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. dleaf12

    dleaf12 Lead commenter

    But some DO matter more... they contribute more to the school's progress8 ranking... they really do.... :mad::mad::mad::mad:
     
  2. PeterQuint

    PeterQuint Lead commenter

    I don't necessarily totally disagree, but it's not how I'd put it.

    Every child matters, yes. Every single one. But if a child is disrupting the learning of others, so you remove them, that doesn't mean they don't matter anymore.

    If a child is disrupting learning, and you keep them there because of inclusive beliefs, you're saying that the others who are being held back don't matter. Wel, you possibly aren't saying that, but it's the end result of your actions.

    But to repeat, I;m against a return to grammars. I don't believe 80% are holiding back the top 20%. But I do believe a small number are disproporionately holding back the majority.
     
  3. binaryhex

    binaryhex Lead commenter

    "Every child matters, yes. Every single one. But if a child is disrupting the learning of others, so you remove them, that doesn't mean they don't matter anymore.

    If a child is disrupting learning, and you keep them there because of inclusive beliefs, you're saying that the others who are being held back don't matter. Wel, you possibly aren't saying that, but it's the end result of your actions."

    Totally agree, which is why we need grammars in every town and city. I've seen too many students' life chances take a real beating because of lefty clap-trap about inclusivity. If the 5% who constantly and wilfully can't behave are put in a special school / home / borstal etc where they can do no damage to the life chances of the 95%, then that's great. They can get the special help they need, get up out of their seats and muck up every else's work and shout and disrupt and throw things in the class to their little hearts' content.
     
  4. ViolaClef

    ViolaClef Lead commenter

    Oh, dear. Perhaps all the adults in rural areas should have to go to the same place of work - it's clear that everyone ought to have the same commute. Ditto for the people in urban areas.

    On the contrary, my suggestion means more schools - and probably much smaller schools - so you wouldn't have to bus a thousand children to a particular school. And you never know, some of the schools might be in a rural area. Now there's a thought.
     
  5. PeterQuint

    PeterQuint Lead commenter

    But that's not a sustainable argument.

    It presumes three things:

    1 - The ratio of 'disruptive' kids to 'deserving' is roughly equitable to the ratio of kids who would go to grammars vs comps. It's not. Grammars would take 20, 25, 30 maybe 35%. The idea that 65%+ of kids are the problem is not sustainable. You're painting a picture where two thirds plus of students are unteachable, and that's rubbish.

    2 - The 'system's job is to get the best out of the best. The 'system' is not there to support the brightest 20-35% of kids, it's there for the whole nation. It's there to do two things: prepare the kids for the world of work, supplying the economy with a workforce fit for purpose, and making society a better place by providing it with well-rounded individuals. The grammar system fails on both counts.

    3 - Ability = behaviour. The idea that the brightest 25% all want to learn, whilst the rest don't is an idea not born out by my experience. There are plenty of bright kids who are disruptive and less-able kids who are not.

    Your argument only works if none of those is true, and the education system (paid for by all) is there only to get the best out of that top 25% ability students, who in turn are all well-behaved, and that society doesn't need the other 75% to be educated, and they're all poorly-behaved anyway. All of that is nonsense.
     
  6. Pidduma

    Pidduma New commenter

    "Perhaps we should do away with compulsory education (certainly post 16) and let them fend for themselves if they think they are so clever, although no doubt the State will have to pick up the cost of that too. "

    I have also considered the same idea. I really think that if school were no longer compulsory, we'd all have a week off, then half the class back the next week, before more or less the whole cohort back before the end of term. Education is an incredible privilege; it's a pity so few pupils have the maturity to recognise this. But it's human nature to feel any compulsory activity is a chore.

    On the other hand, talk to girls in Afghanistan about schooling. How many of those who lack the opportunity to go school are glad of the fact?
     
    jarndyce, saluki and ViolaClef like this.
  7. drvs

    drvs Star commenter

    The root problem for me is that the number of families with an appalling attitude to education has reached a critical mass. The result is that many comprehensive schools have become battlegrounds where meaningful education is relegated to the wish list and many good learners (note - good learners, not necessarily the brightest) are being poorly served.

    As a government with 5 year tenure and realistically 2-3 years to make observable changes, addressing the culture isn't going to pay back. Opening grammars and labelling them as a social mobility tool for good students may swing some votes without losing too many others.

    I may need to revise my opening sentence - having education presided over by our ridiculous flip-flop parliamentary system is the root problem.
     
  8. dleaf12

    dleaf12 Lead commenter

    Well put!! I don't like that this is so, but I think you have hit the nail on the head here.
     
    BigFrankEM likes this.
  9. streetno9

    streetno9 New commenter

    Blame is such an easy thing to attribute here: it's the naughty kids fault; it's the fault of the parents; it's the fault of the teachers who couldn't hack it; it's the fault of the senior leaders who can't lead or who bit off more than they could chew; it's the fault of the government for making so many expectations - reasonable to some, unreasonable to others.

