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.

A lot of naïveté about what goes on in grammars.

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

If that is the case then I would welcome them to get some of the more able who are also yobs out of my classroom.

But then n a few weeks I suppose the grammar would send them back.

Nope. We have to obey the same rules on exclusions as other schools. If you can't get rid, we can't get rid.

Grammar schools are meant to select by academic ability, not behaviour. I know several children who would walk into a grammar school (ahead of most other children) as they are in top sets for most subjects at my very selective school (best GCSE results in county), come from vair, vair middle class families, and are the most badly behaved children in the entire school. Rude, disruptive, mocking disabled pupils, yet are bright enough to stay just off the permanent exclusion radar.

Grammar schools will not be havens of acadamic bliss, merely bastions of the tutored middle classes. If you think otherwise you'll be sorely disappointed.

I don't think my 2 DDs grammar school has temporally excluded never mind permanently excluded a pupil in the 7 years DD1 has been there.

DD1/2 used to come home telling me how 'naughty' some girls were for 'answering' back a teacher !

It will be interesting to see what people think of the proposal that pupils who qualify for pupil premium have priority over their tutored peers.

YThe classroom terror

Head cleared as caned girl sobs in court

By James Golden

THE reign of Lynne Simmonds as a classroom terror ended when she was caned by the headmistress, a court heard yesterday.

Lynne Simmonds
LYNNE SIMMONDS

Miss Janet Dines
MISS JANET DINES
Lynne, who had a history of bad behaviour, was sent to Miss Janet Dines for eating crisps during a maths lesson.

But the three whacks given to 14-year-old Lynne on her bottom landed Miss Dines, head of Northwich Girls' Grammar School, Cheshire, in court.

Lynne's parents brought a private assault and beating charge. They claimed that Lynne was punished unreasonably.

But after Lynne broke down weeping as she told of her classroom antics, the case was withdrawn and Northwich magistrates dismissed the charge against the middle-aged headmistress.

Lynne, who passed her 11 plus to go to the school, admitted a catalogue of misbehaviour when cross-examined by Mr. John Hoggett, counsel for Miss Dines.

She said she told rude jokes in the scripture lessons while discussing moral and ethical questions.

She made remarks about teachers behind their backs and blew raspberries at them.

She told lies about having lost homework which she had not done and took a classmate's book without permission.

She stole a teacher's pen off her desk and offered it to a friend for a pound, and she disrupted the class.

Lynne was suspended for half a day by Miss Dines for the pen incident and her father gave her the strap.

She also admitted handing in a school project done by another girl, claiming it was hers.

But the girl in hospital and temporarily blind returned and Lynne was found out.

Then she was caught eating in a lesson and was sent to Miss Dines. The headmistress entered the punishment in the official book and told her she would be writing to her parents.

Lynne said that after the caning her bottom was sore for several weeks and she had been unable to sleep properly.

Mr Peter Hughes, prosecuting, said that a memo from Cheshire Education Committee laid down "If corporal punishment is used, it should only be a last resort and must only be used where it fits the offence."

He claimed Miss Dines acted unreasonably in view of the red weals the caning left.

When Lynne broke down there was an adjournment and Mr Hughes asked for the case to be withdrawn.

Mr Hoggett said: "This case has been hanging over my client, a responsible headmistress of this town, for a long time.

"There has been adverse publicity. It has been a time of great tension and distress. She is entitled to regard this as a complete vindication."

A spokesman for the Parent Governors said they would be discussing the case.

As he left with his still weeping daughter, who now goes to another school, Harry Simmonds, a dairy supervisor, of Sidney Street, Greenbank, Northwich, said: "No more comments. She has had enough."

ou could always discipline like this......

Telling a teacher she was pregnant for a joke.
Telling blue jokes during scripture lessons.
Making up fanciful tales about her sexual prowess in order to disrupt the class.
Blowing raspberries behind teachers' backs.
Telling lies to cover up her failure to do homework.
Taking a teacher's pen and offering it for sale at £1.

On a serious note it shows how far children's behaviour has fallen to think 'Blowing' Raspberries was considered an offence worth caning for in 1976 !

Hmm...I've read hundreds, if not thousands, of blogs, articles, letters and comments from teachers over the years. Teachers writing about poor behaviour seem to take it for granted that other teachers agree that the worst, and most difficult behaviour to manage is found in the lower sets (although no one, as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that top sets are always angelic). Perhaps the sense of privilege that comes from attending a grammar school makes grammar school children's behaviour worse?

I've also seen a fair number of comprehensive school teachers pooh-poohing the ability of their peers in private schools, on the grounds that they would never be able to control the classes in a comprehensive school, especially an inner city one...

So all in all, I'm a bit sceptical about claims that grammar school behaviour is likely to be the same as behaviour in a comprehensive school, especially a comprehensive school in a tough neighbourhood. Not that that is necessarily an argument for grammar schools.

