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.

That is another issue then - Onemoremum, you seem to be suggesting that comprehensive schools place disruptive children in higher ability grades. That is clearly unfair; if you don't have the ability to work consistently, you shouldn't be in a high academic ability group.

No I'm saying that a lot of the arguments for grammar schools seem to be that there are no disruptive pupils, and that less selective schools are full of them, which is great because your super bright kids never have to meet any and the less bright kids (ie the majority) are stuck with more than their fair share. Often it's bright kids that are disruptive because they are not sufficiently challenged.

A good comprehensive school (and I accept that many are not good) will have interesting curriculum for all students, will teach academic subjects in sets so that all students are challenged/can keep up and will deal with disruptive behaviour wherever it occurs. Those that excel in one subject but not another can be in the top set for the area they excel in, you can't go to the grammar for one subject but not another can you?

A good comprehensive system has to be better than deciding a child's academic future based on one exam they take at 11. I don't blame parents for choosing that option if it's the best school on offer, but it shouldn't be that way - all kids deserve a good education, not just those clever or tutored enough to get into grammar.

I think disrution in schools is a huge factor. Not just the major stuff that hit the headlines, but the daily low level stuff that makes learning and teaching so bloody difficult.

I am certain that one of the things that makes GS and independent schoosl so effective is the relative low level of disruption. This probably has as great an impact upon an education as anything.

As I recall spending time in school with pupils who had absolutely no interest in ebing there was utter hell. Things looked up somewhat at sixth form. To have had only those pupils throughout would have been bliss.

wordfactory totally agree.

I haven't contributed to this thread yet as sadly, there are more than a few MNers who seem to simply refuse to believe that so called "low level disruption" makes a misery of school for many pupils and their teachers. And whether people like it or not, it is more widespread in non-selective state schools than elsewhere in the education system.

Address that problem and a lot of "satisfactory" schools might end up with something going for them.

"non-selective state schools"

Do you mean comprehensives AND secondary moderns (ie the other schools in grammar areas). Or does not getting into a grammar school so having to go to a secondary modern somehow magically make all the children better behaved??

I suspect that in fact low level (even high level) disruption goes up in the order:
Grammar school
True comprehensive (=non-selective state school)
Secondary modern.

So yes, sending your child to grammar if you can might remove your child from some element of disruption BUT this is at the expense of the children in the secondary modern, who get much MORE disruption on average than they would in a true comprehensive - and as has been said time and time again, the vast majority of secondary modern pupils are NOT disruptive and are absolutely deserving of the best possible education.

I don't think any of the posters on here who wouldn't want grammars brought back everywhere would say that most grammars aren't good schools (though in some cases they are very much bright children in/bright children out sausage factories who add very little value to the children). The argument is whether the benefit of the few is worth the disbenefit of the many.

I was reading, just by the way and out of interest, an essay the other day that argued that there was a case for 'special schools for the exceptionally able' in the same way that there is a case for 'special schools for exceptional levels of SEN'. We're talking a very tiny proportion of children - no more than a percent or two - who were (like schildren in special schools) who are genuinely so far from the norm of ability for it not to be appropriate or efficient to educate them in a 'mainstream' comprehensive school. For me, it was the only time that I have thought 'well, that would make an interesting defence of a 'superselective' grammar system'.

it is more widespread in non-selective state schools than elsewhere in the education system

True-except that it needs an extra word in there-the word some.

Sorry but the assumption in all these threads is that all non-academic kids are disruptive, I think that's a highly suspect and snobbish way to think.

The assumption is always there and it is wrong.
When I say that I went to a secondary modern I can immediately see people thinking 'poor thing-an education disrupted by poorly motivated DCs'. In actual fact it had a superb reputation for behaviour-jealously guarded by the Head. It was far better than the grammar schools in the town.

I was in the A stream-I can genuinely say that the only disruption that I experienced in lessons was with a very poor RE teacher.
We had to stand up when teachers entered the room and say 'Good morning Sir or Good Morning Miss Smith', we were not allowed to eat in the street -there were lots of rules like that. The Head was keen on turning out good citizens. Those who would have caused disruption i.e the ones who found lessons difficult were kept with the same teacher for basic subjects. To be fair, I can't say what their lessons were like because I didn't go to any but they had to conduct themselves well around the school. The possibility of a fight was nil.

