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

Not really. But thank you. I don't agree with the fundamental premise of not allowing choice in education. I don't think the state should have a monopoly on educating our children. And I think the arguments suggesting that grammar schools mean that all other children cannot have a decent and appropriate education are spurious and politically motivated and use skewed evidence. I haven't seen anything on this thread that would change my mind personally (so won't carry on with these discussions) but you are very welcome to reply to this answer in order to set out your point for others if you would like to.

But as you keep telling us the grammars get better educational outcomes for the children attending them so if you live in that area you have very little option othet than to sit it, in Buckinghamshire for instance.

Yes blame the children for not sucking up failing the test. It’s the 11+ system that’s damaging them not their parents for goodness sake!

Advocates of the grammar school system why is it that it’s not used more widely do you think?

@Workasateamanddoitmyway
Thanks for the clarification. I think that it’s really difficult to create meaningful choice for all - because who is really ‘choosing’ in a selective county? Do children who fail the 11+ have a choice, or is the choice only available for those who pass?

I went to a comp in a grotty area and everything was hard work. I knew I wanted to do well, but it was so disruptive and chaotic. I hated every second of it. I’m now educated to degree level as I was determined. However, my school did not encourage me, they told me to do a secretarial course at 6 form. I chose A levels and obtained a first class degree and became a lawyer. I was determined that my children would not be educated the same as me. I was bullied because I worked hard at school. My children were privated educated at primary level and are now at grammar. Considering I’m from a working class background I am not happy about the prospect of a labour government. Education got me out of the council estate and extreme poverty. It is that important.

I also went to a rubbish school, where other students were disruptive and I hated it. One of very few (and first in family) who went to uni. Married to a professor. We were determined our kids would go to good schools. Our DD goes to a genuine comp (fair banding selection across the ability range) in one of the most deprived wards in the UK. It is superb. Behaviour is excellent as the teachers engage every pupil. She got 9 9s and an 8 in her GCSEs. DS goes to a superselective grammar which is nowhere near as good (difference apparent in pandemic as DD got online teaching from Day 1 and DS left to fend for himself) - but gets good GCSE results because of its cohort. (DD got a place at the grammar and tired it down) It's not the comprehensive system - it's the quality of the school - funding and commitment of teachers.

To enlarge on ‘choice’ - I think it is ok that , for example, when applying to primary schools, parents have sone ability to state preferences - ‘if there is a space in all these schools, my order of preference is B, C, A’ and for an algorithm to then work through the process to match preferences to schools for all applicants. I think it is fine for some parents to choose to pay for schooling.

I am less comfortable with the idea that a school actively selects some children over others, by a selection process that actively denies choice to certain children, especially at a young age by a non-universal piece of evidence. I am uncomfortable with the idea of selection by ‘evidence of faith’ (a parent should be able to choose to apply to a faith school, and every child who applies should then be treated equally by the algorithm), and also by ‘evidence of ability using a single test’ (there are some children whose ability - high or low - makes them such sn extreme outlier that efficient education in a mainstream school is impossible. Special schools - accessed by full EHCPs and supporting evidence, and co-located with mainstream schools for education in all subjects where the child’s ability falls within a normal range - should exist for these children).

Yep!! All the labour voters that want to tax private schools but want their own kids to be able to still go to faith and grammar schools 🙄 good luck with that one ! Be very careful. If you don't want any choice at all and just bog standard Schools go ahead...but your private counterparts will buy you out of the nice catchments where before...u didn't need to contend with that. Good luck ! But let's hope you are happy your school will get one extra teacher! Bonkers if anyone is voting Labour purely on this policy and you haven't considered the fallout and knock on effect . And don't even get me started on kids needing ehcps ....and the impact on them !

And Starmer went to a Grammar School. It is now independent. That got him away from the Toolroom and the pebble dash.

Exactly, a school is determined mainly by it's intake.

So an excellent school - the ones that ought to be admired by parents - is one where children outperform in terms of progress compared with their socio-economic and academic starting points.

Not the ones which get the best results. Or the best Progress 8. But the ones that produce better progress - in all areas, not just academic - than predicted given their intake and context.

Evidence shows that grammar school perpetuate inequality. Get rid, and make ALL schools better.

I can’t possibly imagine what motivates you to think that a completely different education sector has any relevance to the one being considered.

Well I can, but that’s by the by, and no doubt I’ll be told off for being ‘facetious’.

