Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Labour advised to finish closing all grammars

622 replies

twistyizzy · 11/07/2024 18:35

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

Labour advised to finish closing all grammars
OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
ThursdayTomorrow · 11/07/2024 20:03

Rainbowsponge · 11/07/2024 19:12

I don’t want society to be equal.

I want there to be equity, but we should also acknowledge some people are cleverer than others and support them because we need very educated people.

All failing together might seem nice and equal but it would be a disaster.

How about supporting those who are more disadvantaged rather than those who are already advantaged? Having no one fail. Seems the better option.

noblegiraffe · 11/07/2024 20:04

Fuck knows why all these grammar school threads have been started in the last couple of weeks.

Wumblewimble · 11/07/2024 20:04

I hope they do it,

bergamotorange · 11/07/2024 20:05

Another76543 · 11/07/2024 19:55

wouldn't raise money, would cost money, would be an absolute ballache and take a lot of time to work through

A lot like the VAT policy then

The VAT policy might actually end up costing the taxpayer money. Even the IFS say their estimates show it would raise a tiny amount and won’t make a real difference to public services. The policy has nothing to do with raising money and everything to do with “equality”. The Chancellor and Deputy PM have already expressed their dislike of the grammar system. Reeves has said she wants fewer children in selective education.

Edited

Not sure what you are quoting there - the IFS said Combining estimated tax revenues and extra public spending needs, our view is that it would be reasonable to assume a net gain to the public finances of £1.3–1.5 billion per year in the medium to long run as a result of removing tax exemptions from private schools. This would allow for about a 2% increase in state school spending in England, which Labour has proposed would be targeted at disadvantaged students.

The policy was only ever intended to deliver a small increase in spending in state schools, the IFS agree it is likely to do so.

bergamotorange · 11/07/2024 20:08

CroftonWillow · 11/07/2024 19:54

Kier went to a Grammar (which became private during his time there). Surely he doesn't agree with this?

If a child of decent intelligence lived in an area where grammars existed, at a time when grammars existed, it is natural that the child was entered for the 11-plus.

But that has absolutely bog all to do with whether they contnue to support the stupid system as an adult.

Millions of people went to grammars and would oppose them now.

Adults are not responsible for the choices made for them when they were children, or for the system they lived under.

user1471538275 · 11/07/2024 20:09

@ThursdayTomorrow You're assuming that all the children capable of passing the test take it.

They don't. Many parents do not want their children go to grammars - they send them to the comprehensive schools like Hugh Christie, where many of their children will do very well.

gleefulstar · 11/07/2024 20:09

Rainbowsponge · 11/07/2024 19:12

I don’t want society to be equal.

I want there to be equity, but we should also acknowledge some people are cleverer than others and support them because we need very educated people.

All failing together might seem nice and equal but it would be a disaster.

Absolutely this 👏🏻👏🏻

listsandbudgets · 11/07/2024 20:12

PuttingDownRoots · 11/07/2024 19:47

As an example, I compared a Comprehensive and Grammar that are actually next door to each other.
Comp FSM: 12.9%
Grammar FSM: 2.9%

My DDs grammar 23%
My sons comp just down the road 25.6%

Seems fairly comparable to me

bergamotorange · 11/07/2024 20:12

gleefulstar · 11/07/2024 20:09

Absolutely this 👏🏻👏🏻

Why do you believe social segregation is needed for a few to succeed?

Would it not be better for more to succeed than currently?

And given grammars are now known to deliver lower educational input than good comps, why do we want to hold back those kids at grammars instead of giving them the best chance to succeed?

bergamotorange · 11/07/2024 20:13

listsandbudgets · 11/07/2024 20:12

My DDs grammar 23%
My sons comp just down the road 25.6%

Seems fairly comparable to me

That grammar FSM number is EXCEPTIONALLY high - something like six times the national average for that type of school.

Without the name of the school no one can verify.

