Stop the doom narrative and campaign to plug the gap.

[SmileEachDay]

The constant narrative from groups like U4T, the wider media AND (if MN is representative) individuals that children now are “a lost generation” and that they will “never catch up” is tremendously damaging.

They may well not be at exactly the (completely arbitrary) age related expectation. Perhaps they aren’t quite at the (complete arbitrary) progress point at secondary. Yes, the GCSE and Alevel students are having a difficult time, and their results will be reached in a different way.

But...

We won’t motivate children or families if we tell them it’s a lost cause.

The EEF are estimating that on average children are two months behind where they “should” (based on an arbitrary measure) be. It’s worse for children from a disadvantaged background - as it has always been.
Rather than claiming they’ll never catch up, would it not be more helpful to:

Tell kids that yes, it’s been tough but that they’ll still reach their potential AND then plough our time and resources into really closing the disadvantage gap. That’s going to mean government funding for educational support services, SEMH services, support for families, literacy support where appropriate, Surestart, youth mentoring - and that’s just off the top of my head.

Happy to pay more tax if it is used to properly fund public services and not just spaffed on subsidised lunches for MPs, Carbunkle.

@noblegiraffe

Happy to pay more tax if it is used to properly fund public services and not just spaffed on subsidised lunches for MPs, Carbunkle.

Same here. The question was how much more tax, in terms of percentages?

The question was how much more tax, in terms of percentages?

What was that Lola was saying about fully costed plans being demanded of teachers

What percentage increase in tax are you willing to tolerate to fund this recovery OP?

I think it's more around who should pay more tax. Billionaires have made billions out of the pandemic. Maybe they should pay (some/more) tax?

What percentage increase in tax are you willing to tolerate to fund this recovery OP?

I have no idea what kind of percentage would be necessary, but I’d certainly prefer to pay higher tax for better funded education.

It does feel like the pointy elbowed types are in force, or U4T and similar groups have their fans on mumsnet, all geared up to stir arguments up and try to create parents vs teachers conflict.

There seems to be no solutions or ideas from them:
People talked about concerns about inequality in the summer = response: but the private schools down the road... everyone needs zoom lessons... but what about the disadvantaged students... why are you being obstructive by saying safeguarding concerns need to be ironed out.

People talked about what would be needed to open schools before the summer = response: you all want schools closed, get them open, why are you doom-mongering, cases won't rise

People talked about what would be needed to keep schools open in autumn = see above

People talk about the many ways to run remote learning efficiently and in a way that engages most students = response: but teams lessons, but my child needs 5 hours of live lessons, but what about disadvantaged students? Oh you say pre recorded material might make it better for more families, but I want live lessons all day. Typical teachers want to lower the bar for everyone.

People talk about things that will be needed to appropriately support children and families and get schools open in a way that is manageable for schools and communities = response: just get them open as normal, but mental health, but you haven't thought of a plan, and anyway how exactly do you plan on funding all those interventions you claim are needed (tilts head mumsnet tinkly laugh).

Schools staff: hang on, I thought you deeply cared about all children, and education, and disadvantaged pupils, and mental health? You've spent months claiming you are motivated by a deep concern for the poor and vulnerable. Surely you weren't pretending to care in order to have a go at teachers and get schools open asap.

The reason I ask is because I find posts like the OP's incredibly naive -
saying 'everything's fine, lets spend millions on this fantastic recovery for children' is entirely pie in the sky when taxes will have to be raised just to keep hospital doors open. You can't shoot the economy in both knees and then just expect there to be endless pots of money to fund your lovely dreams of a perfect future.

Children are screwed, by parents who didn't look out for their interests. I include myself in that. We will have to explain to them why their future meant so little.

Children are screwed, by parents who didn't look out for their interests.

I don't think that's true. I don't think all children are screwed, and any who are were screwed by a pandemic respiratory virus being badly managed by those in charge. Some of those might be parents, but we all know that their kids won't be 'screwed'.

Children are screwed, by parents who didn't look out for their interests

Weird claim. You know there's a pandemic on, right?

