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

No, I'm going to to report you on MNHQ for this.

Look @SergeyB - when people start making unreasonable demands like taxing private schools 20% VAT when no other country does that - then logically, you get some in that camp demanding that the Government now forks out the equivalent in average state school funding for those children too.
Equally, when you come on here and demand that all remaining grammars are abolished in an era when kids have faced the biggest disruption since WW2 due to Covid, then some people are going to tell you that they want grammars back everywhere and that is a fairer system. Who the hell wants their own child disrupted yet again? All kids have been disrupted I would say anyone born 2022 onwards. Because even in 2022 services were not back to normal yet. It may even extend to birth in 2023 due to NHS gridlock.

If you make unreasonable demands, then expect a counter reaction.

Only because kids are used as crowd control instead

Ooh, I'm so scared.

You mock me for a) being traumatised by male violence and b) standing by single-sex schools that protect other girls from male violence and you think that I am the problem? Nah, you hate women and will throw us to the wolves for the sake of your vaunted "social mobility". Male violence holds women back more than any other factor, more than being poor, more than what school you go to.

Reposting from another thread:

Every man who has a woman say "yes" when she wanted to say "no" because she feared that he would murder her has benefited from the lesson to all women that men like Kyle Clifford [murdered three women on Tuesday because one dumped him] teach.

Every man who gets a job because a woman was too scared to even apply because she feared that she would not survive the walk home has benefited from the lesson to all women that men like Josef Puska and Wayne Couzins teach.

Every man who gets a job in construction or tech because a woman left the industry because of sexual harassment benefits from the actions of the harassers, even if he does not himself harass.

Men as a class benefit from male violence against women. Even the "good men".

Female-only schools let girls learn in peace and safety, giving us a chance to get good qualifications before we face the world's men as adults.

For effective classroom control, this is never an option or strategy because it doesn’t work.

Agreed but it is the reality in many state schools. Happened to DD in primary

Of course there will be counter reactions, as all policy making does. Let me say this one more time: for state-funded education, given its constraints and social objectives, the goals aren’t always aligned with what a minority of parents believe is best. Often, their perceptions are not accurate, similar to the situation with the NHS.

Same to mine - to her extreme detriment.

How about secondary?

Usually well behaved, bright girls are put next to boys to manage the disruption.

DD is supposed to always be sat at the front of the class due to her SEN.

She is sat at the front only for one subject because even in top sets, there are others with the same adjustment specified. She is a well-behaved girl with ADD and SpLd so that ranks lower than a disruptive boy. DD not focusing affects her and not the whole class. So she doesn't get the adjustment.

SEN department have said they are too overwhelmed by children with mental health issues to be able to assist with SpLd and suggested I pay for tutoring.

All parents desire well-behaved children in every class setting from the primary school stage. However, this does not support the idea of a test that leaves the majority of kids having higher chance to experience this issue at age 10.

Grammar school is not a solution to your DDs problem either.

Mine would have been.

All-girl so no being sat next to naughty boys to pacify them, minimal disruption so minimal crowd control, and excellent SEND support.

a test that leaves the majority of kids having higher chance to experience this issue at age 10.

So you admit that disruptiveness and not being smart enough to pass the 11+ are correlated?

And you admit that you will throw the brightest kids to the wolves for your ideology?

That was long time ago, at the expense of majority of the local school having more crowd controlling problem.

There is no evidence to suggest SEN support are better in grammar at all. It can vary significantly between grammar schools and comprehensive schools, year by year, mostly constraint by funding.

I consider this to be a form of misogyny. It's making the girl responsible for what the boy does, aka the First Rule Of Misogyny: women are responsible for what men do.

It also sends the message to girls that it's their responsibility and hence their fault if the boy misbehaves. And then we wonder why, a decade later, she's blaming herself for a man's domestic violence.

Oh they both went to mixed schools, did fine thanks. Both went to mixed universities as well, did fine there too.

And both have a lovely group of friends, boys and girls, who still get together regularly some 6 years after they left school. Some girls actually enjoy, or dare I say it prefer, male company, you know.

Still no boys, still no being used as a human riot shield.

They are lucky to be unharmed. A man murdered three women on Tuesday because one of them dumped him. One woman in three is sexually assaulted during her life, rising to nine in ten autistic women.

Your DDs are lucky. I'm fighting for the right of the girls who aren't lucky to have a single-sex school.

“Of course there will be counter reactions, as all policy making does. Let me say this one more time: for state-funded education, given its constraints and social objectives, the goals aren’t always aligned with what a minority of parents believe is best. Often, their perceptions are not accurate, similar to the situation with the NHS.“

@SergeyB - why are you mansplaining like you are somehow in charge?

@SergeyB - thankfully Keir Starmer does NOT think like you. Being intelligent, he understands NUANCE and what is best for the country, Stop pretending you have some sway. If you did, you would be on Twitter using your real persona. With some actual backing.

Nope. They are part of the vast majority.

And again this has very little to do with grammar schooling; it is to do with single-sex schooling. It is not the same argument.

If you want to make a case for single-sex schooling, start your own thread and let this one get back to the topic in hand.

It would have been if she was on an academic pathway. I know as I went to one myself.

Hard core truth everyone - Labour will be lucky to get everyone to pre-pandemic levels educationally speaking, if they try REALLY HARD and spend BILLIONS.