1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Behaviour in Bog Standard schools compared to Grammars

Discussion in 'Education news' started by binaryhex, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. Landofla

    Landofla Established commenter

    @needabreak try reading my post. Those kids are going to the PRUs, as they always have done.

    @Jenkibubble I wouldn't be happy about Oxbridge pressure in Year 7. As if grades in Y7 have any importance on successful Oxbridge applications. The OP is saying grammar schools should be an option for everyone, especially for children like your daughter.
     
    sabrinakat likes this.
  2. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Perhaps you should read mine. Schools are not referring as they would years ago for fear of appearing failures. If they were no one would be complaining about "ferel" children for want of a better word.

    Let's be honest here Grammars are for aspirational lower middle classes to escape the "riff raff". If you can get people to despise their own class as dimwits you have declared there is nothing that can be done to help them. You effectively wash your hands of them.
     
    peggylu likes this.
  3. Landofla

    Landofla Established commenter

    @needabreak you seem to have such a lot of respect for comps. I'm bored of your argument to be honest.
     
  4. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Perhaps we should all be issued with a sonic screwdriver. :D

     
    Anonymity and peggylu like this.
  5. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    If that is your only response to...

    ... I take it you concur.
     
  6. hhhh

    hhhh Lead commenter

    Why is it ok to condemn 'not so bright children'?
    And children do change-the top in my primary got low grades at 15. Some of the best sixth-formers I've taught weren't great at 11. Sometimes this was because of undiagnosed medical issues, eg hearing impairment, or SEND.
     
    needabreak likes this.
  7. peggylu

    peggylu Star commenter

    Yes, yes, yes.

    Then fund them generously with the money no longer needed for new grammar schools. This way these children, many with complex mental health needs or behaviours caused by/modelled on home lives and circumstances that we can't even begin to imagine, could have a level of support and personal input that might actually stand a chance of making a difference.
     
    katykook, chelsea2 and needabreak like this.
  8. Landofla

    Landofla Established commenter

    @needabreak it bores me still. Schs are still referring. PRUs and SEMHs are increasing in size, in the Midlands anyway. Those kids are still the minority though & not responsible for all the bad behaviour seen in the comps.

    I didn't reply as your lack of commas had irritated me, as did your spelling of feral. Didn't know what "rifle raff" was but then you changed it. Quite liked it as well.
     
  9. Landofla

    Landofla Established commenter

    @peggylu those schs are already massively funded.
     
    peggylu likes this.
  10. peggylu

    peggylu Star commenter

    I know they are well funded, and rightly so. But I was particularly responding to the point made by @schoolsout4summer about lowering the current bar for disruptive and troubled children who are currently in mainstream to to allow them access to such specialised provision.

    As implied in that post, this would mean more special schools and PRU's would be needed again (many were closed down precisely because they need such high funding levels). This would then remove much of the problem that the OP was citing to support a perceived need for lots of new grammar schools. The millions saved in not needing new grammars could fund increased specialised provision units.

    Instead of removing the brightest from mainstream, remove the disruptive. The brightest now don't have to...

    (Not quite how I'd put it, but you get the OP's point).

    And, the children who really need that specialised support also have their needs met in a more personalised way. They could potentially have their lives turned around rather than going through 5 years of being 'the bad kids' and shunted from school to school.
     
    wordsworth and needabreak like this.
  11. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    I'm sure there were threads on correcting posters on here in the past.

    Feral is not a term I use to describe children, last time it was used here I had to check it... *anyone who reads my posts knows how Dory I can be. It is not easy on my phone juggling glasses, scrolling back and forth with fat fingers with dodgy keys and switching tabs, while grappling with predictive text isn't really my thing... shoot me now :p

    There was me thinking it was my point of view that bored you.
     
  12. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    Dare I say the belief behind it might be that the brighter children deserve better, while the troubled children do not deserve better.

