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

If you “don’t want to be part of this crazy game,” then don’t sign your kids up for an optional exam.

@T34ch3r "If you “don’t want to be part of this crazy game,” then don’t sign your kids up for an optional exam"

Out of interest, what do you do if you live in a wholly selective area?

We don’t use the term “wholly selective” in our county, so I could use a bit more detail. We have grammars, who admit from the top scorers down, until all of the spaces are filled; or comprehensives. The entry test is optional. Not everyone enters their child for the exam.

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

Every time they try and meddle, they just boost another form of selection. Meddled with grammars in the past, led to a big boom in private education. Meddle with grammar/aptitude some more now and private school VAT - will lead to a boom in faith. And if all fails, parents homeschool and tutor and supplement. The whole meddling is entirely pointless. The more you grade schools into 1, 2, 3 categories the more you push up house prices for category 1.
Better start telling all parents the truth which is that the home learning environment, daily reading in the early years etc is what boosts a child’s success, emotional regulation, some sport, hobbies, good food, good friends etc. All this constant branding of state education as excellent or not is crazy. People choose grammars for the peer group, just like they do private and just like they pay up for good catchment comps. People like to mix with their own kind. That won’t change and forcing kids to do that when adults don’t, it will never work. There will always be a way around it.

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. And until all parents take a serious role in teaching their kids to read every day (as we know, the teacher doesn’t have enough time in the day to sit 1:1 with 30 kids for 30 minutes each—reading is mostly taught at home with reading journal books) and all parents actively engage in homework, parents’ evenings, etc, there will never be an even playing field. No matter how much money you throw at it. Parental support and active engagement with home learning is 99% of it.

After finding out the truth about this exam, I have absolutely no intention of signing up for it. When I look around at who actually prepares for and takes the test, it’s clear that it’s biased towards certain families. I really wish the government would scrap this option and instead put resources into making grammar schools more local and inclusive secondary schools

A good state education should ensure that every child has equal opportunities, regardless of their parents’ background or family environment. Resources should be allocated to create a balanced and fair system where all children can thrive and reach their full potential. It’s essential that education is inclusive and supportive for everyone.

@T34ch3r I'm thinking about areas where the only schools available are grammars for the top 25% and a "secondary modern" (not a wholly applicable term, but widely understood, I think) for everyone else.

1. It's no more public than not getting into uni.
2. It's no more a one-off than failing a degree.
3. At ten in England, a child is old enough to stand trial for murder. They are old enough to take an exam.
4. I insisted on being allowed to take the 11+, to the point that I was off sick when the letter offering it was handed out and, when I got back and found out that I had missed the letter, I went to the head's office in tears terrified that I had missed my chance and demanded a letter. I took practice papers, not because my parents or teachers told me to, but because I wanted to. I fought tooth and nail to get in.

I knew that an 11+ pass meant I could apply to an all-girl grammar school with an all-girl comp as a second choice, but no 11+ meant all-girl comp as first place and mixed comp with the boys who molested me for second place. I remember telling my parents that I would run away from home if I was sent to mixed comp and that if they brought me back I'd kill myself sooner than go to school with boys. No one asked why I felt like that and, without knowing the word "vulva", I had no vocabulary to tell anyone what those boys had done. But I knew that if I passed the 11+ then it was a near-certainty that I would never ever have to clap eyes on them again.

Fear is an incredibly powerful motive and it motivated me to make sure that I could not fail, despite your claim that 10 year olds are helpless in the face of an exam.

Filling the valleys by levelling the hills. This is why comprehensive education is deeply unfair.

@MaidofAle. I am sorry you had such an awful experience.

CurlewKate · Today 16:43
"If you “don’t want to be part of this crazy game,” then don’t sign your kids up for an optional exam"

Out of interest, what do you do if you live in a wholly selective area

Surely parents don’t have to sign their children up for the grammar exam - can’t they opt for the secondary modern?

@MaidOfAle so the rest of girls with similar fear and motivation who failed the exam were deserved to have educational segregation and end up with a disproportionate share back to the "horrible" mixed comp at the age of 11+?

When I look around at who actually prepares for and takes the test, it’s clear that it’s biased towards certain families.

Aside from families who value education enough and have enough resources so that they're willing and able to put their DC through the exam prep, whom else do you think it's biased towards?

