IS there, in general, a correlation between 'less clever' and 'badly behaved'?

[gaussgirl]

I say 'in general' to avoid the inevitable 25 replies telling how "there's this one boy in DS's top maths set who's really ill disciplined" etc etc. Of course there may well be, but that's not what 'in general' means!

Like many of us, I'm researching secondaries which will hopefully suit both my DSs when the time comes. DS1 is reasonably clever, but DS2 is average. Trouble is, so many of the parents I talk to with DCs in these schools tend to tell me about how their averagely attaining DC can't learn anything in their average ability 'set' because the teacher spends all their time dealing with bad behaviour, yet I rarely hear this about DCs in the top sets, and the schools seem to get good enough GCSE results, presumably on the backs of their more able students. Why?

It's all a bit 'new' to me becasue I went to a grammar where they had the ability to chuck bad behaviour out (and did from time to time!) thus generally we were well behaved BUT of course we were all much of a muchness intellectually and could therefore keep up.

Could it be because there are some DCs in the 'average' set who are really too clever to be there BUT come from neglectful family backgrounds who don't value education thus fail to get 'the runs on the board' necessary to achieve better? OR is that a sap to the 'my child is badly behaved in school because he's gifted but the stupid school can't see that' brigade?

Or should we be, as a nation, acknowledging that many less academically clever DCs should follow a completely different system of education which might engage them more that 'watered down' academia?

Or should we be far more strict about discipline, with more exclusions to Pupil Referral Units for the badly behaved? Should home/school contracts be 'enforced'?

Could the parental 'desperation' to get one's DCs into Private be because private schools select if not academically but socially AND if a parent pays through the nose, they're far more likely to be interested in the outcome thus are more 'on side'? AND the Head is far more likely to stamp on bad behaviour or risk losing pupils and money.

Originally I though what I wanted for my DSs was a truly 'comprehensive' school which took and appropriately educated all comers- but I'm increasingly finding that what meets our needs is a nice 'middle class valued' school in a nice leafy area, (as it were), where the DCs, regardless of academic ability, learn, at home, how to behave thus don't come into school and wreck my less able DS's future.

I think basic literacy and numeracy are just life skills though so it would be cruel not to even attempt to teach them to everyone. Of course not everyone would do brilliantly but it would just be the basics - so things like literature and creative writing and advanced maths would be optional subjects, and you wouldn't be judged or marked down for not doing well at the basic. You would just be learning to write, add etc as a useful skill.

Actually I would probably be tempted to include a few more topics in the basic-for-all category such as sex education, financial/household management, computer basics etc. But they could be done quite briefly and not with exams to pass.

Biggest problem in 'your average comp' is not so much at KS4. In many comps they will offer a variety of courses, with different styles of assessment which give a much bigger chance of kids being able to experience real success.

The killer is at KS3.

so you get the insanity of having to teach kids about photosynthesis, when their IEP targets are to learn the high frequency words from year 2.

So I have to teach them words like Photosynthesis and Chromatography and they are trying to learn to read words like There and Where.

and is it any wonder that they get switched off?

I meant mucking about in the core subjects not motor mechanics!

And fwiw, though I hear you MB, I believe we make too much out of school needing to be endlessly inspiring and fun- to the point where too many DCs turn off becasue they've been lead to believe that they're there to be entertained, not educated. My OP is perhasp that 'middle class value-d' DCs learn at home that you actually have to knuckle down and get some of this stuff learned.

Modern schools do offer FAR more options than we ever had, yet we're doing ever worse in our outcomes, be they purely academic or on 'happiness quotient' league tables.

Surely the REWARDS of mastering the basics is the ability to choose stuff that interest you?

I like snowleopard's ideas but who'd fund them? And who'd take the 'blame' for another generation of media studies/lentil weaving graduates when what we NEED is plumbers and engineers? (Cat amongst pigeons time!)

I can imagine MB. Our primary had a reasonable of high 4s and level 5s in Yr6 SATS. But quite a few level 3s too. Those children are all going onto some secondary school to be taught. It must be impossible.

Oh God 'Edutainment'

the bane of good teaching everywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I like a fun lesson, I'd get bored otherwise

But there are times that they just have to do some work, and some kids just don't want to.

and we have very little power to make them!

I agree with goosey loosey about academic success

'Or should we be, as a nation, acknowledging that many less academically clever DCs should follow a completely different system of education which might engage them more that 'watered down' academia?' that line stood out at me as I would have been part of this second rate curriclm (and it would be after all)-I was gifted English but sn classes for a lot. Ended up with a good degree but it was the school that failed me- endless detentions for crap I couldnt change and was linked to a terrible home life.

