Pupils in English regions dominated by grammar schools experience little or no boost in results compared with counterparts in other areas of the country, while exam grades among the brightest pupils may actually be lower, according to new research.
The authors said their evidence suggested there was no case for further expansion of grammar schools in England, and a strong argument for the dismantling of selective school systems that use 11-plus entry exams in areas such as Kent and Trafford.
Grammar schools have long been criticised for creating a two-tier education system, and for being inaccessible to children from disadvantaged families such as those eligible for free school meals. But the new research goes further in suggesting that concentrations of grammar schools fail to improve academic performance.
“Our findings do call into serious question whether selective schooling benefits even those we might expect it to help most,” said Dr Binwei Lu, the lead author of the research published in the Educational Review journal.
“Given the other negative consequences it has been shown in other work, for example in widening inequalities, I think there is a strong reason for not expanding grammar schools, or even abolish them.”
But Mark Fenton, the chief executive of the Grammar School Heads Association, said: “The study acknowledges that there is no evidence of a systematic difference in pupils’ academic outcomes between selective and non-selective areas. I am glad that this has been stated so clearly since it gives the lie to long-standing claims by anti-selection campaigners of an academic consensus to the contrary.”
The peer-reviewed research published on Monday draws on data involving one year’s GCSE results and characteristics of 500,000 children in the government’s national pupil database. It then compared the results of pupils in 36 local authorities with selective systems, such as Buckinghamshire, with other local authorities.
Overall, the results showed little difference in GCSE pass rates between areas with grammar schools and areas that were non-selective. While there was a “slight positive effect” for pupils who attended grammar school, there was a counter-balancing negative effect on the results of pupils attending secondary modern or comprehensive schools in those areas.
But it also found that grammar school pupils had 10% lower odds of achieving five top grades at GCSE compared with pupils in non-selective areas, even when restricted to pupils with high scores in standardised tests at age 11.
“These results were surprising to us because so often it is assumed that grammar schools stretch pupils at the top of the ability distribution, meaning they can get the very top grades,” said Dr Lu.
The authors – from Durham University, University College London and Zhejiang University, China – said there were several explanations for why talented pupils may do less well in grammar schools areas.
One was that stress caused by a high-pressure environment may have a negative effect on their performance. Alternatively, a “big fish, little pond” effect, identified in previous research, could lower the self-confidence of pupils with otherwise strong abilities.
The researchers also admitted that the strong GCSE performances of pupils at non-selective schools in London could distort the results.
Fenton said he was sceptical of the claim. He said: “The researchers concede that the rather unexpected finding that able children have a lower chance of achieving top grades if they attend a grammar school may well be the result of a statistical quirk.
“It certainly feels counterintuitive and it is odd that the study classifies London as a non-selective area.”
In GCSE results published last week, 59% of entries in grammar schools gained grade 7 or above, compared with 22% of entries by 16-year-olds across England.
Nuala Burgess, the chair of Comprehensive Future group, which campaigns for the phasing out of the 11-plus exam and a fully comprehensive system, said it was “highly significant” piece of research.
“Grammar schools are an anomaly in our state school system. Their predominantly middle-class pupil populations are proof they have failed as engines of social mobility. This latest research now confirms that higher attaining pupils would be much better off in comprehensive schools,” Burgess said.
