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.

Being good/outstanding can be simply down to when the schools were inspected and under what framework. I have two comprehensives in my town, both equally well regarded. (Although they both have catchments, you can generally get your child into either, so parents pick which suits their child.) One was inspected first under an old framework and got outstanding, the other under a new framework which was only a few months old was good. The outstanding one hasn't been re-inspected since, so keeps its tag. Both get similar exam results, both have a similar intake, so no one quite knows why the Ofsteds are different. Both get pupils with strings of A*s, (we have sixth form college though so no A-Levels.)
Hooray for great comprehensives!!

All my dc's have attended big comprehensives.

My dd did badly academically, but her comp kept her safe and attending school at a time when she was in an acute state of crisis. They had an internal exclusion unit which meant she could continue at the same girls school instead of being shipped off to a pupil referral unit. I am so grateful to them for standing by her.

DS2 is a high achiever in music, maths and science, but his literacy is weak. His comp has amazing music teaching and facilities. He is in year 8 and there are many children in his year who are fantastic musicians. This is despite being in an area awash with very popular and successful private schools.

I have just got the local paper. Have to go out so will read properly later, but article starts with a pupil off to do Maths at Cambridge and another doing chemistry at Imperial College - so I guess they were 'stretched'.
There is only one comprehensive for the whole town so it takes everyone.
(If you know of a town without areas of deprivation let me know- I don't know of any)

Yup, and also sport.

Lots of children from deprived backgrounds get music scholarships - they don't need to play an instrument well to be able to demonstrate musicality.

The school is surrounded by big, hugely popular, well established private schools and as little as 15 years ago was considered one of the least desirable schools in the UK. I bloody applaud the head for creating initiatives - namely attracting more m/c children in order to make the school what it was always intended to be: a comprehensive.

It's depressing that people can't see that a school's success and culture is built on more than just the buildings, management and staff. Children and families shape the character and ethos of a school, and ANY school which has hugely disproportionate numbers of low achieving and poor children is going to be a challenging place both to teach and to learn.

My dc's school head has gone all out to attract m/c families to the school and it's benefited ALL the children.

In the US they have found that the fastest and most efficient way to raise attainment in the most disadvantaged groups is to socially integrate children in schools. Peer pressure can work in a very positive way for these children - according to evidence from the US they're less likely to drop out of school, and achieve more highly when they're educated alongside more privileged peers.

If the current school system in the UK militates against a truly representative intake in comprehensive schools then it's absolutely justifiable for heads to use admissions strategies to address this problem. Comprehensives work best FOR EVERYONE when they are actually 'comprehensive'.

Somebody said, not long ago, ' People sometimes call for the return of grammar schools. Nobody EVER calls for the return of secondary moderns.'
A woman I knew who worked in the civil service had failed her eleven-plus (as I did.) She went to a secondary modern which didn't even give its pupils the chance to do 'O' Levels. I'm sure that's what she said.

My own nearest secondary modern, which I might have attended, was better than that - it offered a range of 'O' levels, including French - but if you did well at 'O' level, and wanted to, you then had to be admitted to another (High school/grammar school) in the area in order to do 'A' Levels. Better than having no further educational prospects - but still disruptive.

To show how awful the old grammar/secondary modern system was, -
it has emerged that selection was skewed in favour of boys.

In order to get a 50/50 split of the sexes for High/Grammar school places, boys achieving slightly lower marks than the girls in their 11+ , were allowed through. This because, at the age of eleven, girls as a rule do better than boys. So the borderline '11+ PASS' girls were marked as not having made it, while borderline '11+ FAIL' boys were squeezed through in order to get equal numbers for the far better funded High and Grammar schools.

The comprehensive system is much, much fairer. The clever kids are allowed to shine, and in my dd's time at comprehensive there was a gifted/talented programme in place as well, offering extra stimulus for the brainiacs!

Yes, there often has to be a sin bin in place for the nightmare disruptive pupils, but at least no pupil need feel, as I did at the age of eleven, that I was a hopeless failure and had let everybody down.

It's an awful memory, which still hurts.

In the US they have found that the fastest and most efficient way to raise attainment in the most disadvantaged groups is to socially integrate children in schools. Peer pressure can work in a very positive way for these children - according to evidence from the US they're less likely to drop out of school, and achieve more highly when they're educated alongside more privileged peers.

This is what they do in DD's school - they are VERY heavy on character building and growth mindset - frankly it feels like a cult sometimes, particularly when DD starts lecturing me on having a more positive attitude! But it binds the pupils together - DD has somehow become convinced she's at a selective school - and I'm sure that's the result of the confidence they build up in the girls.

Please do give up the idea that a pupil who gets top grades at A level or gets into Cambridge to do maths or whatever must have been stretched. This is not true.

I can say from experience that Cambridge maths takes many people who've found maths easy all the way through school - quite a few of them fall apart catastrophically when they get there and encounter work that's hard, because that's never happened to them before and they don't know how to cope. Those children have been failed by their schools (whatever the sector).

This is why it matters that every child should be stretched - they all deserve to learn how to approach things that are hard, including in their areas of strength. It's not an easy thing to ensure, but it must be done.

