Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Would you be prepared to pay more tax to get better state education for all?

706 replies

happygardening · 26/02/2013 16:53

Any other suggestions welcome to ensure that all where ever they live and whatever their background have access to education of the highest quality.

OP posts:
TiffIsKool · 28/02/2013 12:56

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

grovel · 28/02/2013 12:56

Bonkers and total bullshit, I'd say.

Bonsoir · 28/02/2013 13:03

wordfactory - there are some really high-performing grammar schools in Kent that are adding a lot more value than mere syphoning off.

It is important to remember that Kent is a very large county (the most populous county in the UK, IIRC) and that there are huge extremes of wealth and underprivilege too.

socareless · 28/02/2013 13:04
seeker · 28/02/2013 13:07

"All I know is gs always come on top on league tables". Well of course they do! They are selective!

socareless · 28/02/2013 13:11

But you said comps do better or areas with comps do better than Kent. I have asked for data and none yet from you just more jibe.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 28/02/2013 13:11

Don't be silly socareless. It is because I regularly contribute to education threads, and because I'm regularly in the habit of arguing about the issues with lots of posters, that I find it so tiresome when certain people keep on with the same personal attacks on someone else who is a regular on these threads. It means that out of the inevitable 40 pages, about 35 end up with the same poster or posters (Wink) bleating 'why did you send you dd to grammar blah blah you only cathedral carol services blah blah how come you hate the working class blah blah'.

It's nasty, it's personal and it's deeply fucking boring.

DadOnIce · 28/02/2013 13:17

Better funding would certainly help some schools. Some less fashionable subjects really struggle through being under-resourced.

One the other hand, I have seen some very well-resourced schools whose results are still of great concern, because of other factors which can't be controlled by the amount of money thrown at the school - the children's background, the area, other factors influencing their attention to work, how bright/ motivated the pupils are to begin with,whether they see any point to working and gaining qualifications (and there are a number of reasons why they might not).

So, in general, I support good funding of state education, but it needs to go hand-in-hand with a lot of other things too.

DadOnIce · 28/02/2013 13:19

And school league tables are like lining pupils up in order of height and pointing out that those with the greatest number of centimetres are the tallest, while 50% of pupils are below the mean average height in the class.

socareless · 28/02/2013 13:20

Ok tosn but my ques wasn't 'why did you send your dd to a gs' it isn't a personal attack either. To use seekers phrase how odd to put something out there and not want to explain further.
I am a diff poster you there are getting quite paranoid too. Seekers nemesis has a unique MN 'voice'

WorriedTeenMum · 28/02/2013 13:20

Interestingly on the subject of some GCSEs being 'better' than others. We are now tripping over this as DD1 has moved from GCSE to A level. The GCSEs which DD1 has now taken forward to A level do seem to have left her woefully ill-prepared for the A level. Over the weekend we will be comparing syllabuses of Edexcel & AQA for maths to find out what else she has missed out on.

Again I think that this is part of the mismanagement at her school. The school is entirely focused on getting its average 42% through 5 GCSEs A-C including English & Maths. It didnt matter how 'good' or otherwise the GCSEs were or how they would prepare students for A level - 'push 'em through and damn the lot of them'.

I have two other DCs at this dreadful school. There isnt another to move them to. So, I can look forward to another four years with my teeth sunk in the arses of various teachers ensuring that my DCs come out with reasonable qualifications.

Sometimes I read the wittlings on MN about how wonderful grammar schools are and wonder if I am in the same country as these posters. I get to pay the same amount of taxes but apparently my DCs arent permitted to sup at the same table.

seeker · 28/02/2013 13:21

"But you said comps do better or areas with comps do better than Kent. I have asked for data and none yet from you just more jibe."

No I didn't. I said that across the country all LEAs have fairly silmilar A level and GCSE grades. If selective education was so vastly superior, the LEAs which retain a wholly selective system would have noticeably better results than a similar LEA which has comprehensive schools. But they don't. In selective areas, most of your A and As are concentrated in the grammar schools, which is where the A and As kids are. So you get the impressive 95%s and figures like that. Dilute those figures with the kids from the high school, and they will look very similar to a comprehensive. It's how you tell 'em.

seeker · 28/02/2013 13:23

Socareless- everything you might want to know about my family circumstances are readily available at the touch a search button. Please feel free.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 28/02/2013 13:24

socareless I'm not accusing you of being anyone else, and I didn't mean to say you were her nemesis Smile As you say, said nemesis does indeed have a distinctive voice, and it is that voice which I was suggesting was more than a little tedious.

