A thread to discuss state selective education.

[Hakluyt]

I am conscious that this debate is clogging up other threads in ways which are not helpful and must be annoying for those threads' authors. I tried to channel the debate to a separate thread yesterday, but got it badly wrong. I hope this will work better, and will be allowed to stay.

Clavinova
Please define and name an ordinary comp
as none of us seem to live near them in your opinion.

A comprehensive school
Is one that has no academic or other selective criteria in it's
Admissions policy, and takes all abilities.

Is there any such thing then as a "Comprehensive" described by Hakluyt. A true Comprehensive in her eyes. A true comprehensive school would not refuse entry even to a child who had been expelled from four schools. The only admission criteria would be wanting to go there. This is clearly not the case, because only in the "Worst" schools those with small numbers of high ability pupils on roll, and usually a malignant hard core of badly behaved pupils is this possible. The vast majority of what are commonly accepted as comprehensive schools, have more complex admission regulations than most academically selective ones. People therefore need to except that a true "Comprehensive" school is very rare and a school most of us would "selectively" dismiss it for our DCs.

"The vast majority of what are commonly accepted as comprehensive schools, have more complex admission regulations than most academically selective ones." Really? Such as?

The vast majority of what are commonly accepted as comprehensive schools, have more complex admission regulations than most academically selective ones. People therefore need to except that a true "Comprehensive" school is very rare and a school most of us would "selectively" dismiss it for our DCs.

Sorry, I think you are talking rubbish.My three local comprehensives follow Oxfordshire county council admission rules - which are quite clearly laid down. I am pretty sure that a good majority of other schools will abide by their Local Authority admission rules.

I wonder just how many academically selective ones give preference to 'looked after' children, special needs, in their first two categories for admission?

Smokepole
A true comprehensive school would not refuse entry even to a child who had been expelled from four schools. The only admission criteria would be wanting to go there.
If the comprehensive school had a vacancy and the child complied with the admission criteria - ie lived in catchment, they would have no choice but to admit the child.

The child I'm aware of locally has only been expelled from two though.

But the parents would rightly take the school to task and get the kid admitted.
If a state school expels a child, they are responsible for finding their next school anyway.

Comprehensive schools have clear areas they admit from, comply with the admissions code for in and out of catchment kids
and have NO ADMISSION TESTING OF ANY SORT

so children from 15 miles outside the catchment can get in if there is a space - no other criteria apply.

Sibling Policies , a Catchment within 300-400 yards for instance. How many schools would take a "Disruptive" or troubled child on face value without asking questions. That would be a true Comprehensive giving a child a chance even those with a troubled past.

I believe Simon Langton boys has a unit for academically able boys with special needs. I agree that more pupils with Dyspraxia/Dyslexia ETC should be admitted in to selective schools. It is also worth mentioning that DD2 is Dyspraxic and her Grammar "Wanted" her out in years 7 and 8. However, because of her hard work and that of the SENCO ,she is now in the top 10% of her school in year 11.

DD2 wants to be an English teacher, though it is sad she wants to teach "Grammar school" children ,when with her knowledge she could make an excellent special needs teacher!...

I should be pro Comprehensive considering that only DS has had a "Straight-forward time with selective education. However, I am still not convinced about it I have seen the negative side to grammar schools even with children attending them.

The Conclusion is that no system is right or wrong, just that you choose the best available school for your children.

Even though I have seen the negative side to selective education.

smokepole
How many schools would take a "Disruptive" or troubled child on face value without asking questions.
If they did ask questions they would be breaking the law.
In a comprehensive area, kid applies, filling out the form that shows where they live and not much else.
If that form means they get in, they get in.

Grammars are allowed to kick kids out because there is a catchment secondary modern.
If a Comp child is at their catchment school, there is very little the school can do.

Do you not read prh47s regular posts about the admissions code?

As far as I'm aware all grammar schools give priority to children with Statements (who name the school) and Looked After Children as long as they achieve the minimum pass mark. Some grammars are now reserving places for children on Pupil Premium.

