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

Italy you move into one of 3 schools at 14 - the Liceo which is basically like grammar school, the Scientifico which is like a technical comprehensive from which you can still go to university, and the Technico which trains kids for the local industry and you don't qualify for university entrance.

Considering that only 11% of kids go to grammar and private schools, all those other good grades must be coming from somewhere.....

Resources are certainly an issue, but what about my point regarding grammar schools and the 11-plus exam? Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t eliminate the 11-plus simply because it saves money, even if we lack additional resources. Or it is just a mindset previous governments had?

I find your argument a bit absurd, to be honest. Just because chewing gum is banned in Singapore doesn’t mean Singaporeans can’t chew gum when they’re abroad

These Chinese children aren’t abroad. They’re in China being prepared for an exam to private schools abroad.

And not 11 plus exam that took place at age 10? Which country actually still do 11+?

The school prepare for them or tutoring company? I don't think they ban international schools.

The social justice UK government is already enforcing VAT on private; perhaps they should go a step further with the tutoring industry too.

How would you go about banning tutoring? Would you encourage people - children and adults - to inform on anyone they thought was breaking the law?

There are masses of private schools in China plus over 100 International Schools.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_and_public_schools_in_China

If I want to honest, I see it as chicken and eggs. As I said earlier on, until the state school system gets fixed and reduces the chances of failing the children and the families, people would always want better option.

You can eliminate 11+ and remove all grammar schools and private schools, but that doesn't immediately improve all state schools to a fair level. Someone would benefit, someone would not. As another poster said, the comprehensive doesn't treat all equally. The brighter ones might automatically lose on that. Is that fair?

There are masses of private schools in China plus over 100 International Schools.

That’s interesting - so tutoring is banned but private schools aren’t. How do they defend that? ( I suppose a dictatorship doesn’t have to defend anything it does).

Oh, what will be the effect to catchment properties? When other options are eliminated, the only ones left are those with existing decent status. Price for properties in those areas? Can disadvantaged families have a chance winning on that?

Their entry exams are more in line with British Public Schools who have/had Common Entrance exams at 13.

Definitely more sensible than age 11.

Not private schools, but the traditional grammar school, if you really want to give a familiar name.

Does your friend group have anything better to do besides tutoring? Is it for the 11+ or GCSEs? If it’s the latter, have you considered a good comprehensive school funded by the state? Recently, such institutions have produced a majority of the cabinet members.

Hope so!

This. All good State schools are selective, some are just honest about it. The expensive uniforms that academies insist on are a form of selection based on parental means. The property price inflation around a good school is selection based on parental means. Faith schools select based on overt religious commitment. Given the choice between three selective systems at age 11:

• You can go to our school only if your parents turn up to church every Sunday for several years.
• You can go to our school only if your parents can afford a half-a-million pound or more house and are willing to shell out for our overpriced branded uniform.
• You can go to our school if you come in the top 150 of kids who took an exam.

I know which I consider to be fairer: the exam. A kid can ask for practice papers and work hard to pass the exam. A kid can't force their parents to attend church. A kid can't make their parents rich.

Short of allocating kids to schools randomly and bussing them to distant schools (and guess which socio-economic demographic objects the most to that suggestion?), I don't know how you overcome this inherent selectiveness of State schools. I would argue that making schools safe for girls is a higher priority anyway.

Why not consider randomizing the allocation of local schools? I recall seeing a suggestion like this in MN. It’s not an unfamiliar policy in other Western countries.

We definitely do - that's why we pay for tutors or private schools.

However if a government was to ban those, we're not going to say 'oh well' and leave it to the state are we?

And yes, my DD is at an outstanding comprehensive, but due to SEN requires tutoring in some subjects, and in others she is having tutoring to ensure she's on track for top grades. FWIW she's having considerably less tutoring than any of her friends.

That could work in major cities, but what are you planning to do in rural areas? Bus kids 3 hours each way to the next school along?

There are any number of threads on here about people stressing over not getting their nearest school, or their child not being at the same school as their friends. Random allocation would mean vast numbers finding reasons to appeal for their closest school.

A lot practicality, I'd imagine? First is commute - I'd imagine that's why catchment has its standing ground.

But still, I don't want my child become the guinea pig waiting for a state school to improve from "Require Improvement". Or the middle-set is the default goal resulting the brighter ones being neglected. (Not saying mine is above the middle line, but I want him get stretched and challenged) So for now, I'm happy there are choices.

A kid might not be able to afford practice papers. A kid might not get sufficient support at the age of 10 compared to other wealthy families. A kid might not perform well in one particular type of exam. I don’t think inherent selection should be an excuse to justify the existence of certain selection processes

Hands up who wants to put their kids on a bus at 7:30 every morning and not have that kid get home until 5pm, to go to a school you didn't even choose? Because that's the logistical consequence of random allocation.

And it still doesn't level the playing field because the bussed kids have less time for homework and cannot attend after-school clubs, whilst their walk-to-school counterparts have those things.

Many other countries manage just fine without these issues. It seems that the fuss here is more about the deeply rooted class system. It’s similar to how parents of private school students react to the VAT issue.

This is ridiculous.

Right so no child should be allowed to become an academy footballer, or be in a Youth Orchestra because some other child may not have a parent that can pay for lessons, boots, travel to matches etc.

You can download practice papers online, you can buy them in second hand bookshops.

My primary school had practice papers available for free.

I don’t think inherent selection should be an excuse to justify the existence of certain selection processes

It's the fairest kind of selection out of the three I offered up. And you can't realistically escape selection.