Those children have been failed by their schools (whatever the sector).

They are failed mostly by an exam system in which the top grades for maths are too easy to achieve for strong mathematicians. Virtually nobody who gets into Cambridge maths has ever had to "work" at maths before arriving, regardless of which school they went to. Even Olympiads and STEP papers are only a hint of what is to come.

I've known some who have - often the ones who don't look like the ones who are certain to get in. (This is the best argument I know for not just picking the ones who score best at STEP, actually.)

I certainly agree that sorting almost entirely by STEP scores is not ideal - it misjudges a number of applicants. The Cambridge departments are very wedded to STEP though...

I think that you have to blame the exam- teachers teach the syllabus.
It would be a bit silly for those who coast through, or who struggle to get a top grade to apply to do maths at Cambridge and then get taken by surprise. I can't speak for anywhere else, but if a comprehensive pupil is going to make that application they have generally done much more in school than just the syllabus.

Great to have a thread setting out to give positive stories of comprehensives.
My DSs attended a fabulous comp, DD is there now. When DS2 left 3 years ago, the leavers destinations ranged from Oxford, Imperial & Warwick, through several music and drama conservatoires, and on to Bath Spa & UWE. In other words, exactly what you would expect from a school that sees students as individuals and works with them to achieve the best grades and move on to the appropriate HE setting.

We had ex-pupil in the Olympics in London and Rio, and have some very strong contenders coming up through the school in athletics events.
Last year my friend's DD left to study medicine having received 4 offers from medical schools!

The school is fairly small at 1000 students, but is on a par size-wise, with the other 2 comprehensives in our market town. It's quite traditional in style and has strict behaviour and school uniform standards. It suits children who want to learn, but works for all ability groups. I suspect the rules are constricting for some students and about a third leave at the end of year 11, but, it's over subscribed and there are spaces in the other 2 schools if parents or students feel it's not the right setting. So it can be a bit like marmite 😂. I have 3 DC of varying ability (2 v bright, 1 more middle ability) but all have enjoyed their school experience. They want to learn, and be stretched not stressed, & their school delivers.

Oddly enough, I remember an old friend of my mother's whose son had a scholarship at Manchester Grammar. She said he didn't find Maths hard until he got to Cambridge. This was back at the end of the seventies.

Having scraped through O-Level with a C it wasn't a problem I ever had!

You don't need to have done more maths than A level maths/FM and STEP practice to apply for Cambridge math and many/most students haven't (apart from participation in UKMT). Working beyond school curricula is a myth which puts many off applying to top universities.

DS got his GCSE results today.
One of his A* equivalents was in some weird BCS exam that he took over the course of three days.
It counts for the league tables but it sounded like bollocks at the time
even though it means he hit his target of getting more A* than his sister

The school are gaming the system because league table places are all that keeps politically motivated Ofsted visits at bay.

My local school got improved but still utterly crap results today (they are not saying but there are so few kids there its easy to work out) but as a sponsored academy are safe so do not have to play the games.

I just wish Comps could get on with serving their local area to the best of their ability - with local area support - and stop having to pretend to "compete"

I'm going to praise DD's comp because last night she said "I want to get back to school".

Good enough for me.

I have 12 adult or near adult nephews and nieces. 10 state educated, 8 in comprehensive schools. 11 are either in professional jobs, at university or heading that way. There is an academic, a barrister, a dentist, an occupational therapist, a gallery manager a pharmacist and a chef. You can't tell who went to which school.

And they were't "leafy" comprehensives......,

Out of friend's children some went to private schools, most went to comprehensives and a handful went to grammar schools , now they are adults you can't tell which went to which sort of school and you would just have to guess.
My friend phoned yesterday and her granddaughter got 6 A*s,4 A s and a B (from a comprehensive).

More good news:

DD's comp had 28% of its GCSE entries graded A*/A

A quick trawl of the Bucks Free press reveals that the A*/A % of the grammars that reported was between 50 and 70%

So given that our school has about 35% High Achievers and the Bucks grammars have about 90% that seems pretty good to me. Of course the figure don't show the balance between the As and the A stars. But generally I feel that her chance of getting the top grades (if she's capable of achieving them) is as good as it would be in the Bucks grammars. Wonder if the same could be said if her comp was changed into a secondary modern?
Although congrats to the secondary modern pupils reported in the same newspaper who did achieve As and A stars. Makes you wonder how the 11+ can be seen as a test of academic potential.

www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/joey-essex-reveals-his-gcse-general-studies-grade-and-fans-dont-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry/ar-BBw4jjK?li=BBoPW

Comprehensive school educated !

'Poor' West Hatch High school

A high achieving school 75% GCSE , What would they achieve if they did not have to take the 'Joey Essex's of the world'.

Any way what the 'hell' is GCSE general studies , i bet that involves really in depth subject knowledge !

filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-47601-QP-JUN15.PDF

I love the questions.

It should have been compulsory to do before being given a voting card for the Brexit vote.

I have no idea who he is.

Comprehensive schools do incredibly well when they do take everyone. They do not expect everyone to get top results. Selective school should expect it - they have 'selected'.