To What Extent Were the Ideals and Aims of the Comprehensive School Achieved?

To what extent were the ideals and aims of the comprehensive school achieved?

Introduction
According to Hargreaves ‘the comprehensive system had a difficult birth’ (Ball, S. 1984). Comprehensive schools developed because there were many who believed that educating all local children in a single school, where they would have equal physical facilities and equal access to high quality teachers, would raise the academic standards of all children and teachers, bring about greater equality within the schools and lead to greater opportunities outside in the world of work. (Ahonen, S . 2000). Through mixing children from various social class backgrounds it was hoped that this would lower barriers between the classes ( Ahonen, S . 2000). It was believed that the Comprehensive school would help raise academic standards, according to Jesson (2001) there could be an increase in the talents of the vast majority of students who were failing the 11+ if they were given greater encouragement and better educational opportunities as was far more likely to occur in Comprehensive schools than in the Secondary Modern schools due to the Comprehensive allowing for ‘educating for all’ (Times Higher Education. 1996).
In this essay I will discuss as to what extent the ideals and aims of the comprehensive system were met. I will look at the ideals of the comprehensive system, those of educational community justice respect, freedom and non-discriminatory and evaluate whether they were achieved. The two aims I will look at are academic achievement (more specifically, the examination results) and social mobility and discuss to what extent these aims were achieved through the various studies that were conducted.
The ideal
There were three main ideals which is what the common school consisted of: educational, community, justice, respect, freedom and non-discriminatory (Halstead, 1987) According to Pring, the ideal of community was that ‘education aims to create a more cohesive and enriching community, shaped by a common culture from which all benefit whatever so the cultural background from which the learners come’(Halstead, 1987.) Another ideal was that of non-discriminatory as the common school tried to not discriminate at the point of entry to secondary schools. But, the ideal of justice was not always achieved as according to Brighouse (1989), the weight that it put on the integration across differences, the common school ideal doesn’t always serve the cause of justice(Halstead, 1987). But, according to Rawls, we need to comprehend the demands of justice before we can adjudicate whether common schooling is the most just form of provision of schooling for particular individuals. (Halstead, 1987). Another ideal was respect, according to Pring, the comprehensive school should be respectful in the sense that respects both for individuals and cultures should be met. However, Cigman argued that it should not be disrespectful to educate children with special needs in a different setting. There are difficulties in evaluating as to whether these ideals have been achieved in comprehensive schools; this is due to the fact that the comprehensive ideal cannot reasonably be pursued as an ideal for a single school (Halstead, 1987).
I think the Comprehensive system achieved a small amount of its ideals. I agree that justice, respect and non-discriminatory ideals were met as the comprehensive school allowed for pupils from all backgrounds and all academic abilities into one school which permitted for these ideals to be achieved. But, they failed in raising academic standards ideal as there was no great difference in academic standards between the previous system of the selective system and that of the comprehensive. The Comprehensive ideal was one of good intention as they aimed to widen educational horizons, enabling more pupils to stay longer in school and to obtain qualifications, helping all pupils to participate more meaningful educational process provided through a community based school. If everyone should be entitled to the same opportunities, they will have to meet everyone else’s capacities and that cuts out the activities which are beyond these capacities. Any comprehensive will have its limits in this respect; it can only cater for some activities and some types of pupils. Pupils are not the same and hence require different treatment, including different opportunities, resources, and types of learning.
Aims
I will focus on two of the main aims of the comprehensive school system; to meet the different educational needs of the large range of students attending the school and to aid in social mobility for those in the lower social classes. These aims existed because they helped to promote the ideal of the comprehensive system. Both social mobility and the increase in academic standards tied into justice, respect and educational community and through these aims, the ideal could be achieved. a. Examination Results
There is a wide range of ways to determine whether academic standards have been raised, therefore I will focus on examination pass rates. But issues may arise when focusing on examination pass rates as it is not the best way to determine how well as school is doing academically as they may not be measuring what students really need to know. Not all students who do well academically may score well in examination results. I decided to look at examination results as it is a popular method of helping to determine as to how successful the comprehensive system was in achieving the aim to raise academic standards.
A study conducted by Davis in 1984, looked at historical trends in Leicester and found that although the proportion of pupils gaining at least one ‘O’ level or CSE equivalent rose from 36 per cent, after comprehensives reorganization whilst the proportion of pupils actually getting six or more O levels dropped from 12 per cent to 9 per cent (M, Estelle. 2002). But, in another study published by the National Council for Education Standards (Cox and Marks, 1986) the study found that the selective system obtains better results than comprehensives (30-40 per cent more O level examination passes per pupil). In another study conducted by Maughan and Rutter, it was found from examining children and statistically controlling the effects of any differences in intake into the systems, reading scores at age 14 were significantly higher in the selective grammar school sample by comparison with those in comprehensive schools (M, Estelle. 2002). Fifth year examination results were also superior in the selective system (M, Estelle. 2002). But, the research can tell us little about the effectiveness of comprehensive schools. Looking first at academic attainment, comparisons of reading and maths standards over time are difficult to relate to comprehensivization, given the myriad of other social factors (quality of teaching, parental influence) that may also have generated these changes( Reynolds, N,1987).