Screamingabdabz · 11/07/2024 20:17

Rainbowsponge · 11/07/2024 19:12

I don’t want society to be equal.

I want there to be equity, but we should also acknowledge some people are cleverer than others and support them because we need very educated people.

All failing together might seem nice and equal but it would be a disaster.

But it isn’t the most clever. It’s the brightest middle class kids in middle class areas.

Another76543 · 11/07/2024 20:20

bergamotorange · 11/07/2024 20:05

Not sure what you are quoting there - the IFS said Combining estimated tax revenues and extra public spending needs, our view is that it would be reasonable to assume a net gain to the public finances of £1.3–1.5 billion per year in the medium to long run as a result of removing tax exemptions from private schools. This would allow for about a 2% increase in state school spending in England, which Labour has proposed would be targeted at disadvantaged students.

The policy was only ever intended to deliver a small increase in spending in state schools, the IFS agree it is likely to do so.

Since the IFS report, Paul Johnson, Director of the IFS since 2011 has said

“It's not going to raise a very large amount of money. Now one and a half billion isn't nothing but in the context of the overall national budget, in the context of how much we raise from taxes in general, which is more like a trillion, this is a tiny, tiny amount of money. So you might want to do this for reasons of social justice or equity, or because you think it's appropriate to charge VAT but don't be fooled into thinking this is going to make any real difference to the amount of money available for public services.”

It seems to me that the IFS are slightly backtracking on their report. In any case, the report contains assumptions that simply will not happen (eg parents switching to state spending every penny saved on fees on other things subject to 20% VAT), meaning that the amount of tax predicted will be less. They also assumed pupil numbers falling 3-7%. They already fell 3% last year, so that’s another assumption on shaky ground.

Okayornot · 11/07/2024 20:21

Are they going to get rid of faith schools? I do hope so. It's a form of segregation and if parents want that they should have to pay for it (plus VAT).

Another76543 · 11/07/2024 20:22

Screamingabdabz · 11/07/2024 20:17

But it isn’t the most clever. It’s the brightest middle class kids in middle class areas.

And those with parents who can afford the most tutoring. A lot of the 11+ exams are fairly easy to tutor for. The more tuition a child has, the more likely they are to perform well in an 11+ exam.

Another2Cats · 11/07/2024 20:22

taxguru · 11/07/2024 19:03

I went to a funeral yesterday of a university professor who'd been a very active Labour party activist, as were his children. At the funeral, the eulogy included how he'd been the son of an Irish immigrant labourer, father died at a very young age, mother was basically skint and had to earn a living doing scivvy jobs, but he was bright and got a grammar school place, which gave him a lifelong love of "education for education's sake" then going to Uni, getting a science degree and spending a lifetime of University lecturing and research. Made it crystal clear that the grammar school was the making of him, a belief which he maintained throughout his lifetime of supporting the Labour party! It was said he regularly and bitterly complained about the closure and dismantling of the grammar school system which changed his life and he was all for bringing them back! So it's not really a Labour versus Tory battle!

I have mixed thoughts on this. I really don't think that it is so much to do with the school (although that does, of course, have a huge influence) but more to do with role models. I certainly did not go to a grammar school but I think I ended up ok.

Various studies have shown that a major indicator of future success for children is mother's prior academic achievement (ie children of better educated mothers do better in later life than those of less well educated mothers - father's education isn't as important - all other things being equal).

Just to put things in context, my mother left school at age 15 without any qualifications and started work the very next week in the typing pool at the offices of the local gas board (what later became British Gas). This was very much what was "expected" of young girls of her background in the 1950s.

In contrast, my father managed to pass the 11+ and ended up getting four O- levels at the Crypt grammar school before he left at age 16. Incidentally, it is still a grammar school and also performs well today with very good Progress 8 and Attainment 8 scores at GCSE and does well at A level also.

