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

Would agree that you don't need to be top sets or even working at greater depth for 11+

I know from DD's CAT scores and the marks she was getting on NVR/VR papers that she would have easily got into any school that selected using those tests... and that was with no more prep than buying the bond books and seeing how she got on.

However I would have withdrawn her from SATS if Covid hadn't scuppered them as she would have almost certainly failed those completely due to her SEN.

We deliberately did not apply for grammars or super-selectives as they would not have been a good fit for her, despite being raw-IQ-clever enough.

She ended up in top sets at her comprehensive based on raw scores and has needed a lot of tweaking over the years to find the right set in each subject for her spiky profile and SpLds.

As a specific counter-example, albeit old, my DBro - comprehensive educated, scientific Oxbridge degree - cannot do IQ tests. Always gets well below 100, however much he reads the ‘how to’ books.

It does not identify the true top 10% or 25% or 2% of the ability range

And even if it did, it won't be the same pupils who are the 'top' at GCSE or beyond. There is no correlation (in grammar school areas) between 11+ scores and GCSE results – the data for this is available, though GSs are, understandably, not keen to publicise it!

The correlation as you get older is even less strong. There are a myriad reasons for this, both internal (ie determined by school) and external (determined by life outside school), ranging from quality of teaching and peer group influence to socio-economic factors and the presence/absence of a supportive home environment. Again, all this has been widely researched, and recognition of the fact is, in large part, the reason that universities give contextual offers.

The real issue is why schools are failing! Why we don't have schools that are designed to the needs of the student, how they prefer to learn, how they thrive and are not the equivalent of small towns in population, one size does not, never has fitted all and we also need more flexibility in different years, so a student that needs to move from one form of education to another in year 9 can. I'd also focus on the number of primary schools that are failing to get their students to the level required for secondary education, as secondary is not about catching up, it is about moving a student on and FE is about what next and not about fixing 11 years of compulsory educational failure, but sadly that's the reality for many colleges now. How you get the best from a student when there are so many students in one place also defeats me! My niece is training to be a teacher and has been told, in no uncertain terms, to teach to the ability of the lowest in the classroom, so unless the parent is involved, then the class will be well below where they should be, so how is that the education that enables a child to thrive? Schools struggle to find good staff when behaviour is bad, or the classroom is just not a happy or safe place to be and schools stand or fall on those at the front of the room, so teachers will determine what's a good school and not the government, alongside where they choose to work, or indeed can afford to work! Schools are too big, teachers need to be able to control behaviour and can't, with parents often taking the side of a child and making it impossible for a teacher to deliver their best. In the 70s, I went to an all girls grammar school (no big fuss about the test to get in, everyone did it as an assessment), in London, lived in a very large brutalist council estate, parents bog standard jobs and that was not unsual in my classmates at the time. I never, ever, felt I was better than anyone else (but interestingly can remember a very snide comment from a friend's mum when she didn't get in, but not from the friend!), just that I loved the classroom and learning and so did those I shared a class with, including the teachers. I could read before I went to school, we always had books from the library, flash cards to read from on our bedroom walls and my parents didn't have the greatest education, both having started work at 15, but did install in us that education was the key to doing better. Grammar schools were abolished in London the year I went back to the sixth form and 80% of the teaching staff left to teach elsewhere, not wanting to teach in a comprehensive, which shows it is not just about students, but where teachers want to be too. I want Labour to focus on getting the basics right from day one, then moving on to bigger issues and it will be interesting to look at where their children are educated and whether any had private tuition or are in the schools that are selective by means of post code location.

My niece is training to be a teacher and has been told, in no uncertain terms, to teach to the ability of the lowest in the classroom, ......

When I was doing a teacher training course, 'differentiation' was the big buzz word, so that does surprise me.

In London, getting greater depth doesn’t guarantee any success in the 11+ exams for grammar schools, even if your child is in the top 20% at their state school. The grammar school tests here seem to favor those parents who are heavily into mechanical exam prep. This often suits certain demographics who are keen on and worship selective education from an early age. Meanwhile, many other families prefer to spend their time on more meaningful activities instead.

A significant number of the new Cabined were both educated in Comprehensives and also went to Oxbridge. So despite MNs enthusiasm for Grammar schools, Comprehensives must be doing something right for a lot of children.

