Bright pupils are more likely to get top GCSE grades at comprehensive schools than grammars, research has found.

@StressedMumOf2Girls setting really isn't necessary in well resourced and well funded schools (this is the problem). You would have TAs in schools (as in primary - where you have mixed ability classes) to support the teacher with those struggling,

Setting benefits the teachers the most - I speak here as someone who teaches mixed ability A level students - without a TA - I wish I had one!

The problem about doing away with setting is the government isn't prepared or willing as we all know from current shenanigans to fund and resource schools properly!

I think setting should absolutely happen for some subjects such as Maths. I imagine it would be very hard to teach a class that will suit all abilities when you've got some children being able to factorise quadratic equations while you have some struggling to add 3 digit numbers together.

I suppose the key statistic is that grammars have expanded 30% in recent years (by pupil numbers - no new ones have been built apart from a couple of annexe situations).

So whatever the academics say, the parental demand is very high.

Probably more worthwhile unpicking why that is - as some posters are doing.

I'm in a grammar area and will be sending DD to a comprehensive, because grammar wouldn't suit her.

I don't think all schools should be the same though. There should be a range of options.

And the average size should definitely be smaller. Around 800-1,000 not 1,500-2,000.

@unfor agree - setting and streaming is definitely not the best thing for young people - anyone who knows anything about self-fulfilling prophecy can tell you that. It might be great for teachers but not pupils.

If the bright children in mixed ability groups are bored or not challenged then I would argue that is poor teaching and planning. The same for those who might be struggling in mixed ability.

At A level and HE level all teaching is mixed ability and there isn't this fuss about setting etc.

Value added metrics such as "Progress 8 score" is just a descriptive statistics currently. Some research argue that schools like superselective grammar the progress 8 score is already bias and should be adjusted downwards.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/how-progress-8-disguises-grammar-school-pupils-true-attainment/

That said, I think good education can be provided for all in a comprehensive school.

What it would take is building roughly twice the number of secondary schools we have now, small class sizes and smaller schools. I also think a middle school system would benefit a lot of children. I think years say, 6-9 are quite different from 10-13.

There are some huge primary schools too now which I don't agree with either. Kids need individual care and attention to get a proper education, not crowd control and treating them like they are in a young offenders institute. Young offenders could probably do with more care and attention as well tbh.

This exactly. DD1 was actually not one of the nerdy ones in a super selective grammar, she is sporty and pretty good across the board but not say, a maths superbrain like some. It was nice just to find her people. I didn't do that until sixth form college - everyone wanting to be there and wanting to learn rather than having to be there made a difference.

DD on the other hand is currently living her best life at grammar, she's so happy in an environment where there are other nerdy kids

This exactly! People always talk about results, outcomes, etc but it's important to remember that the social aspect matters, too.

I went to a superselective (not in UK) and I didn't get fantastic grades - the work was really hard. But being around other clever kids for six years made a huge difference. We could talk about anything and everything in our nerdy way without being stigmatised as clever showoffs. Looking back, it contributed so much to my confidence and future career.

I think the assumption that students will be set/streamed in comprehensives is faulty. In my non-grammar area, many schools have minimal setting/streaming as research shows that it works against children from disadvantaged backgrounds: setting-and-streaming

My DC is doing GCSEs this year and is only set for Science and Maths (and the setting is done with a very broad brush: they have four levels of ability for a cohort of 250+)

When I taught at a superselective grammar virtually all the girls got A* or A in all GCSES. It wasn't easy for the school to show "value added" because there wasn't enough grade spread at the top end.

It would be interesting to see this research re-done once there are enough 9-1 GCSE grades to compare (it will be a while though due to the dodgy data from 2020-2022).

The anecdotes on here are all meaningless, can the discussion stick to population level analysis.

You use non selective areas as a baseline because you are going to assume (taking socioeconomic effects into account) that is how students would perform without being streamed. The question is asking whether there is a benefit to selective schools, not whether the kids who attend (those who would do better anywhere) do better than those who fail the 11+.

A useful study would be for all areas to sit an 11+ and compare the passing children in grammar/non grammar areas.

I specifically would like to see if, in areas where 7% pass, do those in the 6-7% do better in the bottom sets at grammar than they would in the top sets in a normal comp? My time as a teacher would suggest not, but I think it should be looked at properly.

.

