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

Grammar schools are not equal to outstanding schools; many grammar schools do not meet that standard.

A school doesn’t need to be a grammar school to achieve outstanding status.

To be clear, is the 11 plus exam admission policy to be abolished, the state fund school of course would be continuing running.

Demographic and attainment bias, at the expense of a lot of other schools.

You clearly have no idea how teacher in comprehensive school effectively manages teaching on different sets and abilities.

at the expense of a lot of other schools

I don't care about the expense of the schools. I care about the children in them. My proposed four-way split into single-sex schools with grammar and secondary modern allows extra funding for behaviour management to be targeted at the boys' secondary modern where it's needed, benefiting those boys as well as the girls they would have endangered and the smart boys they would have swot-bashed.

Don’t you see that introducing grammar schools could worsen the situation?

“Could you clarify what you mean by saying the most able students aren’t being challenged enough?“

It is something Ofsted regularly comments on in inspections. It is one of the reasons one of our local girls comps, previously outstanding, lost that rating. To get outstanding you need to be able to show. Sadly, only 14 per cent of state secondaries were rated outstanding in 22/23 and shock horror only 4 per cent of primaries!
In that climate, you can’t go closing down outstanding schools - many grammars still have an outstanding. As highlighted above.

We had teachers testify to this and they know because it's their job.

Yes, you’re suggesting we turn back the clock to the 1950s

We have many teachers testify the opposite case too.

It made it better for my mum, whose dad was an actual fucking miner! She got into grammar and became the first person in her family to get a university degree. She worked as a comp teacher and is pro-grammar.

To be clear, not closing down the school, but abolish the 11 plus exam as part of the admission policy.

So @SergeyB - now you are stating Ofsted is not fit for purpose? And you know more than them? I mean this is the official Government endorsed regulator so quite a tall order from you.

A mumsnet classic phrase is very appropriate here. "A race to the bottom"

Lets drag the intelligent driven children down to the level of the less academically minded and generally disinterested troublemakers. Great idea Labour

Slow hand clap.

Sometimes, the way it was before is better.

Key Stage Three History outcome: the understanding that change doesn't always mean progress.

The same argument applies to many children from comprehensive schools of your generation as well.

Going to a grammar school gave me social mobility from a poor background. I am very grateful and will never support their abolition .

Abolish the 11+ and watch the school lose the "outstanding" within three years.

Her brother went to comp and didn't go to uni.

Not for academic kids no, it wouldn't. It would give them somewhere that they don't get their hair set on fire for being top of the class!

KS3 had been abolished, and there is need for change to drive improvement.

Sure, if you consider academic kids to be those whose parents put them to pass an exam at age 10.

God, some people just hate poor people, don't they?

You're not wrong, but you also didn't read my post. Change doesn't always mean progress. Change is needed for progress, but it doesn't always constitute progress.

Simple example: increasing the amount of particulates a car can emit and still pass its MOT would be a change, but it wouldn't be progress towards a clean air target.

Attended a comprehensive school during era when grammar schools were considered uni material from age Secondary modern schools were seen as inferior.

The majority of children in the UK attend comps, are you suggesting all the highest achieving children there are physically assaulted?

You are being a) rude and b) ridiculous.