I also don't think my kids are screwed. I don't think the kids I teach are screwed.

There's always massive pots of money for things like furlough or eat out to help out but when it comes to education the cupboards are always claimed to be bare.

It's a constant pattern.

@RuleWithAWoodenFoot

Children are screwed, by parents who didn't look out for their interests.

I don't think that's true. I don't think all children are screwed, and any who are were screwed by a pandemic respiratory virus being badly managed by those in charge. Some of those might be parents, but we all know that their kids won't be 'screwed'.

The people whose job it is to look out for children is parents. Collectively, parents in many countries have completely failed to do that job - they haven't demanded that governments clearly set out the risks of things like closing schools and sports against the benefits. Where is the cost-benefit analysis of lockdown for children? All policies are supposed to lay out clearly what the trade offs are, but lockdown policies were adopted with no analysis whatsoever of the long term consequences for different groups. I'd love for the happy clappy, everything's going to be ok attitude to be true but it's just not. You cannot take away everything that builds a healthy future for children and expect there not to be a serious, long term impact for everyone. Even those who are relatively advantages can't smugly believe they're fine - living in a society with high unemployment and poverty and poor educational outcomes is no picnic for anyone.

TheDailyCarbunkle
These are all things many school staff have been saying for years.
Unfortunately election after election parents have voted in governments who don't give a damn about the children or their education. Wider support services have been stripped to the bones.

No government tsar, or overpriced contract given to a mate of the government/Tory donor is going to undo the damage that's been done here.

Parents have a choice. They can either:
A) engage with those in the sector who, contrary to what the usual goady posters, Daily Mail, and U4T say, care deeply about children's futures, and they can work to promote the change that is needed. They can challenge the usual goading that goes on, hold the government to account and show that they don't want chronically underfunded services and DfE money going to short term contracts for well-connected people.

Or

B) say 'oh well the meanie teachers and unions hate our children and don't want to work', accept there's no hope and allow the political lobby groups with their own agenda to ignore the next generation.

they haven't demanded that governments clearly set out the risks of things like closing schools and sports against the benefits

Hmm, now which group has that on their posters I wonder?

governments clearly set out the risks of things like closing schools and sports against the benefits

They don't know. All of this stuff is anecdotal or stated with massive bias. Even data produced by the ONS is grouped weirdly to hide things.

We almost certainly could have opened outdoor sports activities and clubs for children last June (for all children), with maybe week on week off school for all children to account for the increased transmission risk of enclosed space stuff. But hindsight is great.

Hmm, now which group has that on their posters I wonder?
I was thinking the same.

Don't worry though, it's pesky teachers and school leaders wanting solutions that are the real doom-mongers.

The people whose job it is to look out for children is parents. Collectively, parents in many countries have completely failed to do that job - they haven't demanded that governments clearly set out the risks of things like closing schools and sports against the benefits. Where is the cost-benefit analysis of lockdown for children? All policies are supposed to lay out clearly what the trade offs are, but lockdown policies were adopted with no analysis whatsoever of the long term consequences for different groups. I'd love for the happy clappy, everything's going to be ok attitude to be true but it's just not. You cannot take away everything that builds a healthy future for children and expect there not to be a serious, long term impact for everyone. Even those who are relatively advantages can't smugly believe they're fine - living in a society with high unemployment and poverty and poor educational outcomes is no picnic for anyone.

I wrote to my MP in September and said that if they sent kids back without any airborne mitigation it was risking December and January happening, and risking another lockdown.

Given many other parts of the world (some US states I know well) had the same rates of covid as us in the summer and sent back with rotas, masks and social distancing in schools, have had kids in half time consistently, not much increase in rates and no lockdowns, those countries WITH mitigations in school clearly gave more of a fuck about the risks to kids.

Whereas our kids had multiple isolations, total uncertainty from one week to the next, and now lockdown.

Plus more death (more kids have lost parents) and more economic damage.

All because they're wedded to the idea the congregating inside without mitigation is magically OK only in schools.