Kids develop at different rates; sideline them and they miss the chance as the gap widens.

The teachers that changed it for me were the ones that saw past the broken skirt and carrier bag: Mrs W who took human biology (only for the science- thick kids (anyones guess how I got there after 90% in physics and 88% in biology) and let me deliver some classes (obv supported) with the result I got the maximum c grade (wasnt allowed to be entered for extended). Miss H who found out what was haening at home and scheduled me so I didnt have homework- B grade for French. As opposed to Mr C who put me in detention because I didnt have a proper schoolbag; Mrs B who threatened to have me expelled after a friend was rude (I was elsewhere) and when proven it wasn't me and she'd got the names wrong launched a bullying campaign- etc etc.

My xeperience as a not-fitting-in-neglected-kid was that there are two kinds of teacher: the good ones that can get something from anyone, and those that can only see the potential of a set personality type and are a liability to everyone else they encounter. As a mum of sn kids I see only further evidence to endorse that, and I will ick schools based mainly on this- the teaching staff.

You even see it on here- I'd love my kids to be taught by T&P or MB; others I wouldn't touch with a bargepole becuase they seem to hate their jobs and their classes.

peachy - sorry to hijack btw. D'you remember a 'conversation' about seconday schools in your home town? I told you DS#1 was going to RBSC? Well it just got an outstanding Ofsted report.

If I were in charge!!!

Good, effective discipline, with very high standards set and rigorously followed up, all the time.

Appropriate courses for the kids to follow

Real support of SEN, with extensive work done to make the kids literate and numerate.

Nice to have good facilities, but smaller classes are the key.

Get that lot in place and you would have happy kids. (mostly)

MB, what sort of age group are you teaching those things to, out of interest? If it's Y9 surely you're looking at unidentified SEN if they're still struggling with there and where? Someone else mentioned an obviously brilliant DC (touch typing her own stories at 5), but I'm basically referring to the middle of the road here but how to define it? I mean DCs who have no special needs in particular but who fall into the lower end academically but appear to be unable to behave in an appropriately geared lesson - as opposed to the brighter DCs who DO concentrate.

Ormirian- Fab - good choice!

Dh was mumbling abut a retur that would have meant CT, glad e is looking at Uni first now- no chance (see messge below about my experience there LOL)

Perhaps the schools I am now favouring for my DCs are the one which follow the MB Ethos (you read it here first when she patents it!). The first line, to me, is key. It's about discipline.

But it SO appears to me that less able DCs seem to be less well disciplined! (as per my OP!)

One year I taught a 'bottom set' year 7. I had 4 children with reading ages of 6 (kids were 11), I had one child with EAL, 2 boys on SA+ with dxs of ASD and ADHD.

Call of 18 in total.

No TA support at all.

Now these were nice kids, who were 11 and wanted to please. Most of these as still very nice, but they are not so hot on trying to please in school any more, and I can't blame them.

I sent a boy to be reffered for dyspraxia (I can't dx but it was bloody obvious) badly under performing. No help given as there were , and I'm quoting, '260 worse than him in the school'

In our LEA hardly any kids get statemented any more. We have kids cominmg in on SA+ who actually need special schooling (can't go into detail, but trust me)

CT isn't much better now peachy if reports are true. I mentored there for a while and it was soul-destroying . Most of S's friends are there and at least 2 want to move already.

What is DH studying?

I actually get envy from parents because the boys (2 / 4) are statemented because uspport is so ahrd to access. It does effec te rest of the class, of course it does, when a kid needing help doesn't get it.

Bit silly to envy a Mum that her kids are worse off than yours but I can intellectualise it even if I cannot understand it- I think.

It's interesting i think to talk to the people applying for training. Several out of my Uni group went; one I wouldn't allow anywhere near a kid (and the Lecturers agreed but felt they had to give him a chance due to quite marked mental healthy issues), three or four felt it would be a good way to pay the bills. Only 2 of us wanted to teach- out of the two I have had to pop on hold due to SN childcare issues. The other though is going to make a fantastic teacher.

Interestingly both of those that wanted to teach whena sked said they would rather work at a less successful school; I don't know if that is universal in teaching?

I do beleive vocational studies have a place, I'm just not sure where they should begin as I do worry about that irrepairable gap if a child decides they need anothe rpath- how many of us are on the one in which we began? I nursed- and Lordy did I hate it! That is my concern I think; the later developers who do exist.