Even the grammars have different types of tests? For example, the one in South East London where Radacanu and Dina Asher Smith went (Newstead Wood School) only selects on verbal and non verbal scores, with a specific focus on the latter in the case of ties. Some comps have banding tests etc and other ability tests. There are different types of selection going on. An all rounder greater depth kid should easily pass the GL Kent test, for example. I think London Borough of Bexley has also shifted to GL now - they used to be criticised for asking too much in the CEM maths section, at the cost of other abilities.
One cannot even generalise around grammar schools. Even the way they set in comprehensives can differ. Like some will use SATs and CATs (CATs are taken at different times in different schools it seems), other entry banding etc etc, some will set later. It really varies a lot. A lot of engaged parents are quite alert to when CATs will occur, because they want their DCs to be in top sets to avoid disruption. All of this is going on, every day, across the country.

Agree with @SergeyB about FS not necessarily meaning much. DD is in Year 2, comfortably top of her class academically and working at GD, but we’re under no illusions that any of this will get her into our local super-selective grammar. To be in with a chance we’d need to start tutoring intensively from around now, begin to do regular practice papers at home, sit formal tests under exam conditions at weekends and so on. A local primary (not DD’s, which is pretty anti-competition) has just bought into a package where their pupils can do supervised 11+ prep at lunchtimes and after school. Several friends have sacrificed summer holidays for years to personally tutor their kids throughout the break, and a mum from DD’s primary took a sabbatical from work this year to focus on getting her child through the grammar entrance exam (fortunately it worked and her DC got a place).

Even though DP and I both attended the school in question and loved it, we don’t want to do any of this and would like DD to maintain her love of learning for its own sake, while also enjoying the years leading up to secondary. We’ll be moving out of London next year to a ‘naice’ area with good comps in order to dodge all the 11+ craziness!

GD not FS!

@TempsPerdu - I never did any of that and my DCs were fine and got in. There are always going to be people around overly stressing about 11 plus, GCSEs, then A level, then competitive unis, then graduate recruitment schemes. Before that about school catchments, what street to live on, extensions/kitchens, holidays etc etc. Best to ignore.

@YYURYYUCICYYUR4ME " My niece is training to be a teacher and has been told, in no uncertain terms, to teach to the ability of the lowest in the classroom,"

I don't know why she is lying to you- but she is lying to you.

You're that confident that you know how every single teacher in the SLT in every single school in the country will behave?

Of course you are.

This often suits certain demographics who are keen on and worship selective education from an early age.

Or maybe some of these people can't afford to pay for independent or to move to the catchment of a nice comprehensive and this is the only way they think they can get a well behaved peer group and good learning environment for their DC.

@Araminta1003 That’s brilliant, and I’m sure it can be done, but it’s certainly not the norm where I am. As @SergeyB also says, many of the London grammars are now heavily dominated by specific demographics who are more willing to spend weekends, evenings and holidays intensively tutoring. There’s a Kumon centre virtually next door to my house, and again it’s the same groups attending these sessions to support their 11+ study. And it’s almost impossible to find an available 11+ tutor around here if you leave things much past Year 2 as they’ve all been snapped up. As a teacher I’ve been involved with many local primaries and I’ve never come across anyone who either didn’t tutor or tutored their DC successfully themselves.

Still worth a punt I suppose if your child is super bright, but IME it can also be difficult to even get a firm handle on exactly how able your child is, as sone state schools (including DD’s current one) are very reluctant to flag up high ability beyond designating a child as GD, which covers the top 20% of the ability range (super selectives would only realistically take the top 1-2%). They would certainly never inform you at parents’ eve etc whether your child was ‘grammar school material’.

In our case we’re not happy with any of the Plan B options should DD not get in (local comprehensive choices are either zero tolerance boot camp academies or more relaxed but academically mediocre) so we’d rather move to an area with more appealing and less stress-inducing options!

@user149799568 Yes I agree, that’s probably it, but whatever the reason it’s definitely a phenomenon. The boys’ super selective most local to me now only has 3-4% White British kids, as (in my experience) many White British families prefer to move if they possibly can rather than tutor, and are also more likely to accept a less overtly academic school if they can’t move. It’s certainly true of my own circle, many of whom attended grammars themselves but chose to move to leafier comprehensive areas when it came to their own DC.

