Labour advised to finish closing all grammars

[twistyizzy]

Advice currently being given to Labour by same group that support VAT on private schools.

This is because governments only invest London and ignore the rest of the country.

But even though we’re obviously bone idle and do nothing in the north, the SEisnt responsible for the rest of the country.

We can’t even get a fast train to the capital whilst London seems to get shiny new tube lines every day.

This is crap.

I worked in a local secondary for 25 years. Lots of staff had kids there including myself. There was no special preference for staffs’ children.

That was done away with about 40 years ago.

And l think and hope Labour will remove grammar schools fast.

Someone has made this up, what 'talk' is there?

I heard Labour are going to introducing compulsory mining service for all 18yos.

I was talking about social class.

You've debunked nothing, just read the government stats.

Parents don't choose grammars, the grammar schools choose the pupils.

I am in favour of parents getting to choose, I'm opposed to schools getting to choose.

Nowhere with comps has a 'monoculture'. Have you really got such limited experience? You seem not to know much about the UK school system.

I've heard labour are going to ban private home ownership and make everyone sleep 12 to a room. Is anyone else worried about this?

It's in the school admissions code.

1.39 Admission authorities may give priority in their oversubscription criteria to children of staff in either or both of the following circumstances:
a) where the member of staff has been employed at the school for two or more years at the time at which the application for admission to the school is made; and/or
b) the member of staff is recruited to fill a vacant post at the school for which there is a demonstrable skill shortage.

I noticed that you contributed the same 'crap' in a previous thread. I also noticed that many posters there had different experiences from yours.

Stats show disadvantaged Asian children are proportionally three times more likely to attend a grammar school than middle class white children, disadvantaged Indian children four times more likely etc

How are you defining disadvantaged here, this doesn't sound at all right.

Some parents believe that grammar schools offer a private school-like experience funded by the state. This perception of exclusivity arises from several factors: the student demographic, often from affluent backgrounds with low SEN and minimal FSM eligibility; academic selection, where many students come from families that can afford tutoring or have the resources to prepare for entrance exams themselves; and the self-selection of highly involved parent groups. Why should the state create a system that fosters such educational exclusivity, which, in most cases, is accessible only to the middle class?

Right about the teacher preference in comps but grammar you have to sit the test.

In at least one grammar school, staff children have some preference (behind siblings but ahead of distance) provided they pass the exam. I don't know how common this is.

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/16420-new-map-shows-where-new-grammar-schools-would-be-m

This is an old one. They they run another one? Why would any Labour MP in any of those areas be pro an abolition if it may cost them their seat in the future? Makes zero sense.

And the areas against, which actually have grammar schools? If people in the area with grammars like them then who is to tell them cannot have them? Those who live in areas who do not have any?!

Lots of grammars have fsm places where the pass mark is lower. However fsm dc get pupil premium - money to bridge the learning gap. Fsm is proven to be an obstacle to progress so I cannot see many fsm DC will be in the grammars if we accept they need PP funding. There are though very bright parents who don’t earn much but coach dc. Generally fairly rare though.

In my county, there’s a mix at the grammars. Middle class is inevitable because most people are! However it’s lower middle and others like doctors and solicitors who cannot afford private for 3 DC and have a nice house! My cleaner’s DCs went to the grammar. It’s really not wholly people who are obviously well off middle class - many dc of teachers and those doing standard jobs go. The big increase is in immigrant dc going.

In Bucks, Aylesbury and High Wycombe are now Labour and have 6 grammars . Burnham
is now Labour and Chesham & Amersham is Lib Dem with 3 grammars. Buckingham is Labour with 1 grammar. As far as I can see, only 2 grammars have a Conservative MP. Big changes here!

“Whilst the correlation isn't perfect, there seems to be a broadly urban/rural divide on the popularity of grammar schools as well as a North/South split. The ten areas most anti-grammar schools are all urban areas, seven of which are in the North/Yorkshire. Nine of the of the ten most pro-grammar areas, by contrast, are in London and the South East.“

I do not just make things up you know when I talk about regional divides.

Why would a relatively centrist Labour leader like Keir Starmer abolish grammars - unless public opinion has changed completely?

If the North East has the most deprivation and issues with educational engagement and also has no grammars….

The North East has some fantastic state schools. I taught in some. Do you really think sticking grammar on the name would change anything?!?

This entire thread is based on nothing other than someone’s random thought, to be fair. Labour have said absolutely nothing about it.

Maybe the areas anti-grammar schools already have strong comprehensives so see no need for grammars? I personally can’t see what they would have added to my education, or that of my children. However, two of my kids wouldn’t pass an 11+ (bloody SEN kids) so may well have ended up in substantially worse schools if all the accounts of the non-grammar schools on this thread are accurate.

I went to grammar. My kids go to comprehensive. They have better social skills than I had, have met a wider range of people, been able to study a wider range of subjects and learned to value different skills. Have also had better teachers as a lot of the teachers at my all girls’ grammar were there because they couldn’t cope in a more challenging environment. So I don’t believe this is labour policy but if it is, bring it on.

They aren't secondary moderns when everyone is expected to be academic and do 8 or 9 GCSEs and bugger you if you aren't. In secondary moderns they did CSEs instead of O Levels.

I only wish there were an alternative of less pressurised schools where vocational subjects could be taken aged 14-18, and fewer GCSES or just basic Maths and English.

It also has some of the worst outcomes in England.

I’m old enough to remember secondary modern schools, CSEs and O Levels. My comp definitely offered O Levels to the able students when it was a secondary modern. At my son’s secondary all kids had the opportunity to study a wide range of subjects and equal care and attention to detail was given however academic kids were

Grammar schools are not going to change that.

Edited to add outcomes in the north east. There is no evidence that grammar schools have any significant impact on attainment or future earnings. Grammar schools also have been shown to have a negative effect on those who do not attend them. So it doesn’t seem the way forward for a region that really needs investment in its people and places to reintroduce a system that may actually damage the chances of some of its children.

Well that’s absolutely how my brother got his kids into the school he teaches in. It’s also how a friend has got her son into a top performing comp rather than our shit catchment comp.

My point is simple: surely the areas that still have grammar schools whether they are a full grammar county like Kent, LB of Bexley/Sutton or Bucks (or just have a few grammars like Essex or superselectives in London) - they get to decide for themselves if they like that set up. Literally what has it got to do with people living in non grammar counties? And if you are a newly elected Labour MP into such an area that was Blue before, then surely you would be very pissed off if that is what is popular locally but some hard left Labour MP in a non grammar county in an entirely different region wants you to get rid of stuff that is popular in your area. Why would you throw your career under the bus for public opinion in an entirely different constituency - where it is literally none of those people’s business anyway?

And the kids that don’t get into the grammars, and their parents? Who are being deprived of the choice of the comprehensive schools that deliver good outcomes for everyone? Do they not matter at all?

“Well that’s absolutely how my brother got his kids into the school he teaches in. It’s also how a friend has got her son into a top performing comp rather than our shit catchment comp.“

Yes children of staff has been creeping into lots of Admissions in the last few years, in Academies, in particular. It is a well known trick to get stable & good staff. For primary it makes perfect sense as it solves childcare issues too if the child can go to breakfast/after school club on site so I really do not see a problem with it.

@CalamitiousJoan - in rich grammar areas a lot of the local comps are pretty good. Go look at places like Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks. A lot also have top sets/streams anyway that late developers can move into and there is a lot of partnership between the local schools grammar and non grammar.