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?

If Starmer has lived in his house a long time and sends his children to the catchment secondary - however good that is - I don’t see the issue. If he is exploiting his wealth to rent a big house next to the good school for a year - much bigger issue.

No. My school has 5.4% of students on FSM and my local comprehensive has 11%. So neither have a very high percentage, but my school is nearer to the local comp's percentage than the comp is to the national average.

@quantumbutterfly I'll get me'sen to bed darling. Get up nice and early and get them bins all sorted for you in't morning. I'll bring me mate Dave to help, he failed the 11 plus n'all. Don't tell em I told you, but them grammar bins out the big houses smell worse than yours! And yours is pretty bad! I'm meant to tell ya to use your food bin for scraps, but I'll keep it quiet, just for you.

In describing schools as failing I wasn't particularly thinking about the Ofsted rating, more of the experience of the kids and teachers there.

E.g. my town's secondary school: high staff turnover; only one qualified maths teacher in the entire school; poor behaviour disrupting many lessons; some pretty violent incidents between children. I don't think any parent believes their child will reach their potential in such a place no matter how hard everyone tries. The GCSE exam results were tough this summer but luckily it seems the local college was pretty understanding about the issues.

AllProperTea, the national average is irrelevant, really, isn’t it? In your area, the grammar takes around half of the deprived children (and the more privileged within this group) that the non-selective (not a comprehensive) does.

It is therefore socially and economically, as well as academically, selective, rather than ‘giving the less privileged able a rare opportunity to succeed’, as grammar supporters often claim.

Op, so why do you think only the most able, and those with oarents who support 11+ preparation, should be able to ‘escape’? Surely you can see that improving the education for all - which actually means providing better for the least able, those with SEN, those whose circumstances and needs drive their behaviour - is a better option than a lifeboat for the already privileged few?

A lot of them are generally more intelligent. They come from backgrounds of fairly intelligent parents and that helps. There's always a few who aren't as bright, but having taught in both state and private I can honestly say there is a far higher degree of basic intelligence within private schools. This is proved via the INCAS tests that some schools do that measure base intelligence

I genuinely can’t understand how anyone can look at a school with such needs and decide that the obvious solution is to parachute out a maximum of 25% of the more able pupils, leaving 75% in a worse state than before, rather than providing better for the 10% or so who are causing the most significant difficulties, allowing the 90% to succeed as well

Not one anti-grammar poster on this thread (as far I can see) has denied selection for comps by house price, let alone offered a defence for it.

So what’s the answer to it? The colonising of good comps by the well-off middle class is a much bigger issue than grammar schools.

I suppose these people care about their children’s education so use their money and adapt their lives to get what they think is best for their child.

Oh wait, that’s terrible, er, er…

No there should be no private schools or grammar schools. Everyone in a comprehensive - they aren’t a bad thing and increasing the range of children in them will only make them even better.

The obvious solution is to improve all schools, surely? And that is generally best dine through providing best for those with the most challenges. It dies cist money, but can be very successful - see the history of London state secondaries in particular.

However, it us still worth saying that grammars are MUCH more socially selective even than leafy comps in areas of similar demographics, if compared catchment area by area. Yes, leafy grammars are even more socially selective than those in grittier areas, but all are much more socially selective than even the best comps in comparable areas.

I think she must mean schools like Graveney, which has a proportion of places for those with the highest scores in the Wandsworth test (so a kind of superselective admission stream)

Same test is used for fair banding in a couple of other Wandsworth schools. And I suppose you could argue that fair-banding is a type of selection, though of course it's not selecting top performers only but rather by ability bands representative of a whole population

Erm...are you culturally appropriating an accent? (frowns disapprovingly)

btw it's the cat litter that makes my bin smell, I'm told you get used to it. It's biodegradable so even in the landfill it won't last forever..I hope.

I put my older son through the 11+ (with no tutoring as I didn't want him to be one of those children who aren't bright enough to keep up without hothousing) for Wilsons school, (out of area and very competitive), he missed by 6 points so I know he was capable but the journey to get there was ridiculous so I was slightly glad. His comprehensive school experience was not ideal, I took furlough in lockdown to help him with online lessons (his teachers were on the whole marvellous).

I work with people who went through private and selective schools, despite our journeys we are in the same place but they have a 'confidence' in their own ability, a lack of humility for their mistakes. We are social engineering in our current school system and not in an egalitarian way.

fwiw my nephew has an IQ of 162 but did not pass his 11+.

Proper fair banding for an area would in many ways be a solution BUT it adds huge travel and sibling complexity so its disadvantages may well outweigh its advantages, especially outside urban centres.

(And proper tests are hard to devise, that babd on ability not preparation or class )

VAT is payable on luxury or discretionary items - everything from crisps to a haircut. Why shouldn't a private education be taxed in the same way?
Grammar schools are irrelevant to that.

The answer is quite simple. Fund and manage comprehensive schools properly and raise standards for all. When the NHS is in crisis, no one looks at it and thinks, you know what, the way to improve this or that hospital is to allow it to assess the patients on the way in, sending home those you don't like or want to treat.

I totally agree. I’ve always said that choosing to pay for private school is no worse than those who choose to hire tutors to pass the 11+ for grammar or use their money to buy houses in desirable catchments. For some reason, choosing private school is frowned upon, whereas paying a fortune for a house near a great state school, which many families couldn’t afford, is totally fine.

As fun as this debate is, it's worth pointing out that neither Labour or the Conservatives are going to change the status quo. Conservatives haven't got the time or desire to expand Grammars and it is too divisive to go in as a manifesto promise. Labour hasn't the guts to deal with them for fear of taking a position that some centre right voters (who they need) will really dislike. So in the end, no need for the Grammar lovers on this thread to get to het-up. All will be well (meaning the same) in the morning! Good night!

Because a good education where children can learn in a tailored way, in an environment conducive to learning, without being bullied for working hard shouldn’t be seen as a “luxury”. It should be an education which we aspire to for all children. What’s “luxurious” about a good education? It’s no different from arguing that private healthcare should be taxed. Is a private hip replacement a “luxury”?

I think because (a) I've met people who attribute their success in life from being able to "escape" through a grammar school education. And no, they were not privileged, far from it; and (b) as another poster said, children are not subjects in a long term social experiment. You only get one childhood. If you're 11 and desperate to learn but you're in a classroom with kids throwing chairs about, are you really going to be able to somehow mystically transfer your love of Shakespeare or trigonometry to the furniture flinger?

I’m sorry but that’s obvious nonsense.

One, a hospital is nothing like a school. Hospitals’ results and performance don’t depend on uninterested or poorly behaved patients or on peer pressure etc.

Two, if we spent more money on comps they would not attain some magical equality between them. The whole point of middle class dominated schools is that they maintain a standard without more funding.

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps

1. I do not agree that hospitals never have badly behaved patients, or that their work isn't made harder by patient choices (smoking, drinking, drug use, eating too much, and people inserting strange things up their arses).

1. Primary schools manage to provide a universally good standard across the UK, as do senior schools in other countries. You're just cynical because we haven't done it here yet.

true ...but the problem is the self perpetuating nature of it ...good education = more likely to get a 'good 'job = good money = ability to pay for your healthcare & your childrens' education.

We take it for granted in the UK that we have free education, it is far more valued in communities where education is a privilege.

Intelligence does not equal achievement, application and intelligence does.

Many children don't learn well in grammars because they are so stressed. Private schools can have bullying for poorer pupils etc. Brighter kids in comps are in higher sets and don't tend to see much of the chair throwing. A lot of comps are very strict at the moment anyway