Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

Grammar or comprehensive?

55 replies

PrettyCandles · 25/09/2010 16:59

Selective grammar school with outstanding Ofsteds, 4-form entry, boys.

Comprehensive with outstanding Ofsteds, 7-form entry, mixed.

Haven't yet visited the schools, so don't yet have personal opinions on them.

So what are the benefits/disadvantages of each type of school?

OP posts:
RustyBear · 04/10/2010 09:37

Not in all cases, though, because there is a limit to how much value a school can add when the maximum score is A* - you don't know how much higher the pupil could have gone.

batgirl · 04/10/2010 14:33

I think I recognise "Hogwarts"! If it is the school I think it is (RS?), then I have a DS in Y8.
He is geeky, unsporty, socially inept & has never ever been happier at school. He is part of a group of like minded boys who play board games at lunch time, read books, sing in the choir & CHAT (chatting was previously unheard of for my son!. I cannot speak highly enough of the school, the pastoral side of things has impressed me particularly.

RustyBear · 04/10/2010 16:33

That's the one, batgirl!

Milliways · 04/10/2010 17:17

I have/had a child in both types of school.

DS is at "Hogwarts" and I totally agree re the Pastoral care - although his lunchtimes were a bit more boisterous in lower years & he broke his arm at school playing football one lunchtime! Grin

DD went to an "Outstanding Comp" which offers girls much more than the girls Grammar here. She recovered from being an 11+"failure", made loads of friends, was in school plays, did DofE and tons of other extra-curricular stuff, had endless support with UCAS forms and is now enjoying Uni life at another "outstanding" institute :)

Merle · 04/10/2010 18:23

My son is in his 5th week of an all-boys, 4-from, selective grammar.

We chose it for various reasons,but the fact that it was a lot smaller then the local comp, was significant.

So far it seems to be going well. Our son is emotionally young and from what we know about the school we thought that it would be a better atmosphere for him. In general boys are behind girls in this respect anyway, so being just with boys can be an advantage.

nottirednow · 05/10/2010 09:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

JustGettingByMum · 05/10/2010 09:47

Given that my nephew is at a well known Grammar in B'ham , and my god son at a highly prestigious Grammar in Kingston, it's interesting that my son (at the comp) has achieved entirely comparable GCSE and AS results to both of them.

Plus, I know I am biased, but I think my son has had the better education (in the sense of educating the whole person rather than focussing on academic results)

RustyBear · 05/10/2010 10:21

All I'm saying is that the 'value added' is not a reliable measure of a school's quality, because you can't judge how much value has been added when there is an upper limit to results that you are judging by. This obviously applies to the comprehensive as well.

vespasian · 05/10/2010 23:20

I disagree Seeker that you cannot have a true comp in a grammar school area. I teach in one and we are fully comp.

Jajas · 05/10/2010 23:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker · 06/10/2010 06:10

"I disagree Seeker that you cannot have a true comp in a grammar school area. I teach in one and we are fully comp."

How? In a grammar school area, a significant percentage of the "top" 23% are creamed off to the grammar. You can't have a true comprehensive school without them.

Ladder · 06/10/2010 06:36

I think if you live in a grammar school area, all the other schools are known as comps in general. We call them comps here, but only for the meaning of separating them from the grammar schools.

I have no idea what exactly a true comp is either, but I group all schools together if one does not have to 'pass' an kind of entrance exam and are open to all iyswim.

Original poster
PrettyCandles · 06/10/2010 07:08

A comprehensive defines itself by its intake, not by the available intake. Ie it takes anyone who applies within its catchment, regardless of ability - not it takes a cross-section of abilitities.

in any case in our area not all the highest-ability children go to grammar, many do choose to go to the comprehensives. We also have SN schools in the town - the fact that ^some^ of the less-able children go to these schools does not make the comprehensive any the less comprehensive.

OP posts:
seeker · 06/10/2010 11:39

No.l A comprehensive school is one which provides education to all the children in an area regardless of ability. If a significant chunk of the higher ability children go somewhere else, it ceases, by definition, to be a comprehensive school and becomes, as in Kent, a High School.

