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?

It may or may not be true that grammars favour the children of better-off parents (in the sense of time, money and commitment to passing the entrance exams), and it may or may not be true that a bright child will do just as well in a comprehensive (though I think that’s rubbish, more often than not).

But what is undeniably true is that good comps (and primaries) attract wealthier families buying into the catchment. It’s rife. As previous posters have said.

What comprehensives offer is the middle-class left a way to buy what they believe to be a better education, but by putting the money into property, and saying “oh, we’d never go private or selective”. Double bubble, Mr and Mrs Achingly-Progressive!

At least selection for grammars is honest. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the dishonesty of ‘comprehensive’ education.

Except they won't be teaching all students, will they?

So your DC might get the brilliant one, but chances are they'll get ones from the middle of the bell-curve, and they might also get the odd/uninspiring one

It may or may not be true that grammars favour the children of better-off parents

It is undeniably true. Plenty of evidence to support this.

It’s not hard to see why parents want different options for bright kids when those supporting comprehensive education always come out with the - bright kids will do anywhere line or that resources should go to children who are struggling with education (even on this thread). This basically translates to bright children should put up with being ignored for years.

A super selective private school or grammar will also have a completely different idea of what doing ok means compared to a comprehensive. I went to a state secondary for a couple of years and was getting good grades but hated it. Then moved to selective girls school. At the girls school around 70% of A level grades were an A. It was unexceptional to get three As and get into Oxbridge. Top students were taking extension exams and getting some of the top grades in the country in A levels and winning prizes in maths challenges, taking GCSEs years early etc. If you were on track to get a C you would be getting extra support - it was considered a bad grade. Classes for all girls went way beyond the exam syllabus into undergrad material. You just can’t teach in that way with a wide ability range, even with top sets. Teachers who have students struggling to pass aren’t realistically going to put much effort into students already getting As or spend class time on stuff which won’t be in the exam.

From the perspective of the country’s future, there’s an argument for taking the brightest few percent of children and giving them the best education we can.

The left wing view now seems to be that the state should have a complete monopoly on education and that that education should be a “leveller” such that no child gets too ahead of their peers. It’s only ok if your views on what makes a good education are in alignment with the state and your child has no needs which deviate from the norm.

I also agree that people in private system are often paying for classes without disruption. All students benefit from being in calm classrooms where students listen and behave respectfully. We should be doing more to ensure this is the case in all schools. We should not be trying to find ways to just have this for the most able or those whose parents can afford to help them into selective schools.

Historically grammars have increased inequality. I'd prefer that they put money into comps

And what about those with kids in the secondary moderns, what would they think about the local grammar school getting the more experienced and qualified teachers?

Ok, I’ll take your word for that.

Do you accept it’s also true that being able to buy in a more expensive area gets entry into more sought-after comprehensives? And that many, many parents (plenty of them vocally anti-selection) do so?

Why would that follow?

Can secondary mods not attract good teachers? Why are grammars more able to afford the more experienced?

Are all comprehensives equally attractive to potential applicants?

Or would new teachers have to be allocated by performance, so each school gets its fair share?

But they would have been equally successful in the comprehensive system.

I'm not defending the grammar system in terms of fairness, but I'm afraid this is patently untrue. I have taught in multiple schools in my area. It would be frankly ridiculous to claim that a bright child from a working-class or disadvantaged background would be likely to be equally successful in the local comprehensives as they would in the grammars.

The difference in levels of behaviour and disruption between the two types of school are absolutely massive, as are the levels of aspiration among the students. The grammar schools still find it relatively easy to recruit experienced, well-qualified teachers and get the pick of the best newly-qualified ones. The comprehensives are struggling to put qualified subject teachers in front of classes or even to find reliable unqualified supply teachers to step in.

The students who make it through those comprehensive schools successfully are likely to be the ones who have very supportive, highly educated parents who can help them navigate through it and compensate for what the school is failing to provide. They will succeed in spite of their school, not because of it.

Grammars tend to select by stealth too, so even when children from poor families get in, they often end up not going because of transport costs and an absurdly expensive uniform.

Can secondary mods not attract good teachers? Why are grammars more able to afford the more experienced?

They have different priorities and are able to attract high quality applicants.

Let's face it, however you dress it up, people pay for private schools and/or want grammars so that their children don't have to mix with riffraff.

VAT on private schools is a populist vote winner for Labour. Does anyone actually think it will improve state schools? I doubt it. It will mean that labour have paved the way to put VAT on all education. As they think VAT should be added to education, it would be a bit hypocritical for them not to go for university tuition fees next. I imagine they will poll it before making a decision about where there moral compass lands.

I very much doubt that’s true, as against many comprehensives’ uniform policies. And as far as I know grammars’ catchments are on the whole much larger than comps’.

