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

Secondary education

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

Difference in grammar schools vs high schools

220 replies

winkywinkola · 14/07/2017 09:45

So once your child is in grammar school, what is the difference in their education?

Surely they follow the same national curriculum as all high schools?

Is it more demanding? Faster pace of work? What exactly?

Can anyone explain please?

OP posts:
flyingwithwings · 19/07/2017 22:39

I bit like all High schools in the USA are like this one !

Ta1kinPeece · 19/07/2017 22:44

flowerFARIES
Oh come on Winchester where most of the kids are from is prohibitively expensive!
Put your prejudice back in the box and look at the real world

(a) I do not live in Winchester
(b) there are some 9th decile parts of Winchester that feed into all of the schools there
(c) south Hampshire - as with every area has pockets of poverty that feed into the non selective schools

Kensington = Grenfell after all

multivac · 19/07/2017 22:45

More anecdata: my kids are just finishing Y7 at a comprehensive school in an area where we have access to a handful of some the finest superselective grammars in the country. They go to a school where every student takes a foreign language at GCSE (and has done so since long before the 'EBacc' was a political football - because the head thinks that every young person has the right to be taught a language up to the age of 16, even if they might not ace an exam in it); where there is no setting or streaming; where they have been treasured throughout the whole of their first year; where they have learnt how to be competitive with themselves, not others; and where I can email any of their teachers, at any time, and get a thoughtful, enthusiastic response within hours. Where they can take drama, or dance for GCSE if they choose (neither is offered at the grammars - although, of course, such fripperies are catered for through extra-curricular productions of an extremely high standard).

The facilities are a bit shit, actually. It's struggling to balance the budget. And on paper, its results are awful (but only because students are allowed to make choices about when they take exams - the results students actually leave with are well above the national average). There is disruptive behaviour; there are some deeply troubled kids there. The teachers don't have an easy ride (unlike those in the grammar schools, who happily claim that they'd 'never go back' to teaching in a non-selective environment) - yet they still manage to inspire their students, and their energy, commitment and enthusiasm are incredible.

Our kids didn't take the 11+. But I can be pretty confident that, had they done so, they'd have been offered places at the superselective (their SATs scores were higher than any of the kids from their old primary who passed in their year, and also in this year - all of whom had tutoring for a minimum of two terms). And they'd be having a super time there, and come out with some pretty damn shiny results.

I don't regret our choice for a moment. But we are bloody lucky that the comprehensive round the corner happens to be as brilliant as it is. And I hate, hate, hate the fact that families round here are forced to make such hard, limiting choices for their children. My best friend has three children. Her oldest was born right at the end of August; he just failed to scrape the 11+; her middle one was born right at the start of September - he would have been one of a very few 11-year-olds taking the 11+ when he took it, and he just scraped a pass. Both of them are bright, keen boys, with supportive parents, who would be a credit to any school they were in. It's loopy.

Tw1nsetAndPearls · 19/07/2017 22:49

@maqueen My experiences showed me that teaching really, really wasn't for me. Because I actually wanted to teach my subject.

Maybe your school wasn't reprentative or perhaps it wasn't for you. I teach in a comprehensive and my daughter is at a comprehensive. I teach my subject all day every day and she is at the receiving end of teachers teaching their subjects.

I am not denying that there are difficult schools or difficult classes but I do not think it is the norm as you imply. My school is a fairly average school - rated good by ofsted, mixed intake - our teachers get to teach and if they don't somebody steps in.

flyingwithwings · 19/07/2017 22:49

The poverty in Hampshire Winchester or even in 'Grenfell Tower' ( that the people actually living there were far financially and socially better off than many if not most of my sisters pupils from the Stoke area ). is not comparable in any way to Burnley Harpurey Hey or Moston in Manchester...

Lurkedforever1 · 19/07/2017 22:52

ta1kin I'm pretty sure you can use google yourself if you currently don't realise comprehensive areas have winners and losers too.

Off the top of my head why don't you look at the difference between the comprehensives available in eg Derby, or hull, and those in London? Or the difference in funding between tower hamlets and a more deprived council estate somewhere outside London? Or why some fully comprehensive areas have schools that don't offer separate science, or more than one mfl etc?

Why is it fairer that dc near me don't even get the chance to sit an exam they just get the secondary modern anyway?

Apart from super selective for the top 1/2% I don't think selection by ability is by any means the best system. But until the greater inequality of the comprehensive system is acknowledged and tackled, imo it is the lesser of two evils, given the minority in grammar areas.

And if I'm honest, I wouldn't sentence anyone else's child to what is on offer round here, without any chance of an exam or appeal cos it's done on address/religion. Just so mc, well supported Jane & jack can get the best school anyway without the worry of the 11+, and their parents can tell everyone their comprehensive is great.

I'll back any campaign to ban all selection, just as soon as it is all. Until then I'd rather leave what to some is the only chance of a good school.