    Then there's the sense of shame too; such a shame for all those poor kids whose situation won't afford them the right to attend a school that would see them progress rapidly; such a shame for the hard-working professionals who care so much about the kids that they go home and stare quietly into the darkness and try to figure out how to teach them, and for some, save them; such a shame for the parents that want what every parent wants: to offer their children the chance for a better life than their own; such a shame for the idealists and mavericks who work their way into a position where they can FINALLY affect change, only to be shut-down and shut-out by those from within the system.

    And let's not forget that rights are an easy thing to demand here as well: a right to a high quality education; a right to a safe learning environment where your child's needs can be met and developed under the tutelage of the finest teachers available; a right to work in a place where you feel valued and the pressure is manageable in line with an acceptable amount of expectation; a right to a place where kids from different back grounds can come together and celebrate in their differences as they forge identities. All those mission statements, mottoes and mantras...

    We can point fingers all we want - teachers want to work in good schools and parents want their children to go there. But not every school can offer that. In my humble (and idealistic) opinion, there is an argument for starting again. Trying to find a way to make the education system better. But, that won't happen. It's too expensive and too many people will have to admit having done (or backed) something that the media can paint as being "wrong". God, where would you start and how would you sell it?

    Grammar school's don't solve the problem, nor do they really contribute to it. They are an indicator of the quiet desperation surrounding education. They solve the problem, they'll make the problem all the more visible.

    This is a subject that can touch upon a lot of nerves. Hopefully this will make some of you pause for a moment and consider what we are arguing about. We all got into this to make a difference after all.
     
  10. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    Especially given that the essence of what you delicately describe as "addressing the culture" is telling these many people that their anti-school, anti-educational, anti-values (sic!)values are the root of the problem.

    Just as turkeys don't vote for Christmas, British (i.e.primarily English) voters do not vote for parties which hold up a mirror.
     
    drvs likes this.
  11. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    (i) As per my previous post, by holding up a mirror to the by now quite enormous number of parents/ electors who want high standards of behaviour to be imposed on all children. Except their own, natch.

    (ii) By highlighting that the tooth-fairy and the diet-fairy are both already overloaded with solving the problems of excessive sugar intake and lack of exercise and that there are no more silk-purse-from-sow's-ear fairies available post-Brexit so it's about time they finally wised up to the real world of British/ English state schooling.
     
  12. Incommunicado

    Incommunicado Occasional commenter

    binaryhex: you quoted "Every child matters, yes. Every single one. But if a child is disrupting the learning of others, so you remove them, that doesn't mean they don't matter anymore.

    If a child is disrupting learning, and you keep them there because of inclusive beliefs, you're saying that the others who are being held back don't matter. Wel, you possibly aren't saying that, but it's the end result of your actions."

    But then you said

    "Totally agree, which is why we need grammars in every town and city."

    Your 'totally agree..." line is a non-sequitur. What you mean is that we need schools in every town and city that are free from the impact of delinquent, uncooperative or disaffected etc students - such schools are not necessarily grammar schools. They could be Comprehensives with the trouble-makers removed (to an alternative provision).
     
  13. JosieWhitehead

    JosieWhitehead Star commenter

    I'm seriously beginning to wonder whether education should be forced on people who don't want it. If they only come to school to disrupt others, let their parents teach them. I think that things are only appreciated when people think of what they've been given as a privilege. I was lucky because I taught in Colleges of FE where students came because they wanted to pass exams for work. They knew that if they didn't want to learn there were others waiting for their place - but they did all want to learn, pass exams and get work, so discipline was never a problem. Lucky me!
     
    binaryhex likes this.
  14. binaryhex

    binaryhex Lead commenter

    I have worked in some very poor parts of the world in another life and children in these countries would die to be able to get an education. In this country, we breed chavs with an entitlement complex who need constant attention. These families should be responsible for their own children. They should not be allowed to send them to a place where they can kill off the life chances of those who want to get on. We are too accommodating and too quick to excuse children on the basis of their poverty, background, parents, circumstances and so on. You do not build resilience and success by accepting this. They should follow the rules or be booted out. They can always get a job cleaning toilets.
     
    Alldone and JosieWhitehead like this.
  15. PeterQuint

    PeterQuint Lead commenter

    What a profoundly moving, measured and articulate post that is.
     
  16. binaryhex

    binaryhex Lead commenter

    Thanks. I've been working on that piece for a few days. ;)
     
  17. Incommunicado

    Incommunicado Occasional commenter

    binaryhex, your Post 74 hits a nail right on the head. Disruptive pupils are responsible for a disproportionate and unfair negative impact on other students and an enormous hindrance to teachers wanting to go about their business.

    Your suggestion that "They should follow the rules or be booted out" is spot on. (Although they must be booted out to an alternative provision).

    It would "encourage" the rest to know that such removal is an ever-present possibility.

    It is clear, though, that establishing large numbers of Grammar Schools is not the answer to the problem that you are highlighting. Students selected for them might well benefit, but those who are not would find themselves still facing schooling in the company of disruptive students, so they would not benefit at all; in fact they would be worse off than before since the disruptive students would then form a larger percentage of the remaining school population.

    What you have been advocating is the protection of the academic elite from the effects of disruptive pupils; what we need to do is remove disruptive pupils and their damaging presence from ALL other students across the ability spectrum who would willingly strive to better themselves.
     

Share This Page