Maybe I've been on more threads, but I feel I have read Seeker's explanation of the situation and her decision more than once, and I don't get the impression that she is unwilling to offer her rationale.

TiffIsKool · 28/02/2013 13:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Tasmania · 28/02/2013 13:29

It never in the past cost quite so much to train up our great inventors, explorers, scientists, artists, musicians, etc.

rabbitstew - it was easier in the past. Not saying it was easier living in the past, but easier to invent something new, to explore new territories, to "find" something new in science, etc. These days, a lot is impossible without really superb and targeted eduction - in part because of all the discoveries that have been made in the past.

I've talked about this forever with DH (who happens to be a scientist), but the easiest way to explain this is by using HISTORY - the subject - as an example. With each year that passes by, you are creating history. Someone born in 1930 never had to learn about WW2, for example. Same thing with science. There is just soooooo much more to learn, and yet, school hours, etc. do not reflect that. Classes have become larger instead.

These days, even my DH admits that a large part of very employable/good scientists were educated in the private sector because they had the training required before they even got to uni. Even in music - Coldplay, Radiohead... private schools galore. Private schools can provide all-round education that is almost necessary in today's world (not so much in the past), but it takes money which buys time - things that are not infinitely available, but may be available for happygardening and her DS.

It makes no sense just educating all people to a satisfactory / good level but have no excellence because everyone should be educated in the same way. Even in the heydays of communism, this was a well-known fact. In our current competitive world, it's excellence that matters even if this may come at the cost of the wider population.

This was written in a rush - but can elaborate more later if needed.

WorriedTeenMum · 28/02/2013 13:30

As TheOriginalSteamingNit said. I too have frequently seen Seeker's explanation etc and wonder why a few posters seem to feel the need to derail what is otherwise an interesting discussion.

(Seeker, I will PM you with my bank account details for the appropriate payment Wink)

seeker · 28/02/2013 13:30

This thread is about education funding and its most efficient use, TotallyBS, just in case you hadn't noticed......

TiffIsKool · 28/02/2013 13:31

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

socareless · 28/02/2013 13:32

Ok Tosn I will back off. Some ques are difficult to answer especially when the answers may contradict what we say/believe.
I just don't get hypocrites. especially the type that takes swipes at people with differing views.

socareless · 28/02/2013 13:35

was not planning on doing that Tiffy. I just wanted a simple answer on why 75% of parents join in with other 25% to look down on 75% of children.
The answer can't be a whole thread surely.

Bonsoir · 28/02/2013 13:37

WorriedTeenMum "Interestingly on the subject of some GCSEs being 'better' than others. We are now tripping over this as DD1 has moved from GCSE to A level. The GCSEs which DD1 has now taken forward to A level do seem to have left her woefully ill-prepared for the A level. Over the weekend we will be comparing syllabuses of Edexcel & AQA for maths to find out what else she has missed out on.

Again I think that this is part of the mismanagement at her school. The school is entirely focused on getting its average 42% through 5 GCSEs A-C including English & Maths. It didnt matter how 'good' or otherwise the GCSEs were or how they would prepare students for A level - 'push 'em through and damn the lot of them'."

Sad Sad Indeed, some schools do the bare minimum of work to ensure the bare minimum number of pupils hit the magic numbers of GCSEs at the right grades. It is a scandalous situation, but other than work out what the gaps in your DCs' knowledge of the syllabus are, and fill them yourselves (or by paying for tutors), there is unlikely to be an efficient short-term solution.

Tasmania · 28/02/2013 13:39

socareless

From my recollection (I asked that myself), there was never an answer provided...

TiffIsKool · 28/02/2013 13:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

seeker · 28/02/2013 13:41

Well, if schools don't make sure that their low, middle and high ability children make at least expected levels of progress, then they will fail their next OFSTEDi inspection.

Go in armed with your child's various NC levels and demand to know what they are doing to ensure progress. One good thing about SATs levels is that you actually have something concrete to point to in terms of progress.