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.

This is a 'Secondary Modern' School.

There is no resemblance with education or schooling today !

Unless you are trying to say that Kent High Schools 2016 are comparable with Liverpool in 1976 (Play for the day) !

www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/newsom/newsom1963.htmlficial

Official definition of what a 'Secondary Modern' education was/is !

Sandy I'm still confused by your thinking here. You originally suggested that we need grammars for those bright kids at the top supposedly neglected at comps. Now your issue seems to be with the small cohort of low achieving children at the bottom. Which is a completely separate issue and implies that there should be a separate school for these children and comprehensives for the rest. If you remove this lower layer that is supposedly dragging down the rest you no longer need a grammar school. And incidentally, we rubbish "trade schools" because a) children should not have to decide their eventual career at 10 - including the grammar kids and b) if you do want to be a plumber you actually need decent academic qualifications - you will emerge from your trade skills school with an expertise in changing washers only to find you can't get an apprenticeship.

Of course in my DD's comp, for instance, they have this mysterious thing called setting. High performers in each subject obviously go in the top set. And the school uses its PP and Catch-Up funding to give intensive help to those who come in with low literacy and numeracy skills. This is actually very normal in comps. Plus you get the situation like my DD getting help with science from her very able friend X in the lunch hour. When DD told me this I thought that X was gaining a valuable life skill - sadly I now realise that X's science genius is being drained away by her efforts to explain the mysteries of balanced symbol equations to DD.

Incidentally, what happens to these poor fragile clever children in the real world? Do many of us have jobs where we exclusively mix with the highly intelligent? Where we don't have to explain complex issues to those who are slower to grasp them? My cousin is a professor at a top Univ who even his family admit would never willingly lift his head from his books. Yet he's required to spend his time at the admin end of the job which presumably means dealing with the less intellectually endowed.

When the tripartite school system was introduced after the war the expectation was that people would have one job in their lifetime whether that job was doctor, teacher, electrician, joiner, factory worker, secretary or something else. Now it is the norm for people to have multiple careers in a lifetime so compartmentalising them at age eleven just isn't sensible.

Thanks for the link to the Newsom report. Fascinating to see that 53 yrs ago it said that pupils were being underestimated educationally and substantial numbers of young people were being failed by the system. It also pointed out that large numbers in the secondary modern were of above average ability and capable of grammar school work.
I didn't read it all but it went on at length about schools in the slums and the problems of deprivation on education.

You would wonder why 53 yrs on people want to get back to sorting children, which as mrz says, just isn't sensible in 21st century.

I haven't read every single post on this thread, but I wanted to wait until DD got her results before posting about her excellent school.

She achieved 10 GCSEs - 2 Bs, 3 As and 5A*s. It is a comprehensive school in a part of Yorkshire not known for great schools. They set each pupil according to their ability in individual subjects, so the lower achievers get more intervention and the higher achievers get the support appropriate to them.

This year the school's success rate in 5 A* - C GCSEs including English and maths was 81%.

The school also excels at sports, and while it hasn't produced any Olympians there are a few ex pupils who are now professional footballers

Well done - great results NicknameUsed. I started trawling around local papers looking for news of great results for comprehensives but there were so many I decided that I simply didn't have the time.

Thanks FreshHorizons

I am struggling to understand the difference between secondary modern schools and comprehensive schools these days.

I went to school in the 1960s and 1970s when the selective system was in place and the 11+ was compulsory. Secondary modern schools were considered very much second rate schools where you couldn't even sit O levels. Children being written off at 11 when they failed their 11+ became a thing of the past when our LEA moved to the comprehensive system. It wasn't until I joined MN that I realised that some LEAs still have the old grammar school/secondary modern system.

Clearly today's secondary moderns are, in fact, really comprehensive schools aren't they?

NicknameUsed
Well done to your dd.
She attends a comprehensive school in a part of Yorkshire not known for great schools. Why is the area not known for great schools though? If the other state schools in the area are also comprehensive schools why is there not a selection of good schools to choose from? Where are the other schools going wrong in your opinion?

Certainly secondary moderns teach academic subjects these days - despite what a few posters would like there is no possibility of any return to the 1950s girls being taught housework and boys woodwork. Those in wealthy areas who get a similar percentage of High Achieving Students to comps in less advantaged areas can certainly achieve good results. These are the ones you see quoted all the time, Wellington , Waddesdon, Holmer Green etc

However results still show that on the whole pupils of the same ability do worse than those of the same ability in comps. And secondary moderns in poorer areas do particularly badly, in the Lincs secondary moderns middle attainers score an average 247 across 8 GCSEs (around an E/D). In Redcar and Cleveland which is actually a more deprived part of the country they score an average 260 and in Oxfordshire (which is obviously wealthier) its an average 300. This adds to worldwide evidence that pupils in "selected out" schools do worse than similar pupils in genuinely non-selective schools.

