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.

[ReallyTired]

I am not a teacher. Even support staff in a school have a legal requirement to report abuse. A change in the law was made after the murder of Daniel Pelka. (A four year old little boy who was starved and tortured to death).

The difficulty comes that some schools have more than their fair of chaotic families. It is very hard for schools to permamently exclude children. If we are going to have social equality we need to make sure that primary school classes are free from distruption and are safe places to learn. We need adequate support for challenging children and well behaved children with learning difficulties.

[HPFA]

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.

Well, actually it may do:

1)The school will no longer have an able cohort who others can see get better exam grades and more choices in life.
2)The effect of failing the 11+ might further alienate children from education.
3)Those children at the top of the SM cohort might be more isolated than they were in a comp (oddly this famous top set which is always bullied and miserable in comps never seems to have the same problem in a secondary modern)
4)If "badly-behaved" children form a larger % of the cohort teachers will have a harder time and recruitment will become harder
5) There will be less incentive for anyone in authority to improve the school because anyone who "deserves" a good education will naturally be in the grammar

If anyone here is involved with a secondary modern I am NOT saying that all secondary moderns are full of badly behaved children!! Just that the OP shouldn't assume that existing problems wouldn't worsen.

[Longlost10]

If anyone here is involved with a secondary modern I am NOT saying that all secondary moderns are full of badly behaved children!! Just that the OP shouldn't assume that existing problems wouldn't worsen.

These are good points, and you are right, you can't always assume this, but I have worked in many secondary moderns, and generally have not found these predictions actually happen.

The effect of failing the 11+ might further alienate children from education. I think it is very important to have more than one entry point, Children can and are asked to leave grammar schools at any point in their education, entry is currently at 11, 16 or on appeal. The new proposals also add entry at 14, an excellent suggestion in my opinion, although I would like to see the possibility of being able to apply for places that open up between formal entry points being made much easier too.

Incidentally, I was in a secondary modern yesterday, and it was striking how huge the advantage of being coached for the 11+, then failing it, gives secondary modern students. I've never been so aware of this before.

(oddly this famous top set which is always bullied and miserable in comps never seems to have the same problem in a secondary modern) exactly, these children tend to fare better overall at the top of a secondary modern than towards the middle of a comp.

If "badly-behaved" children form a larger % of the cohort teachers will have a harder time and recruitment will become harder yes, teacher recruitment is in absolute crisis, partly due to badly behaved children, but this is not related to being in a secondary moderns. In fact the teachers attracted to working in secondary moderns are frequently very good indeed, and chosing to work in an environment where they develop closer relationships with their students and have a greater impact than the more academic and often less personally involved and more didactic teachers in grammars. With a choice for teachers too, you are more likely to get teachers more suited to your particular learning, in either school.

There will be less incentive for anyone in authority to improve the school if only that were true! it would solve teacher recruitment in a single stroke! A school that was going to be left alone to teach.... never in your wildest dreams..

but I take your points on board, all these things can and do go wrong sometime. I still think this is much better system for an education system such as ours totally crippled and hamstrung by poor behaviour.

Of course, sorting out the behaviour would be favourite, but that is not going to happen. You can see from the replies of other school staff how deeply entrenched the culture of namby pambying is in this country, and how many staff have convinced themselves , in the face of all evidence to the contrary that this is in the best interest of the children, and they are kind caring people ( I'm sure they are), and that anyone who want to improve school discipline is wicked and cruel..... never mind that poorer countries with serious deprivation that we don't have, are able to teach their children concentration and attention. Obviously we could do it here too, but society has genuiinly decided it would rather spend billions pandering to and encouraging those who totally waste their education and everybody elses.

[mrz]

Not sure I follow the logic of the title

"Clever" kids don't need discipline? I went to a grammar school and there were kids in my class who were really disruptive

[Longlost10]

"Clever" kids don't need discipline? I went to a grammar school and there were kids in my class who were really disruptive no, what I mean is that disruptive children can and should lose their place in grammars schools, this is a disincentive for poor behaviour in the first place, and a control method if it is persistent, and so a quarter of students are lerning in an environment where behaviour is good. Currently there is no disincentive for poor behaviour anywhere at all in the school system, and no way of controlling it if it is persisttant. ( and it is, it is activily encourage, the worse behaved a child is, the more resources are spent on them, to the tune of billions of pounds, in total. - one badly behaved child can cost the country a quarter of a million (average) to resource through secondary school, and the resources simply encourage further bad behaviour.

[mrz]

How many times do they need to be disruptive to be written off? Once? Twice? More?

[Bekksy]

So the Aspergers kid who won't pass the grammar exam and to who this disruptive behaviour is seriously problematic must just suck it up so precious snowflake and his/her perfect world isn't impacted.

Only now there are fewer well behaved highly intelligent kids for the Aspergers child to relate to?

You sound like a fucking idiot.

[Longlost10]

A lot of children with aspergers do far better in grammar schools

[Bekksy]

Response to the Op.

[Longlost10]

how many times would you need to be disruptive? There would have to be a transparent policy in place, as there is in countries where education is seen as a privilege that can be lost.

This is how it works in many private and grammar schools at the moment, a certain number of warnings, then you leave.

[Bekksy]

At lot of people with Aspergers don't get into the grammar schools because they cannot pass the tests. Not because they are not capable but because of the test environment.

