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

Local schools – I’m sure there are at least two within an equal distance. It’s much better than spending hours on a bus to get to a grammar school.

Imposing a levy or enforcing VAT on tutoring businesses would be effective

I don’t think there is any evidence suggesting that brighter students are losing out. In fact, there is a lot of evidence suggesting otherwise. As I said before, one cannot use inherent unfairness as an excuse for not trying to make the system fairer

It also means an environment with both high standards and high levels of achievement - and where it isn't a problem to be clever. That isn't really achievable in all-ability schools because it leaves an awful lot of hard-working students who come to realise they will never be in the top sets however hard they try, and that's hard.

I believe the proportion of wealthy Chinese children studying abroad is much lower than the 7% of private school students in the UK. The education system can’t be designed around exceptions like Rishi’s daughter attending a private school. They can tax them however.

I don't think this is a problem if everyone subject to the same rule

Tell me you live in a big city without telling me that you live in a big city.

What’s even more absurd? Education should be about empowering students to discover and achieve their potential, not about deciding their future at the age of 10 based on an exam.

Will grammar school solve the small town commute problem?

The fact is, you can't eliminate unfairness. Being fair by itself is subjective - depending on your view point and depending on the criteria you employ.

What I can see is school funding is a must and should be the first step. Different types of schools need slightly different focus. I'd rather to see that happening.

Most of state primary school do not prepare for 11 plus. Tell me you live in an old grammar time without telling me.

Engineering a school system such that how expensive a house your parents can afford is the criterion for getting a State school place is the most classist thing I can think of, and its advocates have the nerve to dress it up as progressive.

A smart kid of atheist parents in a threadbare unform and hand-me-down shoes has a chance of aceing the 11+ and getting into grammar. They have no chance of magicking up the half-a-million their parents need for a house in the OFSTED "outstanding" school's catchment area. Buying an expensive house in an all-comprehensive area is the most effective way that I can think of for making sure that Tarquin and Olivia don't have to mix with poor people that I can think of, bar sending your kids to private school.

If funding is limited, it’s possible to implement a more efficient system that achieves better overall outcomes, and fairer too.

I said you can't eliminate unfairness, but I didn't say I'm not willing to improve it. But the condition is no one can convince me to sacrifice my child's future. He's my responsibility, not other people's. Inherent human selfishness? Not uncommon, I dear say.

Put 6% GDP into education, then we would have an entire different landscape to start a similar conversation.

You mentioned church attendance, but I’m sure you’re aware of rentals as well. The point is, creating an excuse to justify selection at 10 years old as being fairer than other types of selection is just a facade.

I don’t believe the government can create a policy that completely avoids interfering with inherent human selfishness. It’s a balancing act, like implementing VAT. Eliminating the small number of grammar schools in the country wouldn’t come at a significant cost

You don't get it. "The balance act" would be as light as a feather if not involving my very personal selfishness - I'd rather sacrifice my own interest for my child's future. So in this context, I can't stand where you stand.

And you didn't pick up my point - why can't we invest more GDP in education if we think it's so important? If they announce they would pour in 6% GDP to the state school, I may reconsider my response to your previous question.

We can carry on in circles. But fundamentally, the only near perfect systems we could think of is the Scandinavian ones which is lavishly funded and supported (bear in mind, we are not the one to judge what kind of flaw it processes, because nothing can be perfect). But that will be my starting point. It's no doubt that currently it's unfair for this generation of kids fighting for this limited resources. Disgraceful, in my view. So let's start from there.

But the condition is no one can convince me to sacrifice my child's future. He's my responsibility, not other people's. Inherent human selfishness? Not uncommon, I dear say.

Absolutely this.

What people forget is that intergenerational wealth is correlated with intergenerational taking-education-seriously and other aspects of intergenerational doing-everything-you-can-for-your-kids. The kids whose parents can afford zomg-expensive houses near naice schools aren't going to lie down and let you take that advantage from their kids. People aren't going to set their kids on fire to keep yours warm, even if yours are dying of hypothermia.

The 11+ allows kids who are out in the cold to come in and sit with the kids who've always had their parents' support. It gives them an opportunity that poverty would lock them out of: to go to an OFSTED "outstanding" school.

There was a boys's grammar near mine and one of the nice boys (yes, there were a whole three in my year) I was at primary with went there. His family's finances were so bad that his family ex-council home was repossessed and he had to go into kinship fostering with an aunt because the family were homeless. There's no way his parents could ever have afforded a house in the catchment area of a naice comp. Because the school could focus on teaching instead of crowd control, and because they only had to teach to the equivalent of "top set" so didn't have to cope with mixed ability classes, they could give him targeted academic and pastoral support during his fosterhood. He went to Cambridge and got a first.

The 11+ let him come in from the cold and benefit from an outstanding school that he otherwise would not have gone to.

It's not "creating an excuse". Given the choice of admitting a child because their parents can afford a catchment area house, admitting a child on the basis of parental piety, and admitting a child because the child is smart enough to do well in an exam, testing the child's ability is the only relevant test in an educational context and therefore the fairest test.

Eliminating the small number of grammar schools in the country wouldn’t come at a significant cost

Or they could instead spend that money on making the sink schools less shit, which would help the kids at those schools.

While it is widely acknowledged that increased resources can lead to improved outcomes, what specifically prompted you only to reconsider abolishing the 5% grammar school elimination of the eleven-plus exam under specific GDP% target spending? What evidence or perception do you have that suggests this particular educational setting will become a valuable resource that produces better overall results?

I could look as a class of Reception children on their first day and predict with about 90% certainty which ones would pass the 11+. Without talking to them. Proof positive that the system is hugely unfair.

Evidence indicates that not separating students by exam at the age of 10 can achieve the exact that, particularly in grammar school areas.

It's the 10% you can't predict that I'm fighting for. They deserve the chance to prove you wrong.

At the cost of the smart kids being swot-bashed and being used by the teachers to pacify and assist the less-able kids. No thanks.