class at least will struggle with simpler stuff.
At state secondary there are at least 2 of the 60 from primary who are so far behind they are pre ks2 so like a 7yo in ability.
And then theres all the sen issues.
But apparently gov fund grammars less so actually would save money.
And fighting for grammar places wpuld bring up more kids to exceeding level at sats in y6.

what people are willing to pay for is an education without disruption from those with behavioral issues.
if all those who cause upheaval in a state classroom or destroy infrastructure were not present it's unlikely anyone would be unhappy with the provision.

I agree

The grammar and secondary modern system was the norm for almost everybody over 60 who weren't in the private system. So no wonder not many PMs had a comprehensive school education. D'oh.