I am a Labour voter, a Labour supporter and I do not regret my vote.

[CurlewKate]

However, I think that Starmer has been incredibly stupid and/or very badly advised over this expenses issue. He has done nothing wrong, but his behaviour is not what he led us to believe he would do, and I am incredibly exasperated and disappointed.

In my opinion, he should admit that he made a massive misjudgement, and agree to take no more freebies from now on.

Apart from anything else anything which allows people to say "They are all as bad as each other" (they aren't) is a distraction from the real issues the country faces. He should be laser focussed on repairing the damage caused by 14 years of Tory misrule. Not scrambling around dealing with peripheral stuff.
Starmer-say sorry. Don't do it again. And get back to work.

Ideally you would want state schools that can cater well for all levels in streamed classes for most subjects (like a lot of private schools).

At a secondary level there pretty much no non-selective privates. They all have different bars of course, but those who can meet higher level entry requirements don't usually go to the lower ones, e.g. Westminster level candidate is very unlikely to go to Emanuel. This results in private secondaries being reasonably homogeneous in terms of cohort abilities.

That's not entirely true. Plenty of public schools have a mixed ability range. They stream the cohorts. Maybe it depends where you live and the competition to get into the schools. I'm sure in London the competition is much higher than in the north for example.

Anyway, a bit off topic!

Do you mean “public” schools, or do you mean “state” schools? They are very different things in the UK.

EDITED. sorry, just re-read. Yes, private schools do often have mixed ability and many aren’t particularly academically selective

My Grandad was a toolmaker in a factory. In fact he was the head of the toolroom. He was as working class as they came. He never went to university (he did an engineering apprenticeship). He smoked, drank, liked football and boxing. He was a smart and interesting man, but definitely not middle class. He lived in a council house and walked to work, didn’t own a car. Half his children went to grammar school, and half failed the 11+ and went to the local secondary. Working class people definitely do send their children to grammar school if they get in.

Neither operate an 11 plus system & both have changed the practice of selective schooling for their brightest children, moving even further away from our Grammar Schools, where pupils are in the main, are selected on which child's parents can afford the best tutoring.

It is quite hard to find a suitable comparison from around the world that the government in England could “borrow” its new selective education policy from in the 21st century. Most developed countries do not operate a formal, national selective system and the most successful countries (rather than cities) in PISA do not operate a formal selective system

The UK doesn’t operate a formal national system either. There isn’t one standard 11 plus exam. I also can’t see how the German system of teacher recommendation for entrance overrides middle class bias. I would have thought that it makes it worse.

The point here is that parents who can afford tutoring, can get average kids into Grammar.
Meanwhile bright kids without wealthier parents don't get to go to Grammar school.

If there is going to be selective schooling, i'd prefer it done by teachers than money.

Though as i said, Germany is moving away from "tracking".

Then what’s gone wrong? In the days when all kids took the 11+ there was no tutoring. I seem to remember the exam consisted of an essay question and a Mensa style intelligence test. Nobody was tutored outside school. The solution is to make the test tutor proof.

I’m in a grammar county. We have 100% high achievers in the grammars. In fact some of the secondary moderns have 30% high achievers in them. Obviously loads of tutoring all round but the average dc won’t get in as the bar is higher than that.

There’s a huge amount of research showing lots of parents of wc kids didn’t send them to the grammars as they believed they could not afford it. Uniform costs and transport were big issues as well as a later school leaving age when money was tight. Obviously some benefitted but thousands did not. Labour tried to abolish grammars in 1976 based on the belief that the few wc class who got to grammars would be disadvantaged but the majority in comps would be better off with these dc mixing with them.

There is no way that any average kid would get into my DC’s grammar. Not with all the tutoring in the World. I didn’t enter my youngest in for the 11+ exam as I knew he wouldn’t get in - and he got the higher level in all of his SATs. You have to be top of the top sets and then some to get into DC’s grammar. Exceptionally bright kids like him deserve an education that meets their needs as do all children. One size fits all comps let a lot of children down.

Thats your experience, its not mine.

Ours went to a brilliant state primary, most went onto state comp, some not outstanding pupils had extensive tutoring and got into Grammar, as you said earlier, the the 11+ isn't a standard exam.

Funnily enough, none of the brightest children went grammar, their parents couldn't afford the extra.

Many comps do indeed let children down, usually caused by v poor SENDS provision, so lets help a tiny minority and let all the others down?

Surely the better option is to fund state so its good enough for all?

Once again, Thatcher closed down more Grammars than Labour ever did, its a failed model.

I never once said that state schools shouldn’t be funded properly. That includes state grammar schools. They actually get less funding than most schools. I believe that income tax should be increased for all taxpayers to pay for it as good schools benefit everybody.

