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.

More derailment I'm afraid but this letter in the Guardian is too brilliant not to share:

*Those who believe 11-year-olds are inherently of two types, academic sheep and practical goats, should consider some real-life examples. Is the child who excels at maths but finds it hard to string two sentences together a sheep or a goat? What about the one who likes reading and writing but loves drawing and making things? Or the talented refugee who performs poorly in the 11-plus because she’s not yet fluent in English? Is the child who falls just below the dividing line in test results because he’s missed weeks of schooling through homelessness really a goat? Is the one who scrapes through because of private tuition really a sheep?

The whole idea is a nonsense, as is the idea that two types of school are needed to provide sheep-education and goat-education.*

Case closed, I think!!

I doubt it HPFA - but it ought to be.

Primary schools work hard to educate the whole child, celebrate all achievements and be all inclusive. I can't see why they need to be separated into 2 camps when so young.

No i think Comprehensive future is funded by 'NAIS' National Assocation of Independent Schools!.

They receive their money in a brown paper bag under a bridge just off the A4 near Reading !

Jeremy Corbyn and Owen Smith are also usually in attendance receiving their 'thanks' and funding from Paul Dacre at the same time !

Joey Essex was educated at West Hatch High in Chigwell.

It really says something that Moulsham High School were so desperate for publicity they allowed Joey Essex in to 'hob nob' with pupils !

A man who has used ' skill' to become a Millionaire on the basis of being 'simple' . That really requires ingenuity and genius, so 'fair play to him '.

However, i think it shows that the UK in a very poor light enabling a person to become a Millionaire by being a modern day 'Norman Wisdom'

NB. Norman Wisdom just played a part ..

I'm going back three pages now, but have to correct the poster who said Pittville school is RI. It is Good, and deservedly so. It is located in an area of deprivation so doesn't reach the lofty 80% and 90% A* - C so will never obtain Outstanding. But its Progress 8 is very good.

I sent my 3 DSs to a comprehensive. My oldest transferred to a grammar school sixth form at his own choice after Y11 and has done very well in both GCSEs and A levels. I would say that his experience of the real world at the comprehensive has given him the knowledge to know how lucky he is to be bright enough to go to university, and not to just assume he'd be going there. He was never teased for being a 'boff.' He would never had gone to grammar at 11+ because I don't like them he wasn't able enough. He has always been very good at maths and sciences but struggled with writing and was in top set for maths and science and third or fourth set for English and humanities. So was taught at a pace appropriate for his needs, which, with a good work ethic, enabled him to get great GCSE results.

My DS2 has ASD and also went to the same comp. He had a statement of SEN and received excellent support from a school that valued him as much as its more academic pupils, and has gained 9 GCSEs A - C. He's going on to college as, unfortunately, sixth forms are selective. He was in second set for maths and science and fourth set for pretty much everything else.

DS3, who could have got into a grammar school, is also at the same comp. He is more of an all rounder than DS1, and is in first or second sets for everything and sufficiently challenged.

So three very different DC for whom one comprehensive school catered for all their diverse needs. They have been living in the real world, and not 'protected' from a comprehensive mix of abilities and backgrounds. I'm sure DS3 would do well in a grammar school, but where's the need, when he'll do well in his comprehensive school?

I went to a comprehensive school, myself, recently converted from two boys' and girls' secondary modern schools. It still had some attitudes (and teachers) left over from its secondary modern days but the newer teachers were brilliant.

Sandy you specifically referred to the 75% school which is Moulsham not West Hatch. And you kept saying that the bright pupils at this school needed a grammar, ignoring the fact that Moulsham is in a town that has two grammars. You appear todespise comprehensives and secondary moderns equally! Would you prefer pupils in these schools went straight to jobs in a Mike Ashley factory?

Ellen the same poster seemed to dislike Cheltenham Bournside, which I don't know personally but looks like a reasonable school from its data.

Actually i was talking about West Hatch High school which says 78% 5 A*-C (but makes no point whether that includes Maths/English)

Scratch that.

It is obvious after looking at DFE performance tables that 78% does not include Maths/English so they are 'cheats' because 58% seems to be their level.

For the record Wellington Trafford got 72% Maths/English !

Actually Wellington are a bit disappointed has that is down from 76% last year !.

Still no doubt the lower results will be reflected else where.

The following top performers at West Hatch don't seem to have had their lives ruined by the presence of the Joey Essex's of this world:

www.westhatch.essex.sch.uk/news/?pid=3&nid=1&storyid=159

But if they hadn't had to educate the Joey Essexes they would have had 25% more places for the sort of people who deserve and education.

