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

So isn't that a moot point, you want to change to 1950s from current setting.

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

You were one of a tiny minority-and that minority is even tinier nowadays.

You seem to have this idea in your head that all 11+ candidates are hothoused tutored rich kids who are only taking the 11+ because mummy and daddy told them to.

We aren't, and it's those of us who weren't who are stridently defending grammar schools on this thread. Why are you consistently erasing the lived experiences of the poor people who made good because grammar school gave them a better start that would have otherwise been unaffordable?

We have miners' children on this thread defending grammar schools. You want to talk about classism and hating the poor? Let's talk about how you are ignoring them!

No I am talking about the specific challenges in my local non-grammar area including the real life experience of a friend's daughter.
I never claimed this was representative of the whole state sector for crying out loud.

The majority of children in the UK attend comps, are you suggesting all the highest achieving children there are raced to the bottom (as attainment statistics prove that isn't true).

You are also being a) rude and b) ridiculous.

KS3 still very much in existence! They've got rid of the Yr9 sats but KS3 is still Yr7-9. Growing up I had no idea grammar schools still existed. Fully comprehensive schools work well. I went to Cambridge from my local comp in the north east, and didn't have to spend Yr5 and my summer holiday aged 10 stressing about an exam, I was out playing on my bike and having fun like a 10yr old should.

Yes, because selective education was the right choice and it's tall-poppy-choppers who want to destroy it.

"You've got something I don't have so I'm going to destroy it so you can't have it either" was a message I got a lot from the bullies at school too.

You seem to have this idea in your head that all 11+ candidates are hothoused tutored rich kids who are only taking the 11+ because mummy and daddy told them to.

The facts and research indicate that the majority are indeed because parent influences. This is precisely why the current approach is outdated and no longer fit for purpose.

And out in the mining villages and the Merseyside docklands, that isn't the case and it's there that grammar schools make the biggest difference.

Selective education as an option exists at ages 16, 18, and beyond. Implementing it at age 10 is ineffective, unfit for purpose, and contributes to social division.

@twistyizzy "No I am talking about the specific challenges in my local non-grammar area including the real life experience of a friend's daughter.
I never claimed this was representative of the whole state sector for crying out loud."

You said that grammar schools gave academic children a chance to go to school without getting their hair set on fire. Someone else said that grammar schools allowed academic children to avoid being sexually assaulted. It it BIZARRE the panic and scaremongering on threads like this!

And parental influence is why you can throw every education policy at schools but unless you tackle parental engagement and aspiration then you will never have a level playing field.
Engaged and aspirational parents will always so whatever it takes for their child to have the best educational experience possible, whether that is grammar or indy or home schooling or tutors or extra curricular activities. Getting rid of grammars won't change that.

It is the case.

Rather than reducing places. I would like to see a real committment and investment into making the sink schools better so parents chose them of their own free will rather than by the stick. It would require a huge commitment and multi agency working across the country. With SS, education welfare, LA departments, creation of more suitable alternative provisions, health, youth groups and police working together. I would like to see every school across the country have the same funding many inner London schools had years ago. I would like to see class sizes reduced and schools funded properly before reducing places. All reducing places does is create huge surges in house prices in "good" school catchments and promote huge amounts of tutoring and hot housing.

I will tell my friend that her DD was just scaremongering. The girl was so traumatised she is now Home Ed and my friend had to give up work.
I never ever said this is representative of ALL state schools, I said you have to accept that some state comps are awful.
Some posters flatly refuse to hear anything bad about state comps, ignoring the real life experience of others.

I have replied to this before. And repeat here one more time

Grammar schools not only fail to enhance academic performance, but they also intensify social segregation by dividing students early on. This significantly hinders efforts to increase the target group parental involvement in early years education. The grammar school system makes less privileged parents feel they have no chance to compete fairly with wealthier or already involved families from the divisive age of 10. This is one of the major obstacles to implementing effective early years education.

Reducing what places? You only abolish the exam.

I went to an appalling Comprehensive school and it was a dreadful 5 years. I moved area and sent my son’s to a good school, a Christian state school, what a different life experience they have had. I don’t think that everyone can be equalised without destroying the few good schools just for the sake of it.

I went to a comprehensive for 11-16 and a grammar school for sixth form. I honestly don’t see the point in them. A lot of grammar school students had no idea about the real world and how to deal with people from different classes of life.

Good to hear positive experiences too

I'm quite happy for abusive disruptive kids to be divided away from the kids they swot-bash.

In any case, this idea that everyone can be manipulated into some kind of utopia where we all get along and mix together is another Leftist pipedream. People want to be with other people like themselves. Methodists want to hang out with other Methodists. Rich people socialise with other rich people. Women want to socialise with women. Football fans want to hang out with football fans. Smart people want to hang out with smart people.

NOTE: I am not advocating for any kind of state-imposed segregation by race or religion, nor for discrimination that is currently outlawed to be legalised. I'm saying that it's Kafkaesque to think that you can force egalitarianism by putting kids all in the same school. They form friendship groups with other kids like themselves because that's what people do. Social division is inevitable and natural and normal. People want to find their tribe.

Parents want their children to be certain their tribe at age 10.

We need more choice of education providers not less. Give parents a choice so they can choose the best fit for their child. Whether that it is vocational, grammar, private, SEN, faith based etc.
1 size fits all does not work for many, despite what Labour may try to say. This utopian view of fitting every kid into a narrow type of state run education with no choice, simply doesn't work.

No but it is a better representation of our society as a whole if all children are put into comprehensive school, without the availability of other selective schools.

But like I say, 1 size fits all just doesn't work for many of those kids.