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.

[Longlost10]

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.

we have a few of these, they are called UTCs, and children can enter for a fresh start at the beginning of year 10. These can work well too, and bahaviour certainly improves in the comprehensives left behind, once the most disruptive children are taken out. However, this is essentially exactly the same solution, a two teir system, with the worst behaved in the lower tier. The cut off point is different, and the sanctions in the "comp" (no longer a comp, of course) are still very weak, but still, this could be developed

[user1471734618]

Longlost you sound really irrational and angry and deeply unpleasant and I really hope nobody like you would be teaching my children.
That was after one page.

[Longlost10]

what is irrational about wanting children to behave well in schools, user? Why wouldn't anyone be angry at the total waste of money, resources, staffing, and opportunities for well behaved children thrown away every day in uk schools, due to poor behaviour? Are you not angry? maybe you are the irrational one, if you think it is ok.

[Bekksy]

Just as most kids who go to grammar are tutored and average.

Poor behaviour IS NOT the norm. By removing 25% do you not understand that you are making the problem worse. 10 disruptive kids out of 100 has less impact than 10 disruptive kids out of 75. simple maths really. 25 high achievers, however, that has a huge positive influence on other children. And as they are not in the same stream for subjects, the disruptive ones have no impact on the top 25% actual lesson time. Also you are removing the role models and all schools need good role models.

I however do agree that there is pandering in the UK but it is the parents who are the issue. Very rarely the children. The children are simply the result of poor parenting. Parents in those other countries you mention worship education and respect teachers hence the attitude of the pupils. The children are a product of their environment.

[user1471734618]

Longlost, if someone were to read all your posts now the clearest thing would be your strident unpleasant tone. You might want to cop on to yourself. Love.

[alwayssurprised]

I am very interested in the current shakeup of the system and do not oppose to a new form of selection via grammars, but I think it is key that behavioral issues have to be dealt with in all schools, and is not in itself a reason to support selective education.

There is massive cultural difference between the south east Asian countries that excel in delivering academic results with "mixed ability" environment. There are definitely good schools and bad schools and everyone knows which is which. Their system is extremely competitive, and the whole population values education and believes that education is the way out of poverty. Hence you are not seen as a cool rebel or "just a kid" if you play up and disrupt in school, you are immature and stupid to give up your chance. Your parents will definitely not think that this is a school only issue and will definitely use all available strategies to discipline you. Discipline happens from the first day at school and never let up.

Here, education is not as valued as such in a large proportion of the population. School is seen as something you just go through and not the golden ticket to improve your lot. If families don't value schooling and respect other children's right to their education, behaviour issues will not go away.

If behaviour issues only comes from those with troubled home life and some SEN children it would be much better tackled and supported with existing resources. But those that stem from the simply "mouthy", unruly and selfish has to be reduced. At the moment they are "just children growing up". Low level disruption children should be removed from classroom much earlier and probably the possibility of losing your school place has to be advertised. If we can deal with this group it will already be a massive improvement.

[DeloresJaneUmbridge]

A relative of mine works in a pupil referral unit with the disruptive kids excluded by schools. Virtually all of them have either a diagnosed SEN or behaviours which indicate an undiagnosed one. Rarely the issue is poor parenting.

Investing in support for pupils with SEN and support for those parents whose children have undiagnosed pr unspecified SEN would be a far better use of taxpayers money than creaming off the top 25% of pupils and ignoring the rest.

Pupils with SEN would benefit and the pupils without SEN would also see improvements.

[user1471734618]

What people forget is that todays parents pass down a bad attitude about school because of their own (often violent) school experience.
When teachers in comprehensives start talking to pupils as though they were normal humans and stop screaming about the colour of their socks or whatever, then perhaps they would get some more respect.

[thecatfromjapan]

The Conservatives like grammars because they are cheap: they allow you to underfund the non-grammars.

It's a crap idea.

[thecatfromjapan]

The only good thing about it is going to be watching the carnage twenty years hence as people clamour for them to be rolled back.

[alwayssurprised]

I remember watching that program about Chinese teachers visit to try and teach at a top comp. Yes it's a TV program, but there are a whole lot of low level disruption which has been normalised but definitely horrifying to watch. I don't think those kids will be very happy if you ask them to check for an undiagnosed SEN. They will not deteriorate so much to end up in pupil referral unit. But it shows the low expectation on discipline in today's comprehensive and for me it is not acceptable.

[user1471734618]

my son ended up in a PRU with no SEN - far from it.
He just couldnt stand the way teachers talked to pupils and how bullies were sent away with a pat on the head and their victims punished.

