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

You imagine, show the data first,

https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/banding-and-ballots-report.pdf

For example, Camden School for Girls has a test similar to the one described above. Has about 400+ girls for banding test yearly, the allocated band and raw score is published. Their explanation shows that it is different from the 11+ exam.

Can my child fail the assessment?
No. The assessment is not something you pass or fail, and it should not be a source of
anxiety for your child. The band your child is placed in has no bearing on their likelihood of
getting a place. The number of places in each band available under the distance criterion
varies from year to year as the number of children in each band who have applied under the
other criteria also vary. These numbers cannot be known in advance of application.

They all important, but why put all kids in one school based on selection at age 10? Can't they go to musical school or performing arts college at later stage?

Only test content the same, the selection objective is completely different. I won't say it is the best test method, but definitely better than 11+

Have you any idea how much work goes into getting into a music college later?

State schools offering what my DD gets go a little bit of the way towards making that possible for children whose parents don't have the resources needed.

You can't start the process late. It's years of practice and teaching.

Obviously, you need to arrange for teachers outside of school starting from the primary stage. Many students I know eventually transfer to music colleges, and even during secondary school, they continue with external lessons after school and on weekends. State schools might not add much value in this regard.

You do realise the government subsidies the fees at places like White Lodge, Chets etc through the MIDAS scheme

You do realize those are private schools, should the government pay VAT on that too?

Agree - I spend a small fortune as DD has 4 instruments and composition, and most of that is out of school. But I am the fortunate parent who has the time and money to do all that.

School pay for her lessons in school, plus offer a huge range of orchestras, bands, choirs, masterclasses and the possibility to take GCSE music with industry standard DAWs etc

For parents who don't have the knowledge, time or resources how are their children even going to be exposed to music to know they would want it as a potential career?

Given pretty much every child I know at White Lodge has full fees paid by the government then I guess the taxpayer will be funding the VAT too.

I am very against VAT on any form of education.

How is this topic relevant to grammar schools? It seems more related to improving early primary school education provision , including music and other subjects. Unfortunately, a lot of kids with music talent I know have the privilege from family and parents.

If you aren't in county-level audition-only ensembles by 13, you aren't going to conservatoire. You need grade eight distinction by 17 on your primary instrument for your UCAS application, which requires grade five or higher music theory as a prequisite.

Music training, like dance and sports training, starts at primary school and requires the student to train daily like an athlete or dancer would. My brass lessons started at eight and that's only because brass instruments require adult teeth to be in place. Strings start much earlier. Ballet starts as early as three. It's not like archaeology where you need no prior training to start the degree.

It absolutely makes sense for a comprehensive that specialises in music to offer aptitude places for talented musicians on an 11+-like basis.

Also, tell me that you're not a musician, even at hobby level, without telling me that you're not a musician.

Because we were talking about selection at 10. Academic selection via 11+ is not the only form of school selection in the state system.

Grammar schools generally have a very good music offer - unlike a lot of comprehensives.

State schools can add huge levels of value by offering choirs and bands. I used to scarf my lunch during bars' rests because I had two music clubs back-to-back during most lunch hours.

My sister's school had a choir and nothing else. That's the difference in value-add.

Starting at age 10 significantly reduces your chances of becoming a proficient musician. You might only reach a hobby level, like me. Talented and interested children need to be nurtured and discovered at the primary school stage. State schools in the UK don’t typically provide for this, so perhaps scrapping the 11+ and grammar school system could free up resources and funding to support this.

Did you mean for that edit? Your original post was insightful.

Grammar schools generally have a very good music offer - unlike a lot of comprehensives.

As was my experience.

A lot of comprehensive school has good music offer too

This is another compelling reason to eliminate grammar schools and redirect music resources and attitudes to other schools.

I'm probably pretty expert on the music offer of comprehensive schools. Let's just say that my nearest options didn't offer it... hence why we commute.

SOME comprehensives have a good music offer. A tiny number have an offer on a par with what my grammar had.

So you copied and pasted someone else's deleted post to basically agree with me and @OhCrumbsWhereNow 's assertion that going to music college later than 11 is too late? OK...

perhaps scrapping the 11+ and grammar school system could free up resources and funding to support this

Unlikely, because grammar schools aren't more expensive than comps and the cost of 11+ is a rounding error in the education budget

The reason why grammars can offer music clubs is because they aren't firefighting behavioural problems all the time. Not because they have more money. Money doesn't translate into lunchtime clubs because teachers don't get overtime pay.

I’m not sure what your grammar school offered, but the grammar school that still exist today are tiny numbers. Good music offer shouldn’t be exclusive to children who pass the 11+ exam.

You’re still thinking in terms of the old grammar and secondary modern era. Musical talent and aptitude aren’t the same as good behavior, and you don’t need a high IQ students to participate in a music lunch club.

For parents who don't have the knowledge, time or resources how are their children even going to be exposed to music to know they would want it as a potential career?

It's almost as if, no matter what you do, parental wealth and willingness to spend it and time on the kids is the biggest source of educational inequality in the UK.

I say again: abolishing secondary school selection exams will make that worse because the 11+ is the one chance a poor kid has of using their own brain to get into that good school that's free of swot-bashing. Take that away and it's purely "can mummy and daddy buy a house in the catchment area?"

Although musical aptitude and high IQ are very strongly linked - as is neurodiversity,