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

Will this new admissions code apply to the academies that make up 100% of secondary schools where I live now and have no oversight from the LEA?

This. Nothing will be achieved unless behavior is tackled first. In order to tackle behaviour, you have to look to the parents, starting from the preschool stage.

Merseyside is not a grammar school county; it has only a few grammar schools that admit a very small proportion of students.

Many grammar schools have converted to academies. If the 11-plus were to be abolished for grammar schools, I don’t see why the same couldn’t apply to other academy schools.

11+ abolition and enforcement of an admissions code onto a school that has no LEA oversight aren't the same thing.

The definition of a grammar school county is one with grammar schools in it.

The 35% of Wirralians living in areas that are amongst the most deprived 20% of areas in England (source) have the grammar school escape hatch for their bright kids because Wirral is a grammar LEA. Despite consistently electing Labour MPs and councils, there's been little will to change that.

The admission code sets up rules that academies and other state-funded schools must follow when admitting pupils. The admission policy, set up by the school, whether it is an LEA school or an academy, has to follow the admission code. Currently, the admission code explicitly allows grammar schools to select a substantial number of students based on 11+ exams.

The definition of a grammar school county is one with grammar schools in it.

I think this is simplistic, there are areas that have just two grammars or a superselective or two like Bromley (one for girls, one for boys), all the other schools are practically comprehensives and described as such. The catchment for the schools is so massive so they don't cream off much of the local children. The boys school has no catchment and the girls school has a 9 mile catchment that goes as far as Greenwich and Lewisham into London and out into Kent.

I define a grammar school county as an area where a substantial proportion of secondary school children (20%+) attend grammar schools. Your example doesn’t fit my definition of a grammar county, similar to London or Manchester. However, you can use your definition as well, since there isn’t an official one. Wirral Borough does have a substantial number of students attending grammar schools, which resembles the same issues of a grammar county, where social segregation has been extremely bad between grammar schools and non-grammar schools in that area.

escape hatch for their bright kids

According to your definition, only the percentage of well-behaved kids who happened to pass the 11-plus exam deserve the opportunity. The rest are left to use the leftover , and rightly so, like in a Hunger Games scenario?

It didn't convert 2 years ago, it converted within 2 years of him joining!

Agree it was a typo, it doesn't change the message it conveys.

What is more is that the London superselective grammar schools like Wilson’s, St Olave’s, Henrietta Barnet etc get the best scores and exam results in the country. I think it is fair to say that most kids who get into those schools are academically gifted and have a special educational need because of their gifts. And what is the Government going to do for these children between ages 11-16 support their additional learning needs?

I think it is fair to say that most kids who get into those schools are academically gifted and have a special educational need because of their gifts. And what is the Government going to do for these children between ages 11-16 support their additional learning needs

Fuck all sadly

Well it sort of does because he didn't have a comprehensive education did he? He had grammar and then private. So basically an "elite" education. More importantly he had aspirational parents who entered him for the 11+ etc.

Where is your evidence? Have you compared the academic performance of students who were admitted to Wilson’s, St Olave’s, or Henrietta Barnet but ended up attending a comprehensive school? Do they perform worse in terms of academic attainment or achievement? There are many high-performing sixth forms that the government has invested in for gifted students. You don’t need to prepare for a test in age 9 or 10 to achieve the same results.

So as the rest of cabinet members, most of whom from comprehensive schools.

@SergeyB - you mean places like the Kings Maths School or Harris Westminster? Surely that is more down to Kings College London and Westminster School input working in partnership with those schools, than what the government has done on an ongoing basis?

The London Challenge was excellent and needs to be recreated in more deprived parts of the country, in close partnerships with the local authorities, academies and local communities there. But whole scale simplistic and outdated banning of certain types of schools, is in my opinion, entirely misguided and also yesterday’s news.

It is definitely not fair to say that. Those parents who think so should invest in overseas online tutors as they started from primary school if they think their child has such special educational needs.

“So as the rest of cabinet members, most of whom from comprehensive schools“.

And middle class backgrounds, with educationally motivated parents and an elite Oxford education.

Many high-performing sixth forms and math schools are collaborating with local universities outside of London, and this trend is growing.

Most of them came from comfortably middle class backgrounds, from high performing state schools and high % went to Oxford. As far as I'm aware none of them went to a failing, or sink, state school.

I've known several girls who got places at Henrietta Barnett. In terms of ability, which for me is the speed at which they learn new concepts, they're not slouches but, in aggregate, they're not really special. What unifies them is the amount of work they did in preparation for the exams, particularly the first round. As they were 7-10 year old girls during this preparation, I think it's fair to say that it was mostly a function of their parents, not so much the girls.

This is the first time I've ever heard having pushy parents described as a 'special educational need'.

I can see a few.

If not then that's because there are many many many people educated in state schools that are neither failing or 'sink' schools.

I think you'll find that most DC who decline places at the super-selectives at 11+ go to very selective private schools. The few who might go to comprehensives are likely to go to very high performing comprehensives, not 'bog standard' comprehensives which could be regarded as representative of the 'system'. As you pointed out earlier, there are massive selection bias issues which make the kind of analysis you're looking for rather difficult.

That said, do remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.