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

Yeah, let's all cheer for schools in expensive areas being almost entirely populated by middleclass white kids instead of the significantly more diverse incomes and ethnicities of catholics living further afield.

</s>

@1dayatatime . Your example is absurd but I see where you are going. Of course there are lots of things we can't (and wouldn't want to) change. But those we do - truly equitable access to education being in discussion here - we should.

Lets have our kids learn in one big melting pot so they can learn and understand each other

@IFollowRivers I’m afraid I would rather like my own bright, capable, hardworking DD to be facilitated to fulfil her academic potential, rather than offering her up as a sacrificial lamb to some utopian education experiment.

I look at some of the feckless, unengaged parents of DD’s peers, who never read with their kids (and openly boast about making up fake comments in the school planner instead); who never attend parents’ evenings; who are aggressive to school staff, and I refuse to allow DD to be used to mitigate the consequences of their crap parenting.

It’s not the children’s fault - some of them are lovely - but removing choice from parents like us who are invested and who do care about education is only going to breed resentment. All of my own social circle would agree, and many of them have moved heaven and earth to get their kids into decent schools.

And yes to @1dayatatime - the heritability of intelligence is the massive elephant in the room, but of course no one will ever go there so we all just continue to pretend that everyone has the same academic potential and would benefit from a cookie cutter education.

Most schools set in math and I believe that the lowest achieving classes are generally smaller than the highest achieving classes.

My knowledge of calculus and other academic subjects served me much better than my soft skills when I left university. My observation is that it's a lot easier for people to develop their soft skills at a later age, say mid-20's, than for them to learn calculus properly.

Yes. For the many not the few!

I look at some of the feckless, unengaged parents of DD’s peers, who never read with their kids (and openly boast about making up fake comments in the school planner instead); who never attend parents’ evenings; who are aggressive to school staff, and I refuse to allow DD to be used to mitigate the consequences of their crap parenting.

@TempsPerdu have you ever wondered why they are like this. Could it be that they too were failed by society and/or the education system?

I think we all need to take more responsibility for our fellow humans. We do all live together after all.

I'd love someone to take responsibility for me. Sadly, no-one yet has offered to take over so I'm having to sort my own life out.

@IFollowRivers Again, not my DD’s job to be collateral damage in that process.

It’s a shame; I’ve taught myself, volunteer in school now, and am well aware of the realities of some children’s lives. But I’d also say that, yes, in a fair few cases it is just genuine fecklessness/anti-intellectualism/lack of interest on the parents’ part.

Not all parents - including some materially well-off, middle class ones - aspire to the same things as we do, and to an extent that’s fine. But a ‘one size fits all’ system just won’t work - we should be providing a rigorous academic education for those who want/are capable of it, alongside high quality practical/vocational alternatives for those (the majority?) who don’t.

Yes I do.

I have a DD who is not academic at all - she has a very high IQ but has significant SEN, didn't learn to read until she was in Year 3 and has no interest in anything except music.

She is in top sets for a couple of subjects, middling sets for some others and basically remedial sets for others.

School have constantly moved her around to find best fit. She started out in top set maths because she aces NVR tests. However understanding concepts is a real struggle for her and she has such poor working memory that she needs constant revision. She was utterly miserable in a high achieving, fast paced set. Then they moved her to one where she was finishing everything ages before everyone else and was bored. Third set proved to be the perfect fit - kids at a similar level and speed. She has to put a bit of effort in to come near the top of the class. Good for self esteem and good for her maths.

We've had similar with pretty much every other subject.

She doesn't feel bad about the remedial class - she's more annoyed that there is no option to ditch that particular set of subjects and do something more interesting that she would do far better in.

The subjects she's in top sets for aren't ones that she's interested in - she just happens to be naturally good at them. However the pace and level of discussion has meant that she has grown to be far more interested. They are also the classes with the least level of disruption.

When a child struggles with focus, the last thing they need is to be in a class with disengaged, disruptive children who take all the teachers time and negatively impact those who do want to learn.

It's along the lines of the "melting pot" suggestion above.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

The problem there is geography.

DD has always gone to school in London. There are all kinds of different options available within a relatively small distance. And if you are prepared to take things like 'staying with my friends' or 'closest travel time' out of the equation then there are even more options once you add in aptitude places, religious places and private options.

The schools we have used tend to have young, enthusiastic teachers with energy and ambition. There are also any number of museums, galleries, theatres etc on the doorstep and businesses who are prepared to be involved whether it's doing talks or sponsoring things or offering work experience.

How can you begin to offer the same choice to children who live in a village on Dartmoor or any other rural area?

I think the issue is that if you have lots of GSs – like, say, Bucks do – then the other schools aren't comprehensives, they're secondary moderns. OK so that terminology isn't in general use any more, but that is what schools missing the 'top' 25-30% are, in practice.

