Who saw BBC 2 Grammar schools - who will get in " last night?

[Foxy333]

Watched this last night with interest. We're not in Grammar school area and generally I think it was / is a bad system that works for the top abilities but not for the middle and lower ones. However I've seen my daughter suffer in years 7 to 9 or a comprehensive from not being stretched and teachers concentrating on the most demanding pupils who need lots of help and ignoring the quiet well- behaved pupils who going to pass GCSE's anyway. Often some pupils disrupt the class and the whole class gets punished.

They only set them for 2 subjects and I've heard that's changing in future to one. so I see why a Grammar would suit some. But why cant all schools be good. Is it stricter discipline that's needed?

Felt for the children in the program, so young to face this divisive test.

Access for all = keep the bottom few in the class despite the negative impact on the majority 😡

Yes there is an overlap - children who do not have the ability to access mainstream education without help or disruptive behaviour do normally have undiagnosed conditions that's my point

I am not denying there is SOME overlap.

You write as if there is TOTAL overlap - that ALL children with diagnosed and undiagnosed SEN are disruptive, and all disruptive pupils have diagnosed or undiagnosed SEN.

Many, many children with SEN are completely non-disruptive, in my (primary-based) experience. if you are saying that every single one becomes disruptive in your classes secondary, then you should perhaps look at your practice and support for those children.

& those non-disruptive SEN students would have the same ability to apply for a selective/musical/sporty/sciency school as anybody else. The right fit for everybody is not mainstream inclusive education!

Again, why do you have this fixed idea that only 'the bottom' children are disruptive?

Many, many low ability children behave brilliantly.

Many - IME most - children with SEN are non-disruptive, especially if their SEN is well-managed and their support needs are fully net.

Many disruptive children are of middle or higher ability.

yet you persistently refer to 'the bottom' as if low ability and disruption go inevitably hand in hand. If you do teach, I feel very, very sorry for hard-working low ability children in your classes, who you believe should not be there, and for SEN children in your school, who are clearly not properly supported in the classroom.

The right fit for everybody is not mainstream inclusive education!

I did not say it was. however, a child who is low ability across the board, or who has SEN, has every right to an inclusive, generalist education that is suitable to them, rather than being lumped in with 'the rest' once all those 'capab;e of a specialism' have been removed.

On a purely pragmatic note, you are suggesting that each town should have a grammar, a series of specialist schools for music, science, art, science, a catch-all 'dump' school for 'others of no specific ability, including the disruptive' AND a series of special schools for specific SEN??

I have mostly lived in rural areas with 1 accessible secondary for everyone, and no other for tens of miles. To have even the 5 'basic mainstream' schools would involve some children travelling many tens of miles each day, and children with SEN travelling hundreds.

I agree entirely. Many high ability are SEN. That doesn't give them the right to disrupt any class! I have consistently described the 'bottom' as those with disruptive behaviour who are unable to access a classroom education. There is normally a reason for their behaviour & is normally related to frustration/an inability to access the curriculum, or mental health. Therefore I conclude that mainstream education is inappropriate for their needs

So you are saying that a very able child with ASD who has occasional meltdowns should not access mainstream education and should be lumped with 'the bottom'?

I too live in a rural area. We have the choice of 3 secondaries plus a special school within 10 miles. That's a 15 minute drive. I know many parents who will drive 30 minutes or more for 'the right' non selective school - be it single sex, religious or otherwise. Perfectly doable

I'm out. Your model of education is not one I recognise or subscribe to. You will tolerate children with SEN only if they are 'good', and you seek to remove rather than support anyone who causes you any kind of trouble, not caring what happens to them as long as they are 'elsewhere'.

Luckily it won't happen, because your proposal needs too many schools, and in most areas of the country that simply isn't feasible.

SEN or no SEN a suitably challenged high achiever will do well with other high achievers. & those who don't will achieve well in the environment they are best suited to. Ultimately more investment will be needed, but this will be needed anyway

Remove to support is my moto - I achieve it every day. But more money is needed to do it properly

SEN with good support or no SEN, a suitably challenged high achiever will do well with other high achievers & others will achieve well in a good comprehensive school with sufficient support, or in an excellent Special School if their needs require it.

Ultimately more investment will be needed, but this will be needed anyway.

Again corrected for you

So you agree that both my high ability children with SEN - one with complex needs meaning a short attention span, and one with sensory impairment - both needing full time 1:1 to overcome the barriers these needs present, would do fine in your 'school for high achievers', and neither needs to go to a specialist school based on their SEN? Good, I'm glad that you have accepted that.

I still don't believe that comprehensive schooling is the best approach for the vast majority! Those who lose out most are the high ability students or those with a high level of specialism. No way my DH would have done so well without a grammar education. I survived a sink school much like the one in the programme which would have given me a fine education if it hadn't been for consistent disruptive behaviour from a few failed screwed up kids. If my school had been able to remove the disruptive ones I might have done much better but I found the constant noise too difficult to concentrate in.

Reading through this thread, it occurs to me that looking at primary provision is helpful, as that is comprehensive even in a grammar school area. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. My children go to the same primary. One is in a great class - a spread of abilities, including several with SEN, but brilliant kids who want to learn and there's minimal disruption. My other child is in a very difficult class - massive ability range, also several SEN, and major behaviour problems not only from the SEN/low ability but most significantly from two middle class high ability children whose parents are in total denial about their dreadful behaviour. Same school, both great teachers, but totally different educational experience.

