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 is not at all complicated. If you test a kid at 11 and they score really highly something would have had to actively go wrong for them to not score highly on tests at 16 and 18. It's really hard to say that a grammar school has had much influence at all on that.

Don't just look at the results look at the value add metrics - grammar schools out perform most other schools on this measure too. They have much higher value add than other schools because kids want to learn and there is generally better discipline.

All children would have better outcomes if we had greater variety of schools to educate according to individual/cohort needs rather than a "comprehensive" system beloved of Marxists/socialists/woke brigade.

Surely you would be better moving to an area that had better performing secondary schools rather than pinning hope on grammar

Or come to Northern Ireland where there are loads of grammar schools and majority kids sit transfer test (11+)

Kids at the grammar school did do drugs come 6th form. (Not my DC). But it was usually at private parties outside of school time. Some were caught doing them at a school event and were expelled.

I agree that it is generally the parents that make a good school. If children have parents that aren't interested, don't read to their children, can't even potty train them ffs, what chance do they have at school!

Not sure if this hasn’t already been said, but isn’t the downside of grammar school areas that if your kids don’t get selected, they end up on worse schools than in non grammar areas because all of the motivated above average kids have been leached off? So
you’d better be pretty Sure that your kids are going to be bright enough!

If you dc are still toddlers, you have no way of knowing if they are bright and hard working enough to crack the grammar system. I think it's foolish to move to a grammar area, instead, you could move to a place with excellent state primary and secondary schools. If your dc doesn't pass the 11+ they will end up in a school with middle and under achieving cohorts as the clever hard working ones have been hovered up by the grammars.

If you and your dh are very clever and are form long line of engineers doctors etc, you can reasonably assume your dc will also be clever. In that case it may be less of a risk moving to a grammar area.

I'd wait to see if your kids are academically inclined before moving!

My kids goto a grammar. The boys aren't all well behaved, but nothing like what I've heard about comprehensives.

Also their school has been good at keeping kids on for 6th form even if gcses weren't great - they want them to stay on.

It felt like the right school for my kids since the open day. That's why we worked hard to get them in.

Also note, schools do change! They might not be so stellar in 9 years time.

Sorry to sound silly but what do you mean by does the comprehensive stream?

I don't know if streaming is as common as it once was.

My secondary we sat exams first few weeks and there were sets for maths but rest was 4 streams - 3 classes in each bar bottom stream which had one. We only had lessons with kids from lower streams in PE and occaionally maths if they got in higher maths sets or someone was in a lower maths set. Streams were base on overall ablity not that partiular subject.

Neice went to same school and think it was still like that.

My kids secondary didn't always set classes and didn't stream. Some subjects like maths or english they'd set but rest it wasn't till year 9 they'd set so there was a real mix of ablities and behavior in the classes.

I got into top stream and maths set so behavior was good - my kids got into top sets but behavior could still be very poor and overall attainment at the school was low - but they still did really well.

The shock would be if pupils didn’t do better at grammar school given that they are selective- pupils are motivated, parents are generally more engaged with their children’s progress and are very supportive of the school

Eldest is only 2 so very young but I hate the idea of making them move primary schools so we want to make a decision by the end of the year so we can move in time to apply for his primary school place.

I have thought a lot about the kids not passing which is why I worry about the move.

We are looking to be in the catchment for Grantham or Bourne Grammar if you know much about them?

Round where I am they are super selective. If you only take the top 1% of course they're going to get better results than a comprehensive (although over tutoring is a problem and some kids do struggle).
Also if the one my son is at is typical they don't get more government funding (if anything they get less as have very few pupil premium children) but they do have some very generous parents. DS's school asks for a voluntary contribution to the school fund, with a suggested amount of £50 a month. Not everyone can give that, but a lot do as they've come from private prep schools and it's a drop in the ocean compared to independent school fees.
It's not all good though. My DD is equally able, but the corresponding girls is unlikely to meet her SEN needs. They told me they currently have one child with an EHCP and can't provide 1 to 1 support. I'd like to think it's just lack of experience, but it wouldn't surprise me if they try to discourage children with SEN from applying.

