How do we ensure all UK children regardless of back ground/ability receive high quality education?

[happygardening]

Contrary to what some may think I'm not anti state ed and as someone who works with disadvantaged children it really matters to me that they receive a high quality broad education and they fulfil their potential. But sadly in many cases they are not (there are I know exceptions) frequently their parents cannot assist them for a variety of reasons.
Is there an answer to this problem or are they condemned by their circumstances which are not of their own making to remain at the bottom of the heap?
No judgey DM comments please.

Is that why people from disadvantaged backgrounds do worse in mc areas though because they who shout the loudest get the best deals. In areas of deprivation disadvantaged children do better because they are not having to compete against the MC mafia. At my DD's school only the parents who continually keep in touch with the teachers get the support and I do it myself but this surely is wrong as it gives far more resource to those kids with engaged parents. If this level of parental input was reduced those children who needed the help most would get it. It would not please all parents but that combined with rearranging the catchment areas would mean more of a mix in schools. No matter what happens in schools engaged parents do influence their kids with private tutors etc. by not letting parents have so much control teachers who know the kids can maintain discipline better. What they say goes. Children cannot rely on their parents to fight their battles for them. Parents currently undermine teachers by their continual influence. A friend recently argued against a child's detention for not having done her homework and one. This in itself undermines discipline in the school and leads her child to expect her mom to find her battles for her. We are now seeing parents trying to fight disciplinaries for our employees. How can we not try and stop this. I understand your issues with SN but really schools should have more powers to enforce things otherwise the gal between state and private education will grow and all state educated children will lose out.

Maybe this is where the feedback from private parents is useful. Discipline in private schools may be enforced at least partly due to the option of just asking for a child to be removed. State schools do not have this choice as it is difficult to exclude parents and if you drop a child into a lower set to lose the disruption for the other kids, parents complain and argue for the child to go back up ruining the chances for learning for the other kids. This is a big problem for discipline in schools. If parent not informed or actually shown evidence of the reasons for switching it is up to the kid to try and get him or herself back up.

For me this is a wider issue than schooling as we are beginning to see it in the workplace now too. Children relying on their parents too much.

An example DD should move up a grouping as finding work too easy. Teacher agreed. Can we do anything about it no because it means another child would have to move down and ultimately although school not telling me parents would complain and easier just to give her extra work but keep her in same group. Utter tosh. I am arguing on her behalf but so would the parents of child going down. 'We can't upset the parents now can we so let's create more work for the over stretched teacher by now giving extra time and effort to my child because she is in the wrong group. No wonder teachers feel like quitting. This behaviour should be stamped out. Either don't set or just tell kids what groups they are in without having any due regard for the parents - harsh but ultimately better for all children. I am very pro state education but rapidly moving towards private for this parental pandering.

"But there do seem to moves afoot (and I htough this was what losing was supporting) to reduce parental input as much as possible to leaven the advanatge it gives those DC against those whose parents don't give as much input."

Oh I see........ thank you for explaining. I had completely misunderstood you!

No, reducing parental input would be bonkers (how would they reduce parental input anyway? can you be more concrete?). My job as I see it is to increase parental input by the "side door" of music.

See I think that's the positive solution.

Find ways to engage disengaged parents, not try to disengage engaged ones IYSWIM.

Ok, here some feedback from a " private school parent".

I moved my children out of the state sector a year ago, and am now looking for secondary schools (state or private) for the next stage.

I am not into the whole status thing, old boys network or anything like that ( younknow, I would liek to think we are not that sort of parents).

We were disappointed with our state school, due to class size ( 36 in Y3), lack of SEN support ( they did not even want DS2 tested, due to cost?) , but mostly the ongoing low level disruption, which created an environment in which it was difficult to learn. I helped out in the classroom, as teacher was desperate and no TA in Y3, and I was happy to help.

It was an unexpected eye opener, it was just all so chaotic, noisy and kids constantly getting up and walking about and chatting.

What I am paying for now, is really " classical teaching", ie a teacher in front of the class, all pupils facing the teacher, the teacher removing unruly children to go and see the HT if needed. There is more time for learning as there is less of a need for crowd control.

Some would call this approach "old fashioned" though, and it is not at all n line with modern education theories of lots of group work, and teaching kids to cope with disruption etc. interestingly there are 5 children with SEN or SN in DS class, they get one on one support daily if needed and in classroom support. Some of these kids can be disruptive, the parenst then get involved.

It is not nirvana, just a bit less chaos and discipline, and most importantly, higher expectations of the children.

Low level disruption and low expectations ( being told after y2 sats that my Ds was bottom of the bottom set, and that in every class someone has to be bottom, yet refusing to assess him for SEN, telling us he would never get to level 4 by year 6) as well as lack of SEN support made us move.

For state schools to be more like this kind of private school, they would need more money and for parents to be really on board regards discipline. Neither are very likely to happen, sadly, due to lack of funds and a changing society where people think their kids do not need to respect the teachers.

Quite, word.

Anything else is farcical.

And actually, losing, parental pandering isn't the problem at all. No one was getting the support they needed, I hate the advocacy thing, but it is the ONLY way that anything sn gets done to the woefully inadequate system. This isn't a case of the parent ally unsupported kids falling through the cracks in the face of schools appeasing naice middle class parents - this is a case of nothing happening at all, ever, because there is no money or time to support it, and the more capable parents being forced to take legal advice, move schools, prepare for tribunals etc.

To dismiss it as middle class parents getting stuff and disadvantaging those from lower socio-economic groups is tosh.

Dd2 was working 5-7 years ahead of her peer group. We're a nice mc family. She still gets to spend her school days with the kids that can't read.

