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

https://comprehensivefuture.org.uk/private-members-bill-to-end-selection-debated-in-the-lords/

It was debated quite recently already. It need not be rehashed again.

In summary, due to Covid the gap has widened and there is a teacher recruitment crisis. So the powers to be want to throw the bright grammar kids under the bus. And I guess the marginal private school kids too, including SEN in those schools. It is a terrible idea.

Comps in nice areas like Cambridge, Winchester, certain highly sought after parts of London - that is what most people would want easy access to. However, they also benefit from social segregation, bright kids and motivated parents. Why create more ghettos via education policies?
The general population is never going to accept sending their own bright kid to a rubbish school to help the teachers tame the wild kids with nightmare parents. It just will not happen in the real world.

Quoting your link

"They conclude that, “pupils attending grammar schools are stratified in terms of chronic poverty, ethnicity, special educational needs and even precise age within their year group. This kind of clustering of relative advantage is potentially dangerous for society.” The research measures factors such as chronic poverty and socio-economic status and uses these to show that the results from grammar schools are no better than expected, once these differences are accounted for."

When grammar schools are scrapped, what is the left rubbish schools? Have you hear the place with great comprehensive school crying for grammar school?

@SergeyB - you are quoting Baroness Blower who has been advocating for this stuff for years in a very biased way. So what? Comprehensive Future has been campaigning for this nonsense for years.

You can dismiss multiple peer-reviewed studies as nonsense, but your baseless claim that brighter children perform better in grammar schools is supposed to be the golden bullet for education policy?

The whole point of modern day Britain and why we muddle along quite well is our liberal and tolerant thinking going back centuries, which puts choice and respect for others and their view points above ideology.

The whole point of the UK education system and why it is quite good overall is that it is incredibly diverse and gives many people some choice.

All fervent ideologues trying to impose their own rigid worldview should therefore be dismissed prima facie, if we want tolerance and choice.

Advocating a one size fits all model is as anti tolerant as it comes!

So isolated that @T34ch3r and @OhCrumbsWhereNow have posted to confirm that it happens? And that in T34ch3r's case, she facilitates it by putting the clever kids next to the dull ones in the interest of having a manageable classroom? I get it, you like cutting down the tall poppies. That doesn't give you the right to discount my experience as somehow irrelevant when other posters have confirmed that swot-bashing and using smart kids as pacifiers still happens.

And why pick a Russian user name as well? I mean we are going to think hard left dogma if you start with that premise!

The main reason the UK has struggled in recent decades is that people tend to protect their class interests and ideology, cling to past glories, and resist learning from advancements in other places. Taking the approach is not based on evidence-based decision-making.

Still belong to the 5% minority.

the results from grammar schools are no better than expected, once these differences are accounted for."

There's more to going to school than results. Regular beatings and sexual assault didn't stop me from doing well at primary school. Yet I doubt that anyone would argue that my experiences were desirable. Going to a grammar stopped the swot-bashing. Going to an all-girl school stopped sexual assault. Even if it had no effect on my exam results at all, that safety alone was worth the 11+ and the daily bus journey.

No @SergeyB - the Government just cannot recruit teachers. That is at the crux of it all. The working conditions they have imposed are clearly unreasonable for many reasons.
Great idea to go bash the last bastions that still work and get good results like private schools, grammars, high achieving comps! That will really lead to more tax take and growth, not!

Or why not look at why teachers do not want to teach in certain places and figure out how to solve that with actual money and help for those teachers like SEN help, TAs, lots of specialist intervention, outside services.

@SergeyB - basically wants our kids to be free TAs in crappy schools. It is called child Labour.

Is your only argument left now to focus on my choice of username instead of the actual discussion?

Crappy school by what definition? The one produced the majority of the current labour government cabinet?

Works well for who?

@SergeyB - would you care to list the universities which most of the current cabinet attended if we are on the subject of elitism, once again?

Moving to an area without grammar but with good comprehensive schools can achieve the same results and stop all that too. Your escape solution from many years ago isn'tt the only alternative, and it’s outdated and only benefits a small number of lucky one.

I’m not discussing elitism; I’m focusing on public education policy for secondary schools. Grammar schools don’t represent elitism; they’re just something certain parents like to boast about.

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/11/some-comprehensive-schools-more-socially-selective-than-grammars

Ok to conclude:

• private school bashing/vat ticked
• grammar school bashing/abolition - ticked
• faith school bashing - ticked

Next up:

• percentage of “outstanding” comps especially those with social segregation. What do they represent in percentage terms?

Once we are done with all these categories- then we shall probably add them all up and find 95 per cent of Russell group uni attendees (Local student element)?

And then what? What next?

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.

@CurlewKate isn't it a good idea, though, to have some clever children at secondary moderns?

How about investing more to comprehensive schools - the worse, the more investment. Leave the grammar schools alone, until the comprehensive schools catch up? It's pretty much about the money and resources, no?

You can't tell parents who can invest in their children and care about their education that eliminating their choices is a fair thing to them. You just can't. Nobody would agree with you in this camp, because what you are offering gives no guarantee of quality, no matter how you attempted to polish.

I found you are unable to "listen". Open your eyes, posts after posts, parents tried to explain to you why: because we care about our children and want to do whatever we can to give them the best support.

And after so many pages, your conclusion is "Grammar schools don’t represent elitism; they’re just something certain parents like to boast about.".

If you are a policy maker, we are going to be doomed.

Much better education system compared to the status quo. fairer and more inclusive, providing a broad-based education. This system would be more efficient in attracting and retaining talented teachers, leading to better quality teaching.

The majority of parents would agree with this. Only a small percentage of parents who are attached to the idea of taking test at age 10 grammar schools would disagree.

Your mind had been set since page 1 - you are against anything different but one pot mixing it all solution.

And you are inviting people to a "discussion", but a waste of time talking to a wall.