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

I think it’s more about trying to ensure all children are given solid opportunities to succeed, regardless of their start in life. Granted, that’s easier said than done but IMO it’s a more noble aspiration for individual/society than the I’m all right Jack mentality of the Tory party.

Totally agree @Happyinarcon - everyone wants to make the best choices for their kids and very often the choices available as it is don't work and different groups of parents slug it out.

We should all be angry that Labour's only plan to increase funding / educational 'big' idea is the small amount swiped through vat on private fees.

Correct. When the grammars went and primaries stopped streaming classes all it did was hold back the more academically able for the benefit of.....well nobody really

They need to be open about this so the electorate can make clear decisions now. Most of Labour’s grassroots supporters in cities are muslims of Indo-Pak origin and most 100% support selective education.

Personally I find the Labour approach to be the worst of all worlds. Seeking to drag down the people that are currently being educated well with absolutely no plan for those that are currently being failed by the system. We live in a global economy and it makes no sense to purposely try to bring down the education opportunities of anyone in the name of fairness and inequality unless you can prove that this will directly improve the opportunities of someone else. Why are we deliberately seeking to dumb down our workforce through targeting some of our best performing educational institutions. It's madness!

It is an appalling ethos to seek to punish and penalise those who want to invest in education. Education should be pushed as a priority for all! Those that can afford to invest money into it should be encouraged to do so and those that can't should be supported by the state to be given the best access possible to a quality education.

After racial segregation was outlawed in the US after Brown v Board of Education, schools continued to be racially homogeneous.

This was only tackled through desegregation bussing.

In the UK schooling is segregated on income / wealth either through private schools or by buying into "nicer" areas with higher rated state schools or through selective entry to Grammar schools aided by private tutoring.

If we are serious about creating an equal opportunity for all school children then the only solution is entry determined by a postcode lottery and the bussing of children from wealthy areas to poorer areas and vice versa.

I don't really mind whether there are selective or non-selective schools- all schools need to be smaller and better with more teachers, meet the needs of every child, that's what they need to focus on.

For those asking for evidence of the benefits of mixed ability teaching google it. There's loads out there. Even for very binary subjects like maths.

Schools aren't just about learning or passing exams. They're about preparing young people for society. We need to look beyond the numbers at what educational segregation is doing to our society.

No one young person is 'better' or 'worse' than another and to make them feel that way is not good for our country as a whole.

Many areas do not have catchments, and only in Scotland are you guaranteed a place at your catchment school

Unless you’re in the brighter contingent. What’s in it for them?

Wow, that's really rude.

Our local Grammar offers French, German, Spanish and Latin at GCSE and A level. Our local comp only offers French at GCSE. They can only offer the languages at the Grammar as there are enough willing and able to do it. If it turned into a comp, a lot of the more rigorous academic options would simply disappear.

What is the point of "better education for all" if no one is allowed to do well? You can't be successful, that's not fair on people who aren't. You can't be rich, not fair on people who aren't. Why don't we all just aim to be shit at everything? What does that get us? I really do not understand the Labour mindset.

It's not educational segregation that is impacting our society, but economic and social segregation. The state school system is absolutely rife with this by design. It is why the middle classes will tolerate it. They simply wouldn't stand for the 'bussing' solution suggested up thread because that would erode their advantage.

Unless you sort out the state system properly then attacking grammar and private schools is a fool's errand. You are rearranging the deck chairs on the inequality Titanic as ultimately the wealthy will always come out on top. Labour don't have the first clue how to bring up the standards in my council estate school so that they match the lovely outstanding school in my local area. Money is the least of the issues and they will have to tackle much deeper issues around culture and poverty that have been engrained for decades. I think if a grammar school system existed in my area when I was younger then I would have had a chance to escape the bad schools I was condemned to attend. It would have given me an option that just didn't exist in any other way.

