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.

All good points, MB.

SO, as a teacher would you advocate a different approach to teaching methods for these lower attaining DCs at KS3?

Or would you fall foul of the 'late developer' camp which might counter with the argument that you've set that DC on a course for 'expected lower attainment' for life?

Personally, I feel- and this is just me!- that at around 11-12 there's already fairly good indicators in place as to a DCs future level of academic achievement, but my thought would be that in a Comprehensive, there ought to be scope for some lateral, up and down movement at least over the first couple of years to fine tune a DC's optimal learning?

I read in The Torygraph yesterday (it wasn't mine!) that the -is it 'Institute for Education' + a university hav edone research and reckon that by the age of 10, the indicators for adult poverty are already in place... fwiw!

I would deeply love all people have have access to learning oppertunities later in life. I'm a comitted believer in life long learning (having trained to be a teacher at the grand old age of 39, I suppose that I would!)

Kids who are not 'getting' the NC at KS3 should be withdrawn from classes and taught to read, write and count. And this should be done by experts, who know how to help.

Unless they can do the basics it is pointless them being in the lessons, because they can't access the materials (and yes, if they were properly supported for SEN this would be different, but they are not, and they don't)

Otherwise they spend time in the lessons but are not 'included' in any meaningful way. All they learn is that school and learning s not for them. Which is crap. and not their fault.

When they can do the basics they should have an accelerated 'catch up year' to fill the gap of the stuff they have missed. they can then go back into the 'ordinary' lessons of their choice

and for sure a good sized comp should be able to provide this, plus the chance for these kids to go into lessons where they can access the material.....I'm thinking here of art in particular, since one school I worked in the art dept was populated by teachers who were all dyslexic!

Has anyone seen the two blokes fishing on the Harry Enfield program? And the intellectual builders? That is horribly true. Some sections of society are anti-intellectual and anti-cultural to the nth degree. I remember my DS in Yr5 being embarrassed about telling his friends he'd been to an orchestal concert with me . That above all is what I would like to change. And I think that in an ideal world is what a good school should give.

Above and beyond the mental tools to cope in the jobs market.

I guess that's what's thrown me with modern comprehensive education and a certain 'culture' that seems to pervade it from what I can gather from other parents: Anti-intellectualism.

I went to a grammar in 1973. I can remember spontaneously APPLAUDING the announcement of great O and A level grades in assembly, of being stopped in the corridor by younger kids I didn't know to acknowledge my amazing surprise triumph in a Y9 end of year physics exam!

Can you imagine that in a modern comp?

fwiw, I don't think that would have heppened in the comprehensive school that I went to in the 1970s

Not that I think it is the comprehensive idea that is at the root of the problem.....

I was about to post I agree ormirian- and then thought oh look who posted hmmm... is it a Somerset thing? probably not- a deprived thing? probably

The issue with catch up years is that some lea's (mine included) refuse to do anything that involves placing a child in a separate year: we campaigned for ds3 (SN, delays and a late july baby) to start a year later but they have a strict age-class policy that is unbreakable in both directions.

Class mobility is essential in terms of up and down the school sets 9rater than wc- mc- uc LOL) but even then its teacher dependant. I kept getting put in top class because I got A's in history; three weeks later i'd be put back down as that teacher thought I had an attitude (and was trying it on with my mother but - so much is dependent on te teachers in place/

I firmly believe the student loan system should be extended to further ed; I susopect its of more value to society that peolpe get GCSE maths / English anyway, and the success of schemes such as Access in allowing people to chage their life path is amazing.

I suspect yopu can pick up on indicators of poverty far younger than 11- after all barring sn the biggest indicators IIRC are parents and deprrivation based: propserity on the whole begets prosperity and vice versa 9with exceptions obv)- or at least the values that lead to prosperity in our system.

I don't think that it a 'simple' material poverty thing.

I've posted this before, I know, it is more a case of the 'Poverty of the spirit'.

So a for example.

My parents grew up in real, grinding poverty, in the 20s and 30s. No shoes for the kids this winter, next to no food on the table poverty. My mother's mother was a widow and cleaned public toilets and took in washing type poverty in the Rhondda valley.

and horrid cliche that it is there was a massive drive to get an education at that time. men worked all day and then built workingmen's libraries and chapels that ran Sunday schools. They played in brass bands and sang in choirs. the parents were desperate for their kids to do better.

and this feeling was still there when I was growing up. If a chance fell your way, only a bloody fool would pass it up.

but it doesn't seem to be there any more. materially they are much better off, but that drive to get an education isn't there any more, or at any rate, not to the same degree

(relise I sound a right old fart btw)

I have noticed this, too. Obtaining money is seen as important; education isn't. When I try to explain to people from all classes that what I want for my children is an education that will set them up for life, not just for good jobs, they look blank. I want their educations to be something they can draw on in good times and bad.

I find that I have to provide that bride1. To a great extent. And the teachers appreciate that although my DC may well be more or less average re reading, writing and numeracy, they have a wider vocab, general knowledge and cultural appreciation than most of their peers. But it's such a shame that it has to come from the parents for the most part since most don't bother.

