Bravo! You have nailed it. No discipinary consequences, homogeneous streams, crowded classrooms, and the PC ethos have served, in Canada, to ensure that everyone's education is tainted by the aforementioned educational underclass. Teachers spend most of their time keeping an eye on the troublemakers, to the detriment of the rest of their students.

Simon Lewis, Saskatoon, Canada

This point is so right. I have been a classroom helper in a primary school in my retirement and have seen how much of the class teacher's time is taken up by just one or two disruptive children. Sure, the little rebels may have family problems or other handicaps and this must be recognised, but I often felt so angry that,for the rest, learning was and development was kept on hold.

Keith SLATER, Preston,

It's all very well looking within the education system but there needs to be a culture shift within social services and also within the judicial system.
Too often parents are abusive to staff or support their children when their children are disruptive and rude. Or the parents don't care. There should be greater incentives and far more consequences to encourage better parenting.
In other countries pupils will be stopped progressing beyond their academic year if their work is not up to standard, often not measured with standardised testing but within the school. An entire year's worth of work counts. Being able to hold pupils down years can improve motivation as they lose their friendship group. The standards can be set on work completion and effort, rather than exams and grades.
Finally there should be more "secure units". Expel the pupils, get them out, get them into a rigid structure of discipline and training. Make them proud of their achievements, yet severe consequences.

David, Reading,

Why overlook simple streaming within comprehensives, where current results determine the class the pupil is allocated to for the subsequent year. (ie. dynamic selection not "one off").

I have had the pleasure of teaching both the top and bottom stream for GCSE in the same year. It was a joy. It enabled me to tailor lesson content and disciplinary approach accordingly.

The top set was stretched - their potential not squandered by the limitations of teaching to the mixed ability denominator. At the other end of the spectrum, the (considerable) disciplinary issues of the pupils in the bottom set were not exacerbated by boredom enflamed by their inability to engage in lesson content suited at the "average". Result - they TOO learned even if it was just slight improvements in literacy.

Both sets gained educationally and I got to teach rather than run crowd control. Very different from my mixed ability experience. Same spread of kids - same teacher - very different outcomes.

Alex, Cardiff, UK

The disruptive minority is quite often larger than this article brings to light. After gaining very goods STATS results at a state primary school my older son fell backwards rapidly in his first two terms at a comprehensive school, his writing became illegible, his reading, spelling and maths ability fell dramatically. All due to the day in day out disruption in class. Spending £1.2m to revamp tired buildings and installing a "Super Head Teacher" did not resolve the problem of a very disruptive element. During his second term he started to refuse to get out of bed and attend school. I was left with no option but to transfer him to a private school and pick up the cost. After just one half term at a private school with realistic class sizes and no disruption he is full of confidence, writing legibly, reading vociferously and completing homework enthusiastically. That just leaves the Government with the problem of my pension contributions as they are now being spent on education!!!

PJP, Birmingham,

I think that you are being unnecessarily harsh on these disruptive students. Of course, there are some who have severe behavioural problems, but I feel that many are just not cut out for the academic life - and that's okay.
I feel that we need to re-open some of the old 'tech' style schools, where although some academic classes are taught (English & mid-level maths), the main emphasis is on practical life skills and trades - such as mechanics, gardening, cooking, animal care, carpentry, etc, - with links to trade apprenticeships. I believe that these students would be happier getting out and doing something active and practical - rather than sitting still in a classroom for 6 hours a day.
It may also be worth putting an emphasis on those skills that they are not getting from home - communication & conflict resolution, etc.

Rebecca, London, UK

It is reassuring to read such sensible remarks. The teachers who have lost their jobs, because LEAs seized their chance to save money by closing all sorts of "special schools" following the misguided "Warnock report" and increasing dependency on political correctness, and those who face incessant disruptions in their classes now, know too well that removing disruptive pupils is the only way to deliver a high standard of education.
Teaching unions have let their members down on that issue, and often Headteachers have succombed to the need for "good publicity", thereby sweeping the discipline problems under the carpet.
When are we going to start preparing properly for the future?

A.Partington, Bury, United Kingdom

I totally agree

stringy, madrid, spain

This is, by a huge margin, the most honest, sensible discussion of the problem that I have seen in many years. Please, please draw other people's attention to what is being said here! Is anyone in Government or in Opposition, nationally or locally, listening? Please listen to us - this really does matter!

Gill, Southampton, UK

Anatole Kaletsy's comment on education is the most succinct statement I have seen on what is wrong with schools today. He has put into words exactly what I have experienced in classrooms over the last twenty years in Hertfordshire. Selection is needed - but in the form of identifying and weeding out those in need of intensive help and also those trouble makers intent on spoiling the education of the majority. A return to streaming would allow children that need a similar educational experience to be together and allow the rest to progress without interuption!

John Howard Norfolk, Tiverton, Devon, England

What a sensible article. I went to a comprehensive school and for those subjects which were not streamed (it is a fallacy that only grammar schools are selective and create intellectual divisions) I was forced to endure a spectacle in crowd control where learning was slotted in between dressing downs of abusive pupils. I disgaree with David's comment: the 'yob' element may have been characterised by low intellgience - and, often, a low income background - but seemed to have no correlation with race. The ridiculous merry-go-round of state schooling meant that every space vacated by an expelled pupil was simply filled by another disruptive character. I hope that someone will hve the courage to allow a system whereby disruptive pupils can be permanently expelled, and not simply sent of to a fresh hunting ground.

Clare, York,

I think "Yes, yes, YES" probably sums up my reaction too.

Though I would probably take slight issue with the "mixed ability teaching works" until 13 or 14. I went to a grammar school and even in that already selective environment I remember the sheer joyous relief when we were streamed in the second year and were finally able to get a better balance of abilities within the class. And if mixed ability teaching at 11 within a grammar school was frustrating, I don't want to imagine what it must be like in a comprehensive with a correspondingly wider ability range to begin with!

Phil, Sevenoaks, UK

Well said, Anatole Kaletsky. The key question is precisely
as he says - how to eliminate disruptive behaviour from
state schools. One answer could be to fine the parents of such children for bad behaviour. If such children are not made to face the consequences of their actions, they will
surely continue on the same negative path. Special schools would be another, but more costly, option.

David Mallinson, Laconia, New Hampshire, USA

Having myself suffered through the disruptive influence endemic in state schools (although in my case in Canada), on the whole I agree with Mr.Kaletsky’s ideas. My one concern is the inevitable ghettoization that would occur were the students with behavioural problems to be isolated in their own institutions. While it is true that liberal funding would go a long way in helping to solve these behavioural issues, there is always the risk that being only with other problem students could make things worse, and it is certain that no amount of funding would be able to erase the stigma of having attended such a reform school. Is this worse than having difficult students disrupt the education of others? It is hard to say. However, the possible negative effects such segregation would have on these ‘yobs’ must be considered.

Victoria, Toronto, Canada

Bright kids can be just as disruptive and yobbish, so the answer is much tougher discipline all round, with expectations set of good, attentive behaviour in class, irrespective of 'intelligence' etc. Teachers must have the condign powers necessary to impose discipline (ie, normal decent behaviour in class!), and suspend disruptive pupils swiftly and indefinitely. Let the yobs parents sort them out, and if the don't care if their children get an education, fine them until they do care. Or, yes, put the yob-kids into borstal/care/sinbins/whatever. Just get them away from the ordinary children who do want an education.

jane, London, UK

Spot on about the need for separation, Anatole

I'm also in favour of spending to try and rescue the lives of these troublemakers who, after all, are still children and should have the opportunity to make a future.

