Grammar schools and where to move to in UK

[Thegirlisnotright]

Where is a nice area to live with free grammar schools? Quite simply we could move anywhere, but know nothing about most of the UK 😂

Sutton Coldfield (Birmingham)

Bishop Vesey (boys) and Sutton Girls
Queen Marys Grammar (Walsall) QM girls
Handsworth grammars
Various King Edwards across city
KES fee paying/Highclare and other indes

Arthur Terry School (comp) 87 percent GCSE.

You can get a 4 bed for 400k with great train links

or Fairfax comp

Interesting that those who believe in selective education also want a 'good comp' as a fallback.

There are no comprehensive schools in my area and I'm fine with that. The non grammar high schools round here get good results and send plenty of pupils on to university as well, so you're certainly not receiving a second rate education if you go to one.

treaclesoda So are you saying you live in a full grammar and non-grammar area?

Mumteyingherbest, you are absolutely right with what you say about Balcarrass. It is a very attractive area to live, but there is also a premium because of its proximity to grammars and a great back-up or alternative Comp.
It's an upward spiral isn't it! It was probably always an affluent area because of location, which made the local schools do well because of interested, affluent parents. Then the schools success increased demand for houses, increasing prices....an upward spiral, especially in the climate when grammar school places are increasingly sought after and consequently less certain - a grammar place would be many peoples top choice, but with a successful comp which is very highly regarded in the community and not seen as a significant second best , all bases are covered. But the option of having all bases covered is only available to the well heeled, affluent people.
Yes, you can get a grammar place if you live in a cheaper area, but if you don't pass the exam, you might be left with something not so appealing - certainly not sink schools, but perhaps not what those who are obsessed with schools and education want.

ChocolateWombat I fully agree with you.

MumTrying yes, it's full grammar/non grammar where I live.

I think treacle is saying she lives in a grammar and secondary modern area and that the sec mods are good.

I've never heard them called secondary moderns but yes, it's grammar school for those who choose to take the test and pass. And non grammar for everyone else. And the non grammars are good schools too, with a wide range of subjects available and high expectations of their pupils.

Yes i wrote secondary moderns to distinguish them from "true comps" that take all abilities. I've noticed on ofsted reports in grammar areas they will sometimes refer to schools as a "modern" school rather than a comp.

Treacle, if it's a full grammar area, is it one where everyone takes the exam or is it an opt in system?
What sort of percentage go to grammar? If opt in, do most opt in or not?

Sometimes sec moderns are called upper schools, because sec modern has negative connotations for some, from the days when the non-Grammars didn't offer an academic curriculum. However, in a fully 11+ area the non-Grammars simply cannot be Comps - the top whatever% is missing from them.

It is this issue that means people are often keen to avoid them, because they think the lack of the top set children makes a real difference. It can also make a difference to the level of parental support for the school.

What evidence seems to suggest is that sec moderns(non grammars) in full grammar areas tend to do best when they are in affluent areas. Those in less affluent areas don't do so well.

Again, as well as ability being important, a crucial indicator of the success of a school is the parent body and the level of support it gives. It isn't always the case, but often there is a strong correlation between this and parental affluence.

The real pity of all this is that it is the childrenninnthenless affluent areas who lose out. Yes, the clever ones get to grammar (although in smaller no.s than their affluent peers due to less preparation or tutoring) but the ones who don't get to grammar end up in schools that lack a decent number of the clever children and their parents, who are often affluent and interested and who make a real difference to the school. For them, it is worse than being in a Comp where there is more likely to be a fuller range. Yes, these are generalisations but are broadly true and actually show again how the full grammar system disadvantages those from less affluent backgrounds.

Lancaster is a good city to live, excellent single sex grammar schools but also some good comprehensives too

I was going to say this. It's a lovely area, close to the Lakes but also Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds aren't far away. I am happy bringing my kids up here, I don't overly worry about them walking down the street on their own or going out with friends like I would in the city I grew up in. LRGS and LGGS are both excellent grammar schools, but the alternative non grammar schools here are also excellent IMO.

DS1 has just started at LRGS. He was desperate to apply and take the 11+, despite my misgivings over grammar schools. However he would also have been very happy to go to Ripley St Thomas nearby, which is a very good school too, or QES in Kirkby Lonsdale. I've been pleasantly surprised by LRGS so far, but still feel grammar schools aren't the be all and end all and definitely don't suit some students, even those who could pass the 11+.

