Grammar schools do NOT work: The UK’s brightest pupils have better chances of getting top GCSE results in comprehensives, study find

• Experts say grammar schooling doesn’t always lead to better GCSE results
• It comes five years after the Government allocated £50 million to these schools 

Grammar schools have long been at the centre of debate, with children denied what’s often thought to be a better education at 11 years old. 

But experts have now called grammar schools into question, as research suggests there’s no evidence they lead to better GCSE results.

New research, led by Durham University, claims that areas with comprehensive schooling actually fare just as well, with similar numbers of pupils achieving A*-C (now 9-4) grades.

Meanwhile, the brightest pupils were actually found to fare better at comprehensives than at grammar school.  

The results come just five years after the Government allocated £50 million to the expansion of new grammar schools in a mission to lift national standards.

Grammar schools have long been at the centre of debate, with children denied what’s often thought to be a better education at 11 years old. But experts have now called selective schools into question, as research suggests there’s no evidence they lead to better GCSEs (stock image) 

READ MORE: AI can achieve better grades than university students, report suggests 

Sam Altman’s ChatGPT matched or performed better than students when answering assessment questions in a range of subjects

‘Our study adds to the evidence that the expansion of grammar schools and the selective system is unlikely to raise national academic standards,’ said co-author Dr Xin Shao of the University College London.

‘The costs of reorganising our education system to have more selection would be high, and there are much more important priorities for investment to support equalising opportunities for those regardless of their family background: expanding the selective system would not be a wise decision.’

As part of their analysis, experts analysed almost 500,000 students’ GCSE results from 2016. 

The team account for a number of factors, including the pupils’ social background, gender and numerous other factors.

While areas with grammar school were associated with a small boost in pass rates, their presence didn’t appear to significantly bolster the overall regional performance.

Pupils in areas with grammar school were slightly less likely to achieve five A or A* (now 9, 8 and 7) grades compared with non-selective areas. 

Meanwhile, pupils of both schooling types in a selective local authority had a lower chance of achieving five A or A* grades than equivalent pupils in predominantly comprehensive areas.  

As a result, experts say that neither system is superior, and a further expansion of grammar schools is unlikely to raise national academic standards.

They also argue that the competitive nature of selective schooling can be detrimental to the students’ mental wellbeing. 

The results come five years after the Government allocated £50million to these schools

The ‘big fish little pond’ phenomenon was drawn to as an example of this, with grammar students perhaps viewing themselves as lesser in comparison to other bright classmates.

Even still, experts highlight that further research is needed to understand the influence of others factors upon this phenomenon. 

For instance, high performance in London – which doesn’t host many grammar schools – may be pulling up the average for comprehensive systems. 

‘While the general results for the effects of the two systems reveal neither system to be superior, an internal pattern implies negative results from the selective system, from which both high-performing and low-performing pupils may suffer,’ said Dr Binwei Lu of Durham University’s Evidence Centre for Education. 

Source: Read Full Article