[Closed] The Comprehensive System

I went to a comprehensive. I'm not sure what the problem is really. I was probably always destined for greatness, mind, but it didn't do any harm.

Didn't appear to do me any harm, and out of the three of us Shane, I'm definitely the most sane... 😉

I don't really understand what you're asking, but then I went to a comprehensive school so I'm probably a bit thick.

Comprehensives find it extremely difficult to improve, particularly if they're sited in 'bad areas' because the parents who care don't like the look of the school and either move or find a way for their kids to go elsewhere. Vicious circle and all that.

The secondary school *right* by us (100 yards away) hasn't got a brilliant reputation but it's the nearest school so our son went there.

For a start, sending him to a school close by is great, he walks there and back and he makes friends with kids in our local area which IMO is invaluable. Cool. They're not the most academically advanced school but they do look after their high achievers. That sort of thing doesn't show up in the league tables but they really do, and there's more of them than you'd think in a dodgy area. He's doing very well and is set to get good results in his GCSE's and most importantly, he's happy.

Yes, there have been a few incidents because he's clever and concientious and not violently inclined but he'd get that anywhere.

I don't really understand what you're asking, but then I went to a comprehensive school so I'm probably a bit thick.

Exactly my own thoughts.

WTF does this mean : [i]"As a product of the Grammar School education system short of "[/i] ?

zokes - Member

Didn't appear to do me any harm, and out of the three of us Shane, I'm definitely the most sane...

Mark - I should point out I was sent to one of the worst secondary schools in Ulster. That said, I think that with rising literacy issues within the comp system I'm meeting a lot of kids who would benefit from a quality vocational style education. Of course it didn't do you any harm. It never was going to?! But there is a lot of kids who would benefit from a different system. You are obviously academic - but then others are different. We should uphold that difference rather than sticking square pegs in round holes

Samuri

I guess I'm as much questioning the system as I am the scenario. If that makes sense?

there have been a few incidents because he's clever and concientious and not violently inclined

you mean he's been bullied and belittled and called a swot and a boff because he's bright and hard-working (conscientious)and likes his teachers and enjoys going to school. And he's done absolute wonders to maintain his levels of achievement in the face of constant denigration from his peers?

he'd get that anywhere.

no he wouldn't

not if you'd sent him to a school full of clever and conscientious children

Samuri - that is a deeply sane post. I think that was exactly my dad's train of thought. 🙂

I really can't see what the alternatives are?!

I blame your education for this failing of imagination

JY

I think that as there are no alternatives here then that in itself requires little imagination

I think that as there are no alternatives here then that in itself requires little imagination

>dont think the Grammar school system would help
It does to the extent that you're more likely to start with an intake that have some degree of self-motivation, rather than a bunch of kids who don't care (or equally, their parents don't)

If you have to rely on a bunch of shoddy local comps you're a bit stuffed. Bizarrely, in Richmond on Thames where a mate lives, the primary schools are good and used by the (well-off) locals but the secondary schools aren't that great, so parents send their kids to fee-paying secondary schools. And to keep the numbers up in the state schools, kids are bussed in from Roehampton (some of it's not the most salubrious of areas in sw London) - which makes the well-off locals even less likely to send their kids to the state schools. How you break that I dunno - but the basic problem is, if parents (quite reasonably) judge a school on it's results, given a set of pupils whose basic ability (regardless of background) is never gonna be stellar, the schools results still won't be outstanding.

Think I know where tankslapper's coming from (tho' to be fair I think comps have improved) - I was lucky enough to go to a small local grammar in the 70's. The following year, the idiot Labour Birmingham council in their dogmatic view of grammars turned a whole lot comp, including mine. Ironic, since a good proportion of the kids that got there were from a working class background, so all they did was bugger it up for mostly working-class kids. But they didn't dare touch the King Edwards grammars.
At the time there were GCEs and CSEs (the latter a lower attainment version, if you like), almost no-one in our year of ~120 kids was doing CSE in anything, the following comp year I don't think anyone was doing GCE maths, at least.
At one point the (grammar) 6th form were warned not approach some of the kids hanging around their common room 'cos they might pull a knife 😮
Certainly some of the teachers left in the next few years, I suspect as a direct result.
The bigger comps were at least capable of doing some of streaming...then again it was kids from those schools that occasionally would turn up at our gates, trying to pick a fight with the grammar kids !

