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.

A Reality TV Star.

Just looking at two GCSE General Studies 'Past' papers i like to think i could get 85% if they were just thrown at me without any prior knowledge !.

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

Well, presumably more, because it would be a selective school. But the Joey Essexes of the world have to go to school somewhere.

And anyone with half a brain knows that a comprehensive school will get fewer a*-ds thsn a grammar school because they are providing an education for all- not just the select few.

Joey Essex is a pretty standard set 5 kid - just one who found a way to make money while young.

At any comp there will be 20 or 30 kids who are not capable of getting GCSEs
it does not make them failures
it just makes them non academic

It is the very reason that I was praising comprehensives - they are teaching all children in an appropriate manner.

Thank You Bertrand...

Of course it would be a 'Selective School' the 'sarcastic' point being that Joey Essex types should be at the Comp next door the 45% one.

Ideally Bertrand you would like every secondary school in the country to have 10 % low attaining pupils 60% middle attaining pupils and 30% high attaining pupils and a FSM of 15%.

Every single school identical.....

I am sitting puzzling out why every school couldn't have an equal spread of ability.
One thing is for sure- they wouldn't be identical if they did. Staff and pupils are not robots.

"Ideally Bertrand you would like every secondary school in the country to have 10 % low attaining pupils 60% middle attaining pupils and 30% high attaining pupils and a FSM of 15%."

Would I? Where do you think I'd put all the other low ability and FSM children? In a workhouse?

But yes- I do think all schools should have an equal spread of ability.

Every state school should reflect the mix of children within a reasonable radius
so a mix of ethnicity, income, and ability.
Certain areas have significantly more high achievers than others
but the point is that if school stopped segregating pupils on spurious grounds
then all schools could be resourced according to pupil need.

Personally I dislike the fact that schools in London get over double the funding that schools in the Shires get.

Sandy where does this sort of logic lead to? As I said, Bucks grammars apparently have between 50 and 70% of As and A star grades. Tiffin Girls School has 91% on this measure. So all the Bucks grammars should get rid of 30% - 50% of their pupils as they are clearly dragging down the rest.

In an ideal world there would be local schools for every child, with a mix of abilities and a mix of social backgrounds and everyone would go to it.
However, it can't be achieved without social engineering.

However, it can't be achieved without social engineering.
The social engineering that is currently taking place is the ban on LEAs opening schools where they are needed
and the encouragement of faith Free schools and academies where they are not needed.

The lack of school places in London is an entirely political situation
it could be reversed at the stroke of a pen
but the current crop of politicians like to keep the proles downtrodden.

London is different. I was thinking of towns where the local schools would be without social mix if they were local.

Schools should reflect their area.
If the area is 96% white, then the school will be as well.
If the area is 54 nationalities, so should the school be.

I deal with local government.
Wiltshire Police got hassle a while back because all of their officers were white.
So they looked at the makeup of the county and worked out that they needed 1/3 of a Hindu officer in Swindon to match the demographics of the county.

What scares me the most is segregation on faith and parental ability to pay for the 11+ (but not private school)
as kids then live in echo chambers that do not reflect the society in which they will have to get jobs.

If you get the post code lottery you get widely different comprehensives and disadvantaged areas get the worst deal.

What do you mean by "postcode lottery"
I live in a totally comp county where the catchments were set 40 years ago and are now pretty anachronistic
but most still represent their 5 mile radius

where there are sufficient places then the comps should be representative
yes if an area is rich, the comp will be rich
so be it
they will get less funding linked to children who need
(here in Hampshire its £3k basic + £1k need)
(in London its £7k basic plus 2k need - no wonder their results are better)
GRammar schools get just the basic as they select out the need
SecMods get shed loads of "need"

"(in London its £7k basic plus 2k need - no wonder their results are better)"

London results are better because we have fewer problems with recruitment and crucially, more immigrants, whose children, pound for pound do vastly better than white English kids with the same level of family income.

Mini
Nope
Sorry
London does better because it has double the budget per pupil of the rest of the Country
we get NQT
you get experienced
we get 1/30
you get 1/20
It was a policy decision several years ago and London has benefited hugely
but at the cost of not keeping up with demand
or funding

Not entirely relevant - but why do people keep referring to "secondary moderns"?
Non selective schools in our selective authority are called mixed ability schools.When we did have secondary moderns,we also had technical schools and direct grant schools - it ain't like that now,so could we perhaps move our terminology into the 21st century?
Can't discuss the merits of comprehensive schools as here in Kent we don't have any...

And to be fair, InfiniteCurve, you don't actually have 'mixed ability' schools, either, if part of the ability mix has been diverted to Grammar.

Secondary Modern may not be ( is not) the terminology de jour, but it reminds people that what we are actually talking about is 'Mixed Ability' without the %who made it to grammar, and with a curriculum frequently skewed towards what was formerly termed Secondary Modern.

It is very much a postcode lottery because your house price 'buys' you the best comprehensive- that is the main argument against them.

You can use whatever euphanism you like, InfiniteCurve - no one is fooled and we know perfectly well they are secondary moderns by another name. They most certainly are not 'mixed ability' because for that you need to mix all the abilities.
I went to a sec mod in the 1960s and we had no technical schools or direct grant schools in my town.

Certainly in 21st century we need to move to schools fit for the century- not have ones that that harp back to a nostalgia of 50 yrs ago and then merely change the terminology!
If we need to move our terminology into 21st century we need to also move the schools. 'Grammar' school is outdated terminology too but no one seems to mind that- they just like to pretend that the children left after selection are mixed ability.

However, the thread isn't about grammar schools or sec mods- it is about the comprehensives that really are mixed abilities.

Good exam results in York

I agree that London has shown that funding for schools makes a big difference - the demographics in London did not change much (there have always been lots of immigrants) but the results improved considerably upon the increase in funding by the previous government.

Average secondary funding per pupil country wide is below 5k; London average is several k more (although not double - the figures above are not correct, as no school has an average below 4k and the Hampshire schools average above 4.5k).

Celebrating success in Redditch