Candidates flying from overseas to sit super-selective grammar 11+

We have to wait for the outcome of the private school VAT case in April to see what the High Court says in regards of children’s rights to non interference by politicians with no regard to proportionality, and the individual effects on children.

These are fundamentally different—parents pay to send their children to private schools without government funding, whereas grammar schools are funded by the government. What scientific evidence do you have to suggest that shutting down grammar schools would have an individual effects on students? Are you implying it would affect their chances of becoming a prime minister?

The political landscape has changed because what some Academics have to say on educational policy is less significant now. There are huge powerful parental groups if you start looking at what is going on. They are demanding a seat at the table and the politicians cannot just ignore what they have to say and they will use their legal rights. See the private school VAT.
It is the same with the anti screen movement - this started with parents. The Government will have to take action.

“The idea that grammar school policy should be left to individual counties ignores the fact that state education is a national policy issue—funded by all taxpayers, not just those in selective areas.
The government regularly intervenes in education policy at a national level—for example, because education is a public good, not just an individual consumer choice.
The Human Rights argument is misplaced. Restructuring a state-funded selective school to a non-selective school does not violate children's rights as it does not remove the provision of public education.”

We have to wait for the outcome of the private school VAT case in April to see what the High Court says in regards of children’s rights to non interference by politicians with no regard to proportionality, and the individual effects on children.

That case will dictate what they can and cannot do in the future. I certainly think there may be some lessons learnt from that.

It would be political suicide to mandate what Bucks/Kent etc need to do in their own counties without long term consultations, likely to outlive this current period. Are they all Tory MPs there largely? Really do not think they could get away with this.

The implicit assumption is that if grammar schools did not exist these children would not go to university.

The Education Policy Institute (2018) found that pupils of similar ability in comprehensives are just as likely to attend university as their grammar school counterparts. There is no difference in the university entry rate in areas with and with grammar school once socio-economic factors have been adjusted for.

The Sutton Trust (2017) showed that while grammar school students are more likely to go to university, they are disproportionately from higher-income backgrounds. They also found that disadvantaged pupils in grammar schools were still less likely to enter elite universities than their wealthier peers, even when they had similar grades.

Of course a lot of kids from grammar schools go to university!

@Ubertomusic @Mydogisamassivetwat @Araminta1003

I am not invalidating personal experience. However state educational policy should be determined by an evidence-based approach looking at benefit to society overall.

I have combined my previous posts here to help. I believe they answer your questions.

Grammer school progress scores:
If grammar schools truly added more value than non-selective schools, we would expect them to significantly outperform comprehensives when prior attainment is controlled for.

Education Policy Institute (EPI) Report (2018):
Found that once prior attainment was accounted for, grammar schools provided only a very small progress advantage over non-selective schools.
In fact, pupils with similar academic ability in high-performing comprehensives made nearly identical progress as their grammar school counterparts.
The report concluded that “grammar schools do not provide a better boost to progress compared to similar pupils in comprehensive schools.”

Grammar schools and social mobility:

Multiple large-scale studies have found no significant evidence that grammar schools have a meaningful positive impact on social mobility.
Sutton Trust (2017):
Found that grammar school students were less likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds ( this is independent of FSM)
Disadvantaged pupils who did attend grammar schools still had similar GCSE outcomes to comparable students in good comprehensive schools.
The report concluded that grammar schools do not offer a unique social mobility advantage.
Education Policy Institute (2016):
Found that disadvantaged pupils in grammar schools were still less likely to enter elite universities than their wealthier peers, even when they had similar grades.

This suggests that socioeconomic background continues to play a role in educational outcomes, even for those who pass the 11+.
Given this body of evidence, I think it is correct that we question whether the state should continue to fund grammar schools.

Are Grammar Schools Improving Education for Society as a Whole?

A major issue with grammar schools is that they do not operate in isolation. Their existence directly impacts non-selective schools in their areas.

