Hypocritical labour Post Reply

[Wheresmyschool?]

Hi
As a voter I wobble between a right wing labour supporter and a left wing tory.

I'm really really struggling with the latest labour independent school scandal in which Chakrabarti is sending her son to Dulwich.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... prehensive

I hate the idea of grammar schools, I think they can't be created without also creating secondary moderns, but I wonder if, when labour are using selective schools, whether it's the best way.

Anyone else feel the same?

[AbbevilleMummy]

I don't really see it as a scandal and I also don't see what the fuss is about.

I agree with you that I can't see how grammar schools could work without creating secondary moderns and thus decided a child's entire future based on a arbitrary exam when they are too young.

For a government to decide that like it or lump it, that is what will happen to every child in the UK is wrong in my opinion. And so I think in that regard I agree with both you and Chakrabarti.

Now, I don't disagree with the existence of independent schools, I believe in choice. If one chooses to pay for an education then that is up to them. If they choose to put their child through entrance exams at the top selective independent schools then that is also up to them, and everyone else in the country (most if not all of these schools have generous bursaries).

But reverting to a grammar school / secondary modern system is forcing those who may not feel they have a choice down a certain path and segregating the population as a whole.

Chakrabarti is fortunate to have a whole lot of options open to her and her son, why is it so wrong for her to argue for those who have less options open to them and for society as a whole?

[supergirl]

As a non Brit, I understand grammar schools and independant selective secondary. Can someone explain what are Secondary Moderns? Is that a fancy word for comp? And as naive as i can be, why are granmar school so bad?

In grammar school counties, one of my friend has her son do 1 exam and was allocated a place at one. Isnt it better than a child who has to sit 5-6 11+es?

I understand the argument about the ones who cant afford tutoring but isnt it the same argument abour independant secondaries?

Desclaimer: we havent decided what will do or not even sure we will still be here (non of us are british so looks like we will be deported or will have to wear a tag )

[AbbevilleMummy]

Secondary modern is not another word for Comprehensive School. The Comprehensive School replaced both grammar and secondary moderns.

I'll try to explain how the system was but this is all before my time and comes second hand from my parents, so if I've got it wrong at all, then someone of a different generation feel free to correct me!....

It used to be that when a child was approaching 11, they took the 11+. All children had to do this. Depending on the result, they were sent off to either a grammar school or a secondary modern. A grammar school taught o-levels etc in typically academic subjects whereas a secondary modern taught more vocational subjects. Therefore it was highly unlikely that you would go to university if you went to a secondary modern, and only really possible if you went to grammar school.

So it created a first class and second class system among children and was very damaging for social mobility etc.

The comprehensive school system radically changed that by providing the same opportunities and standard of education for all.

[papinian]

supergirl: In grammar schools areas the top 20% or so on the test get places at the grammar schools. The result is that supposedly comprehensive schools that make up the rest of the secondary state schools lack the top 20% cohort and so are not really comprehensive. This is what AbbevilleMummy was getting at. In the 1948-60s pre-comprehensive school era the schools you went to if you didn't get into grammar school were called secondary moderns.

In the case of places in London like Kingston and Sutton that have grammar schools there isn't really much of an impact on the comprehensive schools because the grammar schools are full of students from other London boroughs without grammar schools, or that would have otherwise gone to independent schools, and so there isn't much of the top cohort "missing" from Kingston and Sutton comprehensive schools.

However, in larger areas like Kent that operate a grammar school system the phenomenon of poorer attainment in "comprehensive" schools is real and proven by statistics.

My own view is that grammar schools are probably unnecessary. Most London state secondaries seem to have huge intakes compared with secondary schools where I come from. (Again, like supergirl, I'm waiting for the deportion/tagging order.) If a school is taking 150+ pupils a year I would have thought that offers enough class groups to allow for students of all levels to be challenged. To be clear - I'm all for streaming/setting within schools - just dubious that it's necessary or desirable to have different streams go to different schools.

On the other hand, I have my doubts. Paraphrasing what AbbevilleMummy said, looking around at Wandsworth, I wonder whether we are now in the system that there are selective independent schools and state secondary schools and pupils at the selective independent schools are taking the lion's share of places on good undergraduate degree courses at good universities. The cynic in me says that there are some parents who send their children to independent schools who are against grammar schools because they fear it will increase competition at the top end and reduce the value of the education for which they are paying.

Wheresmyschool: My politics are pretty similar to yours and the schools hypocrisy IS something that puts me off voting for Labour. For all their faults, I think that Cameron, Gove and Morgan focused on raising standards and attainment in state schools, and, as regards their own children's education, sent them to state schools.

However, it seems that nearly every senior member of the current Labour shadow cabinet sent their children to independent schools or out of catchment grammars. As regards out of catchment grammars, I'm fine for them to say that they think grammars are a bad idea because they encourage people like them to send their children there, i.e. they would like to change the system but it needs to change for everyone. I think that's a perfectly fair approach, although unfortunately it's not one that they follow. As regards, those who send their children to independent schools, I'm fine with that, but if you send your children to independent schools you forfeit any right to say how state schools should be run.

[lydia249]

Hi
As a voter I wobble between a right wing labour supporter and a left wing tory.

I'm really really struggling with the latest labour independent school scandal in which Chakrabarti is sending her son to Dulwich.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... prehensive

I hate the idea of grammar schools, I think they can't be created without also creating secondary moderns, but I wonder if, when labour are using selective schools, whether it's the best way.

Anyone else feel the same?

Totally agree and feel like Labour is now really plumbing the depths. Shami Chakrabati has proven herself a snob and a hypocrite. She blathers on about the fantastic state sector in education but decides to send her son to an £18,000/year private school? Like a lot of the Labour front benchers she rails against grammar schools denouncing them as 'segregation' but doesn't seem to mind segregation when it applies to her own child.