I thought a post a link to an ability school that would not thank you for enrolling the Joey Essex's of the world ! Hence only 6% Low attaining pupils (2014)..

www.wellington.trafford.sch.uk/prospectus/2053.html

I'm beginning to find a peculiar fascination with following the intricacies of Sandy's mind. Are we now talking about a school system which educates the "bottom 10%" say in separate institutions? How many Joey Essex's in a school are necessary to destroy the life chances of those so-fragile clever children?

Those in favour of progress 8 should be aware that it has led to entries in technology, drama, art, music dropping this year, and also is the second reason for the drop in GCSE pass rate (behind them including 17 year old resitters in the figures which was just stupid). Pupils being entered for more academic subjects and failing them.

noble I've been puzzled recently about a couple of posts which referred to their DS's being predicted Cs in Triple Science. Is there a point in doing Triple Science if you're only going to get Cs? Wondered if this was some weird contortion around Progress 8?

I work alongside some very passionate and dedicated teachers in a comprehensive (as support staff). My daughters will go to this school. They go to a fantastic primary school. I met some young adults who went my secondary school (which was not that good when I was there) and their work ethic is amazing! They stay after school, volunteer with the younger years and set up societies.

HPFA the government said from the start that triple science should be offered to any child achieving level 6 in science at the end of KS3, which would always give you kids at the lower end who would just pass them rather than get stellar results. I suppose it's also an extra GCSE and the preferred route to science A-levels.

It will be popular with heads for progress 8 because if they pass all three then that's the Ebacc bucket filled.

"I'm beginning to find a peculiar fascination with following the intricacies of Sandy's mind. Are we now talking about a school system which educates the "bottom 10%" say in separate institutions?"

I don't think that's how it works. I think what is being suggested is that the top 75% need to be educated in a separate school to keep them away from the bottom 25% who will otherwise have their self esteem irreparably damaged. It 's all for the good of the 25%........

My mum gives up her free time to help teach 'literacy' skills to the lowest attaining pupils in my old school (quite ironic really because i remember her feelings towards the school and in particular the head and deputy head).

My mum tells me that some of these lowest attaining pupils at 12/13 have the literacy skills of a 7 year old (I guess mine must have been the same).

Clearly these pupils and others like them would benefit from more specialist schooling , thus enabling viewing of their success from a different prism.

One such idea could be that such pupils would only take GCSEs when they are ready , with no 'definite' age criteria when they should first attempt them.

If that means we would require three types of educational separation comprised of the bottom 10% middle 50% and contrary to belief 40% in selective schooling .

This is the same percentage of students that went in to selective or in to a higher technical schools in '1947' .

I use 1947 because posters keep using 'ancient'the term 'Secondary Modern' So mentioning 1947 has the same relevance as such an outdated term !.

However, the benefit of 40% selective schooling would be to stretch the admission band wide enough.

This would allow for those who narrowly miss selection today because only 25% would be selected via the 11+ score.

The other 15% would come from a mixture of other class based assignments teacher reports or a propensity to show improvement year on year.

However, the final selection criteria if all the other options are exhausted would depend on whether your mum/father were members of a golf club or prominent in a lodge !

Another thing 70% of children have the ability to be in the top 40% ( statistical impossible ) The point being the ones who work hard will be the ones who deserve a selective education.

It is also no coincidence in my thinking of a 40% selection band , that 40% go to University (far to many but that's not going to change is it , especially if posters on here rubbish trade or skill specific schools 'half' jokingly suggested by me on the other thread).

Whoops,I seem to have ended up on the wrong side of this debate!
I stand corrected FreshHorizons, about the schools describing themselves as secondary moderns,though I've never seen it.
But I absolutely completely agree that the non selective schools in selective areas are not truly mixed ability because of ( mostly) losing their most academically able cohort to the grammar schools.FWIW,never intended to imply this wasn't the case - I live in Kent and my non 11+ passing DCs went to a school which describes itself as a comprehensive,so I know how it works.I think selection at 11 is a bad idea and I've thought that ever since passing the 11 + and attending a direct grant school many,many years ago.

sandyholme
Why did you take such offence at my describing Joey Essex as a set 5 kid?

In a comp there will be several sets for each subject
In academic subjects, kids like him will be in set 5
On the other hand he might be in set 1 for drama or for art

A lot of the highly academic kids at the comps are in the lower sets for PE, and drama and art
sets are just groupings by ability in a subject

Bright kids benefit from realising that their narrow focus is not appropriate for everybody.

If more of the wonks at the DfE had gone to comps they would not be destroying the education of so many by inflicting the Ebacc on everybody.

I think that you are quite right InfiniteCurve in that they like to use other names,like High School, but they will never get away from the fact they are secondary moderns by another name.

As a point of information, my ds's secondary modern (yes, that is the proper term- a school with a statistically insignificant "high ability" group because 25% go to grammar school) from year 9 onwards there are 7 sets in all subjects.