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 .

We all know that grammars helped social mobility at the start, when not many went to uni. However a test at 11 that mc parents tutor extensively for doesn't appear to aid social mobility much any longer.But there are a lot of people going to uni now from comps too, who are first generation.

There are no grammar schools were I live but lots of private schools. It's just selection by a different means.

@jazzandh

My aunt was in the first cohort at Kidbrooke!

My mum was too! She doesn’t talk too highly of it.

@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 .

You are aware that most parents dont have a choice to choose a Grammar school? There hasent been a, Grammar school available in my town since the late 1970,s.

I think the difference is now that (in theory) there is parental choice.

The comprehensive school system was born of a time where the concept of parental choice in education was unheard of.

My father sat the 11 plus in around 1946 and did well but, as the grammar school only took, say, those who fell into the top 100 in the catchment area. My dad was number 101.

He ended up at grammar school purely because someone dropped out. If that hadn't happened he'd be hard streamed into a sec modern, took CSEs only and would have possibly had his future shaped purely on the strength of a decision made when he was 11.

These days that lack of mobility has gone, so in that respect yes it's been successful.

Grammar county here. The alternatives are crap secondary moderns, with limited subjects at GCSE. I would estimate about 90% of the class try for the grammar. I would love to see a proper comprehensive school.

My parents got the raw deal from both ends.

DM was borderline 11+ so they have her parents the option of choosing between the G or the SM. Her DM chose the SM due to sexism as she didn't want her going off to have a career like her older sister did. She did end up moving on from her school to another one/college to do A levels and then went into a profession you now need a degree for. But it was a long route and she still resents being held back.

DF was in a new comp area. He was very academic and definitely would have got into the grammar if they hadn't closed it. His comp was useless and he left at 14. Never went to college/ uni. Never got a job beyond a skilled working class one. Huge waste of potential.

For both my DPs the school's they were forced to attend shaped their whole lives- low paid work meant they didn't get up the property ladder like other boomers. No big pensions, nothing.

Their parents actually had a better lifestyle than them and not many boomers can say that.

The grammar school system only works if the secondary moderns offer an outstanding learning environment - teaching, pastoral care, sen provision and so forth. This is very difficult, when schools often have intakes of 1500 children.

I was a borderline fail as I’d lost all confidence in my abilities due to moving schools as a young child. The secondary modern was dire. It would have been deemed inadequate had ofsted existed. I am often astounded at the knowledge of posters, who state they learned x, y and z at school. Mine was a dumbed down education, where O levels were not funded for all subjects. I thought I’d be a secretary if I was lucky. And I would never have made a good secretary.

I think grammar education is valid if the secondary modern is of equal standard. Children, who pass the 11+ then have a valid choice between a selected education or mainstream. The secondary moderns should be the equivalent of comprehensive schools. Ergo, secondary modern schools should not exist. They should be comprehensives. Relevant to children of all abilities.

Certain children will do better in selected schools. Others in a comprehensive. My dd is like me and was squashed in a large (ofsted outstanding) comprehensive (not in 11+ area) as I was in the large secondary modern but at least she received a good education there. She has been given the choice of private school now and has chosen a small, private one rather than one of the the highly rated large one. She was lost and squashed and now is thriving.

Your mum is correct that grammars are best but only on the prerequisite that the offering for children, who do not make the grades is not worse.

The government is also wrong to cram so many children in one campus. The cut off should be around 1000/1200. More in my experience creates a culture of faceless, nameless children.

Neither of my parents passed the 11+,my Dad is very intelligent, but his family moved from Ireland a few months before he took it, apparently some primary schools had an option of staying on untill the kids were fourteen?
My Dad didnt stay at the primary school and went to a brand new secondary modern, school he got a couple of of O levels
My mum pass either, but my Grandma paid for her to attend a Grant maintained, Convent Grammar school she also got a couple of O levels
My Dad got a Job at the Gas board as it was then, and did very well and got an excellent pension, my mum also got a job there for about 15 years and also gets a small pension from them,they were lucky.

Agree mummyoflittledragon - and would go as far as saying that I would expect secondary moderns to be funded by more per child than grammars due to the likelihood that there would be more children with learning disabilities and other challenges which mean it’s harder to pass 11+ and would need more support.

I would love to see a proper comprehensive school.

DD went to a proper comprehensive school. There are no grammar schools in our county. She achieved a raft of As and A*s at GCSE and AAA at A level - this was all pre-covid so she sat proper public exams.

She outperformed the two friends of hers who went to a fee paying grammar school in the next county.

I don't understand why grammar school supporters don't understand why "comprehensive" schools in grammar school areas don't perform as well as grammar schools. The grammar schools have the cream of the pupils, parents of these pupils will be more invested in their children's education and more supportive of the school. It isn't rocket science. The schools aren't necessarily better, they just have more academically able pupils.

I suspect that the Progress 8 value in grammar schools is lower than that of many comprehensive schools.

I also deplore the idea that a child's future is written off at age 10/11.

@RampantIvy
That’s great your dd excelled, was that at an education factory of 1500+?