My best friends, still friends today, were a girl who had both parents with an Oxbridge education and a girl who had an army officer father and older siblings at boarding schools.

People really ought to get out of the very narrow mindset they seem to occupy.

Good Heads can turn around even inner city comprehensives.

I have been in Guildford at morning break time when the grammar school boys are changing lessons (which appears to involve a split site) and they were drinking milk from bottles, eating sausage rolls etc. I was taken aback-we couldn't have done that in the street at my secondary modern. I found I was quite prejudiced and had to ask myself whether it really mattered-I suppose it doesn't. But I don't expect that the Head gets letters from the public praising the standard of behaviour-ours did and read them out in assembly. (maybe it was just because people were surprised that we knew how to behave!)

Behaviour will be best in a private school because they can be asked to leave-they do not have the difficulties that a state school has to go through to exclude a DC (and if they are excluded they get another school).

Second best in a grammar school-they can do the work and the parents are thrilled they got the place-they are not going to let them muck it up. (some do-I know one with lovely parents who was expelled for selling cannabis). Grammar schools are not immune from poor behaviour but it is more unlikely.

Third best will be a comprehensive in a 'good' area with motivational parents who want the best for their DCs (a true comprehensive with no grammar schools)

After that you will get poor behaviour, unless you have an inspirational Head who can turn things around and make it a school that parents actively want their DC to attend.

At the bottom of the heap you will get the inner city secondary with DCs from families with massive social problems-arguably the very ones who need the best schools!

Since the huge majority of our DCs don't go to either selective schools or private schools of course you can sit back and say most low level disruption would be in state non selective schools!

exoticfruits I disagree that that's the assumption.

Also,Teacherwith2kids most people want the best for their DC, so I can't see many parents who would be happy for their gs children to go to the local comp,and disadvantage themselves, in order to benefit the many.

By definition, Yummy, in a grammar school area there ARE no comprehensives - and yes, i would agree with you that few grammar school parents would want to send their child to a secondary modern.

However in a totally non-grammar scenario those very same parents send their children to true comprehensives and are extremely happy with the education provided there...

It is not true that where there are no grammars, the comprehensives are the same as the secondary moderns in a grammar area (which seems to be the assumption from you and from LeQ). They are not. True comprehensives, containing the full range of ability, can be exceptionally good schools. they cannot exist where there are grammars, however.

I am a parent of a child in Year 6 who, in a grammar area, would be grammar material. I am absolutely delighted to send him to the local comprehensive - it will benefit both him AND the many.

(Should point out, for the avoidance of ambiguity - I live in an area with a single, superselective grammar - so the local comprehensive DOES miss the top 0.1% of the ability range. However, that makes it so close to a 'true' comprehensive - the percentage of the very able being creamed off being so tiny - that it does not affect the argument that the vast majority of highly educated, professional parents round here happily send their children to the comprehensive. Would they send their children to a secondary modern in a full grammar system - no. That is the difference. I am arguing for a system that benefits pretty much everyone.)

The worst performing schools in the UK are not, I believe, in areas where there are grammars.

Yummyhoney -

Just want to add, I don't see why the superbright kids who are focused and hardworking should be 'shipped' into the local comp/secondary modern in order to raise standards - our DC do not exist in order to create social reform.

Yes, yes and again YES! This factor is so often overlooked.

There is no objective reason why the kids in a secondary modern, even in a fully selective area with all the grammar kids creamed off, can't have a fantastic education. They have a school, as generously funded as any other state school, comp or grammar. They have the same class sizes. They have a range of subjects to choose from. They have the facility for setting and being in a group of similar ability. So what's the problem?

The problem seems to be that in those schools where many such children and their families don't buy into the educational ethos and choose to fuck things up for themselves and others instead, people perversely think that it's the responsibility of the grammar school kids to stick around and "save" them from themselves.

Every time someone raises the argument that the most able children going to grammar "ruin it" for everyone else, they are by implication saying two things:

1. The other children are not capable of looking after, and responding appropriately and postively to, their own education.

1. The grammar-capable children are responsible for the education of others, and should put that responsibility first even when it means their own education may be ruined by disruption, bullying etc in doing so.