"and horrid cliche that it is there was a massive drive to get an education at that time. men worked all day and then built workingmen's libraries and chapels that ran Sunday schools. They played in brass bands and sang in choirs. the parents were desperate for their kids to do better." And now education as a valuable asset in itself is seens as the preserve of the 'middle-classes'? That is so sad.

peachy - I don't think its a Somerset thing. I have friends who brought their DD's up in Hertfordshire who met exactly the same response. I think it's a general thing. We just have to hope that if you try to give your DC the best start they come back to it later.

And MB if you are an old fart, so am I. But I suspect I was born like that

Well Im meant bridgy thing but didn't want to seem bridgwater-ist LOL. I know it is wiodespread though: you get it here as much.

Interesting MB: I had large amounts of discussion about that last year with a lecturer from the valleys, about why there was this huge drive to eductae in Welsh mining areas0- nursing, teaching etc- and yet not where I come from. He reckons I should do a Thesis on it one day- there's also a related one on religion in Wales and pseudo religion back home in other formats (Ormirian will get what I am referring to - I know Dh will ) .... lecturer felt there was a link with religion directing the community, I'm ot sure.

Hmmm I suspected you did

And yes I can guess what the 'pseudo-religion' you refer to is. Lo! The great festival approaches .

When I was growing up education practically was a religion!

Or at any rate they went hand in hand. Non-conformist religion, socialism and self betterment.

You were expected to be able to sit still and listen, to know quotes from the bible off by heart, to be able to sing and recite in front of 100s of people without flinching or getting stage fright.

Shit, I couldn't teach if it wasn't for the grounding that Mrs Alner gave me in Sunday school....'Stand up straight and make sure the people in the back can hear you'. Do that at 5 and the world is your oyster, let me tell you!

Yes--the loss of non-conformist religion and Fabianism and their emphasis on self-betterment, sobriety, thrift, etc, is a huge cultural loss, and it hits the hardest those who need the most help to escape poverty.

What would fill the gap, I wonder?

Not reality TV, that's for sure.

Count me in to the old farts association.

Damn there is mileage in that thesis then..... just ned Dh to stumop up - no chance best qualify first then ay my own way

Can I join the Old Farts Association too, please?

I went to parents evening tonight. Whilst sitting in the car with the DSs, I asked about which sets they were in for their core subjects. I care about their absolute achievement, by and large, not relative, so didn't know. The BIG surprise was that DS1, (9) is in set 4 out of 5 for literacy! I carefully ascertained who was in the higher sets and was (secretly) horrified, tbh. A clear case of a DC Not Performing anywhere NEAR his best! Then he uttered Those Words: 'Well, I can't see the point of literacy, really mum. I mean, you don't need it to design or build cars, do you?"....WHAT?!

I (sheepishly) admit I immediately retorted that you certainly need it LESS to DIG the roads on which those cars will travel, my son!

Frankly, I'm a bit shocked that our efforts to instil a good work ethic and an understanding of the "Why's of education" in our 9 yr old DS has resulted in THIS!

Anyway, I had a chat with his teacher and we are of one accord about how we are going to 'push' this envelope.....

SO should I stop banging on about how lower achieving DSs muck about more as MINE may well we right in there, allegedly 'clever' enough but can't be arsed coz he can't see the point....

Argh.

C'mon in, gaussgirl.

Ah we also had parents evening

DS1's was the usual- although his reading age is now age appropriate which is wonderful (but everything else way behind and he might get thrown out because of his behaviour).

DS2 is the NT one- and just gone up to Juniors 9 he's gone from being a serious concern in reading to a year above in reading age and ahs dropped from top maths to bottom maths.

At some point I will lose the will to live!

Ah. Yes. Cantbe-arseditis is a serious condition amongst children from all backgrounds . You have my sypathies gg. My eldest was told he was 'so laidback he was horizontal' in Yr4. But he got 2 level 5s and a 4a in his SATs because the teachers put a rocket up his bum. And now he's at secondary he is having such a good time no-one needs to apply the rocket (so far).

Either the pressure has to be on constantly (exhausting for everyone) or something has to fire their enthusiasm - a teacher, a new peer group, a subject, or a new goal in sight.

'something has to fire their enthusiasm - a teacher, a new peer group, a subject, or a new goal in sight. '

That's true, ds1 just won a county art comp- because it was something that made him enthusiastic

Congratulations small peach! What did he do?

It was a fireworks thing, safety awareness- has to go to City Hall for a prize apparently. He's well made up and has spent his pocket money on a pack of savers copy paper for drawing on

I also wonder if teachers don't always give children the bigger picture about why learning stuff is useful and what it all means. Perhaps because they are focused on tests, and also because they don't always think these things through themselves.

I remember not seeing the point of chemistry and doing relatively badly in it, even though I was bright and academic. Our chemistry teacher was well-meaning and tried hard, but he never told us what chemistry actually was. It was just a series of experiments and equations you were supposed to learn, but no bigger picture. I now write about science for children and I know that chemistry is about everything - what everything is made of, how different substances join together to make other substances - and that knowing about this could get you a job, say, inventing food flavours, mixing up colours for make-up, setting up explosives to demolish buildings, designing tests to see inside the body, etc. And furthermore, no one even knows yet what matter even is, so that's still to be discovered. It could have been fascinating. Good teaching is a lot to do with latching on to what does inspire children and kick-start their imagination - not just battling to suppress the rowdy.