I agree with the first half of your post but I disagree that grammar schools are the answer. The problem is that Grammar schooling assumes that only the brightest (or most intensively tutored) 25% want to leant in ordered peace, and only the brightest 25% deserve to learn in ordered peace. Which is pretty fucking unfair on the less bright but no less hard working and deserving pupils who are thrown to the lions in the zoo,is it?

And all pupils of all abilities deserve the same stNdard of teaching in the same high standard of schools. I just don't see how a good comprehensive with rigorous streaming cannot deliver every bit as well as a grammar school for bright pupils who are committed to reaching their potential, and averGe ability children who are committed to the same.

The issue should be about dealing effectively with the disruptive wasters and the ones for whom inclusion in mainstream school is not serving anyone well, least of all them.

The answer is not to just remove the clever children to a higher alter of safety and privilege while other blameless hardworking kids get written off and left behind.

People seem to forget the importance of the knowledge economy. That costs. We need an elite - I want an elite person doing my operation or designing my car safety. Some children aren't the elite - mine are included in that. That's life. If we degrade our knowledge economy by always seeking the lowest common denominator in an attempt to square children's self-esteem - then the elite will always remain the province of the rich, and the rich only.

I think the emphasis should be placed on separating the children who have demonstrated that they do not wish to learn and will not cooperate in an academic environment. They should be identified and channelled into more appropriate practical and physical training earlier on to give them a sense of purpose and a better grounding for the type of job market they are more likely to be aiming at, while continuing with the teaching of functional skills ie, Literacy and basic numeracy.

Perhaps the 25% who feel most alienated by academia should be removed and better stimulated elsewhere to allow the other 75% to learn in peace, irrespective of their academic ability.

in properly streamed classes everyone should be capable of being stretched appropriately. Separating the most clever children and offering them a better standard of education sees plain discriminatory to me.

And the same individual will be less intelligent if they aren't educated in a grammar school?

Not about grammars - but primary education should be taken entirely out of the parents' hands. That would be a start and would help give a better picture of ability at age 11. No more primary homework. If the required numeracy and literacy can't be fit into the school day then drop other material. It's that important.

Long I can only imagine what/how your children behave if you actually have any

I used to be a "Yob" I also had the worst upbringing and was past from pillar to post by social workers. I was abused, neglected &a nobody gave two fucks about me.. But guess what I finished school with 8 GCSE's from A-C and I was one of those Yobs that used to make teaching difficult and disrupt other children's classes shit fucking happens. You have no right what so ever to sit on your high fucking horse and judge people when you no nothing other than they "misbehave" in school.. Not everyone is born with silver spoons shoved up their arse holes.

The issue should be about dealing effectively with the disruptive wasters and the ones for whom inclusion in mainstream school is not serving anyone well, least of all them.

Absolutely agree. The trouble is, there are too many people with power in education who would disagree with you, or who refuse to use methods that are effective. These people are very unlikely to change their minds, and there doesn't seem to be any mechanism that can force them to do so. This blog post describes some of the problems teachers face:

readingallthebooks.com/2016/02/05/discipline/

Research shows that primary homework has little or no impact on achievement so that's rather a red herring.

If we only teach English and Maths where is that knowledge base going to come from?

Kesstrel,
When I was training, I was deliberately given a 'difficult' school due to my grammar background. Actually, it was lovely due to excellent SMT. The next placement was all girls supposedly 'naice' school. It was hideous with ridiculous low level behaviour.
In my time at my current school, we have had several suspensions every year (we are strict as are many other schools) and they have been expulsions. At my previous school (also boys' grammar) a year 12 threw a football at my face deliberately in a lesson. He was told he was not welcome back to complete his studies.

Oh and I have been threatened in my time as a teacher as well. Just because their clever doesn't mean you don't have the same variety of characters as in other schools. There may be fewer like that, but that's because grammars tend to be smaller than comps.

In contrast, I'm a comp teacher, and I haven't been threatened. Not physically, which I assume is what is meant. And I've been sworn at ('go fuck yourself') once.

Comps are not necessarily cess pits of stabbings and chair-throwing.

Because they are practising the test not general learning

I suspect if you drilled down into the evidence on homework you'd find 'build a junk model of a castle' = no impact but 'drill times tables and practise reading' = high impact.

Tutoring for a test is likely to have an impact.

I've invigilated several times for the 11 plus. It's familiarity with format and practise at working to time. These things lead to confidence and the student being more likely to show their potential.
I will not be tutoring DS. We will do practice papers at home. IF it appears that grammar is the right place for him. I am fortunate that our current location has several good options. I am well aware it may not in the future.

I went to a grammar school not all that long ago. The standards of behaviour by some students and some of the teaching body were abysmal. Bullying was rife.

The "education" provided was not appropriate to all but the middle students. Free and critical thinking were discouraged. SEND assistance and support was none existent. Mental health problems were rampant. Suicide attempts were not uncommon.

The only good thing I could say about it was that this was before the age of excessive tutoring and the cohort was representative of all social groups. Sadly the education provided to them was not as wide ranging.

So no, I don't think putting those who score in the top 20-25% in a handful of tests into a single school is a panacea. I hold that it is not a credible solution to the thorny question of how to improve state education.