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.

I think that BertrandRussell is correct about a list of accomplishments counting for nothing and that they need to know the relevance - quite clearly set out in tips by Warwick University

2stripedsocks
DD had non A level UCAS points that added up to 2 top grade A levels (from dancing, music and DofE)
None of her 5 offers made any mention of them.
None of her 5 offers made any mention of her personal statement
None of her 5 offers asked her to attend an interview

Interesting tips from Warwick. Pretty much what DS's school said. But at the open day at Warwick the maths department told him they weren't really interested in his personal statement, more that his predicted grades were high enough. He was given the standard offer without interview.

BitofACow- exactly.

2stripedsocks. I like my children to have lots of accomplishments- and if I were to send them to private school it would be to save me the bother of organizing all their accomplishments out of school time- it would be lovely just to let the school get on with it,

But university entrance is, quite rightly, about grades. And occasionLly about experiences which are relevant to the course in question.

Just to say, in the spirit of the OP, at my DC's comp, private music lessons and grade exams are free for PP students, £125 a year for others and free for all students who take music GCSE or are in the orchestra. So in one comp at least, music UCAS points don't have to be expensive to acquire.

Claire Indeed. A good look at Parliament Hill's statistics reveal exactly what you say. I had a feeling that some people would look at its location and instantly declare it a leafy, so I was trying to be upfront as it were.

Last night it occurred to me to wonder why its only comps where the kids have succeeded only because of their background. Given that grammars only have able kids and that they are mainly (not exclusively) from advantaged backgrounds (where parents read to you at night etc) why are their successes not down to these factors rather than some magic ingredient from the school?

It's why I get heated on this subject (who, me??) because these sort of double standards seem to be everywhere in the debate.

I don't think it's a double standard. I think supporters of both sides of the debate have recognised that family background is a key factor in student success whether those students are at a comp or a grammar.

I think family background is the single most important thing relating to academic success - not just in terms of parental income and levels of education, but in terms of how education orientated the family are.

For example, my DH and I are both educated to post-grad levels (he has a PHd and I have an MA) but we've let our children drift through primary school without doing anything other than read to them at night. No times table practice, only the bare minimum homework done (and done independently), no tutoring, no writing practice.

I'm going to admit that we've been very complacent - they are all naturally strong at maths (they would get perfect scores in times tables tests with no practice) and all learned to read without any input from us. I almost never sat and listened to them read. I just read to them. Consequently they're complacent and lazy and have underachieved at school. My dd spectacularly so.

My SIL on the other hand instilled a work ethic in her dc's. She sat them down daily and supported them with their homework, paid for tutoring, did maths and reading practice at home, organised a private assessment for dyslexia as soon as she suspected her middle ds had problems and made sure he got the support he needed. All of her kids have done well. Oldest boy is in second year of medical school, youngest boy got into a super selective grammar and is thriving. Middle boy got a sports bursary to a top-notch private school despite his dyslexia and has left with a respectable clutch of GCSE's.

I don't feel my dc's underachievement is the fault of their school. It's our fault for not monitoring their learning more closely and making them value education more. I really believe that the primary difference with a grammar school outcomes isn't about the quality or pace of the teaching, it's about the fact that the children who actually gain admission to those establishments ALL come from households like my SIL's, whereas many bright, m/c children in comprehensives come from households like mine.

It's what's known as 'selection bias' and there is simply no way to properly control for it in education research.

Meant to add, that I've only been 'tigerish' in relation to one aspect of my dc's learning, and that's their music. My ds has had piano lessons since the age of 7 (he's 12 now) and I have made him practice every day. Stood over him while he's done it, regardless of what else is going in in the home. He NEVER misses a piano lesson and continues to go through the school holidays and to practice on high days and holidays as well as on ordinary days. It has really paid off in terms of his progress and achievement. I have done the same for my youngest who plays trumpet and saxophone. Both boys have music scholarships at their partially selective state school. I feel very guilty that I haven't made the same effort with their academic learning because I know what a difference it makes.

I think comprehensive schools could make a huge difference to their results if they focused more effort on motivating parents from very early on. I wonder if there are schools which have had success with this? What initiatives schools have tried.

What do you mean by "underachieved", mini?

I think comprehensive schools could make a huge difference to their results if they focused more effort on motivating parents from very early on.

I fully agree with this. My school experiences are of schools only interested in the parents when they want something, usually money or other donations. They seem to actively discourage parental involvement.