In which case, I think it's reasonable to make the argument that not having that top set cohort in a school does harm the education of the other pupils.

I could have got that wrong, though…

I think you’ve convinced yourself those stats don’t exist. Research from 2023 shows that the secondary modern kids would usually do better in a comprehensive system.

Yes that's fine. I agree. Brilliant. So no problem allowing people who would like their kids to go somewhere else (like a grammar school) to go. It's not detrimental to anyone else.

But could you not also say that the top set in a secondary modern then have the chance to be top which they wouldn't otherwise have had?

Often that can do a lot of good for children's self-esteem.

There will also be a decent percentage of very bright kids who in the past would have gone to grammar but haven't had the same level of tutoring or support to get the results needed. Plus a percentage of bright kids whose parents are against selective education or don't know about it.

The school's overall results maybe a bit down compared with a true comprehensive, but for individual pupils they might actually do better.

Except that the research shows that it is detrimental - the selective system is detrimental to the children in that system, both high achievers and low achievers, who would actually have better educational outcomes in a comprehensive system.

The damage has already been done to those kids in the secondary modern, they’ve already taken a test that has left them feeling intellectually inferior at age 10. Even though we know some children don’t blossom academically until later. Even though we know many parents can’t afford tutoring for the 11+. Even though lots of children excel in one or two fields but not across the board so wouldn’t get a place in the grammar.,

You can’t paint secondary moderns as a win for the children going there because it’s just not. It’s just a tactic to try and justify segregating the top quartile of academically high performing children.

You could @OhCrumbsWhereNow. I would argue that the presence of the top-set cohort would be of greater benefit than being in the top set yourself, but appreciate that your point of view is just as valid. Depends on the child, I suspect.

100% agree with everything else you said. Statistically, in overall terms, a secondary modern is less good than a comprehensive for pupil outcomes, but of course that is an average. Individual pupils might do better – one of my DCs is a case in point as it happens.

But does everyone sit the 11+ these days? I thought it was optional and you only sat it if you wanted to go to that school?

And if children are being damaged by failing it then that speaks to the attitude of the parents and how they are presenting the test. Resilience is something children very much lack these days.

So you're saying because SOME children would do better in a comprehensive system that means ALL children must subscribe to a comprehensive system even the children that would do better in grammar school. Sounds not 100% fair.

Anyway I thought your stat were skewed and didn't take into consideration all the relevant information necessary to give a decent unbiased picture.

And yes, @Fightthepower is correct in saying that 10 is far too young to be making educational decisions which will affect the next 6 years for a child. All the pedagogical research indicates that children have peaks and troughs in educational achievement: some peak early then never push on, others peak later. Only around 2% are consistently high achievers throughout their schooling.

There are a myriad reasons for this, both in-school ones and out-of-school ones, but at the end of the day a school which caters for the peaks and troughs, and for children with 'spiky' profiles is preferable to one which does not.

You decided the stats were skewed, which is an interesting take on a study that considered 500,000 pupils. The findings were quite clear that the selective system did not improve educational outcomes, and was worse for high achievers.

Sorry that it doesn’t fit with your confirmation bias, but hey ho.

Thanks to previous posters who have tried to clarify what I meant.

The existence of a grammar school creates secondary moderns. Confusingly, to avoid stigma these are called comprehensives / high schools - but they are not the same as true comprehensives, which take the full range of ability (and FSM, SEN etc) from the area that they serve.

In some areas, with very few, very highly selective grammar schools, the effect on other schools is very small, so they are close to being true comprehensives. Some areas of eg Gloucestershire would fit this example.

In other areas, where bipartite schooling is universal - Kent would be the obvious example - the effect on the other schools is huge and so those are very definitely secondary moderns, a long way from true comprehensives.

As I say, the pretence that the ‘other’ schools in grammar areas are comprehensives and naming accordingly really does muddy the waters here. And you cannot have a grammar that leaves other schools with a truly comprehensive intake. The combination of grammar + secondary modern (however named) gives the same average results as true comprehensives BUT the children who gain in each system are different. The children at the higher end of the secondary modern are some of the losers, and you cannot avoid this effect of the presence of a grammar though this effect is smallest if the grammar ishighly superselective and is the only one for a wide area The difference between the non-grammars (technically secondary moderns) in eg Stroud, Gloucester and Cheltenham is interesting here.

Is that clearer?

I refer to our previous exchange regarding who /what has what you call "confirmation bias" (I just call it objectively assessing the strength or weakness of evidence presented). I think the omission on private schools in the figures is very detrimental to giving a balanced and useful conclusion; you continue to maintain that it is perfectly fine to leave such an important set of figures out (I obviously cannot comment on what motivates you to think that). So we will have to agree to differ.