No matter what the school you get twunts who will pick on others. Thats fact.
Do you think hiding them from that sets them up well for life ? I personally don't. I'm not advocating setting your kids up for bullying but insulating them from a range of different range of social skills to me me is a false way of protecting them.
I went to the first school to install cctv to try and manage the pitched riots that went on, was bullied, told by the careers 'advisor' that I would come to nothing etc but managed to scrape through. Then again i don't have kids so wtf would i know.

You don't have a comprehensive system.

I went to School in Glasgow in the 70s - one of the few times and places a true comprehensive system existed.

Education is about far more than exam results. You get a better and more rounded education in a true comprehensive system.

What you have now is middle class angst and flight from perceived "bad " schools. Not helpful. The school I went to had the best facilities in Glasgow - swimming pool, language labs, sports hall etc etc. Once parentla choice came in the middle class parent sent their kids to another local school that had been the grammer despite far poorer facilites and exam results in terms of "added value" but beause it was "Shawlands academy" in a victorian building rather than "Hillpark Comprehensive" in a 60s building This left my old school with its great facilites as a sink school. Such a waste.

What you need to do is ignore the simplistic school tables and look to "added value" This gives a far better indication of the actual teaching level of a school.

TJ - now we're getting somewhere.

My doubts about the comp system stem from the fact that a lot of comps are leaving kids who are not academic behind. Woodwork / metal work classes, basic skills etc etc have been shelved and the system is failing the very kids it proports to help - IMHO it is very much a one size fits all, education on the cheap approach and I take TJ's comments about simplistic school tables on board.

As I said I was sent to a school that was supposed to have become the new model for comprehensive education in N.I. but then they changed their minds and we were stuck with it. I turned out alright I guess but there really was some remedial cases who felt that educational life was one long boxing match. I'm not knocking these kids, what I'm saying is that they in this and all systems need a big help. My personal thoughts are a grammar school education system with secondary moderns with a strong focus on engagement and vocational skills.

The comp system rocks, what other system could possibly give you the oppertunity to meet various dross and nare-do-well's then in future life observe their spiral towards the dole via facebook?

tinas (clearly thick and un-saveable as he went to a comp and is northern)

🙄

My personal thoughts are a grammar school education system with secondary moderns with a strong focus on engagement and vocational skills.

So you're advocating a return to the 11+ system, whereby kids who haven't achieved the required academic status by the age of 11 are thrown on the educational scrap heap and thought to be good for nothing but manual labour?

I agree that the current system has it's faults but the system you are proposing has many, many more.

[i]you mean he's been bullied and belittled and called a swot and a boff because he's bright and hard-working (conscientious)and likes his teachers and enjoys going to school. And he's done absolute wonders to maintain his levels of achievement in the face of constant denigration from his peers?[/i]

Again, I'm proably a bit too stupid to understand all that. It's not how I would have put it, and I didn't.

[i] he'd get that anywhere.

no he wouldn't

not if you'd sent him to a school full of clever and conscientious children [/i]

As I say, I didn't go to a grammar school so I wouldn't know about that.

So you're advocating a return to the 11+ system, whereby kids who haven't achieved the required academic status by the age of 11 are thrown on the educational scrap heap and thought to be good for nothing but manual labour?

And you are a strong advocate of SAT's and other Americanised systems? Kids need assessed as to their capabilities, end of. What I am a strong advocate of is real engagement for children who are not academic and/or engagement via other means to untap real potential - that's hardly throwing kids on the scrap heap.

The scrap heap ideology is simply a bourgeois statement by labourites who really wish to save money at the expense of our children's education and future.

Do the girls in the Grammar School system let you go 'Yellow Pages' behind the bike sheds like they did in Comprehensive Schools?

It really must depend on your kids, surely? If they're bright then send them off to the comp - best place for them. If they're less academically inclined, need a bit of a push, then I guess looking at grammar schools would be helpful. If they're thick as mince then it's got to be public school, I am afraid.