Secondary modern is what they were called when everywhere had grammars. In Buckinghamshire they are now called Upper Schools & the children have to opt out if they don't want to take the eleven plus

Roomba, I share your view of GS entirely.

Harrogate/Ripon area is good for secondary schools. Harrogate has three really good schools including two faith secondaries and HGS (which is no longer a GS), Knaresborough - good secondary, Boroughbridge - good secondary, Ripon - two outstanding secondaries, RGS and the Academy.

Skipton has two GS (I went to the girl's school many years ago), not sure what Upper Wharfedale is like these days as I don't know anyone with children who go there but on the whole N Yorks secondaries are pretty decent GS or not.

Forgot Nidderdale at Pateley - really really lovely school, fab pastoral care.

GS isn't the be all and end all OP.

The grammar school system where I am is opt in. I suppose maybe technically that makes the non grammars into comprehensive schools then? But in reality I'd say they aren't really, because most children do opt to take the test and none of them are called comprehensive schools or promote themselves as such.

Same here treacle and I would say that less than half on average, maybe even a third, take the test, certainly in the primaries I know of.

In my child's class of 30 children there are only four who aren't taking the test.

Wow, only ⅓ took it in DD's class.

From the people I know IRL, not everyone wants their DC to go to GS, not everyone wants the homework, the perceived pressure. Some feel their DC would do better at the school with the more outdoorsy feel/fab pastoral care, others at the one with the more creative reputation, etc., etc..

All the secondaries are good near me, the GS is just one of them.

I think schools are only truly comprehensive where there is no selective state option. In this case, all abilities will be present.

In areas where there are few grammars and most go to the non-selective option, or in areas with super-selectives which have no catchment and take in from a huge geographical area, so take very few local children, the system is closer to being comprehensive, but still couldn't be called properly comprehensive. In these schools where there may well still be lots of very able children, many parents will be happy for their able kids to go to those schools - again, the ones that do best tend to be in more affluent areas.

I would go as far as to say that the affluence of an area is a greater determinant of the success of schools than selection on ability. This is evidenced by the grammars in less affluent areas of Bucks which sometimes perform relatively disappointingly considering they are selective, and the success of non-selective schools in affluent areas. Of course the really really top schools are both selective and take in affluent children - either because they are selective and have a catchment which is mostly affluent, or they are superselective so take clever children who are from backgrounds where the children can access the parental support or tutoring to fight off the mass competition. Queen Elizabeth in Barnet, St Olaves in Orpington and the super selectives in Kent spring to mind in this category.

There will be differences in numbers who opt in which reflect the affluence of the area - sorry to keep banging on about this. In affluent areas, parents are more aspirational and put their kids in for 11+. The pressures, homework etc are seen as a positive, whereas in less affluent areas these might be seen as negatives. And if a school has a history of few opting in, then it can be seen that grammar is not 'for people like us' and it becomes a pattern.

Is opt in or opt out better? Hard to say really. People often feel opt out leads to those with weaker children who opt out because they know they have no chance or don't want the pressure stigmatise their kids. However, at least with opt out, those from less affluent backgrounds who are clever,Mat least take the test and get I offers - which they may not if it relies on parents to opt in.

I live in a very affluent area Chocolate, 85% of GS places go to in catchment children, yet no more than ½ of the children in all of the primaries I know sit the test.

Perhaps the quality of the other local schools has a bearing on it here, it doesn't matter if you don't want to go to GS, most of the other schools are equally as good. I don't know, I do know that there are far more children who move from private primaries to the GS than there are from the state schools. I guess they must be driven out of catchment to private primary, returning for a free GS education.

most of the other schools are equally as good in which case why have the grammar schools?

I don't live in an affluent area at all. It's a rural area with the resulting rural poverty. I'd guess (from vague chats at the school gates and knowing what jobs people do) that maybe about a third of parents at most would be graduates for example.

poisonedbypen - Secondary modern is what they were called when everywhere had grammars.

It's also what they are classed as on the DfE performance tables.

Waves at BarchesterFlowers - we clearly went to the same school!