Them and us - why posh Tories who claim to care about social mobility haven't got a clue

Sorry I should have added: those children who did not have parents who would do the work with them at home were bound to fail. They were bound to, unless they were exceptionally bright and motivated.

You are a motivated parent. You will offer any help needed by the failings in the system.

Think back three, four, nine, ten years. If I didn't teach my children their times tables, they didn't learn them. If I didn't read, they were listened to by the teacher once every half term.

It was a move away from didactism to child-direction. Didactism was seen as oppressive. Indeed I have spoken to an old-fashioned, now retired teacher who at one point in her career had to ask her children to whisper their times tables chanting, as it was so violently deplored by the profession.

"When children aged six and seven have six and a half hours of school five days a week and there is not enough time to learn a times table then something is seriously wrong."

Well I think most people in their right minds would think this, wouldn't they? It's certainly not the case in the majority of state schools! Wherever have you got that idea?

I can only assume that people who think children have not being failed by education must "blame the parents".

When children aged six and seven have six and a half hours of school five days a week and there is not enough time to learn a times table then something is seriously wrong.

In some cases I would "blame the parents" those who are more interested in realty shit on TV or what stick insect Beckham is doing in OK magazine than reading to their kids and getting involved with the school. Those that dont check up to see homework is done or cannot be bothered to turn up on open day. Those that blame the school for their kids bad behavior.

Those I blame, school is there to educate children not bring them up.

Yes but Gooseberry I don't know what you mean by the 'damage done to state education'? Do you mean the move to comprehensives? The Plowden report? The National Strategies?

Do you mean the move to league tables and ICT 'GCSEs' which gave 4 GCSE passes? Because I agree, they were bad moves.

At my son's school they dress up, role play, discuss, use the 'mantle of the expert' or whatever- but they also read, are read to, bring bags of books home, learn tables by rote- the they play in the forest area or with Lego etc (year R- 2) It seems just right to me, although I do regret that he isn't learning a language or doing science experiments... would I pay thousands to keep him away from his less fortunate peers, no. What would he get extra anyway, except bought advantage?

Look at the backlash against free schools. Some highly motivated parents want to establish access schools and the resentment and spite is still there. So much for claiming you want those parents to be a driving force.

There is hope now because about three years ago it was recognised that some of this crap was utterly destructive and there has been a return to focussing on the basics.

No good for this generation already passed through though.

Yes I absolutely do think they have dumbed down. It is not bollocks. A couple of years ago more than a hundred thousand children aged eleven had the educational achievement of eight and nine year olds as they passed to secondary. The complaints continue from employers and universities about remedial education and training. If you think there is nothing wrong with the curriculum and the state system then it's hard to imagine why you might want to abolish private schools or change the system at all.

I can only assume that people who think children have not being failed by education must "blame the parents".

When children aged six and seven have six and a half hours of school five days a week and there is not enough time to learn a times table then something is seriously wrong.

"It was an ideologically driven embrace by policymakers, educationologists or whatever you call them, curriculum designers, teacher training colleges, a huge industry devoted to dumbing down our children's education"

Total bullshit.

No doubt you also think exams have dumbed down as well because some kids are working hard and passing them.

Wook: the damage done to state education. I was responding to this:

"Gooseberry they count but the language of debate here is sometimes that "you millions voting or sympathetic to Labour" are at one ideologically with the one or two people who've wrestled control of the party."

Which curriculum change are you referring to? The National Curriculum? The National Literacy Strategy? What/when was this ideological change that had kids wearing dressing up clothes and not reading??

Gooseberry, now that is bollocks, sorry. I take offence at that - implying that all those who work in state education have a political agenda rather than a professional one.

"Gooseberry that doesn't bear any relation to what goes on in schools, that's pure Daily Mail !!"

You are assuming I have never sent my children to a state school, never had any conversation with any of their teachers, never helped in a school, never looked in my children's bags, never checked their timetables, never had to teach my children their times tables, never looked at curriculum documents, never been to a parents evening, never listened to children read who have never had their book bag opened at home, and have lived through twenty eight child-education years with absolutely no clue about what happens when they walk through the school gate.

"It was an ideologically driven embrace by policymakers, educationologists or whatever you call them, curriculum designers, teacher training colleges, a huge industry devoted to dumbing down our children's education"

Sorry. what was??

Instead of splitting the class and hiring another teacher, they hired four TA's.

Why? and why is this allowed

tut tut, the Tories want schools to run themselves with no elected council control.

If my private school were abolished, I'd home school.

That in itself is suspect, we dont want our fragile child mixing with the "rough" kids

It was not just one or two people. It was an ideologically driven embrace by policymakers, educationologists or whatever you call them, curriculum designers, teacher training colleges, a huge industry devoted to dumbing down our children's education.

For example, one of my local state schools has a reception class of 30. 6 of those alledgedlly have SEN, which the school gets a nice cash bonus for.

Instead of splitting the class and hiring another teacher, they hired four TA's.

Why? and why is this allowed

Gooseberry that doesn't bear any relation to what goes on in schools, that's pure Daily Mail !!

Quite bloody right Porto. And "we don't have time to listen to children read"?

Make time.

Gooseberry they count but the language of debate here is sometimes that "you millions voting or sympathetic to Labour" are at one ideologically with the one or two people who've wrestled control of the party. I think Cameron is very like Blair/Mandelson - has the power but not necessarily the heart of the party (which is still split anyway).

Let's stop the opt-out? What a miserable, spiteful attitude.

Excellence for all not advantage for the few.

If you think the parents of seven per cent of the nation's children - many of whom are struggling financially and have no flaming contacts at all - have this much influence then you need to learn a little more before coming out with such sweeping recommendations.

Utter balls, I dont doubt that some people struggle to send their children to a public school to avoid mixing with the hoi poloi but most are just the offspring of the well off and rich who want to buy advantage.

I'm saying you need to focus the drive on improving state schools. Trying to abolish private schools is wasted energy. How is that going to improve all the failing comps in crappy areas, where there's no input from the "elite"? If my private school were abolished, I'd home school.

grammar schools.

Porto that is true, interactive whiteboards are lovely but not altogether essential, unlike good teachers and books.