The bottom line is that you're the parent, you're in charge and ultimately it is you who sets the agenda of learning and attainment for your children - not the School.

Can we have some clarification of what the original question was please before I formulate an answer?

[chuckles at Garry_Lager] 😀

Woodwork / metal work classes, basic skills etc etc have been shelved and the system is failing the very kids it proports to help - IMHO

Kids need assessed as to their capabilities, end of.

The scrap heap ideology is simply a bourgeois statement by labourites who really wish to save money at the expense of our childrens education and future.

Labour save money on education are you really that ignorant (though we could discuss if it worked)
Some facts
Educational spending has increased by an average of 5% in real terms since 1997. Spending will grow to £51.3bn a year at the end of the current spending period in 2010-11, an increase of 2.8% a year in the current three-year period which began in 2008-09
If you must rant about the system get some facts first. Surely your grammar school education enabled you to do that if it was so good?

Surely your grammar school education enabled you to do that if it was so good?

[i]I think[/i] he went to a comprehensive school, although it's difficult to be sure (poor ability to express himself, contradictory comments, etc)

As I understand it, Slapper went to a comprehensive school which was a failure. Although strangely enough, he claims to have done "alright" out of it. Presumably that's all down to his exceptionally high intelligence though.

If you must rant about the system get some facts first. Surely your grammar school education enabled you to do that if it was so good?

No I was one of the scrap heap kids sent to what was to become a comp and didn't so no I did not go to a grammar school.

Educational spending has increased by an average of 5% in real terms since 1997. Spending will grow to £51.3bn a year at the end of the current spending period in 2010-11, an increase of 2.8% a year in the current three-year period which began in 2008-09
If you must rant about the system get some facts first

Spending on NHS has increased as well - do we have a better NHS?! My first hand experience is no.

Throwing money at a problem does not necessarily solve that problem. In my current role I am faced with kids from comps in south Wales who fall into the NEETS category, and their numbers are increasing. The comp system has and will continue to fail these children without some real intervention.

A very interesting programme was on last night on BBC2 which claimed literacy rates are falling and comps are failing kids from poorer backgrounds as richer more mobile parents vote with their feet for better schools. The only ignorance here is a government that fails to recognise these faults.

As a product of the Grammar School education system short of:
or
I should point out I was sent to one of the worst secondary schools in Ulster
or
As I said I was sent to a school that was supposed to have become the new model for comprehensive education in N.I. but then they changed their minds and we were stuck with it

EDIT:NEETS (Not in Eucation Employment or Training - unemployed young people basically)are increasing because there are no jobs
I guess at Careers Adviser Training officer for job?
Teacher working for Connexions (me that is not you)
Clearly some schools are truly dreadful and some problems cannot be solved by money alone but I assume you dont think either the NHS or the State Schools would be better with less money do you?

In terms of schools it just depends many schools with apoor catchment dpo some great stuff mbut some are just dreadul. It just deoends. Comprehensive education is not perfect but it it is not dreadful per se either.

Personally I would prefer a more European focis with both academic schools such as we have at present with vocational schools as well.
Both scholls would do academic courses and GCSE etc and could lead to University etc. the vocational would focus more on trades and skills for those less able or not intrested in classrooms. It would still have progression routes to NVQ/BTEC in trades and uni say as Engineers surveyors etc.
Generally the education system fails the less able not the brightest. Those who ar ebright will still be selcted within a comprehensive system in sets etc
The old sytem di throw people on to the scrapheap of unskilled labour (pits in your part of the worls , mills in mine)at aged 11.
It was not great. We need to probvide education universally but also to the needs of each individual.

I have never understood why a Grammer school should be better, its not like kids arent setted on ability anyway.

I wouldn't send my offspring to any frightful comprehensive. They're full of darkees and the like. They'll be on crack, knifing people and listening to that hippy hoppy stuff within weeks.

Much better to have them privately educated, where they can enjoy the benefits of superiority complexes and buggery

Much better to have them privately educated, where they can enjoy the benefits of superiority complexes and buggery

classic!