Just thought I’d add my ten pence worth....I have two sons, one of whom has complex ASD and various other SEN bits and bobs. He attends a special school where he’s thriving. Up until Year 6 he was in mainstream with 1:1 support. I don’t think he ever disrupted anyone other than himself - which he did pretty much constantly due to having virtually no attention span - because his 1:1 was truly fabulous and managed every situation so well. But he really struggled to learn at the same pace as the other children, and - and this is my key point - as he got older he became more and more aware of the differences between him and the other pupils. With the best will in the world, he was always glued to an adult, because he couldn’t cope at all without the 1:1 support. The other children were fabulous to him, but were very kind acquaintances rather than friends, because he just didn’t know how to be friends with them. He found everything extremely difficult socially and emotionally.

In the middle of Year 6 we moved him to a specialist ASD school where he’s now thriving. He has friends and he has confidence. He’s learning vital life skills that he wouldn’t have had access to in mainstream. Yes, he would potentially have achieved more academically in mainstream - but surely having a child who can just be who they are, learn to make friends and learn how to be independent is more important than GCSE grades. This is the decision that we’ve made for our child and, crucially, he is happy. There seems to be a lot of discussion on this thread about the “bottom 10%” and “the disruptive ones”, neither of which my son was. But he needed specialist intervention, not to “keep him away from the other pupils” (!) but to best support him and give him the best chance of happiness and some independence in his future life.

The right environment for the right student - what more could we ask for? That's perfect & a very heartwarming story. I guess that was my point (badly made after a long day at work). Every child deserves the right environment for them. Whether they are SEN needing specialist support, Mr Average (whatever that means) in an environment where they can study without distractions or Sheku needing to spend 2 hours of this school day practising the cello as he used to do. All have the right to an education that is tailored to their needs & in many cases this would be best served in a specialist environment

I think many parents do understand the value of special schools. Too many have closed because Inclusion was thought to be the way forward. It is not.

It is actually about needing more nuanced spcialist schools for differing needs. Children who have serious behaviour problems should be in a specialist environment with expert teachers and a much higher staffing ratio. Their schooling is reviewed every year so they canrevert to mainstream. Mainstream schools exclude many of these children permanently.

Schools cannot work effectively with parents who are not able to parent effectively becuase they are in prison, illiterate and taking drugs. They do not have the staffing for this. The idea that parents can always be helped through complex issues is pie in the sky. Therefore the children have to be the focus. In fact all the children have to be the focus and using blind and deaf children is a bit daft as an example because everyone rallies round them in a supportive manner. They don't get excluded. It is obvious what their needs are. Schoolshave to make reasonable adjustment and they do. Evenat grammar schools! The EBD child is significantly more complex to manage and has a far greater impact on others. They do, frequently, come from a difficult family background, but obvioulsy not always. I would include parents who do not wish to learn how to be better parents in the description of "difficult" too and it does not matter how MC or rich they are.

We do need a rethink on how we deal with seriously disruptive children in mainstream school. Clearly exclusion does not help and they would be better off having an alternative curriculum, smaller classes and specialist help in a special school. Very few seriously disruptive children get to Oxbridge because their disruptive tendancies get in the way of learning and they rarely concentrate in lessons for long enough . Those who have low level disruption are totally different and schools can and do have policies to deal with that. High quality lessons and teaching being one of them.

Bubbles, tbh I only used children with sensory impairments as an example because it is easier to picture the 'gradations' and 'combination with other SEN' than it is to explain to a general audience the various different gradations within e.g. ASD or SEMH, and how they too combine with other SEN.

So it was only ever meant to be a 'by analogy' example. I absolutely agree that it is applying the same principles and considerations about the individual child to ALL SEN that is important.

I entirely believe, by the way, that the child I mentioned with an attention span of seconds may well go to Oxbridge or a similar level of university IF supported and IF exposed to sufficiently challenging and engaging subject teaching throughout their schooling.

Won't be able to live independently, probably, ever. But with support that focuses on overcoming barriers, will be able to achieve at the highest possible academic level. th short attention span COULD be seen as disruptive - or could be managed, as part of SEN support,.

I'm about to watch this... my oldest daughter went to the grammar school featured in this programme and had a fantastic education because of it. We did not tutor her through the 11+, she was always a high achiever at a primary school which did not have the best results on 11+ pass rate and she was deemed selective on her natural abilities. Townley was the best place to nurture this further and we felt lucky that she had that opportunity at such an amazing school. On the flip side, my younger daughter was not deemed selective, just missing out on the 11+ and went to a non selective school nearby. The difference in the standard of education and their culture was notable. She did not get the same experience or opportunities that a Grammar school provides which is where we felt let down. The level of teaching was not as good and many teachers would only teach them to the level they felt was ok for that school, quoting that the higher levels of education were for Grammar school students, not their students. Every child should be nurtured and challenged to achieve their best whatever level they work to, it's not about everyone getting A's but it is about kids being motivated to try and achieve their best. So we are a split family, great for one child but not so great for the other which was really unfair.

I do agree that for some families where the children are split between grammar and secondary, it is obvious there is a difference in quality. However many parents around me are very supportive of the secondary modern because it’s very good and has a 6th form with many children going to good universities such as Exeter and Nottingham. The 6th form makes a huge difference to the ethos of the school.

I do agree with you cantkeepaway. I think one issue MN struggles with is the concept that SEN includes behaviour and emotional problems that children experience. Children can and do have mental health difficulties and their lives are not straightforward. They are disruptive and do affect others. It is clear to me that special schools are the way forward. They are expensive to run so no one wants to know about building and staffing new ones. How many free schools are for EBD pupils?

I can see why the dyslexic child probably isn’t going to need a special school (although my LA used to pay thousands and thousands of £ each term for dyslexic pupils to board in special schools and their parents wanted this very much - totally blows the SEN budget). It depends how MC your SEN is.

'I see on average 2-3 children per class who are not ready to learn & therefore disrupt others. '

what is your role?

...because the language that you are using to discuss pupils with additional needs and their parents is appalling.