I know this lot of politicians is different from the last lot of politicians but it's still difficult for me to think about producing politicians and "doing something right" in the same sentence.

@user149799568 "You're that confident that you know how every single teacher in the SLT in every single school in the country will behave?"

No. I am confident, however, that no trainee teacher would be told by someone training her that that she should teach to the lowest ability in the classroom.

I (ahem) admire your... optimism.

@TempsPerdu - what do you mean by “leafier comprehensive” area? Within London or do you mean move to the Home Counties or even further away? London has some of the best comps in the country and loads of free cultural opportunities for DCs (musically, drama, sports etc etc). It is quite unrivalled in a broader education sense so even if you have to support a few subjects at school, it is usually OK. If you already own a house, it probably is not worth moving. Most people who move out is because they panic about secondary schools. Those years pass very quickly and before you know it you have students who would love to live in London and the work opportunities that affords etc. If you are a teacher, you can presumably support your own bright DD even if you do not want to join some tutoring rat race. I am not confident my youngest will get in and I am not willing to put in loads of effort either but we have found other options for her, should she not get in. Once you start exploring religion, banding, aptitude tests there appear to be quite a few possibilities around. And in any event, you are only limiting yourself for 11-16 because most Sixth Forms all over are selective anyway.

I once sat through a GCSE staff meeting where we were told to put all of our teaching effort into the kids with predicted Cs and Ds, and to make sure we got them all across the C line. That the A and B students didn’t need our help.

My DCs were in the top of their cohort at primary, so weren’t necessarily destined to achieve C or D grades in secondary. I knew this meant that they might be ignored and left to get on with it. I didn’t want this for them—I wanted them to be pushed and stretched. I also witnessed the bullying of the bright kids in my comprehensive. That’s why we went down the grammar route—based on my experience in secondary comprehensive education and my belief in the environment in which my children would thrive.

There’s definitely a strong mindset and determination to get into a grammar school. For these families, it seems like the only way to secure a better education, and not passing the 11+ feels like a complete failure. This pressure can be overwhelming and really changes how I think education should be. It’s become less about learning and more about passing tests. Honestly, I don’t want to be part of this crazy game, and I would like to see 11+ to be scrapped.

I think we're in agreement. Your original post made it seem that these families wanted selective education for the sake of selectivity, possibly for the prestige or bragging rights. I don't believe that to be true for most of them. None of the parents I know with DC in HBS, for example, think that exam prep is anything more than a time-consuming means to an end. Most of them just want a "good" education for their DC. Many would have been happy with places at CSG, Grey Coat Hospital, or St Marylebone's; indeed, there's a considerable overlap between people preparing for HBS and people preparing for music places at CSG or language places at Grey Coat Hospital and hoping for the opportunity to travel long distances to these schools.

@T34ch3r "I once sat through a GCSE staff meeting where we were told to put all of our teaching effort into the kids with predicted Cs and Ds, "

This was presumably a while or ago? Before progress from a baseline assessment was part of the way OFSTED assessed schools?

@Araminta1003 Yes, we’re contemplating a move from our outer London suburb to the Home Counties.

If DD didn’t get into the super selective (and the odds aren’t great), our other catchment options are a super strict Harris-style academy/free school (silent corridors, uniform inspections, detentions issued for dropping your pencil), or two community schools with poor academic performance, and various behaviour/community issues (e.g. weapons in school and uniformed after school patrols to stop the kids mugging each other and going shoplifting in town). Neither of those floats my boat tbh! I agree that we could top up DD’s school experience by filling in the gaps at home and paying for extra music/sporting activities, but I don’t want her basic experience of school to be either highly authoritarian and punitive or disruptive and unsafe.

I do get what you mean about cultural/sporting/Arts opportunities, but we are in a deeply unglamorous outer suburb with a very mixed demographic, and to be honest it’s just as quick to get into London to access those things from where we’re looking slightly further out as it is on our painfully slow suburban rail line that stops at every lamp post!

I think perhaps you’re thinking more of the more cosmopolitan areas slightly further in, where you really do have endless cultural opportunities on your doorstep. We do own our own house here, but we would like more space and can’t afford what we want in a trendier, more expensive London area. And increasingly the main cultural opportunity around here is gang-related knife crime!