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

I said this upthread but my DC school - non selective, comprehensive does not set/ stream students at all. Except in one subject. All the evidence points to this being best for the vast majority of students in terms of Progress 8 scores.

Not all comprehensives are truly comprehensive in their approach.

@IFollowRivers I would be very interested to hear where this secondary school is and it's size? Does the LEA support it? I genuinely can't imagine many parents or teachers opting for that scenario?

Comprehensive means catering for children with differing abilities which doesn't necessarilly equate with teaching them all the same thing at the same time and pace.

@sunburnandsangria @Workasateamanddoitmyway I have already explained what I mean. In my personal experience mixed ability worked (and it keeps working in the country I come from, where all this elitist BS - typically linked to Tory-like school of thought, that's the link - is totally unheard of).

Oh - we have a right-wing government at the mo but nobody is dreaming of differentiating education...

Don't really understood your point I'm afraid.

Their policy is about.bringing children DOWN to the same level not UP.

It has circa 1.4K pupils and is in a mixture of leafy and less leafy inner city catchment. It is part of a trust so not overseen by an LA. Very oversubscribed because the Progress 8 results are great as well as the GCSE/ A levels. Interestingly the one area where Progress 8 is less good is where the subject is not taught in mixed ability classes.

@coldsummer1312 Oh. But in my personal experience mixed ability didn't work. I couldn't even study 3 separate sciences at GCSE, not offered at my school as 'too difficult' for the majority of kids at the school.

I'm not a Tory (only ever voted Labour) but having personally experienced being dragged down by a comprehensive I'm not on board with this supposed utopia.

I wonder whether streaming is more common in non-grammars in grammar areas than in true comprehensives elsewhere?

In my experience, all comprehensives in non-grammar areas set (always for Maths, then for increasing numbers of subjects higher up the school; some small GCSE options such as Music may not be set). Sets may be for groups of similar subjects, but quite possible for a newly-arrived EAL pupil to start in a high Maths group snd a low English one. A dyscalculic ex pupil of mine was top set English, bottom set Maths. Moving between sets is routine.

However, I can imagine that in areas where a minority of children are taken off to be educated in a different building - a grammar school - parents snd schools may be comfortable with the much cruder tool
of streaming by some notional concept of ‘ability’ without looking at specific subjects and with very little mobility?

I don’t know, I just wondered whether different systems tended to be used in different areas?

DS did far better at (state) school when he moved into streamed classes in Yr 9. It also meant he got to do extra subjects that lower sets didn't do and an extra GCSE (further maths).
I agree that selective schools and faith schools should be got rid of.

I am wondering if anyone out there with less academic children see the benefit of setting. Apart from the philosophy that mixed ability classes bring all students up rather than down as most of you are assuming there is the very real damage that labelling students as 'low achieving' can do for the rest of their lives.

That and the fact that with good teaching mixed ability actually works well. (once behaviour/ SEN issues are dealt with of course)

My DS was in set 1 for Maths, Science, English etc in Y7, but in set 5 (bottom set) for PE. If he was streamed rather than in a set-by-subject school, PE would have been a nightmare for him.

DS' best friend was extremely good/Gifted at maths and science, but really struggled with English. He was in Set 1 for maths/science but set 4 for English.

In Y8 my DS started to struggle with the pace of maths in Set 1 and was moved to Set 2. His teacher was brilliaht about it, explained her reasons and reassured him that he would be much happier at thd top of set 2 than the bottom of set 1. His confidence increased hugely and his attainment rose, by the end of the year he was moved back up into set 1 where he thrived. That is very difficult to manage in a streamed or grammar school.

I think it depends what level of ‘mixed’ you mean.

As a primary teacher, I teach mixed ability all day every day - I teach Maths and English to children working at levels from Y1 to at least Y6 simultaneously; I teach PE to children from regional competitors in their sport to those with significant physical challenges.

There cones a level of ‘mixed’ where that process is simply inefficient for all. I have taught Maths both setted snd mixed ability, and am completely confident that children within attainment levels within a, say, 3-4 year range of ability but who can access the same lesson with support are fine taught mixed ability at primary age. Those still working on the EYFS / Y1 curriculum at 9 or 10? No.