When I took my O-Level exams at the age of 16 in 1981 around 75-80% of people would leave school at age 16. Boys who had done particularly well might get apprenticeships as apprentice toolmakers or engineers (yes, it wasn't just Keir Starmer's dad); for most girls getting a "nice" office job was seen as a real prize.

Although, please don't think that the school was responsible for this gender divide. I went to a school that was in a very working class area in a "New Town" and it was set up to teach practical skills as much as academic ones. It was an ex-secondary modern; we were the first year not to take the 11+ and so be a comprehensive intake.

Certainly everybody was required to do metalwork and woodwork; cookery and needlework. However, my attempts at both a wooden aeroplane and a stuffed soft toy were equally terrible.

But, despite this, it was very clear that, when given a choice, boys overwhelmingly chose eg technical drawing and girls chose typing. (by the way, can you even imagine nowadays a secondary school offering technical drawing and typing as subjects in their own right?). Incidentally, I did choose technical drawing - and really enjoyed it, even though I was the only girl in the class.

Even in the Sixth Form there really wasn't much in the way of role models (for boys or girls actually). The only two people I can remember with a clear goal was the Head Boy who wanted to become a lawyer (he ended up getting an unconditional offer to study law from Cambridge and did go on to be very successful) and a girl who wanted to become a doctor (but her father was a GP anyway, actually our family GP).

However, things really changed when I got to university. For the first time in my life I came across people who were extremely focused and driven, they knew what they wanted out of life and believed that they could get it (although there were equally a number that were just out for a good time and a number of girls that were there to "catch" a potential husband - not joking).

What was the difference? Well, a lot of the people I met at university came from much more academically focused schools, private schools or just generally from a very upper-middle class background. They certainly hadn't learnt that a good job for a girl was a "nice" office job and they certainly hadn't been taught needlework or typing at school.

For example, in the Hall of Residence where I stayed in the first and third years there were quite a number of students from the various London medical schools.

The one thing that they all had in common was a belief that any job or profession was open to them if they simply tried hard enough - I think that there were actually more women than men studying medicine, even back then, and it simply didn't occur to these girls to think any differently than that she could and would become a doctor. What they also had in common, was a rather different family and school background to mine

All very different from the sort of environment I had grown up in prior to going to university.

The sort of expectations and role models that you have when younger really can make a huge difference to believing what you are capable of doing. It really can be hugely difficult to even comprehend going to university when you’ve never met anyone who has.

But this does not come from simply having been a selective grammar school. This was a "bog standard" ex-secondary modern that had one or two pupils every year go to Cambridge or Oxford and others go to universities that are in the Top 10 in the world.

The type of school isn't so important but it's more about role models.

Having said all this. I do note that in the latest figures available, my old school does now perform rather poorly on Progress 8 and, particularly, Attainment 8 scores.

gleefulstar · 11/07/2024 20:22

@bergamotorange

I don't believe in social segregation at all! I believe that education is not a one cap fits all system.

I think some children are extremely academic and should be encouraged. They are our future doctors and lawyers and engineers.

I also believe that other children will never be academic, no matter what education they receive. These children should be encouraged to find their potential elsewhere and excel at what they're good at.

I see no merit whatsoever in trying to force all of our children down the same path. Some will flourish, others won't.

Put 30 kids in one class room and 5 will race ahead and 5 will struggle to keep up. It's just how it is.

TheUsualChaos · 11/07/2024 20:23

My kids go to grammar. Had no private tutoring. They are naturally bright and worked bloody hard. The environment suits them so much better than the huge local comp would. We don't have a chance of affording private for both and besides which private is not automatically a better education. Even so, I oppose VAT on private education because I can see it for what it is, yet another tax on the squeezed middle (granted not the lower income end of what we call middle). It merely appeases the anti wealth voters even though it doesn't actually affect the wealthy at all as they can afford private regardless of what happens. These type of proposals will however punish those who have sacrificed to be able afford the fees or supported kids to gain place at grammar. What happened to having choices?

bergamotorange · 11/07/2024 20:24

Another76543 · 11/07/2024 20:20

Since the IFS report, Paul Johnson, Director of the IFS since 2011 has said

“It's not going to raise a very large amount of money. Now one and a half billion isn't nothing but in the context of the overall national budget, in the context of how much we raise from taxes in general, which is more like a trillion, this is a tiny, tiny amount of money. So you might want to do this for reasons of social justice or equity, or because you think it's appropriate to charge VAT but don't be fooled into thinking this is going to make any real difference to the amount of money available for public services.”

