Outstanding secondary school vs Grammar school

[estebancolberto]

Our house is within the catchment area for a "outstanding" secondary school. However, we would like to know whether we should consider moving to an area with a grammar school instead? How do they compare in education achievement and future prospects? Should a kid will be fine studying in "outstanding" secondary school vs a grammar school?

We’ve chosen a grammar (quite a distance away from home) over a local outstanding comp.

The main reason is my DS is working several years ahead of his age and the comp did little to provide information about how they stretch children like him (but loads about Sen provision at open evening).

I think it depends on ability, if they are super bright the Grammer might be better equipped for them but again this also depends on which grammar as they vary hugely.

OK you mean outstanding comprehensive secondary school v moving to an area that has grammar and 'comprehensives' (but without top sets) secondary schools.

I live in Hants. We don't have grammars. If you have a good/outstanding comp why would you put yourself through the stress of 11+? A good comp is perfectly capable of producing kids with all GCSE 7-9 including triple science and a language (or 2). What more do you want?

Most of the country doesn't have grammar schools and the students get perfectly fine results.

A reasonably intelligent, well motivated and supported child will do well in any school.

But if you want to pursue this perhaps look at the GCSE results and Progress 8 scores for both schools. Clearly the grammar school has a head start in good results because they are creaming off the most academic pupils but the Progress 8 score shows the progress that pupils make.

Another thing to consider is how diverse each school is. That was something that was important to us as we feel education is about more than academics and we wanted our children to mix with and make friends with a wide range of people.

The best thing really would be to visit both schools and get a feel for which one you think would be the best fit for your child.

Actually I would put more weight on the actual GCSE results rather than the progress 8. Outstanding schools with a good Progress 8 score can be very good at adding value but if there is not a large cohort of kids capable of achieving high grades then a very bright kid may not have a large enough peer group to encourage them to achieve at full potential.

When you say an area with a grammar school I assume you mean an area which is not a full grammar area but in which a very small number of grammar schools still exist. In these areas you are more likely to find comprehensive schools with high numbers of very capable and well supported children. I live in such an area but still chose the grammar school mainly because all the outstanding high achieving comprehensives were faith based and we are the wrong faith. I have not been disappointed despite the travel required.

The grammar school has a totally different ethos and is focused not just on results but on attitude and ambition as well. The high achievements and hard work are expected but there is also a real focus on leadership skills and future prospects.

As for diversity the school is one of the most diverse in the LA, much more so than the high achieving faith based alternatives and this was important to us as we are a mixed heritage family.

Whilst I don't fully support the grammar system as it stands I do feel that my 2 boys are in an environment which suits them well and stretches them.

I also recommend visiting both schools to get a feel for them.

If looking at GCSE results, you need to look at these filtered by 'previous high attainers'. Actually you should do that for Progress8 too.

It depends so much on the individual schools. There are amazing grammars, there are soulless exam factories and those resting on long ago laurels. Brilliant comprehensive and high schools-average and OK and a few poor comprehensive and high schools.

Of course children in (true) good comprehensive schools will achieve well. At my DD’s comprehensive school, 46% of students achieve all 7-9 at GCSE and over 90% achieve 5 or more GCSEs at 9-4. More importantly for me, my DD is clear that a person’s worth and their ability to be a good friend is not restricted by what they’ll get in their GCSEs. She is in y11 and has friends who will get mainly 4/5s, some all 9s, some with Oxbridge aspirations, some looking at apprenticeships and Btec rather than A level. And you know what, they are all fabulous girls.

If you have a great comprehensive on your doorstep then why move and put your DC through the stress and uncertainty of the 11+ and then what if they don’t pass? I love the fact that I’m in Hants, we had the pick of two very good schools that cater for all abilities and no stress about exams or tutoring. DC is doing really well.

Grammar schools are frequently discussed on here, probably because of the stress, exams, when to tutor, then catchment or high enough mark. The majority of children in England go to a comprehensive and if it’s a good one that caters for all abilities then they do well.

I think you’ll have to visit both and make your own judgement. We visited 2 secondary schools and 1 grammar. Both DCs went to the grammar but it does struggle financially in comparison to secondaries.

If your only basis for thinking the comprehensive is outstanding is the Ofsted result, I'd take it with a pinch of salt tbh. The Grammar is likely to be better in certain respects, but not necessarily all. It partly depends on your priorities.

I have taught in 'outstanding' comprehensives which were far from it. Some supposedly outstanding comprehensives have poor behaviour at a level which wouod shock a lot of parents if they were a fly on the wall. The 'good' Grammar I work in now is far better than any outstanding comprehensive I know of. That's not to say that truly outstanding comprehensives don't exist, but don't trust an Ofsted report.

@Fairislefandango , to add to your post Tiffin Boys in SW London which is regarded as 1 of the most super selective grammars there is has recently been downgraded to Good using the new inspection framework.

OP, you should probably spend some time on the elevenplusexams.co.uk website, there aren't that many grammars in the U.K.

I live in a part of the country where there have been no grammar schools for decades. The kids in higher sets at the (excellent) local state comprehensives all do really well. I would not opt into the stress of the 11 plus as long as your local comp is good.

