Labour to reduce number of Grammar/Selective school places?

[Another76543]

This thread is not about private schools. It’s about the Labour Party’s dislike of state grammar/selective schools. Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has, in recent years, stated that she wants fewer children in selective schools, and more in comprehensive education. Angela Rayner has also expressed her dislike of the grammar system.

Does this mean that, under Labour, the number of selective places will be reduced? Will parents have less choice over the type of education their children receive?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=OW21Tu38Txo

Well it was Labour who got rid of most grammar schools previously so I wouldn't be surprised.

I agree.

They could also remove faith based schools which would further reduce the inequality in the system.

Great idea, lots of people on here bleating on about private schools when there is so much inequality in the state system, if we want a true level playing field in the state sector:

abolish grammar schools
abolish faith schools
remove sibling priority if parents move out of catchment
put in place lottery system to eliminate purchasing better education through post codes
give every where else the same funding that has elevated London schools but left everywhere else lagging

I’d love someone to remove the right for state schools to discriminate on religious grounds. That would sway my vote.

Not for the best achieving children it isn't

But that’s Labour in a nutshell.

I’m not sure you’re right there - grammar school areas don’t result in better grades even at the top end.

Its all a red herring. Removing grammar school, putting VAT on private schools etc is just a waste of time unless you tackle the real inequality of catchment areas. The amount of middle class people who can afford naice houses in naice catchment areas so that they can attend their local Outstanding state school bleating on about grammar and private schools is disgusting. At least grammar and private schools offer a chance for some that otherwise wouldn't be able to live in the expensive catchments to access a similar standard of education. These kids would otherwise literally be condemned to go to their local sink schools with absolutely no alternative at all.

Agreed. There’s no way to tackle catchment areas though unless you make people travel miles. What we need to to raise the standards so there aren’t any sink schools. This requires lots of money. The austerity of the past decade has destroyed some schools. It makes me so angry I could weep, such long term damage for the children going through school now it’ll take a generation to fix it.

I don't understand the logic of abolishing schools where students do well? Are we saying that these kids should be responsible for raising the attainment of other schools where student outcomes are not as good? Why?

Raising standards isn't about money or parachuting rich and/or high achieving kids. It is down to the parents and students VALUING education. That is why grammars and privates and outstanding in naice areas do well. They want the schools to do well.

Because god forbid these students will do well in life and become high earners - where's equality in this???

they won't be then "hard working people who rely on state and can't write cheque if they have a trouble" means not Labour voter base anymore
Simples

@FluffMagnet yes, I don't believe a school can be good simply because of teachers and resources, it requires students who are receptive to and engaged in the education it provides, and families that support them in this.

None of these actions will make a difference to increasing equality in education. The main thing that will allow more equality is more robust guidance on behaviour. If all students have to behave, more students can learn. Those who don’t behave should be sent to alternative provision. It might not be seen as equal but their choices shouldn’t negatively impact others. But to get decent behaviour, what is needed is strong political policy which gives heads encouragement to enforce good behaviour policy and forces parents to support it or face their child moving to alternative provision.

You will never remove inequality and level the playing field, that’s the red herring. It’s impossible.

There have been ‘sink schools’ to use PP’s phrase forever, this isn’t a new phenomenon.

Agree with PP; the attitude towards education from parents and students is a bigger predictor of success than anything else

@nearlylovemyusername 😂

I doubt we can afford that in the short term.

Remember that the state does not own these schools, which are currently in co-operation with the state sector.

I don't think that any party is showing the slightest intention of upsetting that apple cart.

I think it's possible that Labour might seek to complete their abolition of selective schools (grammars, all selective streams and aptitude places)

Unfortunately a large section of parents don't value education or schools and that is reflected in their child's behaviour and lack of respect for schools.

You have to jump through hoops to get into a grammar school or faith school and the parents that do that are invested in their child's education. That is why the grades are generally better.

Unfortunately comprehensives don't have that filter and as always the lowest common denominator parents and kids that don't care) will drag the others down.

put in place lottery system to eliminate purchasing better education through post codes

If they do their job properly, they won’t have to to do this because all schools will be equally good, surely

Does "selective schools" include places such as drama schools?

Does "selective schools" include places such as drama schools?
I find the pervading opinion is normally that it's fine to select kids on ability of any type other than academic. Then it becomes elitist...

HOORAY!
And I hope calling for an end to selective schools includes selection based on a child's sex.
So many people on here fighting for an end to selection on ability, on faith but strangely not on sex.
I know loads of parents who send sons to the local comps and daughters to selective all girls schools. It means the comps are imbalanced in terms of male/female ratios.
If you are going to argue that girls do better in an all female environment, the same can be said of bright kids being in a academically hothouse environment.
The world isn't single sex nor is the workplace.

Yes it's very clear that labour doesn't support diversity in schooling options, very worrying. I do not want every school in the uk to be a one size fits all secondary modern, because children aren't one size fits all.

We need more educational diversity and labour do not get it.