Poor pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds children "benefit most in a grammar school system"

By

Mark Howarth

|

Comprehensive schools prevent pupils from poor backgrounds achieving their potential, a study has claimed.

Researchers compared reading standards in countries which have retained grammar schools with those which have phased them out, such as the UK.

They found that family wealth played next to no part in a child’s achievements when they were taught according to ability. But a disadvantaged background was more likely to count against youngsters in countries that shun selective education.

Comprehensive schools prevent pupils from poor backgrounds achieving their potential, a study has claimed

British pupils were among the worst affected in Europe, with only those from Sweden lagging further behind.

The study, published in the European Sociological Review, examined the reading performance of tens of thousands of 15-year-olds across 22 nations.

It cross-checked the results against the teenagers’ socio-economic status and the type of education system prevalent in their home country.

The results showed how much influence wealth had on pupils’ marks. Overall, 9.4 per cent of the variance in UK performance was explained by the student’s social background, compared with a European average of 4.5 per cent.

Scandinavian countries, which have even fewer remaining selective schools than Britain, also had high figures, with Sweden on 9.6 per cent and Norway on 8.1 per cent.

The study, published in the European Sociological Review, examined the reading performance of tens of thousands of 15-year-olds across 22 nations (stock picture)

However, countries which have retained selective education have virtually eliminated class disadvantage. Germany had the lowest figure at 1.4 per cent, followed by Hungary (1.5 per cent), Romania (1.6 per cent) and Austria (2.6 per cent).

The study by France’s National Institute for Demographic Studies set out to prove selective education discriminated against children from poor backgrounds. But it admitted that, against expectation, ‘in early differentiated systems rather than comprehensive ones, primary effects of social origin express less within schools’.

Comments (43)

Share what you think

The comments below have not been moderated.

vero16,

cussac,

moments ago

You mean you’ve only just grasped this fact?

Thankfully, I grew up in a generation where there were more grammar schools, and the working class had access to them.

Anny,

Bedford, United Kingdom,

6 minutes ago

grammar school entrance exams are very unfair and class centered.

Eric Grinham,

Sydney, Australia,

7 minutes ago

The Grammar and Technical schools were very good , but Labour wanted everybody dumbed down [ except their own children , they all seem to end up in Private Schools - funny that !!! ]

browniecj,

eastside,

14 minutes ago

I was not considered good enough to be entered,for the 11 Plus,so I went to Secondary Modern.Best thing that happened-I went into the “T” Stream all the way through.I had no problems about not going to Grammar School(the Teachers were always smart as well).

olly,

London,

14 minutes ago

These jibes against all the members of the government who went to Eton are disgraceful. We ignorant plebs who went to a grammar school should be very grateful to be governed by people of such obviously superior intelligence, ability and moral integrity.

Oh Good Grief,

Berkshire,

16 minutes ago

The best schools ever all you had to be was smart,labour destroyed them in the 70s they wanted all pupils stupid apart from the rich like them who sent there children to good private schools,comprehensive full of stupid teachers teaching children non subjects,this was started in the 70s when they destroyed my education by removing o levels one year before my exams everything I studied for four years was void,how was that allowed to happen

Mancunian returned,

Greater Mancunia, United Kingdom,

moments ago

If it was Labour who destroyed the Grammar schools why did Thatcher and Conservatives continue the destruction into the 1980′s? You also omitted to mention the Tory Government of Ted Heath in the 70′s as well. Why didn’t he do anything? Face facts it was not the fault of the Labour party on its own. The Conservatives could have stopped it but chose not too, they also had the time in power and the majority to reverse it and they chose not too.

PositivelyPerturbed,

London, United Kingdom,

17 minutes ago

The cold, hard truth is that kids from poorer backgrounds tend to have weak and defective genetic material from their parents. Face facts – they’re simply not intelligent enough. Take the example of thoroughbred horses – to make a Gold Cup winner you don’t breed a nag with a thoroughbred, do you?

sam,

here,

19 minutes ago

We need binmen and trolley-pushers and we also need brain surgeons. As such, they need different educations and this is where Grammars come in. The latter will need a more intensive, higher academic level education than the other. Unpalatable if your child is cut out to be the former, but get over it. The sooner this is accepted, the better.

david lott,

Calvados normandy,

20 minutes ago

Ukip plans to reintroduce Grammar schools

Yes really 1,

London,

28 minutes ago

Many of the grammar school places are taken by children who have been tutored to pass.

Who is this week’s top commenter?

Find out now

Poor pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds children "benefit most in a grammar school system"