Are comprehensives really 'failing' their ablest pupils?
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:59 am
I am sure you will have seen the 'news' this week that that comprehensive schools are 'failing' their ablest pupils (thanks, Daily Mail)
Just to offer a little balance to this story, I am posting part of a response from Chris Husbands (Director of IOE), who points out that 'all is not well' in grammar schools either.
Just to offer a little balance to this story, I am posting part of a response from Chris Husbands (Director of IOE), who points out that 'all is not well' in grammar schools either.
His conclusion is interesting too, I feel:in comprehensive schools, 35% of those who secured level 5 or above in both English and Maths went on to secure an A or A* at GCSE, whereas the figure was 59% in grammar schools. But this means that 41% of those who secured a Level 5 at age 11 and went on to selective secondary education did not secure an A or A* at GCSE.
Not exactly grist to the mill of those who say that bright children will do well anywhere, but perhaps a little light cast on the nuances of that argument. And maybe also a little support for those who believe that children pushed to get into selective schools may actually not be the academic hot shots their parents wish them to be.And there’s a further point: over the same period, policy and press discussion has tended to divide schools into “successful” and “failing” schools. The OFSTED report on higher attainers demonstrates that it’s a lot more complex than this: it turns out that “successful” schools are often no more successful in meeting the needs of very high attaining pupils than less successful schools. And, for all the difference between comprehensive schools and grammar schools, if grammar schools are not securing the highest grades for two-fifths of their most able students, the observation holds there. Put slightly differently, it does not matter much which school you go to, but it may matter a great deal who teaches you when you get there.