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?

I'm puzzled as to why you think you could do a better job than a school could, based on a couple of years, presumably as a SAHM with a toddler.

You really don't have an objective view of the English education system. Grammar schools can also be a hotbed of pressure, MH issues, eating disorders etc. Then again, keeping a child at home because the parents can agree on their schooling also seems like a recipe for disaster.

It's a horrible system. They " do better" because the are starting off with ambitious offspring of ambitious and tutored kids.

My DD who got 12 x grade 9’s in her GCSE’s didn’t get into local grammar (very competitive). Thankfully she went to an excellent state school. Personally I would not be uprooting my whole life for grammar school.

My kids go to a comp with a grammar stream so they end up in their lessons with the most able kids. It is great as they can be in different streams for different lessons - one has a dyslexic friend who is top set for maths but has support for English. So it's honestly the best of both.

Bullying is off the scale at our local Grammar.

Schooling is more than academic progress. Making friendships is important too. If you homeschool then your children do not get to mix with other children everyday.

I have 0 teaching experience. But especially for Primary school I can't see how sitting in a classroom of 30 children could possibly be more helpful and academically beneficial than being at home 1-1 or 1-2 with a parent and tutors when needed as they get older.

I have read so many things of kids being in massive classes dealing with other childrens bad behaviour rather than learning, the bullying and not to mention the lack of care for childrens health when they are unwell or mentally struggling but parents being hassled about attendance.

OP I think a lot of kid mess around because they can’t understand the lesson. If they can’t follow it, they get bored, so they mess around. The more academically able the pupils are, the more likely they are focus on the lesson. Obviously there are clever disruptive kids, and well behaved less academic kids, but on the whole, selective schools will have less of a crowd control issue in lessons.

I went to school in south Lincolnshire, you could study A-levels then at comp sixth forms and you still can.

I would think that if you do not want your children to break friendship groups by moving school, then you need to find a decent comprehensive school in a decent area.

I went to an old fashioned style grammar school when 11+ was commonplace, but there were only 3 of us who went to that particular school from my primary.

Lack of friends apart, it was good for me because the music education was good and there were plenty of music bands/orchestra/choirs and instrument lessons. This may just have been that school at that time.
My brother hated it and struggled with undiagnosed dyslexia and bullying, and unsympathetic teaching. A lot of bullying went under the radar because they are just cleverer at it.

My class was the 'worst in the school' with behaviour. Some people left (managed out) and went on to do better in secondary moderns, one person who I know was extensively tutored to get in did badly in exams and spent a lot of lessons hiding in the toilet by the end. One person got no qualifications at all - his parents had moved him to my primary to get through the 11+.

I sent my DC to a decent Comprehensive. TBH I had gripes with that too, but they had a decent time of it and gaps in the curriculum can be made up with outside activities.

There are multiple ways of dealing with the social aspect. Clubs, groups etc. Kids arent in school having massive socialisations in my opinion.

However this is one of my partners arguments against homeschooling which is why we have been exploring other options/areas.

at primary school my kids played massive games of hide and seek in the school field at break time. You don’t get that with home education.

Well the grammar school by me puts huge work expectations on very able children with parents who support academic success. The teaching is less up to date, less engaging than in the massively lower attaining school I work in but it can be because the kids will do well either way.

Many of my children’s friends went and one - incidentally one of the top students in the exam to get in - crashed and burned. He left with few passes and works a minimum wage job. A sibling group who have done well and have gone off to good unis to do great courses fared better but two had a lot of sexual harassment and both left for a comp sixth form. But any anecdote in either direction is largely irrelevant as which school suits which child is subject to uncontrollable variations.

I would never use one and if your children don’t get in then they have already got the top slice so the comps then struggle disproportionately.

You are completely bonkers OP !

Your eldest is 2 ! You have no idea at this stage if they are particularly bright and importantly have an aptitude ( which is most important for grammar schools ) or not .

