state comprehensive secondary schools stretching able pupils - opinions?

[PastSellByDate]

Hi all

DD1 is happily selted into her secondary comprehensive which is rated 'GOOD' by OFSTED.

In Year 7 all classes are mixed ability. Gradually from Year 8 they start to stream - most classes in Year 9 are by ability.

So far I've had some niggles (little or no maths homework coming home - everyone giving the same worksheet and the homework is for pupils to finish the worksheet, but DD1 finishes in class 95% of the time. DD1 scored Nc L6 at KS2 SATs). We have raised this with the teacher and our solution has been to do more at home.

Last week there were a slew of reports in the press about secondary schools failing to stretch their most able: www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22873257 - based on the second OFSTED repoert into progress of pupils achieving NC L5+ at KS2 SATs in English or Maths in secondary (www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-not-doing-enough-to-support-most-able-students).

It's quite clear that if you are in a miniority of bright pupils at a state comprehensive your chances of going on to achieve an A/A* at GCSE are much lower (ca. 28% in Math if

sorry that should have read Happily Settled.

I have mixed feelings about this. In your Maths grades example - well, it could be argued that those getting a level 5 in Maths in KS2 would be the ones expected to get A/A*, so 28% getting that from only 10% 'high achievers' (or whatever the category is called!) looks really good - much better value added than the 54%/50%.

I've got kids at two grammar schools and one comprehensive. There are definitely differences in expectations, and I've noticed it much more in the 6th form than lower down the school. DD2's individual A level teachers at the comp are brilliant, really supportive, really encouraging, planning ahead with her and so on, but the general school feel is much less "aim high" (the director of 6th form studies told dd2 this week that they didn't like to start giving people information about university early in y12 because lots of the 6th form don't want to go to university. DD2 suggested that this was because they didn't know much about it, and if they had more information and more time then they might realise that there are all sorts of courses out there that they might be interested in!). Whereas at the grammar schools, there is much more of an assumption that they will be going on to HE, and the uni/UCAS talk starts pretty much as soon as they start y12.

Lower down the school I haven't noticed as much difference. As long as there is a critical mass of bright/hard-working kids, it's been fine.

At my DCs comp - they don't get worksheets - homework is set from homework books for Maths, and isn't "finish off" type.

They don't stream they set. 300 in a year, split into two halves, each half has 5-6 or more sets. Pupils in sets 1, 2 and 3 all achieve A* at GCSE. They only set: Maths, English, Science, and MFL, and only Maths in year 7.

This is a comp where a lot of brightest pupils are syphoned off to selective private schools (including with Bursaries), but still sends 10+ to Oxbridge each year, and several to medical school.

One of my DD is in set 3 but is going to a "Masterclass" in English today.

State non-selective schools can do a good job.

Oh in this area there is an assumption that most people are aiming for University in Sixth form, but recently the school has done more to inform students about "Modern Apprenticeships" which more are choosing to follow, getting a degree but also having a job and not having a debt.

I find your example interesting.
When we were looking at secondaries, one of the questions I asked was when and how do you stream?

I wouldn't consider a school that didn't stream for maths and English in year 7. Most of the ones we went round assessed them for first 7 weeks and then streamed.

I wasn't very happy though that most did not stream for other subjects until year 10/11.
It seemed to me that in, say, history, it is very hard to mix a truly mixed class. From the POV of the bright child the concepts and language they should be using and being challenged with just won't be there.

In the end ds did the 11+ and got into the grammar school. He has to travel to get there as it isn't in our town, but it was the best thing we ever did for him. They did reading tests in term 1, and again in February. First test he got age 13y 4months, second test he got 16ys. I firmly believe it is because all the work they are given, all the passages they read, all the language used it class is ALL aimed at his level, and the massive improvement in reading is the result (and he got 5a in his report at end of year 6, and was in the level 6 group preparing for sats, so it isn't that there was a problem)

Homework is always at his level, challenging enough but doable.