I live in Northern Ireland which still has the 11plis. I attended a secondary school untill GCSEs and then transferred to a grammar school for a levels. In my experience the teaching at the secondary school was far superior. Yes the grammars might get the best grades but that’s because they only take the best pupils. Also wealthier parents are able to pay for tutoring and the grammar schools have a lot more privileged pupils, very few fsm etc. In recent years there’s been heavy investment in the secondary schools with the development of a level programmes and sports facilities. It’s been interesting to see that this has led to a lot of parents choosing the secondary schools over the grammars. Basically grammar schools aren’t all that, they’re not better schools they just get the better pupils and I think it would be a good thing if labour was to invest heavily in the comprehensive system

I am totally baffled by this characterisation of comprehensives as being ‘sink’ or ‘the worst option’. They simply aren’t . In areas which are truly comprehensive pupils are offered a great education together. A bit like life.

These schools are not ‘one size fits all’. There is streaming, a wide range of choices and opportunities to excel. I do wonder if some of these posters have ever been in a comprehensive.

The real issue is the areas where grammars exist. They cream off the highest achieving students, the most academic teachers and ensure that 75% of students enter year 7 feeling like a failure. It is a fact that when results of grammars and secondaries are consolidated, these areas fare worse in outcomes than comprehensive areas.

I would argue that high achieving students do just as well in comprehensives ( long term comprehensive school teacher here with two high achieving children who went to comps) and that the ‘rest’ do much better in this system.

Don’t get me started on the iniquities of the ‘religious’ schools which are creating schisms in society and building up real issues for the future.

We all have to live together. It baffles me that we think children should be segregated. Of course all schools should be good and surely that should be our main focus.

Are you saying that catchment areas aren't a key driver of inequality? Do you think it's right that the state funds this kind of inequality quite happily?

Look at houses prices near desirable schools and you will almost always see that prices are higher there than an equivalent area with an undesirable school.

Can you please share this research?

"No one young person is 'better' or 'worse' than another" - seriously? so 11 yo shoplifting in their uniforms are as brilliant as everyone else?

Many are a 1 size fits all.
Local state secondary GCSE choices: Geography OR History, Spanish as the only MFL. No option for drama or music.
DD is obsessed with classics/Romans etc but the only schools to offer these are independent (we don't live in a grammar area).
Sport limited to 1 x double session per week with only 2-3 different sports to try.

Exactly!

The child who wants to be a surgeon who is the parent of surgeons is highly likely to become a surgeon. All the stats indicate that home background and parental educational attainment are the most influential on a child's life success. Way more so than school.

However school does play a part and it's not just about the number of exams a child takes. It's about socialisation. 'Middle class' skills that make it easier for students to achieve at interviews and beyond.

Posting on these threads depresses me because it feels like people only care about their own 'stellar' children. Not the health of society as a whole.

This is so, so true.

The reason why the children of doctors do better is because doctors are usually involved (or know someone who is involved) in admissions / mcat assessments so they know what’s needed. And they can usually afford to send their kids to the best schools / tutors.

The reason why many private schools have a high percentage of medical school admissions is because these parents then provide the same support they do for their kids to the others. Eg the secondary attached to DS’ school does mock mcats with existing parents. There is no similar ‘prestige’ for doing it for state schools and so even when consultants send their kids there they don’t get involved.

More doctors’ kids in State won’t magic up more doctors. It will just make this inequality worse as the doctors’ who send their kids to State often prefer to focus on just their kids.

This then leads to some terrible decisions. Eg DB didn’t get into ANY medical schools because he couldn’t ‘demonstrate’ an interest in medicine despite caring for a relative, volunteering at the hospital etc, and averaging 100% on every single A level module he ever studied (perfect scores - his transcripts were sent for triple check as nobody believed it). This is because his school didn’t offer any assistance with ucas applications and he had to research it all himself.

10 years on he is now at the top of the tree in the allied healthcare profession (pharmacy) and every doctors’ child in his year who did get medical school admissions are now working in banking or overseas lol. There are a lot of people like him and it’s the reason why politicians want pharmacists / nurses / etc to do more — because in many cases are people hired are better at caring (and more of a fit for the NHS) than UK qualified doctors.