Bright pupils are more likely to get top GCSE grades at comprehensive schools than grammars, research has found.

[NeverVerbal]

Here is the freshest research on this matter, for those who are keen to explore further.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bright-pupils-get-better-gcses-at-comprehensive-schools-jvqnw2g6x

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/28/english-regions-dominated-by-grammar-schools-do-not-improve-grades-study-says

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2023.2240977

Interesting, but flawed. It specifically says it compared the results from grammar school areas such as Bucks, but found that the region had no higher scores than a non selective area.

So the study collated all pupils from Bucks (et al) schools results, not just the grammars?

Bucks has many, many more pupils going to secondary schools than grammars...far, far more children fail than pass the 11+, so then are placed in pretty crappy secondaries, with a lot of very poorly behaved children, who make it harder for those in the middle abilities to flourish.

If course there are some students who fly, even in a poor secondary, but a lot more who fail due to disruption.

This will negatively affect the scores overall.

It's also worth mentioning that grammars (such as in Bucks), attract not just those from the area, but those from neighbouring areas, who don't have grammars.

Grammars in some parts of Bucks are in really poor areas, and I don't believe that abolishing them will improve the chances for those who are too poor/unable to move into 'better' areas; it would simply remove the chances of brighter, but poor, children.

did you listen/read the entire publication NOT the news article? the research is based on very very old data for the most part. some before 2008, more recent was 2015/2016 data.
does not include students at independent schools.
nor students that scored high in key stage 2 (above 134)
it clearly states that students who attend selective schools world wide do better in the long run at college and uni completion.
and that teaching homogeneous groups is better for both the teacher and the student.
selective schools do not raise the predictive grades based on earlier assessment.
personally many choose schools that select in some manner do so NOT for academic achievement at secondary level but to avoid disruptive behaviors by disinterested pupils.
the selective schools all scored higher but the amount was said to be negligible once they removed the top scores and low scores (esl, sen, fsm, and deprivation).
research suggest parental education is the biggest determinant of educational success.
oh and that the selective schools in selective school areas do better because of higher income in those areas.

now i'm not fab at listening and reading research and the topic is interesting but it doesn't really match the headline which given the state of journalism isn't surprising.

Really? This can't be true surely! Flawed data. Ds1 local school, most kids did very well. The type of kids that have everything going for them: bright, nice, good looking, sporty, nice family. Off to uni.

But better than grammar? Nah. Come on!

What I would observe is that DD1's grammar was so much more sensible about discipline and uniform and just a more chilled out and nicer place to be in spite of the academic rigour. They just expected pupils to behave and most of the time they did.

DD2 goes to a mixed ability school, didn't get into grammar- she might have struggled academically there but bloody hell, it's chalk and cheese when it comes to how the kids are treated. It's totally the opposite - they expect the pupils to be badly behaved and there are so many minor ways for them to get detention. There is so much homework, far more than DD1 ever had, and yet teachers never take it in and mark it- they mark it together in class but DD2 finds this demotivating, as I would have. It's an academy and it seems they are all like this. Massive, draconian, run more like prison and completely rubbish for anyone with SEN. Most schools are like this now and all they care about is ticking Ofsted boxes - particularly on attendance. Secondary school education is a complete shitshow.

I went to a standard comp, I came out with the top marks in the whole school, bright kids do well everywhere etc....I also spent 5 years basically hiding in the library to avoid being blind for being bright, having the wrong colour hair, not wanting to smoke behind the sheds etc etc. Therefore I also did more work than anyone else. I'm proud of my results, but had an awful time. Went to an arty accepting type of 6th from, finally discovered people liked me, relaxed a bit, results still fine but no longer outstanding, mainly as I now had a life outside studying!
DD on the other hand is currently living her best life at grammar, she's so happy in an environment where there are other nerdy kids. Her extra curricular is full to bursting and she's had so many opportunities. She'll probably do fine resultswise, we're a few years off that yet, but if she doesnt, I still don't think the choice was wrong.
In case it makes a difference we have grammars but they are super selectives or have a partial percentage catchment. We are not a full grammar area like Kent. However, I think my main point is these articles can make statistics show what they like, but they don't ever tell the full picture!