I have to confess as a slightly younger person, I don't really understand all the fuss about grammar schools. As a great article I read on the Independent said: "If you scrap the grammar school you do not, as we discovered in the decades since, level up educational standards and achievements. You simply make the system of state education overall much less attractive, and people are free to opt out if they can afford to."

There's no one type of education that will suit every single child. What is so wrong with having a variety of different systems?

[papinian]

Mungomuffit: Chakrabati's ex husband not a hedge fund manager but a magic circle equity partner. That's where the real money is. In fairness to her, I don't think she ever attributed responsibility for schooling to her husband - that was Labour spindoctors.

[AbbevilleMummy]

The lady irritates me so can't quite believe that I'm defending her, but... I don't think that she is telling people that they shouldn't secure an education for their children. She is saying that enforced segregation in the education system is wrong as it harms the disadvantaged. It's not going to make a difference to her, or many of us on the site, as we can probably afford segregation if we really want it and choose it. But for the majority of the country who can't afford to choose, then why should they be forced into segregation? Also, Dianne Abbot was so much worse, she actually publicly criticized senior politicians for sending their children to independent schools and then when the time came, sent her son to one!

Lydia249, it's great to have a variety of education options as you're right, there is not one size fits all, however, pigeonholing our 10 year old children into a school that will dictate their entire future isn't providing options, it is reducing them to zero.

[supergirl]

Wow! As a newbie in the system as not born into it, all i can say is i am shocked.
I cannot believe that secondary moderns were in effect closing the doors to university for a lot of kids.
Talk about class divide... It is all part of it. Until this is recognised nothing will change. England HAS a class system and class mobility doesnt exist.

Now, and thank you to Abbeville and Papinian for explaining, i understand the whole 11+, independant schools, boarding schools, accent (better to have a south one) in a different light.

[hellokittyerw]

I am a non-Brit, so this may be why I don't understand the controversy about Chakrabati...
As parents, we all try to do the best for our children, we try to send them to schools which we judge most suitable for the child's personality, which would give them the best chance for the future, etc etc. What is wrong with choosing an independent school if you can afford it?
This doesn't stop her from caring about the education of children who cannot afford independent schools and who should also be able to aspire to go to university. "Segregation" bad when you don't have another option (i.e. enforced, like Abevillemummy says), when you choose it it's quite a different matter.

[papinian]

For those who have been following this thread, there is an interesting article by Toby Young posted on The Spectator's website yesterday dealing with this:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/sorr ... -of-money/

According to the article:

- Children scoring in the top 25% at KS2 SATS (i.e. end of primary school assessment) who go to comprehensives that are in the top 25% of comprehensives by GCSE results get just as good GCSE results as those who go to grammars.

Toby Young says that this is evidence that grammars don't add much value compared with streaming in comprehensives. However, I wonder whether the study counted partially-selective schools such as Graveney and Watford Grammar Schools as comprehensives. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially ... _(England)) Those partially-selective schools are part-grammar and part-not so shouldn't really be counted. Also, quite a lot of the top 25% of comprehensives are Catholic or Jewish schools and so not available to most of the population.

- An independently-educated person will earn on average £57,653 more than a state-educated one between the ages of 26 and 42, controlling for family background and cognitive ability. Toby Young notes that figure is less than the average cost of a private education and certainly less than the £132,405 it will cost Shami to send her son to Dulwich College for seven years.

However, he's not comparing like with like because there's a time gap between the years from 11-18 for which fees are paid and the period of 26-42 during which the additional earnings are received. If someone is 42 now then the fees for 7 years of schooling 25-30 years ago were certainly less than £57,653

[wasateacher]

Further background on grammar schools: in some areas it is true that only about 20% of pupils went to grammar schools. From a very early stage London had a very mixed bag with grammar schools, secondary moderns and comprehensives (ie truly all ability).

However, the grammar school I went to was the same size as the local secondary modern school and pupils could get in on an average 11+ score (100). The standards at that school would have put nearly all London schools to shame. However, I did learn to pick a lock, throw a knife, the sign alphabet and other skills which have sometimes been useful! It is, therefore, a myth that all grammar schools were beacons of high standards.

As far as private/public education goes: research demonstrated that, given 2 students with the same A level grades, the student who went to a state school was likely to get the better degree. This why some universities do not have a blanket grade acceptance and it could be that private schools cram for A levels whereas state schools encourage independent learners - which is more useful at university.

The main problem with the debate about grammar schools is that there is the assumption that all grammar schools were good and developed the brightest. This is clearly untrue. Grammar schools were also often more expensive. Some of those who failed the 11+ went on to do great things, thus demonstrating the inadequacy of the test but, even more importantly, deprived the country of some of the potentially brightest talents.

Just as with the argument on testing at 5, there is a huge difference in development between a child who is just 11 and one who is nearly 12. Children do not fit comfortable straight line graphs and a child may be flat lining at the time of the test but may be just about to spurt and would be at a disadvantage when compared to another who has just had one of those jumps but is about to have a levelling out.

A bit rambling but.......

[CBW7779]

I don't think Shami Chakrabati has done a great job of "advocating" her position on education generally, which I feel let down by given her background in campaigning and law. But I feel v uncomfortable with the scrutiny of her personal situation getting too close.
Does anyone else ever wonder what would happen to our local state schools if all those families who chose fee paying schools decided to go state? I'm not sure how they would cope!
Having been to a grammar school I very much agree with Toby Young in his article, and I feel very nervous about the introduction of these schools again. My grammar school didn't work for everyone in it, and I felt that having my whole cohort together with annual streaming would have been fairer and much less divisive both socially and financially. Did anyone else on here do the 11+?