Nikki out, Justine in

Greening is a Comp girl.
Hopefully she will bring some sense

Depends on her experience. I went to a comp and wouldn't wish my experience on my worst enemy!

If I were education secretary for the day, I'd get rid of faith admissions as my priority, but that's another issue.

Even that isn't just as straightforward as might be thought. Up and down the country a lot of village primary schools are Church schools, (mostly CofE, but RC in some parts) which cater to the children in the village, and attendance at Church doesn't really come into it.

If I were education secretary for the day, I'd get rid of faith admissions as my priority, but that's another issue.

I'd get rid of ALL forms of selection for state funded schools. The only way in which a comp system will work is if parents have to send their kids to a choice of 2/3 of the closest schools. Otherwise, you have selection by the back door, due to people moving or putting down false addresses, etc.

The faith schools have a far bigger impact of sucking away average/high achievers leaving everyone else in sink schools, than grammars or private schools, simply due to the far higher numbers of faith school pupils as opposed to private/grammar numbers.

In our city, there are two huge faith schools, each with 1,500-2,000 pupils, despite empty churches (lots of people lie to get their kids in them!). The comps don't stand a chance, we have three and they're all failing, none are bigger than 1,000 - we used to have four but the worse one got closed down and the kids are now bussed over the county border to a "good" comp.

I agree with PP (and others) - this whole debate is a non-starter. Justine Greening, Theresa May or whoever is never going to bring back the binary selective system across the country. It's just not going to happen.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the system (more, IMO, of the latter), it's not a vote winner. No system in which 80% 'lose' is going to be popular. That alone means that nobody is going to bring it back.

It's also not particularly appealing intellectually to many Conservatives, who emphasise choice. A system in which 20% have a choice of two schools and 80% have no choice is certainly not that (I know it's a bit more complicated than that).

If I were education secretary for the day, I'd get rid of faith admissions as my priority, but that's another issue.

DH used to be a parent governor, and I can't ever remember there being any discussion whatever about grammar schools. Most parents want their child to have the best possible education at the school they attend. We don't have Grammar Schools where we live, but do have a number of Independent schools, of mixed reputations.

I can't help thinking that this whole debate is a bit like the Tory Eurosceptics 'banging on about Europe' but 'banging on about Grammar Schools'. Those of you who aren't old enough to remember the system before comprehensives just don't remember how deeply unpopular the Sec Mod system was. Today, with a GS/SM system in Kent/Bucks, I can't ever recall parents in either County calling for more Sec Mods.

" I am only suggesting academically selective schools because it is the only way I can see of providing for very bright children under the current system"

But it's not!

Extremely clever children do thrive at some comprehensives, if there is good teaching and they have a reasonably bright cohort. My friends son has just left Cambridge with a first - did both GCSE's and A-levels at a London comp with a broad intake. It does happen!

"how do you justify comprehensives with the average large intake that only offer the minimum of academic GCSE's" I have no idea why schools do this, do you? I should imagine it's got something to do with funding and something to do with finding and keeping staff. Obviously it's not something to defend! I'm sure it's not because of sheer bloody minded ideological reasons - I doubt heads set out to put ambitious families off joining their schools.

My children's school doesn't have any particular provision for super bright children, although super applied kids can be advanced grades at primary and if they study at home at secondary they can get through courses quicker and so be in classes with older children at school. ds is starting some university courses next year to run alongside his final year of school which is cool but I don't think that there is so much emphasis on giftedness here. He got some extension stuff at primary (school district/ university organised) but as there are very few exams here perhaps it's easier to give more advanced children extension work.

There is no streaming and very little setting except through choice (you can take a more practical math course designed to support trades courses, or a more practical English course if you really don't like books).

However I don't know that I'd call either of my children super bright/ academic. They are both generally top of class, but I don't know if they will be at university (ds is aiming to get into the best university in the province and is on track to do so).

cricketballs I have experience of very academic children and how they are let down by both the primary and secondary comprehensives. I am not talking about the average DC who works their socks off to get into Oxbridge. I am talking about the ones like Lurkedforever1 who sit in class bored to death by how simple lessons were and dreaming of the promised land when it will be better next year. But it rarely is and they give up trying.

nooka I am only suggesting academically selective schools because it is the only way I can see of providing for very bright children under the current system. If comprehensives had the money to provide this then I would be happy as well. But they dont so I dont see any alternative. Ironic that you moved to Canada to get this!

I don't really understand why people feel that children need to be sent to different sites to get different educations or why there is such an idea of segregation between 'academic' and 'vocational' children.

My dd is academically gifted and a great cook. She is currently thinking about signing up for a chef qualification alongside her academic and creative courses, because then she will be able to work her way through university (she wants to be a professor at the moment so will be in education for a log time).

We live in Canada now, emigrating partly for educational reasons. We only have comprehensives in our town (there are two religious schools but you really do have to be very religious to go there, they are not mainstream choices at all) and they all offer core academic courses, stretch academic courses and trades type courses. All children have to take a mix up of each as they have more of a general graduation approach (ie you have to take English to 12, Math, a science and a humanities to 11 plus a certain amount of credits to graduate school).

I work for the local university and it has a trades school as well as academic courses up to PhD. You can ladder form vocational to more academic - ie you can take trades certificates and ladder into engineering. People are motivated to do different things at different ages.

