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.

Bertrand. I was trying to post what Gove was trying to say, but i got high !

I am getting tongue tied trying to answer you point about my point.....

However, the simple point is if you are likely to be of University ability an academic education is appropriate and given that 40% go to university at present , the number of 40% makes kind of sense !

Good idea, alwayssurprised- apart from one thing. All that extra specialist help and support ought to go to the "bottom" 25%. They are the ones who really need it and would benefit most from it. The ones who struggle, who often don't have support from home. The ones who could turn their lives around with the individual teaching and extra facilities that some people think should be the right and entitlement of the "top" 25%.

Very late to this, but why segregate? I honestly don't get it.

For the sake of efficiences and economies of scale. It's easier to deal with large numbers of like requirements than to craft bespoke services. Think of Adam Smith and the Pin Factory.

They should not losing out to the privileged private kids because at their local comp they get a so so education with no way out.

Agree. It's unfair that parents with money can buy their way out of this ideologically driven system that is not working for many children.

"For the sake of efficiences and economies of scale. It's easier to deal with large numbers of like requirements than to craft bespoke services"

So 40% are all going to be taught as a homogeneous mass? Is thT whT you're saying?

And talk to me about the children who don't pass the 11+. The 60% in your 60/40 model. What happens to them?

So 40% are all going to be taught as a homogeneous mass? Is thT whT you're saying?

Yes, exactly.

Elly.

For the sake of efficiences and economies of scale. It's easier to deal with large numbers of like requirements than to craft bespoke services. Think of Adam Smith and the Pin Factory.

That depends whether you want children to be bespoke or to come out of a carton of Orange juice!

Be made by Nissan in Sunderland or Built by Rolls Royce at Goodwood !

The Adam Smith economical theory is why the Right wing bought the Comprehensive idea ,thus bridging the gap between the two opposing ideologies of Capitalism and Socialism or at least on education !

I know i would rather my children were Built by Rolls Royce at Goodwood and only select no of children are of sufficient quality for that ! The rest should be made in Sunderland !

No, I'd figure out what sort of education we would ideally want children to have for university and give as many as possible a chance to "go for it."

Better to have children and parents decide this sort of education isn't right for a child after that child has tried it, than to simply bar entry from the start. It's stops complaints that the 11+ isn't accurate or fair and allows DC who are underestimated to prove themselves.

I think a lot of comprehensives are mediocre because they are trying so hard to differentiate and offer the right thing for every child when they simply don't have the budget or the resources to do so.

I know i would rather my children were Built by Rolls Royce at Goodwood

But sadly on the day they don't pass the test, so they are consigned to be Nissans. Perfectly good cars, get you from A to B reliably, what are you getting upset about?

Bert If the State is not interested in providing resources and a top notch education to kids who can achieve, the private sector will take over and gives you Judges, PM, Professors etc who were privileged from Day 1. They will rule over your 25%, and wouldn't understand why that 25% is there in the first place. We have to have a clear route for able children from any background to be in the policy making class of the future.

" We have to have a clear route for able children from any background to be in the policy making class of the future."

Well, the grammar system's out then!

i reLly don't understand how you could possibly teach the "top" 40% in undiffererentiated classes- that doesn't make sense.

And you still haven't addressed the issue of the other 60%...........

And I am also puzzled that nobody seems concerned about creating an "underclass". Surely the priority in a society should be the most disadvantaged? For everyone's sake?

I see Wilshaw was suggesting that every MAT should have a couple of UTCs (technical colleges), so long as they didn't become dumping grounds for the kids who weren't going to achieve in the other schools in the MAT.

Except that's exactly what happens.

HPFA I've just been looking at your middle achiever versus high achiever data. So what you're saying is that middle achievers at KS2 SATs who pass the 11+ and are streamed into a grammar because they are 'more able' according to the 11+ still achieve lower grades than those identified as more able according to the SATs?

So giving a grammar education aspiring to A to a kid who would only be predicted a B from their SATs doesn't magically turn them into an A?

The admission system of the Grammars in the current form is crap. Time and money waste on tutoring and overwhelming anxiety on exam performance on one day. Parents going crazy competitive piling pressure on kids. Unfair on kids from less supportive family.

Doesn't mean the Grammar schools themselves are crap. Same cost to set up. Probably cost even less to run than a Comp. If you want to save money to spend on the bottom 25%, then it might be the cheapest option to cater for the high ability kids.

So.
How do you select your 40%?
How do you educate 40% as a homogeneous mass?
What do you do with the other 60%?
Have you thought this through?

Wait 40% is not my idea. I prefer a learning hub for top comp students to access. It's not cheap though so may or may not take away resources from the bottom 25%, which you don't like.

Anyway I noticed (a bit late) that this thread was not set up for this argument. Sorry for being rude to OP.

Noble Exactly so. The figures are from 2015. In Kent there were 615 Middle Attainers in the grammars and 3413 High As. Obviously the MAs are in the minority but I think large enough to be significant. And the MAs achieved average point score 345 over 8 GCSEs and the HAs 402 - difference of a whole grade. Bucks and Lincs had similar gaps. As I say, I'm just an amateur but the gap is just too big to be a result of a misreading on my part, I think (hope). I was very surprised at this - I think it raises serious doubt about the reliability of the 11+ but until I can find a more expert statistician to go through my reasoning I can't be 100% certain.

As I said, if you're interested PM me an E-Mail address and I'll send you the spreadsheets then you can check them against the original D of E data.

How do you select your 40%?

1. The top 25% will be selected via the 11+ exams

2. The students that score within 10% of the qualifying score will automatically go to appeal where their classwork , attitude and likelihood of benefiting from such a school E.G such as wearing the correct uniform!

3. Any form of SEN must be taken in to account and the 11+ qualifying score be adjusted to reflect this by a number of points or percentage average .

How do you educate 40% as a homogeneous mass?

This one is simple just move them in to 1 of the 3 Comprehensives in a town. (bingo) Another idea could be to teach boys/girls separately in some classes (this one is even done at the Ebbsfleet Academy)

What do you do with the other 60%

Actually its 50 % well they would just continue on at their current school albeit with the most disruptive and troublesome kids removed !

The incorrigible 10%

Other than placing them in a locked classroom with bars on the windows and running repeats of Jeremy Kyle or Road Wars i have no idea !

I do know that this collective groups of incorrigible pupils is harming the education of the many students who are indebted with them in their classrooms !

Have you thought this through?

Interesting comments on the Grammar school issue by Alan Milburn

I have to admit I was a bit bemused by his proposals to intervene to improve parenting skills by funding a drive through websites such as Mumsnet.

It's also worth noting that there was nothing in the Tory manifesto about bringing back grammar schools, so Parliament could vote the Grammar School proposals down with no repercussions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37275092

Ah the incorrigible 10%. Yes we should throw them in the bin. Because they might spoil things for the other precious little didums.
Let's forget that this 10% very likely come from homes where parents are absent, negligent or addicted. They are young carers for disabled parents or siblings. They are abused, starved and for some weird reason, angry. So yes, let's chuck these kids on a heap and leave them there. How dare they deserve a chance, an education and hope. Whoever said this, please don't ever work with children.

Mumsneedwine- don't forget the other 50%, who'll just carry on as they are now.

The assumption that high ability children are more important and deserve priority treatment and to be quarantined from the masses just stinks.