The system is pretty much failing kids everywhere, and I don't see it as anything to do with parental involvement. In most cases, parental involvement is propping up the damn thing and ensuring it isn't failing every kid.

I get you Chandon and this is one of my concerns. Children losing all respect for teachers and anyone in authority.

That is difficult Chandon.

I did the same stepping-in-as-helpful for an after-school sports club run by an external provider. If the lessons were like that it would be awful.

At our primary I am pleased to say the lessons are like at your private school. It's a pity you had to pay for that.

Perhaps it is not so much reducing parental input at secondary, more changing the nature of it?

Probably agree with you there Secret. Getting the parents to back the school and not fight it or have to take responsibility for their children following their decision to choose the school. Maybe as in some countries students and teachers working together to enforce discipline at secondary so if a child breaks the rules, discipline is enforced with no parental argument. The child should sign up to the rules not the parent.

This signing up to stuff is a nonsense though.

My youngest dd is 9. She had to sign a page long document that essentially said that there was to be no messing about in the changing rooms at school swimming lessons.

What on earth sort of crap society are we running where schools feel they need to get 9 yos to sign behaviour agreements of this nature?

What on earth happened to 'oi, you lot, there will be no messing about in the changing rooms!'

A complete waste of the head teachers time to draft the damn thing, the teachers time to circulate it, the child's time to ponder it and sign it, and my time. I have spent more time being pissed off about the damn thing that it is worth.

In fact, they hadn't even bothered to inform me how additional needs were going to be managed in the swimming lessons. It was apparently more important to circulate behaviour management contracts than ensure the safety of children with additional needs.

So, on the signing of crap documents, I agree. Burn them.

I think the idea is that DC feel engaged in the process.

But really, do small DC think that way? Wouldn't they simply prefer reasonable boundaries that they can understand and comply with to be set?

As parents, don't we simply have expectations of certain behaviour? Non negotiable stuuf? Surely some of those non negotiable things transfer to the class room?

It is crap. The type of society where schools have to protect themselves against parental complaints that little Johnny was told off for messing about in the changing rooms. The system just gets perpetuated by lack of discipline. It is your fault Mr Smith that Johnny played up. No it is the school's fault. Back and forth like a tennis match meanwhile little Johnny has learnt that Dad will stick up for him and school will
Eventually back to down because Dad will employ a lawyer. There are 33 other little Johnny's in the class and that contract may just hold up in court as proof the rules were explained but it will never get that far because waste of LEA resources. Now see how hard it is to sack a disruptive employee Johnny in 11 years' time!

chandon
state schools could never be like your private school for the simple reason that they have to accept all children.

the alternative is exclude all of the disruptive ones
and rely on Fagin and the Artful Dodger to pick up the slack

My friend was teaching a year 4 class and had angry parent storm in and verbally abuse her. The crime. She had the cheek to point out that the son should know to include capital letters in her writing.!

Greythorne - "I think it is shocking that the normal progression you expect, of children doing better than their parents because their parents strive to give them better opportunities eventually stalls when the parents are such high flyers that they don't have time to do the best for their children."

I agree with your observation. I think that dual-career couples often have a hard time making the decision to make the children's education a priority and rather hope for the best.

Bonsoir

Yes, and the ones I know don't just hope for the best, they assume that paying for private schools and tutors and after school activities is a substitute for parenting.

Yes. I remember a friend telling me in hushed tones that her SIL hadn't even met her DCs' tutors - she just called an agency and had them sent round to her home in the evenings .

There's a lot of it about, in certain circles. I think some dual-career couples aren't really aware of what parenting is.

Do people really think that if parents are not supportive and don't help children at home etc the answer is to ensure that those who are are stopped being so? That surely is communism at its worst - stopping the good things because others have them in some kind of jealous rage to ensure everyone does very badly but at least they all do it together and equally.

..to parent is not a verb.. A parent is a noun. This is not a grammar point. It is about parents thinking they do a job. They don't. It is just part of your life, not some kind of career task.

I agree with Xenia on both points. Being an absent parent in my opinion is a psychological condition rather than one of constant physical presence.

I could say I know many parents who are with their children all the time and fail to parent them. I also know parents who use work as an excuse not to parent.

I am not arguing for constant physical presence as a prerequisite for good parenting.

'to parent' is, very obviously, a verb. Just saying.

I think we as a society need to prioritise education and outcomes for young people. At the moment I feel the pursuit of wealth is seen as the upmost importance, education and learning are not up there.

The most vulnerable need more resources, at the moment those resources are being rationed heavily, children with needs have to fail for a significant period of time before extra support is made available. This is crazy. I spoke to parents last week whose child was on a goodness knows how long list for a hearing test. I was gobsmacked.

I think the widening gap between the rich and poor and the reduced social mobility which has taken place over the last 30 years is a big part of the problem. We seem to be taking from the poor and blaming them for their situation. People aren't stupid, they know that when they are in poorly paid work or on benefits and their children are going to a poor school the outcomes for their children are likely to be poor, education was, for the baby boomer generation a way of improving your lot (so long as you passed 11 +) but that simply isn't happening, of course parents disengage. We are giving a huge proportion of top jobs to a very small proportion of privately educated people. You can't look at the cabinet and really think they, in a country of 60 million are the best people for the jobs they hold?

(to parent does not exist as far as I know. It would always be marked with a big read cross if anyone wrote "I parent". It just shows they are not well educated. Obviously I agree language does change over time but you will find many people sharing my view - do a web search so if applying for jobs where English matters never use parent as a verb.)