How are Grammar schools so much better than comprehensives if they get the same funding?

Here is my very honest opinion, having worked in both.

Grammars are not better.
Teachers are not more committed. I have found the opposite. Some teachers expect to put in less effort, as the kids effectively teach themselves. They rely on parents piling on pressure, so they tend to be less committed to teaching and learning, more just turn up and teach. And they complain more about anything extra they are asked to do.
Class sizes are just as big. I have 32 average in all my classes at my current grammar.
The experience can be less fun. At the school I am currently at, many students have a long commute, no friends local to them, and there is no real house system or community. It is much more about academics, and less about the whole experience.
For these reasons we chose the local comp for my own kids. I wanted them to place overall happiness over results.
It is the same curriculum, the teachers are no better qualified, and often less enthusiastic, with less experience with SEN and behaviour, and the overall experience is not something I would aim for.
But that is just my experience. I have taught in 5 comps (across 12 years) and 1 grammar (for 6 years).

No not better. My previous post highlights the reasons but that does not equate to ‘better’. Everyone has different skills and some are not suited to a school environment and flourish later.

But won't a talented kid succeed even more and thrive in an environment that pushes them to achieve their best? And at a school that has extracurricular and supercurricular opportunities that can help them deepen their knowledge and expand their horizons?

You might get some backlash against the “more committed” comment.

How do you work all that out After all as said so many times here if they have brains they will do well anywhere. And if they don't they are working at the right level for them in a less academic school

I mean it's due to academic ability though? The other kids wouldn't have been able to keep up in the grammar

They arent better. Talented kids will do well wherever they are. Mediocre ones will be mediocre.

Have you been in a primary school recently? Many are lovely. I think you'll feel better once you see them..

I'd say these early years are really important for social development.

I don't understand why moving schools would be terrible but not starting them til year 3 would be fine. I'm not trying to be awkward, just genuinely confused by the difference given you are heaping on the pressure with your timeline.

I mean this kindly but I think your raging pregnancy hormones are in play here. And I say this as a woman who sobbed uncontrollably (for several days) over a chicken at 38 weeks.

I think your desire to stay at home might also be a factor. But you may not feel this way after juggling a baby and a two year old for the next two years.

Don't forget that being in work (doesn't need to be full time) also keeps you up to date with skills and expectations in terms of job searches and contacts (and other young people) which can be important for helping your children gain experience or exposure to the world of work.

If you move to an area with limited employment prospects you make it harder for them to stay after 18 - and there's no guarantee they'll go to uni.

If I were you I'd get the next year or so out of the way, get back into some work and see what you could afford in the area you want.

I'd also have a bash at home schooling. I've done teaching. Thought might enjoy it. I've successfully taught other people's children. Lockdown and my own - awful. They are good kids who enjoy school and learning but crossing the boundaries or home and school/ parent and teacher was a disaster.

My eldest 2 children are Y7 and Y9 and both go to grammer school. They are surrounded by like minded kids who are driven and keen to learn. They like school and are thriving. The stiff competition is good if they are academical, it keeps them on their toes!

The independents that compete with them will set you back over £100k for secondary though - that's a massive incentive for the effort isn't it? At least said effort is time limited whereas you have to go on earning the wonga for years.

Well you didn't mention you didn't do the A levels at school.

It's not that unusual for kids to go to the FE colleges, and often uni after that.

My school didn't do A Levels. The local FE college did, which is where I went after GCSEs, like everyone else in my county, to do A Levels (or an NVQ or a BTEC).

I think this is also another interesting thing about Mumsnet though, everyone thinks their experience is unique. I once saw someone say on here that only low achieving kids went to FE college, completely oblivious to that being the only A Level provision in some areas of the country. Likewise the idea of having a choice of school is not usual in many areas of the country where it might already take you the best part of an hour to get to the nearest one. It's the same with grammars. The reality is there are hardly any so the OP is looking at very limited locations.

Are there poor schools? Sure. But I've also seen schools described as bad on the basis of their location and intake. And no school is bad for every child in it. Maybe it has great SEN or pastoral support. Etc.

Ignore the negative comments re grammar schools

They are fabulous opportunity for brighter students whose families are fully supportive and engaged

Can only go on personal experience

As many have stated parents of grammar kids are committed , focussed and on board

Exactly, they have the same issues as all other schools. 32 kids in a class, bullying, drug taking, sex and other misbehaviour. Same as private schools apart from small class sizes. All schools have these issues.
I grew up in an area where there were good secondary comps with insanely big houses, lots of people who went private and lots who were at grammar and we all went to the same parties. The grammar children were not any different, neither were the private or comp. We were all doing the same stuff. There were good and bad and very bad eggs among all three sets of kids. Outcomes are very varied. In terms of income now we are all 40 plus, it is totally varied and not related at all to which type of school they went to.

This!

I encountered a few lairy teens recently who were being obnoxious. When I asked them to stop one of them (boy) pretended to burst into tears then kept telling me to shut up, the others also started screaming. All very well but what if you were trying to teach that rabble and they were all calling childline and screaming for no reason. It would be impossible. Cut those out of your intake and you can actually spend time teaching those kids who want to learn.

My son went to a naice comp and said the teachers spent at least 20 minutes of each 45 minute lesson on crowd control.

They must be better - otherwise kids wouldn’t strive to get into them, and you wouldn’t have parents shelling out on private tutors to get their kid through the 11+ exam. It’s two tier education and is grossly unfair - the kids who don’t get in are effectively left on the scrap heap.

Oh and behaviour wasn't always well dealt with because they didn't think they needed proper systems - mostly they didn't - but a determinedly naughty child could get away with a lot.

Are you talking about state grammar schools or the ones with "grammar" in the name that went private in the 60s?

I'm only familiar with the Kent grammars but they definitely don't have small class sizes. They are heaving - every place filled and continually growing out of their buildings. I taught a KS3 class for a while that didn't have enough desks! (Fortunately there was always at least one girl at a music lesson...)

Yes agree. My grammar school had 30 in a class. Why would the class sizes be smaller @PeacePilgrim ? And misbehaviour dealt with quickly? What, in every selective school – and no comps? Maybe in the school you know. That's fine. But it doesn't mean every grammar school surely.

This is the biggest issue I have noticed when looking lincolnshire way as there doesn't seem to be an abundance of jobs!

Yes this is one of the things. Sorry to be so down on Lincs (I am not really) but the rural areas are very low on employment opportunities – that's one reason why houses are cheap. So I wouldn't advise moving there for the reasons you state and no others.

Fenland – what so March area? or more Ely? Have you looked at local primary and secondary schools? I do think basing the next 16 or so years on the views of others and what their DC say may not be the best idea.

Grammar schools do not have smaller class sizes on average unless they’re woefully undersubscribed.

Not my experience of grammar schools at all. I think they vary massively.