FlowerFairyLights · 19/07/2017 23:35

Not at all prejudice talkin. I've lived in Winchester and now live in a v working class area where it's unlikely many (any?) doctors children for example go. Not at all comparable.

Ta1kinPeece · 20/07/2017 13:25

flying
The poverty in Hampshire Winchester or even in 'Grenfell Tower' ( that the people actually living there were far financially and socially better off than many if not most of my sisters pupils from the Stoke area ). is not comparable in any way to Burnley Harpurey Hey or Moston in Manchester...
According to the ONS its directly comparable.
Look at the map for the Index of deprivation .....
dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/idmap.html

flower
if you look at the map I've just linked you'll see that parts of Winchester that are in the catchments for the infamous comp secondary schools are extremely deprived.

IroningMountain · 20/07/2017 17:25

Oh come on Talkin the postcode lottery is an issue bemoaned by Sutton et al continuously. I have seen links posted on said 11+ threads which you have clearly read.

Interestingly we were at a get together recently in an expensive city we could not afford to live in. Many of the lovely people there had moved from London to one particular side of the city for specific comps. All very well off and confident. Kids expected to go to Russell Group unis/ Oxbridge etc, travelled widely etc. We felt a bit like church mice in comparison. Live a fair bit away in a vastly cheaper area. Our dc go to a grammar school. Russell group unis aren't something we presume and we have far less confidence, can't afford to travel etc. On googling said comps it appears that although clearly fantastic they have a third of the free school meals our grammar has.Confused Comps and grammars vary hugely as do the wealth and intake of their students.

MaQueen · 20/07/2017 17:48

I'm not surprised by that ironing . It's disingenuous to portray comprehensives as the educational utopia.

We live in an expensive rural area, which is just over the border from Lincolnshire which has high levels of rural poverty...but it does have grammars.

A lot of people couldn't afford to live in the catchment for our local 'good' comp, but at least they have a shot at the grammars because they have huge catchments.

And if I hear 'tutoring' touted once more as some sort of magic wand I might scream. I know loads of tutored kids who still failed and I know loads of untutored kids who passed.

Tw1nsetAndPearls · 20/07/2017 18:24

On googling said comps it appears that although clearly fantastic they have a third of the free school meals our grammar has.

That must be a very unusual comp and a very unusual grammar as according to the Sutton Trust less than 3% of grammar school entrants are entitled to a FSM.

IroningMountain · 20/07/2017 18:42

Err why? Grammars form only 5% of secondary education. Comps are the vast maj. Their intakes vary hugely. Those in very expensive aspirational areas are obviously going to have less fsm than grammars in poorer areas with lower aspirations and indeed comps in such areas.

Remember also we're only talking about the high performing kids at the end of primary. Only 5% of these children are in all schools. I suspect the numbers of fsm in top set comps don't make good reading.

Tw1nsetAndPearls · 20/07/2017 21:07

It would be unusual because if the average free school meal rate at a grammar is 3% that would mean that a school that takes in 1/3 of the number of FSM students as a grammar would be taking in ( based on averages) about 1% FSM students. This is wildly different from the average figure of 14%.

The Sutton trust has looked at the figures for FSM entrants into the highest achieving comps who will mostly be then most exclusive in terms of catchment and therefore you would expect them to have the lowest FSM rate. Their average FSM rate is 6%. Therefore a grammar which takes in three times as many FSM students would be taking in 18% which would be highly unusual.

I am not a figures person - I hope that makes sense.

flyingwithwings · 20/07/2017 21:49

The dammed FSM measure again defining poverty or 'WEALTH' ! The problem with using this measure as definitive ,means a family with a £14,900 income are registered as poor via the FSM requirement. Whereas a family with a £16,000 income are no longer defined as being in need of assistance regarding Free School meals , trips or purchasing school uniform etc.

The FSM rate can not accurately collate how many families with children at grammar schools fall just outside the threshold and in 'reality' they are just as deprived themselves !

IroningMountain · 20/07/2017 21:54

Yeah see what you mean,will look on the gov site,might be more accurate. Interestingly all our local grammars have the same amount of fsm as Balcarras. Many could never live in that catchment but could go to a grammar. Comps like Balcarras are never criticised. I suspect Balcarras has a shed load more money than our strapped for cash grammars. You just can't generalise either.

www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/top-comprehensives-socially-selective-half-national-average-proportion-pupils-free-school-meals/

For those that don't think comps are socially exclusive.

cantkeepawayforever · 20/07/2017 21:59

I agree that %PP is not the same as % of families living in relative poverty, because the threshold is set too low.

HOWEVER, in making comparisons it is useful (and is the best measure we have in the public domain), because it is very unlikely in schools of any size that e.g. in school A 20% of students are PP, but the remaining 80% are all affluent, whereas in school B, 2% are PP, but the remaining 98% are all just above that threshold.

