The other thread will no longer accept messages but I wanted to make some more points

[fivecandles]

Lequeen, I do find it utterly bizarre that, as a parent, you or anybody else, would accept that if your child missed getting into a grammar school by a couple of marks you would be perfectly happy to accept that meant your child was not academic and therefore should pursue a more vocational route whatever that means.

One of my dc would almost certainly fail to get into a GS. This does not mean I think she should take up a hairdressing course and stop learning GCSEs. I see no good reason why she shouldn't get a good academic education with as much support as possible and go on to university. She has suggested she might enjoy primary teaching and I think she'd make an excellent teacher. The idea that she shouldn't be able to go to university or learn languages and should settle with her lot just because she's not ever going to be a nuclear physicist is absolutely staggering.

I also find your idea that it would be better to segregate underperforming students into an entirely different school for their self-esteem staggering.

Why can't you just be honest about it lequeen. There are no advantages whatsoever for the majority of pupils who do not get into the GS. All the advantages go to the kids who DO get in and these are the pupils who are already doing well (and the research indicates most likely to be well off).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that privileged and clever kids don't deserve the very best education and I absolutely agree that they should be challenged and supported but this can and should and is being done in the same school as students who are struggling academically and are likely to be from very different social backgrounds are also supported to achieve.

TW2K, yes, I think there is a wide variety of SEN issues and it is a question of working out appropriate education for each child. For some children that is mainstream education and for some it is within a special school.

The issue seems to be one of political will and money - many parents with children with an SEN say that there is a huge lack of provision.

I think also that pupils of all abilities would like to be divested of the pupils who disrupt.

I can imagine that it is equally annoying for those trying their very best in vocational subjects to have to put up with endless interuption and noise, as it is for those attempting to get an a* in Latin.

Perhaps it would be worht focussing on this aspect as much as anything else.

Milly, I really don't agree with your figure of 10%, because I don't think you've grasped the essence of my point.

The SEN argument for separate schools for those exceptionally able enough to have a genuine 'special educational need' basically says that the percentage of children attending those schools should be ONLY those children who CANNOT be efficiently educated IN ANY OTHER EDUCATIONAL SETTING.

The majority of the top 5% can be efficiently educated in mainstream schools. It is only that tiny percentage in the 'tail' of the bell curve who fall so far away from the norm as to require special education away from the mainstream (bearing in mind that the top 1% of children cover the same range of abilities as all children between the 2nd and 98th centiles - so even within the top 1% you have those who are 'not that far froim the norm' and those who are true 'outliers')

Exoticfruits, I'm not sure why you keep responding to me if you don't want to answer the question

I have repeatedly told you that they are not allowed to disrupt education in my area.

What do you think should happen to those children in a comprehensive system?

I expect them to be catered for. Teacherwith2kids gave the structures.

I also don't see why those with a high IQ have to be separated because they can't be in the same school and yet all the hoards of moderately above average, average and below average just have to put up with it-why?

The question that I would like answered by someone is WHY should my DS, who would have got to a grammar school, be separated from disruptive DCs and my DS who would definitely have failed have to put up with them? The are both equally hard working, equally well behaved and equally motivated. Why? Why is it not just as important for the SN DC to have a quiet, ordered environment?

There is also the view that there is no disruption in the grammar school. My friend's DC had to have a tutor for chemistry because the teacher was weak and the lessons were chaotic and noisy.

People seem to have the view that boys who are a bit nerdy,not into football, quiet and bookish will do well in the grammar school-I dare say they will. (they would in a good comprehensive too) They seem to forget that grammar schools are also full of all rounders-those who excel in sports and have no time for those that don't. They also have a lot who have always done well and can be quite bumptious and over confident and noisy. They think they are top of the tree and act like it!
They have the same mix as the comprehensive in character. They are just missing the ones who have opted out because they can't do the work and so so make it impossible for the rest to do it.

TW2K, I think it is very difficult to work out who is the top 5%. I think we have to take a wider range of children than that and educate them in a way that is suitable for the most exceptional students.

It is also partially logistical. Not all teachers will be exceptionally able in academic matters, because teachers are drawn from a much wider academic range to ensure that we get people who are good at a wide range of teaching skills. Many very academic people are not suited to teaching. If exceptional children are spread across every school, there are not going to all be taught by teachers who are as academically competent as them, particularly in shortage areas such as Physics.

