Who would have thought it?

I am very glad that my grandchildren have the opportunity to go to good comprehensive schools.

I do realise that not all comprehensive schools are equally good but they should be improved, not damaged by grammar schools creaming off their brightest pupils.

Increasing the number of grammar school places is one of Theresa May's pet projects. The motivation is entirely doctrinaire and this type of research which shows conclusively that grammar schools do no better than comprehensives is important.

People need to realise that "I went to a grammar school and I did well" is not a reason to foster an educational policy which consigns the majority to a second class chance.

We've all seen this discussed on TV debates. Sometimes the chairman might ask the audience "how many of you want to bring back grammar schools?" and hands go up, but how often have the audience been asked "how many of you want to bring back secondary moderns?", let alone "how many of you want to send your children to a secondary modern?"

A grammar school which creams off the brightest children will always damage the neighbouring comprehensive school, in effect turning into a secondary modern.

Was that the Leicestershire system, jura?
We studied that at college. It was really thought to be the best system around at the time, one of the first middle school systems.
Have they got rid of that now - for financial reasons, not educational?

Well said, grannypauline, could be worth a PhD? I went to a grammar school too but that doesn't mean I think they are any better than comprehensives. I taught in a comprehensive school for 20 years and the biggest 'buzz' I got from the job was seeing young people who were not the least academic find their 'niche' and become useful, productive and fulfilled adults. The most memorable was a quirky girl with problems socialising; for her work experience week she got a job in the office of a Funeral Directors. While there she asked if she could help dress and do the hair and make-up of the deceased! They rang the school (and parents) to see what we thought and it was agreed she could. Apparently she had such an aptitude for it that they employed her as soon as she left school.

So if Finnish schools are successful because the schools are small and the uptake is not inner city deprived - we know really what we have to do don't we?

I don’t agree with you Emerald888 I went to an all girls grammar school. I hated it and felt I was completely out of my depth and would have probably done better at the local secondary school where I could have taken subjects that suited me better. Likewise there were people I knew who failed their 11+ who were probably much more intelligent than I was/am .

Sadly many leave school believing they are useless but hopefully future life shows them they have their own important skills and abilities. The most important thing we can teach is believe in themselves

Perfectly worded ajanela

Emerald888. I will not bash grammar schools, I went to one myself.

But one of the first things I noticed when I went to university was the number of students from private schools there who were 11+ failures, including my best friend, who had been too ill to take the exam. I met no state school 11+ failures.

These private school students were not hot housed ignoramuses, they did well at university, and came out with good degrees, but at 1, for whatever reason, they missed the cut.

Within a term I had seen enough of these to realise that the 11+ was an unfair way of selecting children for academic hot housing at a too young age. There were also children who passed the 11+, but struggled thereafter and left school with too few exams and a life long sense of being a failure.

And the latest study shows that... grass is green and the sky is blue.

Still, it keeps them busy doesn't it? What would researchers possibly do for a living if they were not engaged on their current activities?

I am thinking of applying for a research grant to study which is the more valuable: the bird in the hand or that in the bush?

I hate Grammar School bashing. Of course they get better results. Most of the kids are quite bright and engaged in their studies. They learn more. There should be more of them. They were the making of us in the sixties. We were all able to get good jobs.

I think you'll find that it is not just "Labour" people who think that grammar schools do not bring out the true potential of all pupils. In effect, vast numbers of children who did not pass the 11+ saw themselves as failures and had no expectations of achieving academically or career wise.

We surely need all children to receive an excellent education and to believe, whatever their specific interests and abilities, that they can go on to be a valuable part of society, either starting work or training programmes or going on to higher education.

Coming from a working class and a council estate background, I consider myself very privileged to have received an excellent grammar school education so I am very much in favour of them and technical colleges too. My own children went to the local comprehensive but, even though they were in high sets for most subjects, I could see that their education was not a patch on mine.

What I never understand is why a lot of Labourites are so anti segregation in the field of education, whether it be by testing or wealth, but then they choose to 'segregate' themselves by living within the private sector instead of living in council areas or they buy the council properties they reside, if they get the chance. I understand that there aren't as many council properties as there used to be but everyone I know who votes Labour owns their own house in a 'nice' area but is against private privileged education!! I just don't get it. It's two faced, in my book.

Here in the US, schools vary widely depending on which state you live in and the school districts. For many years the great 'equalizer' has been standardized testing.

It's always been my contention that too many talented kids have fallen through the cracks, especially in school districts where statistics carry more weight and where 'training' young people to 'ace' standardized tests is more important than actually learning.

My personal feeling is that Elementary school should be fun and that children under the age of 12 shouldn't be graded at all. The anxiety and pressure for better grades destroys their morale and natural creativity. I've heard six year olds complaining that they 'hate' school! Perhaps one project at the end of the year and a gentler pass or repeat would be more appropriate...but that's just me.

^ So I don’t believe you need to go to a Grammar school to succeed you just need to want to learn^

Well, that was really what the Durham Uni report says. Children attain just as well in comprehensives as they do in grammar schools.

