To wonder if there are supporters of grammar schools who didn't go to grammar schools themselves

[WildebeestH]

Just that really. The only friends I have who support grammar schools went to grammar schools themselves. I'm intrigued to know if there are many people who support them having not been to a grammar (or other selective) school and if so why?

bertrand I was heavily persuaded that it was just an accident by the school - we were new and didn't want to make a fuss so let the school deal with it. I was ill at the time too. Knowing what I know now I wouldn't! Although, mc pressure doesn't work I found in these types of schools. I complained repeatedly, saw the head etc, nothing changed.

It's not just that school that is like that, lots are. I've taught in them. Like kestral says differentiation is not always as prevalent as what you imagine. Overworked teachers don't have much time for that! And ones with a large spread in the class - it's a difficult ask. Your child then says but why do I have to do that when so and so doesn't. It creates a race to the bottom really.

It's not always the teacher to blame, sometimes it's the set up of the system.

Oh, OK. The injury was so serious and you were so definite that it was a deliberate assault that I assumed the police must have been involved.

Kesstrel: yes, I agree it relies on setting. I hadn't realised the low % of schools that set!

However the whole targeting pressure and measurement still means that both Grammars and top sets teach to a qualification based on extracts, set themes that can be cribbed from the revision book without having read the entire text, etc.

Kids I know at 'super selectives' within reach of us are doing the same spoon-fed curriculum to the same level as my DC.

And as a literature graduate it is not a level I am impressed with.

Some schools work from extracts-some read the whole book in class- and everything in between. That's not a grammar/non grammar issue......

The injury was so serious and you were so definite that it was a deliberate assault that I assumed the police must have been involved

Maybe you didn't mean it to come out that way but this sentence makes it look like you think Head is lying or your being sarcastic.

Either way perhaps its a mistake but not a pleasant response to someone who maybe sharing with us on these boards something horrid that happened to her dc.

I am not suggesting that she is lying. I am suggesting that saying that her child was deliberately and seriously assaulted by a child from a disadvantaged background as part of her support for selective education is a pretty dubious tactic. And of course it must have been awful for her and her child. But it is reasonable to assume that if a person uses an ancedote as evidence in a discussion they must be expected to be asked about it.

BTG3385

It has taken years for those subjects to become almost respected and now we are being forced back in to being the dumping grounds for the low ability children.

Sadly in a few years due to cut backs some of these subjects won't exist in any real form in schools other than a token gesture.

But only 53% of the English lessons Ofsted observed in secondary schools 7 years ago were set.

That statistic surprises me, because the local comprehensives I know all set. What typically happens though, is that they may well not set in year 7, possibly in year 8 also, preferring to make their own judgement as to the ability of the children in question.

My child felt it was deliberate. The school argued it was an accident, and I should be understanding as he had difficult home life.
I tried to be understanding, and tolerant caring even.
The police may have inflamed the situation. I don't know.

I think there is a lot if what someone up thread suggests. Well those who are academic really don't need our help, as they will do it by themselves. It's what my experience has been. In several schools. I wish it hadn't but it has.
I'm not sure selecting out at 11 is right either.

I'm surprised about the setting figures too. If you take Year 7- where many schools don't set - out of the equation what %age does that leave?

But even if the figure is correct, surely that's an argument for more setting, not for selective education? Because even if you airlift out the top 25% you're still left with 75% in unset classes.......

(Quick reminder- it's not all about the top 25 %, you know!)

IT was the school who argued that we should be kind and caring towards this child due to his background - I had no knowledge of his background at all. But I do know that it can harm children's life chances to get involvement with police, in terms if dbs checks and employment.

No it isn't all about the top 25%. But they have to be accomodated. Effectively.
And the bottom 25% which I would argue equally are not catered for well in comps.
It's not just about those in the middle.

Just as an aside, those posters who sneer at violence etc, have you ever been in a situation where you are afraid for your personal safety? Has someone ever lost it in front of you with possible aim to physically harm you>?

Oh, ffs. Nobody "sneers" at violence. Don't be silly.

I mentioned the 53% figure because so many people counter criticisms of mixed ability teaching in comprehensives with 'but all/most comprehensives set, often said dismissively or sneeringly.

Yes, some comprehensives don't set in Year 7 or 8, but that wouldn't account for all of that figure; and anyway, perhaps not setting in Year 7 and 8 could be part of the problem?

