How does a grammar school education differ from an ordinary comprehensive?

[Haziedoll]

Lots of my friends are starting to talk about applying for grammar school in the next few years. I'm still undecided because it is too early to tell if that type of school is right for my child. We don't live in a grammar school area but the neighbouring county has grammar schools that are usually undersubscribed and lots of children from our primary school get places at grammar schools.

I have seen lots of threads on Mumsnet saying that if the child isn't exceptionally bright they will struggle at grammar school.

How exactly does the curriculum in a grammar school differ from a bog-standard comprehensive in a non-grammar school county? Given that both schools are following the national curriculum, why is it often said that children who just scrape through the 11 plus will struggle to keep up?

We have comps and grammars as well. We are out of county but in catchment for two grammars and in county and in catchment for a selection of comps.

We were certainly pushed harder and had a lot more homework than friends at the secondary. We also did O levels and they did CSEs. I'm glad that's changed as it meant that a bright child at secondary couldn't get the same grades as those at grammar (a grade A CSE was equivalent to a grade C O level).

A comp should not offer " mouse GCSEs" to a pupil who is an able student. A comp will also send students to Oxbridge.

LeQueen
well it would be - it has pre ruled out the 75% of children who will not go to university.
The ONLY way a Grammar would get my support would be if it took IN the top 25% and turned OUT the top 15%
and there is no evidence anywhere in the country (from the VA data publicly available) of that happening.
VA at most grammars is under 1010 which considering they have NO thick kids, means they are borderline coasting.

State funded selective education - on the basis of religion or exam is just wrong. you want selection, pay for it.

Well yes of course it will because they have a higher concentrationof very ale students . My concern would be what percentage of students who have the abilty to go to Oxbridge actually go. Not the percenatge of the whole school population. I have an A level class of 6. 2 of that six are going to Oxbridge and the remainder are all going to Rusell groups. I am confident that these students have experienced an education equal to, if not better than, what they have experienced in the local grammar school.

Interesting that a lot of people have said that good schools don't offer the "mickey mouse" vocational qualifications. Our local comp was offering the very traditional academic options and it was criticised in the OFSTED report for not offering enough vocational choices. It now offers two pathways, the Ebacc which includes at least one humanities subject, modern language and 3!separate sciences and then more vocational subjects for the non-Ebacc students. It is a comprehensive school in the true sense.

The school is definitely on the up, it had a dire reputation a few years ago, there is now a new head in post who is determined to make it a school to be proud of. It also has a great presence in the community which I feel is really important. I will watch with interest over the next years but my gut feeling is the comprehensive. Will wait and see.

The Latin teacher at my daughter's grammar is so rubbish, that no one does it after year 7.

Seriously, though, quite a few of the girls struggle at first with moving from being the cleverest girl in the class to being just average in their class.

My dd1 is expected to be very self sufficient. I get the feeling that they are taught to learn, rather than being taught to pass exams. (A friend who is also a teacher at the school says this is true in her experience.)

There are loads of opportunities available, and the parents are very involved in the school, particularly in careers seminars and fundraising.

My second dd would not cope with this environment, even if she did pass the test. (She's dyslexic, so although she is very bright, I just didn't get her to do it, as we are lucky enough to be able to send her to a very good selective independent, which will give her much more support.)

But don't think it follows that if they can pass the test that they won't struggle. In a super selective, they may just be at the bottom of the class, even if they are very bright.

You need to choose the best school for each child.

Agree Handmade.Every child is different and being very bright doesn't automatically mean grammar is the best place.

Our catchment area has no grammars but we are on the border of a county which does have grammar schools and anyone is allowed to enter for the 11 plus.

DD1 is dyslexic but very bright. We felt a super selective, high pressured environment was not the best place for her at age 11. She went to our local comp and did very well. She is now in second year at a RG uni.

And she did a "mickey mouse" Gcse which had no effect whatsoever on her uni prospects. When she applied for uni she got 5 offers, four of which were RG, so I really wish people would stop getting their knickers in a twist about them. They will not ruin your DCs life!!