How many Looked after children actually get into Grammars ?

Presumably anybody who moves into a grammar area part way through secondary has to go to the school with spaces - which is unlikely to be the grammar

whereas in a comp area they can take the place of the child who moved out

as long as they achieve the minimum pass mark. So not prioritising Looked after and then special needs etc.

But smokepole appears to be trying to argue that the comprehensives have such complex admission requirements which are more than jumping through hoops of admission tests, (with the tutoring which now goes on), and then applying, some other complex arrangements. Well, I am not sure what is being argued. Oxfordshire's requirements seem pretty clear to me, and they look pretty standard, as far as I can tell.

And incidentally when a child is removed from one of the comprehensives, a fresh start at one of the others seems to turn them round.

Ok Talkinpeace. Before we get "Smokepole" facts on twitter . My post of the "Majority" is a bit Steven Emerson. I am just glad I did not post Comprehensive's are totally made up of low ability students. However, some of the (public school lot on here believe that).

I am therefore going to donate 500 pence to a "Comprehensive" Schools charity......

smokepole
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

Comp admissions are really simple.
Kids with statements - high, low, middle - get admitted on exactly the same form and do not have to pass any silly test
or pretend to pray
or have their gonads checked
they just turn up and join in
same as every other kid in the area, or near the catchment if there are enough spaces

In London school intake areas as against catchments may be yards across
out in the real world they are miles across
pretty hard to socially segregate across a 20 mile diameter

Clavinova: there is no music selection at my DC's school.

All S London state schools are over-subscribed.

I would never describe Graveney as a comp - it is a partial super-selective!

Charter, Elmgreen and City Heights run absolutely bog standard admissions policies based on Looked after, Social / medical need and distance. Possibly siblings.
Dunraven runs banding tests and gives equal numbers of spaces in each band, runs no 'scholarships' and places within each ability band are based on the usual admissions list above.
Kingsdale runs banding, a lottery for places within each band, and also has a % of places for music and sporting aptitude, so does have selection and I would not describe as an ordinary comp for that reason. But actually the Lottery aspect removes any potential 'post code' selection.

What I am saying is that my child is flourishing in a school which has a fully inclusive full range of ability, has a very wide demographic, is not the wealthiest or most expensive part of our borough or area by a long chalk and so is not 'economically selective' in house price terms, and supports grammar ability-kids to go to good Unis. All the schools in the area do (I am sure that City Heights will once it reaches that stage - new school). All the kids educated in the state system in the area go to one of these schools (unless they have gone to a super-selective, suttton grammar or catholic secondary - so I am not talking about them)

What is the problem with that?

Given the number of threads you see on MN about people tutoring for the Grammar schools, or not tutoring but just doing X number of Bond papers, how many looked after children have the option of either of those? Not many I suspect.

Many of the best London secondary schools seem to extend their catchments by miles with all sorts of novel selection criteria!

Looked After children seem to get a raw deal at whatever school they attend - it was in the news today.

Children with Statements only need to achieve the minimum pass mark for the grammars - many grammars are so oversubscribed that most dc have to score much higher than the pass mark.

Not everyone can afford the bus fare to the comp 20 miles away or they wouldn't pay if there was another school up the road - however bad the Ofsted.

Talkin: The thing about catchment in areas like S London is that although they may well be v tight, they will also encompass a wide diversity of housing. 4 bed houses are typically jammed up against high density estates, for example. Every area has micro areas. So being lucky enough to get council or HA housing is as much a route into being on the doorstep of a good school as house-buying.

Interesting, thinking of how schools deal with pupils expelled from other schools.

A girl I knew was expelled from four that I was aware of.
All private schools.
But she was rich and daddy was very well connected so the schools kept taking her in.
I just looked her up - facially she's not changed a bit.
Biography shows that she stayed firmly off the rails despite the huge amounts of money spent on her education and then became a vicar.

Are children with statements and looked after children synonymous? I didn't think they were.