Just because your dd performed extremely well at a comprehensive, it cannot be extrapolated that her friends did worse because they attended the fee paying grammar. My dd is now going to a fee paying grammar precisely because she was lost, scared of showing her individuality, even refusing to show aptitude in subjects she loves.

She was very popular at school and had a plethora of friends because she’s generally a solid, emotionally intelligent child. Ironically being part of the popular crowd squashed her further as she refused to show herself. On paper, a well adjusted and happy child should do well in these education factories. But sadly many do not.

Loads of students excelled at DD's school. Aren't most schools exam factories these days? Even grammar schools?

The problem with the grammar system is that it ‘negatively selects’ for the secondary moderns in that area. That is why in a grammar LA many parents of bright/middle class children choose the grammars. Where there are no grammars, comprehensive schools take in the whole range of ability, including the brightest of the bright.

I sent my children to excellent comprehensive schools outside of grammar LAs and they achieved fantastically.

The question should really be did the grammar school system achieve what it set out to do, and the answer to that is no! The vast majority of students who attend grammar schools are higher achieving middle class children who would excel in a comprehensive setting. The grammar system doesn’t really add value to education but does create a divisive education system.

I don’t think they are, no. DD’s former school has great results. But completely missing any pastoral / soft skills. The new head really isn’t helping on that score. Not as strict as this yet. But going that way. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9749869/Parents-blast-new-headteachers-strict-school-rules-include-smiling.html.

I totally agree with you @Holly60.

@DerAlteMann

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.

There's a very interesting book, "Education and the Working Class", which looked at all the working class children who attended grammar schools in one northern city in the late 40s/early 50s. Two key things stick out. One is that a substantial proportion of those children turned out not to be really fully working class - although their fathers were in "working class occupations", some had previously run their own businesses, and quite a number of the mothers were from distinctly middle class backgrounds. The other is that they were not as successful as might have been hoped - especially the true working class kids, who often didn't stay the course.

[quote Mummyoflittledragon]I don’t think they are, no. DD’s former school has great results. But completely missing any pastoral / soft skills. The new head really isn’t helping on that score. Not as strict as this yet. But going that way. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9749869/Parents-blast-new-headteachers-strict-school-rules-include-smiling.html.[/quote]
The pastoral care at DD's school wasn't great, but I don't think it was because it is a comprehensive school. It just wasn't great.

I would suggest that you might get better pastoral care at a fee paying school because they won't want to lose the income from any parents. That said, the fee paying girls grammar school DD's freinds went to was notorious for bullying.

This is a fairly interesting (if a little heavy-going) read on the subject.

YANBU - the UK education system is an absolute joke.

www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ProgressivelyWorsePeal.pdf

The comp that both myself and DS attended tested the children very early on and put us in sets for all subjects. I was accidentally put in low sets for two weeks due to an admin error. The behaviour of those kids in those classes was appalling. The deputy headmaster personally apologised to me and I was moved to top set. No behavioural issues in the top set classes.

There were no grammar schools in the area that I grew up in or settled in. Those comprehensives served both myself and DS well. DH went to one of the best public schools in the country so he was quiet fearful of sending DS to a comp. but the private school in our current home town is pretty bad.

The pupils are put into sets for maths and English early on at DD's old school. I imagine that teaching maths, especially, must be very difficult to a mixed ability class.

Living in an area with comprehensives, on the border of a grammar school area, I honestly wouldn't choose the grammar school system. I don't think deciding at age 11 is very rational or evidence based in terms of potential and outcomes, and I see the elbowing and hot-housing that happens in yr 6 to get kids into grammars and it's awful.

We have just comprehensives, all very good, all pretty balanced/equal in terms of results and demographic, all offering great extra-curricular activities, all having a good mix of outcomes and options at 18. In our area, it really really works and hardly anyone here looks at the neighbouring grammar area and wishes they could be there. On the flip side, on the opposite side of the grammar area is comprehensives again, although approaching city centre, and a much broader demographic mix and much broader mix of quality in the choice of comps,....if I lived there, I'm trying to think if I'd prefer the grammar area....I'm not sure if I would. DD struggles with maths and is improving fast, but I don't know how she would do at selection, and so I'd worry about her ending up in a not very good school if she failed the 11 plus. I know in a comprehensive area the quality of education she gets in all subjects isn't dictated by how she does in maths at 11.

I would be in favour of a system where everyone is educated together until age 14 when the system then splits into technical or academic or vocational schools ( that may not be the right split) but this only works if the funding is equal regardless of which system you are in .

The current system is far too narrow and means far too many children leave school with nothing much on paper when the reality is that they had lots of ability and potential . It also bores a lot of more practical children . Equally it isn’t stretching enough for those who are academically inclined , GCSEs are an exercise in toye learning of mark schemes and endurance due to the number of exams they sit, A levels are far far too narrow .

My grandmother was a widow and my grandfather was a plumber and my df was the only boy to pass the 11+ from his school. Grammar school catapulted him into the professions. My mother went to technical school and then into nursing .

@redhelenb I mean that bullying is rife, assaults are common, regular fighting, there is little supervision at lunchtimes or after school. Kids who try are treated with contempt as nerds. The site is too big for teachers to be see what goes on, and they don't have the bandwidth anyway. It's only a matter of time before a child is badly hurt. It's not safe.