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 .

I think a lot of grammar school choice is based on snobbery and people do not look hard enough at the progress data for the whole cohort. I know of many pupils who were heavily coached for the 11+ who have struggled when they got there, with insufficient differentiation in teaching.
I also know a student who chose not to take the 11+ and outperformed every one of her primary school friends at the local academy for GCSE and Secondary Modern for A level. She is now at a leading RG university.

We are lucky to have good schools without having to travel for grammar - probably 1.5 hours away

Yabu for adding to idea that comps can’t be good

@MintJulia
Kids who try are treated with contempt as nerds

You’ve just described why my dd wouldn’t try. She was almost mute in most lessons... apart from art as she trusted the teacher. No parents evening in yr7 due to Covid. One at the end of yr8 and I had as shock as I didn’t recognise the child the teachers described. I had forgotten how bad that it was at the failing secondary modern I attended. Boys and girls who tried back in the day were ‘girly swats’.

Bullying was rife at my failing secondary modern and at dd’s former comprehensive. Both too big. Bullies seem to not get the right help / punishment at dd’s former school - as I said, pastoral care is lacking. Fights at dd’s school weren’t that common or violent from dd’s reports. Those at my school were horrendous. These days ambulances would have been called and automatic expulsion would have been meted out for the level of violence.

@HilaryThorpe

I think a lot of grammar school choice is based on snobbery and people do not look hard enough at the progress data for the whole cohort. I know of many pupils who were heavily coached for the 11+ who have struggled when they got there, with insufficient differentiation in teaching. I also know a student who chose not to take the 11+ and outperformed every one of her primary school friends at the local academy for GCSE and Secondary Modern for A level. She is now at a leading RG university.

Yes, however, the learning environment must have been right for that child. Not so for many.

I'm a single mum, not a higher rate tax payer, I've mortgaged my soul to ensure ds is somewhere he can learn without being bullied.
For me, it's not about 'being top' as was suggested. I was never top It's about doing my best to give him a safe environment.

I went to a comprehensive in the 1980s
I was the first female in my family to go to university
I have had a good career
The system definitely worked for me
However, I enjoyed my education & I still enjoy learning new skills

Mummyoflittledragon She is clever and hard working, but the standard of teaching was outstanding. And I say that as a former inspector of schools.

What is the difference between comprehensive and 'secondary modern' (never heard this term before)?

I know Grammar's have an entrance exam

[quote MintJulia]@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.[/quote]
That does sound very bad and I don’t blame you for moving your dc / not using it

I know a couple of people with teenage school refusers

I know a couple of people who home educates

School is not for everyone

However, not going to state school impacts the family

[quote Mummyoflittledragon]@MintJulia
Kids who try are treated with contempt as nerds

You’ve just described why my dd wouldn’t try. She was almost mute in most lessons... apart from art as she trusted the teacher. No parents evening in yr7 due to Covid. One at the end of yr8 and I had as shock as I didn’t recognise the child the teachers described. I had forgotten how bad that it was at the failing secondary modern I attended. Boys and girls who tried back in the day were ‘girly swats’.

Bullying was rife at my failing secondary modern and at dd’s former comprehensive. Both too big. Bullies seem to not get the right help / punishment at dd’s former school - as I said, pastoral care is lacking. Fights at dd’s school weren’t that common or violent from dd’s reports. Those at my school were horrendous. These days ambulances would have been called and automatic expulsion would have been meted out for the level of violence.[/quote]
This is my exact memory of my own comp. If you tried you were bullied, mocked, ostracised. The school was too big, the classes unruly, the teachers disengaged. That's why, despite being very left of centre, I sent my DC to a private school for secondary. The state primary reminded me uncomfortably of my state secondary - bullying overlooked, bright children disapproved of by staff as well as pupils.

I'm sure many people see comprehensive education as the only moral thing to do but I wasn't prepared to risk it as both DC were very nerdy intellectual types.

Lamplighter414 strictly speaking comprehensives refer to schools in LAs where there is no selection at 11+ Where pupils are streamed off via selection the schools who take the rest of the cohort are de facto what used to be called secondary modern, even though the title is rarely used these days. You can't be properly comprehensive if you don't have the whole ability range.