As for the worst comps failing the worst kids, I'd disagree, my mum works as a TA in a pretty piss poor school, manages to drag some pretty rubbish kids through the science element of the key skills. Enough for them to know where babies come from so they can get council houses, and what drugs do so they know what to spend their hard earned child suppourt payments on anyway.

not if you'd sent him to a school full of clever and conscientious children

As I say, I didn't go to a grammar school so I wouldn't know about that.

So you're saying that the only schools whch might contain clever and conscientious children are grammar schools?

But we've been told again and again that the grammar school system was evil because clever and conscientious working-class children were rejected and sent to secondary modern schools. So presumably all your parents neededed to do was find a sec. mod. that was full of grammar school rejects, and you would then have gone to a school full of clever and conscientious children.

The grammar school system is wrong because it's far too early to separate kids out in terms of academic ability. I went to grammar school, but often feel I would have done better at the local comprehensive.

we've been told again and again that the grammar school system was evil because clever and conscientious working-class children were rejected

I have never heard that one before.

The only argument against selective education which I recall hearing, is that it is absurd to believe that anyone can know with certainty what a person's academic abilities will be throughout the rest of their lives, at the tender age of 11. Some will improve later, and some will not do as well as expected. A comprehensive education provides for a child's changing needs. Furthermore, because a child might be good at maths for example, it does not automatically mean that they will also be good at art. In the old secondary modern schools, a child was not allowed to take GSEs even in subjects which they were good at - everything/everyone was lumped together. Again, a comprehensive education allows for childrens varying needs. Not all children are the same, and pigeon-holeing them makes no sense.

Did I get that wrong ?

No Ernie - you got the IDEAL absolutely spot on.

What I'm curious about is:

(a) What about poor performing Comps - should we move house, sell our soul's or (heaven forbid) pay for private
(b) Welsh speaking v English speaking?

cheers
TS

I went to grammar school, but often feel I would have done better at the local comprehensive

This is historical inaccuracy. If you went to grammar school, the other schools were not comprehensives, they were secondary moderns.

Grammar schools were for highly-able, academically-inclined, hardworking, well-motivated pupils from all social backgrounds

Secondary modern schools were for less-able, vocationally-inclined, hardworking, well-motivated pupils from all social backgrounds

Unfortunately this left no school places available for really stupid, work-shy, lazy, ****less, violent, socially inadequate pupils from degenerate backgrounds

So they were sent to the secondary moderns, with predictable effects on the achievements of clever and conscientious children who'd missed out on the eleven-plus

we've been told again and again that the grammar school system was evil because clever and conscientious working-class children were rejected

I have never heard that one before.

You've never heard of stories of able working class kids being rejected for grammar school?

Awesome igmorance

Grammar schools were for highly-able......

Nonsense. Children with IQs of 120 and over, were expected to attend grammar schools. An IQ of 120 is hardly spectacular - I believe that approximately one third of the population has an IQ of 120. So a bit above average then.

What makes you think 'work-shy, lazy, ****less, violent, socially inadequate pupils' didn't go to grammar schools btw ?

.

You've never heard of stories of able working class kids being rejected for grammar school?

And you've never heard the arguments in favour of comprehensive education which I have given ?

Awesome igmorance

What makes you think 'work-shy, lazy, ****less, violent, socially inadequate pupils' didn't go to grammar schools btw ?

of course, by the law of averages, a few must have done

but, thankfully for able working-class pupils at grammar schools, they were in a vanishingly-small minority and were therefore unable to drag their peers down with them in the way it happened at the sec mods

Unfortunately this left no school places available for really stupid, work-shy, lazy, ****less, violent, socially inadequate pupils from degenerate backgrounds

Mmmm! Your all not really getting the point of this thread are you?

I'm not pointing at the Grammar school v Comp School question. I'm aiming squarely at those kids who simply do not fit in. I really am totally against minority rule, but surely kids that do not fit in deserve a chance too - or is factory school education for the masses o.k. by you?

 

Children with IQs of 120 and over, were expected to attend grammar schools. An IQ of 120 is hardly spectacular - I believe that approximately one third of the population has an IQ of 120. So a bit above average then.

The official percentage was 25% to the grammars, 75% to the sec mods.

The top 25% of any group are quite a lot better than

a bit above average

The top 25% of any abiliy group is highly able

I'd love it if someone could point out why it's supposed to be morally better to deny clever kids a decent education at 11 years than to deny thick kids one at age 11.

