In praise of comprehensive schools

[FreshHorizons]

It was cheering to see the Sutton Trust announce that 60% of Team GB medalists came from comprehensive schools.

I have finally come off a thread where certain people can't find a good word to say about comprehensive schools. They equate them with mixed ability teaching, poor behaviour and an inability to stretch bright children.

I would like a thread to celebrate the best of comprehensive education.

In my case it allowed my 3 , very different, children to be able to go to the same school without being judged by outsiders. It meant the stability of knowing one school over a long period of time and them knowing our family. It meant that days off and parent evenings didn't clash and that money was saved by handing down uniform. They were able to move up with the bulk from their primary school. They were able to mix with children of different abilities and backgrounds, as you do in adult life. It meant being able to enjoy education for the joy of learning new things, without the stress of an exam that would determine their path in life, aged only 10 or 11yrs.

Those things didn't really matter, although they were helpful.

What really mattered was that they could all blossom at their own rate.
They all got a good education and are now happily established in careers- the careers that they chose.

It wasn't all about the academic side- there were opportunities in sport, music, outdoor activities etc.

It would be nice to have some success stories. Please don't post about crap schools- start another thread for that if you have grievances you want to air.

It is the summer, the sun is out and some happy, optimistic stories would be nice.

Clavinova - you are totally derailing this thread and are out of order.

HPFA
Moving on (water under the bridge and all that) - why are you comparing the results for the middle/high achievers at your dd's all girls' comprehensive with the mixed/boys' grammar schools in Bucks?

Surely you need to compare your dd's school with the two girls' grammar schools instead? Wycombe High and Aylesbury High.

When the GCSE results came out on Thursday it became apparent that girls had outperformed boys again and the attainment gap in GCSEs had increased to almost 9%.
If you read this feature from the BBC (Jan 2016) it states that 75% of pupils in single sex schools achieve 5 GCSEs A*-C (incl. E&m) while only 55% of pupils in mixed schools attained this benchmark. Among the single sex schools, girls' schools get better results.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35419284

Rather unhelpfully Wycombe High and Aylesbury High do not appear to have posted A/A percentages to the local press you looked at yesterday but from its website Wycombe High achieved 80.9% A/A in 2015 with 47% being A. Last year Aylesbury High achieved 71.82% A/A.

If you look at the website for your dd's school it does have a breakdown of A/A grades for the top 40 achievers at her school last week - they have done very well. However, the school is in the top 2 or 3 state schools in your county and 20 of the top achievers only gained 1 or 2 As.

Would any pro grammar person like to show me statistics to show that all children do better in areas which select on the basis of academic ability at 11?
As a literal minded person I reckon that this is the clinching argument,either we only care that more academically able children do better at grammar schools - if that is true - and we aren't bothered about the impact on the children who "fail" at 11,or we think all children do better.if it is the first grammar school supporters should be upfront about this.
If all children do better then there should be statistics from Kent to back this up,as Kent continued its system of selection unchanged at the point that the rest of the country went comprehensive,and should function as a control group.(yes, technical schools became grammars and direct grant schools disappeared but these changes are a reorganisation of what happens if you pass the 11+, not if you fail)

Kent does no better in GCSE terms than any other comparable county.

A fact that grammar school supporters love to ignore.

Clavinova - if we returned to a grammar/secondary modern system, how would it cater for children like my ds who are very strong in some parts of the curriculum and quite weak in others?

In any case, the argument 'it worked for me therefore it's the right thing to do' doesn't really cut it when we're talking about education policy which will affect ALL children.

If the existence of grammar schools impact negatively on the majority of children and increases inequality then it can't be supported by right thinking people, no matter how well it worked for them.

The top '50' or so grammar schools are equal to the best private schools!

Regarding the funding issue : I could use an analogy from 'Basil Fawlty' when promoting his Gourmet Night 'That most of his clients were PROLES and deserved a 'trough' of baked beans garnished with a couple of dead dogs !

The analogy being why waste so much money on children not able to appreciate or advance their educations beyond their limited intelligence !

Of course i don't believe that however i think the brightest should be prioritised.

I suspect that means you know very little about "top" public schools!

Sandy,why do you think the brightest should be prioritised?
Arguably they are going to do well anyway,as they are already advantaged.