My youngest sons last teacher in junior school wanted him to sit the 11+ but I refused to let him as the nearest grammar school was a long bus ride away whereas the nearest comprehensive was a walk away,where his older brothers had gone to,he did very well at the comprehensive even took his maths GCSE a year earlier went on to college then to University,which luckily enough he didn’t need to leave home to do as RHUL is a long walk away or short bus ride,From where he gained a 1st with honours in Computer science and now he works in California with a huge computer company. So I don’t believe you need to go to a Grammar school to succeed you just need to want to learn ?

HillyN You said;

"Government does not appear to value vocational qualifications at all and turning out young people who can plaster, plumb, care for others etc counts for nothing."

Well said!

(so I wanted to repeat it!)

Rosina you are right. The thing is, it proves that the good results are not to do with the school itself, so people who are voting for, or advocating, a system of Grammar Schools can be told it has been scientifically proved that they are not necessary since they make no difference.

There is such a big urge to bring back Grammar Schools that this research, proving the obvious, but so as to make it irrefutable, is essential.

Please, everyone, do all you can to stop this Grammar School resurgence. It is not a return of good schools. The research demonstrates this. It is an elitist system to give privilege to those already in a favourable situation. It encourages the wrong kind of competition. This competition, we have seen in other research, begins with parents looking for aggressively "academic" teaching (the child is schooled to sit at their desk all day writing and doing rote learning) from the age of 3!

A Grammar School system condemns 90% of our children to being labelled as "failures". Whatever you say, try asking a child who has not been offered a much prized grammar-school place, what they did at 11+ and they will say "I failed".

Good schools are made up of all-comers who are well taught and where opportunities are available and aspirations are high.

I know this. I was involved with both teaching, school inspection and research into educational assessment. Also two of my daughters went to a grammar school, the third was about to go, we moved, she went to a brilliant comprehensive where she did more, was given wider experiences and gained the same A levels and went to a top university.

The divisive and elitist system of grammar schools harm our educational system and our children, including the children attending the grammar school.

The whole education system needs a proper overhaul. The reason Grammar Schools are so elitist now is because there are so few of them, when I was a child growing up in the East End grammar schools were our only chance to do well.

That being said, the current system of elite schools and not so elite is not working, children are being put in situations in schools that are not working for them, not everyone is academically minded and not everyone is manually adept. All children should be given the same opportunities to develop the skills that suit them, their aspirations and abilities, not to be forced to study and achieve (or not) in subjects that are of no interest or use in their future lives. English and Maths are obviously important but if a child is baffled by history or physics and it doesn't sink in it's pointless insisting they study it beyond basics. Why not let them develop in subjects that interest them.

It's no wonder kids today suffer so many mental problems, they are not only suffering peer pressure on social media they are also being told they must attain in education, it's all pressure, pressure, pressure. I despair of the way we treat our kids these days, it's no surprise they rebel.

I agree with the suggestion that some teachers do label children, perhaps that is human nature. A child who started school with one of mine kept falling asleep in class. The teacher blamed the parents for keeping him up late, the parents did not. It was only after going through the whole infant and junior schools that they discovered it was because he was bored. He gained a scholarship at 11 to a very prestigious school. His teachers were surprised.

Another child in the same class was labelled as being brilliant at maths, we think it was because his older brother was. He wasn't and eventually had to have extra help to reach the required normal level.

One teacher never forgave one of my DSs for knowing it was Theseus who killed the Minotaur when he said it was Hercules. Apparently 8 year olds were not supposed to know better then their teacher.

Of course all teachers these days may be without prejudice and perfect but I think it unlikely. Teachers have all the same human failings as the rest of us.

I agree totally with Monica’s point at 7.27, the difference between Finland and the UK is most likely the reason for the success of Finnish children, but it is difficult to make direct comparison between the two countries because of the huge differences as Monica points out ie the size of towns and cities, the amount of deprivation, and the size of schools. As a retired teacher though, I’m aware that the prevailing government tend to compare British children/schools/ results without comparing the differences in the societies, which as a teacher I used to find rather demoralising.

I think the point of the research is that grammar school teaching is no better than comprehensive teaching. However schools are being assessed on their effectiveness by comparing the exam results in 'league tables'. If the most intelligent 11 year-olds are 'creamed off' by grammar or independent schools, then comprehensives will ALWAYS come lower in comparison. Government does not appear to value vocational qualifications at all and turning out young people who can plaster, plumb, care for others etc counts for nothing.

The point of education is to fulfil the potential in the individual.
PS Toby Young had far too much influence in educational matters, and is totally discredited.

I fully agree with Eloethan's point, " it seems to me that there is a great pool of unrealised talent and sometimes people in high office who are unequal to the job."

Just because they have an ability to pass exams it doesn't mean they can manage people, think outside the box or have other skills needed for a particular job.

Sadly many leave school believing they are useless but hopefully future life shows them they have their own important skills and abilities. The most important thing we can teach is believe in themselves.

Have a friend whose d went to Townley Grammer School. She did really well we thought in her GCSEs but was according to the school down by a few points. They said she could not return to the school because of her marks.
It really made my friend so angry and took away a lot of her d confidence, I personally was disgusted that a school is allowed to do that. Recently think there was something on
The news about another Grammer school who had done the same thing. It’s not about the kids it’s just about the schools.

I agree with Mazie D's first point and Varian. I taught for 40 years and my son lives in Finland.