If the definition of a grammar school was that it was equipped to educate you to achieve university entrance or direct entry to other professions then I think we do have that in comprehensives. I suppose there are some subjects more often covered in grammar or private schools, but you need to define more closely what the target was back in 1954 in order to judge its success.

My DGM passed the test for a grammar school in the 30s but could not afford the bus or uniform so went to work in a factory instead she was definitely WC as they were cleared from their slum then her Ddad died shortly after (hence her needing to earn!)

My DGdad was WC but his dad had a skilled, well paid manual job (like being an electrician) and he went to GS in the 30s so even then the poorest children were excluded.

I think there can be a range eg a comp in zone 2 with no grammars nearby gets a lot of competition through house prices

Being clever is seen to be good but if it’s not I agree it’s unfair on the dc

I think people looking back at a golden age of grammar schools as engines of social mobility tend to overlook:
1 Most people in Britain in the 1940s and 1950s were working class so even if the majority of working class children went to secondary moderns and the majority of the offspring of the professional classes went to grammar schools then the majority of children who benefited from grammar school education were still working class just because most people were.
2 The middle class was expanding making social mobility easier.
3 The disparity in funding of secondary moderns as compared to grammar schools
4 Just how utterly crap a lot of secondary moderns were.

My 1970s comp was the pits.
My brothers went to a sec modern and did much better than me. I often hate the fact that I had such a crappy education!

As a matter of interest, does anyone know how they fix it so that equal numbers of boys pass the 11+ these days, assuming they do?
You would think it wouldn’t be legal.

I grew up in a northern town with a very odd system.

They had technically got rid of the secondary moderns and 11+ but instead you had options of schools and then in third year the 'academic' children would go to the grammar - boys or high school - girls less academic children stayed at the 'comp'.

Unless you went to an RC junior school, then you went to the RC schools, one for boys, one for girls.

So in effect if you were RC you went to a comp, if you were not then you went to a comp that turned into a sec modern in what is now year 10.

I think if you are going to have selection then 14 is a better age than 11 and mirrors the places that have middle and high schools.

I think what people forget is that grammars were not intended to get bright working class children to uni but because WWII meant there was a shortage of people who could work at a certain level eg managers in the civil service.

To make it work they need to shut down the grammar schools (and ideally private schools).

@HilaryThorpe thanks for the explanation

@Plumedenom

To make it work they need to shut down the grammar schools (and ideally private schools).

Have you been taken in by the bullshit of Labour, who want to close private schools? Privately educated people, who want to pull the draw bridge up behind them… or can just move to catchment for the best state schools.

With 3 years to go before GCSE, we couldn’t move. Too late. Dd wouldn’t get in anywhere as schools are oversubscribed. And even if we did, houses near to the state school I would target are more expensive. Not to mention, how the hell would I start again with my poor health?

So tell me, where do the kids, like my dd, who will not thrive in the sprawling education factory comps go? Are you therefore happy to see her and other children, who feel the same squashed and bullied teachers for not having the confidence to join in?

@leavesthataregreen
My dd’s outstanding former comp seemed to be like that with incredibly stressed, overstretched teachers. The new head wants to make the school the best in the country. But he’s going about it all the wrong way.

The demographic at the school is wildly different from a smaller comprehensive 10 miles down the road in a cutesy, small market town (the school I would like dd to have attended). Her former school cannot compete with this school as predominantly middle class children and children from sprawling rural communities attend. This school is next to a private school and many parents actively choose not to send their children privately as little purpose is served by doing so because the education and pastoral care at this state school is so high.

@RampantIvy

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.

It's way beyond difficult, it's impossible the teach any heavily content based subject in mixed ability, but that was what the Comprehensive model envisaged, work would be 'differentiated' into dozens of levels. In the late '60s when I was training and the Comprehensive revolution was in full swing if you challenged this as a student you were made to feel the lowest of the low. I honestly think that one of the greatest assets a school can have is supportive parents, the ones who will back a school and not expect the school to be as wet in dealing with their children as they are themselves!

I think I've been a wet parent.
Children here are mixed ability at secondary, except for Maths, no discernible homework until exam year when all hell seems to break loose.