Don't think you should set the benchmark at £40k per year though - never under-estimate the State's ability to exceed any budget by a factor of at least 3.

Just interested though. Should these children be compelled to stay at school till 18 as well? More New Labour idiocy!

Alan, London,

Mr Kaletsky is right that successful schools must be able to expand, but for competition among schools to have any real effect, unsuccessful schools must be able to close. Trying to just implement the 'upside' of competition will simply not work - it will result in a two-teir system of those successful schools (supported and growing) and unsuccessful ones which have no reason to survive.

Unfortunately, given the desparation by politicians on all sides to avoid saying something which the media can then pounce on and turn against them means such radical policies are never attempted; and a genuine test of their benefits, so clear to anyone who has studied the economics behind education, is never performed. Instead the constant need to be seen to be doing 'something' results in a drip-drip-drip approach to education which does nobody any favours.

Ed, London,

Stop blaming the underclass, change should start at the top. I suspect many problems in our society can be traced to our so-called elite. Oxbridge chooses its students on the basis of academic results and retentive memories (and class background no doubt). Thus most major public services and institutions are led and managed by people with high IQs but lacking in creativity and imagination. It is time the imagination was assessed as rigorously as intelligence when evaluating children at all levels, right up to Oxbridge entrance.

Graham Parker, Bath,

Funny, but we never seem to have this problem say 40 years ago when unruly pupils could be punished. Teachers from the 1970,s are largely to blame for the disruption in todays classrooms - there was an organisation called STOPP - school teachers opposed to physical punIshment, who along with bleeding heart do- gooders of that era removed all fear of punishment from the underclass.
My wife works in education and often says the daftest thing is that unruly pupils are excluded or expelled from school as a punishment - a bit like rewarding a mugger with the contents of a victims wallet - it's what they want, stupid.

tony, birmingham, uk

When I was at school we had 3 groupings; the top class being for those who were the brightest; the middle class for the average and the bottom class for those who needed more help. Within each class you could be at the top or bottom depending on how hard you worked and move up/down classes. There was a clamour to stop this as it was deemed unfair and made some people feel less so we got mixed classes instead. The result is that the pupils have little chance to achieve their maximum and are disruptive; this is true for the poorest and brightest pupils. You have to work hard to get what you want in this world and competition is what motivates. The most important lesson I learned was to be confident; hard working and to treat everyone with respect. Most of what was taught in maths, English, physics I have not used since I left. Give the best teachers help, improve discipline and sack complacent and bad teachers and all schools will improve.

Joseph Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland

The science of statistics tells us that childen's ability is distributed in the "Bell curve" named after C. F. Gauss. This means that about two thirds of children are within one standard deviation of the mean: in IQ terms, between 85 and 115.

Let us make a threefold separation of children. Relabel comprehensive schools as general schools, to deal with this middle two thirds. The top tail of the curve, about one sixth, would go to grammar schools, the bottom tail to new special schools.

Assessment of children by exams gives the right decision in the great majority of cases. But now there are so many more exams, at 13 for example, re-assessment can be done more flexibly than of old. This will remedy what had been an injustice for a minority.

Michael Gorman, Guildford, Surrey

The trouble with David Cameron spouting off about education is that he has no personal experience of the state education system, other than his very young daughter's few years at a Church primary school. In addition, he surrounds himself with fellow Old Etonians - who are all equally clueless. All of the comments here simply show that it is obvious to most people that disruptive pupils should be permanently excluded from the mainstream education system. In my children's above average comprehensive, teachers have been locked in cupboards, spat at and hit - let's not criticise teachers, but let's give them the right conditions in which to teach those children who want to learn.

Debbie, London,

I think the majority of the fault lies with parents who do not really bring up their children anymore.
That's why we have pupils with no respect, or fear of authority, who think they can get away with anything.

If we go back to good parenting, half the problem is solved. I lived in Italy, and the education system in Italy has none of this yobbish behaviour. what happens is that you don;t move to the next class unless your behaviour and performance are satisfactory. If we did that, a lot of 17 year olds here would still be in primary 6 - to their shame, and the shame of their parents

anna, harlow, Essex

Anatole Kaletsky is wrong on two major points:-

Preparatory schools are not simply mixed ability. They combine mixed ability classes with promotion to a higher class based on progress not age, a very major point. Second, dunces are normally creamed off when they persistently fall behind into a special stream/class.

My father and mother attended northern grammars which had been built by public subscription. This was normal before the socialists nationalised all schools where free education was provided. Schools should never be profit centres; they do not exist to make money; they have an entirely different purpose like hospitals. Capitalism only works where it is reasonable that the return on capital invested is the relevant measure of performance.

John Gartside, Bromley, UK

This article is spot on. I've taught and been a student in both grammar and comprehensive state schools. The injustice is that those who want to learn cannot in the comprehensive system. Quite rightly from parents perspectives, and i am now one myself, selection is about above all else keeping their children away from the bullies and disruptive students. It is the bottom end which needs to be addressed. These students should be given the chance and then removed and supported if necessary to allow innocent students the chance to learn. It is a social problem which is hurting our educational system. Politicians are afraid of losing votes so refuse to blame parents for their childrens disruptive behaviour. It is much simpler to blame schools and teachers, but the poor behaviour needs to first be tackled in the home.

Mr M Agass, Belfast, UK

If the country ever adopts an education culture, allegedly only to be found in the middle classes, instead of the beer, boobs and football culture that predominates, then every well meaning initiative, of which there are far too many, will have a chance to succeed. Education and discipline begin in the home, look at the best schools at any social level, and then look at the parents. The present system is unable to teach a third of its children the 3Rs to an acceptable standard at age 11, let alone sit an exam. Is it any wonder that all too many bog standard comprehensives exist.? Teachers need to be put on a pedestal, respected and supported accordingly by parents and the educational authorities.

The middle classes, learned years ago that education was an investment for their children's future well being. Instead of being derided and denied public funded grammar schools, the rest of the country should take the lead from their example for the good of all concerned.

M.Fishman, London,

How wrong some of these comments are! And even the article, while well intentioned, has serious flaws. Yes, you are right that a very small minority of children disrupt all the lessons. Yet they are not exclusively of one race or ethnicity. What the worst of them, sadly, all share is that money won't change their behaviour or ability to be educated. They cannot be educated. There is something seriously wrong with them. They are not necessarily 'thugs' or from 'dysfunctional homes': they are mentally ill, and this is the problem that no one will acknowledge. Money won't change that. They need an entirely different approach; one that takes into account the fact that they may never be functioning members of society. Can we admit that? Of course not.

Severin, London, UK

I have often wondered why education experts think that the normal rules of human behaviour don't apply in the classroom. If you are more frighened of breaking the law than of the disapproval of your fellows the chances are that you will behave. If no bad consequences follow bad behaviour then there is no incentive for the ill-intentioned amonst us to keep in line.

The watchword should be 'actions have consequences' and make sure that consequences for bad actions are suitably unpleasant. The fact that the liberal consensus tries to excuse miscreants rather than punish them is the single most important reason why discipline in many schools has gone through the floor.

Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England

With only a finite amount of resources in this country, why spend the lion's share on a small minority?

It seems insane to spend more money on people who, like it or not, will most probably contribute zero to society, than it is to give the vast majority an even better start in life.