[Longlost10]

At lot of people with Aspergers don't get into the grammar schools because they cannot pass the tests. Not because they are not capable but because of the test environment. and if they can't pass the tests, then why would they not be well served in a secondary modern?

[mrz]

For the same reason you don't think other highly intelligent children aren't best served by anything but grammar schools?

[Bekksy]

Apparently the same reason your precious grammar kids students won't. It's a disruptive environment full of yobs with the top 25% academically removed. Most Aspergers kids are well above the top 25%

[Scarydinosaurs]

If we had smaller classes consistently and throughout education, we would not have the same problems. Class size studies cannot measure self esteem. Maximum of 24 in a class in ALL schools (and when streaming, max 12 in lower set) would see a massive improvement in results.

[DoctorDonnaNoble]

OP- I work in a grammar school. You are beyond mistaken if you think we don't have disruptive students. Teenagers are teenagers whatever school they are in and teachers can't control everything in their lives anymore than the teenagers can themselves.
Students get detentions, suspended and excluded just like in a comprehensive. Some teachers are fab, some are rubbish, most are just doing the best we can like in a comprehensive.
And I teach in a superselective, we are looking at the top 1% not 25%.
The problem you want to solve, can't be solved this way.

[WellErrr]

I agree with you OP.

Behaviour in UK schools is appalling, and the naughty and loud pupils (yes that's NAUGHTY and LOUD, not abused and sad) pupils are consistently given more time and attention than everyone else.

It shocked me when I moved up to secondary myself 20 years ago and it's only gotten worse.

It's NEVER the child's fault and never the child's responsibility. They see those around them blaming anyone and anything but their own choices and they obviously follow suit.

But look what happens when someone says it...!

[Longlost10]

Most Aspergers kids are well above the top 25% some are, not most. ASD provision is often fantastic in secondary moderns, and these children often have a far better experience than mainstream children.

My complaint is with the behaviour in comprehensives, not with the teaching or SEN provision. Whilst poor behaviour is the norm, it makes sense for those who can get away to do so, including into SEN provision, or grammar schools.

Grammar schools with the proviso that you need to behave well to get a place and keep a place. It doesn't make the secondary moderns any worse, but does remove 25% of children from the problem.

Of course, dealing with the problem would be better, but that is not going to happen in our namby pamby culture. Because children are not seen as responsible for their behaviour, in case they are sad or angry or something.

as I said on an earlier page, countries with children who have survived total destitution, or had to fight in armies, or been orphaned by violence, or who have been starved, or are homeless, etc, are allowed to be sad and angry, but are taught that this is not to impedede their concentration at school........ and guess what, it doesn't!

In our culture, it is expected that children will behave badly , and guess what, they rise to meet our expectations! We have appalling behaviour in schoools because we pander to it. It drives me mad, but there is nothing I can do about it, it is too deeply ingrained in our culture. So in the meantime, lets set up more grammar schools, where behaviour is better controlled, so over all poor behaviour goes down, many children are in environments with good behaviour, and those in secondary moderns are not any worse off than before.

[Longlost10]

If we had smaller classes consistently and throughout education, we would not have the same problems. Class size studies cannot measure self esteem. Maximum of 24 in a class in ALL schools (and when streaming, max 12 in lower set) would see a massive improvement in results.

well I've been teaching in an East African school, in a war zone, with class sizes ranging from 40-80, and the children are YEARS ahead of ours in academic knowledge. One member of staff per class, no resources what so ever, typically 2 children per chair, half the number of school years for each child, and excellent concentration and attention throughout each and every lesson.

[eatingtomuch]

But what about the lovely child who has no behaviour issues. No amount of tutoring would get them through the 11+. They come from a 2:2 family where dinner is on the table.

Are children like this abandoned? Would you want them in a school where the overall behaviour is poor?

There needs to be schools where there is a mix of behaviour and ability. Schools where all children are supported to reach their full potential.

We live in a grammar School area. My DC go to the local comp. some of the DC from the grammar have just joined my DC in 6th form with lower GCSE results than them.

Grammar school is not the answer for all children.

[Longlost10]

You are beyond mistaken if you think we don't have disruptive students. yes, I've been in grammar schools, and yes you have disruption. it is on a completely different level in non selective schools though, many orders of magnitude greater. There is absolutely no comparison.

[thatsn0tmyname]

Personally, I wouldn't bring back Grammar schools but Technical colleges instead. At the end of year 8 students could leave school and attend TC to learn a trade/ skill with a package of literacy and numeracy and one day a week work experience. Then comps will be free to fly the high achievers. The lower end are being failed, not the higher end.

[Spikeypants02]

Can I just make the point (sorry if someone already has) that there is an assumption here that bright children can't be badly behaved. Certainly the stories I've heard from kids at the grammar schools in my area, the behaviour is no better than the non selective school.

[mrz]

So you've been in every single selective and non selective school in England OP?

[Longlost10]

eattomuch - no I don't want these children abandoned, but there is nothing to be done for them until discipline in schools is completely overhauled from the bottom up. In the meantime, lets do what we can, for those we can remove from the situation. it doesn't make anything worse for those in secondary moderns.

There needs to be schools where there is a mix of behaviour I don't think you actually mean this! surely there should be good behaviour in all schools!