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

This is an improvement but then bands are still calculated only on the DC who apply and take the exam. So if the local area is very wealthy or very deprived, the intake will still reflect that.

Btw, are you sure they select randomly, i.e., by ballot, within each band? Every school I'm aware of which uses banding selects by distance within each band. But then again, no school I'm aware of uses more than four bands, let alone ten.

It's entirely random and as it's a city then there is a broad cohort. It's a very good school so some pupils travel a long way (10 miles or so), but in a very deprived neighbourhood so lots of pupils who live nearby apply too.

With banding you are also selecting.

You are relying on parents being organised enough and invested enough to ensure their child turns up at the right time for the banding test.

When we were applying for secondary schools, a large number had banding tests as well as aptitude tests.

I had to take DD out of school 8 times as well as using several Saturdays in Y6 to sit all the different tests.

It's the same situation as faith schools. They are successful because parents need to be organised and committed to get the baptism, bums on pews for x years and forms filled and returned in time. Organised and committed parents are imo the number one indicator of children doing well.

The elephant in the room is what do you do about parents who can't or won't invest time and effort into their children. The answer is not to put things in place to drag down the children of those parents who are already doing this.

I don't know what you can do about parents who aren't organised or don't care. Their kids probably have more problems than it would be reasonable for any school system to address. But caring parents come from all social classes - my cleaner's daughter goes to the same school, and minority ethnic groups are significantly overrepresented - probably because of a preference for single-sex education. One thing that our school did do at the start of secondary was ask if any parent who could would make a direct debit to the school, which many middle class parents did. However, the ask was just once at the start of secondary, and every school trip comes with a rider that if you can't afford it, to contact the school.

100% agree that caring and organised parents - and vice versa - come from all groups.

My cleaner sends their DD to a private school.

One of DD's friends whose parents are doctor/company director have never once attended a parent's evening.

There were a number of children at boarding school with me who needed to be invited as guests at exeat weekends because their parents frankly didn't want them home and who never came to a single school match/play/event in 5 years.

I think intelligence is inherited as well as nurtured. We know that autism and ADHD are hereditary, so why not intelligence?

So you have parents who are intelligent and curious and they birth children who have the genes to be intelligent and curious, then those parents encourage those tendencies by encouraging the children to experiment and ask questions. It's not surprising that intelligence shows in the early years.

It was spotted in me: I was assessed as "gifted" along with Cambridge boy and another lad who went to comp yet still became a surgeon. There wasn't the funding to support and develop us though, which IMO is almost as bad as not having funding for SEND, especially when you consider that a "gifted" autistic child like I was will mask too much to be picked up as SEND by the usual teachers. The "gifted" support people, being more specialised, might spot neurodivergence, but they can't do that if they never work with the child.

I hate it when organisations have mission statements or goals that say things like "we aim to reduce the gap between the lowest and highest achievers" (and I have seen this) because that outcome could be achieved by suppressing the brightest kids. A decent education system would squeeze the best performance out of each child.

The whole point of the 11+ is that the povvos can take the exam too and also go to grammar school. Like the lad at my primary school whose family home was repossessed.

And let many other less fortunate individuals who didn’t take the exam, don’t have a high enough IQ, or weren’t adequately prepared go to secondary modern to suffer as if they deserve it?

How's it good for the kids to all be at different schools? You're forgetting that there's children at the heart of the "sibling priority" policy. The families most likely to be adversely affected by scrapping sibling priority are the poorest:

• Most likely to be living in rented accommodation and having to leave whenever the landlord gives notice to quit so having no choice but to move to wherever there's a vacant tenancy.
• Most likely to be working unsociable hours, making it really hard to get kids to different schools.
• Least likely to be able to afford a car to ship all these kids around in.

There's no reason not to take the exam.

A smart kid will do well regardless of home tutoring etc. I did. So did Cambridge Boy.

