Labour advised to finish closing all grammars

[twistyizzy]

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

Because the VAT on fees is a done deal so we need to scaremonger about something else?

No, I am saying it is a reason some parents chose Grammar - because their child has SEND

What if, what if, what if.

Yet we know that kids with SEND are less likely to go to a grammar.

But not actually that much less, since most of the funding isn't dependent upon whether a pupil is deprived, and indeed one could argue that if grammar schools were serving their purpose they would have an average or above average number of pupils that are deprived and so recieve more funding than other schools.

Personal experience of two schools that we applied for, for my DDs, a few years ago in the east Kent/coast area. Not giving specifics as I don’t particularly want to state where I live, but I just checked and they still state on their websites that they use banding assessments - you can probably find them if you google using those details. Other academies here were moving towards the same idea, highly likely because it’s a grammar area and they wanted to ‘compete’ for the most academically able, knowing that they wouldn’t all get a place in the actual grammars. One of the schools states on its website ‘…it is designed to ensure that students of all abilities have an equal chance of gaining a place at XXXX…’. One of the schools has now renamed their grammar stream the ‘Accelerated Learning Stream’, the other has doubled down and has a partnership with the nearest grammar school who basically run the stream. Contrary to a PPs assertion, when my DDs were applying to these schools, this was not a streaming system that was easy to move in and out of - once you were in the grammar stream, you stayed there and it was fairly small so not much scope for anyone to move up in to.

But Jeremy Corbyn.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
👍

Anecdata or not, it is true as @bergamotorange can confirm.

The grammars in our area admit a number of children on FSM who've achieved the qualifying score (rather than priority score) before they admit anyone else except the usual looked after by LEA criteria. More schools should do this then grammars would be properly mixed.

They do hate children. If they didn't, they'd run like fuck from policies like VAT and closing grammars - because children's education was enormously disrupted by Covid and because children need to be settled. Not further disrupted so that adults can showboat, and use children to score political point.

Philosophically, if Labour is opposed to private and grammar, they should come out as say it. And have a responsible plan to close them. That would take years. I believe Finland closed all their private schools but it did take years. So it can be achieved.

This would be much better than dropping a bomb on one of the most disrupted sectors overnight. And a sector which is shaping our future.

You would not do this if you liked children. But like I say, Labour see children as political cannon fodder. There is no other conclusion.

Lots of kids with SEND do pass the 11+ and do go to Grammars - our current roll is about 10% have SEND.

Children with learning difficulties, obviously not, but most other forms of SEND

Yes I was surprised by this approach, hence why I questioned it above.

But the national data is very different to that in this school, many other grammars still have very low numbers of kids on FSM.

Hmmm.
Most peoples children are not in fee paying or grammar schools.
Most people's children are in schools that are falling to bits with staffing problems due to 1) Gove cancelling the school rebuilding programme due to "austerity"; 2) unfunded staffing costs and pay rises coming out of already overspent budgets; 3) the Conservatives treating teachers like punching bags/the enemy for years.

"One could argue that if things were not as they are then things would be different." 👍

You are clearly very anti-Labour. It could equally be said that deliberately causing hundreds of thousands more children to live in poverty is also anti-children.

There are no policies to abolish/alter grammars currently being mooted. They wouldn't get closed anyway, they would just become comprehensives.

It won’t happen. Where would all the labour MPs send their kids?

I'm not sure how I feel, I have a child in grammar because thats the school they chose. I have an equally bright child in the local comp. I feel thet will achieve similarly in terms of results. In terms of schooling the child at the grammar school just has a better time, the behaviour is just good. Meabwhile the comp have annouced they are increasing police presence before and after school 😱

If getting rid of grammars can somehow make all schools a bit better Im in favour but otherwise not.

I'm disappointed in your response. You usually provide more cogent arguments.

The government decides how much revenue it wishes to raise and is free to raise it in a variety of ways. The government decides how much it wishes to allocate to education, public health, defence, etc. There are only a few examples of proper hypothecated taxes such as the BBC licence, where there is a direct link between the revenue raised and how the funds allocated.

In this case, the estimated gross VAT revenue will be much larger than £1.3-£1.5bn. The net figure incorporates some of the estimated effect of children being moved to the state sector and the additional expense of educating them. This already gives scope for fudging. But the much bigger issue is that the government is retaining discretion over the other 98% (around £60bn) of the projected schools budget.

Either the government wants to increase total education funding or it doesn't. That has nothing to do with how the revenue is raised.

It’s not a done deal at all. It’s difficult and complex and will be challenged. And if it happens, money may not be raised. It’s a big shitty minefield.

It is very common for those who when they find a privilege they are used to having is under threat of being removed to feel like they are the ones being disadavantaged/disliked.

Converting grammars to comps is beneficial to the vast majority of British children, at only a small cost to a tiny minority of children that are already socially advantaged and privileged in other ways. This cost just makes them slightly less advantaged, it doesn’t even level the playing field. It simply narrows the gap between regions with no grammars and regions with grammars for equally bright and hard working children.

I would love to see all grammar schools become comprehensive.

I'm not anti-Labour. I'm pro-children and pro-child safeguarding. It's not a child's choice where they go to school. Therefore it's not hard to understand that policies like these which form red meat to any party's base are of course bad for children.

Turning your mind to what is best for children is not hard. Disrupting them is obviously bad. The VAT policy won't raise the money. It's performative but it will mean children have to move, which means bigger class sizes in the state sector.

Removing grammar will of course also be detrimental to children. How could it not be?

Like I say: come out and say you're philosophically opposed. Fine. Get rid of them. Fine. But do it responsibly and don't drop a bomb overnight.

It's very easy to understand what I'm saying. Unless you're determined not to. In which case - that is you prioritising adults showboating over and above the well-being of children.

No. Parents like them so that their children can learn with children who are similarly able.

Or just similarly well behaved.

It’s not a race to the bottom, it’s a fucking sprint!