To believe that we need to create two hundred more Grammar Schools for the Shires of England.

I think I may have not explained my point properly. I get schools have to make some allowances for children with additional needs. But surely you can see why a 9/10 year old might struggle with being told off for the same thing a peer is allowed to get away with? And if children see some children being allowed to do things, they think 'well if they can, so can I' and it only makes the disruption worse.

I do feel for teachers, they are working under very challenging conditions imposed on them by successive governments trying to cost save and impose an agenda of integration, no matter the consequences

It is my local school, GCSE attainment and progress is signficantly below national average which is unusual for the area of London. It is known as the party school and run by a happy clappy young Christian head full of young enthusiastic teachers who mean well but can’t control the demographic. There isn’t assault and the kids have fun and seem happy, but the behaviour is chaotic and the results lag all the other local schools. Most higher attainers leave straight after GCSEs and go onto the higher performing schools at that point.

Yes we have two very decent comprehensives in the wider area but the catchment price is an extra 25% on your house price/rent - add in stamp duty, it is not affordable for many. And the catchment gets smaller every year despite the birth rate going down.
And then we have the usual strict schools like certain well known chains. Some people like that, I don’t.
DS’ grammar is not strict at all, it is all about the pastoral and growth mindset.

I have every sympathy for parents in your situation, which is why we need to improve all schools or convert grammar schools to successful comprehensives - I don’t think that would be politically possible though.

In terms of behaviour it is very hard to implement behaviour policies on a cohort level without some good children being swept up in policies they don’t like or seem unfair. I used to tell my children it was a tax for the rest of the behaviour being generally good. It’s not ideal but the alternative is worse and most of the time behaviour management was good. I think that’s what parents don’t get, you try your best to be fair but sometimes events happen and you’re dealing with a million things at once and make a decision that isn’t fair. Parents can then take that one mistake, made in the middle of mayhem, and want the teacher punished.

Whisper it quietly - but sometimes a bit of unfairness is good for children cos that’s what life is like. The howls of outrage that would get if I said it on a behaviour thread.

@Anothermoomin - unfortunately it is a little bit more than that! Many of us feel the education system has been captured by a Victorian style of authoritarianism - Jeremy Bentham style prisons- that directly conflicts with modern day parenting, rights of the child and the citizens we are actually trying to build. We are trying to build creative thinkers and future leaders who question in the right way, with empathy and have strong emotional intelligence.

I don’t have time really today but this article for example explains my thoughts on the matter https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1358684X.2022.2069547

Now I know teachers mostly are trying their very best in incredibly difficult circumstances. However, I can tell you as a lawyer - you know fundamentally what matters the most, just like we as lawyers know that it is truth and morality below it all. And I know that educators know what is fundamental too and I don’t believe the system certain academy chains are building and the petty rules reflect any of that. Grammar schools with their better cohorts and better parenting don’t have to follow that and I have tried to explain where my duty as a parent lies, towards my child and what I understand to be the fundamental truth of what education is meant to be.

@noblegiraffe - why? Which parts?
The author was a teacher, now an academic at Goldsmiths.
It is fine- you can completely disagree, but I like his viewpoint. I think he is right.

From his bio:

„I am a teacher, having taught in London schools from 1991-2015, and then at Goldsmiths university 2015-present, where I completed my PhD thesis in Creative Writing and Education. After that, I was course leader for Goldsmiths’ PGCE English course (2015-2022) and Head of MA Creative Writing and Education (2016 to present). In 2022, I was appointed Academic Co-Director of Goldsmiths’ Connected Curriculum.“

Sure, and his article is a worthless piece of crap. I mean, my post was an utterly visceral reaction to what I had just had the misfortune to read, but I can go into far more detail if you like.

Sure @noblegiraffe - like I said you don’t need to like the woke English teacher nor the concept of Open Access even. However, I was surprised by your championing of the Birbalsingh approach. I mean do you really not have reservations there?

I don't 'champion the Birbalsingh approach' however her school is an excellent counterpoint to the idea that FSM kids just simply can't work at a grammar school level and that's why they don't get in.

Anyway, back to the shite article. You're aware that you read a polemic and a sales pitch, rather than an actual piece of research, right? I mean, the Arday affair has made public the absolutely dire state of what passes for 'research' in university faculties of education and this article does nothing to improve that reputation.

We have Kate, our hero. "According to Kate, who, in her role as Assistant Principal, had observed many classes in different subjects across the school, most lessons involved teachers lecturing from a PowerPoint and pupils silently taking notes and/or tests."

Sure they do. This is then characterised as 'Direct Instruction' and implied to be the favoured teaching method in any 'authoritarian' school. Except that's bollocks. If you look at all the modern research around principles of effective teaching (Rosenshine is big these days) where there is lots of interaction. Think, Pair, Share. Turn and Talk. Shoulder Partners. Even mini whiteboards and choral call and response. Kids are not silently taking notes while the teacher talks - that would be a horribly ineffective way of teaching.

Anyway, so in contrast to this, our hero sets up the idea of 'kids talking to each other about the book they are reading'. With a single top set Y9 class. Out of which six kids are interviewed.