We discussed this earlier. You need to include the whole cohort of children in any one year in any one area to compare the results to another area. This will need to include private school children. Then you may be able to start getting an idea of whether there is any detrimental effect of grammar schools on non grammar school children. But we've already been through all this and you don't accept the flaws in the methodology of the study you cite so there's not much more to say. If I thought your study methodology was fair and carried out properly I would happily accept the findings. I can't really say much more on the topic so as I said, we will have to agree to differ.

Your insistence on dismissing a study that considers the effects of two separate English state education systems because it doesn’t include children from an entirely separate private system is nonsensical.

If you can’t understand the terms of reference of the study in question then I really can’t help you.

Get rid, and make all schools perform equally lower, you mean.

Putting academically smart kids in with less able kids, does not make less able kids smarter. Intelligence doesn’t happen by osmosis.

You’ll never eliminate inequality, as many PP have said.

I was rotated like that amongst the naughty boys. They took great pleasure in triggering my meltdowns, which I was then blamed and punished for.

The injustice of this still burns more than 30 years later.

It will be the undiagnosed autistic girls who will be abused as human pacifiers for the naughty boys and the girls will be harmed for life. It would be far fairer to put the disruptive kids in one class together and let them disrupt each other whilst the other kids learn in peace.

Advocates of the grammar school system why is it that it’s not used more widely do you think?

Because there are people who think that it's desirable to cut down the tall poppies and abuse academic kids by forcing them to pacify disruptive kids, and unfortunately some of those dog-in-a-manger types manage to become councillors.

Because there's been a ban on establishing new grammar schools in place for some decades, and even the expansion of existing ones is tricky (if they grow to need a second site)

It was pretty much universal. The comprehensive initiative has a longer past than I'd realised, but really got political impetus in the early 1970s, and survived the Heath administration (Thatcher was personally against, but had difficulties getting that policy through under that PM; it was one of the first things she ensured was halted when she became PM herself)

Some areas remained fully grammar/secondary mod - usually by region (NI) or county (eg Lincolnshire) as it was a locally decided policy (with support/encouragement from the centre) not a government diktat. Others retained grammars in some areas (sub-county administrative districts) which led to weird hybrid areas, with much more jockeying for places.

And what about the children who don’t pass the 11+ is it fair to have a system where statistically they won’t fare as well?

The majority of children in our country go through the comprehensive system.

@MaidOfAle "Because there are people who think that it's desirable to cut down the tall poppies and abuse academic kids by forcing them to pacify disruptive kids, and unfortunately some of those dog-in-a-manger types manage to become councillors."

Complete and utter bollocks.

TempsPerdu - "buddy systems" pairing less able and more able pupils are also known as "mixed-ability dyads". Not surprisingly, research has shown they benefit only the less able member of the pair. They're inequitable and another form of being "used as fertiliser".

I think what is already happening in London is selection by stealth by “aptitude” places. And the academies are quasi private schools anyway. So there will just be more of that. All schools want academic kids with engaged parents as they get judged that way primarily, and it is easier to manage those kids.

For our youngest, we are having to look at aptitude places now, because the grammars are so oversubscribed because of the threat of VAT on private schools. Thankfully year 5 DC is on grade 8 violin and playing grade 8 wind as well now (although exams lower on wind) so we have options.

And yes my DC are the academic musical types that would get bullied in a standard school so grammar, private or aptitude is better for them. Not sure why anyone wants to throw them under the bus. The local school does not even set for Maths in Year 7. We don’t even need the music provided at school itself because we are in London so can access the royal college of music/royal academy of music.
If a Government were to force this DC into an unsuitable school, we would homeschool in parallel to the music education and just not work.

@TempsPerdu - DD1 had to help all through state primary. She is an autumn born high achieving pleaser type. This is so instilled in her now I am quite worried. She doesn’t put herself first naturally anymore. And frankly, it was also quite sexist because the same didn’t happen to DS1. I have really had to work on boundaries with DD1 and keep her away from boys. First relationship was a disaster and yes I do blame the education system for that.

@Araminta1003 you blame the education system for your DDs first relationship problems? What on earth? Presumably if she had gone to a private school her relationships would have been flawless 🤦‍♀️

Schools are now getting blamed for all manner of social ills, it’s ridiculous. Surely you, your family, and her friends support her to make good decisions in relationships & her actions and choices are not down to who she sat next to in tutor group at school! .

@Fightthepower - yes I do. Because for 7 years she was essentially told to mother the naughty boys and get them to work and cooperate. To help the teacher out.