Orm- he's applying for a degree in events technology (elctrical stuff- digital, video, etc...... yep carnival skills PMSL)

Ha! You can take the man out of carnival but you can't take carnival out of the man

I think the really crucial thing would be to have appropriate courses available, with the ability for plenty of cross over. So the late developers would get the chance to switch as an when it suited them. Within a good comprehensive, this should be possible, if the funding was there

Nah you can't Orm, we're stll commuting down

won the south federation Saturday, 2 older ones on at bridgwater

I believe vocational has a HUGE place- but I think one of the issues we have in the UK with education in general is the half-arsed, faffing about way we do it. We daren't be Arthur or Martha, so instead we fail ALL sectors of the cleverness spectrum- with particular reference to the less bright.

I wonder how many of our 'disaffected youth' may have been better off, at the age of 'x' -I'M saying around 12 to 13- being assessed, interviewed, aptitude'd (!), whatever then set on a course which will produce a qualified plumber, seeing as we're using that as 'currency', here, at the age of say 18. That DC will continue studying English, Maths, a foreign language even, thus not be eradicating ALL alternatives but it's that endless 'open door to all possibilities/don't commit whatever you do' approach which leaves so many of those doors blowing in the breeze, directionless, jack of all trades, master of none! We throw our HANDS up at the suggestion- but let's face it, in this day and age, whose future is really set in stone at 18? There are endless opportunities for reassessment, change, retraining etc etc- but the difference is that POSSIBLY that potentially disaffected early teenager MIGHT be inspired to 'get the point' of their basic English/maths etc in Y7-8 IF they could see a clear cut road ahead, requiring this, this and this in order to progress. Of course, change should always be possible- there will always BE late developers but I don't know if the answer to accommodating them (all doors always open) benefits the majority?

I think sometimes children play up because they are afraid of failure, and mucking about and avoiding doing the work provides a smokescreen.

But if work is set appropriately and children encouraged effectively then this is easily overcome.

We actually do not have the most challenging behaviour from the lowest sets, but usually from set 6 and 7 (of 8).

We also have some top set yr11s atm with appalling attitude and behaviour.

...my friend has just been told by his son's private school that his son's attitude is not appreciated and he would be better to go to a different school (ie they are chucking him out at the end of term).

His son is top in every subject...

I wold support the vocational at 13 on one condition I think: that further ed be better funded sot hat people who are late developers, or are channelled in the wrong direction, do have alternatives.

There is nothing in place to fund full time mature students at further level and my own experience shows that those who do take a course at that level do better than their peers who get amture entry on the basis of life experience to a Uni or professional course.

If that were the bargain I'd think it were excellent tbh, otherwise I think the result would still be removing options from a certain sort of child. Walk into any college and you'll find large groups of them and they achieve when they've had a chance to study or train; but they were written off early. In my parents (or Dh's) geneation they wold have taken CSE's; in mine not been entered for extended GCSE's ( as I was only year 2 of the GCSE syllabus LOL). They return in their late twenties and mid thirties, after their babies, to study. And many universities will tell you they are the achievers then.

Absolutely. The mature students who come to do their clinical placements with us are FAR more focussed than the 18-21 year olds- but I'm not sure 'Society' would wear the cost of it on the basis 'they've' already paid out for this person to be educated- if for whatever reason that person failed to take advantage of it, where does the 'have ANOTHER go' end? And I feel people value stuff they have to pay for more.

As for

'I think sometimes children play up because they are afraid of failure, and mucking about and avoiding doing the work provides a smokescreen.

But if work is set appropriately and children encouraged effectively then this is easily overcome.'

mm- not so sure. Surely the point is these 'less clever' DCs are already doing 'applied maths for the everyday world' type of maths, not quantum mechanics, thus the system IS trying to work for them?

My point is DO we spend too much time blaming poor behaviour on the 'failure of the school' not on a failure in parenting, thus in the DC themselves?

To a certain extent I think much of the response to this OP agree with it, insofar as so many posts are saying 'This is where the schools are going wrong' which IMPLIES there IS a correlation between less clever and poor behaviour!

I think that the problems with behaviour in lower attainment children tends to start during the KS3 period.

During this time they are taught (in the main) the same material as everyone else. And during this time, they fall further and further behind. As a face saving exercise (and because it is more fun that sitting trying to do things that you don't understand) they start to act up in class.

The Hormone Pixie also comes to play.

By the time they get to KS4, where more approriate courses are available, the poor behaviour is often entrenched. It is very hard for these kids to ditch the 'persona' that they have created for themselves. the Lad/Laddete culture that we have doesn't help them.

They can turn themselves around. But it takes a lot of guts, and hard work to regain the work ethic.