Genuine question - why do some people have a problem with the grammar school system thread 2

[octopusinastringbag]

Original thread full so here goes.

I think the people who are concerned about aspirational/non-aspirational need to trust their DCs to select friends who are like minded. Generally it is my experience that they find their own groups who are similar to them, especially with setting and especially once the GCSEs have started.

Interesting though, that when someone else said the same asme last night, no one picked it up. Yet I said the same thing and I have been flamed. Is it because I am new and she was not?

If somebody does not believe in state education then why encourage a return of grammar schools. State education does what it says on the tin - it is there for proving an education to all not to pander to the middle classes who want a return to grammar schools so that they can save on private school fees. Some of us pay more into the system than others yes but we should not expect more out as a result or why bother with a State.

Abbie comps have changed a lot since our day. One of the ones that produces more Oxbridge candidates than any other in my LEA is in one of the most deprived areas in the country.

Unfortunately losingtrust they have not changed as you think. I was working in one until five years ago. I have spent 20 years working in them. I know them very well. A few may do well in some areas, but the vast majority are not good places. If it were the case that they ( or even most) were all so good, we wouldnt be having this discussion now.

By the way, for the record,I do not advocate grammar schools and I do not particularly shine a torch for private ones either.

What would be your suggestion?

Interestingly we have a local comp that produces really good results -one of the best in the country but seems to produce kids with real attitude issues. Supply teachers refuse to teach there because 'they are treated like the dirt on the kids shoes. This in an area that is not socially engineered and the kids are all from MC areas. The school is now an academy and working with a school in a deprived area that now gets priority for places and the MC parents are up in arms as they spent £500k on their houses for nothing (not London). To be honest I actually think this form of social engineering is a better preparation for adult life.

Curlew - to go back to this holy grail thing.

I said somewhere over these two thread that some people do seem to see comprehensive education, and you say the same about some people's opinion on grammars.

Don't you see that there is going to be a negative impact somehwere no matter what type of system we have?

The 'collateral damage' of a grammar school in a fully selective area may well be too much, but it will be minimal if we all had access to a good comp and a super selective if we want it. The collateral damage of a fully comprehensive system may well be the children who have strong academic potential and in with 'the wrong crowd' who don't make their best effort with their school work, and as a result end up with lower GCSE grades than they could have had.

There will never be a system that is perfect for every family, because people are just too different to each other.

This is why I'm advocating choice for parents, as they are the ones who should be given the most responsibility for ensuring their children get a good education. Parents would have choice if they have access to a very high achieving grammar as well as at least one good comprehensive.

The best results in the World can still produce a dated person who finds life difficult and struggles in work as a result. Interstingly 'A very English Education' on recently showed the effect of pressure on academically gifted children at a young age.

Abbie - I did not say the same as you.

Superselectives exist in my area but have very little impact in my area and the truly gifted ones go to the comps. Most of the superselectives places are taken up by kids from the private grammar crammers.

Good question losingtrust.

I am losing trust here and whilst I might make some suggestions, some ofmy ideas may not go down too well with some. I am not going to get flamed again. I will keep my thoughts to myself if you dont mind..

WooWoo, indeed you did not, but you indicated that you felt that disrutpive children should be removed and educated with other disruptive children and not with non disruptive children. I was more direct about it.

Good pun!

Yes I did, but that's very different to saying that I think disruptive children should disappear and not come back.

My comment comes from a belief that children should not have to suffer their lessons being disrupted because of other children, and I really don't see why that is so hard to manage in some schools.

If pupils are disruptive to the point that other children are not receiving as high a quality lesson as they would be without the disruption, take them out of lessons and make them sit in an empty classroom until they can behave. If their behaviour means they can't access their right to education then so be it, it's for their parents to deal with. But your comment about 'not come back' is not in line with my opinion, because I'd like the punishment to be harsh enough that they don't want to suffer it again, so they do come back with their behaviour modified.

I will add my view. One size fits all is never going to work for all but if setting is used for subjects, early intervention at primary schools and informed streaming at year 10 level with people potentially swapping schools at that age. Children who really want and do it for themselves not their parents an academic future they can choose it. Those who are hacked off with school at 14 can go to college or do an apprenticeship. All must do some form of education to 18 but it will be designed at a later age than 10/11 when the choices are made more by parents want for their child and not the kids themselves.

League tables should be based on employability and progress rather than the number of GCSE passes.

I speak as an employer not a teacher so my views will probably be very different than teachers but I do think the obsession with GCSE passes except Maths and English is pushing too many kids down an academic route when it will not suit them. We need practical school leavers who our prepared to get stuck as well as those who are looking for professional careers or creative careers that the UK is so good at.

"A few may do well in some areas, but the vast majority are not good places."

The vast majority? Evidence please.

I couldn't disagree more.

I'm not a teacher, I'm not an employer either (I don't own the business) but I do get involved in recruitment both at the decision stage and the policy stage (and that, at not just firm level but also profession level, in a small way). And, as I said, I couldn't disagree more.

That was in response to losing trust.

If pupils are disruptive to the point that other children are not receiving as high a quality lesson as they would be without the disruption, take them out of lessons and make them sit in an empty classroom until they can behave

I know of many schools that have tried that. It does not work. Disruptive children are disruptive and their presence in a school remains disruptive.

You have to remove them. I am sorry. They do need to be placed in schools way from others. They need a different education (as even the wonderful Finnish know). Keeping them in schools is doing them no good either.

The second thing is you have to have discipline. This can be achieved with any social and cultural group if the school ethos is correct. However, ethos is not correct as long as you retain disruptive pupils. It sends only one message - we have no sanctions that work for being disruptive. It also lowers the discipline levels achievable because children see and children do. Disruptive children have a strong and wide repetoire of behaviours that most other children would never dream of using until they see someone else do it (usually successfully).

There are other things, but thats a starting point.

Why do you disagree? Your reasons may be valid but to just say I disagree is a bit of a cop out.

Losing trust - I have a meeting. But my brief answer is - because 'employability' is a meaningless term. Education is not and never should be workplace training.

I agree that disruption is a massive problem and it should be more effectively dealt with but you have to consider the reason behind the disruption as well..... is it boredom, lack of challenge, not understanding the lesson, ADHD, other SEN, poor teaching, home issues, etc etc. Some pupils may be able to turn themselves around with a little attention thrown at them. However, I agree, there should be zero tolerance on disrupting other students' learning.

""A few may do well in some areas, but the vast majority are not good places."

The vast majority? Evidence please.