Or to put it a different way,why do you think it's acceptable to disadvantage less academically able children? My children,for example? And that is what you are doing unless you can show that grammar schools improve outcomes in all areas ( academic,social,etc etc) for the brightest without in any way adversity affecting the less bright.

minifingerz
You live in London - over 1,800 children turn up for a banding test based on academic ability at your ds's school every year - London can easily support another grammar school or two. The school in question has nearly 260 pupils per year group and yet from the 2015 government tables you can count the number of low achievers (KS2 results) at the school on less than 10 fingers (or should I say fingerz).

The top '50' or so grammar schools are equal to the best private schools!

So why do people pay for private schools if this is the case?

Have you ever looked at the curricula, co-curricular and extra-curricular activities offered at the top private schools? And at their facilities?

Grammar schools are funded at a level of 5k per year. Private secondary schools are 15k+, usually 20k in the SE, for day schools. What do you think they do with the extra funding if they are "equal" to grammar schools?

GCSE and A level results may be comparable, but preparing for national exams is only one part of the education offered at top private schools.

This thread is for praising the comprehensives schools our children have attended or that have produced certain role models.
It is not about private schools or grammar schools - go and start your own thread and stop derailing the Ops thread.

What point are you making Clav?

Of course i don't believe that however i think the brightest should be prioritised."

Why?

The few experiences i have had with 'public' school 'kids'or adults have not on the whole been very positive in particular the 'Arses' from Millfield !

On the whole i have found a 'Commonality' with products of the grammar school system, whether that being from those educated by it or by parents accessing it !.

Henrietta Barnet et.al are as good as any private school academically !

Coming back to my analogy : Why not just issue 'worksheets ' and garnish them with a ' Schools and Colleges' DVD explaining Favelas in Rio for E grade pupils !

The brightest pupils are the ones who are most likely to drive the country forward economically , therefore it is prudent to seek investment on them .

Bertrand chooses to ignore 'Trafford ' which does out perform the more 'prosperous ' neighbour Cheshire East and the similar social economic area of Warrington South ( A Constituency ). for the record Wirral also out performs Cheshire West .

This means there are discrepancies across the country regarding whether selective areas do better or non selective ones do

Academically loads of schools are as good as private schools.

Clavinova I have not read your post. Frankly, if the pro-grammar lobby can produce no better arguments than making ridiculous attacks on people then I think that says more about them than about their opponents.

Academically loads of schools are as good as private schools.

I don't agree with this. The top private schools offer an extended curriculum involving deeper and broader teaching of mainstream subjects, as well as subjects which are not taught in almost all state schools.

Parents such as myself who had the choice between private and grammar schools would not be paying if we did not believe that the private schools offer something academically which cannot be obtained at the state schools. This is not measured by A level/GCSE/PreU/IB results.

Look at the website for a school such as Winchester and compare the academics with what is offered in a grammar such as HB. 35k per year buys you things that 5-6k, with the best will in the world, cannot.

Ok,I'm going as I take hells bells point about derailing.
But before I go,I think any viewpoint that argues that the " brightest" should be prioritised because they are more likely to drive the economy forward is deplorable.Thats not the sort of country I want to live in - but I realise that won't bother the people who do.
Many things matter besides the economy.( Even if prioritising the brightest does help the economy,which I would dispute)

Sandyholme Trafford is an anomaly, because it is close to so many other LEAs lots of bright kids from surrounding areas are bussed in to the grammar schools. This means the other schools are effectively comprehensive and South Trafford is very affluent and this is reflected in the results.

BTW we already do prioritise the brightest. Our whole education system is about students who can get 5 A - C. The rest are effectively abandoned.

So you want the clever kids who are already privileged to get a bit more? We could always reintroduce a system of indentured servitude to make sure the privileged get even more.

We are so grateful for the scraps mi' lady.

Thank you Infinitecurve.
We will want happy well-rounded children who achieve their best in life and make a positive contribution to our community and society.
Most people only have the choice of comprehensive schools so let's celebrate the good ones and try to ensure that all schools reach a good minimum standard.
Most people are not in an area with grammar schools and cannot afford private schools.

Sorry typo 'will' should be 'all'

Oh yeah comprehensives are mostly brilliant.