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?

It’s not that complicated! Grammars are selective.

This is why they have better exam stats. Your child has to pass the 11+ to get in, so you’re proposing a huge upheaval which may not even be worth it. A bright child will excel at a state school.

It is possible to find areas where all the local state schools are comprehensive but also good/outstanding with good behaviour. So there doesn’t have to be a simple choice between your current area with poor state schools and moving to a competitive selective grammar school system.

Only if your kids are clever enough to get into the grammar school.

Are your kids top of your class right now?

Are you willing to spend a couple of years or so tutoring for the exam depending on if the grammar is selective or super selective?

Are you willing to push your kids to study when they’d rather do something else like play?

If your child currently goes to a state school then you need to teach ahead of the curriculum and you need to practice the test format for your area because state schools don’t teach that kind of exam during school hours.

Some kids are academic, will happily study and are able to cope with the competitive aspect.

As long as the plan B school is good, it’s worth a shot imo but don’t focus on the grammar aspect and forget that there’s a chance that your child won’t get a slot.

I live in a state Grammar area and the local comprehensives are so abysmal that we would have gone private had our kids not passed the 11+

Selective so obviously academically able children = better results.

Does your local compressive not stream? Those local to us all set by ability so the top sets moving at a faster pace. The lower sets tend to be smaller so any disruption is delt with. We are a non grammar area which always gets very good results.

Just make damn sure you have academic children before you move to a grammar area because the secondary modern in grammar areas ( are they called comprehensive in a grammar area still?) will not be an anywhere near as good as non grammar areas and will have more disruption. That will be where your child go's if they fail the 11 +. So be a little careful.

I do think this is my slight worry. We move for the school with no guarantee all or any kids will get in!

I experienced both as a child, comp for half of year seven, grammar from easter of year seven until the end of year nine, then back to a comp for GCSE. Personally the quality of teaching I had at my grammar was very poor, it wasn’t engaging, if you needed any form of suppory it was tough. Where as at my comps teachers made an effort, they also cared.

A school being good isn’t about money, its about involvement, so a teacher who doesn’t have to battle behaviour is much happier on £35k than one who does have to battle behaviour is going to be happier and less pissed off about their wage being low.

The parents are also more likely to care, which translates to better respect for teachers and higher ambitions.

This.

Really OP?

Because they keep the tiff raff out. Because only families with the means and inclination to hot house DC get in. Because they generally have very low FSM children.

The comps in the area aren't great which is my concern! Not necessarily awful but not good either.

Best thing about a grammar school is that your child is with like minded intelligent children. They don't need to be held back by having lessons catered to weaker students.

Another thing is that grammar schools ensure teachers have subjects directly related to the field they teach. No pe teachers teaching geography.

How old are your children now? Do you have any inkling of their academic abilities?

Well they wouldn’t be becusse all the "good" families have been skimmed off.

What happens if your child doesn’t pass the 11+? In a place like Lincolnshire (or Kent), Secondary Moderns are generally not great options. A really good comprehensive would be worth moving for. It’s absolutely not worth moving to a grammar county.

And, FWIW, the brightest child I taught did not pass the 11+ - and I teach in East Kent, where over a quarter of children go to grammar schools.

Just bear in mind that if your DC start to struggle the school will want nothing to do with them as they might bring the "everyone gets 9 A GCSE's, As at A Level and goes to a Russell Group University" quota down.

My local grammar would not let children enter exams if they were not predicted to get a high pass - the parents had to pay for the child to take the exam privately and if they good a good enough grade the school refunded the cost.

A bright pupil will excel in a good state school.

The scores account for the discrepancy in intelligence of the kids. The fact is grammar pupils are more likely to have invested and ambitious parents, are more likely to behave, are more likely to be from middle class or aspirational backgrounds, and that’s what makes the difference. When you have classrooms full of kids like this, distractions and bad behaviour are minimised, so is further compounded by a calm and focussed classroom and a culture of achievement.

I loved my grammar school, it was wonderful.

My kids arent even at primary and we are looking to move before 1st starts primary as I don't like the idea of having to move the kids schools later on. So no concern about living in the area long enough.

I think you’re getting ahead of yourself, tbh.

First of all you need to define what you mean by "better".

If you mean "better results" then it's hardly amazing that a school that takes the top x% of the ability range will get better results than a genuinely comprehensive school.

If you mean better teaching/better pastoral care/better facilities or something else, then how are you measuring this?

I would not be making a house move based on the hope that my DC would pass the 11+ unless your other school options are also good.

Best thing about a grammar school is that your child is with like minded intelligent children. They don't need to be held back by having lessons catered to weaker students

Plenty of non grammars set though

I can’t talk about other counties, but even to sit the Kent Test is a positive choice. If a parent doesn’t register their child in time, they can’t sit it. This means that parents have some kind of engagement even before one looks at tutoring, etc.

"Other" schools in grammar areas are not "comps".
You can't be comprehensive if your school does not include the top proportion of the ability range.