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.

[minifingerz]

I don't understand why the OP feels only high attaining well behaved children need protecting from classroom disruption by being put in separate schools.

What about the well behaved middle or low attainers? Do t they need protecting just as much or even more? After all - high attainers are, err, attaining highly, so something is working well, regardless of what's going on in the classroom...

Would also add - I have two dc who have been very disruptive at school. One has a diagnosis of ASD and is in a state of severe emotional tension at school a lot of the time. He has no allocated one to one support. My other dc's was diagnosed with a personality disorder and PTSD in year 11. She had massive problems at school, despite our constant input and support for her teachers. Her HOY hated her and thought she was a brat. Turns out dd is emotionally very ill. She's in therapy now and at an FE college, and her behaviour in class is perfect.

As a qualified teacher myself, having children who have struggled in education has been shocking and upsetting. Attitudes like those expressed in the OP - that challenging behaviour in school is always down to children having shitty, lax parenting, have been really hurtful and frustrating to me.

[WinchesterWoman]

Very good post mini.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

I visit lots of schools as part of my job and the single biggest complaint from high ability students is about disruption in class.

It is all very well for teachers to commit themselves to those pupils who are hardest to reach, commendable perhaps, but it does have an impact on other children who are no less deserving of receiving an appropriate education.

[Bobochic]

Indeed, GetAHaircutCarl. DC who want to apply themselves deserve to be given the opportunity to do so, not used as a calming influence or dilution effect for DC who cannot behave.

[DoctorDonnaNoble]

But behaviour does not always correlate with intelligence that way! Grammars have behavioural issues too!
Feeling like I should just copy and paste previous posts.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

doctordonna I agree that the two are not necessarily correlated.

However, we do need to address the issue of class room disruption IMVHO. I am less interested in where the 'blame' lies for such behaviour and more interested in how best to manage it for the sake of the whole cohort.

Some policies such as internal exclusion are spectacularly one sided.

[noblegiraffe]

And yet when schools like Michaela are discussed on MN, where behaviour is strictly monitored and thus impeccable, there are shouts of horror at kids being turned into robots and not treated with humanity.

[DoctorDonnaNoble]

But grammars DON'T solve the behaviour problem. How about an honest discussion and research into what interventions might help.
Oh, and how about better funded mental health care for teens that can be accessed when it's needed. That would help.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

Well selective schools statistically have fewer exclusions etc so whilst grammar schools do not solve the problem of disruptive children, they do isolate it (to some degree).

That said, I don't see why a willing child in any ability range should have to put up with unacceptable levels of classroom disruption.

[Bobochic]

My DSSs went to a bog standard French state comprehensive for a while with a huge range of ability and background - it was truly diverse. Unfortunately this meant that some DC were unable to engage with the work and they were the ones who were bored and often disruptive. To some extent it is hard to blame DC who are getting nothing out of school for 6/7 hours a day from playing up. It must be ghastly for them trying to keep still and quiet.

[minifingerz]

"Well selective schools statistically have fewer exclusions etc so whilst grammar schools do not solve the problem of disruptive children, they do isolate it (to some degree)."

No - they concentrate disruptive children in settings where many non-disruptive children are already struggling to make educational progress.

Why should we create a system that protects from disruption children who are already succeeding in education, at the expense of children who are struggling.

TBH your post displays the sort of tunnel vision that makes me want to put my head on the desk and cry.

Why do high achieving children matter more?

Why should their needs be prioritised?

[Bobochic]

I agree minifingerz - it is extremely unfair when well-behaved but low attaining DC are grouped with disruptive low attainers. Their needs are very different.

[mrz]

"Banning h/w actively disadvantages yet further the already disadvantaged"

That isn't the findings of UK research. Parent engagement is important homework has little impact

[mrz]

Grammar school green paper

[user1471734618]

" - it is extremely unfair when well-behaved but low attaining DC are grouped with disruptive low attainers. Their needs are very different."

exactly - why should my perfectly pleasant and reasonably behaved DD suffer because she scores low on an IQ test?

[GetAHaircutCarl]

mini if you actually read what I posted as opposed to jump to head/desk conclusions you will see that nowhere did I say high ability children matter more.

I said the opposite!!!

However, disruption is a very live issue in too many schools and will not be solved or even eased whilst SLTs remain attached to certain ideologies and policies. Since a parent can have very little impact upon said SLTs, it is understandable that parents of willing children seek other environments where they can.

Whilst it is great for you and your DC that the schools you use have been so committed to them despite their poor behaviour, the reality for their teachers and other pupils may have been radically different.

You can't blame those affected for seeking resolution by other means (even where said means are imperfect).

[noblegiraffe]

From the green paper Multi-academy trusts will be encouraged to set up schools for their “most able” pupils, dubbed a “centre of excellence”

Crap. This is what I was worried about in my post above. I really hope my MAT doesn't go for this.

[WinchesterWoman]

Still think the problem of engagement could be largely resolved at primary.

[mrz]

https://consult.education.gov.uk/school-frameworks/schools-that-work-for-everyone

[mrz]

So WW what would you think if pupils who have been enthusiastic and highly engaged throughout primary school left in July and by the first week in September tell you school is rubbish?

[minifingerz]

"You can't blame those affected for seeking resolution by other means (even where said means are imperfect)."

While I appreciate many people here on mumsnet would trample other people's children into the dirt in order to guarantee a good outcome for their own children, that shouldn't be the sentiment guiding education policy making.

[minifingerz]

"So WW what would you think if pupils who have been enthusiastic and highly engaged throughout primary school left in July and by the first week in September tell you school is rubbish?"

Give it a few weeks and see what happens?

DS2 loathed secondary for the first two terms and said that he did nothing in lessons. Then he got his head down, made some nice sensible friends and started to enjoy it.

I'd also not assume that a child not liking school is always the fault of the school.

[mrz]

Past experience suggests a few weeks won't help. Year after year pupils return to moan

[mrz]

And some of the returning pupils are now in Y11

[WinchesterWoman]

I don't know why you are asking me that, Mrz. I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Are you saying it's not worth getting pupils more engaged at primary, by eliminating teacher-parental expectation, because they might not like secondary?

That seems rather nihilistic.