When is a comprehensive school actually a 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?

[smokepole]

When 'Bromley Mum' says it is?

[IloveJudgeJudy]

Jeee I live in Kent and the school my children go to is in no way a "secondary modern". It is a true comprehensive, with children who have gone to Oxbridge and others who take vocational exams.

Many of the subjects are "setted" - definitely English and Maths and, as you go higher up the school, science and other subjects.

My children's school does offer 3 separate sciences, it offers two MFLs, but does not offer a classical language, but neither do all the grammar schools around here.

I firmly believe the results and reputation of a school depend on the commitment of all who go there. We, the parents, have to sign a contract with the school, the school signs a contract with us and our children and the children also sign a contract with the school, setting out the standards of behaviour that are expected of all parties.

I have three children at this school and have been very happy with the education they have received. One of my children is in top sets for all subjects (could have taken 11+, but did not want to go to a single sex school), one has worked their way up through the sets and is in top set for some subjects and not for others and the other has only just started, but I have no doubt that they also will reach their full potential.

I believe that it is not just exam results that count. I believe that the children need to learn how to interact with all sorts of different people, not just hothoused academic children.

It is a shame that not all children are as lucky as mine and are able to go to a true comprehensive.

[mattellie]

Where we live, grammar schools no longer function in the way they were originally intended to do, ie to benefit bright children from poorer families. Instead they have become a middle-class haven where families know that the education they get is so good, they no longer need to fork out for private education in the way they would have in the past.

It is this phenomenon which, IMHO, has brought the grammar school system into disrepute and made it politically impossible to reintroduce them.

My DD goes to our local upper school and is set for English, maths and science (in science the top 2 sets out of 5 get to do triple science). It offers foreign languages (French and Spanish) but also more vocational subjects and is particularly strong in business studies and technology. It makes a good attempt to offer a range of options, but I totally agree with animula that it is difficult for any school to be all things to all people.

[miso]

The most intelligent, motivated, supported child in the world still won't be able to study separate sciences in a school that doesn't offer them, though, however well they do.

[miso]

Getorf - in the Grammar system, it was possible for children in some areas to move from Sec Modern to Grammar at 14 if they showed ability, so there may have been children who failed the 11+ but ended up with O-levels.

No idea how widespread that practice was though.

[MrsDoofenshmirtz]

Who ?

[Acanthus]

I think she's aggressive too.

[GetOrfMoiLand]

To be honest, I truly think that if you have a motivated child who is supported and encouraged at home, they will do well anywhere.

A lot of the teachers in dd's school seem to have a missionary zeal about them, and would far rather work in a 'deprived' school than in a grammar where the pickings are easy. I have spoken to several and they say that it is really possible to make a difference in a comp, and the work is more satisfying than that of a selective school. I suppose it does depend on what your motivators are as a teacher, but I find attitudes like that really rewarding.

[Fennel]

That's what I mean Getorf, our comps have pass rates around that, or lower, and we don't even have local grammars. Just a huge middle class flight to the private schools or other areas. But in the end the pass rate doesn't matter if there are opportunities for the dc to do the subjects they need and achieve what they need, it doens't matter if 90% of the school isn't doing the same as them, as long as there are a few to spur each other on.

[GetOrfMoiLand]

Fennel - my dd's school has got a GCSE pass rate of 45%. So not very good at all, really.

Mind you, this is because the vast majority of academic kids go to the grammars, all 4 of which have pretty much 100% pass rate. The comps flounder around 20 and 45% iirc.

The rural comp i went to certainly didn't produce huge numbers of grade A students, however there were always a couple of kids a year who went to Oxbridge, which was a cracking result, and really motivated the other bright kids in teh school.

[Fennel]

I find Getorf's description of her daughter's schools quite encouraging, given that my children are destined for a comp which (though it offers 3 sciences and 2 languages) is the sort most mumsnet parents would chew their own arm off before sending their children there. It's good to hear of positive stories of children thriving in schools without great gcse pass rates.

[GetOrfMoiLand]

Oh god I am sorry about the abysmal typing.

[GetOrfMoiLand]

Animula as soon as I posted that with a I thought 'god, that probably comes across as really passive aggressive a la Bonsori anna!'

I genuinely thought that secindary moderns back in the bad old days o=let you do O levels, didn't know it was so seperate. Thankfully the lines are more blurred now between grammars and comps, and I truly believe it is possible to get a good education at a comp in a grammar area.

Thanks re dd - yes that was nearly a year ago that I moved her, she is so happy now, she is like a different child. It was an awful time, thankfully all is well now

[animula]

Getorf - I don't. I'm having an odd, jittery, day. I suspect I'm being a bit opinionated, so I'll go away and do some work.
Btw - I remember reading you posting about your dd, and I'm so glad it's all working out well.

[animula]

Going back to the OP - that particular school does not sound like the best that the comprehensive system can offer. Though, indeed, it may well be the best in your area.

Fennel, for example, sounds as though she lives somewhere with access to comprehensives that offer single sciences, ie. the three sciences, (which is unusual in my part of the world), and languages.

Is it possible to look further afield for another comprehensive in your area, with perhaps a better range of choices?

You are quite right, not all comprehensives are comprehensives.

[GetOrfMoiLand]

animula I see your point re the difference between sec moderns and comprehensives, you know a LOT more than I do about this subject evidently

[GetOrfMoiLand]

God knows whether DD's school would be classed as genunely comprehensive, however I think it runs close.

