When is a comprehensive school as secondary modern

[onceamai]

Last year we looked at our local fairly new flag ship Church of England comprehensive school. Three separate sciences were not offered; a classical language was not offered; French was not offered in year 7, NVQs had been introduced to raise standards because in spite of massive investment 40% of the children had failed to achieve five GCSEs. I had previously understood comprehensive to mean catering for all levels of ability. This school clearly was not catering for high or potentially high achievers and was clearly closing down options for some children as early as 11. How therefore can it possibly call itself comprehensive? It was closer to the old secondary modern model. Also have NVQs now replaced the old CSE's to reintroduce a two tier but watered down qualification system?

Where is the school?

Ds currently goes to an International school where they have only just this academic year introduced three separate sciences. There is no classical language on offer except as a lunchtime club, but they take French from Year 7 plus another MFL at GCSE.

It also depends on the catchment area; schools can only mitigate home circumstances so far, and if the parents don't value education, then the child may not.

40% not achieving 5 GCSEs meant that 60% did - what was the proportion of A* to C within that 60% and what is the Value Added score, which will tell you a lot about the school and what is going on with it.

Did they have someone who could teach French? Hard to offer a subject when you don't have teacher.

Classical languages aren't offered in all of the super-selective grammars, either.

No state schools cater for high achievers. It just isn't possible. This is why the comprehensive system fails. I tought in an excellent comprehensive - 70+ % got 5+ GCSEs etc posh area, outstanding rating. We had 5 sets fo rmaths but still couldn't get enough in the top set capable of doing the higher level paper to be able to teach the syllabus fully as half the group were doing intermediate. What %age of children do you think would be capable of, an dwould want to do, 3 separate sciences? The figures just do not work out. Comprehensive education can only cater for the average pupil and a bit either side. All the focus and money now is on the "deprived" so the bright non-deprived are stuffed. Unfprtunate but true - ask any (honest) secondary teacher of any hard (as opposed to soft rather than easy - ie a factual and conceptually difficult subject like physics or maths (or languages I suspect but know less about them)) subject.

I went to a state grammar - not only did we do 3 sciences to O level but you could also do latin, Greek lit etc. but we did not offer childcare, plumbing etc - the secondary modern did that. Now my dds choices are all of the plumbing variety.

My DS's school has 2 x 5 (or more) sets for maths. You need a big comp to have enough to make a set of high achievers. I know a lot of comprehensives schools where most sets do 3 sciences. Some even do them for top sets by year 10 and start AS in year 11.

Several do offer classical languages, and the chance of 3 modern languages if you are gifted that way (one compulsory, one as an option, and one fast track when you've completed your compulsory one).

BTW there are only 2 types of paper for maths now, DS's school again, the top 3 sets at least do the higher paper.

It's in a rather nice part of SW London Scary Teacher.

Whatkatydidathome - 'no state school caters for high achievers' is surely only true (I'm assuming you mean 'comprehensive' not 'state school'?) in areas where the grammar schools have creamed off the highest achieving pupils??

Where I grew up, there were only comps, no grammars and the top sets were full of people who were going on to Oxbridge / other good Uni's - they were big schools though,as mummytime said you do need that to be able to make a decent sized set.

I think its probably fair to say that the more selective options there are in your area (ie grammars but also schools that select by faith, and private schools) then the more likely it is that the remaining schools will resemble a secondary modern.

Maybe that's the case in the sice parts of SW London?

My children go to a comprehensive and we are in an area with grammars. It was our choice to send the children to the comprehensive and them not to take the 11+.

My daughter is in Y9 in top set for everything, will be taking RE GCSE this year and will be taking three sciences, at least one MFL. The school does not offer a classical language, but neither do all the grammar schools around here.

The school is a true comprehensive and it also caters for people doing mechanics, hairdressing, etc, but 83% of the pupils got 5 GCSEs at A-C. Pupils to go to Oxbridge from this school, too.

I think it just takes committed parents and staff and for the mindset in the school to be that everyone will achieve as well as they possibly can.

If 60% of pupils achieve 5 GCSEs at C or above then that is well above the national average.

I work in a school that is a comprehensive in a grammar area and still caters for high achievers. It is rather an ignorant and sweeping statement to suggest that secondary comps can never cater for such students.

'Comprehensive' means they accept any pupil regardless of academic ability, it has nothing to do with what curriculum or subjects they offer.

So some of the sweeping statements on this thread don't really make sense.