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.

The extra will be enough to push the children into the top percentile taking the test. This is what all the evidence shows.

Grammar schools don't take all the children who pass the entrance exam. They have to choose a percentage from the children who pass the entrance exam, whether that is the top x% or by postcode.

We don't talk about 'passing' as the mark required varies year on year as we offer places to the top 120.

How do you target children who have limited parental input and how can you turn this around if they won't engage? Primary schools do not do banded admission. They educate anyone who gains admission to their school. Be this 1% FSM or 50%. Also just because someone has FSM does not mean that they do not have aspirations and will not support the school.

So you ban homework and provide additional 1-2-1 support for children in class. However as no homework is set, engaged parents take it upon themselves to set homework for their child or tutor. This leads to a gap in attainment, which the school does its best to close. Parents who are engaged work with the school and their child does better. Parents who are less engaged don't work as well with the school and their child begins to fall behind. What happens next is down to the individual child's personality. They might become more resilient and try harder or they lose motivation and start to misbehave. The school identifies that the child is struggling and starts to put additional measures into place (detentions/counselling/more classroom interventions). Meanwhile, original engaged parent is fed up having to do it all and begins to question why school is not doing more for their child. Up pops the 11+ test. A chance (whether rightly or wrongly perceived) for their child to attend a school with like-minded parents who have similar values when it comes to education. Have a guess, which parent is going for it, guns blazing. By this point engaged parents are not concerned with the masses only their own.

As I see it this new policy announced by Theresa May only suits engaged parents, whether on FSM or not but is still not poising a solution for the less engaged and those that will continue to share schools with them.

Or rather it doesn't quite work like that now as parents know their scores now before applying.

So not really relevant then I guess.

Merrymouse: Yes but I don't think the difference would be as marked as you imagine. Firstly, more grammar schools means more grammar school places, so the top percentile will be a much larger group. Secondly, along with testing there should be a system where the primary school is able to recommend some pupils who are exceeding their disadvantages. Thirdly, a lot of parents intervene now because there are so many gaps in the curriculum. Were these gaps to close up, parents would (in my opinion - obviously not infallible) be less driven to intervene. The intervention would begin much later, much nearer the test.

You urgently have people tutoring from the aged of 6-7 to fill in the gaps and prepare for grammar. People think it's a good investment compared to 120K on a private secondary.

urgently = currently - sorry typo.

Firstly, more grammar schools means more grammar school places, so the top percentile will be a much larger group

Not necessarily. The vast majority of the country doesn't have any grammar schools, so whether the percentage creamed off increases depends on where and how many of these new grammars open.

I don't understand how more grammar schools does not mean more grammar places. You think that other grammar schools could be closed down as new ones open? Why would that happen?

Poundpup - I concur with your analysis.

Helping DC whose parents aren't engaged in their education is extremely difficult. Schools will never be able to make up the difference in input between families, and those differences are massive.

What I meant Winchester is that a new grammar school opening up in Hull isn't going to have any effect on grammar school admissions in Kent.

But it will make a difference in Hull? And there would probably be more grammar schools in Kent?

I don't know whether a grammar school in Hull would be any more filled with the more affluent and tutored than in other areas but the data suggests that the lack of FSM kids in grammars is an issue everywhere.

Tbh I don't know very much about Kent apart from that it's already very selective. If secondary moderns there chose to become selective (is there a shortage of school places to warrant new schools?) and a higher and higher percentage of kids got in, then isn't that just making a mockery of the 'academic kids need a special school' argument? Isn't that simply saying 'I want a school which doesn't have the bottom end?

MC parents want a grammar system, so is it possible to have one that is as fair as possible.

What if every grammar had to be connected to a SM. The same head runs both, they get Ofstead as one, they are in league tables as one, kids can be moved between them every year if their results fall or rise, almost as if they are different campuses within the same MAT, like a university.

Yes it sounds like a comprehensive but I am trying to think of how parents demanding a grammar could be accommodated whilst still being as fair as possible to others.

My MAT has a very high achieving school and a lower achieving one. I can see the CEO considering this as an option if grammars become a thing. We already bus kids between the schools to increase options at sixth form.
However this idea that kids can simply be shuffled between schools at 13, 14 whatever would be hugely disruptive for those children. Can you imagine being told to leave your peer group and go to a different school by your school? If someone was promoted, then someone would need to be demoted to make space. I know from making set changes that it's hard picking a kid who has to move down a set because someone needs promotion, and that's just down the corridor, not to an entirely different institution!
Parents of demoted kids would also kick off, big time. New uniform? Different transport arrangements? Settling in issues? It wouldn't be a good relationship-builder.

Oh, and without a doubt the lesser school would become a dumping ground for any problematic kids who would potentially wreck the exam results. Mental health problems and school refusal issues caused by massive upheaval at home? No problem, we'll throw a compulsory school move into the mix.

"What if every grammar had to be connected to a SM" you mean like grouping all the most able pupils together for lessons? ....oh wait that's what already happens

Firstly, more grammar schools means more grammar school places, so the top percentile will be a much larger group

We already have areas that are fully selective and have more than a third of pupils attending grammar schools.

This is from a report by the institute of fiscal studies:

www.ifs.org.uk/docs/Grammar_Schools2013.pdf

our key conclusion is that there is a substantial difference in the likelihood of a child who is eligible for free school meals enrolling in a grammar school as compared with a similar child who is not eligible for FSM. This remains true even if we allow for the fact that FSM children have lower levels of prior attainment. In other words, amongst high achievers, those who are eligible for FSM or who live in poorer neighbourhoods are significantly less likely to go to a grammar school. For example, in selective local authorities, two-thirds of children who achieve level 5 in both English and maths at Key Stage 2 who are not eligible for free school meals go to a grammar school, compared with 40% of similarly high-achieving children who are eligible for free school meals. This is a substantial gap. One can observe a similar pattern of results for London and local authorities with isolated grammar schools as well. The origin of this work was a desire to consider whether some primary schools are better than others at assisting poorer children to access grammar schools. Hence it is significant that our major finding is that, across grammar schools as a whole, the proportion of children from disadvantaged backgrounds is disproportionately low, even taking account of pupils’ achievement levels.

Good point greenhouse you put it better.

So as I say - take primary education out of parents' hands to narrow the gap.

Merrymouse not greenhouse - auto

You can't base a school system on the requirement that parents do nothing extra for their child. The only thing you can do is try to help the bottom end catch up.

I'm not sure how that excerpt supports more grammar schools.

Yes, differences in attainment need to be addressed much earlier than 11.

I keep hearing that secondary children are already taught with those of similar ability so what do people think about this quote from Ofsted from 7 years ago?

Of about 18,400 classroom observations conducted by Ofsted inspectors in secondary schools last year (2008/09), roughly only four in ten represented set lessons:... at secondary, this data suggests that around 53%, 70% and 60% of lessons are set for English, mathematics and science respectively

Have things changed so much in 7 years, or what?

No I mean your point about fully selective areas was a good one.

Giraffe not a requirement, an assumption. And I don't see why not, unless you want inequality built into the system.