Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

We haven't had a state vs private debate for a while! What did you think of the Fiona Millar programme on schools?

528 replies

WideWebWitch · 05/03/2004 20:27

Well?

OP posts:
WideWebWitch · 06/03/2004 09:27

And I agree about it being easier to tell off parents than improve the schools. She wasn't asking the question "So what is the govt doing about the terrible state of state education?" and it's a relevant question.

OP posts:
tigermoth · 06/03/2004 09:53

I would never put my principles before giving my child a decent education and I would have done the same in Diane Abbott's position - sent my son to a school that gave him a better chance. But then, given my views, I would not enter politics and had I done so, would certainly not have lambasted my colleagues for sending their children to private school.

I think Diane Abbot had was faced with an extreme situation. Her nearest state school was not just 'failing' children, it was, in particular failing black boys.

I have googled in her name and here's a bit of her article Jan 6 2002 from the Observer:

"There is a silent catastrophe happening in Britain's schools in the way they continue to fail black British school-children. When African and Afro-Caribbean children enter the school system at five they do as well as white and Asian children in tests. By 11 their achievement levels begin to drop off. By 16 there has been a collapse. And this is particularly true of black boys - 48% of all 16-year-old boys gain five GCSEs, grades A to E. Only 13% of black boys in London achieve this standard. In some boroughs the figure is even worse.

This is not a new issue. As long ago as 1977 a House of Commons select committee on race relations and immigration reported that 'as a matter of urgency the Government should institute a high-level and independent inquiry into the causes of the underachievement of children of West Indian origin in maintained schools and the remedial action required'. But in 1999 Ofsted, in its publication, Raising the Attainment of Minority Ethnic Pupils, said: 'The gap between Afro-Caribbean pupils and the rest of the school population continues to widen.'

But it is an issue no one wants to address. Ministers and advisors talk endlessly about social exclusion and the problems of children for whom English is a second language. You can discuss the underachievement of boys. But not how the system fails black boys. Research both in this country and the United States shows that black boys need men in the classroom. They simply do not see reading or educational attainment as masculine or 'cool'. Although this also applies to white working-class boys, strategies designed to address male under-achievement in general are not working with black boys."

I have not the knowlegde to comment on how correct this viewpoint is, but from what I can gather Diana Abbott, at the very same time she was ridiculed for opting out of state educating her son, was also active in trying to force through changes in the state education system.

This is taken from an article by Gaby Hinsliff January 6, 2002 in the Observer

"Abbott, who will stage a conference in March to highlight what she calls a 'silent catastrophe', argues in an article in today's Observer that as schools are primarily staffed by women, 'it would be remarkable if all white women teachers were entirely free from the racial stereotypes that permeate this society about black men.'

Teenage black boys are 'often bigger than their white counterparts and may come from a culture which is more physical,' she adds. 'It seems a black boy doesn't have to be long out of disposable nappies for some teachers to see him as a miniature gangster rapper.'

The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington now wants Education Secretary Estelle Morris to issue national guidelines for closing the gap between the school performance of black and white children"

I know one can argue that parents have as much responsiblity as schools to ensure their children reach their potential. But if a certain group of children in your local state school are statistically at a disadvantage, and your child happens to be in that group, would you by choice send your child to that school?

Tinker · 06/03/2004 09:58

Bugger, meant to watch this and missed it.

bossykate · 06/03/2004 10:02

why is it always termed a choice between your principles and your child's education? that seems to be a false dichotomy to me. surely wanting the best education for your children is a principle?

tigermoth · 06/03/2004 10:03

very good point bk!

tigermoth · 06/03/2004 10:18

just googled Fiona Millar to get a taste of her views since I missed the programme.

I personally find it hard to agree with her every time she cites Camden state schools. My borough boasts the worst performing state schools in London. The only good-ish state school is way over the other side of the borough, so we stand zero chance of our son going there. I would be a fool to choose our most local state schools first, though he may well end up in one and I would then make the best of things and support the school.

Given the facts here I have no qualms about educating him in a neighbouring borough with better state schools and will, if he has the ability, put him in for that borough's 11+ exam.

tigermoth · 06/03/2004 10:19

amendment - our borought has the worst performing state secondary schools.

ks · 06/03/2004 10:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

tigermoth · 06/03/2004 10:25

Also, although my son goes to a VA church primary, I too think the system of state funding is unfair. I will not defend it outright. I am pragmatic but at least I am honest I will send my son to the best schools I can. I like church and I am happy to attend it and still do, despite both sons now being at the school (so no need to keep up chruch attendance for entry). Luckily what I like doing ahs meant my sons were accepted at the church school. The only reason I didn't attend the church many years ago was because I was running a market stall on Sundays.

hmb · 06/03/2004 11:42

Tigermoth, I would have a lot more sympathy for Diane Abbot if she hadn't been the MP for the region she lived in. If anyone was in a place to make sure that education was improved in her region it was her!

Also I think that her arguments are simplistic in the extreme regarding race and achievement in schools. She fails to take into account the home side of the argument. At the momoment the higest achieving ethnic group in the UK are Indians. They do better than whiles, blacks and everyone else. Children from Bangladeshi and Pakinstani famileies do worse. Can theis be explained by teachers discriminatinf in favour of Indians , but against Pakistanis? Do teachers try to find out what part of the Indian subcontinent children come from before deciding how to treat them?

