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

The impact of socio-economic class in discussions like this is hugely underestimated. Particularly by private/grammar supporters.

They do. Prior high attainment in GCSE or A-level at comprehensive schools has the same or better probability compared to the compound probability of grammar school level, conditional on the 11+ exam acceptance rate. This is how the research is conducted and compared. Policy making conclusions do not based on a sample of people you know or what you believe. You conduct research and make proper objective conclusions.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2023.2240977
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/no-evidence-grammar-school-systems-are-best-brightest

Here is another latest research.

Findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal Educational Review, demonstrate those with the highest scores at age 11 were less likely to achieve five top GCSE grades if they went to grammar school than if they attended a comprehensive, once other background factors were taken into account.

Don't know if this has been mentioned up thread, but if the birth rate continues to fall then Grammar schools like all other schools could be under threat of size reduction, amalgamation or closure. I was at a city Grammar in 1970s by end 1980s the schools were down to two form entry in order to maintain academic standards due to falling birth rate. Eventually my old school and the other grammar schools in the city opened up to the whole county and beyond and are now all 5 form entry. If birth rate goes down I think each school reducing to 4 forms is a real possibility. They will not want the excellent exam rates to be reduced by lowering the entry level required.

I am sorry to state the obvious fact that post Covid and the failure of many schools to teach online old research from 2016 is simply extremely outdated and cannot be relied on. In particular, because we now have a teacher recruitment crisis on top
as well.
Any policy decisions would have to be informed by very current post Covid research.

This over and over.

Bollocks to that. Try teaching a class of 30 where some 9 year olds are blending and still on phonics and others are reading advanced chapter books. Same with maths- so much variation of ability at that age and more often the more able get bored and the teaching goes over the head of the weaker students. Even in a comprehensive school, I'm sure there are sets and streams.

What I would love to see is a statistic of how many teachers have chosen selective and private education despite teaching in a comprehensive themselves. We have a lot of those teachers in our grammars and it would be great to get an actual statistic on how common this really is.

Thanks. I will come to this tomorrow - only 4 hours sleep last night due to a sick child. I need to feed myself now and climb to bed early, as need to get up before 6 for work! (One thing to tell you that not everyone defending grammar school is super rich . Lots of us are just ordinary working parents who value education more than others - not to boast about for showing off!)

AND let me remind you again as you ignored my previous post. If you really are doing online debate on behalf of labour policymaker, remember:

Don't take the power given to you for granted. You are put in place only by 20% of the population. Remember you are there to serve, not to let ego take over like how the Tories lose their plot. Complacency is a very real threat for those who possess power.

And don't quote voices from minority doesn't matter. We all know the equation isn't that simple.

I wish there could be a pinned message the top of all grammar school threads "Comprehensive schooling does not equal mixed ability teaching"

For me 'good' schools are not just about results but about the culture within the school and there are no statistics that cover this point.
Grammar schools are not right for every child and a place in the top set of a comprehensive is a much better fit. I stand by super selectives as I feel that this allows choice in schools whilst not turning nearby schools into secondary moderns.
As opposed to closing grammar schools I would focus on early years intervention and reopening sure starts. It can't be right that 2 in 5 children this year did not meet the standard at the end of their primary years. This has far more of an impact on social mobility then restricting access to grammar schools.

Ingore which post? The one where you said, ‘you don’t get it, I gave up’? None of your points on lack of funding, parent valuing education have anything to do with the benefits or value of existence of grammar schools. On the matter of care about all voice, try convincing the Labour government to listen to private school parents about VAT. You simply don’t get that your values don’t necessarily represent the most people’s values.

OK, if the result doesn’t suit your narrative, blame outdated data or blame COVID. Show me any research or data suggesting that grammar schools add any value before, during, or after COVID before talking the talk. By the way, the research outlined above was conducted between 2020 and 2023.

Now you’re changing the topic again. You want to be like doctors who only treat healthy and fit patients and leave the rest to other?

Many teachers actually enjoy teaching in comprehensive schools, the best teachers I know work in comprehensive schools because it’s where they can develop and understand behavior management skills, teach at different paces and contexts, and find the role more rewarding.

Aren't aptitude places for out-of-catchment pupils a form of selection not entirely dissimilar to the hated 11+?

I don't envy your DD's commute.

It depends on the type of aptitude test. Some mentioned earlier, some school has banding aptitude tests, aim for random selection to ensure a mixed diversity of ability and aptitude, rather than based on ranking order of test results. This approach is very different from the 11+ exams.

I doubt they'd use those banding tests to admit a child whose commute is so long that she needs a season ticket unless she was in the top band.

DD is on a music aptitude/scholarship place. They saw 350 kids - interview, performance of 2 pieces, aural tests, MAT and sight reading. Then they are ranked in order of score.

Top 15 for each type of scholarship get guaranteed place. And yes it's exactly the same as the 11+ in terms of selection, only 11+ is less subjective.

Alongside that the school also have aptitude bands - so around 4.5k sat that (NVR) and they are divided into 3 equal groups based on score. Places then randomly allocated across the 3 bands and the scholars groups as school is lottery entry and has no catchment.

Our nearest school was just under an hour and that was awful, next nearest was the same travel time but less convenient. She's never complained about the commute - seat both ways, wifi and gets all her homework done.

ETA: And yes she was in top band.

I don’t know her DD case, but there is PP mentioning that some schools intentionally don’t select everyone from the top band. This is to ensure a proper mix of backgrounds, and some students do travel from very far.

Having sat a lot of banding tests...

When you are applying to extremely over-subscribed schools, and there are 3-4k students sitting the banding test and you have the top 1k in band one, middle 1k in band two and bottom 1k in band 3 (and you are the state school of choice for everyone also applying for selective private schools and grammars) I would imagine that the top 2 band cut offs are rather higher than one might expect if set 3k random 11 year olds an NVR test,

Alongside that the school also have aptitude bands - so around 4.5k sat that (NVR) and they are divided into 3 equal groups based on score. Places then randomly allocated across the 3 bands and the scholars groups as school is lottery entry and has no catchment.

The selection based on music is pointless for school.

CSG was maths, english, VR and NVR for their banding test - so basically the 11+

Why? They are a specialism school for music, with one of the biggest music departments in the country.

Or should those who are exceptionally talented in music only have the option of private schools?

You can have exceptionally talented musicians in state schools - I know lots! Inc several now off to music schools, oxbridge and performing arts places

not every school has a large music dept but they do exist!

Exactly - I am intrigued as to why @SergeyB thinks

"The selection based on music is pointless for school."

Is music not important? How about Sport? Or Drama?