Obviously they select for ability, but the difference is more engaged parents, and less disruption in class so the kids can get on with learning.

Indeed which means the parents at the school with the left over not as academic kids have less engaged parents, so more likely to be sink schools.

Because they’re selective. The kids have to take an entrance test and to do this you need parents who are fully engaged in their education.
This contributes to higher academic performance.

I’m a governor at both a grammar school and a comprehensive school.
The grammar school governing body is inundated with applications when a vacancy comes up. It’s a selective process and lots of the applicants are parents or alumni. I’m pretty much the only member who has no tie to the school.

Whereas at the comprehensive school we have two vacancies which we just can’t fill. We have one parent governor and she was the only parent who applied.

My partner went to a grammar school in the 70/80's, kids were naughty there too and always a handful of really bad troublesome ones. He was also not pushed. Went from being top of his class in primary to not caring in grammar schools, nobody really made him work at anything so he didn't and not all teachers had control of the class, one teacher in his year left because couldn't handle the kids misbehaving.

I don't know how they are now but I suppose wherever there are kids going through puberty, there will be some trouble!

Another option is an area on the border between Grammar and Comprehensive areas. Buckinghamshire's Grammar schools take a fair number of children from authorities that border Buckinghamshire, but some of those areas also have good comprehensives as the alternative. Within Buckinghamshire itself the Secondary Modern schools are very variable. So it maybe worth looking around the edges of a Grammar school county and seeing where children in those areas get school places.

If they are clever enough to get in, yes.

Are they?

As others have said putting all your eggs into one basket and move Ng for grammar is risky especially as you don't yet have an indicator of how academic or otherwise your child might be.

Also note in our grammar area kids travel from long distances to attend test score is always the first point they view for awarding a place so you aren't even competing against just the local children.

Behaviour possibly is better academically selective= more motivated kids and more involved parents can mean better behaviour but can also mean poor behaviour is better covered up as the school don't want to spoil their reputation many moons ago when I was in secondary school the local grammar was known for having a problem with weed. It was just a poorly kept secret at least amongst the local teens.

As others have said you have at least 7 years before secondary school so even moving for good comprehensive at this stage can be risky. I can appreciate not wanting to up root children during primary but you may be better doing that once you know what might work for your whole family rather than move Ng now on a just in case.

The child is 2 years old.

I think you are getting ahead of yourself given the age of your DC.

A good headteacher can turn an under performing school around within a few years.

It also feels as if education is in a state of flux at the moment, given the situation with VAT on private school fees.

i suspect change is on the horizon for SEN which will effect all schools, this combined with decreasing number of children.
So I think you are planning a bit to far in advance.
Would you consider faith schools? Which often get good results again due to slight selection?

Thanks for the thread. I'm of the same mindset. Would rather homeschool, a good grammar the next best thing. Best of luck to you.

Why are you so against the kids having to move primary schools? It’s not that unusual for kids to move and it’s usually fairly easy to make new friends in the first few years.
Is moving away from your family and friends really worth it? Or are they not a positive support?
I’m definitely not pro sending kids to rough schools and letting them just deal with it, we home educate ours because of ND. But this seems like a slightly mad plan. You have no idea yet how your kids are going to cope with school, your youngest isn’t even old enough yet to have any idea how academically capable they are. Is it worth leaving everyone you know, just on the off chance that a grammar school will work out for them? You might uproot everyone and they end up at a comprehensive anyway.

Grammar schools have a more academic curriculum: more modern languages, Latin and Greek, drama, advanced music with orchestras and choirs, and often more investment in team sports. It wouldn't suit every child, but those who like it will do well. What they don't offer is as much CDT, food technology, or craft subjects, as comprehensives, and they tend not to do BTECs.