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

That's sad @GnomeDePlume - I agree too many politically driven fads and not enough rewarding schools that are succeeding for their children.

I would appreciate a political party explaining why there is such inequality in the state system other than it always being about investment. Money is not always the root cause.

Why is the comp near me failing and why is the comp in the next village not failing? I assume they get the same funding per child. So what's going on?

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.

One of my American friends said to me, “I am doing my bit for society. I’m raising 2 sons who are educated, and nice people. They’ll grow up to pay taxes”.

She’s dead right. Raise your own kids properly. It’s not anyone else’s job to do it for you. If we are each doing a proper job with our own DC, then everything will improve.

It’s not anyone else’s job to look out for your children.

The overall effect will be the same though. Houses with the best chance of getting into the most desirable schools will be worth more. Houses where you are almost certainly going to a failing school will be cheaper.

It’s called uravnilovka.

The Left love it.

I think ‘succeeding for their children ‘ is a really important point.

As a society, we place too much emphasis on ‘raw results’ - selective schools are ‘better’ because they get better results. Even slightly better measures like ‘Progress 8’ don’t capture the very many schools where success ‘for their children’ does not come in grades but in development of skills, attitudes, behaviours, experience, safety, that are not measured by GCSEs.

Have Labour said if or how they intend to make the standard comprehensive education better? So far I've only heard about their plans to make things worse for the few children already doing ok; if they're determined to chuck everyone into the basic state system, shouldn't they improve it first?

Our children are going to be competing with spectacularly talented graduates from India, China, Korea etc - the best thing for the country is surely doing everything we can to get our most able to the top of their game so they can compete on the global stage, not giving them the job of "bringing others up" at the expense of their own achievements?

I can’t work out if this is in support of grammars or against. Presumably raising your own kids without anyone doing anything for you is a bit at odds with the state providing a special school for their abilities?

Equally, all of society will suffer if, by focusing only on the needs of a selected few to compete globally, we create a vast, less well educated majority who are disaffected and contribute less to society than they could.

They will never level the playing field because different parents have completely different attitudes to education.

I went to a 'sink' comp in a dodgy area.
Part of the learning was mixed ability where they paired the struggling kids with the brightest ones like me. It made everything slower, it got in the way of me learning at my own pace and expanding my own knowledge.
I got 9 grade As (in the days before stars) and 1 B (while other story about how we weren't even taught enough to get an A!)

On paper I was a bright kid that did well at a comp. In reality I hated being in mixed ability, hated the 'being average is ok as long as you tried' attitude.

I'm not sure what 'raising citizens for the whole of society' bullshit benefit I was supposed to get but it was fking miserable and I only met like minded keen bright students once at Uni, which was a revelation.

Yep let’s make it shit for everyone. Meanwhile they will send theirs to private or pay expensive tutors or use their connections so their kids get work experience and eventually decent jobs.

Labour have never said they want to even education out for everyone. This isn't their aspiration because they know it would make them unelectable.

The reality is that to equalise things then some children will get a significantly worse education. If all schools had their share of 'problem' children and families then the sink schools would improve immensely but almost all other schools would be dragged down by children and families that are disruptive, don't want to engage and require an incredible amount of resource. It is the big unmentionable problem and one that is far more controversial than simply saying that those who are doing well should be dragged down. How do Labour plan to tackle these families and children? They don't seem to want to acknowledge they exist, let alone have any ideas about how you can reintegrate them into society and educate them properly.

Nailed it.

I went to a comp and I can assure you that the drag was downwards.

There didn't seem to be much of an upwards pull.

The top set were derided for being swots and geeks i.e. not something to aspire to.

You only need to look at programmes like educating Essex/Yorkshire to see the constant low level disruption that goes on and how is an able child going to really excel if they are in a class with students that can barely read?

Why do we have to have the same state run education for everyone? We aren't Mao's China. People should be able to choose what they want. The state provides a school place for everyone that needs or wants one but it shouldn't be made compulsory to go or impossible to chose another route. My children probably wouldn't get in to our local grammar as they arent academic enough. I'd love it but that's just life.

100%. How is it the responsibility of my child to raise standards?.

Why would you want to perpetuate a system that disadvantages your own children?

There's a certain amount of feckless parent bashing on here.

It is certainly the case that your home life and the educational attainment of your parents make a massive difference to student success (defining success here as being an employed taxpaying citizen in later life).

However it's not always easy.
What if you are made homeless by your landlord and can't find a comparable property close to school. So you travel hours each way with your children to get them there.

What if your living conditions are such (five to a bedsit for example)that there is nowhere for your child study?
What if you are working three jobs to keep things going so you never see your kids or know how they are doing so they are left to fend for themselves?
What if you yourself were the child of addicts and had a very disrupted education, were always shoved in the bottom set and had no respect for school. How do you think your children would grow up?

There are so very many examples why accessing education is hard already for some students. Why should we not raise the bar above that for those who have it easier in life?

Labours obsession with equality will rule the fate of many. Incredibly damaging. This is also the root of their hatred towards home education, they see it as another form elitism. Bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

No.

The philosophy is let the highest raise it up by helping the least able and treating them equally.

(edited to add the end bit as I pressed update by accident)

It doesn't disadvantage my own children; it doesn't suit my own children. There's a difference. I also wouldn't want to penalise a child that it would suit. Life isn't fair or equal. We aren't all the same.

That makes no sense at all! 🤣.

I think the theory of giving a stretch opportunity to the brightest children makes sense. Especially as they were introducing when many children had little to no education past 14. But the reality is that places are bought by yhe most affluent moving close and paying tutors. Then there is less choice of remaining schools for those who don't get in and few academic children to have groups of for learning.

Very much agree with doing away with religious schools. At least grammar schools are based on ability, instead of the deity your parents do or don't believe in! But that isn't on anyone's agenda, as churches invest in schools to keep people going to them.