Poorer children at grammar schools gain better GCSEs

 Add your view

Poorer children perform better at grammar schools

Bright pupils from poor homes achieve significantly higher grades at grammar schools than comprehensives, a study has found.

The benefits are equivalent to the average youngster turning eight Bs at GCSE into eight As.

And the effects were not just evident among the most disadvantaged.

All children in the top quarter of the ability range did better at grammars than comprehensives - boosting their results by four grades on average.

The study concluded that if social background were not a factor, a selective system would not disadvantage those who did not attend grammar schools.

Professor Paul Gregg, who led study, said: "If you could re-engineer the system so the affluent were not segregated into grammar schools and the poor into the remainder, the

grammar school system would be positive overall.

"You could achieve a situation where pupils at secondary moderns are doing no worse than their equivalents in comprehensives and the bright - and particularly the bright poor - do better."

The study, carried out by Bristol University, points to the failure of the 1960s comprehensive experiment, which abolished grammar schools in the hope of improving the prospects of working-class children.

Labour intended comprehensives to be the engines of social mobility but the research shows it is actually grammar schools which provide a sure-fire route to success for the poorest youngsters.

The study, presented at the Royal Economic Society's annual conference at Warwick University, found disadvantaged pupils had to break the middle- class stranglehold on grammars before benefiting. Poor children are only half as likely as their more affluent peers to gain places at selective schools, even if they are just as bright.

The researchers attributed the "massive under-representation" of poor children at grammars to the keenness of middle-class parents to get their children into the best schools.

The more affluent also had more cash to spend on tuition for the 11-plus exam and were more likely to put their children forward for it.

The researchers suggested the imbalance would be corrected if all bright pupils were entered into the 11-plus by their primary schools - as used to happen.

The study compared 19 local education authorities which have retained the 11-plus with similar areas relying on comprehensives.

Using Government data, they analysed pupils' results in tests at age 11 and their GCSE results five years on. The researchers found there were "significant benefits to the elite 25 per cent who attend grammar schools and a small degree of detriment to the other 75 per cent".

The findings will reignite the debate over selective education, which has been so discouraged in Britain that only 164 grammar schools remain.

Laws passed by the Government outlaw the introduction of further selection.

But the latest figures reveal existing grammars are teaching a fifth more pupils than a decade ago because of strong demand.

Brian Wills-Pope, chairman of the National Grammar Schools Association, said: "The findings should send a message to ministers that if they want to raise standards then selection should be welcomed."

He added: "Grammar schools have no bias against working-class children - they go for the brightest children.

 

What's on today   What's on tomorrow

Receive our newsletter