And the kids say such insights as 'I notice more people are putting their hands up'. Great. Kids do often grow in confidence as the year goes on as they settle into a class. Some counting of hands up before and after would actually validate this observation but no such science happens in this study. How did 'hands up' go in the control group? Oh, there isn't one.

"Kate reported at the end of their reading of Animal Farm, several months later, that most of her pupils were considerably more politically aware"
Ok, well, you'd hope so? I mean, it's Animal Farm. But we are supposed to think that it is the teaching method.

"it was also interesting to note most students attained grades well above what had been predicted for them in their in-school and externally assessed examinations, GCSE English and English Literature. This was because Reciprocal Teaching facilitated a level of thinking and responding to texts that was more authentic, cogent and deeper, which was plainly visible in their examination answers."

Well, it would be nice to see some data here, but my main question is "given that Kate is such an experienced teacher, why were her predicted grades so shit? Did they not do mock exams? Was her mock marking really bad? She had a history of 'good results' so were good results not expected?"

Also, there's an awful lot of the article spent selling 'Reciprocal Teaching' which makes a lot of sense when you hear that the author makes a living selling Reciprocal Teaching training.

Anyway, it's not research, it's a pile of rubbish from which no valid conclusions can be drawn. Literally no data. Any improvement could simply be down to the Hawthorne Effect, and no effort is made to control for anything. It references Hattie and his effect sizes which are long discredited.

But yeah boo down with what I'm going to pretend is 'direct instruction' and buy my Reciprocal Teaching training materials

I think my favourite bit of the whole article was when the children, through the power of Reciprocal Teaching, started to slate their own 'authoritarian' school as being like 'Animal Farm'.

I meant, you couldn't make it up.....could you?

Thanks for the detailed (and at times humorous) explanation @noblegiraffe - I concede, you are right.

It does make me wonder about the ethics behind it all.

So in your opinion, because I respect your views is the more strict/authoritarian approach to schools that we are seeing as a fashion in the best interests of children as a whole and society as a whole? The whole they need to learn predictability and structure and a rule based society primarily.
or is it more expediency/born out by resource constraints (not enough staff to meet need) to primarily control vast numbers of children to get as much out of them as possible in the challenging circumstances?

And how do you get the balance right.
Because in real life petty infringements aren’t a real thing unless they are frequent and become worse. Let’s say a petty shoplifter who eventually turns to burglary who eventually turns to armed robbery? Or a marihuana smoker who eventually turns to coke then LSD/heroine?

I just cannot get my head around severe punishment for minor infringements. I understand discipline methods of 1,2 3 points and then a detention because that is how real society works. But I don’t understand silent corridors, not turning around, not laughing etc.slightly untucked shirt. I genuinely do not understand how a child is meant to spend hours in that and then confront a completely different rules based society outside that or in the family home. I just naturally assume that if you have been in a constrained environment all day like that as a child that you are more likely to go wild in later life, when released, not the opposite. But perhaps you disagree entirely.

I concede, you are right. Crikey @Araminta1004 this is MN, this never happens. Genuinely thank you for that.

The whole they need to learn predictability and structure and a rule based society primarily.
or is it more expediency/born out by resource constraints (not enough staff to meet need) to primarily control vast numbers of children to get as much out of them as possible in the challenging circumstances?

No, I don't think it's at all about them 'needing to learn predictability'. I think it's very much about getting them into a position where they'll actually learn something.

During covid, the structure of school was removed, kids were set work to do at home and parents were coming onto MN in large numbers saying 'I just can't get my child to do their schoolwork'. They thought online lessons were the solution because teachers can get their kid to do the work at school, so they'd be able to get them to do the work in an online lesson. No, not from my kitchen I can't. Not without the weight of the school machinery behind me.

The vast majority of effort that goes on in schools is based around getting the kids to do the work. If you have kids that actually want to do the work then you are playing on extremely easy mode. If, like most schools, you have kids who would rather be chatting to their friends, on their phones, out doing activities, or hanging around in gangs terrorising the elderly and stealing from the local mini-mart then you have got much more of a battle on your hands.

I've got friends and colleagues who have taught/do teach in extremely strict schools and what they say about it is that you 'can just get on and teach'. What's the point in all the petty rules? Kids will come into a classroom on time, sit down, get their books out and crack on. When the teacher wants to talk, they'll be silent. Because they've been trained to follow the rules.

This generation of kids were raised by parents who watched Supernanny where everything was sitting on the naughty step and then talking about your behaviour. Negotiation. Kids have not been raised to be obedient to adults.

I do not teach in an extremely strict school. We don't have silent corridors and you know what? Kids are late to lessons. They piss about in the corridors. It is so noisy. We have sanctions for lateness but they are not very effective because the culture of doing what you are told, when you are told isn't there. We have the 1-2-3 and detention system that you favour and so much time is lost to messing around and then arguing the toss.

However, even with all that, we largely manage to get the kids to do the work, because our cohort is generally not that challenging. We have had stricter behaviour policies, and behaviour improved. We slackened them off, and behaviour got worse. We really slackened them off (Paul Dix, When the Adults Change Everything Changes) and behaviour was absolutely appalling - us becoming stricter was a pendulum swing from that.

