To question whether Comprehensive Schooling has achieved what was anticipated when Kidbrooke opened in 1954

[peewitsandy]

Kidbrooke School in Greenwich was the first purpose built Comprehensive school in England in 1954. The dawn of a revolution in education was anticipated a 'Grammar School' for everybody was the notion espoused by politicians. This being the mantra of especially those on the left of the political spectrum.

Fast forward some seventy seven years later , where many posters on here will inevitably choose Grammar School nine times out of ten. This being factual even if local Comprehensive is Outstanding and the Grammar School requires a sixty minute journey there and back.

This, suggests parents make the grammar school choice, over a perfectly good Comprehensive option, because the mantra of a 'Grammar School for all' has not succeeded .

This is despite seventy + years of promotion of Comprehensive Education by Governments of both colour.

The original notion of Comprehensive education, was that over time both Private and Grammar Schools would become absolute .

Sorry about absolute,,... Correction

Would no longer function, due to the lack of parental demand..

My aunt was in the first cohort at Kidbrooke!

"many posters on here will inevitably choose Grammar School nine times out of ten"

Nonsense. Most of us don't even have a grammar school in commuting distance.

Plus, if you have grammar schools in your LA then the other secondaries can never be truly comprehensive.

I think one of the biggest problems in education is the concept of 'grammar school' education for all. Not all children want or can cope with a 'grammar school' education, ie lots of academic subjects/methodology.

There is so much academic emphasis now (far more than in the 70s when I was in school) in all subjects, including the practical ones like cooking, sewing, technology etc. Even in science they do far fewer hands-on experiments.

Teachers are far more skilled now - they are much better at explaining and demonstrating how to improve work, particularly in the GCSE years but I would love to see far more hands-on stuff in lessons.

No grammar schools around here. I find it bizarre that certain parts of the country have loads and some have none!

Absolutely no nonsense to get rid of grammars, we need more specialist schools not less.
Our outstanding comp is OK but showed its colours during covid.

Now all schools are equally shit.
Apart from state grammar schools, obviously.

Absolutely no interest in the grammar schools 30 minutes away here. I am a psychologist and the students I work with at the grammar schools are the most miserable and psychologically damaged of all.

No grammar near me. Local school perfectly fine. Take away grammars the local school is fine. We need a mix of opportunity for all children.

1954 wasn't 77 years ago

What labour did was kick away the ladder from poor dc whose parents for whatever reason wouldn't support them getting into grammer.

Without any help in school to pass only parents who have some ambition will get their dc through.

What a fuck up.

Why not focus instead on dc like mine who with some tweaking to the way things are taught will learn far more easily, why not get basic sen training into teacher training so teachers are armed with the basics to identify and flag up potential sen?. Why make not sure all Senco are properly trained?

Get the experts in to consult on basics to help dc learn better to help all learn?

Open more school with specialist teachers for those with more severe sen that need more help!

Germany has a stricter system and they devide dc up far younger! They take more than pride in their technical stuff.

"why not get basic sen training into teacher training so teachers are armed with the basics to identify and flag up potential sen?. Why make not sure all Senco are properly trained?" Agree 100%

@careerchangeperhaps

1954 wasn't 77 years ago

obviously the OP went to a comp !

Comprehensive's have issues because a) GS still exist in some areas and B people don't stick to their catchment schools - parents with the ability/money etc move house for 'better' schools (ie ones with less poor kids) or tutor them through the 11+

Not really true equality

You can’t choose a Grammar school for your child. They need to be chosen by the school. 80% of kids did not get in and very unfairly did not have access to further education.

Margaret Thatcher as education secretary did a lot to get rid of grammar schools as there was a lot of anger from middle class parents who did not want their kids to go to secondary moderns.

Yes there are some schools that are not good enough but condemning 80% of children to get an education that is considered to be lesser is not the answer. We need to put more focus into making sure that all children receive a good education.

To be fair, new SENCOs now have to pass the National SEND co-ordination award, which is at masters level. SENCOs already in role don't need this qualification. Teachers and SENCOs are often well aware of SEN, but lack the funding and resources to do enough to help.

I live in a grammar school area - the schools which are not the grammar school are secondary modern, they're not comprehensive. We do also have a bi-lateral school, which has a grammar stream, so basically a comprehensive but you have to take the 11+ to get into the grammar stream.

I chose to send my DC to a comprehensive school in the next town. I much preferred the "good" comprehensive in the next town to the "good" secondary moderns near to home. The ugly truth is, around here the % of children who can actually go to the grammar schools is very low- one of my DC did well enough in the 11+ to be offered a place, but I don't think he would have been happy there. The majority of parents are desperate for their DCs to attend, however. The exam results are just too good to ignore.

I think the parents choose a grammar for academic children because if you are in a grammar LA it's the best of what there is.

I put dd1 through the 11+ and she's thriving beyond my imagination at a state grammar.

I think all children should be able to access the best of the best but I'm in a grammar la and the dds arn't guinea pigs. Is what it is.

Parental involvement is a far bigger predictor of academic success than school type. For all their downsides, comprehensive schools do provide a reasonable education for most pupils. It would be better to provide more vocational and practical education to those who are suited to that. And probably some academically able students have lost out on Latin and some of the top end learning. But for most children the current system is fine. Any problems are due to underfunding and over stretched staff rather than the principle of comprehensive education.

As long as there are/were grammar school and private schools, there is no true comprehensive education. The experiment didn't fail, it was never allow to happen.

Of course there is a comprehensive system across large parts of the UK. It's not been a wild success imo.

The destruction of State grammar schools by the Labour Govt. did more harm to social mobility of the working class than anything ever done by any Tory government ever.

My mother is retired Headteacher who taught in Grammar Schools and then became a head of two 'Comprehensives' Secondary Moderns in the early -mid 2000s. She is writing an academic paper about the successes and failures of Comprehensive Education. My mother however is very pro selective education despite finishing her career at the other end of the chalk face.

To give some context, in the mothers final year in teaching her school achieved 41% 5 A-C GCSE up from 19% some 5 years earlier . At first I think my mother was not universally liked. Some 'parents' and pupils objected to the high standards of uniform regulations and classroom manners.

I did not fail my Maths GCSE honest some 67 years ago !

No grammar schools round here and not many people can afford private.