Sadly I would agree with your description of
many but not all academy chains- from a teacher’s perspective I hate schools that have ridiculous rules and always assume students are going to behave badly… self fulfilling prophecy and all that! I have a colleague who left a school because he was always being told he didn’t shout at the pupils enough- this makes my blood boil - I would be very unhappy if my dds teachers shouted at her - unless there is a very good reason and still I’m not sure it’s appropriate. We aren’t allowed to shout at colleagues at work so why is it ok to do that to children!

In this field of research there is a very interesting and influential paper co-author by 2021 Nobel Prize Winner Joshua Angris.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w17264

The paper asks this question: Do exam selective schools really make students learn more than regular schools? The paper look at two types of stare schools in Boston and New York City, selective and regular . It compares students who barely got into selective schools with students who barely missed getting into exam schools. These students are very similar in their abilities and backgrounds, so they are a good group to compare.

The paper looks at different outcomes for these students, such as their scores on state tests, college entrance exams, and advanced courses. These outcomes measure how much students learned and how well they did in school.

The paper finds that exam schools have little effect on most students’ achievement. This means that going to an exam selective school does not make students learn more or do better than going to a regular school, for most students.

The paper also tries to explain why exam schools do not have much effect. It suggests that peer effects and tracking effects are not very important in this context.

Peer effects are the influence of classmates on learning. Tracking effects are the benefits of having a curriculum that matches one’s ability level. The paper argues that these factors do not make much difference for selective school students, because they are already very smart and motivated.

@questionersquestion I live in Bucks, my DS goes to one of the secondaries... it is certainly not 'pretty crappy'! It's a great school and the students do very well there. In fact there are lots of very good secondary moderns in Bucks.

I think one of the main problems of any research like this that the researchers are unable to control all the variables necessary to come up with an definitive answer... and people on both sides of the debate will read want they want in the research in this area.

If people were that bothered about fairness and opportunities in education they would try and reduce the number of people living in poverty. Followed by changing the whole education system so all children go to the same type of school - no academy chains, no private schools, no independent schools, no grammar schools, no faith schools the list goes on... but I doubt that is ever going to happen.

@popfan not so much in Aylesbury sadly.

I wonder if you live near me @floribunda18! DD goes to grammar because it is chilled and friendly, and not not set up like a young offenders unit, like our catchment school (that people move house to get in to) Both schools get excellent results, but we preferred the atmosphere at the grammar and luckily she got in, or I think she would have spent her life in detention for forgetting a pencil,
or talking in the corridor, or wearing the wrong socks.

I think she would have spent her life in detention for forgetting a pencil,
or talking in the corridor, or wearing the wrong socks

This sounds like the Grammar School in our area!

@Karchibald I don’t understand why any school has to be like that. I have raised teens to adulthood so fully understand that stick is unfortunately required at times, but at least try carrot first…

There has been a lot of change within the current school system and the vast majority set pupils, so the brightest get the focus they need. In general bright pupils will do well as they are more likely to have parents who are invested in their education.

Bright parents know their children their personalities and are more likely to direct them to the best school for them, be it a comprehensive, grammar or private school.

The issue is not with good schools but those that struggle with disruptive pupils and the knock on impact this has on other pupils. From personal experience this creates the mad panic surrounding grammar school admissions as in reality 'good' comprehensives tend to have smaller more expensive catchment areas, whereas some grammars have larger catchment areas and admissions do not require a house in catchment or a sibling.

