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

[Karma1387]

Me and my partner are in a situation where we are looking to relocate in order to move to a Grammar school area. This is going to involve us both having to find new jobs and coordinate a house move at the same time.

Some of my family disagree with our decision to move for the sake of grammar school and don't see how they can be better than a normal comprehensive school.

I am hoping some people on here will have some knowledge on how grammar schools achieve so much better than comprehensives?

Also anyone with experience with grammar schools they could share? From what I have read the class sizes aren't much different to comprehensives and they get the same funding. Is it literally just a case of because they do the 11+ they tend to only take on the more academically inclined kids. Does this translate to less bad behaviour etc compared to comprehensive schools?

The move is going to be stressful with us both trying to find new jobs plus moving further away from both our families I want it to be worth it! Our local comprehensive is awful for results and we want to give the kids the best opportunities.

Personally I would rather homeschool and fully keep them out of the school system but my partner is very against this and is determined we need to move to a grammar school area so any advise to aid our discussion would be amazing!

Are we being unreasonable to relocate for the possibility of grammar school?

The kids are more academically capable and are more likely to apply themselves in the classroom.

Well the grammars near me are incredibly selective so if your intake are A+ ability that will bump up the results.

Or more accurately they have a higher percentage of academically capable kids who are applying themselves in the classroom.

Yes, it’s down to the children being more suited for an academic environment.

So I assume this then results in less disruption and bad behaviour (I know there is always going to be some issues).

Do the teachers tend to be happier and more committed because they arent dealing with so many issues?

You’ve answered your own question. They are selective and competition for places is high, so those who get places usually have very focussed and driven parents.

Are we being unreasonable to relocate for the possibility of grammar school?

Is the school very selective? I wouldn’t move away from family & give up jobs for a school. There are some very good comps as well.

As others have said, it’s selective and incredibly competitive. Academically able kids plus parents who value education. It’s not rocket science.

Comprehensives often get more funding because they have a higher percentage of students who receive Pupil Premium.

Grammar schools aren’t better, they just have 100% of parents invested in education and willing to support their children, and the school. They have diversity, but not socioeconomic diversity so they don’t have to deal with many of the social and behavioural issues that are common in comprehensives.

So its worth relocating to give the kids a chance at a better environment?

They select for academics, and parents who have the motivation and capacity to have their children tutored for entry exams are self-selecting as those with the most motivation and capacity to support education and school ethos.

The parents are also more likely to care, which translates to better respect for teachers and higher ambitions. The difference between a grammar vs comprehensive classroom is astounding on behaviour alone.

It is worth the move, provided your child gets a place.

Do they also then attract the best teachers because it's a lot easier (and safer) teaching a class of motivated students.

It's easy to teach intelligent, motivated students with good family support and no behaviour problems.

Intelligent, motivated students with good family support and no behaviour problems are overwhelmingly more likely to get into a selective grammar school.

It's not hard to understand.

Kids are more academically capable and typically come from supportive families with engaged parents and often from more affluent families.

Obviously your kids have to pass the 11+ to get in so I suppose it depends on how confident you are your kids are able to do that. I’d make sure the comps in the area are also strong.

They cream off all the bright pupils in that area so it’s a no-shit-Sherlock reason as to why they outperform ordinary secondary schools.

They don't select the poorly behaved riff raff

Usually the selective nature, yep.

Although they do vary. I'm in an 11+ area and 2 of the selective schools have a drugs and gang problem and the teachers have struggled as they are perhaps less prepared for this than the mainstreams are.

Also do check how long you have to have lived at the address, some of the ones local to me require many years and proof. This is mainly because we have a hybrid system of a few distance places alongside 11+ though and people trying to game the systems with rentals.

If you select who attend the school based on academic ability then the results will be higher. In our area children start being coached and tutored for the 11+ from an early age.

Because they only let in kids who are above a certain educational ability. They are academically selective.

Comps have no control over how able or academic the students may or may not be.

So there will be very low achievers making the school look worse overall, despite there also being plenty of average and or smart ones.

I've taught in one.
Behaviour not necessarily good across the board.
Kids who have been tutored to the eyeballs struggled.
Beware. If your children don't get in the alternative can be less than amazing because so many are creamed off for the grammar.

All of this said, I've no ideological issue with them at all. Private too.

Also, schools have to fund the first £6000 of costs for any child who has additional needs, even if they have an EHCP. Few children with SEN = lower bill for SEN costs.

Simple. They are academically selective, so they choose the best applicants.
They generally don't end up with disruptive or less able children who slow down the pace of learning.

I went to a fiercely competitive grammar in the 70s. Each year we took the top 60 of about 8,000 applicants. We had to sit an exam and have an interview. Only 10% of children went on to university then, yet every one in my year took a degree.
I was a fsm child, but a lot of my class mates were upper middle class with supportive and involved parents who did everything they could to support their child's learning. Pupils wanted to learn. Expectations were high, no-one was bullied for being a swot, we did latin, debating and public speaking. The school had chess and bridge societies and we supported each others' learning. Everyone took 4 a'levels. No money was spent on remedial learning.

We were originally going to move to Chelmsford to be closer to my partners family and give the kids a shot at the grammar school there but it is very selective.

We are now exploring lincolnshire as there are more grammar schools so they aren't quite as selective but of course you never know if your kids will be academically inclined!

We are in a situation where our local comps are very very bad. But for us to move even 25 mins up the road to some slightly betetr ones causes house prices 150-200k so DP doesn't want to pay for a more expensive house for an average school which could decline by the time our kids go.

My son is at a grammar, most kids are there to learn. Some are disruptive but it is a smaller percentage. The intake is the top 25% roughly of the year. Parents often donate more to the school. Teachers have left and come back so it must be doing something right

Also a smaller whole year intake so class sizes similar but fewer classes