I am not happy with the grammar system as a whole for society, but I am afraid I went for it for my own child.

sorry, when I say stream, I mean set subject by subject

(this will be waffle/rant I have very mixed feelings)

my dd is at an 'outstanding' comp with 45% high achievers overall (closer to 50% in her year). dd is very high achieving - consistently top 10 in the year (this is only for context). I like her school a lot, her teachers are great & she is very happy.

They have setted for maths from the beginning and English/science in year 8 & then humanities from year 9 (basically streaming by that point). Their 6th form is the best (A level results etc) in county - the Sutton trust said it is in the top 80 in the country for VA at A level & in top 50 non selective schools for getting children into 'high performing' universities. They have a 70% A*-B at A level and 50% of university applicants get into Russell group unis. So it sounds super ... but ...

• they get far far far less homework than the grammar schools. They are not used to working when they get to GCSE & A level & it shows. So far this half term dd has had 4 (!) pieces of homework
• they get far less homework teacher assessed (rather than peer assessed) than the grammar schools (typically only one teacher marked homework per subject per half term)
• they have far fewer tests & get away with much lower marks than the grammars ... dd has seriously underperformed at times & has had no come back from the school (only me!)
• they are proud of the ABCO programme but basically it is crap imo - dd has had one extension piece in three years. There is usually one ABCO trip per half term (university/science lab/county court etc) which sounds great but they typically only take 5-10 students form the whole ABCO list (of 15-20 per year). Maybe dd has been unlucky but she's never been offered a place. The grammar schools have 15/20/30 going from each year.
• they have no academic clubs - focus is on support for those struggling rather than the top end - they have the most incredible science facilities e.g. but no science club!
• they cover the curriculum but nothing else - no enrichment, no extension (again this is compared to the grammars & independent selectives locally)
• there is loads of group work & assessment in the lower years - this can be difficult & frustrating when there is such a broad range of ability
• they are okay at rewarding academic achievement but the amount of time spent off timetable for sport is ridiculous (that's just me grumbling)
• there is no specific medicine, Oxbridge or law clubs. The school get some to Oxbridge (in the last three years 7, 1, 4) & law but haven't managed to get any into medicine for 7 years. This isn't good - see also incredible science facilities under used.
• they have external university/careers speakers but it's hardly inspiring for the top end - from the local good but not great uni, physiotherapists, someone who runs an IT firm etc - the grammars get Oxbridge, London unis, medics, scientists, authors etc.

but the major thing for me for the very bright children is that the ethos that they will all aiming high isn't really high enough for them e.g. we've just done GCSE options. It was all very much do what you enjoy rather than as the most academic in the year you will be competing against students with 12/13/14 academic GCSEs - the school only do 9 GCSEs and insist that everyone does a BTEC ... I can see no benefit in this. They don't insist on a MFL, they don't push triple science. They don't ask them to start thinking about A level choices when considering GCSEs.

Saying all that I expect she'll stay there for 6th form - she should get the grades to go to a selective 6th form but I worry that she won't be able to keep up with the pace ... it's undeniable that they get less work all the way through.

The top selective schools near me (top Times schools for the country, private) tend to sit less GCSE than my DCs comp. DCs get slightly less homework, although probably works out similar over the year (one school does no homework in the summer after exams). DCs get homework in each subject each week - less work set in GCSE years in some subject, but these tend to be the ones where you are completing a portfolio, so you always have work to do outside school.
They have 3 Options, emphasis is on do what you enjoy - because they do better if they enjoy what they are studying, and they have the basics covered already.

Universities aren't looking for people with masses of GCSEs, they are looking for good GCSEs, and enthusiasm for their subject.

Oxbridge BTW wants to speak to all young people in an area, not just the Grammar school children, in fact we have open invitation to Oxbridge talks in our town even if hosted by another school.

I agree with tiggy- can depend in intake. We're a comp in a GS area and our cohorts are constantly monitored in their ability bandings so that pupils are stretched. All but one of our high ability last year made expected progress. What the tables don't shoe is that the pupil that didn't had been sectioned in April. Also not shown is that 60% of our high ability pupils make more progress than expected (I.e. exceeded expected progress).
And we don't set for anything in T-shirt.