    It appears to be the only reason I could think of that anyone would not want to cater for the troubled children in specialised units, in so doing dealing with those who are believed to cause the actual problem rather than the apparent consequences of their behaviour on others.
     
    peggylu likes this.
  13. ViolaClef

    ViolaClef Lead commenter

    Is it not possible to have a range of schools so that every child's needs can be met? If it is appropriate to place some children in special schools where their needs can be addressed, why not allow others to opt for a more technical/practical pathway with suitable skill qualifications at the end, others with talent in the arts to go to music, drama or ballet schools etc., and those who are academically inclined to go to a school which will challenge and stretch their minds?
     
    Starling2 and Anonymity like this.
  14. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    I do believe this has been done... can't think why they stopped it... er let me think. :oops:
     
  15. ViolaClef

    ViolaClef Lead commenter

    @needabreak You seem to be referring to the tripartite system, but I am suggesting a range of places and learning environments which would genuinely meet the needs of the children attending them.
     
  16. needabreak

    needabreak Star commenter

    I see. Shame that is not what is currently being proposed... just more selection that is meant to be a cure all. *sigh.
     
  17. BillyBobJoe

    BillyBobJoe Established commenter

    I don't get why people think "comprehensive" means "one size fits all". I've taught in a comprehensive where some senior students were out 2 days a week learning trade skills, others were working on their ASDAN award in the hope that they'd be able to function independently once they left home, and still others were finishing applications to Oxford and Cambridge while preparing for 4 A-Levels. And that was a comprehensive with some serious problems. I went to an excellent comprehensive and an excellent FE college, getting AAAB at A-level before going to university (would have been Cambridge but botched the STEP).
     
    Laphroig, dleaf12, chelsea2 and 4 others like this.
  18. Geoff Thomas

    Geoff Thomas Star commenter

    Binaryhex's view is very different to this one. And I know which I tend towards.
     
    needabreak and chelsea2 like this.
  19. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    No good in rural areas with poor transport links and huge distances. And no good in urban areas with endless traffic jams. Some children already spend a couple of hours a day travelling to and from school. Such a scheme would ensure even more pupils travelling for further & longer to reach the school which addresses their particular skill set.
     
    wanet likes this.
  20. PeterQuint

    PeterQuint Lead commenter

    No, shame on you.

    Grammar schools belong to an era that's long gone, and with good, logical reason.

    We used to have a system where 20% of pupils passed 11+ and went to grammars, most of those did A Level, and about 5% of the population went on to university. Of those not going to university, a few needed further skills, but the vast majority just needed to be able to work in the local factory/mill/mine. I will concede, perhaps they were a 'good idea' back then. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was right that 80% of pupils didn't get a decent, rounded education with access to all the things grammar school kids got, but the system was otherwise serving its function of preparing children of different abilities for the word of work.

    But in the 21st Century (and to be fair it's been like this for far longer), that simply won't do. Around half (give or take) need a university education, or similar, and the vast majority need more than basic reading, writing and sums. The grammar/secondary modern system may have ben useful in its time, but is simply not fir for purpose for our country in 2017.

    If you really think that 80% of young people are 'idiot students who cannot stay in seats', then there is no hope for the country's future, whether we have grammar schools or not. Fortunately, my own experience tells me that the picture you pain is far from accurate.

    I'll tell you what, rather than just calling you a fool, may I suggest a modification to the whole idea? Something which isn't a grammar school system, but which solves the problems you propose as their raison d'être. We don't need to 'cream off' the top 20%. I think we need to 'weed out' the small minority who behave as you suggest. The big problem is not a lack of grammars, it's the difficulty that schools have getting rid of the very worst. You can't use the phrase 'permanent exclusion' without its distant cousins 'it will trigger an Ofsted' and 'we believe in inclusive education' making an appearance soon after.

    Consistently disruptive pupils should be given a chance to improve, then moved to another school to see if that works, then moved to 'somewhere else'. Bodies should be put in place to ensure that schools are not just using this to get rid of disadvantaged kids, but the threat of Ofsted should not be there. And the illogical (taken to the extremes) concept of 'inclusive education' consigned to the dustbin of history.
     

Share This Page