Genuine question for Tory voters

MrsGuy, could you be any more patronising?

I'm happy to pay more tax for public services - it's how a civilised society works.

I find it ironic that Tory voters on here are bleating about how they shouldn't have to explain their voting choice and then have the cheek to patronise people who don't agree with Tory policy by saying they are like children expecting Santa to come.

The money is there but the cuts to public services are ideological. Tory policy is flawed and unprincipled.

The people who have the money to sort this out are instead funding the Tory campaign to the tune of millions. I expect they'll get a return on their investment.

there is no "someone else" to pay for things.
well said, mummymeister
Labour supporters have never grown out of an infantile expectation that Santa will bring them toys because their parents have made them believe in Santa.

I'm astounded at the number of people who think the schools funding issue is "scaremongering".

I'M A TEACHER - IT'S HAPPENING.

Things have not and will not improve - you are being STAGGERINGLY naive if you think it will.

I dont pressume to speak for any other schools as to the reasons they have 30+ children in their class

I do know that our large class sizes in my area are not down to immigration

There was a thread about doctors surgerys the other day and i said that our wait for appointments was 6-8 weeks

Again in our case it is not due to immigration, its house building without the infrastructure, aging population and a lack of doctors

There are already classes of 60-100 in secondary in some schools where they can't get the teachers (e.g. Maths) and so are giving lectures to large groups instead.

Did you see my post of 23.10 young ?

They barely have room but they have room

My post was in answer to those saying a class size of 40 would make no difference

For anyone doubting that this is happening.

Exactly noble. In a particularly bright year group children could be excluded who normally would have passed. It opens up a massive, oppressive can of worms, I actually think that some academies already try to select the kids they want. When I decided to move my daughter out of her independent school I phoned the school I wanted her to go to and they said there was a waiting list. However once they had read her school report they offered her a place. She has excellent behaviour and the school is very big on behaviour. Maybe it was a coincidence but I'm inclined to think not...

Anyway, I digress. The situation is that I would like dd3 to go to this school as well and we have a good chance with the sibling connection. But if it becomes a grammar school i am not sure she would get in. She has ADHD and poor executive functioning. She's quite a bright child but she doesn't sail through in the way dd2 does.

Grammar schools create secondary moderns. Nearby schools will be obviously affected by the effective removal of their top sets to a different school.

We know from selective areas that secondary moderns find it much more difficult to recruit and retain qualified and experienced teachers than grammars.

People voting Tory who have primary children need to consider how this policy will affect their secondary schooling. Is there a good comp locally you're expecting to send your kids to? It may convert to a grammar and your kids may be excluded from it.

This is what Rufus said:

And most primary schools barely have the room for the 30+ children they have at the moment let along the extra 10 which will cause no problem at all Schools are struggling

And it's a real "emperor's new clothes" argument to pretend that immigration has no impact on schools places. Of course it does - my DH agrees with that and he is an immigrant.

I want the same things you do Lottie but we just disagree on the best way to achieve them. I find Tory fiscal policy more progressive for the reasons I have already explained. I think they are best for the economy which benefits everyone. I don't like the way Labour infantilises people, especially low-paid workers. (That "tree" diagram which supposedly fully costed their manifesto being a prime example).

Noble we have no secondary moderns here, just selective grammars. I have already said that I would consider private if DS didn't get in although state non-grammar schools are decent here. I got into grammar without any coaching or tutoring. No selection system is perfect, but as I said upthread, it's better than selection based on parents' income. If people want that choice (and the polls suggest they do) who are you or I to deny it to parents?

Anyhow, I am just repeating myself now so I am off to bed!

Yep. My cousin in Sutton Coldfield spent a fortune tutoring her child to get into the nearest grammar school which he did. Luckily she and her husband are lawyers so they could afford it...

A widespread system like this will have all the well off parents paying for tutoring. I agree that a child's future should not be entirely decided by a test as young as 10/11. Some kids are late developers. Some need a few years to learn to do a test paper in time. The test itself is also a narrow consideration of intelligence.

I see no reason why parents in other parts of the country shouldn't have the same choice we have.

What? The choice to pay a fortune to tutoring companies, the stress of the entirely unnecessary and actually inaccurate 11+ and the very real risk of your child, like the majority of others, being sent to a secondary modern school, made worse by the existence of grammar schools?