It would make a system where, if you want your child to get ahead, they have to smash a few windows, as the 'reform' schools have the best equipment, best paid (thus, best) teachers, etc.

Don't make life better for those who don't want to live by the rules, support and reward those who try and make their own life, and others, better.

Arthur, Newcastle,

of course bringing back selection age 11, or perhps 13, would allow brighter children from poorer backgrounds access to good grammar schools which, as we all know, produce better results than comprehensives. the problem here is affluent parents moving into the catchment zone and forcing out the poorer parents. while this is horrendous for poorer children it is a far fairer situation than 'selective' comprehensive schools, such as the London Orratory which the Blair children attended. Under that situation you have a grammar school environment but with children who are there because they and their parents interview well, rather than on academic merit.

simon mawdsley, london,

The contributors who say that the teachers lack authority are right. In schools today, the children have the power; the teachers merely what personal influence they can muster. Too many are driven to surrender to the pupils' acknowledged right of choice, and descend to entertainment as opposed to teaching.

It is also true that some management teams actively oppose those teachers who believe in discipline and learning. Until this is put right, we haven't a chance.

Clearing out the worst yobs would certainly be a start, but it would be a big job. I have taught in schools which were (at a guess) composed of between a half and a third of yobs/yobbesses. My experience is not unique.

Perhaps we should start with getting the teaching and management right. The ability to exclude and punish might also be useful, but in my experience, where the teaching is good and discipline strict and kindly, neither needs to be much used.

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

Sorry but in light of the last wee Willets can no longer be described as 'brilliant'. He's about as brilliant as George Osborne.

Now as for selection - 11 was too young for boys? I think not. 5-6 years of education was ample preparation. The 11-plus was just a logic/IQ test for kids (at least, the bits of it that I remember - it was 15 years ago now). Nor was the situation practically irreversible - pupils could (and did) move 'up' on an annual basis.

The 'wrongest' thing here though is the suggestion that grammar pupils are somehow ring-fenced from "the bullies, shirkers and criminals who sabotage learning." Really, nothing could be further from the truth! It's just that the unruly Grammar School boys can still get decent grades in their exams without behaving like swots - and their classmates are less prone to their marks suffering on account of disruptive behaviour.

Dan, Lincs.,

I'm disappointed, but not surprised, to read in most of these comments an unmistakeable thread that whatever is done should be for the specific purpose of making things better for the "good" kids, and that any benefit to the "bad" kids that derives from these actions is merely secondary fall-out. This will NOT work. Remedial education must be constructed around the central concept that it's purpose is to to give major and unstinting help to children whom life has left behind; and with the understanding that passivity, however well funded, just won't be any good in the majority of cases.

It's not just a practical inconvenience that a divisive underclass should exist, it's morally repugnant. We need to recognise that children, through no fault of their own, WILL be born into unsupportive, and anti-social backgrounds, and that to end the generation-on-generation perpetuation of this, we need to stop denying that we, and only we, have the capability of doing anything about it.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

In wanting an equal education for everyone, Labour has given state school pupils an equally 3rd rate level of education ditto the poor value for money NHS. Compare the maths ability of similar age Chinese children, with that of UK children.

I went to a comprehensive school which merged with two inner cities schools. Poor discipline, large classes (sometimes 3 or 4 pupils sitting around a desk made for 2). Each mixed ability class had a number of children who always made trouble for the teachers and damaged other children’s learning.

My sister and I, with encouragement of our loving, hard working class parents, somehow managed, to crawl out of the mire and get degrees . Majority of my year didn’t get even an O level .

My son will be following the example of Labour’s Ruth Kelly and others and is going to private school from age 3, even if it means remortgaging my house.

Thanks Labour for the education stealth tax.

Labour isn’t learning

mark, south west, UK

Agree wholeheartedly.

The very culture in state schools -- for boys, at least -- in my experience, was NOT to excel in anything other than football. We were streamed at 14, and until then it was important NOT to excel, lest one be bullied mercilessly.

The "underclass" as you call them are well known by anyone educated in the state system -- being moved from class to class, gaining allies and terrorising anyone succeeding in class wherever they go.

Fortunately, in Cambridge, sixth form colleges are generally separate, and select based on academic achievement, making it much easier for students to excel when it matters and secure a place in university.

I have no doubt that the school knew exactly which students were the problem. Giving schools more power to remove such students and building an atmosphere in which it is acceptable to excel without being roughed up, threatened, is extremely important not only for the state system, but for society at large.

John Wells, Cambridge, UK

Discipline and consequence is missing from state schools. As a result, foul-mouthed kids who will feel themselves "dissed" by teachers will do whatever they please, secure in the knowledge that they can get away with it.

No more. We'll move out of London if that's what it takes to put our youngest into a decent school and leave the capital to its smug levels of beurocratic stupidity and bad governance, by politicians and an excrable self-obsessed mayor. None of whom will do the slightest thing about it.

Dan, Hampton, UK

I consider myself fortune to have had my education in an era that had grammar, secondary and technical schools (perhaps a renaming in a more modern sense would allay some of the concerns about "class") My experience, as a former police offficer, suggests that the vast majority of the so-called disruptive pupils are good kids that are forced by various governments into an academic system which is totally unsuited to their latent talents. Many of the young people I met on the streets were capable, hands-on, willing to get down and dirty with mechanics (cars) enginering (dens in odd places) and electronics (computer and various other gadgets). what the present system does not recognise is the great untapped wealth of these kids' talents is being shunned by modern policy. Teach them how to use their talent and enthusiasm to earn a respected place in society. Give them the education they deserve. After all how many in government could fix their car, rewire a house or even run a business?

Brainerd, Oadby, leics

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

J Barker, Stoke, UK

Why split the class or the English society with brand consciousness about schools. In your write up, you spoke about popular schools , which connotes that are other segment of schols "unpopular" (sic) ????? If we give an insight into the parental psyche, we observe that consciously or unconsciously, we reflect upon our child, the aspirations or unfulfilled dreams of our own. We choose the disciplines, or the main streams suiting our own needs and desires and load them on our children like a burden. This at times create severe behavioural problems, when the talent and inborn skills of a child,do clash with the course of persuance. It leads to mental confrontation and some dysfunctional disorders. Let us not make the school selection as choice-laden, rather than be it more individualised, depending on the capabilities of a child.If you put a humbug yob into a Grammar school, the result would be another bog-standard product. So, lets make studies more vocationalised and job oriented.

Sanjeev Dheer, New Delhi, India

i still think the best way forward is to bring back the grammar schools and the 11-plus as it did no harm but made everyone work hard on an equal footing regardless of your background and class, if you passed you then went to the local grammar school if not then the local comprehensive, complete with the threart of the CANE if you misbehaved. I know this is probably not PC friendly but look around and all you see is deprevation and no soul left in our children and society in the uk.

s kaur, leicester, england

I have taught in state secondary schools for 25 years and think that Anatole Kaletsky is absolutely right. Those who are not academically inclined are forced to stay on at school until they are 16. in the past, this was 14, then 15, then 16. The needs of the less gifted pupils are not properly being catered for. Basically they need to be doing more vocational, non academic courses.That is where the bulk of indiscipline comes from.
To those that describe teachers as incompetent, and blaming everyone else, just try teaching the bad classes and we'll see how you get on.

Sam Cameron, Edinburgh, Scotland

As at teacher for 37 years I am so pleased you have voiced what I have been saying for years. Why should the good children have their education disrupted by the 'yobs'? Conversly the 'yobs' need specialist teaching as do the academic and those who want to learn practical skills.
What I cannot understand is why the parents of the 'good' children and not more proacive in making sure their children are not in classes with the disruptive children. This is not only a secondary problem it is also evident in primary schools.

I taught in Borstals for years and the discipline regime ment that we could actually teach nd I am sure the young people benifited from it.

Great article. Thank You.

Pat King, Buckden, Cambs., uk

Eric from Harrogate, how would you define an 'acceptable degree of competence from teachers'. I attended what could be described as a typical comprehensive, and from my experience 9 out of 10 teachers were excellent. I now know several teachers who are both dedicated and devoted to their work. Teachers often protest about their working conditions, although I would not say that it is above the level of other public service professionals.

Mr Kaletski has nailed the problem, a small minority of disruptive pupils is the greatest hindrance to recieving a decent education in the classroom. The blame for their behaviour lies at the door of their families, not their teachers.

Peter Carrol, Hornchurch, UK

Excellent piece, expertly argued. My only criticism - if it might be called that - regards the expansion of popular schools. Part of the discipline problem lies with ever-increasing class sizes; therefore, part of the solution should be to impose strict limits on pupil numbers in the classroom. That way, schools that want to expand would have to increase their resources (physical and human) and not just stretch those resources to the breaking point.

Roland, London,

My wife taught Physics for over 30 years in comprehensive schools. I have two grown up children who have taught -and continue to teach - in comprehensives for many years. Also two cousins and a niece who are also teachers. I know many comprehensive teachers. All are of the same opinion about the current state of the comprehensive school system. Their opinion is that a relative handful of moronic attention seekers continually try to dominate activities in the classroom. The morons attend school purely for social reasons - to be with their like-minded mates - and to enjoy the disruption they cause and the embarassment they cause their teachers. The collective experience of my wife, relatives and their teaching colleagues can be summed up in one sentence. "We are not able to teach properly, rather we are crowd controllers employed to keep the lid on disruptive elements of society until they are released onto the streets - whereupon they become the responsibility of the police forces".

Jimmy, Nottingham, England

I agree with most of this article - AK asked "Should these remedial institutions be called reform schools or borstals?"

I think that they should be called nurture schools, these turnaround schools should give the boundaries and firm rules and care that these children, for whatever reason, aren't given at home.

They should be the size of a local primary and have a mixture of skilled teachers and local volunteers who could perhaps offer additional reading practise one to one, local ladies who could teach basic cookery skills, gardeners to help the children to grow their own vegetables all year around and maths, english and science teachers who can bring them on in a smaller setting.

If they can improve their behaviour and attitude to learning they could then go on to a local comprehensive if they wanted to maybe a year later so they are working at the correct pace.

Tracy, Cheshire, UK

Like his fellow prosperous lefties (Willets and Cameron) Mr Kaletsky fails to provide any evidence for academic selection being bad. Certainly there is a good case for making mobility into and out of selective institutions possible, together with enabling pupils to spend part of their time in vocationally or academically specialised institutions.

However in all of the limited number of actual studies on grouping by ability there has been shown to be a marked social and developmental benefit - as further evinced by the fact that almost all mixed ability schools have selected classes in some subjects.

The hostility to academic selection boils down to one thing - left wing bigotry, yes it would be nice if everything was nice, and simple if everyone were identical, but life isn't like that.

edward green, Upminster, England

Fair point but unusually for you you touch on resources and per head funding without comment on what it tells us. The recent Treasury spending review, supported by statements in parliament indicates the taxpayer provides about £5,500 per annum per secondary school pupil. Ask any headmaster how much they see of it to run their school and the answer is almost always less than £2,500. I know that capital expenditure takes some of the remaining £3,000+ but actually much of it goes in supporting the LEA bureaucracy.

I have long suspected that an unspoken aim of the Academy philosophy was to slowly undermine and eliminate much of the LEA system. After all if all these LEA bureaucrats are adding so much value to the classroom experience of our children the headmasters, if they get most of the £5,500 directly, will be rushing out to hire them rather than employing extra teachers etc. I for one won't be holding my breath on that.

John Galpin, Cookham, UK

It must be said that schools are at present free to expel unruly pupils, the problem has always been what to do with them. I think the comments in the above article are rather sensible.

Natalie Thompson, London, UK,

Fair point but unusually for you you touch on resources and per head funding without comment on what it tells us. The recent Treasury spending review, supported by statements in parliament indicates the taxpayer provides about £5,500 per annum per secondary school pupil. Ask any headmaster how much they see of it to run their school and the answer is almost always less than £2,500. I know that capital expenditure takes some of the remaining £3,000+ but actually much of it goes in supporting the LEA bureaucracy.

I have long suspected that an unspoken aim of the Academy philosophy was to slowly undermine and eliminate much of the LEA system. After all if all these LEA bureaucrats are adding so much value to the classroom experience of our children the headmasters, if they get most of the £5,500 directly, will be rushing out to hire them rather than employing extra teachers etc. I for one won't be holding my breath on that.

John Galpin, Cookham, UK

For a significent minority of low-income, 'sink-estate' children, school is nothing more than a premonition of the awful circumstances that await them in adult life. Circumstances that they see engulfing their parents and the parents of their peer group. Any government that 'grasps the nettle' and insists that all boys from 8 - 16 spend at least half their schoolday either playing sports, learning how to ride/fix cars and box/kung-fu or otherwise earn street-smarts would see a miraculous change in society. The elitist/pseudo-feminist assumptions behind the educational agendas of modern elites betray a myopic failure to understand what motiviates, inspires and energises young males.
The real 'dirty secret' behind all of this is that it is the same visceral physicality that lurks beneath the supposedly more 'civilised' exterior of adolescent females. No one, male or female, wants to be raised to be call-centre drones. Or middle-class accountant equivalents. Some slaves are very well paid

Andy M, Malvern, England

A bit of common sense in the debate - thank goodness!

A L Sen, Mijas, Spain

No one will read or take this into consideration in any official capacity. Having gained my degree through th O.U. over a number of years, intending to teach because my career would end after 30 years, I followed a scheme of courses which meant that my degree was composed of mathematics and computing competencies. When I approached the Teacher Training Agency to obtain graduate entry to teaching I was told that it would be better for me to attend a PGCE course because I may not have had experience in handling a roomful of children. I pointed out that I had some life experience as required and that the examples given in the publicity, Bankers,accountants, City workers would not have had such experience.I was told that they had experience of making presentations. When I pointed out that, as a copper, I had made many presentations to young people in real time crisis situations I was advised that this was and that I should seek a post as a classroom assistant.

paul Groom, London, England

Anatole,
I tend to agree with much what you write. Not this time though. I am pro grammar and have two teenage boys in the Kent grammar system. You cannot believe the educational privileges they enjoy. And why not. They are by and large being educated alongside their educational peers and as a result enjoy a level of education not available to most state educated children.

Almost by definition, in replying to your article on Timesonline, I must be a pushy middle class parent. So be it. What the do gooders - like Etonian Cameron - do not realise is that the disruptive underclass may be as much as 20% of all state school pupils. Close the last remaining grammars and you encourage more children to leave the state system.

David Burdon, Ashford, Kent

Classifying children as "yobs" is what the matter is. No child wants to be referred to as a yob. Try to respect each child from a young age and give them a chance. If a child believes that he or she is "underclass" thats what you'll get.

Alison Thomas, Vancouver, Canada

Anatole Kaletsky has hit the nail on the head!

RH McB, Ballynahinch, Co Down

There is a big difference between children with learning disabilities who are repeatedly stumped by the content of regular lessons, and those who disruptive, anti-social, physically violent, and verbally abusive. For the former group, there are teachers who have studied and taken specialized training to help. For the latter group, there are none. Segregating such students from the general population may be a good idea to ensure those who want to learn can, no matter how much effort that may take. Realistically, what teacher would want to work at a school for children who don't care, won't learn, and threaten anyone who attempts to make them? Kids who are disruptive are no longer impressed by threats of violence because they themselves are violent. Nor do threats of expulsion work, because they're only too happy to stay away from school. Something else needs to be thought of, and it's not easy.

Sarah, Ottawa, Canada

If we have everyone doing well academically, who is going to do all the McJobs? More immigration and more social disquiet?
The job of politicians is to make everyone think they can be a millionaire, whilst being only too aware themselves that for every miliionaire there are hundreds of poorly paid. Without slavery enforced by physical chains, those in authority need pople to think with a slave mentality and put those chains on themselves.
Academic education does not produce intelligence - you can see that only too well from senior civil servants and their like. But it's a good way to tell Dominic he's a winner and Kylie she's a loser.

eddie reader, birmingham, uk

I went to school in the East End of London from the mid 60s to the early 70s. There was no such thing as the 'underclass' then.

Disruptive pupils, yes, pupils who could disrupt an entire school, no.

If you think there is an 'underclass' in this country it's because you want one.

Richard, London, England

The problem is just the same in Germany!

Schuppener, Karlsruhe, Germany

I failed my 11 plus and treated like cannon fodder there on after.Later attended night schchool and then onto Univ but how much more advantage would it have been for pupils like me not to have been shovelled along this path.

B.LAWSON, EAST YORKS,

I think that Paul Holden has an excellent point. Education has shifted from a form that favoured boys (fact oriented, "final" exams that require good one-off performance) to a form that heavily favours girls (analysing information, lots of coursework). I wonder whether this contributes to the reasons why boys start misbehaving.

Maybe if we were just to accept that boys and girls are different in some fundamental respects it would be possible to nurture the different strengths of each individual.

And Anatole Kaletsky is correct; for the Willets proposal to work it is essential that discipline be imposed. Without it, being in a "grammar stream" will just be a licence to be bullied at many schools. Willets really seems to be saying is that a dominant anti-intellectualism present in parts of society needs to be overcome (rather than just finessed as the Grammar School system did) but this is a major undertaking.

dogides, St Petersburg, Russia

I think the media have much to answer for when it comes to UK kids. They constantly promote this mindless concept of overnight riches based on no talent all wrapped up in a me me me culture. Stop feeding the nation so much (especially televised) nonsense and maybe the kids will aspire to something more than.

A, London, London, UK

I agree with Anatole. Instead of selecting the top 20% for Grammar schools or streaming for fast track, we should select the bottom 20%. They should be separated from the rest and taught in small classes to improve discipline or given vocational training if they are non-academic. This approach will benefit the remaining 80% as they will be able to concentrate in the class, undisturbed. The selected 20% will benefit by more individual and focussed attention.

Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey

Has anyone done any research to determine how many children actually want to go to school? And why?

Let's ask the children some questions before 'we' decide how we're going to fix 'the problem'. Call it a 'market research'. Might be a good place to begin .... but my guess is that the issue being written of (above) is merely the tip of a much bigger and more complex ' iceburg'.

T. Bishop, London, UK

May I suggest a fresh approach to education. Drop the school leaving age to 12. get rid of the asbo generation of school kids as no-hopers. Those that remain are, presumably, willing students. Continually challenge the willing and concentrate scarce resources on them.

John MacKinnon, Lincoln, England

Drop the rubbish about having private, profit making schools and this is pretty much the idea that I've been promoting on the Times Educational Supplement site for the last 3 to 6 months.

I would also argue that the parents of children who have been selected for these special schools should be given support/ training too.

From several years experience in classrooms in several areas, the true disruptive element makes up about 10% at any school, the problem comes when these are seen to "get away with it" and the number willing to mess about gradually rises.

Burnden Park, Stratford, Midlands

Motivation and support from home are absolutely vital. This must be reinforced with political will, however. Without all three of these elements, nothing is possible. With them, everything is possible. I have seen in St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad), Russia, schools in which real learning did occur among students who were not evacuated in 1941-1942 during the depths of the blockade . The temperature in school rooms was way below freezing, German shelling was constant, people at home were dying of starvation, and teachers and students barely had enough food to produce the energy needed to get to school. Yet students learned. It is all about expectations from home and motivation. Little else counts. Discipline was expected and demanded, and it was present in every action. The political will was there, and it reinforced what it took for children to learn.

James, Jacksonville, Illinois U. S.

100 years ago my great-grandfather was running a boys' reform school - there seems to have been at least one for every county. Photographs show the boys looking very relaxed, peaceful and untroubled, so presumably they coped with his fairly rigid discipline.! For most of our most troublesome pupils, a complete absence of structure and discipline characterises their lives - and they bring their chaos into the classroom. A modern version of the nineteenth century reformatories might be just what is needed for these students - and could improve life immeasurably for the ones who want to work!

Gill, Southampton, UK

My daughter is a teacher in a school with a serious underclass disruption problem. She is dedicated to bringing knowledge to her students and cares deeply about them and it's heartbreaking to see her hard work disrupted by vermin who have no intention of ever trying to better themselves and who are determined to bring all around them down to their level. The sooner these children and their families are segregated from mainstrsam society the better!

Adrian Jenkins, Cardiff, Wales

this article shouldnt be allowed it is politically incorrect hahahaha

High Ranking MP, London, England

This hits the nail on the head - as someone who has experienced a comprehensive (small) and a private school (larger) I don't belive size is the critical factor between their relative failure/success. Kaletsky advocates here not putting louts out on the street but removing them from disrupting other pupils and applying proportionately more resource in bringing them in line. Until any government accepts this no amount of social engineering and reducing required university grades for comprehensive pupils will help anyone.

James, Taunton, UK

One reason they are out of control in classrooms is that they realise that even if they get 100% in an exam,they will still fail,this is what happened to me...the country is rotten with corruption.

Hugh, London, Albion

Well done, Mr Kaletsky! You have put your finger on the educational problem that dare not speak its name. However, you dare not speak the name of the thing that makes your thing not dare to speak its name: if you were to exclude all the troublesome pupils of "very low intelligence", someone would soon point out that a hugely disproportionate number of them were children of, er, a certain ethnicity. It would take a strong man or woman to stand in front of the whirlwind of righteous indignation that would brew up as a result, and neither Brown, nor Cameron, nor any member of their respective teams has the guts to do it. And because they lack the guts, indefinitely many generations of British children will have their education ruined.

David L, Leeds, UK

Three loud cheers for Anatole! I moved to the Netherlands in 2001 because of my job and since then my children have been in an independent British school. During our last stint in the UK, my son was in a comprehensive school and, although only 10 then, experienced bullying and loutish behaviour of such nature that for years he did not even want to go back to the UK for fear of coming across those children again.
Anatole's proposal would not only improve academic standards across the board, it would also take great strides in eliminating bullying, smoking and drugs from the schools.

mauro Boero, the Hague, The Netherlands

Selection is needed - just not at the school gate. A return to streaming would allow the children that need a more robust educational experience to be together - allowing the remainder to get on with learning things.
That's the first thing. Schools also need to have permitted and officially sanctioned systems of punishment. Otherwise, there will be no way of makeing the "No, and you can't make me" crowd actually conform.

Hayden, Macclesfield, uk

As is often then case when proposing to introduce change, AK takes one good suggestion - that there needs to be more discipline in schools - and then wanders off into a morass of newage thinking about profit-making private state schools and mega-growth super schools; throw in some borstals.. what else? One thing at a time! How else do you determine what actually works?

Ben Powell, Robertsbridge, East Sussex

My experience at a single sex comprehensive in London was that the whole class was taught at the pace of the slowest, most disruptive pupil. I often ended up as a de facto teaching assistant, which even at the time enraged me as I was genuinely keen to learn. Is it any coincidence that the subjects that got me into Oxford were those taught by dedicated teachers out of school hours in tiny groups of pupils who had volunteered for the classes?
Comprehensive education just doesn't work. It was a doctrinaire experiment which has doomed two or three entire generations.

CW, London UK,

Anatole has hit the nail on the head here with a viable approach that should keep most factions happy. He neatly identifies the major concern of most parents who support some form of selective schooling. Certainly if I could be assured this disruptive underclass was not present at school I would delighted to not have to choose the private education I currently do for my children.

As for the idea that the problem is down to quality of teaching staff, I just don't believe we will ever have enough resource to cope with this underclass in unsegregated schools.

James Moore, Chester, UK

I strongly agree with Karen Mutch from Exeter. There is a limit to which school can be enlarged. In a school of above 1000 pupils become an anonymous mass, where lots of pupils , especially in younger years become alienated and lost. Schools are not factories.

Alicja Mulligan, London,

Teachers, good ones (of which there are many) know that to teach you have to have good discipline first. If your management team (Head and Deputies) haven't a clue, you've no chance. You cannot, as an individual teacher, stand up and be counted(i.e. point out the need for discipline to be good in order to teach effectively) or the management goes for you(and anyone who dares side with you) and makes your life hell at the school. Yes, allow the good teachers to teach and the pupils to learn and enjoy as they are learning, but for goodness sake, please don't always blame the ordinary teacher. They know what should be done, but crazy management teams block them and allow discipline to snowball out of control. I tried to get a staff meeting on the issue when it started to happen in my school, but was threatened with the sack and disciplined for undermining the authority of the Head. Thank God for early retirement!

Neil Graham, Murcia, Spain

As someone from North America who has seen these ugly problems decades ago and seen also the various proposed solutions - all tried and virtually all failed - it is sad to read of Britain repeating it all.

This column is the first honest truth I've seen in a British paper on the subject.

Schools have more obligations today than they can possibly meet.

Having deranged and abused and troubled kids dumped into classrooms is the problem. The parents of such children typically take no responsibility and glad just to have them off their hands.

Such kids deprive all other members of the school community of a peaceful environment for learning. Teachers are not equipped to deal with them, nor should they be expected to do so.

John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada

Mr Kaletsky says that troublesome pupils tend to go to schools with fewest resources. In my experience as a school governor this is not true. In my area , and I suspect most others, the best performing schools, with the least troublesome pupils, get the least resources.

Andy Topley, Derbyshire,

We have so many disruptive pupils because we have tied the hands of teachers to intervene. Physical punishment kept the number of incidents of unacceptable behaviour to a minimum. Now we have removed it and put notihn effective in its place.

We should not spend more money on the disruptive pupils. That would be rewarding their behaviour. We need to put them somewhere to give them a taste of real discipline. This need not be expensive - but we first have to dismantle the "rights" agenda that is ruining our society.

Derek , New Forest, England

I do not believe for a minute that "the disruptive underclass" is ready nor willing to be educated. And I do believe that by age 11 you can predict fairly correctly for most children how they will do academically. Emotional intelligence (which can be measured at 11 and younger) is a better predictor than IQ.

John, London, UK

The introduction of "special" schools for children with discipline problems would be effective- there would be a stigma attached to them which would encourage families to discipline their children and encourage them to do better. Disruptive children and their parents must know that such behaviour has consequences. In countries with real poverty education is seen as something that can liberate even though the children do not have nearly as much opportunity as they do here.

Phil Mooney, west malling, kent

A lot of this is as a result of pandering to Do-gooders, the Human Rights Act and parents who haven't the first idea of what parenting involves.

It is high time that we returned to common sense and discipline.

The return of National Service would be a good starting point (for would-be parents - not their yet unborn offspring).

Tony J, Swanage, Dorset, UK

I understand that the modern school system is designed to give every child an equal opportunity to excel. This is a laudable ideal. In practice, however, political correctness, has refused to acknowledge that some children are not - and never will be - university material. This is not their fault. It is the fault of a system that insists on defining academic learning as more worthy than other learning. The old secondary modern schools were considered divisive but they did at least give non-academic students a chance to excel at something else instead. Maybe if children were not forced to study things in which they have no aptitude - purely to gratify liberal social attitudes - they would be less bored and more productive.

Margret Geraghty, Bath, Uk

I am intrigued by Kaletsky's stance - those pupils who engage in classrooms good, those who can't be enagaged in classrooms bad. Clearly we have a small minority of school aged young people who will have no resect for adults or their learning, primarily because of their upbringing. These gladly are such small minority that they go missing from schools and statistics when they fail to attend, or become tabloid fodder. The vast majority of pupils in school do well and behave well. 90% odf all schools are satisfactory or better. 90% apporoval rating in any public sector is cause fo joy, in England we rail against it. Reducing disruptibve behaviour in school is a matter of simple discipline consistently applied, denigrating a successful system leads increasingly to support these disaffected kids' argument that school is rubbish. Most importantly and I say this as the Principal of an outstandng special school don't lump pupils with severe disabilities with the delinquent few.

Richard Boyle, Horsham, UK

I recently attended a School reunion in a small Warwickshire Market Town. It was a Grammar School for which I had passed the 11 + in 1948.
My background was absolutely working class. The reunion
this year (2007) confirmed what I had long suspected. It is the parents which make the difference.
Unless the student (pupil) is exceptionally talented, and I may add, very very focused, very little progress will be made.
Sadly I lacked both.
One exception was a attractive female from my class, she,apparently married her Boss, who divorced his wife in order to make himself available. She was not at the reunion.

Peter Bolt, Redditch , UK

Whilst I generally find myself supportive of the idea that, in order to create discipline, teachers and headteachers need effective deterrants, I'm not sure that "Borstall" is such a deterrant.

Surely a child whose future was already bleak, has their snowflake in hells chance of making something of their life reduced to absolute zero from the moment that they have to write "Dr Strict's reform school for very naughty boys" on their academic record.

Some employers identify people with strong personal motivation as those who have done well from a poor background/school. These same employers don't, however, usually go out on such a limb as to employ ex-cons.

History suggets that attendance at Borstal will carry all the social stigma of a prison term. Hardly helpful to those individuals "sent down" at 10 or 11.

I do agree that the peaceful majority has the right to learn undistrurbed. Maybe each school could have its own "secure wing" instead.

Bob, Reading,

The poison of political correctness carried to ridiculous extremes has destroyed any hope of imposing any kind of discipline in the bog standard comprehensives where a small minority of moronic thugs are allowed to hold sway over the rest of the pupils and teachers. They cannot even be excluded due to the fear of court proceedings pleading their "human rights". In this atmosphere trying to engender a culture of peace and learning is impossible and even the most able pupils are affected and become discouraged.

Zero tolerance is the answer. Give back to head teachers the power to impose school rules and expel those who consistently flout them.

P Murray, Luton, Beds

Kaletsky's dilettante tip-toeing around the edges of the problem won't result in any meaningful action.. We cannot trust Cameron and Co to do what is necessary because the Tories are as much a part of Britain's dysfunctional 'liberal consensus' as are Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

We need a political revolution. Reject liberalism and its humanist 'rights' ideology per se. Replace this evil with democratism, the rule of the democratic majority, in each and every school - and every other public institution in the land. We can do it, individually and collectively. Action this day!

Terry Daly, London,

For the very best educational results, the answer is to bring back grammar schools, and re-introduce effective discipline in all schools.

Ken Miller, Benfleet, Essex

I started secondary school in 1953 in a school for working class children where the discipline was strict but rarely cruel or unneccesary. Any child who became regularly disruptive was permanently removed and placed in a remedial class within the school where a modified curriculum was taught. Thus the majority of children progressed and the school was a place of peace and safety.

Also, the school was physically divided into two sections, one half for boys and the other for girls. Boys and girls had separate play grounds and were taught in in different classes, and so there was none of the disruptive behaviour that accompanies sexual development in children.

Such simple and honest solutions cannot be imagined in today's Britain, because the root of our problems lie in an education establishment and teacher training soaked in left wing ideology. Teaching unions need to be restricted soley to pay and conditions only since it is clear they know little about how to educate the young

Douglas, Dundee, UK

Hit that nail on the head, Anatole! I walked out of my bog-standard comprehensive in 1984 at the age of 15 and threatened to kill anyone who looked like they might make me go back. I was pretty bright, but had my education ruined by an underclass (nevertheless pretty affluent materially) who beat the daylights out of me for such crimes as... well, being able to read.

In the end I went to a further ed college, then University. Both of these places had an actual learning ethos, and I did well. I don't have children, but if I did, I wouldn't let them within a mile of a comprehensive school filled with anti-education cretins of the type I had to undergo daily incarceration with. Comp schools, then and now, resemble open prisons without the discipline. They are merely tax-payer subsidised daycare, somewhere to park your kids while you go out and earn a pitiful crust to give to the bank/landlord in Blair's Britain. Cheers, Tony. Don't let the door slam on your hand as you leave...

Pat, Nottingham, UK

Well said. However do not underestimate the sheer frustration that a low ability child must feel sitting in a classroom understanding very little while knowing the others in the class are powering ahead. The conveyor belt of the national curriculum and SATs means an ill timed holiday, family break-up, or sickness can leave a kid struggling to catch up. Each school, especially primary schools, needs funding for 1 on 1 or "1 on a few" teaching to provide the basic skills that many are lacking.

MK, Milton Keynes, UK

I would guess that around 30% of the children that I went to school with (a large comprehensive in a fairly poor area of my town) were severely "anti-learning". I admit I was probably a bit of an annoying nerd but I don't think I deserved the continual hostility that was directed at me. I had to learn to keep my head low and not to put my hand in the air if I didn't want to have a hard time from the other kids during breaktime (and during classes for that matter). The teachers weren't incompetent, they simply didn't have the power to control such apathetic and violent children. I wouldn't put my own children into that sort of environment if I could help it. So I think the issue that this article raises is cruicial to making state education work, my only worry is that this "educational underclass" is far too large to place entirely in specialist schools.

Stephen Grindle, London, UK

Yes, Eric and Paul. Go on and blame the teachers! Have you thought about teaching? Do you even have the guts even to it? Atleast some people are motivated enough to try and what is more is that many among them do a superb job. A mate of mine is a teacher and he has to contend with parents telling him that their kids hate him. I can't imagine how, as he is the most consistently cheerful, superhumanly energetic person I have ever seen. I have to say I hear about some brilliant parents too. I agree with Kaletsky's point wholeheartedly although what parents (and god forbid, the middleclass parents) would say if their little darlings were sent to borstal is another matter.

Robert Grundy, London,

I'm not going to comment on this article directly, as although the argument is correct, I disagree with the morality of it. Instead I'm going to churn out a little brain wave I had when you were commenting on the 11-plus exams:

A year of inspiration.

At 13 years old (before they become disillusioned and disruptive) kids spend 6-12months away from direct academia in 'inspirational' workshops, which seek to provide them with direction and motivation towards a life goal.

Those who earn say, over £100k/annum must commit themselves to 2 weeks educating the kids on how they got there, what drives them, and the rewards (a bit like jury service). & to counterbalance, those in prison must also do the same, from the opposite angle.

What do you reckon?

Mark Temple, Woking, UK

Anatole Kaletsky makes some good points but the idea of successful schools being allowed to expand is not valid as beyond a certain size the ethos that makes that school successful would be diluted. Instead why not allow successful schools to take over and manage neighbouring failing schools? There is much scope for transferring good educational practices between successful establishments and others that need to improve. As long as such transfers are mediated by educational authorities or the government directly, best practice transfer will be slow and inefficient.

Brian Elliott, Greenville, SC, USA

I could not agree with you more. I was a teacher (of Economics) for twenty-one years. I taught at a rough high school in Sydney's south-west. The disruptive element stayed on principally because they wanted to avoid looking for a job. They stayed on at school to avoid reality, and made everyone's life a misery. Today, in both the UK and Australia we are at near full-employment. If the dross find school unsuitable today, they can go out and get a job. They can consider an education tomorrow. If principals also had the power to expel disruptive students then this would act a good incentive for students to behave and apply themselves to their studies. We have done reasonably well educating the top 20% of students. What does it require to effectively train or educate the top 25%? Getting rid of a few disruptive students will make a positive contribution, but it is not the complete solution.

Richard Flockart, CANBERRA, Australia

A tax on rubbish will not encourage as much recycling as it will fly tipping.

As a volunteer litter picker, I would also now be faced with a tax on my voluntary work, assuming I continued that is.

Paul, Lichfield, UK

Bravo Mr Kaletsky for having the courage to suggest something that is so far out of the box of conventional thinking. Somehow we must feed into the public imagination the idea that maybe, just maybe, no good solution to any of the world's problems will be found through the rigidity of orthodox thought processes. That the problems themselves are the result not of unforeseeable errors or mistakes, but of the muddled, unanalytical, assumption-based thinking that set in position the mediocre structures that are now collapsing.

Maybe then there will come a realisation that we all have intellects that are capable of currently unimaginable greatness, but only when they have been released from the requirement always to travel in a straight line.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

The only viable solution other than offering practical, trade oriented courses in tackling the (universal?) bane of problem youths, who lack not only interest in scholastic pursuits but also suffer from a pathological inability to interact with their peers -- except those on the same wavelength -- is a stint in the National Service, similar to that of Singapore's (and Malaysia's). The brilliant and visionary, albeit controversial ex-premier of that nation, Lee Kuan Yew (bete noire of one of this paper's illustrious columnists, the late Bernard Levin) managed not only to transform what was then (at the time he took over from the British) a backwater island, into one enjoying its present affluence and high academic attainments, besides earning it the moniker 'the Switzerland of Asia', but ,also, successfully solved the then endemic problem of social deviants eg. the Triad societies. He set the Gurkhas on them. To regurgitate an old cliche: "Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind."