Criticising the approach of some comprehensives is never necessarily an argument for grammar schools. It's an argument for facing reality and trying to improve comprehensives, especially in areas where there is no choice of state school. If this had been done in the past, especially over behaviour and mixed ability teaching, there would be much less support for grammar and private schools, in my opinion.

Well I didn't go to a grammar but I support them, if the selection process can be made fairer.
I went to a huge - nearly 2000 pupil non streamed comprehensive.
It was utterly anonymous with a 7/8 class intake per year. There was no formal teaching as such, we were given books and had to basically look up stuff ourselves. Discipline was non existent in most lessons, bullying rife.
We had pupils in the same class who could still not read or write properly at age 16 - taught alongside someone trying for Cambridge.
I felt this system failed everyone , yet this school was hailed as groundbreaking in its teaching and we often saw "experts" from overseas and elsewhere in the U.K beingshown round to seewhat had been achieved.

The selection for grammar schools is wrong and needs to be amended - not based on performance in just one or two exams but aptitude, ability and longer term assessments.

It was the school who argued that we should be kind and caring towards this child due to his background

Someone said above something about surely the Guardian supported good behaviour. Everyone of course 'supports' good behaviour in theory, but when you question them closely, you will find a lot of people connected to education arguing that the best ways to support good behaviour are:

• to make special allowances and give special treatment to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, on the assumption that all behaviour problems are due to issues at home (because older chidren/ teenagers never misbehave to show off or because it's fun)

• Teachers making their lessons more engaging and 'relevant' (a recipe for dumbing down)

• Teachers putting more effort into developing positive relationships with their pupils (once again, more effort/work for teachers - and what about when teacher are new?)

• Restorative justice: where the bully is on the same level as the victim (sometimes this is even applied to 'disputes' between teachers and pupils

The same people will also argue that high standards of behaviour are repressive, and that in order for children to express themselves as individuals, they should be able to do what they like in class.

I know the 53% figure-and it surprises me- it doesn't fit with my experience- which I accept is much more limited than OFSTED's . For example, in Ds's school they set for Maths and English after Christmas in year 7, then from year 9 in everything except RE, BTecs (they all do two) and Tec subjects. I wonder what %age of set lessons that works out to.

"The same people will also argue that high standards of behaviour are repressive, and that in order for children to express themselves as individuals, they should be able to do what they like in class." Oh, come on! Who are you talking about- AS Neill?

yet this school was hailed as groundbreaking in its teaching and we often saw "experts" from overseas and elsewhere in the U.K being shown round to see what had been achieved.

Yes. This is just an extreme case of the evidence-free innovation in the direction of 'constructivist' fads that's been being pushed in our schools for the last 50 years. These ideas have come primarily from the education academics in university departments of education, the ones who've been teaching our teachers these same unproven and and often damaging ideas for years.

There's now a growing movement of teachers on social media who are questioning these ideas, and holding meetings and conferences to talk about how valid education research actually is, which I think is a very positive sign. They're getting a lot of resistance, though.

Whilst grammar schools produce superior exam results...while grammar schools provide lessons with minimal levels of disruption...whilst grammar schools employ teachers who are able to actually teach (and not just provide crowd control)...whilst grammar schools only have to deal with minimal levels of challenging behaviour from pupil...

Then an awful lot of people are going to want their children to go to a grammar school.

It's a huge source of relief/pleasure to us that our DDs don't have to exposed to incidents of pupil violence...that their classrooms are a calm, focused environment...that academic achievement is something to aspire to...that there are no parents hooting and roaring in reception over some perceived injustice to their child...that no one is getting a kicking in the loos.

""The same people will also argue that high standards of behaviour are repressive, and that in order for children to express themselves as individuals, they should be able to do what they like in class." "

Well...a poster up thread mooted the idea that grammar school pupils aren't creative thinkers and are just dull little exam machines...

Oh, come on! Who are you talking about- AS Neill?

OK, that's mainly just the regulars who post beneath Education articles in the Guardian! So probably not that many. I find them so annoying, though, that I got a little carried away.

The rest of what I said, though, with regard to behaviour 'strategies', are arguments that many teachers on social media and in blogs talk about having been made to them, or that they have directly experienced, or that have been taught them in teacher training .