I can see there are two camps of parents with slightly different motivation for grammar schools:

1. Peer effects - the believe of study in a school with high attainment streaming will have a major benefit, which brought about positive competition amongst the learners which helped them to work harder in their school work. Consequently it yields value added and achieve even higher attainment. Most research suggest that there is no consensus effects at secondary school education, or the effects is not significant nor positive, even counter balance negative effects. In other words, bright kid will do equally well anywhere, the state schools with similar funding do not help much.

2. To minimize disruptions/downside - this is similar to PP mentioned the fear of the potential downside create a mad panic rush on demand regardless childrens abilities. The believe is that grammar schools, because of self selection of high attainments, will less likely to have classroom disruptive factors. Although research suggest that with higher disruptive factors in no selective school, general students still achieve as well as their ability should be. Parents still don't want to risk for the preceived potential downside or wants a better education experience I guess?

This can’t be true…. I went to a small state grammar and my DH went to a large city comp. We met at uni and have the same degree, he’s done alright for himself being a confident guy. However his knowledge of things concerning history, grammar and general culture is shocking. Stuff we were taught as a matter of course. So it’s not just GCSE results. Plus the things he says about his school shock me - lessons constantly disrupted, stuff set on fire, people having babies in sixth form! This was the 90s so maybe it’s different now, maybe it’s worse!?! None of this happened at my school. Give me a grammar school any day!!

>, but a lot more who fail due to disruption

You may be not aware that kids in selective schools can be disruptive too. Oh yes they can

Both my DDs went/go to a Grammar. Teaching wasn't a priority for us (in fact DD1's school had pretty inconsistent teaching) but rather environment. Both my DDs needed the typical Grammar environment.

DD1 is sensitive, naive, quiet and struggles to make friends. and while she had pastoral issues at her school (which is known to be hard headed anyways), she would have literally been eaten alive had she gone to any of the local comps. At her Grammar, she managed to find a small group of friends. DD2 tends to be influenced quite easily but also laidback so being around people who are just as smart as her (or even smarter), work harder than her will hopefully push her to do better.

I'm not saying the comps aren't filled with people who want to work. They are. But the comps near us have enough behavioural horror stories that we knew it wasn't going to work for our children. Everyone's children is different. Some thrive at comps and would hate Grammars.

I have a completely different story but then my school and some others my family members went to have become selective comps, where some pupils are selected, as there are no grammar schools in the area.

Interestingly it was someone I was at university who went to an independent school who had no knowledge of history and general culture.

>, which brought about positive competition amongst the learners which helped them to work harder

Yeah that self harm in the girls grammar nearby, anorexia nervosa, psychosomatic issues...how to compete with a prodigy child. There is no way yet you pushed pushed for your best....

I hate threads like this pitting one type of school against another.

All children deserve a good school - regardless of type - this yet another reason our system needs a radical shake up if people really think their local school isn't good enough and only a grammar will do!

" I went to a small state grammar and my DH went to a large city comp. We met at uni and have the same degree, he’s done alright for himself being a confident guy. However his knowledge of things concerning history, grammar and general culture is shocking. "

Looks like he did as well as you, you just want to find some area that superior than your DH.

.

The anecdotes on here are all meaningless, can the discussion stick to population level analysis.

You use non selective areas as a baseline because you are going to assume (taking socioeconomic effects into account) that is how students would perform without being streamed. The question is asking whether there is a benefit to selective schools, not whether the kids who attend (those who would do better anywhere) do better than those who fail the 11+.

A useful study would be for all areas to sit an 11+ and compare the passing children in grammar/non grammar areas.

I specifically would like to see if, in areas where 7% pass, do those in the 6-7% do better in the bottom sets at grammar than they would in the top sets in a normal comp? My time as a teacher would suggest not, but I think it should be looked at properly.

When I taught at a superselective grammar virtually all the girls got A* or A in all GCSES. It wasn't easy for the school to show "value added" because there wasn't enough grade spread at the top end.

It would be interesting to see this research re-done once there are enough 9-1 GCSE grades to compare (it will be a while though due to the dodgy data from 2020-2022).