Those of us who want to retain true comprehensives also need to counter the false argument of the pro-grammar lobby that you can return to a binary system and still retain comprehensive schools. So because "non-selective schools in selective areas" sounds a bit clumsy we tend to stick to the term "secondary moderns"

"Clearly today's secondary moderns are, in fact, really comprehensive schools aren't they?"

No. A comprehensive school takes all abilities. Secondary modern schools, by definition, don't. Even if a comprehensive school, for whatever reason, does not have a representative range of ability, it is still a comprehensive.

I'm a huge supporter of comprehensives.

I went to a great comp in Wales 25 yrs ago. I say a great comp - I have actually no idea what the ofsted rating was (or even if there was ofsted back then??). All I know is my experience, my sisters experience and the experiences of all my friends.

We had an enriching experience. We were encouraged to do music, drama, sports. I had two teachers that made a huge difference to my life - one was head of English who knew how to engage us, tell a story, made us understand and enjoy Shakespeare, took us to cutting edge theatre shows across the whole of the U.K. The other was my history teacher. You could hear a pin drop when she spoke. She just had a way of drawing you into an historical event and then leave you hanging....impatient for the next lesson where you'd hear more.

At 44, Literature, history and theatre are a huge part of my life that I continue to enjoy.

We were encouraged and expected to do well. University was seen as a normal thing to progress to.
We have thrown up authors, artists, actors, sportsmen and well known TV personalities. My peers and I have gone on to do well.
I look back very fondly at school.

My daughter will be starting a comprehensive next week. I only have high hopes for her.

Bertrand would call them 'Senior Elementary Schools' if it helped her argument !

I went to a secondary modern school in 1960s and we did academic work in A stream and O'levels - how could we have gone on to A' levels and further education if we had not done the same work as the grammar schools?

People seem to have the cosy little view that sec mods of 'olden days' were doing practical work and the pupils were quite happy with this!

Admittedly there were sec mods where you couldn't get good exam results.

Sec mods these days all prepare for exams but this does not make them comprehensive! You can't have mixed ability if you have removed the top end of ability.

Sorry - I meant sec mods where you couldn't do the exams- never mind get good results.

Under your 'definition' how can a school that has 5% high attaining pupils no sixth form be termed a Comprehensive.

Yet you term school with 40% high attaining pupils, getting at least 20% each year to University a 'Senior Elementary School'

We don't have grammar schools in Scotland. (We have some schools with "grammar" in their name, but this is a throwback and all state high schools are comprehensive).

We live in an area with excellent state comprehensive schooling. Our local state school is regularly in the top 5 or 6 for Scotland, and sends kids every year to Oxbridge and their "positive destination after school" stats are something like 98%. Kids are always encouraged to work to the very best of their ability, setting happens in some classes to make sure nobody is struggling or sitting bored, there are lots of out of school clubs and societies and the school has an excellent reputation in the local area.

Some parents do still choose to send their children private, but I really think it's £20k a year down the drain as state provision here is so good.

On the Olympics theme, Katherine Grainger is a product of our local state Primary and Secondary - everyone at the school is very proud of her.

"Under your 'definition' how can a school that has 5% high attaining pupils no sixth form be termed a Comprehensive"

6th form or not is irrelevant.

Are the admissions criteria proximity, looked after, siblings?
If yes- it's a comprehensive.

If the state is not creaming off local children then it is comprehensive.

LunaLoveg00d
Scotland appears to have a very unbalanced/unfair education system according to these newspaper articles:

East Renfrewshire schools: great teaching or educational apartheid?;

www.sundaypost.com/news/scottish-news/east-renfrewshire-schools-great-teaching-or-educational-apartheid/

Scotland's class-segregated school system is shameful;
www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14385376.Scotland_s_class_segregated_school_system_is_shameful/

FreshHorizons
If the state is not creaming off local children then it is comprehensive

HPFA, Talkinpeace and minifingerz bus their children away from their local schools because they are not good enough. OKLumberjack is also avoiding her local school.

"HPFA, Talkinpeace and minifingerz bus their children away from their local schools because they are not good enough. OKLumberjack is also avoiding her local school.

They are still comprehensive schools, though.....