This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

Grammar schools do not improve the exam results of bright students beyond what they would have achieved at a good comprehensive, while more grammars would widen the attainment gap between rich and poor, a study has found.

The analysis of GCSE performance in selective state schools, carried out by the Education Policy Institute, concluded: “We find no evidence to suggest that overall educational standards in England would be improved by creating additional grammar schools.”

Comparing the top 25% of comprehensive schools with the results of existing selective schools, the researchers found “there is no benefit to attending a grammar school for high-attaining pupils” – meaning bright children performed just as well in good comprehensive schools as in grammars.

The report follows the recent campaign by Theresa May to overturn the existing ban on allowing new grammar schools to open. May argued that selecting pupils at the age of 11 would enhance social mobility.

But the EPI report found little to confirm May’s claim that new grammar schools would help children from disadvantaged backgrounds, including those on free school meals (FSM).

Grammar schools are not just socially divisive – they’re deeply ineffective | Sam Freedman Read more

Comparing local authorities, the researchers said: “We find that attainment for non-FSM pupils is highest in wholly-selective local authorities but that these areas also see the lowest attainment for FSM pupils.”

May claimed that good comprehensives operated “selection by house price,” so that only wealthier parents could afford to live in their catchment area, but the EPI researchers found the most successful comprehensives had a far higher proportion of pupils on FSM – close to the national average rate of 13% – than the 2.5% in grammars.

Malcolm Trobe, the acting general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the government’s case was based on “nostalgia and anecdote”.

“This report 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,” Trobe said.

“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.”

While the figures showed that pupils fortunate enough to get into grammars got better GCSE results than their peers, the study concluded: “At a national level, and adjusting for pupil characteristics, there appears to be no overall impact of selective schooling, either positive or negative.

“This conclusion is likely to disappoint both the advocates of more grammar schools and the critics of selective schools expansion.”

The high GCSE pass rate achieved by grammars “is not, however, evidence of better grammar school performance – it is likely to be driven by the very high prior attainment and demographics of pupils in grammar schools,” the report says.

Russell Hobby, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: “Grammar schools don’t close the education gap, they widen it. The EPI is right to state that if it wishes to raise social mobility, the government needs to do more to raise attainment in the early years of life and in primary schools.”