Grammar schools kids vs Comprehensive school kids in London

[lll36]

On my previous threads I've learnt that parents go to huge lengths to get kids into super selective grammar schools, which makes me wonder, are grammar school kids brighter or more hardworking than comprehensive school kids?

Comprehensive schools retain top set children, so no.

Some one, some the other. Some a bit of both?

And some with different personalities type that are none of the above?

And some with different parents, who are also part of the equation.

Oh and geographical location.

Comprehensive schools retain top set children, so no.

I don't understand what that means. Do grammar schools not retain children? You don't hear of them leaving

"are grammar school kids brighter or more hardworking than comprehensive school kids?"

Depends on the DC.

Only the outer fringes of London has much in the way of grammar schools. So you may well find clever, diligent DC in schools that are a convenient journey from their home, rather than schlepping for an hour or more through the stresses of a London commute to a school where all/most classes are the same level as the top couple of sets in a school 20 minutes walk away.

Yes, the grammar entrants need to have passed an exam when they are 10 or 11, which may require extra training so they have to be made to work hard at that point (even the most relaxed parent usually wants to make sure the DC are familiar with the exam format), but it's pretty likely that is externally directed, not a reflection on internal capability for self-motivated hard work.

That is very young (especially for boys, given the differences in age of puberty and associated maturation). Late blossomers mean there can never be a definite picture of either ability or application by the time pupils are 16 or 18

Actually think that comprehensives probably nurture/push their brightest children better than the super-selectives do their less able ones, on the basis of our own recent experience!