I live in a part of the country where there have been no grammar schools for decades. The kids in higher sets at the (excellent) local state comprehensives all do really well. I would not opt into the stress of the 11 plus as long as your local comp is good.

I, on the other hand, live near the border between two counties, one with no grammars and the other with a boys' one and a girls' one within reach of us. I have worked in several of the local 'good' comps and know people who have worked in many of the others. I now work at the girls' grammar and bitterly regret not entering my dc for the 11+ (I had some reasons at the time). Ds is hoping to go to the boys' grammar for 6th form. There is simply no comparison between the Grammar and even the best of the local comps. The Ofsted reports do not reflect this though.

Can you be more specific about the areas/issues you mean when you say "there is no comparison between the grammar and even the best of the local comps"? Outcome of GCSEs? Behaviour? Inability to recognise diversity of ability?

Can you be more specific about the areas/issues you mean when you say "there is no comparison between the grammar and even the best of the local comps"?

Behaviour, level of staff turnover, positive attitudes, extra-curricular provision, results (obviously), quality of staff, ability to actually recruit staff, relationship between staff and students, supportiveness of parents, to name but some.

But really, most of it comes down to behaviour, because the ability to teach properly, to recruit and retain good staff, to provide good opportunities for students and to have good, civilised relationships with them, and to have staff with the goodwill and energy to keep providing an excellent education and extracurricular provision... is all largely down to not having to spend all your time and energy trying to firefight behaviour.

My DDs went to an outstanding secondary then onto (two different) grammars for A levels. I wish they’d gone to grammars at 11. That says it all really.

My DDs went to an outstanding secondary then onto (two different) grammars for A levels. I wish they’d gone to grammars at 11. That says it all really.

Yep. I actually really feel I failed my children by not getting them to do the 11+, especially as I had the advantage of going to a grammar myself. The comp they attend has gone seriously downhill in the last few years. It was fine when we decided to send them, and dh was newly deputy head there, so we felt we ought to. Plus it's 5 mins from our door. It was the wrong decision though.

Thanks. Not our experience at all. Extra-curricular (sports, drama, music) much more varied at comprehensive (vs “super-selective single sex grammar” a miles or so away) and at which my DD secured a place and very happy with how behaviour is addressed. I don’t understand why you think that higher academic ability translates to better behaviour? Are you saying that children with lower academic ability are automatically disruptive? My DD is y11 and will get all 8s/9s in her GCSEs at her “comp” so just keen to understand your data source?

A good comp is perfectly capable of producing kids with all GCSE 7-9 including triple science and a language (or 2). What more do you want?

This ^^

In 2018 when DD took her A levels at her comprehensive school 45% of the students achieved A/A*.

Our county doesn't have any grammar schools. As a result the good comprehensives are very good.

The issue is though you’re bordering a grammar area so it magnifies the issues, if one school is advertising where are teachers going to go, the reality is the grammar. Where I am in Hants, you can’t access a single grammar, it simply is comprehensive or private and the schools are great. (I went to a grammar myself.)

DD is at an excellent comp, she reports very few issues with behaviour, bullying is minimal, quote ‘it’s not cool to bully and staff jump on it when it does happen’, her school is fully staffed and seems to have no trouble recruiting, staff go out of their way for the students, come across positive and happy, an impressive range of extra-curricular and the school is known for being excellent with SEN and trying to get the best results out of everyone. Why would you pick moving to a grammar area and the stress of 11 plus, the worry if your DC doesn’t get in, when you have a school like that on your doorstep?

No grammar schools around here although there are some in a neighbouring county.

How old is your DC? What would you do if one passes 11+ and the other doesn’t? Do you actually want to live in the location with the grammars? Moving house is a big upheaval for everyone (and expensive).

We have been very happy with our local outstanding secondary, with dc at opposite ends of the spectrum academically. They have both found friendship groups.

There's outstanding and outstanding. For example I live near two outstanding comps but one gets around 75% A - C GCSE equivalent -(grades 9-5 or whatever it is) and one gets about 60% so quite some difference.
I would avoid grammar if the comp is at the higher end of outstanding unless you guarantee your child is a "grammar" child and will get in and thrive.

There's no guarantee your child will get into the grammar schools, and the non grammars around them tend to be sink schools, that's why they are so controversial

I get the impression the standard of non-grammars is very area dependent.

My ds went to an inner city boys grammar (Ofsted outstanding) from 11-16 and is now at an Ofsted outstanding comprehensive sixth form in a rural area.

The main difference we've noticed is staff turnover and absence. His grammar had a very stable staff, the school maybe lost 1-3 teachers each year - although I think in his the first two years there no one left. He had the same form tutor for 5 years, lots of the staff were former pupils of the school and very committed. The senior leadership team was also very stable and incredibly efficient and responsive. I can only assume that the staff stick around because of the good behaviour of the kids and good management.

His sixth form experience has been dogged by staff absence and the senior leadership team seems quite fractured/not communicative. It takes ages for anyone to pick up on issues, they then respond with various promises which never get implemented.

Obviously these things could just be school specific, but I do think staff stability is a key thing - and I assume a low turnover of staff is more likely in a grammar school where there are fewer behavioural issues.