Labour advised to finish closing all grammars

[twistyizzy]

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

I agree. State Grammars shouldn’t exist. I imagine they’d prefer to turn private than become state comprehensives though — which would be hilarious considering all the naice grammar school lovelies who were supporting vat on private school fees.

Starmer didn't go to a private school, he went to a grammar school which became fee paying at the end of his period there. I don't personally know what the facilities were or class sizes in his specific school 45 years ago.

Of course things like smaller class sizes make a difference, but if the system was more uniform, they wouldn't exist within it to make that difference, would they?

Either Starmer could have got there on his own merits in any system, in which case grammar schools are unnecessary, or the grammar system gave him an advantage in which case grammar schools are an unfair privilege.

The VAT policy is not about the money. There are many other, more progressive, ways to raise money. Capital gains come to mind. The amount of money this policy may change is both derisory and highly uncertain, being very dependent on the behaviour of potential private school parents.

Labour have long viewed private schools as socially undesirable. The VAT policy is a way to increase the cost of private schools and, therefore, reduce the usage. They'd do more, e.g., remove charitable status if not outright ban them, if they thought they could get away with it.

What's their view on the social desirability of selective secondary education? And how much power do they have over secondary school admissions policies?

There is setting/streaming to different extents in different schools.

Some do it for just some subjects. No need to be in a set for everything.

It isn't really unlikely, my grammar school is similar. The figures for grammar schools are often skewed by inclusion of private grammar schools in with the state grammar schools

I think it is a shame that we do not have a system in the UK for political parties to put forward a plan for when they are in government and then allow people to vote for the one that they like the best.

Instead all we can do is guess what the government might decide to do, based on which way the wind is blowing

Grammar schools are cheap to run, They are funded far less than other state schools, and it is very much a one size fits all model. No one gets into a grammar school unless they are suitable to do GCSEs, so the school only has to run GCSEs, no alternatives. This is cheaper than other schools who have to provide many different alternatives for students of many different abilities

there is a lot of myths being repeated here. Especially about tutoring. All mine went to grammar, without tutoring, and I teach in a grammar with many students who's parents don't have the resources to arrange tutoring. Also free schools meals uptake, in my grammar are at around the national average

What about those of us who are using both?! 🤣

Could you perhaps share with us how Grammar schools are funded far less than other state schools?

Here is a helpful blog on the subject of state school funding.

https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/03/19/school-funding-everything-you-need-to-know/

Oddly it doesn't say anything about giving grammar schools less money, than other schools.

The advantages of a grammar school is that you are likely to be seated with students whose parents value education, which is not always the case in comprehensives.

Another advantage is their are fewer children with SEND, meaning each one gets greater teacher input. You can do this with 32 in a class and 2or 3 have a SEND. You can't do much with 32 in a class and 8-12 have a SEND.

The VAT policy is not about the money. There are many other, more progressive, ways to raise money. Capital gains come to mind.

The VAT policy on private schools is specifically to raise money for state education. Raising money elsewhere will be needed for other things, and anyone working in education knows, schools are way down the list of priorities when it comes to extra funding. If they raised money on capital gains tax, it would just be eaten up by the NHS, or defence or whatever.

Anecdata. The DfE report that 6.7% of grammar school pupils take FSM compared with 28.4% of students in non-selective schools in selective areas.

There are indeed a lot of myths being spouted, just a short while ago a poster was saying that grammar schools recieve much less funding than other schools.

So where do all the kids with SEND go? You're basically saying that you can shove them in a secondary modern where you'll have more kids with SEND in a class than there would be had the grammar school existed, getting less teacher attention.

Don't worry about the impact on other schools though.

They do, because of the fact that they take far fewer deprived pupils so don't get as much pupil premium money.

I don't have strong feelings either way, I don't care if Grammars stay or go. i am just correcting some of the misconceptions on this thread, There are reasons you might prefer your child to go to a grammar, but if there were no grammars, there would still be selective schools, and stricter schools ,and schools where the same things would apply

Not sure when the penny will drop that Labour hate children. But they do.

Buckle up, the next few years are going to be a terrible time to be a child or a parent.

Yes, but saying it's an advantage of grammars because there are fewer SEND kids isn't really an advantage when you consider the school system as a whole.

People only ever focus on grammars through, not the impact of their existence on neighbouring schools.

So their funding is based on exactly the same formula as the neighbouring school that is not a grammar school. I am glad we have managed to clarify this.

Absolutely, and everyone knows the brightest children are the ones smart enough to be born near a grammar school to middle class parents. Smart children don’t choose to be born in Wales! 🤣

Compared to the last 14 years?

Yeah, they hate kids. That's definitely right.

All that money the Conservatives cut from schools budgets was because they just love kids so much.

Yes, which means they receive less money than other schools. Glad we have managed to clarify this.

Money is fungible. Even if they make noises about ring-fencing the proceeds for education, what's to stop them from reducing funding otherwise on other grounds, such as declining student rolls? Or providing below-inflation per-student increases? And using the savings for the NHS, or defence or whatever?