And as children get okder, those gaps get wider. By Y10, the children working on Y1 objectives at 9 will almost certainly still be on similar targets at 15. But their peers will now be 9 years ahead, and their most able peers further ahead still.

The key is in the teaching rather than the ability (or not) of the individual pupils. Obviously if a student can't read by Yr 10 then they can't learn at the same level of their other Yr 10 counterparts but that is an extreme. Great mixed ability teaching is the best. It is good for the confidence (and outcomes) of everyone involved. It is also good for society as a whole.

Firstly (and ignoring the fact that not all parents have a spare £18k each year to spend on private schooling), if the child didn’t get into grammar then their absence from a state school is not going to magically impact the results of the similarly achieving cohort at the secondary moderns.

I’m unclear about how you can classify them as ‘high achievers’ when they’ve achieved the same at age 10/11 as all the rest of the kids that tried and didn’t get a grammar place.

And secondly (again), it’s 7% of children that go to private school. This study looked at grammar v comprehensive, so to keep dragging in private schools as some kind of gotcha is pointless.

So what are you going to do when Parent A in a deprived area doesn't want their child bused over an hour to school in richer area?

The vast majority of parents want their children to go to school locally with their friends and where they can easily be picked up.

How are you funding all this transport? How are 5 year olds being picked up after school? What about siblings?

Moving people up and down sets isn’t difficult in a grammar school. It is completely normal and as easy as it is in a comprehensive school.

Excellent idea. My child goes to grammar and it is stuffed full of the kids whose parents could afford to tutor them. Now I’m fairly convinced that a really bright kid could get in without tutoring but, for most of them, the tutoring makes the difference. The comps then have the kids from lower socio economic groups and all the challenges that come with that. The thick rich kids go private.

Our local council tells us they level the playing field but that’s hogwash. On the one hand they say that every child from any background should go to the school they are most suited to. Then when it comes to transport there, they will only pay for the closest school. So thats well over £1k a year that a family needs to find to get there. Plus the more expensive uniform, all the trips, constant demands for money. Some you can ask for help with, but not the bus. It’s an absolute scandal.

What about the children in the lower set in the grammar school and the highest sets in the grammar school?

How easy is it for them to move ‘sets’, given the sets are in different schools?

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.

The vast majority of LAs have no grammars. London, which typically overall outstrips the national average in terms of achievement, has only a few superselectives in outer London areas. It’s hard to see how phasing out selective schools will have a disastrous effect on the economy.

Why is that?

The area I am in, there is not a “pass” mark for the grammars. They take something like the top 120 scores. You could get 95% in your English and Maths but if 120 kids get 100% to 96%, you don’t get a place.

Many parents around where we live will then look to indies if their child is high achieving, just not the highest achieving, as a lot of the non selectives have either a really small catchment or a reputation.

If a chunk of the highly able kids that were grammar candidates, just not the very top 120, go to indies, of course the results for the non selectives in a grammar area will be skewed downwards than in a non grammar area.

It’s not a gotcha, it’s reality.

That's exactly how I felt reading through this. I find the number of people who only care about their own children terrifying, and wonder what kind of society they want their children to grow up in. Do they really aspire to a continuation of the horrible inequality we have. Do they not wonder how other countries manage to have a system where you just go to your local school. Can you imagine what we would all talk about if it wasn't 'what school is little Johnny' going to go to as we would all be going to the same schools. How much emotional energy would that free up. You have to have skin in the game to want to improve it so I say ban selective schools, faith schools and private schools. Endless free choice is not a good thing but that doesn't mean its a simple leap to Maoism. There must be a better way that we have currently and until those with power have to educate their children with everyone else I can't see how it will ever change.

And the equally very bright kids that don’t get into the top 120 but their parents don’t have £125k of after tax dollars to pay for private school go to the non selectives.

And you’re assuming that that the 11+ is a good indicator of academic ability and those kids will go on to be high achievers at secondary - the 11+ is a pretty blunt tool that is gamed by the wealthy that fork out for years of tutoring.

By demonstrating the unfairness of the system you’re actually making a good case for doing away with selective schools. The study showed that overall children have a higher chance of getting better grades at comprehensives than grammars.

LOL, not all single-sex schools are selective. There are single-sex comps as well.