I believe a lot of parents who were offered grammar and private would take grammar. Many of these parents would perhaps not consider a comprehensive school.
However this can be misleading. As the DFE website shows, the performance of 'high attainers' at some comprehensives can be better than at some grammar schools. Parents say 'look at this, only 65% GCSE passes, the grammar has 100%', but overlook the fact that the 65% includes some bottom sets who, with a little luck, won't go anywhere near their darlings.
Although of course the purpose of the grammar school might be to attempt to exclude the scrotes from their children's lives entirely.
I would note however that private schools, especially around London, where fees and standards are very high, that are similarly selective as the London 'super-selective' state schools perform a lot better than the grammar does. The grammar schools, by virtue of excluding all the low ability children, really don't have to do much to impress.
On that basis I would say that a comprehensive with a high number of 'high attainers' and good outcomes for them (I imagine the two go hand in hand to be honest), would be every bit as good as a grammar school. But neither, obviously, is the equal of a private school with three times the expenditure per pupil, but then when you are finding that expenditure directly, yourself, then you have to think twice....
Xenia I would imagine the Governor would probably have some sort of City pad in the week and then a nice mansion out in the country somewhere. Although £2400/week buys you surprisingly little.... This appears to be some sort of nuclear waste dump: www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-35917798.html