Literally the whole point of a grammar school is to only admit the high IQ kids. That's literally the point: it's like taking the top streams and putting them into one school. It allows the teachers to teach at top set level to all the kids, instead of having to deal with a mixed ability class and neglect the smart kids whilst they try to shore up the less-able ones. It means that the secondary modern teachers can teach at bottom and middle set level without worrying about neglecting the smart kids.

Then the answer is to put resources into making secondary moderns better.

The kids who would be middle set at comps now get to be top set (big boost to confidence) and more resources for those with SpLd or who don't have a high IQ.

If children aren't doing well at secondary modern then that is down to the teaching staff for not inspiring them.

DD used to take dance quite seriously and was in an audition-entry squad. She was easily one of the weakest there and always back row far-left. By the time she stopped, she was convinced she was a terrible dancer and it was something she was 'bad' at.

She refused to dance for 2 years. Then her secondary school invited her to take dance there. Suddenly she discovered she was one of the best in the school. She's front centre and been asked to work with the teacher on devising all the competition choreo. She hasn't suddenly become a better dancer - she's just no longer competing with girls who are planning a future as professionals. Massive boost to her confidence and she's finally enjoying it again.

There are so many reasons to get rid of this exam at age 10 – it’s just a social divider. Kids can take exams at 15 and 16 like most others do. Loads of research shows that streaming students into grammar schools is pointless; it does more harm than good, even for the grammar students. And in comprehension schools, teachng in set by subjects is very common. By the way, most Cambridge students come from comprehensive schools, not grammar schools.

The solution is to eliminate grammar schools and the 11-plus exam. Comprehensive schools can handle different abilities through setting. As students’ academic abilities develop, they can be streamed at ages 15 and 16 into further education or sixth form colleges. This approach effectively addresses the exams you mentioned.

it does more harm than good, even for the grammar students

I cannot think of a greater harm than being regularly beaten up for being a "swot". Going to grammar stopped that for me.

Your isolated personal experience from a long time ago doesn’t hold as much weight as numerous peer-reviewed studies. Plus, that happened during your primary school years. Get rid of grammar actually stopped many other students got beaten up because of the race to the bottom grammar /modern divide.

Maybe move to a system of super-selective grammars rather than normal grammars.

That way you have normal comprehensives rather than secondary moderns but keep the grammar schools.

What’s the point of super-selective grammar schools? Do we really want to favor children whose families can afford tutors or travel at age 10? Instead, we should invest in high-performing sixth form colleges to achieve that goal.

I get you don't like or want grammar schools - but many parents do.

If my child was the kind who would have done well at a super-selective (DH and I both attended those) and I was offered a sink comp, I would choose online schooling instead for secondary.

I imagine a very large number of other parents would do the same.

We only avoided the sink comp by using the aptitude place route.

@SergeyB - firstly, grammars already get less funding. Secondly, the grammars are better for the bright kids. Thirdly, they are easier to teach in, less behaviour issues, usually more parent support, less stringent academy style detentions etc etc.

The only real argument against grammars is that selective counties find it even harder to recruit good teachers into the secondary moderns. I have a great idea - let’s punish the bright kids in those counties, why not?!

Grammar schools receive less funding because they generally have fewer students with special educational needs (SEN) and those eligible for free school meals (FSM). Eliminating grammar schools wouldn’t affect the overall state budget. Moreover, the notion that grammar schools are better for bright students is a myth, as numerous studies have shown. Finally, abolishing grammar schools would help address the teacher recruitment crisis.

Only 5% of school places in this country are in grammar schools, which is proportionally less than private schools. Why would a state education policy favor this tiny percentage of parents and put the other 95% at a disadvantage.

Because parents want to keep them.

I get there are 5% parents want to keep it, that is less than the number of private school parents want to keep VAT free.

Imagine the outcry as all the house prices near grammars drop to normal levels.

Why not focus your efforts on provision for the 5% at the bottom? That might be more useful and have more support.