Grammar schools are not a failed model if they are super selective. I strongly believe that more of these should be built so they are spread evenly across the country. I am not advocating for a full grammar system, that is completely different.

And where did I say about helping a tiny minority? I didn’t, those were your words. And it’s not just SEND provision in comps that lets pupils down. Lots of children are failed for different reasons.

As for your experience, I have found that many parents misunderstand how difficult it is to get into a super selective grammar. They think that their children are going to get in because they are in the top sets. That really isn’t the case. My own DC has very minimal tutoring. It was just exam preparation so he understood the exam. One of my close friends did the prep with her daughter herself and she got in.

How the hell did that numpty Starmer put himself in this farcical position? It's utterly humiliating for the Labour movement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/08/boris-johnson-hits-out-at-greedy-keir-starmer-over-freebies?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

@marmaladeandpeanutbutter poor advice? Not taking advice? Being greedy? Thinking it’s his due? Who knows? All of the above?

One issue is that there’s been a gap between the election and the budget. We had the disastrous attack on the poorer elderly and then very little so this story has run and run. It’s been poor management by the advisers. In fighting hasn’t helped. Poor start overall.

Johnson is desperate to stay relevant and he has a book to sell

He also said there were no parties in No 10

Cleverly forgot to declare that his wife was with him at 2 freebie events, he has rectified that now.

Nobody needs to pay a tutor to get into grammar school! You just have to sit with your child and practise a bit. And Atom Learning, for example, provides FREE resources for children on free school meals. There are also quite often free books available locally if you want the paper copies.
So if some parents are just too lazy to do the work, that is fine, but they should not be telling others what to do.
It is always amazing how poorer immigrants with drive can manage it, but others cannot. Who can explain this phenomenon to me?

@Araminta1003 "It is always amazing how poorer immigrants with drive can manage it, but others cannot. Who can explain this phenomenon to me"

I can. Basically, the grammar school system is testing parents, not children. As your post shows. And incidentally, many immigrants, more or less by definition have drive, motivation and have learned how to negotiate the system. And many are also highly educated and middle class.

I wouldn’t allow my DCs to be tutored. I had friends at Grammar who had been tutored and they really struggled and lived with the constant anxiety of being knowing they’d be kicked out if they failed the next exams. This continued throughout their time in school. They really shouldn’t have been there. If a child is bright enough for grammar, they’ll pass the 11+ without tutoring. My DS passed without tutoring. DD didn’t, even though she was in top sets and got L6 SATs, so she went to the comp, which was the right environment for her.

This with bells on.

And no, we aren't talking about middle class migrants here, some are uber drivers.

If parents can't support their kids like you say above, they are very unlikely to have produced grammar suitable children.

@TizerorFizz Who knows? Its stunning that that chancer and money taker Johnson has got an interview out of him on this subject-and Starmer owners us ALL a grovelling apology for it.

I don’t want to prolong the (interesting) diversion into grammars, but I am fascinated by your post.

By “testing parents” I take it you mean that committed, involved parents with ambitions for their children place more emphasis on their children’s education and push them more?

In what ways are comprehensive schooling, setting and public exams not testing parents?

(Sorry, I couldn’t find an excuse to put an Oxford comma in for you.)

@Rummly "In what ways are comprehensive schooling, setting and public exams not testing parents?"

Those are all things that kids can actually do something about themselves. Yes, it's easier with parental support. But a 13 year old in a comprehensive school can see the higher sets and know that they can get there if they want to.

In an area where the top sets are in a different school they are only accessible to kids who have the parental support to get to the grammar school when they are 10.

Respectfully, that’s very contrived.

A parent who wants their child to be a doctor, a lawyer, an academic or in some other profession, or just wants them to have the best prospects, will urge them to work and revise and will urge them to make particular subject choices. When they’re 16 the whole looking ahead to which university starts (if not well before). And all of that is without extra papers, tutors and crammers.

I really cannot see how any schooling can or should stop that.

You’re almost saying that comps do and should stifle parental support and encouragement. I doubt the schools would agree with that.

Your last paragraph just seems to make the common objection that 10 is young to decide a form of school. That’s fine and reasonable but it’s nothing to do with a difference in “testing parents” wherever a child is educated.

@Rummly "You’re almost saying that comps do and should stifle parental support and encouragement. I doubt the schools would agree with that."

Am I? I must be expressing myself badly. What I mean is that parental support is very important in education. A child with educated professional parent is likely to see themselves in the same group. But not all children have that support. So having system that, at the age of 10, cuts off opportunities to those children has to be wrong. Because you can get into top sets and achieve good public exam results without parental support. You simply can't get into grammar school without it. And if that's where the top sets are.....