The issues that determine a child's performance in school are very complex, and cannot be simply put down to discrimination by white women teachers.

tigermoth · 06/03/2004 12:01

As I said, I think the issues surrounding her argument about black boys' underachievement are complex, and I am not about to defend her POV outright.

However, I do have great sympathy with her persomal decision in refusing to allow her child to attend an underachieving school where boys of his ethnic group underachieve even more than other groups there. And, although I have not followed her activites closely, it appears she was trying to do something 'political' about the apparent problem she highlighted. And so she should - as she has chosen to be a politician.

hmb · 06/03/2004 12:12

Oh, I agree with you Tigermoth that she should have the right to send her child to a school where she feels he will be happy and do well. I think that all parents should have this right. And I don't think that she should sacrifice her son's future for the sake of political correctness.

I simply think that her comments on the underperformance of black boys are simplistic generalisations than have a handy whipping boy or girl; the teachers that are working within a sysyem that politicians have created.

I just have less sympathy for her in having poor local schools than I would 'Josy Public' since she was her own MP! If she saw there was a problem she was better placed than most to do something about it.

twiglett · 06/03/2004 13:55

message withdrawn

Tinker · 06/03/2004 14:20

Would this be the same Diane Abbott who chose Jonathan Aitken to be the godfather to her son? Her track record on judgement doesn't look to impressive.

miggy · 06/03/2004 14:22

Geat idea in theory but wouldnt it just make things miles worse in practice. No-one would want to go to underperforming schools so their funding would decrease and they would go more downhill and how would they control intake at popular schools?
Having said that there was an interesting article last w/end (times or telegraph) about an area in the states (sorry cant remember details but poor area)where voucher funding and parent choice had lead to a proliferation of small high achieving schools with high standards of discipline and education. They had had problems with the regulation of the private schools (ie dodgy heads) but that was being rectified. Sounded good

firestorm · 06/03/2004 14:39

i just caught this. i read the tories proposals & frankly thats what ive been saying for years. theres no way i would send my kids to their current (reasonable) state primary if i was given the education funding direct to spend as i wished.
i really hope this happens, but i wont hold my breath waiting.

Batters · 06/03/2004 18:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ks · 06/03/2004 18:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ScummyMummy · 06/03/2004 19:24

That's what I was asking too, Batters. I think it's a pretty arrogant argument, in a way. I do think that lack of diversity in terms of ability, race, class etc can make for a dull and stultifying learning environment but this is more often an issue for private schools than state because of their intake and selection arrangements.

WideWebWitch · 06/03/2004 19:49

Well, I agree - it could be considered an arrogant argument but I suspect it's the middle classes who are deserting the state sector in their droves, not any other large group of people. (unless "We're all middle class now", as Blair would have it - are we? Another thread maybe? The upper classes have never used state education anyway so we can discount them.) Presumably ANY large group deserting the state sector means less interest in what happens to it and isn't particularly good news?

I think the argument goes that the middle classes are more likely to be parents who have the time and inclination to get involved with their childrens' schools. Given that schools are so underfunded, they need parents who have the time and inclination to run cake sales and fetes and support the teaching staff by being governors, joining the PTA and generally caring about what happens to the school etc. BTW, please note that I'm not necessarily saying I agree. I could buy the argument that none of us should have to do it though and that increased money in state education would go a long way towards helping. Maybe the idea is to get everyone so knackered by becoming involved in cake sales they have absolutely no energy left for lobbying the government on education?

OP posts:
ks · 06/03/2004 19:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

bossykate · 06/03/2004 20:04

i think its (1) arrogant and (2) unrealistic. it is hard to see how a small minority of pupils and parents could make such a difference.

well this hasn't really kicked off, has it?

aloha · 06/03/2004 20:05

I do think the 'blame the parents' approach really gets my goat. Yeah, right, the reasons schools aren't delivering is because a few parents don't put their kids into state schools. I don't think so, Fiona. Unless the kids are supposed to teach each other, I just don't think this has any logic to it at all.
BTW I have always argued against state funding for faith schools. It's discriminatory and divisive and thus immoral IMO. I particularly dislike the fact that it discriminates between childen on the grounds of their parents' beliefs. What next? Political schools?

Jimjams · 06/03/2004 20:13

We've done faith schools before, but really a lot of these arguments about faith schools, catchments etc do only apply in the south - east (and probably other large cities like Leeds or manchester I'm not sure). My son attends a church school which accpets all religions (and indeed there are other faiths in his class- and they don't have to attend worship or do any of the churchy stuff).

State vs private? If the state schools were great no-one would want to send their child private (why pay for something you can get for free). this is typical politician crap though isn't it. They don't want people to use thier cars, but they fail to invest in public transport. They don't want people to send their kids private but they fail to invest in education.

I send ds1 to a state school because it provides by far the best education for him. DS2 will go to a state school as well because a) we have access to good ones b) more diversity and c) the private sectors attitude towards SN has shocked me so I have no wish to give them my money. But I would sacrifice b and c if the state schools near us were crap. (And for that reason I may send ds2 private for secondary education- obviously no private school in the land would touch ds1)

ks · 06/03/2004 20:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn