Labour's Education Policy

[Lonelymum]

Just been listening to Labour talking about their education plans on the radio and I am so enraged. I know it is very left wing on this forum, so perhaps one of you lefties would like to explain to me why my children's education is about to suffer?

(I favour selection, but do not have the moeny for private education).

[edam]

I think you'll find lefties (and the whole Labour party) are opposed to the government on this one - it's typical Tory Tony stuff yet again. Calls himself Labour but every breath, word or deed is anti-Labour.

Personally, I think it would cause chaos. Applying for school places is hard enough already. Under Tony's plans, as I understand it, you'd have to negotiate different admissions procedures and policies for each school. Nightmare.

[spacedonkey]

There is nothing left wing about this government

[Lonelymum]

Well, it is lefter than I am when it comes to education. I thought it was all meant to be about choice, but I have no choice whatsoever and I really don't want to see my children's education going the same way mine went for the same reasons (labour Party policy).

[AngelaD]

Oh what have they done now ?
The whole Nulabour era will cause us 30/40 somethings pain for the rest of our lives, bankruptcy's are up by 14%, people will be loosing their homes by the end of this year, how are we going to save for our pensions ?
the whole buy now pay later culture GB has created is coming home to roost, it's time to pay and schools are going to suffer along with everything else.

[spacedonkey]

mmm I don't know if the buy now, pay later culture can be laid at tony blair's feet

still hating Thatch

[Lonelymum]

At least Thatcher was trying ot give parent choice in their children's education. I strongly feel Labour are content to allow everyone to be educated to the lowest common denominator (IYSWIM - bit of a mixed metaphor there).

[ladymuck]

It's so difficult though. Education policy has got to look at what is good for the country, whilst as parents we want to look for the good of our own children. Who looks out for those children who don't have their parents looking out for them? And how do they do so in a fair way.

I've no answers though. My intuition on this one is to invest in teachers, as I think it is they who have the real option to change a child's life, but that is based on my own expereince. I can look at 3 teachers who have had a profound influence on my life, and enabled me to have options of which my parents were totoally ignorant.

[mszebra]

cor blimey, no lefties on this thread so far, eh!?
well, not counting me.
My main problem with the reforms is I can't figure out why they are necessary, but I don't like selection in principle, either, at this age... DH would have passed an 11+ but I would have failed, so would most of my family; mostly late-bloomers on my side.

[edam]

at the idea of Thatch caring about education. That'll be why she spent money subsidising private schools while starving state schools of resource so children didn't have enough text books to go round then. How on earth are you supposed to learn if you can't take the book you are doing your homework from home because there are only copies for half the class?

[drosophila]

You might find this interesting reading
Blair takes eduaction back to the 1930's

[Lonelymum]

edam, I have no idea, bt I was educated beofre Thatcher had an impact and I had the problem of no text books to go around too. I blamed that (perhaps mistakenly) on the govt of the time - oh it was Labour.

[fairyglo]

Can't believe people are still blaming Thatcher for current policies. No wonder this government can do anything it likes - 15 YEARS ON. John Prescott summed up for me this Labour government's view on education when he said recently that reforms shouldn't go ahead because "if we create good schools then everyone will want to go to them". Umm, and this is a bad thing?

[edam]

I'm not blaming Thatch for current policy, just reacting to Lonelymum's post where she cited Thatch as someone who promoted choice.

[GDG]

fairyglo - are you serious?! He said that?

Agree re: MT (although also agree that it's not quite what edam was saying here) - anything TB does wrong is MT's fault anyway - very bizarre.

[Lonelymum]

The way I see it, anything that happened between 1974 and 1979 (when Labour was in office) was the fault of the Conservative administration that proceded it. Anything that happened between 1979 and 1997 was ther fault of the government (Conservative). Anything that has happened since is the fault of the the Conservatives.

Errrr, when are some people going to realise the blatant unfairness of this?

Oh and meanwhile, can my son have the opportunity of going to a school that will recognise his talents and do everything to promote them, instead of a school which will say he is pretty well off for opportunities given his parent's income and encouragement and leave him to swim as best he can?

[fairyglo]

To be honest I think it all started with Shirley Williams getting rid of grammar schools. I'm sure she had really good intentions but I don't know why she didn't just think it might be better to put loads of money into the schools with less academic children rather than just pulling everyone down to the same level. Once you do a really big change like that, pretty much all that follows for a good few years is just fiddling around at the edges.

[Lonelymum]

That is certainly how dh and I see it - that everyone is being pulled down to the same level. Equal opportunities is all very well, but surely we want the level to be high?

Also, I don't understand the so called specialist schools they introduce, technical colleges and the like, and yet they are against schools who specialise for the academic.

[GDG]

Are you not in a grammar school area LM? We are lucky, IMO anyway!, to still have the 11+ here. Hope it remains! A way to go till mine get there!

[Lonelymum]

No GDG, we are not, and despite moving around a lot, haven't been in a grammar school area since our eldest was 2. Hang on in where you are, whatever you do, as you will be glad of the opportunity of the 11 plus when it comes. Incidentally what is the schooling like for those kids that fail the 11 plus where you are?

[Klauz33]

[ladymuck]

But when you're looking at education policy for the whole of society, then the issue isn't about selection per se, it is about what do you do for those who are less able at 11, and how do we raise the standards for everyone. That is a different issue than how to ensure each individual gets to the peak of their potential (which the grammer system achieves for the top 33% but not the others).

If you have 11+ and grammars, then you generally have a secure outcome for the third or so who pass selection. The trickier issue is what you need to do for the two-thirds who remain. The problem with selection is not that selection per so is wrong, but that if you have schools for the "bottom two thirds", what are their aspirations and how do they work?

I'm unsure of the city academy strategy overall (seems a bit strange to have some schools being so differently run), but we have one in our borough. No idea what the school is like (the ds's are a bit young, and to be frank we are likely to go private regardless), but the turnaround in academic results is stunning. The school has gone from being one of the worst to one of the best in the borough ont he basis of results. I'm just not sure how they have managed this.

[drosophila]

Where I went to school in Ireland there was no selection, everyone just went to their nearest school. Each academic year was then streamed according to ability and it was a pretty rigid affair. There was only one opportunity in 5 years to move out of your stream.

I think that if there is selection it needs to be very flexible and allow movement between streams or schools. You also need to ensure that the worst teachers are not given to the less able children (this happened in my school).

I was in the botton stream for three years and was then moved up after doing my exams (similar to O Levels) and can tell you that to this day those three years in the lower stream have affected my confidence. I keep wondering when work are going to suss me and demote me.

One of our teachers was so bad he used to come into class get one of us to read aloud from the text book and then say I will be back later. We would then see him jump into his car and drive off coming back just in time for the end of lesson.

Rigid selection or streaming is really bad for self esteem but if you know there is mobility then it may work.

[Lonelymum]

Dropsophila, that sounds awful and you have my sympathies.

But then, I went to a comprehensive and one that had a good reputation (and an even better one now I recently discovered) and I had a whole succession of the most deplorable teachers. (I feel qualified to say that as I went on to become a teacher myself). One used to spend the whole lesson chatting up the most attractive girls in the class while the rest of us were left to get on with our work as best we could (or in my case, not bother to work at all). I had a lamentable education from 11 onwards. That is what really puts me off sending my children to a comprehensive, even one that has a good reputation. I don't trust the system. I know it is because it let me down, but, like you, we are all affected one way or another by our experiences.

[drosophila]

LM how did you manage to become a teacher having had such a poor eduaction. Just nosey.

I think the trick is flexibility and truely believing that kids can become more academic as time goes on.