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.

The last link that I gave for the definition of a comprehensive school was for school governors - who need a correct one.

Fresh threads tend to go this way. You can commiserate with the Leave folks trying to start positive threads about Brexit.

Anyone can start a thread, no one can control a thread. It makes conversations interesting at least.

I realise that Elly - I just like to point out, every so often, what it was about in case people forget!

Actually Bertrand you missed an opportunity !

I let you try to figure that out .....

As a good comp, our school does not provide a 'one size fits all' education.
It has a whole different tutor group system for the SEN students, different pathways and speeds of learning for different abilities, including further and additional Maths in top sets , extra languages, a choice of triple or double sciences, a whole BTec pathway ( into which can be added, pick'n'mix style, various GCSEs.
Our other local comp, our second choice, is the same.
The list of kids heading for Cambridge and Dutham suggests that some at least make it out of this waiting room of educational mediocrity.

"In a few years when we have some statistics on the new 9-1 GCSE grades it will make these debates more interesting"

Not really - unless we have very detailed data about intake.

All the children I know who have got into the local super selective grammars come from households where the parents are incredibly focused on education. Of the two children I know who got in, one has come from a private prep school and also had loads of tutoring and one is the child of a teacher who tutored him for hours every week in the year running up to the exams. These children start secondary with really good study skills, have had regular trips to the library and museums, have had tutoring in one form or another (by parents or tutors) for years, and basically are going to hit the ground running at secondary.

My own dc are bright and musical but as a family we're simply not that education focused. If my kids get mediocre GCSE results it's very unlikely to be the fault of the school - it'll be our fault as parents for not priming them more carefully.

I'd also want to add, that no stars will control for the hours of lost learning from classroom disruption that children in comps have to put up with - disproportionately - because the vast majority of disruptive children and children with SN (of which there are apparently 0 at the nearest grammar - I've checked the government data) are excluded from selective schools.

haybott Take your point but comp supporters can't really win can they? When we go on about the stats and evidence we get ignored. If we highlight great comps we get told they're too leafy. Mention Hackney and its success is all down to immigrants. Come up with suggestions on how to improve provision for the top end in a few comps and they're ignored.

I know some people just want grammars and will shut their minds to anything else (certainly not including you in that category by the way).But there may be some lurker here genuinely unconvinced on the merits of grammars who we might be able to convince.

Where does this idea come from that comprehensive children have hours of lost learning through disruption? Why would 90% of us send our children to a school where lessons are going to be disrupted?
I certainly didn't.

I went to a secondary modern myself with an excellent record for behaviour. We had some very low level disruption for a very weak and boring RE teacher but apart from that none.

The other thing that I can't understand is why is it thought OK to have disruption in lessons if you are average or below average? They have even more need to be able to concentrate in lessons.
Luckily, in the comprehensive, my children were not treated differently with the one in the high sets allowed to study without disruption, but the one in the lower set expected to put up with it!!

Bethnal Green Academy are taking pupils mid term who are newly arrived from abroad or excluded from other schools and still doing brilliantly.

Fresh hit the nail on the head here. Can't tell you how many times I've seen on forums "Bright children need to learn without disruption", as if there are children who get along just fine with their lessons being disrupted!
If disrupted lessons mean you get an A rather than an A* surely they'll also stop someone getting a C instead of a D.

I actually prefer posters like Sandy who make no bones about grammars being for nice middle-class children with the rest being prepared for life in a Mike Ashley factory. That's a lot less irritating than those who claim secondary moderns won't be second-best but say things like "Bright children shouldn't have disruptive lessons"

Gosh 2StripedSocks you have 2 statements that I agree with!!

Also,posters on both sides have continuously pointed out that you do get disruption in grammars as kids are kids regardless of intelligence.

Of course that's true but the idea that grammars mean "no disruption" is pretty widespread out there. I don't want to emulate Clav and start trawling through hundreds of post to "prove" this but you really do see it a lot!

But not the last one - you still seem to ignore the fact that comprehensives are just about all ability ranges.

It is a weird idea that SEN means low ability- this is not the case and often they are more the sort of child suited to a grammar school.

You can say what you like - as much and as long as you like- but still the idea persists that comprehensives are full of disaffected, disruptive children without a work ethic.
If by any chance there is found to be a good one it must be from a 'nice'
,i.e expensive area, and is a comprehensive 'in name only' because, despite a definition, they should have the whole range of society.
Maybe the BBC are referring to a school like Watford Girl's Grammar school which is comprehensive but has a percentage of selection.
People who can afford good housing do have average and below average children!

Comprehensives "in name only" are the ones that have selection. By "aptitude"'or by faith.

And it tends to be the grammar supporters who talk about the low level of SEN as a good thing. Of course there are many children with SEN who are also high ability.

"Where does this idea come from that comprehensive children have hours of lost learning through disruption? "

Sorry but this IS the case, even in some excellent comps.

My ds's school is one of the most oversubscribed schools in the country and has many high ability children. He still regularly comes home complaining about the classroom behaviour of other kids. I have taught in several comprehensives and experienced a fair degree of low level disruption. It's on the list of reasons most commonly given by teachers for not wanting to continue teaching. However, I think that ALL children deserve protection from this barrier to learning, lower ability children probably even more than higher ability. It's profoundly unfair that the most disruptive children are concentrated in one type of school - non-selectives. Comprehensives are required to take children who are excluded from other schools, Grammars are not.

And SN doesn't always mean 'low ability' but it often does create barriers to learning. My youngest ds has ASD and it's most definitely impacted on attainment.

I don't know where you live, minifingerz , so I can't really comment.
I think that a lot has to do with the ethos of the school. Certainly when I moved away from an 11+ area I hadn't been impressed by the pastoral care at the boy's grammar.
I can't imagine that Behnal Green Academy takes in excluded children and let's them change the whole atmosphere of the school.

I had forgotten faith schools- they, along with partial selection by ability- may be comprehensives 'in name only' .
However a school that takes all children from the neighbourhood regardless of ability is a true comprehensive.
A school that changes it's admissions to exclude some from the neighbourhood in order to take from another area is not comprehensive.

Do you not ring the school and complain minifingerz?