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.

I have a DD in a grammar school and there are disruptive kids there. Crazy to think just because kids are deemed clever that they are well behaved, model pupils!

Every generation complains about the ones after them. Even Socrates moaned about the 'youth of today'.

Actually, he didn't.

thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/the-youth-of-today-and-the-youth-of-yesterday/

the bottom 75% are not served well by grammar schools/secondary moderns.

It's the bottom 75% who need more skills, training and education.

Behaviour is so much better in a grammar school system because of this.

I think overall the evidence is that behaviour and achievement is worse in a grammar school system.

It does seem like the OP's goal is to filter out the academically bright, well behaved children and forget about the rest. Unless you've got a plan for those left behind, OP?

Merry mouse - achievement is certainly not worse at my school. We do well on the value added measure as well.
I wouldn't say behaviour was worse or better. Teenagers are people with outside lives and varied interests and motivations whatever school they're in.

It's a shame the tone of the OP is so goady, because there is a worthy discussion to be had about what puts off M/C families from sending their children to comprehensives.

I was public school educated, but was keen for my children to go through the state system. That was, until they were actually in it.

Having removed DD from her state primary to send her to a private prep, and now having actually seen what's on offer in terms of comprehensive secondary education, there is absolutely no way I'd be throwing her into that lion's den.

None of the four comprehensives within striking distance would even be open for consideration, mainly because they are chock full of young people who don't seem to want to learn. They are significant enough in number to affect the whole atmosphere and ethos of the place.

If DD doesn't get into one of the grammars in our nearest city (20 miles away), she'll be staying in the private sector.

DS is at a special school, and it is fabulous because it caters for his needs in a way a mainstream school simply never could.

Perhaps this is the problem with comprehensives? The theory was they would cater for everybody but by default they end up catering for no-one at all?

Merry mouse - achievement is certainly not worse at my school.

You are misunderstanding my point.

I am quite prepared to believe that behaviour is better in grammar schools.

The more relevant issue for government is whether the existence of grammar schools improves behaviour and performance in schools as a whole.

And your missing my point. It isn't better. It's the same. They're still children.

Perhaps this is the problem with comprehensives? The theory was they would cater for everybody but by default they end up catering for no-one at all?

Some comprehensives do very well - but they tend to attract supportive parents.

Whether it's selection by post code, religion, ability or fees, children do well with supportive parents and supportive parents tend to jump through whatever hoops they can to support their children - whether that is by helping with home work, tutoring, spending money, attending a church, home edding, fighting for support for a child with SN or whatever.

It is very difficult for the state to bridge this gap. Evidence shows that grammar schools just create a different hoop through which some parents can jump.

What are you suggesting the answer is then OP? How do UK schools get the 'yobs' to behave?

The African children know if they miss behave they loose there school and their home (You said they sleep on the floor). - Not really something that could be replicated in UK schools.
If they had any SEN that affected thier ability to follow the rules they wouldn't have lasted long as child soldiers. - so are we going to do that too OP? Weed out the SEN/EBD kids and get rid of them?

The African children have been brutalised into conforming and obeying orders. Are you suggesting we do that?

And your missing my point. It isn't better. It's the same. They're still children.

No, the evidence shows that as a whole children perform less well in grammar school areas. The job of the government is to provide a suitable education for all children. Grammar school areas are not good at doing this.

OrangeNoodle has it. One size can never fit all.

No merrymouse there is no evidence to suggest that grammar schools improve behaviour in other schools

What do you mean by catering for none? Thousands of kids are in comps and doing very well.

If we wait until 11 to 'sort' behaviour out we will never improve the picture. Maybe we should apply selection at 3... Now that could make things really interesting!

I think that is one of the reasons grammar schools don't improve social mobility Rainbow - by the time children reach 11 the more privileged kids have already zoomed ahead.

(Not that I would advocate selection at 3!)

A comp is not one size fits all. FFS do you really think every kid in a comp follows the same curriculum at the same pace? Of course they bloody don't. In fact they can cater better for kids with spiky profiles than a system that assumes kids are either academic all-rounders or not.

I was saying that the kids are the same, I think you misunderstood me merrymouse

Maybe I did Donna, but my point is that whether or not grammar school children do behave better, more relevant to the government is the behaviour of the children who don't get into grammar schools.

The OP's point is that grammar schools help the top 25% and don't harm everyone else. Evidence shows that this really isn't true.

I think we're agreeing then. The OP is wrong grammars don't solve behavioural issues.
For a start, we don't select based on behaviour

The difference is the 'behavioral' problems in a grammar , are likely to be a child having a 'strop' or playing 'dum insolence' or class clown when asked to do something !

Not threatening to stab a teacher!

The other main difference if the child he/she gets a 'detention' from the grammar school for playing 'dum' Insolence the parents will come down on their child like a ton of bricks !

In some schools the parents will confront the teacher and 'berate' or Smack them in the face for daring to put their child in 'detention'.

I am thankful my children go to schools , where the term 'naughty' means a pupil making a quip at a teacher !

A boy in my grammar school broke a teachers nose and ribs ...some strop!

My child is academically average but has excellent behaviour at school. What do you propose for him?

If behaviour is your number one concern, more PRU places and more money and resources for SEN children will surely be more logical?

Lots of parents will not come down hard on bad behaviour. They will blame the teacher's poor skills over their Angel being a sod.