A lot more could be done to develop a "partnership" of keeping parents better informed, telling parents what's expected of them, etc. It seems to be only when things go badly wrong that the school bothers to engage with a parent and then it's a negative message. Would be so much better if it was done before problems in a more positive manner to encourage collaboration etc.

Bertrand, dd was in top sets for everything in primary and when she started in secondary. Left secondary with 2 GCSE's. Didn't do a stroke of work at KS4.

Not the fault of her comprehensive mind. Plenty of kids got great results there. Just not dd.

What do you mean by "underachieved", mini?

Sorry, just stealing this comment. I regard myself as having underachieved at comp. I was top of the class in my primary - I ended up failing all but one of my GCE/CSEs. Other kids in my primary class got decent GCEs and then A levels and went to Uni. The reason for my underachievement was lack of parental interest combined with a crap comp and crap teachers who did nothing to relieve the daily bullying I endured and the physical and mental abuse I received from other kids at the comp. Not a single teacher wondered why I was going downhill educationally year by year - because I was quiet and wasn't disruptive, I was just ignored. I underachieved because of a crap comp and crap teachers who just ignored what was happening, made worse by having parents who believed what the school/teachers told them because they respected authority!!! All this about schools and teachers wanting all their kids to reach their full potential is a load of crap - far too many don't give a toss!

Badbadbunny you needed to be in a school that was not 'indebted' with the 'bad' i.e bullies , 'petty' criminals or the lazy ' whats the point' of education.

"Not a single teacher wondered why I was going downhill educationally year by year"

That's just because you were at a shit school, not because it was a comp.

I underachieved at my private secondary school where I was pretty much ignored by everyone, including teachers, for years.

Absolutely. A crap school is a crap school, regardless of sector. I find it baffling that everyone was outraged by the father who wanted to sue his child's private school for his poor results on the grounds that it wasnMt the school's fault, but are equally prepared to put the blame for any underachievement at a state school firmly at the door of the school.

There just happen to be 20 times as many bad schools in the state sector than the private sector .

The reason being a bad private school goes bust a poor state school is given more money and allowed to operate under new 'management' !

Bertrand Clearly i define a 'crap' school or what is one by academic standards or results regardless of cohort !

"There just happen to be 20 times as many bad schools in the state sector than the private sector"

Proportionately?

And taking into account the fact that state schools are expected to achieve the same results with a third of the amount of cash per head, and with children ALL the low achieving poor children the private sector has no truck with.

And taking into account the fact that state schools are expected to achieve the same results with a third of the amount of cash per head, and with children ALL the low achieving poor children the private sector has no truck with.

Not factually correct.

State selective schools work under the same funding formula as state non-selective schools.

Re private schools, there are many private schools who cater for the low achieving/troublesome pupils - they aren't all the preserve of the high achievers. Our neighbours initially sent their three kids to our local (failing) comp and after they saw how badly the elder two performed, they took out their youngest after a couple of years (who was already in constant trouble and performing poorly) and sent him to a private school (they funded it by not having holidays, re-mortgaging their home etc) which turned him around and he's just achieved a string of Cs grade GCSEs (far better than his elder siblings) whereas he had virtually been written off by the comp as unlikely to get any!

Bad - the average spend per head in the state sector is 6K.

The average spend on a privately educated child is 13K.

"low achieving/troublesome pupils - "

None of who have the 'double whammy' of being BOTH poor AND low achieving.

There are none of these children in mainstream private schools.

If you are a low achieving child in a private school you have parents who are high earners.

Minifingerz your examples also apply to our comprehensive stream here. Some children have gone through and excelled, they have clued up parents, my son has not done so well and I now blame myself. Half of it is just not knowing what to do. The school doesn't let you know how children are doing in relation to one another anyway. The only lesson it was clear my son was failing was maths where he slipped down sets and we did intervene. No other lessons were setted..

So I do think a sharper school system could have alerted us to problems. The children who have done well have doctors and lawyers for parents, I think they had a knowledge of where kids had to be to be on track.

I recognise what you are describing BakewellTartAgain. This is how DD's state primary felt. It didn't seem like much was getting done, but without reference points there was no way to identify the problem.

By the end of year 5 my husband and I were extremely frustrated and started tutoring. DD now goes to a selective private school and we trust that they know best and let them get on with teaching our daughter what she needs to know.

Ultimately, I decided it was more efficient for me to work in my own field, where I know what I am doing and pay someone else for their expertise than to stay home pretending to be an after hours secondary school teacher.

Sadly, many families don't have this option.

"The school doesn't let you know how children are doing in relation to one another anyway"

My dc's comp rank the children in class so you know whether they are coming 1st or 18th...