What of schools who do have really challenging cohorts? If you had a school like the one I taught in where sexual and physical assaults were fairly commonplace? How would you turn that school around into a place where kids actually do the work? The thing about the strict school policies - they are effective. Sweating the small stuff is effective. I mean, that's why the military do it. You might think that moaning about a half untucked shirt is petty, but if it means that teachers can actually get on and teach - is it really that petty? If the kids would otherwise be having fights or sex in the toilets, is it really that petty? That's the behaviour that is being addressed being super strict about other stuff. When you see parents moaning about super strict school policies, what was the school like before then? Generally, not a great place.

(as an aside, sometimes you see parents moaning about 'super strict' policies and schools being overly authoritarian and actually it's something that's just perfectly reasonable like not letting kids go to the toilet whenever they want to, or expecting them to bring a pen. Those parents are really infuriating).

I'm not particularly authoritarian, I couldn't teach in a super strict school. I think some of them definitely go too far (e.g. Outwood Grange and their flattening the grass). BUT is a school that is really strict where teachers can teach worse than a school full of kids running riot and learning nothing? Because for some schools, that's actually the choice.

Thank you @noblegiraffe - what a brilliant post! Should be pinned to the top of some of the education threads.

“BUT is a school that is really strict where teachers can teach worse than a school full of kids running riot and learning nothing? Because for some schools, that's actually the choice.”
Yes, you are right again. The former is better, given those particular circumstances.

As for my own DC. Yes, in primary all 4 were intrinsically motivated to learn and work very hard and please me primarily and their teacher. However, in secondary, all 4 apart from DD1 (who is just very academic and has her academic dreams and knew that from late primary) wanted to primarily be socially accepted by their peers, above all else pretty much I would say. So in a grammar school they still worked hard-ish or at least enough to achieve excellent grades, but who they are trying to please fundamentally shifted. I would love to have DC who would do well in any school and not behave badly if their peers do. However, I am not blessed in that way. Just like homeschooling - they did it, but watched Netflix at the same time etc They are tricksters. However, if there is a test or exam or some sort of external thing like that then they will work hard too. The more lax discipline but constant assessment and deadline culture of grammar school suits them very well. There is a lot of peer on peer comparison academically too and they don’t want to be embarrassed in front of their peers.

An interesting addition to the debate on grammar schools is today's PISA results which shows Northern Ireland (full grammar system) lagging behind England (fully comp).

England is not fully comprehensive - 5% are in grammars, 6,5% in private schools - and both those cohorts are included in PISA studies.

But it is good to see that England is doing well relatively speaking in attainment.

Yeah, and those 5% are dragging our score down, if NI is anything to go by....

We could ask the Department of Education for further transparency in the future and a breakdown for private schools and grammar schools. I bet they would love that and you would fully welcome that, right @noblegiraffe?

I was joking tbf, but obviously the kids in the grammar school or academically selective private school wouldn’t be the ones themselves dragging the score down because they are high performers. It’s the impact of the existence of the selective schools on the performance of the schools around them that would be the issue.

Depends on the area @noblegiraffe - that isn’t true for much of Bucks or West Kent or any of the Outer London grammars. Most of these areas as a whole perform well. It is almost like the competition for selection actually makes everyone try a little harder from early primary, not the opposite.

We are Bucks, with 5-6 grammars within 5 miles of us. Our non grammar options are very poor, apart from 1 faith school.

You are right that it makes a chunk of children try a bit harder, but thats because our catchmented comp is so horrendous that people do anything they can to try to avoid it, rather than the grammars lifting standards as a whole

You aren't cherry picking here are you? I mean if I googled West Kent it wouldn't be the wealthy bit of Kent would it?

@Bushmillsbabe - I meant Bucks as a county performs very well educationally compared to the rest of the country. So does eg Tunbridge Wells. It is probably more the general wealth and level of education than anything to do with what type of school though. It may be marginally worse or better with or without grammar schools, difficult to tell really. Because a lot of well off educated people will actually cluster in grammar school areas in the first place. So it becomes very difficult to get to the bottom of it all. Or take the London Borough of Sutton or Bromley - I think both only really have superselective grammars. As a whole, both areas perform really well educationally.

Yes @noblegiraffe - Tunbridge Wells is a wealthy area. But in recent years a lot of the comprehensives around are doing pretty well too. So the whole the grammar creamed off all the best kids just doesn’t work for the wealthy areas like Sevenoaks or Tunbridge Wells. Yes they perform less well than the grammars, of course, but by national standards due to the will of the locals etc and good leadership a lot of these schools now do well and often are in the same trusts as the grammars too so the kids who just miss out, I assume are increasingly better catered for as well (so you can get a grammar stream in what was previously a secondary modern).

So the whole the grammar creamed off all the best kids just doesn’t work for the wealthy areas like Sevenoaks or Tunbridge Wells. Yes they perform less well than the grammars, of course, but by national standards due to the will of the locals etc and good leadership a lot of these schools now do well

yeah you are going to need to convince me that it's 'good leadership' and not 'wealth' that is doing the heavy lifting here.