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

"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."

And why? because all solutions proposed by those who "care about society as a whole" trying to take something from middle classes own "stellar" children - dump them from privates, grammars etc.

No, I'm saying that - as a matter of demonstrable fact - that large areas of the country do not have catchments, and that only in Scotland are you guaranteed a place in your catchment school.

In much of England and nearly all of London, it's by distance. That's why living very close to a school can be important and it indeed becomes a factor in driving up house prices. And the admissions footprint can vary considerably between year groups, especially if new housing is built.

There has been some introduction of catchments in recent years, but that seems to be driven more by a policy of making schools more accessible to local DC (preventing the "get your oldest in, then move to a cheaper area" approach, as the new criteria are typically catchment siblings/other catchment/non-catchment siblings/non-catchment others)

Nice try, “OP” 🤣

If areas with secondary moderns (I am using this terminology to be clear, to avoid confusion with the schools that teach everyone in non-11+ areas), with a minority of children in grammars, produced better educational results at the population level than areas of similar socio-economic mix but with comprehensives, then I would be all for them.

The fact is, they don’t. So why should we support the retention of secondary moderns (an obvious consequence of retaining grammar schools)?

I do, I think, support a wide diversity of educational offerings at 16+ - selective A level providers, vocational institutions etc - where children have all taken basic qualifications (GCSEs) and have that nationally-valid benchmark (11+ is a notoriously poor discriminator).

At 11*, there really isn’t a good argument for the secondary modern system, as it produces outcomes no better than the comprehensive one.

My highly academically capable Dc have been high achieving in a comprehensive.

And kept friendships with their oldest friends who were in different sets. And watched some of those children move between sets, into top sets that they were not ready for as immature summer born boys, for example.

Ordinary S London comprehensive.

Why do you assume that the students who were willing and able to study these subjects in grammar would suddenly not want to learn them in a comprehensive? Comprehensive schools don't erase natural motivation.

@x88mph If there are not enough students then the comprehensives can not offer niche subjects.

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

Fo you have evidence for that? My own anecdotal experience, as a teacher in a school that abolished sets in primary, was that our results skyrocketed. The most able still did as well, but those children who would have been at the borderline between sets did SO much better - which I suspect is exactly the children (bottom
of grammar / top of secondary modern) who mean that comprehensive schooling is at the cohort level as successful as bipartite selective schooling.

Unfortunately comprehensives don't have that filter and as always the lowest common denominator parents and kids that don't care) will drag the others down.

That's not my experience. Our DC went to an "Outstanding" comprehensive and received an excellent education. Almost every child within a 10 mile radius went there - including many in social housing. Some of the cheapest properties in the wider area were within the catchment area.

Many children did extremely well and the pastoral care from the school was second to none.

But they are only ‘niche’ in a secondary modern - why would they be ‘niche’ in a comprehensive containing a full spread of abilities?

I don't understand the problem with that?
If a builder helped his child become a builder, would we be criticising that?
Is it just that the middle classes aren't allowed to help their own kids? For some reason, on top of paying tax, they owe something more to other people's children?
Are you saying if you were a doctor and your child wanted to become a doctor you wouldn't do anything to help them in case it disadvantages the child of a non-medic?

It wasn't actually. As Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher approved more schools going comprehensive than any other Education Secretary before or since.

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.

I absolutely care about my own children more than the health of society as a whole, yes. Tbh you’ve touched on something; if all parents cared about their own children as much as they should, then everyone’s outcomes would be better, and no one would be asking ‘stellar’ children to try to help bring up other children, which is absolutely not the job of any child.

I'm an ex-mainstream teacher with a child about to start at a grammar so I'm torn on this. Of course, the dream would be for all schools to be outstanding and for all kids to have equal opportunities, but this just isn't the case currently and would take years to get right. Schools are hugely underfunded and a Labour government does a much better job of prioritising education (hence I don't know one teacher who is a Tory - as is also the case for NHS workers generally, for obvious reasons).

We chose the grammar school because my son has ASD and they have many autistic children and a wonderful, in house SENCO. We are lucky that the local secondary is also outstanding and would have been happy for him to go there.

What we haven't enjoyed is the domination of faith schools in our rural area. There is literally no other option apart from private. We've found that the religious element takes too much away from academic time and the church to be awfully pushy. I'd be happy to see Labour put a stop to that.

I'll be voting Labour on Thursday. It's the only way to get the Tories out in my area and that is a priority for me.

I would absolutely agree that selection vs non-selection seems so unimportant in the grand scheme of ‘what is wrong with education as a result of the last 14 years’. It wouldn’t even be in my top 10 of things to address right now.

@cantkeepawayforever I am talking about the system as it currently stands. There is not enough funding to run small classes in some comprehensives.
I have no problem with comprehensives but the reality is they are not funded anywhere near well enough and there is a rising issue with disruptive behaviour that is not being tackled and the impact that is has on school finances and teaching time that is lost.

Because a full spread of abilities means fewer academically able students! In an intake of 30 there might only be a handful capable of studying Latin, whereas at a Grammar they should all be capable, making it justifiable to employ a Latin teacher.

No diversity where I live. Hobson's choice of one school. Same in the next town and the next. All equally struggling.

They are poor schools because they have suffered under each prevailing educational fashion. Poor leadership from the local authority then cackademisation, PE teacher head, Academy Trust threw up its hands and handed schools back (for which there was no process).

Northamptonshire - an educational black hole.

Oh I really hope they do. I live in a grammar school area two of my kids went to didn't. It causes real division for stoppers little benefit the children that go and those that don't, there is no added value.
It's complete bollocks about it being any sort of social improvement as a 95% of the kids went were tutored (not mine but they were the exception). We sent them because our local school was due to close, but actually it ended up staying open (thanks to a change in Local government) and I then sent my younger children there.
Personally I would ban all religious schools and or grammar schools and private schools. Instead have special schools. These sorts of schools create division and do little for community cohesion.

My guess is no new ones. Where they exist are places with a chance of a Labour MP for the first time in years or at all, so they won't be abolished where they remain.

Nope, just saying that those children will do as well in comprehensive schools too.

And yet around 75% of UK medical students went to a state school? And go on to perform better than the privately educated students?

A novel thought maybe, but perhaps raising the cap on medical school places and increasing training placements is the answer to producing more doctors in the UK.

It doesn't make a jot of difference even for the "best kids"

smug brag coming

I'm from a country where every school is a state school except for the ones where you can pay to do 2 years in 1 in case you are so behind that you are forced to repeat a year.

I learned to wait for my classmates to catch up while expanding independently on contents. I didn't need to be stretched by a teacher or a pushy environment. Ended up with top marks BSc and MSc and TWO PhDs. So you can do well regardless.

The grammar system is a farcical joke imho, exactly as the whole idea of buying better education through private schools or expensive houses in catchment. The UK needs a better education for everyone.

There are massive differences in state schools.

I went to a violent comp in NW England, where the boy I sat next to got a glass eye at 14, having been stabbed in it on the way home from school.

In contrast my DH moved from the NW as a teen to a sleepy comp in Norfolk , got great A’levels and has a posh accent.

Some comps are great, others have students throwing chairs at teachers.

Labour thinks it’s going to level out education across the board, and everyone’s going to have access to the same education. I highly doubt this is going to happen. In fact, I think it’s disastrous for our economy.

Why do you think it would be disastrous for the economy to have the same education for everyone? Just curious.