Both of these are bullshit, as is the argument that depends on them.

teacherwith2kids -

Actually, I'm not sure about your assumption that behaviour in secondary moderns is, as a whole, worse than that in comps. I'd be interested to see any research that's been done on such a comparison. I suspect that the main factor by far would be where the schools are. Schools on rough inner city council estates will have more disruption than those in wealthy areas, regardless of which type they are.

Also, I think one of the main causes of disruption is not less able students per se, but students whose ability level and best way of learning is not being addressed in the classroom. In this respect I imagine too that there is probably less disruption, the more thoroughly schools use setting rather than mixed ability teaching. With the best will in the world, mixed ability teaching can be unbelievably hard to actually make work for a disparate bunch of teenagers.

Secondary moderns of course would actually be better off in this respect than comps due to the narrower ability range. But as I say I don't know - I'd be interested if anybody's studied the difference, while allowing for other factors.

I just read exoticfruits' post re her secondary modern which supports what I said above.

No, I am not saying that, confidence.

I am saying that all children are equally deserving of an education appropriate to their interests and aptitudes.

That is not best achieved in a system where children of essentially exactly the same ability - separated by a single mark in a single set of tests sat in a single day at 11 - go down such radically different roads.

Until the top set of a secondary modern get EXACTLY the same results as the bottom set of a grammar, in all grammar areas (for the ability of those children is essentially statistically identical) then you cannot argue that a split system is best for all.

I am saying that the well-behaved, lower ability children are exactly as deserving of excellent discipline and absence of disruptove children as the well-behaved, high ability children. Non-grammar-capable children are equally not responsible for the education of others, they too deserve an education free of disruption.

To condemn the less able but well-behaved to schools where there is a larger proportion of disruptive children is deeply, deeply unfair, particularly because it is at these lower levels of ability that marginal levels of disruption can make the greatest difference (in analysing the case for sending one of my pupils to the PRU, I analysed the effects of this child on the learning of the rest of the class. There was virtually no effect on the higher ability children, even in the same classroom - they got on with their work regardless, understood the teaching easily and sat on a separate table. There was little effect on the SEN table at which this child sat, because a TA worked tirelessly to bring them on and compensate for the disruption. The greatest effect was on the lower middle ability children, the hard-working strugglers. who have to concentrate very very hard in every lesson to keep up).

And I will say it again - if your mental image of a comprehensive is in fact the secondary modern in a grammar system, get out to true comprehensive areas and see a proper comprehensive at work. I think you would be surprised.

there are, of course, poor performing true comprehensives. The answer is NOT to push those further into the mire by taking away all their able children, the answer is to improve the comprehensives.

Interesting, confidence - I can see your point. Very many grammars are in leafy suburbs, so even the secondary moderns do not have to contend with the levels of deprivation shown in inner city comprehensives. Which makes the comparisons very hard.

teacher -

Until the top set of a secondary modern get EXACTLY the same results as the bottom set of a grammar, in all grammar areas (for the ability of those children is essentially statistically identical) then you cannot argue that a split system is best for all.

Yes I can (not that I necessarily am). For selection to be the best system it doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to be better than the alternatives. The problem with what you say here is that the comprehensive system is not perfect either, and fails many children. The question is which system fails more, and how badly.

And I will say it again - if your mental image of a comprehensive is in fact the secondary modern in a grammar system, get out to true comprehensive areas and see a proper comprehensive at work. I think you would be surprised.

I don't get this because you seem to think that comprehensives are by definition only in good areas without much disruption. This is a long, LONG way from the truth. All the horror stories about rough inner London schools are about comprehensives, not secondary moderns. There is a smattering of grammars around the edges of outer London but nothing that makes any real difference to the intakes of failing inner London comprehensives.

There is less to surprise me than you think. I lived in a comprehensive area, and moved because the schools were uniformly ghastly, with one exception that you basically had to live next door to to get in. I completely support your model of comprehensives when they work, I think that's great and I'd happily send my children to one if I lived in such an area.

But I think you're fooling yourself if you don't see that simple demographics and wealth is a major contributor to that, just as it is to who passes the 11+.

I don't think that anyone has said that disruption does not happen in comprehensives or any kind of state school. I am sure I have said that I have worked in envornments where low level disruption was constant. However it is not always the case. There are poor comps certainly, but also very good ones.