If they'd sent back schools safety and - yes - had more safeguards in other workplaces too, we wouldn't have needed a lockdown that lots of countries have avoided.

@IloveJKRowling spot on. As you know Ilove I know the epidemiologist involved in the organization of school reopening in one of the successful districts in the US. She despairs at how it's been handled over here.

@IloveJKRowling spot on. As you know Ilove I know the epidemiologist involved in the organization of school reopening in one of the successful districts in the US. She despairs at how it's been handled over here.

The reason I ask is because I find posts like the OP's incredibly naive

Is it? Why do you assume I’m coming from a place of not having thought about it?

saying 'everything's fine, lets spend millions on this fantastic recovery for children

I didn’t say everything was fine. I do think investment is needed in education- I’ve thought that for years. Do you disagree?

I do, fundamentally, agree with the OP.

Some pupils have had awful lockdowns whereas others have actually done quite well, learning how to be self-motivated learners and getting to grips with a vast amount of IT at the same time.

Interestingly, re the greater spend argument, the UK actually comes out quite high in international comparisons relative to other countries in how much we spend per capita on education. See one article below:

www.nfer.ac.uk/news-events/nfer-blogs/international-school-spending-how-does-the-uk-compare/

This does feel odd to me, as just over £4,000 per pupil per annum seems such a small amount compared to private school fees of £20,000 per annum. I do wonder how much inflated property and service prices eat into our school budgets though?

More money would clearly be welcome but I do think that maybe we should also be spending a higher proportion on classroom teaching relative to management (SLT) and some support functions.

On a positive note, I suspect that in 20 years time, most of us and most pupils will see one year's interrupted learning as a blip rather than a major factor in their educational and career achievements.

Interestingly, re the greater spend argument, the UK actually comes out quite high in international comparisons relative to other countries in how much we spend per capita on education.

If I recall correctly, those figures include private school fees which the govt has nothing to do with.

@noblegiraffe,

I was wondering whether it was some kind of a weighted average including private school fees.

However, looking at a number of comparison of per capita spend on education, all I found put the UK relatively high up. I was surprised.

There are a few areas that the government could pull their finger out on and not cost more money in taxes etc., starting with sorting the farce around exams in England much earlier, like Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland did, to reduce the worry for exam year pupils and ensure teachers could focus on the key areas needed when they do have lessons, both in person and remotely.
The fact the government has mishandled this so badly is unforgivable.

In addition, there is money available but often rushed out, with little discussion beyond the desire for a quick politically supporting headline that they can then wash their hands of.

Nearly £1bn was available last June for the mostly non-existent catch up plan (at least in Secondary-I don’t know about Primary, although nothing available at my child’s school yet) that eventually went to private tutoring companies (friends of gov) who are sitting pretty on a lot of this money still.
Key figures were not consulted about any of this so the potential to use this money for some excellent ideas, such as extra pastoral support/counsellors in schools, was blown pretty early on.

A depressed child is not going to ‘catch up’ as effectively, no matter how many extra classes there are, until their MH needs are met and supported first.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53100881

Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggests the £650m pot represents about £80 extra for each student.
That is a rise of about 1% but would leave total spending still 3% below 2010 levels in real terms.

Early years providers and colleges for 16 to 19-year-olds are not included in the plans.

So my response to how this will be funded, is that unless the right solutions are funded, it doesn’t matter what the how part is yet. And finding out what the right solutions are, needs to be the DforE’s priority and they need to actually start listening to the professionals and experts.

That would be a good start.

Phoenix I just remember when those figures came out that the DfE was reprimanded by the National Statistics Authority for proclaiming that the U.K. came third in education spending when the graph they were talking about included both private school spending and university tuition fees!

That one you linked to only goes up to age 15 though, so just private schools included.

The below is an interesting link. The chart in the PDF shows our educational expenditure per capita stripped out between private and public funds.

However, it does not seem to separate schools from universities.

Looking at the public money element alone, it puts us somewhere in the middle of Europe.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01078/SN01078.pdf