[MoreCrackThanHarlem]

Schools are not allowed to discipline children

Can you explain further what you mean by this? All schools have a behaviour policy in place clearly outlining consequences for poor behaviour. In failing schools this might lack consistency in practice but not due to staff not being "allowed" to enforce consequences or discipline.

[AntiquityAgain]

I'm guessing with the multiple instances of "namby pamby" discipline probably means corporal punishment. The two usually go together.

[MoreCrackThanHarlem]

User1471

Places in PRUs are oversubscribed in my LEA and the panel which allocates these places has a high threshold for acceptance of pupils into them. How has your son ended up in PRU if he has not displayed extremely challenging and disruptive behaviour over a sustained period?

[user1471734618]

1. He was in the school no longer than a fortnight before they sent him to a PRU, so there was no 'sustained period'.
   
2. Even the staff at the PRU told him they had no idea why he was there.
   
3. He always had to get the last word. I think that really did incense teachers with rage. Understandably.

[user1471734618]

ah ' schools are not allowed to discipline' - one wonders what the OP means by this? Perhaps they have some kind of fetish?

[GoblinLittleOwl]

Longlost10, I do agree with your post and most of your comments. If you have been teaching elsewhere and have returned to this country you will be more aware of the deterioration in discipline than people in the system with nothing to compare.

When I went to Grammar school in the 1950s my parents, and most of my contemporaries' parents, had left school at 15 or younger, so a free secondary education, with the possibility of higher education leading to qualifications was really valued. Now education is a right for all, and sadly, not respected.

The special needs lobby is, as always, very vocal, and also the socially deprived. I so agreed with UKsounding who said that the role of the teacher is to identify and report child protection issues, and then 'get back to the job of teaching'. Teachers are not social workers and they have neither the expertise nor time to deal with these issues; when they attempt to it is at the expense of the rest of the class.

Yobbish children do disrupt work and they do it intentionally, because it is fun and they want to; they come from every strata of society, but selective schools can refuse admission or threaten expulsion. Comprehensive schools have far fewer sanctions to apply; without the support of the parents they are prevented from enforcing serious discipline and the pupils know it. Many socially deprived children I taught did well in school because it was a refuge from their chaotic lives, and they flourished with just a little attention. Some even went to grammar schools, where they thrived.

It seems so wrong to me that pupils who have the capacity to become high achievers are deliberately denied an intensive, highly focused and, yes, competitive education unless they live in the right part of the country or their parents can buy it, because it doesn't fit it with the doctrine of social mobility.

[DoctorDonnaNoble]

Goblin- we are still state schools. We have exactly the same sanctions as other schools. As to the op saying it's very different, well she's wrong. I can't give details with out outing myself and children so that's out of order. The point is she's wrong. Grammars don't solve behaviour issues. They are not meant to deal with that issue. We're not there to 'save' people from bad behaviour. We're there to teach to a high academic standard.

[DeloresJaneUmbridge]

the special needs lobby is as always very vocal.

Yes because we bloody have to be given that most teachers know fuck all about supporting those pupils who have SEN thanks to massive inderfundung and a lack of training.

[DoctorDonnaNoble]

Indeed Delores. We try our best, but often the parents will know more than us and so I do my best to listen to them.

[mrz]

The gov can find £50 million for grammar schools but can't adequately fund SEND

[kesstrel]

I think it's important to accept that sometimes poor behaviour (especially low-level disruption) is caused not by kids having problems, but by a desire to show off to friends, or simply because it's more enjoyable than buckling down to work.

I have also read too many teacher blogs talking about SLT who have abandoned any responsibility for behaviour, who will blame the teacher for 'not making lessons sufficiently engaging' (i.e. dumbing down with games and fun) if there is any poor behaviour in their class, and who will negatively target any teacher who dares to try to use the on-paper behaviour sanctions system. Or they will insist that all detentions, etc, are the responsibility of the individual teacher, so that the administrative burden of handling behaviour sanctions becomes so great that teachers just give up for lack of time.

[sandyholme]

£50 million, whats that a couple of pens per school !

But i do get your point , there should be no funding cuts taken from SEN pupils to fund grammar schools .

I posted on one of the other threads about the success that Breckenbrough school in North Yorkshire has with SEN pupils.

Because of the huge cost of such schools, it is extremely difficult to get pupils in to such schools the £50 million extra should be going to fund placements for children in to such schools !

Any school that wants to become a 'grammar' or expand should have to find the money required to so themselves !
The money should not come out of a financially stretched budget and that comes from a big supporter of grammar schools !