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?

In the kindest possible tone: OP, you are coming across as very foolish. Firstly, your question as to why children do better at grammars and then the later post that your eldest is 2! Enjoy your children and dont worry about the next 9 years. A lot can change.

Schools that were ranked Outstanding can decline and the opposite is true.

100% this. No other reason in my experience (parent of two kids who have just finished grammar). Also, the more selective they are, the more it applies. By that I mean the part of Kent (I believe the only county to have grammars as a policy, ie they are county-wide) I'm in has quite a few grammars, so if you pass the Kent test - what they call the 11+ - you're in. I believe in areas where grammars are more sparse, passing it doesn't necessarily guarantee you a place, so the school really gets to only have best of the best academically. Therefore, the grammar my kids went to is quite good, getting better results than the secondary schools, but not miles and miles better, whereas in some grammars that can be more selective, results are sometimes amazing. Hope that makes sense?
Just reading other answers, about smaller classes, more invested teachers. Neither true for my kids' grammar school.

You don't want kids pressured but are going along with grammar schooling? The pressure for that needs to start by year 4!

@Karma1387 you never know but your DC could be the disruptive or the less able academic ones

If you’re considering moving anywhere in the country for grammar, why not do loads of research and move near one of the best comprehensives in the country instead? As it’s too early to know how academic the kids are. Look at the Good Schools Guide etc

That said, we have one at grammar. The main difference compared to their state primary is there are near to zero behavioural issues. Teachers just seem to breeze through the material with no interruptions.

The other option is becoming one of those exam tourists and taking every grammar test to see if you pass then moving there. However obviously means moving primaries for the others.

Sending our child to a grammar is one of the best things we have done, especially when we hear toe curling stories on the regular about what goes on at the supposedly ‘outstanding’ local comps. The Grammar school is traditional, hard work is rewarded / respected and poor behaviour is not tolerated. The whole focus is not on SEN or poorly behaved kids and it is not run like a military boot camp (only way the non-selective across the road manages to get anything done at all). Teachers are subject specialists who enjoy being there. Extra curricular activities are amazing. Children are not held back by all the focus being on the 3/4 borderline kids - they are engaged and work at a fast pace. Both myself and my DH are Oxbridge educated. He went to private school and I went to a very low performing comp where less than 20% of children managed passes in English and Maths. I succeeded in spite, rather than because, of the environment I found myself in. I vowed that this would not be the experience of my own very bright and motivated children.

I am trying to make decisions based on what is going to be best for my kids and their future. It is a very hard decision to make.

Isn't it obvious? If you select academic kids (and in most cases, academic kids who happen to have aspirational aka pushy parents) then you will get better results than the comprehensive schools which take everyone.

And yes, there probably is less disruption in the grammar schools, but the same applies to top sets in comprehensive schools. Kids who do well at school are much less likely to act up.

I suspect that, in most cases, the kids that do well in the grammar system would do equally as well in a comprehensive. There is just a higher concentration of them in grammar schools so it looks like the schools are making the difference.

If you don't like pressure and rules in the school system then do not touch a grammar school - they are all about rules and pressure.

100% there is no guarantee about anything to do with our kids. We can't be sure they wont have SEN or behaviour issues.

My youngest brother grew up in Kent.. He didn't pass the test and had to travel miles to nearest comp

This, behaviour is king when it comes to driving academic progress.

I work in a girls grammar school. They have to take two entrance tests to get in, it is very competitive. The students achieve very high grades almost all 8’s and 9’s. Most are naturally very intelligent, some have a lot of tutoring to keep up.

My DC are benefiting enormously from grammar school education. The whole ethos is different and every child there wants to be there, unlike at the local comp where a not insignificant number of children don’t want to be there and are determined to mess up the lessons for everyone else. These ‘don’t want to be there’ children are usually the less able (whatever their innate ability because their acting up means they miss out on learning).

So grammars have accidentally ruled out those disruptive children because they wouldn’t pass the 11+. Related to that is the fact that many teachers would prefer to work in a grammar school where children want to learn and are keen to be stretched academically, so grammars often have excellent teachers, and teachers who stay.

My DCs’ grammar is quite traditional - in a good way. That ‘old-fashioned’ ethos helps too. That’s not to say there aren’t good comprehensives but many, including our local one, aren’t that great. The driver for the grammar school choice BTW wasn’t me but my eldest DC who visited the comp and said they didn’t want to go there. So, no, it’s not always pushy parents as someone implied above. In addition, our grammar school does a number of subjects that the comp doesn’t, including more modern languages.

