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

@Araminta1003 and houses have to be for sale before people can buy them!

Ok so 20 per cent tax on private schools, including specialist ballet and music schools etc, get rid of all grammars, what else? Is that it? What is going to happen to the most sought after 150 catchment comp schools? What is the proposal there? Announce it all at the same time? Because then people will actually keep their DCs in private schools and then some money may come of it after all and the Labour Party will save face?

Is your solution to improve things by doing nothing?

@SergeyB - I gave you a very clear list of urgent action points facing children today. It included smart phones, vaping, dental health and childhood obesity (combo of terrible nutrition and lack of exercise). Social mobility is dire post Covid in particular. But I don’t think you can blame that on the 163 remaining grammar schools or the 6 per cent of kids in private education. That is simply a cheap shot. So if you want to fix things start there.

Because otherwise the rhetoric is either hypocritical (leaving catchment schools and no taxes on people who lucked out on huge capital gains in sought after catchment schools) or worse, the rhetoric starts looking like you are going to ban the capitalist/elite from unis too, like the Soviets did. So don’t go down that route, it won’t work.
We have to be honest about what the educational elite actually is - it is the level of education of the parents and their level of commitment to education. Not what type of school some kid attended.

What makes you think steps haven’t already been taken to tackle these issues? Besides the mobile phone issue, which the previous government initiated and tackled, the rest is more related to health than education policy. You can keep flip-flopping between different social issues, but the 163 grammar schools are using state resources and are deemed ineffective. They contribute to social division and have a wider impact on the education on surrounding areas. I would start here.

the rhetoric starts looking like you are going to ban the capitalist/elite from unis too

You are conflating the 11-plus selection with university-level selection and elitism. They are fundamentally different issues, age and development, social implications as well as flexibility and alternative pathways.

Health and education are not separate matters. Just because policymakers treat them separately, that does not mean they are separate.
The children born during the pandemic who did not get prenatal help, early interventions, no speech & language etc etc, got ignored at home, parent mental health stresses due to cost of living post pandemic, teacher burn out, it is all the same thing really. Nor are all the remaining state grammars one entity - the big bad wolf, they are each individuals schools with individual communities. Most of them are rated highly. Why go destroy that and those children’s lives? It does not make any sense. And I doubt it will make parts of deprived Kent better, the opposite will be the case. If GPs or teachers cannot send their DCs to grammar or private there the outcome is even less GPs and teachers.

This thread is not discussing elite universities but secondary schools and its admissions policy. Feel free to open another thread to dicuss.
@SergeyB

Threads often meander off the original point like conversations do, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
You’re not the thread police.

If GPs or teachers cannot send their DCs to grammar or private there the outcome is even less GPs and teachers.

Absurd, you can carry on ignoring al the research and cling to the fantasy of the supposed value added of grammar schools and the 11-plus to produce more GP or teachers. Other countries without such outdated systems have more teachers and doctors.

I’m not, and neither are you. I am suggesting and making my position clear that I won’t respond to irrelevant context that PP is trying to comingle deliberately in this thread. And to you too.

@SergeyB - you have missed the point entirely. If you get rid of all forms of selection in very deprived areas (so no private, no grammar, no socially serrated high achieving comp) then you have even more trouble recruiting teachers and GPs with their own children into that area. Because those GPs and teachers send their kids to schools with people like them and sharing their educational values.

Do you have empirical evidence to support your claim? You can base your assumptions on your personal values, but please don’t assume that your value is for mainstream doctors and teacher parents. Many areas in the UK do not have grammar schools. Have you looked at the population of students in comprehensive schools whose parents are GPs or teachers in those areas

You're not the only person in this thread.

Some of us are happy to discuss aspects without your commentary. Feel free to not respond.

I only responded to the discussion you quoted me.

@SergeyB - you keep deliberately ignoring the points entirely. There are plenty of comprehensive schools that are more socially segregated by catchment than many grammars. The Sutton Trust clearly highlight this.

Yet you keep arguing against grammar schools.

It is very clear to me what has happened. Private school parents will move their kids and won’t pay the VAT and they have applied to grammars and so now the grammars are in the firing line. If you get rid of grammars, then you just make many comprehensive schools more socially segregated. In fact, as people need money up front to move into catchment and pay huge amounts of stamp duty, that is the worst form of educational elitism to encourage.
At least going to church is free and at least preparing your kid for grammar is honest and at least people paying private we see what they are doing. By encouraging certain comps to be even more elite and segregated you are encouraging game playing even more, tutoring for top set, renting in catchment, hiring overseas tutors. None of that will lead to more equality and the absolutely necessary catch up for the poorest children in our society and those with SEN. Both those groups have massively increased in recent years and are a huge problem.
By tinkering with grammars schools you fool precisely nobody!

@SergeyB - have you recently name changed? I cannot remember coming across your username before on these boards.

It is very clear to me that is only what you believe has happened.

At the same time you keep ignoring the peer-reviewed research finding shows that grammar schools are not effective, andnit the source of creating social segregation

I said many times I agree on what sutton trust report below says, and this applies to grammar school and some comprehensive school too. Some comprehensive school not being social diversity is not a valid defence for the existence of grammars school.

The government should review the school admissions code to ensure all state schools take a mix of pupils which reflects their local community, and provide disadvantaged pupils with a fair chance to access top performing schools.

Now you’re changing the topic to discuss my choice of MN username? What’s next?

The government should review the school admissions code to ensure all state schools take a mix of pupils which reflects their local community, and provide disadvantaged pupils with a fair chance to access top performing schools.

Fine in theory but in practice what will happen? Those who can move to the least deprived areas and what is the implication of that? Even more ghettos. Even more entirely depraved communities and poor areas that nobody middle class will move to. It works in places like London where you have transport links and choice. But in really poor areas - the opposite happens.

Grammar school counties are not typically the deprived areas in England. How did you come to this conclusion? Is it just another fantasy? How many families from deprived areas currently have their children attending grammar schools? By any measure, grammar schools have the lowest representation of underprivileged pupils.

I have reported this to MNHQ.

In the absence of SEND, the disruption causes the poor performance, not the other way around.

When I demanded 11+ entry, giving my sexual assailants a second chance to prove that they could be decent was the last thing on my mind.

Have you ever been to Merseyside? Grammar school county, extreme deprivation in many parts.