Locally statements seem to be given more for physical disabilities in which case some of the schools get listed as the named school because they either have better provision, e.g. a unit for children with hearing problems, or have more suitable buildings to deal with the disability.

Talkinpeace. I am saying that my quote about the "majority" was totally wrong. Steven Emerson was the "Expert" on Fox News who said Birmingham was totally made up of Muslim people and was a no go area.

That is the reason for saying I am glad for not posting that 100% of the intake of Comprehensives are Low Ability pupils. Sorry my attempt at humour..

Clavinova: what is your point? (and I say again - no music selection, no music places, no music workshop at 'my' school)

I assume your DS tried for KD? On a music / lottery place? Hence you not being in catchment. And had he got a place (extending the catchment...) he would have got free bus fares, as all school students in London do? So no bus fare economic selection.

None of the schools in my general area of S London are 'bad' schools - they are all comps of one sort or another, perform well and offer opportunities to a wide range of students. They all have families who put them as first choice, if a family can't manage to go to a Dunraven or KD banding test, they can get a place in one of Charter Elmgreen, City Heights or Harris ED, depending on where they live. All good schools.

The point is that there is not the great divide that a grammar system creates, and in none of these schools are students being 'eaten alive'.

These are all the schools in my area: I am not failing to mention some other comps where some sort of more comprehensive comprehensive intake leads to being eaten alive and intelligent students being abandoned with a ile of Ladybird books.

So not sure why I was being 'misleading'.

My husband and I are great fans of the comprehensive system, we live where we do because it is on the edge of the grammar area which means that we do not feel its impact as much as we might.

I am quite clever, certainly clever enough to pass a grammar school entrance - although a lack of coaching may have prevented me from getting a place. However we were dirt poor and my parents did not give a shit about school. I would never ever have been entered for a grammar school test and even if I had passed I would never have gone. My parents would never have paid for me to have a tutor, I would not have had time or space to work through booklets at home, they would never have driven me to test. They would never have bought me the more expensive uniform, they would not pay the bus fare from my council estate and quite frankly they would have been pissed off at the thought of me " commuting" to school - I was needed at home to cook, clean or act as a punchbag.

Thanks to a comprehensive education I managed to do A Levels and get to one of the top universities in the world. I will never be middle class by MN standards but my children live the kind of life that I could only ever dream of. Looking back now my comprensive was not even that good but it provide me with opportunities rather than writing me off as a failure at 11.

My own children go to a comprehensive/ secondary modern, it is in quite a rural area but it is not some mind of idyll. We take in excluded children, we take in children from all kinds of financial backgrounds, we actually take in a relatively low number of children from families where one parent has been to university. It is OFTSED rating good. It is not a true comprehensive because we lose children to the grammar but not as many as we would do if we were a few miles up the road. However every year we send students to Oxford and Cambridge, every year we send students to Russell group universities as well as onto apprenticeships, further education etc. My stepson who was bookish thrived there and went on to the same university as my husband and I. As a bright kid he has been served well by the comprehensive system, as has my more average arty daughter and my more " spirited" daughter .

Our son started in the comprehensive and was excluded, there were further incidents and therefore to prevent a permanent exclusion he moved schools to the grammar. The grammar did not serve him well because he is a young man with complex special needs. He was a young man who needed support in his literacy but was one of the front runners in Science and Maths. He really needs a comprehensive environment, in fact he has just returned to a comprensive to finish his A levels.

It would be quite easy for me - having benefited from the comprehensive system - to pull up the ladder and support grammars because we can afford the travel, uniform, coaching etc. However that would be deeply injust.

Philoslothy. You make the "Comprehensive" system sound like El Dorado rather than "Eldorado" a mocked and lambasted Television programme.

I think a new religion has started "Comprehetianty" the praying to our lord T.C (Aka) Tony (Fucking Grammar) Crossland....!

However, your personal achievements have made my OU assignment linking the class you were born to opportunities or lack of , my difficult to write. Congratulations ....

Smokepole- what are you talking about?