I like the secondary system in Italy (I think it is) where at 11/12 children can choose between academic-based secondary schools and more technical secondary schools and there's quite a bit of movement between the two, but with no entrance exam.

But, within the first year or so of being at the academic school, if you can't keep up, then you have to change.

I think that's fair.

I totally agree LeQueen! In fact I really like it!
All DCs are not academic. I think that they should be able to choose. I think that 13yrs is a much better age for it than 11.
I wouldn't object to 11+ so much if DCs were removed. I really object to the fact that the parent pays for someone to drill tutor their DC enough to pass the test and then they are there for their whole school career, regardless of whether they can cope/keep up. If there is a selection process it should have a yearly review and movement between the different schools.
They could have the same uniform, so that expense of changing wasn't an issue.

EF, I think we're talking at cross purposes. My point is largely about the future of the disruptive child and their education. I don't think saying that pupils are not allowed to be disruptive really answers the question. Some children have problems which will always make them disruptive in a mainstream setting. I'm really thinking more about education for those children that accommodates that disruption, not that just shows them the door.

I agree EF on the 13 issue. I would like a system with middle schools.

If exceptional children are spread across every school, there are not going to all be taught by teachers who are as academically competent as them, particularly in shortage areas such as Physics.

That's exactly my point. GENUINELY exceptional children - the literature varies, but the most generous percentage given for such children is c. 3%, 2% is more common and one well-respected writer has a different scale which puts 0.1% or less of children in this category - may need to be collected together and educated separately so that e.g the 13 year old doing University-level maths can receive an appropriate education. Children in ALL mainstream schools should have the opportunity to do A-level physics, at the correct age, that is a mainstream need for all schools and by taking scarce teachers at this level into a minority of schools harms the mainstream.

Coaching for Selective Tests
The local authority?s policy is that no teaching or coaching for selective tests should take place in any of the City?s primary schools. It is believed that the practice of coaching is counter productive, as over-achievement in the selective tests may be against the long-term interests of children whose ability may be more limited than their test score would suggest.

This is Birmingham's policy. I think that most LEAs are the same. What a shame that parents don't follow it and then it would be a fair system.

I don't expect them just to be ignored Milly. Very often they need to start with nurture groups. These DCs can be pinpointed by 5yrs and if the government would spend the money then, a lot would be saved later on.

I'm really thinking more about education for those children that accommodates that disruption, not that just shows them the door.

But Milly, that is an entirely separate discussion from one about grammar schools. An argument for special schools for BESD children has nothing to do with comprehensive vs grammar.... unless you are suggesting the secondary moderns ARE special schools for children with BESD, which I strongly suspect that you might be?? They certainly seem to be conflated in your mind...

I'm very relieved to be 100% in agreement with you again LeQueen.

I have pinpointed the fact that I failed the 11+ because I didn't have exam technique. We were told over and over again that if we couldn't do a question to leave it and go on-there might be time at the end. My interpretation was to have a good go and then leave it. Since I was an adult I have tried IQ tests and discovered that the trick was to make an instant decision and do all the ones you could do. Tutoring wouldn't have helped-I was a conscientious girl-I thought that I was following instructions!

Lots of DCs don't respond well to test conditions-especially at 11. You could have choice-taking into account based on Primary school performance. Let everyone try and have movement between schools.

TW2K, no I'm not conflating them. I am saying that a truly comprehensive system requires all children to be educated within one type of school. I don't think that children with serious emotional and behavioural problems should be in a mainstream school, and I consider secondary moderns, technical schools and grammar schools to be mainstream schools.

The original issue was (as I recall):

Poster A: I don't want my children to be in a comp because comps have disruptive children in them.
Poster B: I want my child to go to a comp but I don't want the disruptive children to be in the comp.
Me: They you don't really support comprehensive education, because you want some children (the disruptive ones) not to be there.

It is all about people thinking of their own kids first. Grammar school parents want their kids just to be educated with clever kids. Comp parents want the clever kids in the comps because it helps their kids, but they want the disruptive kids not in the school, or not in the classroom.

