New research says selective schools "make almost no difference"

RedSkyAtNight - you know I drafted a comment very similar to yours (about my own experience thinking I was stupid at a grammar school) earlier on today. My self-confidence took a massive knock ;-(. I moved into the grammar school system far enough into secondary school to be very behind in some subjects (even though I'd always been one of the bright ones in my previous school). I had just one teacher who helped me to catch up. The others really didn't give a damn.

As with TammyWhyNot, in my DC's comp it is cool to be clever and there is very little bullying. I think these days it is much harder to generalise about state schools as they all seem to be so different. However the research is IMO undoubtedly true. Super selective private or state schools get amazing results because they are super selective to start with. Take any 11 year old pupil from a top private or state selective school (say Henrietta Barnett or SPGS) and I guarantee they would do well anywhere. Indeed take one from SPGS and put her in a comp and she would probably be even more of an Oxbridge certainty as her school would be taken into consideration.

“That’s the legacy of a comprehensive education if you’re bright. “

MrsPeaceGarden, I am really sorry you felt as you did and do. But are you sure there isn’t a cause and effect mix up going on there? It is a very sweeping generalisation that this will be ‘your’ legacy if you are st a comp and bright, rather than ‘my ‘ legacy in those circumstances. Might you already have had some self esteem or local of confidence issues?

Also, things seem very different from a generation ago. And in different schools. It certainly cool to be clever and hardworking in the comps my Dc attend.

Anyway, I am glad your DS are thriving.

Yes, VoiciLePort - I did say I thought it was a personality thing, although I think you would have to be exceptionally weak willed to stop working because some people think it's uncool, but nobody is teasing or bullying you about it. You wouldn't even survive in a grammar school if you could only work in an environment where everyone was an earnest workaholic. But yes, I think the ethos of a school can affect the easily led in particular.

There is something wrong with a school in which the ethos is that working hard and doing well academically is not to be encouraged! I've never been in a school with that attitude that does not have a bullying problem, tbh, although I can imagine it being more prevalent in a school where the children thought likely to do well academically have been removed entirely, as that is as clear a statement as you can possibly make that the children left behind are not really expected to achieve well academically, despite being told they have to study academic subjects... If you don't want people to behave like sheep and don't want the majority of children underperforming academically, then why would you send this message to the majority of children?

Yes, but it's not just about bullying vs not bullying. While obviously you don't want all children to be conformist sheep, it takes a pretty strong character to say 'I don't care if everyone else thinks it's uncool to be clever and study, I'm going to do it anyway even if it means I only have a couple of friends'. Fine if you are a strong character. But if you're a bright kid who's easily influenced, then it's surely easier to work hard and achieve academically when you're in a school where lots of others (if not all) are doing the same thing and think that's the smart choice. That doesn't have to mean a selective school - but it does require a certain ethos.

MrsPeaceGarden my past experience is not dissimilar to yours. The main difference being that I did go to a selective school and came out feeling stupid (despite reams of As, university place at Oxford) because I wasn't as clever as other people around me. Like you, I'm also in a job that is way beneath my capabilities because deep down I assume that other people are better than me and there is no point trying.

The conclusion I've drawn is that self belief and the much touted "resilience" are more important than the exam results you get or the school you go to!

UserX - where on earth did you get your interpretation of what I said from??!! I made it 100% clear in my post I do not believe in trying to conform to the behaviours of big groups of children. Bullying should be clamped down on so that people are less inclined to behave like a flock of sheep. And bullying definitely exists in grammar schools - I went to one. I have family members teaching in them. I would not go out of my way to send my children to a grammar school (in fact, I chose to live somewhere that has no grammar schools). I would go out of my way to send my children to a school with good pastoral support for students, though, as you just can't get on and build resilience and self-esteem in a bullying environment.

I think DS probably achieved less well at his grammar school than he would have done in a comprehensive.

Selective schools not sure, isn't there evidence that in Kent/Bucks system the border pass/fail pupils may have been different if they sat 11+ on a different day or even afternoon instead of morning.
Bullying all schools have bullies from Eton/Winchester College to the local council estate school. Often it's the brightest students who get away with it.
We know a family who's DD was bullied in co-ed comprehensive, ss comprehensive and then expensive selective private, only when she left for one of the regions lesser thought of fe colleges, did she meet staff willing to sort the bullies out.
Any school which tells parents either in it's prospectus or face to face, we don't have bullies, IMHO should be avoided like the plague, because they do, but just ignore.

So glad we’ve cleared that one up. I’ve always suspected that my academic ability was genetic and that it looks like DS has inherited the family ‘brain’, although my Dsis, who did a PhD in something to do with genetics had already hinted at it.
But, and here’s the big but, without the grammar schools my parents were able to attend post war we may not have followed the same path. We are in a position to choose fee paying/grammar/academy.
So I would conclude that it is opportunity, that complex lottery of birth that ultimately governs academic success.

here will also always be children who attract bullies, because their weaknesses and sensitivities stick out a mile and they react in ways pleasing to the bullies. Being clever and being academic are not weaknesses and do not inevitably lead to bullying. Plenty of lower ability children are at risk of getting bullied, children who "smell", children who try too hard to fit in, children who don't understand social cues, children who cry easily, children who get annoyed easily, children with speech impediments. The problem is not stupid children picking on clever children, it's schools which don't deal effectively with bullying.

