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.

It doesn't work because the ultimate sanction of exclusion is one that schools are reluctant to take. It doesn't work because the initial sanctions are ineffective, usually because some parents couldn't care less whether their child is in detention or not. That's why I said I'd like punishment to be harsh enough that children themselves make the decision that they don't want to do it, but unfortunately without parental backing and strong guidance and support for schools from their LAs, harsh punishments cannot be given.

Until someone bites the bullet and makes the sanction harsh nothing is going to work.
Exclusion is the ultimate harshness because the disruptive ones realise at that point that they do not have an audience and that they are not wanted . It also removes them from their friends many times. That works for some.

However, there are some pupils for whom being disruptive is their way of life and personality structure. Oft times they go through school and the first rush of reality hits when they find a job or go to college ( FE are good at this in my experience), misbehave and find themselves sacked and down the road with a P45 pdq or expelled from college courses. Many post 16 colleges do kick them out. For these they either get real fast or they end unemployable in my experience.

In terms of employability, it has always seemed to me that the first requirement of most HR departments is that an employee should be compliant and do as they are told. I am not sure how GCSE's tell them anything about that. But thats me being old , hard and cynical from years of employment.

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

The vast majority? Evidence please.

I don't think you will get an answer curlew!
Exclusion is fine if there is an answer and the excluded get an education or a turn around, otherwise they are just excluded, unemployable and likely end up in prison and costing the tax payer a fortune.

Much more cost effective to put money towards the education of the disadvantaged long before secondary school.

I agree, and that's fine, as long as it doesn't disrupt other children's education at the same time.

But as long as disruptive pupils are allowed to remain in lessons, there will always be parents that try to protect their children from that by choosing selective education.

Parents also choose the good comprehensives, they are not going to send them to one with disruption.
All OFSTED tells you in a town/city that you don't know is where the middle class housing is found. It is unfair.

"But as long as disruptive pupils are allowed to remain in lessons, there will always be parents that try to protect their children from that by choosing selective education."

OK- often but not always the disruption is caused by children who for whatever reason are detached from education.

Those children are unlikely to be in the top sets of a comprehensive school. So why can't the parents trying to "protect" their children be happy with sending them there?

Not every lesson is set, there are more lessons that are in mixed groups than there are in ability groups, so I don't think the fact that the disruptive pupils might be in the lower sets makes much difference.

Also, not every child in the lower sets is disruptive, they get placed in lower sets because of their ability, not their behaviour. They could well be from families who are very supportive and engaged with education, they just struggle academically. If anything, those children in the lower sets need even more protection from disruptive pupils than the able ones do.

Most disruptive kids are disruptive because of opportunity rather than by plan. Many disruptive kids are disruptive because they are also sheep. And the leader again may be opportunistic rather than nihilistic/well motivated towards the dark side. Opportunity can and does offer itself in all types of school, including posh ones. It is neither confined to, nor automatically more available in, comps. There is an argument (which I don't necessarily agree with) that the smiting is better in schools that are more practised in the art. For the minority of disruptive kids who are nihilistic they tend to end up in PRUs sooner rather than later.

However it should be noted that lesson disruption is often not in the top 5 behavioural challenges in a school (whether grammar or comp or private).

What are the top five behavioural problems out of interest?

Too much Bill Rogers and not enough John Hattie there.

Activities that might be or become criminal (including damage to property), or cause physical harm to either the kids engaging in them, other kids (victims) or staff. Titting about in class (which is often what 'disruptive behaviour actually is) might be more prevalent but it doesn't necessarily indicate anything other than individual weak teachers.

"If anything, those children in the lower sets need even more protection from disruptive pupils than the able ones do."

I agree. But there won't be any mumsnetters children in the lower sets, will there? Or in secondary moderns? They'll all be either in the top sets of comprehensives or in the grammar schools!

Talkinpeace: Nobody ever wants to think it will happen to them or impact on them. I also happen to know a system that works really well for those kids but it makes bad headlines and would shock the GS brigade in its efficacy.

As long as it is not done at the expense of my DC, fine. Otherwise, we come back to the situation of "sacrificing two MC children a year into comprehensives". Yes, it will be exactly that, lambs to slaughter.

It is the reason why we moved, I just know my naive, compliant and well-behaved DS would be bullied by inherently more streetwise kids from disfunstional homes. At least before he starts school, I can send him to a nursery out of area and filter the kids he mixes with, but when he starts school, he will be stuck in there with the "undesirables" from 9-3 everyday, helpless against them as he has not got the aggression to match.

It is not my job to mind other people's kids. If I do a good jobs raising my own, it will already be a worthwhile contribution to the society IMO.

Curlew well, your DS is at a proper old school secondary modern, right? And my DS is not in top sets for English at his comp (far from it). As I've mentioned before. So, not a terribly sensible comment from you there.

I don't think educational policy is based on MNers curlew!

And like I said, most subjects aren't set, especially in the first two or three years.

I'm not sure it's not a little bit dysfunctional to be so terrified of bullying before child has even started school to move house.

I don't know what your definition of undesirable is but mine would include that sort of attitude.

WooWoo There are nearly as many different ways of organising a school as there are schools. Some schools set everything, some set nothing, some set some things, at some points and not others. Some grammars set. Some don't. Some schools stream. And so on.

^curlew Wed 30-Oct-13 11:51:33
"If anything, those children in the lower sets need even more protection from disruptive pupils than the able ones do."

I agree. But there won't be any mumsnetters children in the lower sets, will there? Or in secondary moderns? They'll all be either in the top sets of comprehensives or in the grammar schools!^

they will, but not for very long. MNers will typically do their utmost to change that. And normally, the parental effort tends to pay off.

"As long as it is not done at the expense of my DC, fine. Otherwise, we come back to the situation of "sacrificing two MC children a year into comprehensives". Yes, it will be exactly that, lambs to slaughter."

Words just fail me. I can't be arsed to fight this one any more- the prejudice, ignorance and downright unpleasantness is just awful. "Lambs to the slaughter" "great unwashed" "they should go away and never come back". If you would only listen to yourselves!

Of for a dog walk.

Absolutely Xoanon, and parents should have some choice (within reason) over what they can obtain from their children within the state system.

As you say, things work very differently in different schools, and naturally, different things will be the ideal for different children.

This is one of the reasons why I advocate choice for parents, with one of those choices being super selective grammar schools.

Activities that might be or become criminal (including damage to property), or cause physical harm to either the kids engaging in them, other kids (victims) or staff. Titting about in class (which is often what 'disruptive behaviour actually is) might be more prevalent but it doesn't necessarily indicate anything other than individual weak teachers

Oh I missed that one - too much reliance on Dylan Williams.

The top five behavioural issues in classes WooWoo , to be specific are as follows
a) playing with lap tops or phones. - answer ban lap tops and phones in class.
b) too much chit chat - answer - ban chit and make sure you follow through. My own answer is chit chatters get out of class and dont come back that lesson. Do it again and I invite them to leave the subject permanently.
c) debaters - ensure you control the discussion and draw a halt when it gets off topic
d)sulkers and whiners- again invite them to find another subejct orschool to their liking.
e) dependents - wean them off. These can be the hardest to dealwith.

That is why I emphasise discipline discipline and discipline as most important.

Then you have to get a grip on making sure you instruct, stay focussed and have a business like atmosphere.