These are among a raft of findings in a new data analysis published by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) think-tank.
The government is currently consulting over plans to increase selection by relaxing the restrictions on new or expanding selective schools and allowing existing non-selective schools to become selective “in the right circumstances”.
Minister for school standards, Nick Gibb, said last week that the proposal was designed to “turbo boost social mobility”.
However, the EPI report finds that only 2.5 per cent of grammar school pupils are eligible for free school meals (FSM) compared to an average of 13.2 per cent in all state-funded schools.
It says a main cause of this is that by the time the 11-plus entry test is taken, much of the attainment gap between poor pupils and their peers has already emerged.
The report states: “By the time the 11-plus entry exam is taken, 60 per cent of the large disadvantaged attainment gap – equivalent to almost 10 months of learning by this stage – has emerged. Therefore, it is simply less likely that poorer children will attain highly in tests taken at age 11, compared with pupils from more affluent family backgrounds.”
Furthermore, the report shows that the attainment gap is wider in selective areas than in non-selective areas of the country (34.1 to 27.8 per cent). Among the reasons for this is that FSM pupils in wholly selective areas who do not attend grammars perform worse than the national average.
In the most selective areas, grammar school pupils achieve an average of 2.3 grades higher across eight GCSEs than similar pupils in non-selective schools. However, pupils not attending grammar schools in these areas achieve an average of 0.6 grades lower and FSM pupils not attending grammar schools achieve an average of 1.2 grades lower.
The report also finds that 30.1 per cent of FSM pupils in wholly selective areas achieve five A* to C GCSEs including English and maths compared to 33.3 per cent in non-selective areas.
The report states: “Superficially, grammar schools appear to do well in closing gaps – with a small 4.3 percentage point gap between the proportion of FSM and non-FSM children securing the five good GCSE standard, compared with a 25.5 percentage point gap in all non-selective schools.
“The prime minister appeared to claim that this constitutes a social mobility argument for more grammar schools. But this is a weak argument – the gap is narrow because grammar schools only select pupils who have high attainment on entry. Adjusting for prior attainment eliminates much of the difference.”
Natalie Perera, executive director of the EPI, added: “We find no evidence to suggest that overall educational standards in England would be improved by creating additional grammar schools. Our analysis finds that, in some areas, additional grammar school places would not only have a weaker effect on pupils who go to grammar schools, but they could also have a detrimental effect on those who don’t.
“This is a particular risk for disadvantaged pupils who are significantly under-represented in grammar schools. By age 11, these disadvantaged pupils are already almost 10 months behind their peers and so there needs to be a much greater focus on support and intervention in the early years and primary phases, rather than selection at secondary.”
Despite the growing evidence against selection, the government seems intent on pushing ahead with its plans.
Speaking last Monday, September 19, school standards minister Nick Gibb said more selective schools would “widen choice, to bring more flexibility, and to challenge those areas of the country where too few pupils are entered for the EBacc combination of core academic GCSEs”.
During an address at the Academy Ambassadors conference, he said: “Some of the schools in your (multi-academy) trust may well introduce selection by ability. Your trust may consider establishing a new selective free school or you may look to expand using the routes that are already available.”
However, secondary school leaders remain unconvinced. Malcolm Trobe, interim general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “It is vital that government policy is based on evidence rather than nostalgia and anecdote. (The EPI) report adds to the already substantial evidence.
“It clearly shows that creating more selective schools will not raise overall educational standards in England and is likely to widen the attainment gap between rich and poor children.
“The government must now listen to the evidence and abandon its misguided policy. It has to focus on the critical issues of a teacher recruitment crisis and severe funding pressures instead of pursuing a proposal which is a dangerous distraction.”
- The deadline for responses to the consultation is December 12 and the full consultation document is available via
http://bit.ly/2cQWcgI