Research from Durham University (2018) found that regions with grammar schools did not perform better overall than fully comprehensive regions. Areas with selective education systems tend to have worse overall GCSE outcomes than areas with fully comprehensive systems.

This challenges the claim that grammar schools raise standards across the education system. Instead, they may simply redistribute high-achieving students without adding significant value.

Democracy and Education Policy

The idea that grammar school policy should be left to individual counties ignores the fact that state education is a national policy issue—funded by all taxpayers, not just those in selective areas.

The government regularly intervenes in education policy at a national level—for example, because education is a public good, not just an individual consumer choice.

The Human Rights argument is misplaced. Restructuring a state-funded selective school to a non-selective school does not violate children's rights as it does not remove the provision of public education.

the participation rates from grammar schools into university are really high? Why would you argue against them?

Another random thought from you—what makes you think that these students, who are mostly socially selective and have family support, wouldn’t go to university in a comprehensive school setting? Do you have any academic evidence to support that claim?

Also for anyone in academia, the participation rates from grammar schools into university are really high? Why would you argue against them? It does not make sense. The uni sector is in crisis already. Numbers are dropping significantly. Those kids who still want to go, you need them.

£5000 per pupil @bluegoosie - is incredibly cheap for the State? And to produce those kids then going into well paid employment and very high uni participation rates? No significant attendance issues?
This is not a sector where the Government would choose to spend money on to essentially costs themselves and society more in the long run. It does not make economic sense.

I also have real life experience of grammar schools myself, having been to one.

Friends from primary school who got into the grammar schools in town did do better in school, and in life than the ones who failed and went to the comprehensive schools. So that’s my real world anecdote.

Also, when people tell me of their experiences of school - fights, kids being rude to teachers, it’s completely alien to me. At my grammar, that didn’t happen. The children wanted to be there and were engaged.

Given the overwhelming evidence that grammar schools do not improve educational outcomes or social mobility, why does the government continue to fund them—without any serious re-evaluation of their purpose and cost-effectiveness?

And then, the 'academic-focused' grammar school parents will dismiss your scientific evidence as fake news from the left, instead pointing to parental satisfaction surveys or neighbors who attended grammar schools and ended up career as a successful academic researcher as supporting anecdotes.

And also if you look at the league tables comparing top state schools vs private schools, well it is only the grammar schools in there. These are state funded schools with very low funding per pupil, they are absolutely raising the social mobility of the children attending them.
Where they are superselective they have no impact on local comprehensives either.
Where they are in grammar areas, it is not really for the State to decide how to restructure the entire education system in one county. As happened many years ago, it is for those Counties to decide. It would be undemocratic and the breach of human rights of those children already there to close their state schools.
If they were to change future admissions to a non selective basis, impact assessments and consultations would be required. Note that Cranbrook Grammar tried to increase Year 7 Admissions and not Year 9 places but were recently shown to have not given enough notice.

To change the selection of the remaining existing grammar schools would require a long process and I doubt Labour will still be in charge by the time it would end. So go ask Bucks and Kent etc.

We really need to get away from these notions that the Nanny State knows better and should dictate to parents what school is best for their own child. It is counterproductive and anti social mobility. People can make their own decisions, including on a county level.

To put Grammar School Funding into Perspective:

Having reviewed the extensive research on grammar schools, I am struck by the sheer volume of evidence showing they do not fulfil their stated purposes (see my previous posts). Despite this, they continue to receive nearly £968 million annually in state funding (~180,000 pupils at ~£5,000 per student).

If I were applying for just £1 million in government research funding, I would need to:

• Demonstrate a robust scientific methodology (this will be externally reviewed by a panel of experts)
• Provide clear, evidence-based estimates of benefits and outputs.
• Undergo rigorous annual reviews by both my university and the funding body.
• Show that my work delivers the expected impact

Otherwise my funding is removed.

I work with cells, not children, yet my research is held to a higher standard of accountability than the funding of an entire school system.