Oh and sometimes my children get bored at school. I went to a very expensive and academically selective public school in the UK. I too was bored at times, and boy were there some disruptive children there!

cricket you're mistaken if you think every teacher does that. They don't. Nobody has said it never happens the way you think. Just that all too often it does. Not because we read it somewhere, because lots of us have personal experience ourselves and of it still happening now to other children.

I have read this thread with interets, and felt no need to contribute until I read peaches post "They are being failed because they sit in class bored with work 2/3 years below them"...I would challenge you to ask the many oxbridge students I have taught in shock, horror a non bacc subject at GCSE/BTEC if they were bored and felt the work they were given was 2/3 years below them.

That statement on its own shows the lack of understanding about what actually happens in schools/subjects/qualifications as many insist that what they read online is actual fact

mini how do you justify comprehensives with the average large intake that only offer the minimum of academic gcses? How on earth do dc get top results for gcses their school doesn't even offer? How many good teachers remain at schools with shit leadership? I can compare the two realistic choices for dc near me, and while one is shit at providing academically for dc above average, it can't be faulted for its pastoral care or what it does for the average and below dc. The other is just inexcusably shit in every possible way. Cohorts are no different in either. It's just some leadership are crap.

peach has answered the rest for me. I went to a shit school, and a mediocre sixth form. And I left with top grades across the board. Did I take my pick of universities like I could have? No, I'd spent most of my life bored senseless, always being promised the next stage would be better and then being let down when it was the same tedium. So I decided there was no way I was signing up for anymore formal education. When I did go to university, I was just bloody lucky to be able enough to cope with being a lone parent to a baby, and experiencing for the first time in education the concept of effort, regular attendance, and doing a degree all at the same time.

What about all my top set peers, who with hindsight all got a grade or even two lower than they should have? How was their potential reached?

I'd also like to know how many of the "comp" supporters have sent their kids to the nearest comp as opposed to those who have lied about being religious or moved into the catchment area of better schools.

I did, and no they weren't particularly highly regarded schools, but both have gone onto good universities and got good jobs.

Talkin I don't disbelieve you about the current middle school system (which is different to what was being proposed above) because I don't have the facts but I am curious as to whether your categorical conclusion is based on information your DH has from assessing these schools through official data collection and inspections or just by hearsay from his visits for another purpose?

If that was true we wouldn't have thousands of clever children leaving comprehensives with straight 'a's in their A-levels

Your deliberatly missing the point, they are being failed because getting straight A's is easy for them. They are being failed because they sit in class bored with work 2/3 years below them. They are being failed because they dont have access to material or classes that actually challenges them.

Its the glass ceiling that says you got an A* and that is as far as you can go, who cares you are capable of so much more. What a contribution these children to make to our country if they were allowed to reach their potential, instead of being held back at school.

mangomoon
Up thread I pointed out that DH sees all sorts of schools all over the country.
The middle school system does not deliver results.

mini
No comp in this county can select in any way other than distance. Its the same in most of the country.

badbunny
I've never made any secret of the fact that my kids did not go to the nearest comp. Its a sponsored academy that should have closed years ago and has 400 empty spaces.
My kids - and 500 like them, got the bus to the next catchment along.
For 6th I cough up the bus fare and cope with the 11 hour day.

and high achievement is actively celebrated in the comps round here
DD was nowhere near the top of the year group with her 3 x * and 10 x A

I'll tell you how DS did in a couple of weeks.

I think comprehensives are allowed to select up to 15% of their intake.

"Religion, Music, Sport, Expensive house in catchment, Feeder Schools, Arts, Technology and Languages, are all used to select, so why not by exceptional aptitude."

Many comprehensives also select a percentage by academic ability. It's a good way of making sure the intake is representative.

Is this what you meant?

YY to your post send.
It's definitely an area that needs a completely radical rethink rather than just messing ineffectually with the mish mash that's already there.

Badbadbunny, forces families are a large example of people who send their kids to the local school.

I had no (real) choice other than to send my kids to their local primary & then local comp in all our addresses.
Luckily we have always had a decent school (4 overall, my kids are 11 & 14 now).

None of those schools were in urban areas though, so not a true comparison in the bigger sense.

MangoMoon that seems a reasonable template except perhaps primary only up to year 5. It would depend on local building infrastructure whether the different sections were on separate sites.
I also think that there should also be a trial period for the choice of academic versus high level technical / trade versus trade which would be the last term of year 9. That trial period would enable both the pupils and their teachers to evaluate whether the choice is right for them.

I'd also like to know how many of the "comp" supporters have sent their kids to the nearest comp as opposed to those who have lied about being religious or moved into the catchment area of better schools.

One of my neighbours was whining about grammars but is a complete hypocrite because she went to church a few times so she could get the vicar to sign her attendance form to get a place at a local faith school as opposed to the closest comp which is in special measures or having to pay for bus fares to the only outstanding comp which is across the county border.

Religion, Music, Sport, Expensive house in catchment, Feeder Schools, Arts, Technology and Languages, are all used to select, so why not by exceptional aptitude.

My point exactly. Society is happy to congratulate and make special provision for high achievers in sports, arts, etc., but being a high academic achiever is regarded as a dirty little secret to be hidden and ignored.

"The comprehensive system does fail very clever children, it just can't provide what is needed to teach to the very high levels a minority of children need"

If that was true we wouldn't have thousands of clever children leaving comprehensives with straight 'a's in their A-levels, and then going on to top universities.