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

Based on UCAS data, comprehensive schools and sixth-form colleges currently represent the majority of admissions to Oxbridge and Russell Group institutions. This suggests strong evidence that the 11+ examinations and grammar schools may not be necessary, and that the system can function effectively without them.

And to add, those that didn’t make the grammar cut going to private school isn’t going to impact the study results; it accounts for the prior academic achievement of pupils (together with other factors) and compares to achieved GCSE grades at schools in selective and non selective areas. It makes no difference if a proportion of kids are sent to private and aren’t included in the data for selective areas because it’s looking at impacts on an individual level.

Actually it’s the Tory government who have literally made education into a one size fits all institution. They have broken education in this country by narrowing the curriculum and focusing only on maths and English attainment in primary. They have shackled educators to follow a very narrow curriculum that massively discriminates against all children who are in any way neurodivergent.
We need to see all children as having value and the right to a well rounded and robust education. All these two tier options stifle that.

How does that curriculum discriminate against the neurodivergent? But in general, the more diversity the better - smaller schools, tiny schools, alternative curriculums, I'm for it all. The very last thing I want is massive comprehensives tightly controlled by the state, through the curriculum and in other ways.

I see no broadening ideas in Labour's policies. In fact the attendance register really doesn't look good to me as the parent of children that struggle to attend at times.

My issue with the grammar system is that it just peels off a percentage of already advantaged children and gives them an even bigger advantage whilst offering absolutely nothing to the remaining 80%

My own children are reasonably academic, but not grammar material, and are now languishing in a non-selective where terms like geeks, nerds and swots are commonplace and achievement isn’t really valued. Behaviour isn’t awful but does leave a lot to be desired.
if I may say so myself, I am not a lazy, feckless parent who doesn’t care about education - my kids, like me, just aren’t grammar material. They should still get a decent set of GCSEs though.

In my area, there are schools that offer hair & beauty, mechanics, building trades etc - which are obviously ideally suited to those kids who, with the best will in the world, aren’t going to get 5 GCSE passes, but all the non grammar places are allocated predominately on distance. Why? Why do grammar kids get to travel in from far and wide to the school hand picked as suitable for them and only them, but everyone else just has to go where they’re told?
Equally, only kids that pass the 11+ can choose between mixed or single sex schooling.

I agree with previous posters that levelling up is more usually levelling down, but there are things that could be done to make things fairer, without just treating everyone as the same.

God forbid we would have options for our kids. Let’s take everyone to the lowest common denominator.

All political parties are in it for themselves! Voting for any of them is voting for whose shit stinks the least.

if Grammar schools are going to exist they should exist equally across the country, not just in the odd place here and there. The problem is that children that are motivated, but not quite at that level lose out.

Taxing private schools isn’t going to improve mainstream offers, it’s going to lead to more over subscribing and larger class sizes in mainstreams, and less scholarships offered to families that can’t afford private schooling to counter act the loss from those that leave.

Large class sizes mean that differentiation is harder and still not on point (the more able children left to sort themselves out and either learn things incorrectly or aren’t challenged enough, and the less able children left to flounder as funding for TAs is minimal and EHCPs take a long time to come through).

Those that think taxing and abolishing various schools need a massive wake up call. Labour said their plan to hire all these new teachers was “through retention” the other day WTF? That doesn’t mean more teachers, that means keep the ones you have. The ones that are treated like shit and expected to parent as well as work 40-60 hour weeks. You are having a laugh if you think private school, grammar school and faith school teachers and going to jump at the chance for those jobs.

Rather than rallying against schools any government needs to look at the reasons why schools are failing, teacher burnout is high, and retaining staff is becoming impossible.

Unfortunately, the majority of politicians are too clueless to even recognise this. As for sorting it out, god knows how that is done.

Could you please post some sources

As an undiagnosed autistic girl who was sexually assaulted aged eight at school and routinely battered in the schoolyard, I dispute the idea that I was "already advantaged". I passed the 11+ without being hothoused or tutored as my parents couldn't afford that. The single-sex grammar school I went to was a lifeline for me.

Until comprehensives detect all autistic girls and safeguard all girls, I will defend single-sex and selective schools.

There's more to schooling than exam results. Girls must be safe.

Equally, only kids that pass the 11+ can choose between mixed or single sex schooling.

