August 27, 2004

Debating comprehensives

Posted by Chris

Our very own Harry Brighouse — who is away from the internet at the moment — features in the latest Times Educational Supplement . Harry is engaged there in a debate with … his dad. But since Tim Brighouse is commissioner for London schools and Harry has written extensively on justice in education, that’s just as it should be. The subject of the debate: for and against the comprehensive ideal in Britain’s schools. (To read the whole thing, you’ll need to buy the paper version.)

Posted on August 27, 2004 11:17 AM UTC
Comments

Does either of them call the other a “nutter”?

Posted by dsquared · August 27, 2004 11:27 AM

Those perplexed by dsquared’s question, will find an explanation for it here .

Posted by Chris Bertram · August 27, 2004 11:36 AM

I must admit to being a bit puzzled as to what a “comprehensive” is. Is it just a single public school serving a given catchment area, as is the norm in most countries I know of ? Or is there some more specific requirement, such as no streaming of students within subjects by ability or difficulty level.

(I’m aware of relatively recent movements to relax residential requirements for enrolments, but this is a side issue I think)

Posted by John Quiggin · August 27, 2004 02:00 PM

I must admit to being a bit puzzled as to what a “comprehensive” is. Is it just a single public school serving a given catchment area, as is the norm in most countries I know of ?

Yes, roughly, I’d say. To be genuinely comprehensive it has to contain a mix of children that reflects the mix in the neighbourhood. Which doesn’t happen if (a) the smart kids are creamed off into a separate school (old Grammar/2ndary mod divide) or (b) the rich kids are creamed off leaving the poorer ones behind. So all abilities and all classes, with streaming within being a different issue.

Posted by Chris Bertram · August 27, 2004 03:00 PM

I would be quite interested in hearing the opinions of the Timberites on Comprehensives - should they exist, do they work, what is necessary to make them work? My own experience attending a Comprehensive for two years in Germany (“Integrierte Gesamtschule”) was an unmitigated disaster, mostly because the differences in ability (defined here as ability to do the work in school) between the top 20% and the bottom 20% of the students was so vast that teaching all students in the same room in an effective manner was impossible. The level of instruction inevitably drifted towards the bottom end, with the unsurprising result that all the high-ability pupils left for selective schools. And the rather serious behavioral issues of some of the students from the weaker end of the spectrum certainly increased my and others motivation to get out. Or, to put it more bluntly, antisocial 11-year olds with knives are very seriously scary.

Posted by Dirk Jenter · August 27, 2004 05:03 PM

So it’s safe to say that, high schools of science and such aside, US public education is dominated by comprehensives?

Posted by will · August 30, 2004 03:32 AM

“the differences in ability between the top 20% and the bottom 20% of the students was so vast that teaching all students in the same room in an effective manner was impossible”

The idea is not necessarily that all students of all abilities be in the same class, just that they be in the same school. You can have a comprehensive school that includes different academic streams.

Posted by Ray · August 30, 2004 09:38 AM
Followups

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.