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?

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 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

Oh god I am sorry about the abysmal typing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think she's aggressive too.

Who ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

When 'Bromley Mum' says it is?