It does cater to a (small, admittedly) group of students who are very academically able, who, for one reason or another, either flunked their 11+ or missed it. So dd benefits by having very small tailored classes for the top sets. She is in classes of about 12-15 kids for all her lessons except food tech, PE, RE and IT. She has friends who go to Gloucester High School (a very highly rated school) who are in classes of 25.

Also, at the same time, it offers diplomas, BTEC, NVQs etc in manufacturing, construction, childcare, travel and tourism, so the kids who are less academic have another option.

[Fennel]

Like Getorfmoiland, I received an academic education at a bog standard comp, it was in a one-horse town miles from other places so almost everyone went there, apart from a few who went to private schools. It was, and still is, perfectly possible to cater to academic children in comps, many of us came through that system with clutches of good exam results and went off to top universities. You don't need grammar schools to cater to bright children, though I would be unhappy with mixed ability classes. I thnk that's a deal-breaker for me, but most comps do stream for ability. I'd be unhappy with a school that didn't offer 3 sciences 2 languages, history and all the more "academic" options etc at GCSE, but again, a comp can offer that, our local one does. IT also offers vocational courses but that's not a problem, as long as the more academic children don't have to do them.

[animula]

"Flagship school" is vernacular. Tends to mean one that is doing well in a borough or LEA, and coded-ly suggests that resources are directed in its direction. But, as a vernacular expression, it's actual meaning is somewhat undefined, so shifts about.

Thing is, a real comprehensive system, that provides both "grammar"/academic education and a full range of vocational subjects, taught consistently well, is very expensive. Seemingly more than we, as a society, are prepared to pay.

It is, I guess, why independent schools are expensive and they don't have to provide (and pay for) the sort of services that are required if some of your intake are coming from backgrounds featuring the effects of economic deprivation. Which can be quite specific, and dealing with them can be pricey.

Think about it; if you were a school, how could you justify providing, say, Greek, if only 15 children in the whole school (not year) want to take that, and only half of those will realistically have a hope of passing? Could you justify blocking out the time, and paying for a teacher? No, you couldn't, so it gets dropped. Likewise single sciences in many, many "comprehensive" schools, and languages in general (until legislation was passed saying they had to be provided, for a bit, anyway).

I do wish we put more money into our schools.

[MrsDoofenshmirtz]

I really would like to know the answer to my questions if anybody knows. I wasn't being facetious.

I wouldn't call the school talked about here a comprehensive. My child goes to a so called sink school. However, she is doing well and can do three sciences. If she could not I would home ed rather than send her there.

[onceamai]

I couldn't agree more Valhalla and am grateful for the grammar school education I received both academically and socially. One size does not fit all. But every child, regardless of background or the parents' ability to pay, should have the opportunity to receive an academic education and have as many options open to them as more privileged children with similar intellects. The grammar school model was not perfect but it at least provided opportunity for all bright children whereas the present system appears to provide very little for very few.

[animula]

And, of course, this is why the dream situation is to be within striking distance of good comprehensives and grammar schools.

[animula]

Grammar schools were great, Valhalla, by and large. But the majority didn't go to grammar schools. The majority went to secondary moderns. Which were a world away from what most comprehensives (even a lot of the not-so-popular ones) are like now.

I remember friends being sent to secondary moderns, and , of course, they were bright. But the first thing they had to do at 16 was either go to college, or a LVI, and acquire academic qualifications, at 'O' level standard, in academic subjects. They were simply unavailable in a lot of secondary moderns. That wasn't fair.

Even non-grammars in 11+ areas are, usually, a very different beast from the old secondary modern.

This is why there will never be a return to the 11+. People wouldn't stand for it; we've come to expect at least some semblance of provision, and a range of provision, in the schools catering for 75% of state-school children who wouldn't pass the 11+. And I suspect providing that, along with grammar schools, is rather pricey.

Comprehensives, generally, are a vast improvement on the old secondary moderns. Are they (all) offering what grammar schools provided? Clearly not all of them, by a very long chalk.

The disgraceful thing is that some secondary moderns do still exist. That's not OK.

[GetOrfMoiLand]

You're wrong imo Valhalla - a comprehensive education does NOT mean catering to teh lowest common denominator, that is just a silly phrase bandied around to make teh hand wringing middle classes worry.

I am the product of a genuine rural comp - there was only the 1 school for many miles, there was nowhere else to go. I got a clutch of good exam results and am now an engineer.

DD goes to a comp and all classes are setted (is that word?), so she is educated with similar ability children.

I was astonished when I moved to Gloucester and found out that the grammar school system is still alive and well. If I had my all 9 schools in Gloucester would be made into comprehensives, with admission determined by lottery.

[Vallhala]

"I think people forget how bad the old grammar school system really was".

Yeah, right.

I must try to remember that when I compare my own grammar to my DC's (or the vast majority of any) comprehensive.

I will also bear it in mind when I look at my old grammar school, once one of the top 5 state schools in London and one of the best in the country. Now it's appalling, with 5 GCSE A-C results recently raised from 37% to 48%.

Just as important as academic achievement were the manners, social skills and standards expected of us. These aren't just lacking in my old school's current pupils or those of my DD's comprehensive, they're not even taught.

I entered grammar school in the year before the bloody Labour government wiped them off the face of London. I was educated at a time when the effects of this lunatic legislation started to be felt. My Headmistress fought vehemently against the changes which would see her school ruined. She vowed to us that we would continue to receive a grammar school education, led by teachers who had no less than a First. She kept her word.

She knew already what I saw with my own eyes - that turning our schools into a "one size fits all" production line where children are all too often educated to the lowest common denominator and where social and moral standards are severely lacking was a death knell for the futures of our children.