It seems to me that the IFS are slightly backtracking on their report. In any case, the report contains assumptions that simply will not happen (eg parents switching to state spending every penny saved on fees on other things subject to 20% VAT), meaning that the amount of tax predicted will be less. They also assumed pupil numbers falling 3-7%. They already fell 3% last year, so that’s another assumption on shaky ground.

£1.5bn is £1.5bn.

Of course it is small in the context of the ENTIRE public services budget.

But those who oppose it don't oppose it because it is a small amount, they oppose it because it is counter to their own financial interests.

noblegiraffe · 11/07/2024 20:26

£1.5 billion increase to the schools budget would be a big deal, particularly if they also don't reduce school funding due to the reduction in pupil numbers.

Iffx · 11/07/2024 20:26

TheUsualChaos · 11/07/2024 20:23

My kids go to grammar. Had no private tutoring. They are naturally bright and worked bloody hard. The environment suits them so much better than the huge local comp would. We don't have a chance of affording private for both and besides which private is not automatically a better education. Even so, I oppose VAT on private education because I can see it for what it is, yet another tax on the squeezed middle (granted not the lower income end of what we call middle). It merely appeases the anti wealth voters even though it doesn't actually affect the wealthy at all as they can afford private regardless of what happens. These type of proposals will however punish those who have sacrificed to be able afford the fees or supported kids to gain place at grammar. What happened to having choices?

Edited

Labour happened.

Sadly.

noblegiraffe · 11/07/2024 20:28

Margaret Thatcher was the education secretary who closed the most grammar schools.

They weren't popular with Tories either, once they found out that their kid might not get into one.

bergamotorange · 11/07/2024 20:28

gleefulstar · 11/07/2024 20:22

@bergamotorange

I don't believe in social segregation at all! I believe that education is not a one cap fits all system.

I think some children are extremely academic and should be encouraged. They are our future doctors and lawyers and engineers.

I also believe that other children will never be academic, no matter what education they receive. These children should be encouraged to find their potential elsewhere and excel at what they're good at.

I see no merit whatsoever in trying to force all of our children down the same path. Some will flourish, others won't.

Put 30 kids in one class room and 5 will race ahead and 5 will struggle to keep up. It's just how it is.

In comprehensive areas those children who are extremely academic are encouraged at comprehensive school - and are given a better education than in the rather old-fashioned and less effective grammars.

trying to force all of our children down the same path this happens nowhere!

Put 30 kids in one class room and 5 will race ahead and 5 will struggle to keep up. It's just how it is. you seem to think comprehensives do not have sets in school or differentiated education??

listsandbudgets · 11/07/2024 20:31

bergamotorange · 11/07/2024 20:13

That grammar FSM number is EXCEPTIONALLY high - something like six times the national average for that type of school.

Without the name of the school no one can verify.

I willnsend you a pm

Shortfatsuit · 11/07/2024 20:31

I don't think they will have the courage or the political will to do this, but I would be thrilled if they did! I hate the grammar system and would love to see it gone!

lotsofdogshere · 11/07/2024 20:32

I’m surprised that so many support the division of children at age 11, into those with the opportunity to benefit from a good education and those who should be denied it.
im old enough to remember when a tiny proportion got into grammar school and the vast majority went to largely dreadful secondary moderns. I live in an area with one of the first purpose built comprehensives, it’s exam results are almost up there with the very successful private school 3 miles away.

why shouldn’t all children have access to excellent education

Swipe left for the next trending thread