In a study conducted by Davis in 1965, comprehensives were compared with secondary modern schools and the proportion of the O level candidates succeeding in gaining that qualification was higher in the comprehensive school than other schools (M, Estelle. 2002). But a high rate of success in one school might reflect a very effective school organization and teaching programme and the same rate of success in another school might reflect a restrictive policy towards examination entrants. Some may select the best pupils to enter the exams and therefore their results would be higher (M, Estelle. 2002). In addition, the comprehensive schools may be entering as many children as possible into the G.C.E in order to maximize the amount of G.C.E results achieved, but in doing so they would be minimizing their chances of gaining higher rates of successful candidates. A frequent claim of writers to comprehensives is that these schools lowered levels of academic attainment over time. It was found that less able boys by comparison with other boys in a particular school improved their exam performance, whereas the change made little or no difference to the pass rate of the most able (McCartney, R . 2010).Although there was evidence of better overall performance on the part of less able boys in the mixed ability classes, without any lowering of the standards reached by the more able, few differences were found for girls. But it can be questioned as to whether these exam results are the only way to measure success in schooling (McCartney, R . 2010). According to Reynolds, the proportion of leavers with no graded result fell from 44 per cent in 1971 to 18.7 per cent in 1975 (McCartney, R . 2010). In addition, the proportion of leavers gaining five or more ‘higher grade’ O level passes rose from 20 per cent in 1964 to almost 27 per cent in 1983 (McCartney, R . 2010). But, one must be careful when interpreting these results as arguments about equivalency are supplemented by evidence that whilst the rate of success may have risen, it did so largely due to a growing number of pupils offered only one or two O level papers for examination. In addition, the increased pass rates may be simply reflecting changes in the examination entry policy of schools according to Sullivan (McCartney, R . 2010).
I think that the comprehensive system failed to meet its aim of improving academic standards. This has been made evident through the various studies that were conducted, showing that the comprehensive system did not allow for a large increase in higher examination grades. But, one must also look at coursework and look at outside factors such as teachers and parents which will influence the academic standards of pupils. To conclude, comprehensives did struggle to achieve the aim of raising educational standards and failed in some areas, but managed to still succeed in other areas.
Social Mobility
Social mobility was another aim of the comprehensive system. To evaluate whether this aim was achieved, I looked at whether the comprehensive system facilitated in helping pupils climb the social ladder in comparison to if they were to attend a streamed school. Another factor which will be looked at to determine how successful comprehensives were in achieving social mobility is the amount of interaction between the different social classes (Swift, A. 2011). It is also difficult to evaluate the successfulness to achieving this aim as it will also be dependent on the area in which the pupils live in. Those pupils which live in a wealthy area and attend a comprehensive will less likely mix with pupils of lower class and this may be deemed as a failure as the different social classes don’t mix as much (Swift, A. 2011).
Ford (1969) reported that interaction between children of different social class origins was no greater and was probably less in the streamed comprehensive schools. The same study also claimed to demonstrate that comprehensive school pupils are as likely to promote perceptions of a rigid and dichotomous class structure as selective schools. But the validity of these findings were questioned by critics who argue that the London comprehensive schools of her study can hardly be regarded as typical of all British comprehensives schools as they were highly creamed socially and academically (Reynolds, 1987) Grammar schools appear to be no more equitable than comprehensive schools in terms of their effects on the distribution of mobility chances between relevantly similar pupils from different class origins (McCartney, R . 2010). The London School of Economics researchers found that just 3% of the children in the best performing comprehensives were receiving free school meals as against a national average of 17%. (McCartney, R . 2010).
But, we must be careful not to attribute to differences between schools what are really differences between children. Even if children who attended a grammar schools did experience more upward mobility than their counterparts in other kinds of school, that could be because they were different kinds of children, and those same children might have done just as well in other types of school. (Felsenstein, D. 1987). Second, if our interest in social mobility derives from a concern with equality of opportunity between those born into unequal starting points, we cannot confine our attention to those from less advantaged backgrounds but must look also at the effect of school type on those from more advantaged starting points. To conclude, the aim of social mobility did not succeed to a great extent. But, a drop in social mobility did not occur and there was no big increase in social mobility either so it cannot be deemed to be a large failure either. I think that the comprehensive system did not achieve its aim of raising social mobility. In the studies conducted it was shown that there was no considerable difference in social mobility in the streamed system than in the comprehensive system.
Conclusion
One must be careful when evaluating comprehensives as they are still in use today and here has been much change over the period of time since they started. But, I deem the comprehensive system to have failed mostly in regard to its ideals and aims. Comprehensive ideal and practice, in my opinion, is more of a well-intentioned attempt to set an agenda for the problem, rather than an attempt to solve it. The Comprehensive system cannot be deemed success or failure. It struggled to meet its aims but the ideal it had was one of good intention. Even if the Comprehensive system was to be reformed could not possibly deliver the social improvements expected of them. There was nationally no specification of the forms or organization that was to be utilized within the schools and no clear commitment to any specifically comprehensive practice or curricular content. There was no reason for central government to legislate for the content of comprehensive schools since it had no power to determine school organization. There was no clear statement of comprehensive goals, except for the commitment to the goals of improving academic talent and the redistribution of it through the social class structure