Agree LeQueen, but some people don't understand that.
There was a thread earlier this week where the mum was worried that one "soft option" would ruin the career choice of her DD. Like you say, as long as the other 9/10 options are solid, one will make little difference.

OP, there is so much variation between schools that you can only really compare the comp you are looking at with the grammar you are looking at.

DS is at a superselective grammar. DD will be going to the comp in september. The comp does not offer enough academic subjects for it to even be possible for DD to do an entirely academic set of GCSEs. This is not because of the presence of the grammar, as there are other comps in the LEA that do offer a full range of academic subjects to the top sets. DD will not even get to do two modern foreign languages, let alone Latin. DS does Greek, Latin, French and German. On the other hand, DS's school has almost no provision for drama and dance. DD will be able to do both Drama and Dance GCSE.

As for children who scrape in not being able to cope, that is often said on MN. But if you look at the research on the Sutton Trust website, they claim that the biggest improvement between starting secondary and GCSE in grammar school pupils is among those who are the least able on starting secondary. Comparatively, the least improvement in comprehensives (true comps, not in the grammar areas) is among those who would have been at the bottom in a grammar. Children who are very bright will do well in a good comp or a good grammar.

ClothesOfSand ... that's similar to the situation here.

dd missed out on the super selective, she'd have been in the bottom third there on admission with a couple more marks (should we have tutored?). She's a bright kid, top of her peer group with academic interests. She's not truly gifted, not top 10% of grammar girls but the type of child who would make great progress in an environment where expectations are really high. She's not one who will do well anywhere - I don't believe there are many (?any) children who are.

She'll be going to the good comp - 68% A-C including maths & English, teaching rated good, nice facilities, decent area. She won't be able to do a full set of academic GCSEs - no Latin, no classics, no separate sciences, no chance to do two MFLs, no further maths ... they pad the curriculum out with business, law, psychology, dance, Btechs. The pace of the lessons is slower, work load is lower, expectations aren't so great. They get some children leaving with a clutch of A/A/Bs but they never get into the selective 6th forms either state or independent. They can't keep up - those school have already covered a chunk of the A level syllabus by the end of the GCSE years. 6th form leavers don't ever go to Oxbridge, ex-polytechnics is the rule - destinations are more travel & tourism than medicine.

I can't say I'm thrilled about it.

This isn't a situation where the grammar is creaming off the brightest kids - the grammar hasn't got a catchment area & only a tiny percentage of local children get in. There is an outstanding comp in area too - 3 MFLs, separate sciences, impressive leavers destinations, etc etc. Children don't leave for the grammar 6th form because they can do just as well there. Why can one school manage it but the other can't?

Our comp (below average results, like all the other comps round here, there's a lot of creaming off to private schools) does offer a pretty good range of academic subjects at GCSE and lots of streaming from the start - in yr 7 they are streamed for maths, English, science, dt at least, and languagees from yr8. The most academic kids tend to do 3 sciences, 1 or 2 MFLs, history or geography. So I don't think an academic child will come out with very different results from a grammar.

I have one dc who would (I think) do well anywhere. and one who is very mixed, much stronger in some subjects than others, and for her I'm really relieved we don't have a grammar option close by as I think she's too up and down, different every day still. Not the sort of child you could categorise at 10 as academic or not.

clothesofsands could you please link to the Sutton trust research? I'd really like to find it and there's so much on their site I can't find it. Thanks.

I went to grammar school, out of county, it had no catchment. For me it was a choice of grammar/comp as local schools were comprehensives. I don't think the situation has changed much

Does anyone know if there's any evidence/research about the difference between the two types of schools in the amount of disruptive behaviour?

Viva
Highly unlikely - for several reasons

• any grammar school will by definition not include children with severe learning difficulties that are often associated with behaviour
• any selective school will maintain its reputation by dealing with things 'quietly'
• OFSTED have a reputation over recent years of looking at a schools SEF forms rather than looking at what really goes on.

DH went to a school in London last year that is a flagship Outstanding selective and came home unbelievably frazzled - he had worried about getting his kit nicked and the car vandalised - it was anarchy - BUT on paper it looked FAB.

