I've not seen any for gloucester that make such a bold statement

The topic always used to come up every few years whilst I was going through the system.

strategic reviews I remember seeing (tbf probably a decade old now) always used to be pretty ambivalent about them.

You'd have marginally better prospects if you were a middle achiever and went to one of the grammars. If you were a top achiever you were actually better off in the non grammars. There wasn't much of a difference to those in the non grammars. The very lowest achievers were perhaps very marginally worse off.

On the while they didn't really think they made much difference for good or bad, so no reason to expand nor close.

Posted By: CWC, Oct 2, 14:11:04