My secondary school had close on 1,500 pupils and it was very disciplined. You daren't answer teachers back if you knew what was good for you.
Then the lefties got rid of corporal punishment and it went to hell in a hand bag. Assaults on pupils, teachers, vandalism, drugs...

Phill , The Wirral, England

Why does the article not give more detail about the raw research data so that readers can analyse the results for themselves? Whether or not the size of the schools per se, as opposed to things that often, but do not necessarily, accompany large sizes depends on exactly how the research was conducted, and precisely what the raw data say. It might be that the research did not gather enough information to distinguish causation from mere correlation, for example, as is very often the case indeed.

James E. Petts, Burnham, England

It's just more misuse of statistics to hide the fact that society in general is getting ever more undisciplined.
Basically the country is losing control of itself.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

At the large comp I went to, the staff couldn't guarantee your physical safety, let alone instill discipline or ensure everyone left with a satisfactory education.
And that was many years ago - I can't imagine what it's like now.
And yes, Farrukh has a point, parents are responsible for discipline and education too - but in the school I went to, it made difference how dedicated my parents were - that didn't affect the probelms at the school.

W Smith, Oldham,

Supersize schools place massive demands on the transport system and are ill-suited to playing a role that supports the development of neighbourhoods with strong community ties. 3000 people spilling onto a single point on the road network in the space of an hour is inevitably going to cause problems. The wide catchment areas preclude walking and cycling and place far greater reliance on public transport and car use. The relationships supersize schools foster in the community are dispersed and equally likely to be dependent on car use. The size of schools should be considered in the context of policies on both transport and sustainable communities.

Robert Huxford, London , UK

So large schools, but not lack of discipline are too blame for bad behaviour eh!
Strange, I thought it was because this gutless society we now live in will not allow the correct punishment of children or parents!
Once again, flacid do gooders are looking for excuses rather than have the guts to admit their "love in" theories to kids dont work.
Bring back the cane for both kids and parents!

Oi! The Spotters, St Albans, England

To quote from 'Chance of a Lifetime' by Jonathan Langdale and myself: "...Centralisation meant larger, more cost effective units. 1500 pupils in one school; 30+ pupils in every class; one set of buildings, one set of administartive and maintenance staff, one purchasing department, the economies of scale; schools could only benefit so education could only benefit..."
The question is not whether secondary schools should be larger or smaller, but whether we should have them at all. For more about our ideas that education should replace schooling from the age of around 14, visit www.wotnoschool.com
John Harrison, Rye, E. Sussex

John Harrison, Iden, Rye, E. Sussex

Oh, my God! Did it really take all those years and all that research to work out what the rest of us have known from the beginning of large comprehensives?

P Robbins, Cornwall,

I remember my old grammar school headteacher, at a meeting outside school, declaring that in his opinion the best size for a school was around 700 pupils.

That way it was small enough for him to know every pupil individually - in the sense that if he saw that pupil's parent(s) down town he could tell them everything about their child if they so wished - but big enough to have a decent curriculum in the sixth form.

There were no discipline problems. While he was there the exam results improved every year. Around 25-30% of the sixth form (not me!) went to Oxbridge. And we were not all middle-class; my father was a WO2 in the Army when he retired from the Services, and his mother never knew the luxury of an indoor bathroom in any house she lived in to the day she died.

I'm very glad I'm not 45 years younger and just starting secondary school. I was privileged to be in a school where everybody wanted to learn.

Michael Smith, Southampton, UK

Surprise, surprise! This is obvious. Large schools lose their identity and it is impossible for the staff to get to know the pupils well enough to apply discipline, even if they were allowed to. Where the Schools Minister got the idea that parents want large schools I do not know. Passing the buck I would think.

John, Eastbourne, UK

This real reason why we have ended up with large unwieldy schools comes down, as always, to MONEY. Here's why:

1. Small schools are, per pupil, more expensive to run. So local authorities faced with budget pressures find it attractive to close smaller ones and/or merge several small ones into one large one.
2. Capital build costs are budgetted separately from running costs, so providing the LEA can get the money approved from the government for new build, it is in the LEA's interests to do so.
3. Head's and Deputy Head's salaries are on a scale that is dependant on school size. The bigger the school, the bigger the salary (massive salaries in the huge comps). So smaller schools only ever tend to attract 'first-time' heads or ones who have continually failed to secure promotion elsewhere. As school success depends enormously on head-teacher, the chances of a school becoming a 'failing school' are vastly higher in small schools. Then they end up being closed anyway.

MarkS, Leeds,

As a youngster I attended a school with more than 3,000 in the MIddle East. We did not have discipline problems. The issue is not the size of the school but the lack of manners of the children and those who should be teaching the children i.e. their parents. Try identifying the real problem not side stepping it.

Farrukh, Woking, UK