Nice choice, but no thanks. Anyone who thinks that grammar schools select the brightest kids haven't looked at the evidence. The 11+ puts kids in the wrong schools, and the kids who don't get into a grammar get a worse deal educationally, which is why many parents have private education as a back-up in case their kids fail. Well if the secondary modern isn't good enough for their kids, it certainly shouldn't be good enough for the rest of them.

It's really boring when people talk about 'the right' and 'the left'. This isn't a game - it involves real people's lives. The conservatives may say that they care about ordinary working people but none of their past or present actions back that up at all. I find it astonishing that so many people don't realise that there are actually very few people at all who benefit from their policies and instead see voting for them as some sort of aspirational lifestyle choice. The lack of a popular opposition won't change that.

You have been the one to mention racism. Evidently you're not happy with immigration in the UK currently and that is what I was pointing out.

I don't have any problem with parents trying to make choices that benefit their children - I've done it myself and continue to make choices which help my children be the best they can. But that's possible to do with the current system we have. It will become more difficult for anyone but those rich enough to afford private school (and that is not many) if money is continually cut from education.

I do not think we should have a system where the rich are the only ones who can make choices and everyone else gets the short straw and therefore the divide between rich and poor continues to grow.

I was simply responding to a post by Rufus where she suggested that schools were overcrowded.

Loads of primaries have 30+ children

I am not sure they are overcrowded and i dont remember saying that

Is however those numbers are boosted to 40 then yes i think they would be over crowded

The schools may barely have the room...but they do at the moment

I was simply responding to a post by Rufus where she suggested that schools were overcrowded. It's a fact that the previous Labour government imported lots of unskilled workers and a minister at the time suggested that "rubbing people's faces in diversity" was one of the advantages of this policy. It is possible to find that pretty distasteful without being a closet racist. I favour controlled immigration based on the skills we need. Corbyn does not appeal to me on that basis. However, I don't goose-step round the living room, as a rule.

It's often the case that those on the left end up crying "racist" (or as in your case, alluding to it) for no good reason at all. Abbott accused TM of "dog whistle racism" even though each and every interview Abbott gave was an utter car crash and an amoeba on Mars would infer, based on her performance, that she is not terribly bright.

And also in my experience the anti-immigration sentiment I've noticed in recent years tends to be aimed at Eastern European migrants so not really anything to do with race. More xenophobia

You were the one who said that immigration is the reason for school being overcrowded did you not? Don't worry I'm not bothered about looking 'silly' to a group of strangers on the internet but thanks fir your concern.

Lottie lol my DH is black/Muslim and my DS is mixed race! I don't think you should try to tar me with that particular brush: it's pretty unpleasant to try and you will just end up looking rather silly.

I am not missing your point. I just don't agree with you. First, grammar schools are already more prevalent than you think outside of London or Birmingham. (We don't live in either place.) They are extremely popular here and I see no reason why parents in other parts of the country shouldn't have the same choice we have. Second, I don't think "diversity" in the sense you mean matters when it comes to education quality. Selecting children from all backgrounds who are likely do well academically just makes sense and is still intuitively more "fair" than allocating places based on house prices which is the de facto system we have now.

I think you're entirely missing my point. You're currently talking about Grammar schools from the point of the few that there are around London and Birmingham - places like that. If the entire system becomes 11+ then I think it will become regressive.

This is certainly not about me suggesting that individuals shouldn't be encouraged to find what they're best at. One of my daughters is very academic and had a scholarship and bursary to a quite well known private school. In the end I decided to move her because it became clear that the environment was one when stealing and bullying were normalised on a daily basis and brushed under the carpet. School should be an experience where children learn to work with and alongside others - not just to come out with GCSEs and A levels.

My point about this is that diverse environments are healthier and more beneficial for kids. But given your ideas about immigration then I can see why you might not agree.

Yes, I would be happy with the alternative Lottie. We have decent non-selective schools here (rural) as well. Private may also be an option depending on how DH's private practice goes. I don't feel the need to denigrate every other kid's education simply because my DS does not get in to the supposed "best" school. If he is not academic then it is not right for him. I was terrible at sport, but I didn't begrudge the kids who were picked to compete for the school or suggest that everyone should be taught to my remedial level.

And you just can't stop parents from doing their best for their kids - that route is open to everyone, not just the middle classes.

I can't see that immigration is the main cause of fewer places. I live in a small town where immigration is fairly low compared to London but all the classes are generally rammed. You can be on a waiting list for 4 years and not get a place.

We dont have grammers here

Just private or comprehensive

Which is the same as parents buying houses in desirable catchments.