I would suggest you research areas with grammar schools and also good comprehensives. I live in the East Midlands, and the nearest grammar is about 20 minutes drive. It’s highly selective, but for the kids who don’t get in, there are 2 very good comprehensives nearby.

I would be wary of moving somewhere just for a good grammar schools, without knowing how academic your kids are going to be.

Only if you think your kids will pass the entrance exams and score high enough to make the cut - most kids who get into grammars are tutored within an inch of their lives from the middle of junior school and still many of them don’t get in.

Personally I think you would be insane to move jobs and houses on the hope that your child is in the top 10% of those who sit the entrance exams in any given year. Seriously. You’d be better off aiming for the best performing local secondary and hiring tutors. And being very present, engaged parents in terms of monitoring homework etc.

Your children have not even started primary school yet, but you are trying to anticipate what any particular secondary school might be like in 7,8,9 years time. That’s not a good idea. A poorly performing school can get a new headteacher and really turn itself around in the space of 4-5 years. You don’t have a crystal ball and I agree with a previous poster that you are getting ahead of yourself. I would say relax a little, you have plenty of time. You don’t even know what kind of primary school would be best for your particular children, let alone secondaries. Plus the same kind of school might not suit both children. One of mine went to highly selective grammar school and the other didn’t, because it wasn’t right for her.

More teaching time, as far less disruption. In a non-selective school, teachers could spend most of the lesson telling kids off and trying to engage them and keep order. There's also less of what you might term an underachievement culture as kids know they've been sent there to learn and do well, whereas at a secondary/comp, it's far more likely that kids, particularly boys, may be reluctant to realise their potential as they might get taunted for it, which is pretty sad really tbh.

"We are now exploring lincolnshire"

Slightly to the south of Lincolnshire is Peterborough (about 10 miles south of Stamford).

Peterborough has one very good school indeed that is not selective (well, apart from a few places) - the King's School Peterborough. It has been oversubscribed every year for the last 20 years.

The only trouble is, you have to go to church regularly (or attend a mosque or mandir etc) if you really want to be sure of a place (either that or live very close indeed to the school).

The order that they take pupils is:

1 Looked after children

2 Children of worshipping members of the Church of England, Church of Wales, The Episcopal Church of Scotland and Methodist Church of Great Britain

3 Children of staff members

4 Siblings of current pupils

5 Children of worshipping members of other Christian denominations or of Other Major Faiths.

6 Any other children based on the closest to the school

Incidentally, parents are marked on how often they attend services and for how many years.

Its not so much me not knowing why they are better as I assumed the reason which lots have confirmed.

My family on the other hand didn't believe that just because kids pass an exam at 10 years old it means that behaviour etc is much better and means a better school life and academic results. Hence I thought to world of mumsnet would be able to provide some input.

What makes think homeschooling will be best for them? What teaching/education experience do you have?

I think if you are at a grammar school then your peers all want to do well at school and you don’t get so many pupils who want to disrupt the class. It will be a good learning environment. Grammar schools can attract better subject teachers as they want to teach their subject without disruption.
If you have a grammar school system, then the other schools in the area are not really comprehensive schools. They are old style secondary modern schools.
As a child, I was transferred from a secondary modern school to a grammar school. The thing that struck me the most was the discipline that was adhered to.

Just to say be warned that just because a school is called a Grammar School and if you want to go there and are not in the catchment area you can take the 11+ to get in. Some pupils will be there because they live the nearest to the school
We have a couple of Grammar Schools like that in our area.

Personally I wouldn’t bother looking at a Grammar School. After all your child might not get in and then you are stuck with the Secondary Modern system

There are areas with very good comprehensive schools. What about looking at good to excellent comprehensives and moving to within a few feet of one of those

I do think the old fashioned grammar school education were very restrictive. I think a good comprehensive is much better than a grammar

To read the posters on here, anyone would think that Grammar Schools are some holy grail of teaching. They are not. They are a school like every other school and will have their own set of issues.
Most of the parents will be at work full time and being a secondary school there will be much less involvement with school

Be careful you aren’t putting pressure on your child to perform a certain way

Imagine if you moved, changed jobs and up ended your life and your child fails the 11+ or ends up in a school they hate. Or just wants to do something else that the grammar doesn’t cover

The pressure will be enormous

Comprehensives tend to focus on getting the weakest pupils up to a C and the brightest 1 percent, and the middle lose out. Grammars focus on getting everyone up to As, and those getting B/C can be made to feel like low performers. Generally less disruption in class in grammar schools. Pros and cons.

I have seen the Kings school Peterborough. We are only about 40 mins from their currently but the religious element is the difficult part as we are not religious at all and as much as the school seems incredible I wont preach something I don't believe in to my kids as that is very wrong.