Wierdly I remember a (Labour voting everything-is-Thatcher's-fault) mate of mine at school was quite happy to claim he was better than me at 18 because he got a place at "proper" university whereas I was inferior because I got a place at a Poly. At first I wondered what this was all about, then I worked out that snobs can use just about any situation to make themselves feel better. Voting Labour being just one of these.

I'm aiming squarely at those kids who simply do not fit in.

Send them to a decent school and they will

Send them to a decent school and they will

Slightly over-simplistic, no?

I'd love it if someone could point out why it's supposed to be morally better to deny clever kids a decent education at 11 years than to deny thick kids one at age 11.

It isnt which is why the comprehensive system seems like a better idea to me. I've taught in an area with grammer schools, at a comp which isnt a real comp, and at a comp in an area with no grammer schools and the later is better for more people. Kids with supportive parents needednt worry about sending their little darlings to a comp as long as its a decent one.

This is historical inaccuracy. If you went to grammar school, the other schools were not comprehensives, they were secondary moderns.

I never heard of any of my local schools being referred to as secondary moderns, they were all called comprehensives. What is the difference?

Children with IQs of 120 and over, were expected to attend grammar schools. An IQ of 120 is hardly spectacular - I believe that approximately one third of the population has an IQ of 120. So a bit above average then.

This statistic is skewed by geography. If you lived a fair distance from the local grammars, then only perhaps 5% of pupils had a place awarded.

I would agree with AA, a school which hasn't had lots of the most capable pupils removed is best for the community as a whole. For ernie_lynch, I'd offer experiences from my apprenticeship to show why segregation harms the less able. I spent quite a lot of time coaching fellow appretices with the academic side (especially maths). Then they spent time showing me how metal fits together 🙂 Imagine if that had been happening for the previous 5 years.

I never heard of any of my local schools being referred to as secondary moderns, they were all called comprehensives. What is the difference?

If you have grammer schools taking the top achieving kids at age 11 in an area, then the comps arent comprehensive as they are missing the top end, they are just not called secondary moderns any more.

Surely they are called comprehensive schools because entry is open to all (comprehensive intake), that would differentiate from the grammars which are selective?

Comprehensive schools take all pupils - all of them. If there are grammar schools in the area they only take some of the pupils hence they are not comprehensive.

Well that doesn't work TJ, since in one area without grammar schools you could have two comprehensive schools. They can't both take all the pupils...

Its not about taking all pupils, its about taking all abilities, if a grammar school is down the road it means you dont have any "real" comps, seems an easy concept to understand as far as I can see.

Comprehensive schools CAN take pupils of all abilities though, that's my point.

Rich - you fail to see the point. If you have a grammar school you do not have a comprehensive school. A comprehensive school is one that can and does take all the pupils in an area. If there is another school that takes some of the pupils then the other is not a comprehensive

No, I don't TJ, although I notice that your definition of a comp seems to change subtly every time 🙂

OK, again, in the last example you give, the other school in the area might not be a grammar school. So you have 2 schools in the area, one taking pupils that the other could educate. And yet according to you, neither is a comprehensive.

A comprehensive is a school that DOES NOT select the intake. Thats WHY it's called a comprehensive!!!

I don't know how to explain it any better. You obviously have a defective education. You simply do not or will not understand.

go have a look at a dictionary

My mum was from a very poor background, in a small town in a now defunct county - her dad was a gardener, badly burnt in the war, whilst her mum worked in a bakery.

At school she did well, passed her eleven plus and was awarded a full scholarship to grammar school, fifteen miles away - she got the bus there and back every day, she was aware that a lot of the kids there were from "better" backgrounds, but she did well at school, passed her O levels and got a job in a bank, only a young marriage and kids prevented her going to university, before spending most of the rest of her career as a civil servant.

My dad was the son of a docker, his mum a shop worker, grew up in inner city Liverpool, technical college where they began to teach him a trade, resulting in an apprenticeship as an Electrician, a few years at sea and an established trade that kept him in work though to retirement.