@MaidOfAle -your experience is so extreme that I think you might be a little blinkered by it. Your answers to the points I made do not belong in the world most of us live in, so I don't feel comfortable responding to them.

Many families value educational resources and take different paths at various stages. However, the 11+ seems biased towards families who are most willing to sacrifice and focus intensely on exam preparation at this stage. I think part of this is driven by social status or community pressure for certain groups, rather than considering the true benefits of long-term education. This isn’t what grammar schools were originally intended for—it aimed to select students based on natural abilities. Even though the concept of selective education is outdated and proven ineffective, it’s frustrating to see how things have changed.

Yes parents can opt for secondary modem, But it isn’t ideal if you have eg a really bright child who also has SEN and can’t pass the 11 plus test, or you have an anxious or immature child etc that just isn’t ready yet. However, it suits a bright competitive go getter like my older 3 DC. We didn’t make a big fuss and they knew it would be fine if they didn’t get in. But DS2 had a little Indian boy in his class who was the sweetest who cried through the exam and failed although he should have passed as he was very clever. The parents had tutored for years and put way too much pressure. In the end he went to the large all boys comp, did really well at GCSEs and joined the grammar in Sixth Form and is now at Imperial. He told me it taught him a life lesson and he can always bring it up at interview as to how you overcome a failing. It’s a completely different cultural attitude.

Or as one of my best Chinese friends says “what mental health”, what aptitude?! You work hard, you get there. That’s it. You sit, you study, you make your parents proud.

Whereas we all love to whinge a little about “not fair”, mental health, equality etc. What it that is holding us all back? We can see India and China are doing well. We should learn from them. At least from the Chinese style morning exercise, I love it! I would have loved for my kids to start the day with exercise, not the adoration/chanting of course but some good 80/s aerobic workout to music.

I’m not very familiar with the Indian education system, but my Chinese friend mentioned that the Chinese government has banned tutoring businesses and eliminated their equivalent of the 11+ exam a few years ago. This was done to promote better equality, better students wellbeing and improve overall educational outcomes.

I think UK need to learn from them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-58380792

@Barbadossunset "Surely parents don’t have to sign their children up for the grammar exam - can’t they opt for the secondary modern?"

Of course they can. But if you have a "top set" child, the only way they will get a top set academic peer group is to go to the grammar school.

Of course they can. But if you have a "top set" child, the only way they will get a top set academic peer group is to go to the grammar school.

Yes well I suppose it must be a difficult decision for those who disagree with grammar schools but have a clever child.

This depends on the school. ‘Top set’ can mean very different things. Eg my DS who has just completed preschool was assessed as ‘top set’ at a playscheme recently because he was the only child his age reading to the expected level - he’s 4, just finished preschool, and is reading at a reception age.

One of the reason why private preps often manage to send many kids to state grammars (and selective privates) is because they complete the curriculum a year early so they can spend an entire year just practicing the test.

Any child whose parents are sufficiently motivated at any state school could do this — your child doesn’t need to be bright but they do need parents who are confident enough to disregard the work set by their teachers so their child can get all the prep they need.

Yes, but then you end up with some really well-off families or some trying really hard to save up to pay over £100/hour for "underground" tutors.

The reality is, there are multi layers of this issue. Policy doesn't necessarily reflect what happens in real life: selective exams for high school still exist, just become "a commonly known secret".

Children who are from disadvantaged families still remain disadvantaged and the hope of getting help only became even slimmer.

And the real purpose of this policy? They want people save the money for tutoring to have more kids, because the population is aging thanks to decades of one child policy.

There's no comparison here.

No, but in the absence of a world without rape, an escape hatch for the girls most likely to be bullied as "swots" and most likely to be undiagnosed if they are neurodivergent because they are smart and fly under the SENCO's radar, either to a single-sex school or ideally a single-sex grammar, is better than having no escape for any girl. When the Titanic sank, the passengers and crew didn't decide to all drown in sympathy with the ones who wouldn't fit into the lifeboats, they saved as many as they could.

If all schools were single-sex, I'd not be anything like this insistent about leaving existing escape hatches open.

Yes, but then you end up with some really well-off families or some trying really hard to save up to pay over £100/hour for "underground" tutors.

Yes - or the very rich Chinese educate their children abroad. English public schools are a popular choice.