SD Goh, PJ, MALAYSIA

The price we pay for an economy that has sold its soul to the devil. We are farming our children and not educating them. There are jobs to be done and the children are being produced to fulfil those roles. Children go to school far too young but, when their parents are being levered into work and the imperative is for us all to be earning, what alternative is there? Who is there to look after the children at home even if the system were changed? The system has no pastoral element any more. In this milieu, preparation for life is not so much the "plough the fields and scatter" of a less material world but more to do with the excitable pressure to perform, the squashing, irresistible insinuations of professional educationalist seeking to prove abstract concepts, statistics, a conceptual, post-modern hell. Billions have been poured into schemes attempting to prove that teaching levels are poor, a Manchurian Candidate world where the effects of parenting are ignored.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

Another 30 year experiment? Spend the same amount on dysfunctional remedial schools as would have been spent on Grammar schools? This would still leave the good teachers that formerly resided in Grammar schools spread too thinly over all the comprehensives and the facilities too!
A few good academies spread across the country will still deny very many excellent aspirants the chance to shine!

Jim Golightly, Prudhoe, England

In spite of regurgitating a few untruths about independent schools (I teach in one) such as "creaming off" and "privilege" &c, your voice, Mr Kaletsky, is long overdue. The problem is a lot deeper, though; underclass children will not respond to education unless their parents learn to value it. One's views of education cannot be isolated from one's wider social outlook. All the evidence points to independent education as the best solution; wherever the state gets its hands on education it destroys it and if you don't believe me, look into the work of the Edwin G West centre at the University of Newcastle, particularly on the impact of Gordon Brown's campaign for 'free' education in Kenya.

Education is already compulsory here; make every school independent, make every parent pay for it and give them a cut in regressive taxation. That's all you need to do.

Michael, London,

Yes! Yes! Yes! I have been waiting so long for someone to say these things with such clarity. I was not an especially gifted or motivated student but I ended up getting an excellent education, which I now treaure, because I was lucky enough to go to a school where teachers could focus on teaching Surely every child has right to that? And should anyone who taught at Westminster City in the Sixties happen to read this, I'm truly grateful to you.

Geoffrey, Sydney, Australia

A small nagging voice in the back of my head is telling me "Kaletsky has this the the wrong way round". Maybe it is not the underclass that are causing the discipline problems but the lack of discipline in schools that is causing the yobbish behaviour. From personal experience, most (male) school children will revert to yobbish behaviour without effective discipline and group ethos.

The problem is in the female-centric school system, the inept teaching profession and the politically correct educational establishment - not the children.

Paul Holden, Northants, UK

There are three basic changes required to return quality to education:
Pupils - nurturing them to care about what they learn and understand its usefulness by physical, visual and practical experience.
Teachers- get down there/in there with the pupils. You are too distant and so come across as an authority figure (boring-like a parent).
Finally: significant investment in one-to-one teaching time. It works in teaching musical theory and practice. It gives both pupil and teacher a sense of acheivement and respect for each other.
I know it will take significant investement of all sorts, but we all know it is right.

R. Ince, Istanbul, Turkey

Many good points BUT realise that increasing the size of a school changes its character to the extent it can change the success of the school itself. A school of less than 1000 can be a school where all pupils are known to teachers - and this is key to good behaviour.

Karen Mutch, Exeter,

Two points in response to an excellent piece.

1. Much thought needs to be given to how the excluded are to be treated - they may not 'deserve' much in one sense but a decent society is one which is concerned on both moral and pragmatic grounds not to see the emergence of an underclass.
2. State schools grow ever larger; private schools generally are rather smaller. Large schools are a splendid refuge for those who want to make life difficult for both the motivated and those who may be tempted to descend the level of the LCD. Much more thought needs to be given to what might be termed human scale education. Some state schools have recognised the need to look at structures and ways of working; too many do not.

enthusiast, Pembroke,

Of all the things that effect education and progress as a teenager, peer pressure is the most important.
Most parents maligned as pushy want to get their kids into particular schools so that they mix with other children from similar supportive backgrounds, whose parents believe in education and those odd habits like reading. Get this right and the individual qualities of the school are far less important.

Nicholas, Newcastle,

Though with no educational experience, I agree. A disproportionate amount of money spent on educating the awkward underprivileged would relieve other schools of the problem that really underlies parental complaints about schooling, and could save society money in net terms by reducing social disruption in adult life. On the other hand it will give these children a better chance of learning how they could make something worthwhile of their lives.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Perhaps Anatole Kaletsky will go on to the next logical step in this argument, which Gill has raised. Outstanding head teachers - and of course outstanding teachers - can produce the 'miracle' of orderly schools and classrooms. But where are we to get them? The current teaching force has failed in spectacular fashion. They blame the government, the parents, the children, the buildings,the curriculum,political correctness,television, money,diet - everything on the planet except themselves. It's not miracles we want - it's an acceptable degree of competence from teachers.

eric, harrogate, uk

Finally someone stands up and says what we all know. The policy of inclusion just doesn't work and no amount of political correctness or "bleeding heart" whining will make it do so. Zero tolerance to classroom disruption is the only way forward, and any student (or parent) who has a problem with that should be named, shamed and expelled. Why should the education of my children be ruined by the behaviour of loutish yobs.

Peter, Horley, UK

Your terminology is different "underclass" from the USA "underprivleged". But the issues are remarkably similar. Some families want their children to learn and some families seem to not give a damn. The mix of the two can be toxic.
My hope is that all families who do give a damn can get a good public education for their children. There are no easy answers to the dilemma of thug children from thug families in public education. Poverty itself doesn't create a thug. A family mind set, though, might just set the stage.

The question is, can we,USA and the UK, help families in poverty help their and our children to love learning and begin the process of reaching out of poverty, ignorance and dysfunctional behavior.

Mary Knight, Pittsburgh, USA

You have to be able to strike fear in a disruptive pupil if you cant get them excluded from a class immediately. In 1988 the Tories caved in to a European directive that teachers could not touch pupils. The pupils knew this very soon and Heads wrung their hands and said they could no longer support their staffs. Recently a school in which I taught had lessons criticised by Ofsted for uninspiring lessons but if the main object of the staff is to survive the day that is as much a criticism of the Authorities as of those brave enough to try the actual job of teaching

David Berdinner, Tring , Herts

I happened to sit by one of Estelle Morris's top civil servants on a train when she was Education Secretary. I told him exactly this and he said that everyone at the Ministry knew, including the Minister, but that it was "politically unacceptable" to put them out on the street to cause trouble there. The trouble is that denying them an education is the only way to stop them denying everyone else an education.

Tom Paine, Moscow, Russia (expat)

Three cheers for Anatole Kaletsky, for saying what nobody else will! David Cameron nearly caused me to throw my radio out of the bathroom window on Monday, by his bland assertion that all we have to do is import into comprehensive schools the things that made grammar schools successful. In an atmosphere that is hostile to learning, even the brightest and best motivated pupils will struggle to make the progress they would in an orderly classroom where learning was accepted practice. Since 1975 I have taught in just two 11-16 comprehensives (both, as it happened, single sex), where outstanding head teachers had achieved this miracle, and in both cases it was a pleasure to teach there; sadly, this is true in only a tiny minority of schools. In most, barely-suppressed bedlam is the norm.

Gill, Southampton, UK