Friday, May 25, 2007

More Selection but Different

Several times in these ramblings, I've proposed creaming off the top 10% or thereabouts of kids, regardless of background and providing them with a decent education. (Grammar schools if you like) No mainstream political party supports this idea.

Here's another one they won't like either.

There is another group that we simply can't cope with, who are also deserving of special treatment. These are the kids who destroy every one of your lessons, are running wild at night terrorising the local inhabitants, and who are basically out of control. They vandalise and steal cars, burgle houses, mug people and generally cause mayhem. I could spend forever discussing the reasons why, but I'm more interested in getting them out of your classroom. (Actually the reason why they behave like they do is very simple; it's great fun and there is no reason for them not to.)

'Borstal' is one of many words that you simply cannot mention in polite educational circles. Let's call them something different then. Most 'initiatives' for naughty kids have extremely cool names invoking sport, fast cars and success. Let's call them 'Second Chance Turbo-Charged Rides For Winners' (feel free to suggest better names).

Heads would have to justify sending their little brats to these establishments but they should never be made to feel that doing so will count against them in any way. The regime would consist of early starts, lots of hard physical outdoor work, education and discipline. Exactly the same as basic training in the Army but perhaps we won't teach them to shoot straight though.

After six months if they have behaved, they leave, hopefully having gained the following

1) Able to read and write better
2) Able to make their own bed, keep themselves presentable and clean
3) Able to get to where they should be on time
4) Able to communicate with an adult
5) Maybe, just maybe discovered that they could actually do something for the first time in their lives.
3) Determined not to return because it was pretty unpleasant.

And you have had six months without them.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

There already are places where problem children are sent.

Unfortunately, good children are sent to the same schools, thereby ensuring that their chances are destroyed.

dearieme said...

Och, just cut their goollies off.

delroy said...

The Krays had the benefit of much of what you propose.
Didn't do us, the ordinary folk, much good at all.

Anonymous said...

Delroy's missing the point.

While the Kray's were out of circulation, they weren't destroying others' chances.

Bag said...

This is a total disgrace. You need to get your act together. A school year is 10 months not 6. Let's add in the extra 2 months so they can have a better chance in life. So they need to go for 12 months not 6. Not being out and about in the school holidays would be a bonus for all thoise that leave their houses during the day. And don't forget if they don't pass there is always next year.

Anonymous said...

The Youth Hostel Association, being charitable, started to run schemes for disadvantaged kids to have a holiday. They called it 'Give Us A Break'.

It was quickly rechristened - by those having to work there - as 'Chav Camp.'

The Tefltradesman said...

"Give Us a Break"? More like "Give us a Break-in", I suspect.

Anyway, the days of creaming off the top 10 or 15% of super-pupils, as Frank has suggested, have long gone. That might heve been fine when only a few kide went on to university, like back in the 1950s, but nowadays there are a lot more heading that way.

It would be far better (and cheaper) to just give the school-kids a choice at 13 years old, something like this:

Do you want to go to an arty- farty academic school, and study lots of nonsense about history, chemistry, foreign languages, and all that useless guff? Or would you rather go to a vocational school, where you could play with bricks and learn how to count backwards from 301?

My guess is that this system of 'self-selection' would be a winner, achieving the aim of 'creaming off' (or rather, scrubbing out) the dross, whilst giving those who want to learn the chance to do so.

Do I hear Blue Labour taking this one up?

Bill Sticker said...

I'm with 'dearieme' on this one, the goolies have to come off. Chop them off this minute (Very nice thinly slices and fried with Sainsbury's Tomato & Jalapeno relish).

Remember 'Not the nine o'clock news'?

Regards

Bill

Anonymous said...

The places where problem children are sent are nothing more than holiday camps. They do whatever they like as the staff have absolutely no way of controlling them. Most tend to be too airy fairy anyway.

A borstal type establishment run by people who actually have a bit of discipline sense is just what we need.

It would probably be the only chance any of these brats would have to learn anything

Anonymous said...

Oddly, the Army used to be the usual place for these kids. If they want to create mayhem, let them - in a semi controlled way. Afganistan....Iraq....Zimbabwe would be a nice holiday for the little wonders.

sandy said...

From today's issue of the online Guardian:

"Tory confusion as Willetts seeks to reassure rebels over grammar schools

Shadow cabinet member Dominic Grieve speaks out for selective eduction."

So, they're in favour of 'selective eduction' now, are they? Obviously not the product of a grammar school, that writer / mis-speller!

Anyway, my point is this - that the Tories (the old ones, not the new lot) appear to be shying away from stating the obvious, i.e., that Grammar Schools are fine in white areas where there are enough middle class kids to fill them, whereas Academies are more appropriate for black areas, where there is a need to herd mobs of wanna-be Gangstas into a gulag-like environment.

I can't thhink why they haven't come straight out and 'said it like it is'. After all, that Cameron's guys a bit of a hippy rebel, isn't he?!