I went to a grammar years ago. My brothers didn’t get in and our life chances were fixed then. I saw firsthand what happened to those who didn’t get in and both ended up in later life showing they were as capable as I was at 11 , just late developers .

My husband went to a true comprehensive with setting in another part of the country. Got better a levels than me and like me went to university. My extremely bright and applied SIL in another part of the country went to comprehensive and ended up with a PhD!

My children went to true comprehensives in another part of the country . Whilst they came from the same family with the same opportunity, sadly application played a part in their outcomes too. One did very well. I know plenty in the area we live in who do very very well in the comprehensive system which is the only choice.

You seem to have an attitude where you will both encourage and foster a good home learning environment, so I would not worry about moving to a selective area. Your children will have the opportunity to do well , if they have the application. You have no idea if by moving, you actually end up limiting their choices ( if they don’t get in! ) .

its really not a choice of homeschooling or nothing . I agree with your husband on that

That fact you can’t understand why being a classroom environment with trained teachers is much better than being homeschooled (for the vast majority of children) is why you probably shouldn’t be considering this.

Full of kids whose parents are fully on board with education and therefore respectful and cooperative students who are keen to learn. The teaching is not disrupted by large numbers of disenfranchised children whose parents don't value education and who often actively work against the teachers.

You’re basing a lot of this on your opinion rather than facts or actual experience.

Just here to say I'm absolutely staggered this question has been asked...

I find it odd you’re so keen on a grammar if this is how you feel.

Absolute BS.

This isn’t primary school where all abilities are in the same class. Those who are the brightest in a certain subject will be with the brightest in that subject and they will be on a different trajectory to those who are weakest in that subject.

Given most areas of the country are now on the comprehensive system then how come so many of these pupils are going to university if their secondary school is failing them

Ds ‘s comprehensive spent the first week of secondary school having tests to see how strong or weak they were in different subjects.

Be very, very careful. My husband and I moved from Birmingham (grammar school system) to Milton Keynes and consciously avoided moving to Buckinghamshire because it has a grammar school system. Areas with grammar schools have crazy intense parents who hot house their kids. It's utterly toxic for everyone's mental health.

And here's the thing, my kids did end up going to a Buckinghamshire grammar and did fine and made plenty of friends. But the kids in those schools are academically high achievers. They end up competing amongst themselves and tend to think they're stupid if they get less than an A*/9 for anything. It can be a tough environment once you get there.

Just compared figures for Free School meals/Pupil Premium with Bourne Grammar and Jack Hunt in Peterborough - 6.4% and 36%, and Jack Hunt also has 45% pupils with English not their first language. Bourne Academy has 23% FSM. Kings school in Peterborough has 12% FSM

Research finds that grammar schools don't out perform the average state school. They take in high ability students so get good results, but similarly able students at average state schools tend to do just as well.

The one issue with grammar schools is that the nonselective state schools that surround them tend to perform than average (even accounting for their lower ability intake).. So it's a risky strategy to move to a grammar school area before you're sure your children will get in.

Better would be to find an area with non-selective, non-church schools, where there are plenty of university educated parents who invest in their local schools (active PTAs, etc.). Those schools will likely do better than average because they will tend to have fewer disruptive children, and parents who are engaged and inculcate a culture of valuing education in their children. And your children will not be at the same sort of risk of being found not good enough at 11 and pushed into an underperforming school.

The biggest predictor of educational outcomes for children is their parents, not their schools.

I gave up my career when my son was born so financially it isnt a problem. But I am unsure about pushing for something my partner doesn't agree with.

But our primary schools are rubbish here so we would have to move next year anyway if we were sending him to a state primary so I would prefer to only move once if possible!

I think you need to work on your issues first, then figure out where to move, school choices etc.

There's a lot of projection going on in your posts. Our children don't have to follow the same paths that we did.

Maybe get some voluntary experience in education e.g. school governor, listening to children read etc. Then see how you feel about things.