Given the overwhelming evidence that grammar schools do not improve educational outcomes or social mobility, why does the government continue to fund them—without any serious re-evaluation of their purpose and cost-effectiveness?

And then the real life starts talking...

@CurlewKate ? No social mobility, eh? 😉
Still not convincing until we see payslips, I guess 🙄

@Mydogisamassivetwat
You have my hear felt sympathies for what you and your family had to go through. My posts are not personal in anyway. I hope that things go well for your family and your DD enjoys her time at school.

I am a scientist and an academic. I tend to approach questions from this point of view.

So the question remains: Why should the state fund a system that does not achieve its stated goal of selecting based on "natural ability" and does not improve national educational outcomes?

Well it does when you look at Oxbridge statistics. It has massively raised the social mobility of state school kids into Oxbridge from grammar schools if you compare it to private schools.

Hard work is meritocratic in itself. You could also argue that parents valuing tutoring and enforcing a strict, disciplined regime of hard work over years to gain entrance is part of meritocracy too. However, neither aligns with the original purpose of grammar schools, which were intended to admit children based solely on their 'innate academic ability. Not to mention, the original intent is outdated and no longer fit for purpose.

Tobacco, not Tabasco. And not DDs fault. I’m partially sighted so prone to mistakes. But you get my point.

There is substantial evidence suggesting that many grammar schools, after abolishing selective intake 30 years ago, became much less popular, while nearby schools gained more interest. When educational resources are distributed equitably, the reputation for academic success appears to be more of an illustration of the social selection effect, and nothing more.

@Araminta1003
The key difference between grammar schools and comprehensives is that grammar schools are explicitly selective by design, whereas comprehensives are intended to serve all students within their local area.

Yes, catchment areas can create socio-economic disparities, but this is a wider systemic issue that requires policy solutions—such as better funding for disadvantaged areas and improving overall state education—rather than selective schools that do not contribute to social mobility. Inequality in across the education system is a much wider and complex issue that requires addressing the long-term socio-economic inequalities between regions.

Grammar schools, however, actively select students through an opaque, unregulated process that disproportionately benefits certain socio-economic groups (and apparently ethnic groups according to this forum). This is not an unintended consequence—it is inherent to the selection system itself.

Unlike comprehensive schools, grammar schools are not essential to providing state education. The state has a choice in how it structures and funds education.

So the question remains: Why should the state fund a system that does not achieve its stated goal of selecting based on "natural ability" and does not improve national educational outcomes?

This is not about abolishing state education—it is about ensuring that education policy and funding is evidence-based. If the grammar school system of selection does not provide a clear public benefit, why should they continue to receive taxpayer funding?

I couldn’t give a shit. I’m just glad my daughter won’t be going to school with the scum who walk past my window to the local dive comp every morning, vaping, swearing and causing trouble.

They have already selected themselves to be the social underclass by the way they behave, as did their parents and grandparents. My daughter goes to the same primary as they did and yet she excelled - they could have too if they and their parents wanted them to. Weed and Tabasco aren’t free either - their parents could have paid for a tutor instead of sitting on their doorsteps in dressing gowns chain smoking and swearing. They didn’t, and that’s not my problem.

It’s dds her fault I suffered mental breakdown which saw us lose it all and have to move here. I want better for her.

Take HBS, for example, as someone said the area itself is quite well off. So if it became a comp overnight would much actually change in the short run? All that would happen is that next Year’s 7 would be catchment based, the reputation for many years would be an academic school, people would still only choose it if they wanted an academic education for their DCs. And loads of people who could afford it would quickly move into the catchment to get into HBS. It would become more socially selective, not less.

It is meritocratic in the sense that S Asians work really hard.

You still have not answered @bluegoosie the key question on why should the Government then fund a comprehensive system which is socially selective by design as it is catchment based and address based and people rent and buy in catchment of the best schools.

So do you want to abolish all of state education? Answer the question.