There is no value judgement here - it's just a matter of teh proper namnes for things.

gerontius · 06/10/2010 11:46

Doesn't that mean there are no comps then, because some children go to private school?

seeker · 06/10/2010 12:05

No - because it's a matter of having all abilities in one school. Some private schools are effectively comprehensive by alility (if not by wealth!)

Original poster
PrettyCandles · 06/10/2010 12:16

In that case we have no comprehensives. I very much doubt that there is any place in the UK where all the children in a particular area go to the same school from age 11.

In the first half of the 20thC, the only free secondary education available were technical/vocational schools and grammar schools. Around the time of the 2nd WW, the government made a committment to providing secondary education to all children, and introduced secondary schools - ften known as secondary moderns or high schools. But the name High School does not of itself mean anything, as grammar schools were often called High School.

But the system was still selective: brighter children to grammars, everyone else to non-academic education. After the war the govt introduced academic education for all children by building the comprehensives. Gradually the vocational and technical schools were phased out by being absorbed either into comprehensives or into colleges of further education.

OP posts:
seeker · 06/10/2010 13:21

You misunderstand me. A comprehensive school is one which takes all comers, according to entry criteria which are not related to the individual child's intrinsic nature - distance, siblings - that sort of thing. Most areas have such schools - it is only a few authorities which maintain a grammar school system. And in those areas, there are, by definition, no true comprehensive schools because, even though the non-selective schools are available to all, 23% of the "top" tier will not be going to them. Which cannot but have an effect on the non-selective school in question.

Ladder · 06/10/2010 16:24

I think the thing is, everyone knows what you are talking about when you say their dc go to the comprehensive school, as opposed to the grammar school.

I am not sure if my dd goes to a high school, a comp, or what actually and she has been there 5 years! I will have to surf and find out.

Ladder · 06/10/2010 16:30

well, i have done my research on t'internet and it says it is a comprehensive, yet we live in a grammar school area?

Wombat33 · 06/10/2010 16:39

PrettyCandles it of course depends on the child, but for what it's worth, I went to a Comp from 11-16yrs and then a Grammar 16-18yrs. I can only comment from my experience, but I'm assuming your dilemma is based on the fact that your DS is bright enough to get into the Grammar and so is likely to be one of the brightest students at the Comp. This was the position I was in. I have to say that although there were other bright children at the comp, my experience was that these were overwhelmingly outweighed by the less able ones. The result was that the general atmosphere was less academic and being interested/diligent/able in academic terms was decidedly 'uncool'. At the Grammar it was so just much easier to be myself and get on with my work free of that negativity. I also found many more like-minded people among the Grammar school pupils who shared my values and aspirations. It just made life so much easier!

Wombat33 · 06/10/2010 16:41

Sorry, should read: "At the Grammar it was just so much easier"

Original poster
PrettyCandles · 06/10/2010 16:48

I think that accommodating the less-academically-able and the less motivated must have far more of an effect on comprehensive education than the possible lack of a tiny proportion of higher-ability children. It's not a given that the highest-ability students do not attend comprehensives.

I don't understand the 23% statistic.

RustyBear, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't the vast majority of children in our school go on to the nearby comprehensive? Most of those who don't will go to one of the other comps because they live out of catchment for ours, and only 1 or 2 in any year will go to the grammars. Another handful may leave the state system and go private. And those being 'creamed off' to attend selective schools will not necessarily be the most able ones.

An essential difference between the two schools I have looked is that the comp says "let's discover the child's strengths, and develop them", whereas the grammar says "we develop the academic child's strengths".

OP posts:
foreverastudent · 06/10/2010 17:20

Prettycandles- in scotland all state schools are cimprehensives.

realitychick · 06/10/2010 18:33

My experience of going to a comp was very similar to wombat's. The distaste for learning or academic application and the pressure from peers to fail was enormous. I hated it. I believe in state education in theory but my experience of it in practise has really coloured my judgement. If there's a grammar, I'd go for it, if your child is naturally academic or geeky.