The best way to improve comprehensive education for the vast majority would be to relieve these schools of the overwhelming responsibility and workload presented to then due to the absence of sufficient special school places, lack of specialist support for all SEN, the huge holes in Social Services provision for families in difficult circumstances, and the lack of genuine highly-esteemed vocational pathways, to name just a few.

Any additional schools should be special schools, expanded short stat schools etc and all extra funding should be ploughed into support for the least able and least advantaged, because that will improve the school experience for so many more children than creaming off the most privileged.

No one is willing to put enough money into comprehensive education. You would need all the support help for all the emotionally vulnerable. You would need all the behavioural specialists and psychologists and psychiatrists for students who shouldn’t be in the classroom. You need all the extra pay for teachers to be wooed away from easier schools and you would need a load more teachers to provide the small classes to overcome early years educational disadvantage. And that doesn’t even mention crumbling schools, lack out outdoor space or facilities. Grammar schools are a lot cheaper.

I also agree that people in private system are often paying for classes without disruption. All students benefit from being in calm classrooms where students listen and behave respectfully. We should be doing more to ensure this is the case in all schools. We should not be trying to find ways to just have this for the most able or those whose parents can afford to help them into selective schools.

I think this would make a huge difference but realistically it will not happen. When I was a new, young and energetic teacher my main mission was to get the behaviour sorted before even attempting to teach, if behaviour is not good then there is no way anyone is learning. I’ll never forget my inner London school! I phoned the parent of the worst behaved pupil. I was extremely pleasant and took it in the manner that we are a team and I need her support. She was completely wacky she told me she’s a solicitor (not true) and she’s going to sue me for making lies about her son!

headteachers response was she’s crazy and don’t call her again. After that she actually had a note put on her contact details thst she’s difficult. No one supported me and I’m being honest but I was too scared to talk to these parents. One even walked right into my class (I was ground floor and fire exit was open which meant door was open) and she screamed at me and rest of the class made a rumour that I was crying (I wasn’t! Obviously I was shocked but didn’t burst out crying).

I got to the point where I didn’t care anymore, I know that sounds bad, I just came to work for money but didn’t really care anymore. I started off as a very hardworking teacher and had the life sucked out of me. Behaviour will never change till parents start supporting teachers and SLT (senior leaders) stop being scared of the aggressive parents and do something.

As is true for the well-heeled purchasers of property in catchment areas of good comps. At least with grammars it’s not a dishonest system of (many) parents trying to look egalitarian and principled but buying exclusivity by other means.

I grew up in a grammar school area, I went to a comprehensive as I didn’t want to go to the grammar, for a start their PE department was crap, they didn’t even have a field, just a concrete quad. I acheived all A’s at GCSE, many of my friends achieves majority A grades.

England does not need more grammar schools, they need more comps, more specialist schools and more teachers.

It's not just grammars that go in for expensive uniform. There's been a whole outbreak of it in academies round here (despite government guidance that means uniforms shouldn't be single supplier)

The high-achieving, sought after partly-selective has only three logo items of main uniform, plus one optional item, and 3 logo items of PE kit, and everything else can be had from anywhere

Many in the Labour Party are openly critical of the grammar system and I seem to remember that the shadow education secretary has already said they’d oppose the extension of the grammar system. I suspect that, after they’ve targeted private schools, academically selective schools will be their next target.

To make it fairer, there either needs to be an expansion of grammars and academically selectively schools or they need to be scrapped altogether. It seems ridiculous that academically selective schools are only available to some children, depending on where they live.

A better system would be more like other countries - where children are celebrated for their strengths, be that academic or more vocational, and education is tailored accordingly. Neither should be seen as better than the other.

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps oh I can promise you it's true. And catchments are irrelevant, if you are on benefits and the choice is a walking distance school or the grammar across the city where the bus pass is £100 a month, what will you choose?

Let's face it, however you dress it up, people pay for private schools and/or want grammars so that their children don't have to mix with riffraff.

If you mean people want to avoid sending their children to schools without horrific behaviour problems, then yes. Why wouldn't you want that for your child? You can understand that the behaviour is caused by deep social problems, and realise it's not that kids are 'riff raff' and still not want to send your child somewhere where they will not even feel safe in the classroom.

I didn't send my children to the grammar schools (just over the border into the next county), although they very likely would have got in. I was convinced the local comprehensive was pretty good. I bitterly regret that decision. It was ok and then went massively downhill. My ds will be going to the grammar for 6th form.

@Fossie you say "You would need all the behavioural specialists and psychologists and psychiatrists for students who shouldn’t be in the classroom."... What do you think a school's remit should actually be? I'd say that these days a lot of schools ARE so stretched they're needing to step into these roles (and as food banks, laundromats etc.) But since we're talking idealistically, that's not what a school's remit should be at all. That should be covered by other public bodies. Schools should educate - they shouldn't have to do all this other stuff or they can't function.