Parents won't discipline children, schools are not allowed to discipline children, so grammar chools are the way forward.

[Longlost10]

The whole comprehensive system is dragged down by the financial, spiritual, moral, educational and professional cost of the huge number of total wasters in the student body. Those who disrupt lessons, ignore teachers, distract students, talk back, waste time, make paper aeroplanes out of worksheets, dawdle in late, don't bother to do their homework, don't come equipped, chat and fidget and generally make no attempt to learn. They are utterly selfish and just tink of nothing but enjoying themselves.They are pandered to and spoilt, offered endless chances, suck the system dry of money, time, energy, and resources. Teachers are held responsible for their imbecilic behaviour, and grind themselves into dust trying to work to change behavior which is under someone elses control entirely.

This is why I support grammar schools. It gives the top 25% the opportunity to get away from these yobs, and and incentive to behave well, and keep behaving well, as a grammar school student needs to maintain certain levels of behavior and achievement to remain a grammar school student.

So overall, the poor behavior goes down. Because a grammar school place is an incentive to behave properly, and so some bad behaviour improves.

In a comp, badly behaved pupils have nothing to lose. That changes in a grammar system.

And a large number of students can get away from the poor behaviour too. Of course there is some bad behaviour in grammar schools, but it isn't comparable.

So less bad behaviour, more learning, and fewer students affected by bad behaviour in others. Whats not to like??

Of course it doesn't solve the problem of having to put up with bad behaviour in secondary modern classrooms, but it doesn't make it any worse either.

sandy kids put their hands up to ask to remove blazers in my comp. If they are in a languages lesson they have to ask in that language.

We don't do standing up when a teacher enters the room but that's probably because it disrupts the flow of the lesson more than anything else.

Our feeder comp doesn't allow pupils to remove blazers except for PE

You can keep the tests under wraps up to the point children actually take the tests then they soon get into the public de sin it's naive to think otherwise. I think even TM acknowledged there is a problem

I would like to see research looking at the rise in tutoring and the decrease in children eligible for FSM in grammar schools in recent years. I'd like to know if there is a causal link and correlation.

I think The Sutton Trust might be a good place to start unless anyone else has a better idea or ideas?

Exclusive: Grammar school chief dismisses ministers' vision of 'tutor-proof' 11-plus as 'utopian'

A tutor proof test doesn't exist

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/campaigners-question-1m-tutor-proof-11-plus-tests/ even CEM admit their test isn't tutor proof

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3-3519109231/does-tutor-proof-11-plus-let-down-the-disadvantaged

Sandy - you couldn't be any more wrong if you tried! I am. Product of grammar school. I have taught in two grammar schools. And I love it!
However, I am not blinkered. The girls' school I went to had a lot of pastoral issues. The behavioural things I have mentioned are relatively normal. What I am objecting to on here is the notion in some posters that grammar school children are inherently 'better' than others. They are not. They are better at passing a test at the age of 11.
The excellent behaviour you mention at your DDs school is great. It's what I experienced at a 'difficult' school. I don't ask my students to stand when I enter the room ( I like to be in there before them) nor do I ask them to stand behind their desks waiting for everyone (I'd rather they got their stuff out so we could get on with the lesson).
I don't know where you get the idea I don't like grammar schools. They're ace. But they select on intelligence (or try to) not behaviour.

MrsZ: Not a red herring - because people complain about the impact of social environment on primary learning. The impact can be reduced if nothing is expected of the parents.

'If people are only taught english and maths where is that knowledge used going to come from?'

If many children don't have decent enough literacy and numeracy to make a decent effort at the 11 plus then something is lacking in primary education. Schools need to fill the gap - you can't expect parents to fill the gap. Anyone who believes parental input should central to primary education does not believe in education as a driver of equality. I believe they are regressive elitists - they might think they're being warm and fuzzy and 'it takes a village to raise a child' but really they're condemning children from a weak background to be more likely to fail.

Did you read the Education a Endowment Foundation research?

No.

Or the Sutton Trust research? http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/smaller-classes-uniforms-primary-homework-among-least-effective-ways-boosting-school-performance/

It's difficult, Your carpet fitter is actually using very sophisticated maths (advanced tesselation programmes) specifically. Try to teach that tp the sons of carpet fitters, and they reject it as irrelevant, then get t it at work. There is sound reason to teaching maths to the able, financially driven lads,
tell them that they need to know how many blocks are needed for a job, or Travis Perkins will have them stitched up. Then they realise how school helps in adult life, Surely better to identify the academic/non acedemic early and deliver what each cohort really wants.

EEF

WinchesterWoman, a degree of parental input is necessary. There is no way that a teacher can or should parent 30 young children.

Everyone talks about grammar schools and the 11+ and how it is unfair for poorer families but the imbalance doesn't happen at 10/11 it happens between 0 to 4. When the onus of teaching a child is on the parents.

Reading fairy tales, singing nursery rhymes, going on walks and just talking about what they see. None of this costs any money just time, which some are just not prepared to put in.

Furthermore this issue has been recognised and the pupil premium and free school meals exist in order to close the gap. but there is still a balance required between the parents, the school and the child.

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence/teaching-learning-toolkit/homework-primary/

Thank you Doctor for clarifying your position towards grammar schools !

So the 'general' thinking now towards waiting for a staff member to enter before the pupil sit down is classed as 'old fashioned' and counter productive.

The biggest difference to outcomes comes from early years intervention.

We should be spending the money on Surestart, if we really give a rats arse about social mobility.

Exactly SanityClaure, we know that there is not enough money going into education and it does need to be directed towards the most needy. If more was done between 0-4 real social mobility could be achieved.

Because by 10/11 the gap would be small enough that the poorest children could really compete (alongside contextual admission policies) with other children.

No, parental input is not necessary. The OP has given evidence about what can be achieved without parental input.

Education should lift you away from your disadvantages, not reinforce them. Parental input reinforces them.

Mrz: I feel we are in violent agreement about primary homework.