T-shirt = Y7!

Shoe = show.
I think my phone is obsessed with clothing, sorry!

[in grammar school] "They did reading tests in term 1, and again in February. First test he got age 13y 4months, second test he got 16ys. I firmly believe it is because all the work they are given, all the passages they read, all the language used it class is ALL aimed at his level, and the massive improvement in reading is the result."

My DS a?so in y7 has an assessed reading age of 16+ (assessed in Nov) as do two thirds of his c?ass. His (comprehensive school) class read whole books too and not just "passages" incidentally!

Streamed from the start based on results in the borough admission tests and L6 Sats. Work in the 'accelerated' stream is challenging and moves along at quite a pace - No finishing off class work for homework here. There is already, even in y7, a clear expectation of high attainment and application to RG universities. As well expectations relating to good behaviour, correct uniform, homework, charitable service, enrichment....

What good comprehensive schools do is meet children where they are and challenge all, whether they are the more able or children in need of additional support.

The comparisons with grammar schools, esp. super-selectives, are frankly unhelpful; I would expect a school that creams off those perceived to be the most able, to deliver A* as pretty much a given. 54% doesn't sound that great a level of attainment in maths - grammars clearly not adding much value.

I visit a lot of secondary schools as part of the widening access scheme for Oxbridge and am in regular contact with colleagues involved in similar schemes at other highly selective universities.

How secondary schools support their high ability pupils is part of my remit.

My observations are that provision is inconsistent; some schools support their high ability pupils very well, some are okay, some are dreadful.

Similarly some schools are very open to advice/change, some schools are in the middle and some schools are actively resistant.

Part of the problem is that there is no agreed ideology for what best supports high ability pupils. Some people think X, others think Y. Too many think these pupils will do fine anyway so channel resources to the majority (which in many ways is understandable).

So, OP, I don't think you're remotely silly to worry about this issue. It is of course an issue for parents, but, perhaps more importantly, a huge issue for society. If we do not support our high achievers in comprehensives, then the minority of high achieving children in private schools and selective state schools will continue to dominate the most selective universities and thereafter the industries/sectors that affect us all.

I've been stewing on this quote for about a month 'After getting the school’s best GCSE results, Rohid and three other pupils were told that they had reached “the roof of education in Hull” and should aim higher'. The entire city cannot provide a sixth form fit for purpose ?!? It's worse than you think as the city's schools do not have 6th forms, there are separate 6th form colleges: All able students are equally screwed by the local comprehensive system.

Widely reported article www.hmc.org.uk/blog/top-hats-hard-knock-tales-new-etonians/.

darling your experience is what I see too often.

Able children who have not had good advice when choosing their GCSEs.
Able children taking far too many GCSEs (to boost league tables).
Able children being given poor options at GCSE.
Able children who have only ever been taught strictly to the curriculum.

I could go on. It makes me cross.

Well, PastSellByDate, I think you gave me what for when I complained a while ago about dd's English teaching. It sounds as if you now know where I'm coming from!

Dd's school set for Maths straightaway and from year 8 for Science and MFL. Dd can't wait for languages to be set as she is extremely frustrated at the moment. They started doing "er" verbs (only the first person, mind) but the teacher said they wouldn't do any more verbs as everyone seemed to find it too difficult. So the "ir"s and "re"s are out! And as for reflexives... Consequently I am teaching dd at home.

I have to give dd the mantra that she must not judge herself by her classmates. If she were plonked down in a grammar school somewhere she would not be top of the class with no effort.

Imo the "stretching" does depend on the cohort. Ds was in a year that had a large amount of very able pupils. Dd goes to the same school but - and this is since primary school - the year group seems a bit duff academically.

Parents worry - that's what we do, it's our profession. But am I being silly to let this kind of report concern me.

