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.

Peregrina - no, I don't have first hand knowledge of the state schools in your area - it's all on the government comparison site - the same one that HPFA has been quoting from. I do however have a connection with three of the private schools in the area.

hellsbells99 - you are totally derailing this thread and are out of order
Actually, it was HPFA who continued to derail the thread - see Sat 07:47 and 13:34.

minifingerz - several points really. Firstly, to point out that you already send your ds to a school that selects by ability and talent - where have all the low ability dc gone if the school only admits 3% by ability banding? Secondly, if 1,800 parents are desperate enough to take their dc to an academic banding test for 250 places (and over 50% of that 1,800 are 'high achievers') then doesn't that suggest a need for another academic school/selective school in London?

"doesn't that suggest a need for another academic school/selective school in London?"

Clavinova - need and want are very different things. Just because you want it doesn't mean you should get it.

Clavinova Just carry on, you're doing more to expose the paucity of the pro-grammar argument than I ever could.

As to de-railing the thread, I've linked or referred to about four (can't remember exactly) great comprehensive schools on this thread. As Fresh herself said - once you start searching for them they're so numerous you can't keep up. Care to match that?

HPFA - that's fine if you don't read my post.

As for ridiculous attacks - I made some fairly innocuous challenges to a few things you posted over one week. I was careful not to go into too much detail regarding your dd's school/your area but I felt your comments should not go unchallenged. You responded by outwardly calling me a liar and linking to a rather 'goading' twitter comment. How did you expect me to respond?

As for being personal you may not be aware that you start a number of your posts with attacks on pro-grammar supporters with comments such as, 'Is this for real?' 'It's just laughable.' 'supporting grammar schools deprives you of the ability to exercise logic.' 'Oh FFS!' etc.

Clavinova: I did have first hand knowledge of the three schools in the area, although it's now getting a little out of date since friends who taught in them have started to retire, and DH who was a Governor at one, hasn't been for a number of years now. You ought to know better than just to go by reports on websites. Even the school you are trying to pillory, which used to be RI and is now good and yes, one of mine went to, had children go onto Russell Group and Oxbridge Universities, who are now forging successful careers as adults. Including mine.

I am just tired of the nonsense about how clever children must go to Grammar Schools if they are to do well, or else, the comps are 'leafy' or the parents select by postcode.

Clav Perhaps if you were to come up with a researched and rational piece showing why secondary moderns will serve most children better than comprehensives I might have more respect for your argument? It might actually persuade people!

And incidentally, the reason I said you were a liar was that you continued to claim that I was sending my DD to a school in a neighbouring town was because the nearer schools "weren't good enough" even though I explained to you that that was not the case.

HPFA And when I said that my children went to the said schools, I was told that their experience was out of date. The schools have certainly not gone downhill since then, so it's not a matter of sending them to once 'good schools' which no longer are. We got involved with the schools, and worked with them, to help them serve all the children who attended them.

Peregrina - sorry, but I am not sure which of the 5 schools we are talking about now. The three schools in one town are all on the 2016 Bristol University contextual offer list (bottom 40% of schools for A levels) - and it's a relatively affluent area.

I know exactly which schools we are talking about Clavinova, and am also well aware that they are on Bristol Universities contextual offers list, and that it's a relatively affluent area.

But nice try, to wriggle out of it.

"doesn't that suggest a need for another academic school/selective school in London?"

Given that every one of those 2,500 applications is one of 6 on a list of preferences , not necessarily. In our area the banded comp with some ability places (for various aptitudes, not academic selection) is surrounded by other good popular comps, and within travel range of about 4 super-selectives available to each sex. There is an awful lot of hype in London, not always based on the raw data of how well a school
performs on VA measurement, or for specific ability groups, and if a school achieves desirable status, then people use it as a wild card from miles around, more so if it admits on lottery. Lottery kind of gives a school with a reputation super-selective qualities because distance is no object.

So no, not a proven case for more selective grammars!

POSSIBLY, if you looked at the geography and closest distance schools of the applicants it might be an argument for more good schools to support academic kids / kids of aspirational parents. But that isn't the same as an argument for grammars.

Peregrina - well ok, you sent one of your dc to the previously satisfactory, then inadequate, recently required improvement and now good school. With that I'm off out.

You try to make it personal, but you are off out because your arguments don't stand up.

"Firstly, to point out that you already send your ds to a school that selects by ability and talent "

Only 15% of children get in on sports and music ability, and many of these children will not be high ability academically.

I have no idea why there are so few low ability children at this school. It has double the national average numbers of children with SN, the national average for free school meals, and about double the national average for English not a first language. And that's despite being on a road where not a single house is worth less than a million quid.

Speaking English as an additional language does not mean you are poor or low ability. Lots of EAL families, particularly in London and the SE, own million pound houses.

EAL students often push up grades - aspirational families, cultures that value education etc

My dc's school is right next door to two large and well known private schools. It may have a greater number of high ability kids than some other London comps, but there's no mistaking which kids go where...

Mini Is it a London school? This article suggests that the good performance of London primary schools is responsible for some of the high performance of London's secondary schools. That could account for the school having fewer children officially labelled "low ability"

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/23/london-disadvantages-school-pupils-best-uk-ifs

By the way, when people say that London schools are "better funded" does that mean they get extra money because of the costs of paying London weighting, higher rents etc? Or does it mean they can actually provide smaller classes and better facilities?

HPFA, my dc's primary was very good (if by 'good' you mean 'target driven') Rough area and lots of poor kids, but very good KS2 results and VA.

Ok, Minifingerz, I know what school your child goes to now ( live in same broad area). The price of the surrounding houses isn't relevant though, is it, as there is no distance criteria? I would guess that a lot of wealthy families nearby apply as a fall back in case they don't get their private choices, and account for a good number of applications. Same for the other nearby very popular state comp.

EAL kids often perform extremely well because the very process of being bi or multilingual is intellectually beneficial in itself. So once the child has become proficient, it is an educational advantage.

No London schools do not seem to have smaller classes or better facilities, and to hark back to the Olympics discussion it is very rare (I can't think of one anywhere near us) for a state school within Zone 3 to have a playing field big enough for an athletics track or proper football pitch.

I am not sure whether the higher funding for London Schools includes PP? Because despite housing so many high earners many London boroughs have some of the poorest wards in the country, with high density population. And is London Weighting included?

mini That's very interesting. The original article didn't really define "good" but I expect it meant "efficient at pushing through SATS"

Higher funding for London schools is before one takes into account pupil premium. London weighting for salaries is not anywhere near 60-80% but the base funding for schools in London is around 60-80% above other schools in England.

I believe that the main use of the extra funding is in teachers salaries, paying for more experienced teachers while elsewh ere increasingly posts have to be given to young inexperienced teachers because their salaries are lower.

I think KS2 results are bumped up in London by the culture of tutoring for entrance to selective schools.

"Mini those 15% will be very advantaged. Music and sport needs very involved supportive parents and money,exactly the type you rail against as regards grammars"

1. The awards are given on the basis of potential. Many children get them who have had no individual private tuition. I know this because I know the children who have scholarships.

1. The small number of children who get a scholarship who are grade 5 in two instruments following years of tuition, share their classes and music lessons with poor and low achieving children. They aren't hived off into separate schools.

Incidentally - I don't 'rail against' parents or children at grammars.

It's the system I have a problem with, not individual parents.

As you well know :-)