Or my school - fee paying, utter anarchy in my 6th form years and utterly brushed under the carpet. Even the sacked head's wikipedia page glosses over what happened

I agree with talkingpeace.

My ds went to grammar (thankfully that period of our life has now finished). The curriculum was as narrow as mine was in the 1970s. They were a 'technology college' that somehow forgot to do fabrics or food. They lurved the boys who were A students - in fact the GCSE revision classes were to push A grade english students to A*.

I look at the comp my friend's daughter goes to and want to cry. Her subject choices are broad, and the support she receives far outpasses that my ds got.

And along with all that.you have to consider the remaining 66% of children in a grammar school area. Look at the statistics. Many poorly performing schools are in grammar school areas, where the top 33% or so has been creamed off before you start.

And along with that, look at 11+ tutoring. Statistics in our area only confirm that the poorer children do not get into grammar schools because any naturally bright children's places are 'stolen' by tutored children. It's a massive, money-grabbing industry.

I had experience of being educated in both a grammar and a comp. my first 2 years of secondary school were at a grammar then the school became a comp. However the kids who were at the grammar continued in the top stream ( 3 classes of 30 pupils) while the new entrants from the high schools occupied the middle and bottom streams. We all had the same teachers, facilities etc. The main differences between the top or grammar steam were there were less disruption by pupils in class and the teaching pace was faster so you covered more areas of a subject. We didn't get better pastoral care or extra tuition if we didn't understand what was being taught in class and a fair few of my classmates did have to have extra tuition outside of school in order to keep up.

End of year exams with class positions posted in the assembly area was the norm and if you did badly in too many key subjects you could be moved down the streams. My dsis who is a year younger than me experienced mixed ability classes when the comp went fully comp in her last year of Olevels and she has vowed never to put her own dc through the experience. She said she spent the year trying to teach herself work she needed to pass her Olevels hole the teacher used her and the other able kids as TAs to help the bottom kids as the teacher focused on the middle ability.

mumzy
you are confusing a comp school with one that does not operate setting

DD does not to ANY classes in mixed ability
DS does some and from next year will do non.
THe SCHOOL is mixed ability but the teaching groups are not.

I have lived in two different LEAs since having children and both local schools were sink schools, despite the fact there is no one grammar school in the region. The schools fail all their children, this creates a mix of reactions by the local families who care for their children's education and inevitably end up finding a faith, moving or for the very few going private.

In both cases, I have also known some brave parents who thought their children being bright would do well anywhere and did send their children there. In all cases it was a complete disaster and the children were pulled out.

I think the schools in both cases are failing because of weak teaching, weak discipline and weak leadership. I think the catchment is a bit of a red herring as the school down the road, with a similar catchment is outstanding, oversubscribed and doing very well indeed.

yearfour
up to a point you are absolutely right

my local school is the sink
and that is a direct result of Bliar's "parental choice" policy which means that they are 'short' over 100 pupils per cohort - and you can bet your bottom dollar that its not the idle thick parents among the missing.

we were just talking with the DCs over lunch about the number of children from round here who get the bus to their school.
If we were all back at the local school it would be better
BUT
I would rather home ed than send them there as it stands (NB its a sponsored academy with a spanking new building going up)

in our particular case there is a solution on the horizon - and it relies on lovely hardworking Polish Immigrants and their children and houses being built elsewhere
but its a bugger of a situation generally

OP in answer to your question GS only take top 5 - 25 % of ability group so usually these pupils will be academic , have worked hard to get into the school, value their places and therefore less disruptive pupils in class. They will also be taught at a faster pace so cover more in subjects. Also very able children do better with other equally able children whereas less able children do better when the top ability group hasn't been creamed off.

A comp maybe settled or streamed and if your dc are in the top streams or sets again there is usually less disruptive elements in the class but otherwise disruptive pupils are very common in middle and bottom streams/ sets. Some comps have multi ability classes across the board and IMO they are hopeless for the very and least able as the teacher delivers lessons to the middle ability and disruption byupils in class is ver common. In regards to pastoral care, facilities, extracurricular activities I would say in my neck of the woods there's not any significant difference between the GS and comps.