My daughter is probably bright enough to go to a grammar, in fact looking at the students who went to the grammar last year she should find it quite straightforward. I hope with every bone in my body that she chooses the comp. That is not so that she can save the comp with her mere presence - but so that she can go to the local school with the other children from our village.

exoticfruits I disagree that that's the assumption.

It seems to be the assumption on MN. If I say that the behaviour at my mixed secondary modern was better (much better) than my brother's all boys grammar most people simply won't believe it.

I would agree with confidence:
Schools on rough inner city council estates will have more disruption than those in wealthy areas, regardless of which type they are.
The schools in the rough area will be comprehensive and therefore those with no experience of a good comprehensive will take it as a general rule.

I also agree with teacher :
I am saying that the well-behaved, lower ability children are exactly as deserving of excellent discipline and absence of disruptove children as the well-behaved, high ability children. Non-grammar-capable children are equally not responsible for the education of others, they too deserve an education free of disruption

The thought that my DS1, in the top sets deserves an absence of disruptive DCs, but it really doesn't matter for DS2 in his lower sets is deeply upsetting to me. Both are equally well behaved and equally motivated-why is it more important for the more academic? If you have an IQ of 130 you get the best but if you have an IQ of 100 you don't matter?
I am very thankful that their school didn't have the same attitude.

A large top end pull everyone up, a small top end can't.
I have taught classes that are a doddle with discipline-they are led by the top and the disruptive ones are not in the least 'cool' and they give up. Unfortunately I have also had the nightmares classes where the disruptive ones are in the majority and they set each other off and it is hard work-the top end have no effect on them at all.

I don't know the answer-I don't want my DCs to be part of a social experiment for the common good. I want the best for them-as do we all-a school with a good reputation. I have really bought into it with my house-I can't really say that it is any fairer than 11+.

What we need is an education system that delivers the best for all. In my view that is a comrehensive that doesn't treat all DCs the same. They are not the same and one size doesn't fit all.

sorry-missed the p-comprehensive

I agree that it is not the responsibility of well behaved children of any ability level to act as agents of social reform and deal with disruptive children. That applies to low and middle ability children as well as high ability ones.

That is exactly why I don't agree with comprehensive education. But if you do agree with comprehensive education, that social engineering is exactly what you are agreeing to, so how can posters then turn around and complain about it? Supporting truly comprehensive education means supporting the inclusion of disruptive children, particularly in lower sets as disruptive children are more likely to have poor academic performance.

I don't support comprehensive education. Children who are consistently disruptive should be in special schools, where the staff have a particular interest in teaching those children and have gone into teaching because they have the aptitude and interest to work with them. Clearly most teachers don't want to work with those kids because many teachers constantly complain about them. They also blame the parents and think the parents should take responsibility; that is pie in the sky because some parents are never going to be responsible. Of course special schools are expensive so the government doesn't want to offer those children an appropriate education with specially trained staff, and has shut down the vast majority of such schools.

As for there being true comprehensives in non-grammar areas - many areas will lose more children to independent schools than they will to highly selective state schools. Many will lose children from particular backgrounds to religious state schools, so I doubt there are any true comprehensives.

To respond to teacherwith2kids point about high ability kids not being impacted by disruption. I would say that who is high ability in a comprehensive school is partially defined by their social coping mechanisms in a disrupted classroom. My DS would not be considered a high ability child if he were in a comprehensive school because he simply does not have the coping skills to perform to a high standard in a school that tolerates disruption. The reason I am not as concerned about my other child (currently in year six) attending the comp is that she has good social skills so will only be limited by the curriculum of that individual school, but will cope in an unpleasant social atmosphere.

I support comprehensive education and I work within a well run comprehensive. We are inclusive but if children constantly disrupt lessons they are not included in mainstream lessons. They will be educated elsewhere in the school and eventually will have to go elsewhere.

The problem with that is that the 'elsewhere' is not as beneficial to the children as it once was. If there was wider acceptance that parents and teachers don't really support comprehensive education, as a society we might need to put a lot more effort into supporting and paying for an 'elsewhere' that provided something excellent for those children. Although no doubt then people would complain that badly behaved kids were getting the reward of a good education in a decent school, and would prefer for them to make do with pupil referral units.