From very, very modest backgrounds, they ended up owning a house with a nice garden, and successfully set up two sons to the point where they had a job and career themselves.

Would my mum have ended up doing what she did if she had not gone to Grammar school? almost definitely not, [b]social mobility[/b] led to her getting a banking and civil service career, a lot of her school friends ended up as teachers, again some from the same pretty poor backgrounds, the 11+ identified those with ability and gave them the best educations. At the same time, I don't think for one second my dad would have benefitted from a more "conventional" education, his education suited his skills and abilities perfectly.

Problem with a "comprehensive" education is that its the classic socialist problem of trying to produce equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity - you end up with everyone getting a middle of the road education with nobody able to excel despite personal ability, a grey homologous mass, with everyone learning the same and nobody having their education tailored to what they need or are likely to do in the future.

The beauty of the proper grammar school [i]system [/i]was that it was not just a grammar school or nothing, there were also secondary modern and technical colleges meaning a variety of educational opportunities were open to be tailored to kids.

I think we're arguing semantics here TJ, or we're talking about different things.

You can't disagree with this, because it's true:

A comprehensive is a school that DOES NOT select the intake. Thats WHY it's called a comprehensive!!!

I don't think it's wrong to call them comprehensives, because they offer an education to everyone, regardless of ability. You think they're called that to represent a system without selection. But how can they be, since they were designated when selection was in place?

Zulu - very nice anecdotes but wrong I am afraid.

A true comprehensive system such as I attended gives equality of opportunity. It is well proven that the brightest kids do well no matter what the school is, those of middling ability [b]do better in non selective schools[/b], those of lower ability it makes no difference to them what the school is.

Selection destroys the chances of some kids - either those who are late developers who fail an 11 plus but would get a levels - and that is more common than you think, it fails those who do poorly in one off exams and most importantly it fails those who just pass the eleven plus - they struggle in the grammar school and don't get the attention that they need.

This is why the vast majority of Teachers and education professionals are against selection. It is a poor way to educate children.

A good education is about more than exam results

Rich wrong again - comprehensives were designed [b]as a replacement for the selective school system[/b]. You are misusing the word. A comprehensive school has a comprehensive intake of all the pupils in the area. You simply cannot have a comprehensive school if a quarter of the kids don't go there.

A good education is about more than exam results

Couldn't agree more - however its also not about how many go to university afterwards, see my points about technical schools and apprenticeships.

The problem with the eleven plus is that it is too rigid. My fully comprehensive school had good technical educations available as well and allowed people the flexibility to have a mix of academic and technical educations and also to transfer between the systems seamlessly at any time. Something denied to people that fail the eleven plus

Not where I'm from TJ, they existed concurrently. Also, wouldn't they just be called schools if there was no selection system? There was none of this technical college business where I grew up. I'm not as old as you, perhaps I'm missing some of the history. Certainly the school I attended had always been selective.

I'm fully with you TJ, selection based on ability (to pass exams) at 11 is insane. I don't think the subject matter is different between selective and comps, just the amount of funding and the quality of teaching. FWIW, I don't quite fit your descriptions. I was a high achiever at 11 but struggled at grammar school because I wasn't top dog anymore. I disliked 1.5 hours of commuting a day, and couldn't really form close friendships with the others as they lived miles from me. I think it's telling that I have no contact with anyone I went to school with now. All my closest mates are those I grew up with, but they all went to the comp or catholic school.

Would my mum have ended up doing what she did if she had not gone to Grammar school?

Quite possibly. I've got loads of friends who work in the City, some of whom have done very well for themselves. Not one went to grammar school.

RichPenny - Member

Not where I'm from TJ, they existed concurrently.................... I'm not as old as you,

Perhaps the key things here - some areas never actually introduced a comprehensive system. All they did was rename their secondary modern schools comprehensives without removing the Grammars thus it was never a comprehensive system. Comprehensive schooling was developed in the 60 s and 70 s as a replacement for selection at 11.

OK, that makes sense. LOL, did they think people wouldn't notice?

A comprehensive system is one without selection, so if an area such as reading where I live, has grammar schools within it the "comprehensive schools" are not proper comps they are secondary moderns named something else. Is this not an easy concept to understand or is it me thats stupid?