Yes!
My DC are at University now but I well remember the stresses of KS3. The main worry is that you do not know the outcome. It would be lovely if someone could wave a magic wand and say "I have seen the future. Chill. She'll get good-enough grades. All shall be well."
DD's comp wasn't very ambitious, similar to darling's. DD's GCSE grades didn't set the world alight (despiite being G&T) and I think that she would probably have done better elsewhere. BUT: she got good-enough GCSEs to get to a better sixth form; she got good-enough A Levels to get to a decent University; she got a good-enough classification to get on a post grad course.
That's all you need: enough to get to the next stage.

And remember that your DD is not a statistic. If the school gets that does not mean that your DD will get that statistic. She is an individual and can do better/the same/worse. An overall school grade does not apply to the individual.

Make sure that you keep an eye on her and ask MN for advice. This will counterbalance any shortfalls in the school.

All shall be well.

My DS a?so in y7 has an assessed reading age of 16+ (assessed in Nov) as do two thirds of his c?ass. His (comprehensive school) class read whole books too and not just "passages" incidentally!

I would have thought it was obvious from context that I was referring to work in class in all subjects, not just English, they read plenty of whole books thanks
The point was that if you have an eg history class with children of all abilities, you can't present them with a passage that is only accessible to the top end, the chosen passage must be accessible to the whole class.

I have no doubt that there are very good comps. I also have no doubt that some grammars are factories that push kids hard and are focused round traditional subjects to the detriment of a broader curriculum. My ds school is not like that.

In my humble experience those good comps are not in our town. We are not a grammar area, a very few children do what my ds does and travels to the next door area to grammar. In our area the comps do have a lower expectation and standard.
To be fair though, I do think one reason they are not around us, is intake and parental expectation.

I would also say that listening to ds friends at local schools, the standard of behaviour expected at his school is way higher.

I'm always puzzled by these stats correlating Level 5 with A/ A at GCSE. Since roughly 30% of pupils (I think) get Level 5 that would mean an awful lot of pupils getting As - I would think there's be a lot of talk about "grade inflation" if that were the case. Also, surely in most grammar schools wouldn't you expect most of the Level 5s to be at the higher end of the range and probably Level 6s whereas in a comp they would get the whole range of Level 5s including those who only just scraped through? My own DD is being pushed to get a 5 in SATS Maths at the moment - I certainly don't see her as a potential A in Maths!
I don't think this research has been properly thought through - I cynically suspect it's aimed more at promoting the return of secondary modern education than really addressing the issues.

A/A* grades at GCSE stand at around 25%.

Thus the majority of children attaining L5 should be aiming for those grades.

Though things are changing. If the new exams come in there are proposed caps on the top grades.

I'm puzzled by the whole thread.
imho, age 11-14 is a huge upheaval socially, emotionally, in maturity and brain changes, even. I don't see a need for them to work super hard. I see a need for them to have some space to grow & change. I don't mind treading water.

ime, high achievers are the kids who push themselves and have the personality to be self-motivated.
High ability who underachieve, they underachieve for lots of reasons usually to do with their personal circumstances and emotional upheavals and sometimes just plain personality. I don't see that state schools should be expected to overcome most of these factors, or that any school really can do that much, except pastoral care. I'd like to see a lot from schools wrt pastoral support.

ragged at the schools where pupils are not allowed to tread water, the children still grow and become their young adult selves.

It's not an either or situation.

And whilst I agree that some high ability DC will underachieve due to difficulties at home/illness/lack of motivation etc what concerns me more is institutionally embedded underachievement.

The situation where able pupils with no specific problems are prevented from achieving as well as they might due to school policy, lack of resources, poor advice etc.

I suspect those pupils are a tiny minority, the main forces that lead to underachievement are social-emotional-physical-maturity problems.

Human beings are inherently optimistic ambitious learning machines. Remove obstacles and we are programmed to do those things.

I still think some mealy-mouthed "you're getting above yourself" is entrenched in some schools. In the primary school where I was a governor I questioned the music provision. The head's head revolved a few times and she spat that most pupils couldn't access classical music and it was boring for the children. Yep, much more accessible were the teachers' naff 90s choices of Annie Lennox and Dido.