Nobody is actually arguing that all children, regardless of ability and behavioural issues, should be educated together. And that is what comprehensive education means - everyone educated together.

I should clarify that some comp parents believe that the presence of clever children helps their kids. I don't actually believe that is the case.

I want them to be educated differently, within the same building.

I also want someone to tell me why my DS1 deserves to free of disruption but DS2 has to put up with it, when they are both quiet and well behaved.

No, it doesn't.

It means that all children who can efficiently and effectively be offered an education within a single institution should be so educated, without an artificial split in the middle of the ability range.

This is not true of children with a high level of SEN - whether this be behavioural, sensory, communication or learning difficulties, or exceptionally high ability - IF that level of SEN is such that the child requires an exceptional modification of the educational opportunities available.

I should clarify - I agree with exoticfruits' idea of 'educated differently within the same building'.

However, there are, at the very extremes of ability, children for whom the level of modification for 'differently' means that essentially they would have to be educated on their own (my 13 year old Maths friend, or a child with PMLD). I don't think that it makes a school 'not comprehensive' to create small numbers of highly specialised institutions (round here, they often share sites with mainstream schools) to bring such children together to make them less isolated and offer appropriate education efficiently.

It's like the hospital education service - a comprehensive is still comprehensive even if a couple of its potential pupils are being taught in hospital because they are being treated for serious conditions in hospital.

However, grammar schools in the conventional model are NOT those highly specialised institutions.

Sorry, should say everything I mean to at once.

'Disruptive' pupils are not a single, homeogenous group.

Many are not disruptive - or dignificantly less disruptive - if well-taught in a school with very high expectations and with clear sanctions for poor behaviour: the difference between different comprehensives with similar demographics is often simply down to this.

Another group may be disruptive in lessons or a school system that they see as 'irrelevant' to them, but may be significantly less disruptive if offered appropriate and relevant educational opportunities such as apprenticeships.

Another group have special needs. Some may have unrecognised very high ability and they are bored. Others may be medically unwell (mentally or physically). Others still may have learning disabilities or even sensory impairments, and support and interventions to address these may reduce or eliminate the behavioural difficulties (I have a pupil who has intermittent hearing loss. He is significantly less well-behaved on 'bad hearing' days).

Another group may be being disruptive at school because of problems at home. These may be relatively easy to address or be totally intractable and require a multi-agency approach.

Only a subset of these children have true 'special needs' in a BESD sense, and the vast majority CAN be taught appropriately in a mainstream school IF behaviour management, appropriate opportunities and support for special needs are provided. Making special arrangements - temporary or permanent - for the minority who have a genuine BESD special need seems entirely reasonable to me, removing ALL disruptive pupils without making appropraite and reasonable attempts to provide a mainstream education for them does not.

TW2K, yes I agree that there are many reasons for disruption and most (but importantly not all) of them can be dealt with by intervention in mainstream schools.

Exoticfruits, I agree that well behaved children shouldn't be in disrupted classrooms.

We just need good schools for all and then people wouldn't be desperate to escape to the grammar school.

Agree, exotic. And I still believe the comprehensive school is the most efficient and economical and ethical way to educate our children. The compehensive system needs to get better at catering for the individual and the groups within that school though. And a good comp should ideally have football clubs and reading groups and literacy intervention groups and emotional support and so on so that pupils can work with specialists with their peers who have similar aspirations/interests/needs BUT still mix with their siblings/neigbours/ children from completely different ethnic and social groups. Although I believe that there are some children with such serious EBD that they cannot cope in mainstream classes and vice versa I think it would be much more benefiical for them and economical to have even these children educated in a comp school albeit in a separate unit where at least they have the CHANCE to reintegrate/ observe better models of behaviour. After all they will need to integrate eventually. Sending kids to separate EBD schools (although I know they do amazing things) can be a bit like sending people to prison where they actually end up picking up lots of new tricks and lose the ability to integrate in mainstream society.

And there's no good reason why schools shouldn't pool their resources to cater better for students in weekly/ monthly sessions.

I know of schools where gifted children are encouraged to take OU courses through distance learning. There is no good reason for segregating children especially wehre this only gives further advantage to the kids that are doing fine and further compounds the disadvantages of others.