So if, in the same town, the grammar has 2% PP children, the leafiest comp has 8%, and the least popular comp has 45%, then it is very likely indeed that the grammar also has the smallest % on the next step up, the leafiest comp has the middle, and the least desirrable comp the highest. whereas if you were to look at affluent families, the grammar would have the most, the leafy comp the middle, and the other comp the lowest.

So even though the PP measure does not count every child living in difficult economic circumstances, the %PP does give a crude relative indicator of the relative affluence of each school's pupils.

The %PP in a grammar, by the way, should always be compared to the average %PP for the area it serves. There is no point - it is absolutely statistically invalid - to say that the fact there is a grammar with 10% PP children in an area with an average of 50% justifies arguments against a leafy comp that has 8% in an area where the average is 13%.

Ta1kinPeece · 20/07/2017 22:12

Ironingmountain
I've read that Sutton Trust report in detail in the past.
My MASSIVE problem with it is that the Sutton Trust deem single sex religious schools to be "comprehensive" which is a blerdy funny definition in my book.

FSM is a very "gross" measure
which is why I often refer to the IMD maps as they show how varied areas are

cantkeepawayforever · 20/07/2017 22:13

I suspect Balcarras has a shed load more money than our strapped for cash grammars.

It's quite easy to Google. They state that their cash per pupil is just under £4,700 on average (so that will include PP funding, sixth form etc). Gloucestershire, in general, is one of the worst-funded counties in England.

On a per pupil basis, using the SchoolCuts website it loses an amount (just under £600 per pupikl) which is about the same as for the nearest grammar (just over £600 per pupil).

It doesn't read to me like it is bathing in milk and honey - but i would need the grammar you were thinking of in order to compare. Browsing the nearest grammar's website (Pate's Grammr, as far as i can tell), it looks as if they draw very heavily on their distinguished alumni, something that most comps can't.

IroningMountain · 20/07/2017 22:16

But surely the top comps should reflect the amount of pp in their area too. That link says 95% of the top 500 don't.

I don't think a comp is truly a comp unless all can gain entry not just a few wealthier families who can buy into the catchment and a few who get help with social housing.

Also as regards grammars. Surely if the local alternatives are deemed Good or above and are rated with good progress levels a grammar's make up is surely less crucial. Many argue that if other comps are good it doesn't matter that only a few can get into the best.

IroningMountain · 20/07/2017 22:19

Our grammars are in a different area that has faired so poorly for years it will get more under the new calculations. Not the grammars though. So after years of underfunding they will lose even more. Will try and work out that site, would be interesting to know.

Ta1kinPeece · 20/07/2017 22:30

ironing
But surely the top comps should reflect the amount of pp in their area too. That link says 95% of the top 500 don't.
Because most of the "comps" that the Sutton Trust quotes are not "comp".
A boy's Jewish school will not reflect its general area because it only admits from a miniscule subset of the population.

Look at the data.
It does not support the conclusions that the Sutton Trust have drawn.

IroningMountain · 21/07/2017 06:20

You've been through and know know all 500 and nearly all select in ways that differ to house price selection?Hmm

I thought Sutton were pretty reliable. Disregarding studies you don't like the results of does smack a bit of cherry picking.

cantkeepawayforever · 21/07/2017 06:44

Ironing,

The thing is, it's a bit like when people on here who live in wholly or partially selective areas and say 'the comps here are dire compared with the grammars', showing a fundamental disregard of what a comprehensive school is.

The problem with a dataset that is called 'comprehensive schools' but includes schools that do not have admissions criteria that are comprehensive is that it limits the conclusions that can reliably be drawn. The difficulty, of course, is that it does require more detailed knowledge that statisticians may have time to perform.

It would require them to know, for example, that even within a single county, the local concentration of grammar schools affects whether other schools are comprehensive in their intake or not - so that Balcarras, as cited above, despite the fact it is in the same town as a grammar school, is a comprehensive, whereas schools in Gloucester, with 4 grammars, are not.

It would also require them to know which schools are religious in name only, or even have religion as an oversubscription criterion which is barely used, and which are highly selective and only admit those who meet stringent religious criteria.

So I absolutely understand why the dataset is so imperfect. I think it could easily be improved, by dividing it into 'comprehensive from non-selective counties', 'other schools in selective or partially selective areas' and 'religious schools', because although there would be some schools somewhat misallocated, and there would be edge effects in counties neighbouring selective ones, it would allow better and more detailed analysis.

IroningMountain · 21/07/2017 07:40

And surely comps with wealthy catchment areas,they should include average house price and the amount of kids paying for buses to get there too. Cheltenham has Pates grammar.The other Cheltenham comps are Good however it is still social selection if all the wealthier kids go to Balcarrass( and 8%fsm) but everybody else goes to the other lesser comps( good not outstanding)due to being unable to afford houses on that side of town. It seems no different or better than kids going to grammars.

IroningMountain · 21/07/2017 07:45

How do you find out how much schools have to spend per child? Can only see what they stand to lose on that site.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.