References
Reynolds, N (1987). The Comprehensive Experiment. London: The Falmer Press. 106-132.
Felsenstein, D (1987). Comprehensive Achievement . London: Hodder and Stoughton. p69-107.
M, Estelle. (2002). Why comprehensives must change. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/23/schools.education . Last accessed 12/04/2013.
McCartney, R . (2010). The Comprehensive Failure . Available: http://www.ngsa.org.uk/com-013.php. Last accessed 09/04/2013.
Times Higher Education . (1996). Comprehensive schools: the history. Available: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=92186 . Last accessed 02/04/2013.
University of Oxford. (2011). Study: Comprehensive schools do not reduce social mobility. Available: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/study_comprehensive.html . Last accessed 01/04/2013.
Martin, I. (2012). If we want social mobility we need selection in schools . Available: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100159646/if-we-want-social-mobility-we-need-more-selection-in-schools/. Last accessed 01/04/2013.
Allen, M . (2012). Alan Milburn,social mobility and education . Available: http://radicaled.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/alan-milburnsocial-mobility-and-education/. Last accessed 01/04/2013.
Swift, A. (2011). Do comprehensive schools reduce social mobility?. The British Journal of Sociology. 62 (6), p 90-108.
Ball, S (1984). Comprehensive Schooling . London: The Falmer Press. 1-27.
Ahonen, S . (2000). What happens to the common school in the market? . Curriculum Studies. 32 (4), 483-493.

References: Reynolds, N (1987). The Comprehensive Experiment. London: The Falmer Press. 106-132. Felsenstein, D (1987). Comprehensive Achievement . London: Hodder and Stoughton. p69-107. M, Estelle. (2002). Why comprehensives must change. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jun/23/schools.education . Last accessed 12/04/2013. McCartney, R . (2010). The Comprehensive Failure . Available: http://www.ngsa.org.uk/com-013.php. Last accessed 09/04/2013. Times Higher Education . (1996). Comprehensive schools: the history. Available: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=92186 . Last accessed 02/04/2013. University of Oxford. (2011). Study: Comprehensive schools do not reduce social mobility. Available: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2011/study_comprehensive.html . Last accessed 01/04/2013. Martin, I. (2012). If we want social mobility we need selection in schools . Available: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100159646/if-we-want-social-mobility-we-need-more-selection-in-schools/. Last accessed 01/04/2013. Allen, M . (2012). Alan Milburn,social mobility and education . Available: http://radicaled.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/alan-milburnsocial-mobility-and-education/. Last accessed 01/04/2013. Swift, A. (2011). Do comprehensive schools reduce social mobility?. The British Journal of Sociology. 62 (6), p 90-108. Ball, S (1984). Comprehensive Schooling . London: The Falmer Press. 1-27. Ahonen, S . (2000). What happens to the common school in the market? . Curriculum Studies. 32 (4), 483-493.