My sister's comp is single-sex.

i agree with this. Schools do well if parents are involved and supportive and bring their children up to value education. No matter how good a school could be, if the students don’t want to learn, are disrespectful, violent etc then they won’t learn and will impact the few children who do want to learn.

my children go to an outstanding faith school. As such there are all abilities. My older child is higher achieving and the difference in the pupils in his class compared to my younger child who is not high achieving and so is in classes with children who don’t want to learn is vast. Even in an outstanding school with excellent teachers, they struggle to get some children to engage. I can’t imagine being at a school where those children are in the majority rather than the minority.

DS went to a failing comp but because he was in the top sets, he did very well, it seemed to be the middling children that didn't do so well.

I’m sorry for your experiences, but you misunderstand me.
Obviously, not every single child who goes to Grammar is personally advantaged, but as a group they are, statistically at least. And I’m not advocating for the abolition of grammars or single-sex schools, I just think it’s unfair that only the academically minded who passed one test aged 11 get an education geared to them, whilst everyone gets lumped together. And I would have chosen single-sex education for my children - I didn’t have that option. Because they didn’t pass the 11+. I understand that choice does exist in other areas, but it doesn’t in mine.

I agree with your points about inequality in the state sector. A great state education should not be a postcode lottery.

Personally I think that the entire system needs a total overhaul. I’m not sure that removing choice is a good thing, but choice should be available to everyone regardless of where they live. Other countries seem to manage this much better than we do.

Every child should have the option to attend single-sex schools, independently of 11+. I'm sad that your children haven't had this option.

I agree with this. I don’t think the problems with education will be solved by throwing money at the problem. Behaviour is a huge issue. We had large class sizes (above 30), in a poorer area of a city, with some families struggling to make ends meet. Everyone behaved though. We could all learn without major disruption. What was different then? We had strict teachers with high expectations. The majority of parents cared about education. Children and parents respected teachers.

I agree. Many in the Labour Party have been very vocal about their dislike of selective education. They’re not shouting it from the rooftops now because it wouldn’t be politically popular, but those views haven’t gone away.

We are not in catchment of a grammar, which means that if we want the option of latin or German, the only option is to pay for private school. All state schools should offer the same subjects in my opinion.

You’ve previously posted about your DCs taking Latin and Greek at school.

So paying for private then?

My DC's state secondaries both offered French, German and Spanish as MFL; one of those schools was located within a city where each secondary school acted as a hub to facilitate the less popular subjects (not dissimilar to my own sixth form experience in the 1980s). Probably harder to do now with the Tory’s dismantling of LEA schools.

Yes we are in the fortunate position of being able to choose private school. I don’t think that children should be limited in their subject choice based on whether their parents can afford private school though. All children should have a wide variety of options, regardless of where they live or their parental income.

I think what you mean is ‘we are in the fortunate position of being able to pay for private school for multiple children’. Most people can’t do that.

The vast majority of state schools provide a wide enough range of subjects for their pupils to enable them to progress to their chosen university courses.

The academic education of high performing students should not be sacrificed just to benefit others.

”soft skills”, really? It’s not the first time I’ve heard this argument and I know it won’t be the last.

my child doesn’t need more soft skills, she needs a school that can teach her calculus

Finland has an education system which doesn't allow private schooling, children aren't streamed, there are no selective schools. The outcomes for pupils are ranked amongst the best in the world.

@Ponderingwindow "my child doesn’t need more soft skills, she needs a school that can teach her calculus"

Hmm. I'm pretty sure my children's soft skills served them much better in life so far than their knowledge of calculus. Or Greek and Latin, for that matter....

I have two children attending selective / faith schools so this worries me! We are the same faith as the youngest’s school, but approximately half of my his class is made up of children from other religions. He is exposed to far more cultural, racial and socio-economic diversity now, than he was at his previous bog standard village primary which was failing him academically. At the new school there is a culture of wanting every child to do their best and valuing academic high achievers instead of telling them to be quiet and stop taking up the teachers time asking for extra work. This is why lots of parents from other religions want to send their children to his new school - they may not share the same faith but they do share a desire for their children to be able to get on and learn and be challenged and pushed to do their best.

My older son attends a highly selective school and it has been the best environment for him - he would have had an awful time at any of the local comps (which have huge behavioural issues with both pupils and parents) and he likely would have been bullied for his academic talent. Why is it ok to have selective schools for dance and music etc but not for academic intelligence? Why should he have to suffer in order to marginally pull up the grades at a shit school that won’t meet his needs? I write this having witnessed my brother be bullied and lose all his self confidence at a comprehensive where his intelligence became a burden to him not a gift. He has never recovered from the bullying, despite now being middle aged. I think we need more diversity in types of schools, not less!

I'm always amused by the fact that selective school supporters always assume that their child is going to be positively selected....