So anyone who doesn’t conform will be bullied? That’s a disgusting viewpoint and kind of proves MrsPeaceGarden’s point.

I went to the local secondary and from my year group the ex students now have a wide range of jobs (or not) from unemployed to doctors despite the same education. So kind of backs up that it is more the student than the school.

Very random study. It's not surprising thought. I wouldn't expect it to make a huge or any difference for intelligent pupils and only a minor difference for the stupid ones. But then again I've never cared much about grades and I'm certainly not sending my children to a private school for something so prosaic as A stars at GSCE.

VoiciLePort - I guess that's a personality thing. I would have no problem whatsoever with having two or three kindred spirits as friends. Why on earth would you hanker for more? I find large groups of people trying desperately to fit in with each other tiresome, especially as they always seem to be falling out and pushing each other in and out of their own groups. Why bother with that ridiculous pallaver when you've already got some nice, genuine friends who like you for what you actually are, not what you are (ineffectively) pretending to be?

All schools have different groups of children in them with different interests and different talents. It's what makes life interesting. There will also always be children who attract bullies, because their weaknesses and sensitivities stick out a mile and they react in ways pleasing to the bullies. Being clever and being academic are not weaknesses and do not inevitably lead to bullying. Plenty of lower ability children are at risk of getting bullied, children who "smell", children who try too hard to fit in, children who don't understand social cues, children who cry easily, children who get annoyed easily, children with speech impediments. The problem is not stupid children picking on clever children, it's schools which don't deal effectively with bullying.

Just because a study design makes certain limitations necessary does not mean it is not important to take account of those limitations when assessing the outcome. The authors themselves report the english/science/maths only as a "limitation":

A final limitation to note is that the GCSE variable we used in the analysis is a composite of only the three core subjects taken at age 16—English, science and mathematics. For other subjects, such as languages, art and social sciences, school type may have a greater influence.

If they think it is important enough to mention, it seems reasonable to comment on it. Discussion of limitations is standard procedure in psychology research.

They want to look at twins because it is a good way for controlling for genetic, household and some social factors. As long as the numbers are enough to be significant, or have been properly caveated that it is indicative only, it's a perfectly good aspect of methodology.

I'm not surprised by this - there have been similar assessments (grammars and leafy comps not scoring well on value added, but getting best local results, and commentaries on that, etc)

The role of genetics and early environment is always going to make people uncomfortable ,and what debate there is is going to focus on environment (something which can be changed) rather than the heritable aspects.

You can't generalise though, can you? My goddaughter is having a similar problem to Mrs PeaceGarden at the moment, despite incredibly supportive parents. Luckily she has found two or three 'kindred spirits' at school and is resilient enough to work hard even though it's uncool, but she is very much isolated from the main student body. And she's only in Year 7 - will she be able to resist trying to fit in for the next six years?

i guess the bright children who's parents are motivated and involved really do do well regardless of what school they attend. and maybe those who have a very rough start will not excel in academia no matter what resources are on offer.

MrsPeaceGarden - I think you are stuck in your own past, not present reality. My dss are at a comprehensive and think it deeply cool to be bright and academic. They also have no problem whatsoever making friends. When I comment on my own school experiences, they just think people were weird then... school is not like that now, apparently!

I’m looking forward to reading the full study later, but the idea that the success of grammar schools is measured only by exam results really bothers me. I have two daughters in a selective school – what follows is pretty personal, but I needed to get it out of my system. I apologise if you don’t think it’s appropriate for me to post it here.

When I was growing up, I was the brightest child in a comprehensive school. My teachers saw me as a problem because I regularly finished the work they had prepared long before the end of the lesson, so I learned to keep quiet and doodle in my book when I finished the assigned task. School became boring. I had no friends, because it was deeply uncool to be clever. I didn’t want to make anyone feel awkward, so I hid myself away. School became lonely. I became ashamed of who I was. I wanted more than anything to be someone different – someone normal.

Despite all that, I went on to get good A-levels and a degree from Oxford. But twenty years into my career, I’m still in an entry-level job. I think it’s because deep down a part of me still thinks it’s not cool to achieve. On paper, I’ve done well, but I’ve never achieved my full potential, I’ve never been 100% satisfied with my life, I’ve never been proud of myself. That’s the legacy of a comprehensive education if you’re bright.

I owe it to my exceptionally bright daughters to give them a better start in life than I had. I owe it to them to use my experience to make things different for them. I want them to come out of school with all the things I didn’t – self-confidence, ambition, and a belief in themselves and in what they can achieve. I want them to have friends who accept them for who they are. And most of all, I want them to be happy. That’s why they are in a selective school. Exam results don’t come into it.

the study only measures the results of science, maths and English GCSEs

But that’s necessary because they are the only subjects taken by all students.

Becky Allen is listed as a co-author so presumably the stats side of things is ok.

Wow, lots of twins, Taffeta!

Interesting notes on the paper, kesstrel.

usr67 - not my experience of twins

DD(Y7 grammar) has 4 separate twins in her class of 30.