" I went to a small state grammar and my DH went to a large city comp. We met at uni and have the same degree, he’s done alright for himself being a confident guy. However his knowledge of things concerning history, grammar and general culture is shocking. "

Looks like he did as well as you, you just want to find some area that superior than your DH.

I hate threads like this pitting one type of school against another.

All children deserve a good school - regardless of type - this yet another reason our system needs a radical shake up if people really think their local school isn't good enough and only a grammar will do!

>, which brought about positive competition amongst the learners which helped them to work harder

Yeah that self harm in the girls grammar nearby, anorexia nervosa, psychosomatic issues...how to compete with a prodigy child. There is no way yet you pushed pushed for your best....

I have a completely different story but then my school and some others my family members went to have become selective comps, where some pupils are selected, as there are no grammar schools in the area.

Interestingly it was someone I was at university who went to an independent school who had no knowledge of history and general culture.

Both my DDs went/go to a Grammar. Teaching wasn't a priority for us (in fact DD1's school had pretty inconsistent teaching) but rather environment. Both my DDs needed the typical Grammar environment.

DD1 is sensitive, naive, quiet and struggles to make friends. and while she had pastoral issues at her school (which is known to be hard headed anyways), she would have literally been eaten alive had she gone to any of the local comps. At her Grammar, she managed to find a small group of friends. DD2 tends to be influenced quite easily but also laidback so being around people who are just as smart as her (or even smarter), work harder than her will hopefully push her to do better.

I'm not saying the comps aren't filled with people who want to work. They are. But the comps near us have enough behavioural horror stories that we knew it wasn't going to work for our children. Everyone's children is different. Some thrive at comps and would hate Grammars.

>, but a lot more who fail due to disruption

You may be not aware that kids in selective schools can be disruptive too. Oh yes they can

This can’t be true…. I went to a small state grammar and my DH went to a large city comp. We met at uni and have the same degree, he’s done alright for himself being a confident guy. However his knowledge of things concerning history, grammar and general culture is shocking. Stuff we were taught as a matter of course. So it’s not just GCSE results. Plus the things he says about his school shock me - lessons constantly disrupted, stuff set on fire, people having babies in sixth form! This was the 90s so maybe it’s different now, maybe it’s worse!?! None of this happened at my school. Give me a grammar school any day!!

I can see there are two camps of parents with slightly different motivation for grammar schools:

1. Peer effects - the believe of study in a school with high attainment streaming will have a major benefit, which brought about positive competition amongst the learners which helped them to work harder in their school work. Consequently it yields value added and achieve even higher attainment. Most research suggest that there is no consensus effects at secondary school education, or the effects is not significant nor positive, even counter balance negative effects. In other words, bright kid will do equally well anywhere, the state schools with similar funding do not help much.

2. To minimize disruptions/downside - this is similar to PP mentioned the fear of the potential downside create a mad panic rush on demand regardless childrens abilities. The believe is that grammar schools, because of self selection of high attainments, will less likely to have classroom disruptive factors. Although research suggest that with higher disruptive factors in no selective school, general students still achieve as well as their ability should be. Parents still don't want to risk for the preceived potential downside or wants a better education experience I guess?

There has been a lot of change within the current school system and the vast majority set pupils, so the brightest get the focus they need. In general bright pupils will do well as they are more likely to have parents who are invested in their education.

Bright parents know their children their personalities and are more likely to direct them to the best school for them, be it a comprehensive, grammar or private school.

The issue is not with good schools but those that struggle with disruptive pupils and the knock on impact this has on other pupils. From personal experience this creates the mad panic surrounding grammar school admissions as in reality 'good' comprehensives tend to have smaller more expensive catchment areas, whereas some grammars have larger catchment areas and admissions do not require a house in catchment or a sibling.

@Karchibald I don’t understand why any school has to be like that. I have raised teens to adulthood so fully understand that stick is unfortunately required at times, but at least try carrot first…

I think she would have spent her life in detention for forgetting a pencil,
or talking in the corridor, or wearing the wrong socks

This sounds like the Grammar School in our area!

I wonder if you live near me @floribunda18! DD goes to grammar because it is chilled and friendly, and not not set up like a young offenders unit, like our catchment school (that people move house to get in to) Both schools get excellent results, but we preferred the atmosphere at the grammar and luckily she got in, or I think she would have spent her life in detention for forgetting a pencil,
or talking in the corridor, or wearing the wrong socks.

@popfan not so much in Aylesbury sadly.