Tristram Hunt's Speech

[kellyandthecat]

So, what did everyone think?

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/nov/24/private-schools-labour-warning-tax-breaks-tristram-hunt

Seems to me like Labour have made a big deal out of it but he hasn't really done anything at all, and it's a bit hard for him to sound sincere when he's so posh himself. Honestly, I don't know why Labour don't just admit they were wrong and bring back the grammar schools. DH and I both went to grammar schools and are putting/have put our DCs through private. Hate how in this country politicians can't just admit they were wrong! It's a strength in any other area of leadership surely?! All this messing around on the margins just looks like pointless busy work - I would not support it but I would be more impressed with their convictions if they said they were going to take away the charitable status. Making them play football together?! Stupid.

amber I agree to an extent.

However, it isn't just about resources, often there is a fundamental divergence in ideology.

If, for example, a teacher from private school were to try to improve the success rate in university applications ( particularly the most selective universities) many state schools would have to change their methods but also their policies. And many are reluctant to change.

TheWordFactory, your post (at: Thu 27-Nov-14 08:08:09) is the long and short of it for me. I couldn't put it better myself.

OK. Who's going to tweet this thread to Hunt then .......

dailygrowl - I think you've hit the nail on the head with a lot of your post.

I'm also amazed how much agreement there is on this thread - didn't expect that.

I'd also imagine that a lot of the state-educating posters are exactly the demographic that Mr Hunt thinks his idea will appeal to.

A lot of the rhetoric also doesn't make sense to me. Banging on about the gulf between private schools and state schools and how damaging this is yet not saying a word about what he intends to do to close that gap in terms of providing more and better resources for the state sector. Almost sounds as if he'd like the private sector to start to do worse in order to narrow the gap.

With the competition for places in the top private schools, the children who are at these schools are in the main very bright. Doesn't mean that there aren't equally bright children in the state sector who are equally successful, or equally bright children in the state sector who aren't successful due to the schools they are at being poor or difficult home life etc. But, it also doesn't mean that these very bright children at the private schools aren't entitled to their place at Oxford or wherever if they get the relevant grades. Plenty of private school pupils go on to Art Colleges or other less elite universities, and imo it's not that high a percentage that go on to be uber-successful millionaires.

If our universities are turning out valuable members of society whether doctors, academics, teachers, engineers etc etc, it's hardly a sign of failure whether the doctor comes from a state school or a private school... the country has a qualified doctor.

If his argument is real then the answer is to provide more elite universities, medical schools etc, so that all bright students who achieve the appropriate grades for the course can be offered a place.

Having been to both normal state, private and state grammar schools, I can't say that we were spoon-fed at any of them. I was expected to work far harder and achieve far more at the private school (and play inordinate amounts of sport that I was totally useless at) than either of the others.

Where is the evidence that class sizes make a difference to outcomes?

The problem with state schools is that learning time is routinely lost by teachers having to deal with regular low level disruption. And all of the most disruptive children are clustered in the state sector - private schools exclude any child who might prove a drag on the learning of others.

I would like to see the most challenging children spread fairly across the entire school system - state and private, so that state school pupils are no longer disproportionately affected by this problem.

Rootand
Class sizes - there is none
some of the most academic if soul destroying systems have huge classes

If there is a difference between state and private (and some contend there isn't much), then we not only need to identify what it is, other than selection, but we also need to identify what makes a real difference to outcomes.

In other words, what should state schools be learning from the private model?

Class sizes and low level disruption sound instinctively appealing reasons, but there seem to be enough people with bright kids in state schools defending the system to cast doubt on those issues.

Is the conclusion that actually the top half (or choose a %) of the state system works well, is fit for purpose and gets the best out of all?

If so, the only job for Hunt is the other half (or choose a %) of the state system that isn't performing at the same level and where outcomes are lower than they should be.

I suppose I'm just restating what we've all said in another way (potentially useless contribution).....

MN I think you're right.

There are some schools that tequire serious help, rather than a bit of jam from private schools.

But these schools tend not to be where Mr Hunt will find the disaffected middle class he seeks to attract.

The schools where these voters congregate are largely doing a decent job, and improvements here would require ideology shift. Which ain't gonna happen.

I would like to see the most challenging children spread fairly across the entire school system

And how exactly could you achieve that? Private schools would sooner forego any tax breaks than take in large numbers of disruptive children because they would likely go out of business if they had large numbers of disruptive children. If private schools go out of business the state sector has a much bigger education budget headache than they currently gave.

Let's blow our own trumpets here. We are doing a better job of identifying the real issues and proposing possible solutions that government.

Whilst deeply gratifying for all of us, that's somewhat disappointing, especially with an election round the corner. On matters of health, education, welfare and economy there doesn't seem to be any competence amongst the parties.

Children with problems don't need to be spread thinly like value margarine, they need specialist care in specialist units staffed by experts.

Children who cant thrive in mainstream schools, shouldn't be there. It's not fair on the other pupils, or teachers, or more importantly, the children themselves.

Surely it depends on the problem? Disruption isn't just caused by children who need specialist care or education, but by kids with traumatic home lives, or kids who don't feel confident in their academic abilities so play up to try to disguise that, or kids who, for whatever reason, don't see the value of doing well at school. Kids like that should be able to thrive in mainstream schools, but they need highly skilled teachers and other support staff to help them do so.

WordFactory
yy

I one of the schools I teach in (inner city Academy), special needs are handled superbly, and DC are in and out of classes where appropriate, with good support staff, very sensitively handled. Other nearby schools are dire. Many state schools could learn from best practice in other state schools before looking at teaching in the independent sector.

"And how exactly could you achieve that? Private schools would sooner forego any tax breaks than take in large numbers of disruptive children"

They wouldn't have to take 'large numbers'.

Not if they were spread fairly across all schools.

Those highly skilled support staff and teachers don't exist in the private sector. They don't exist because they don't currently have a need for them. As others have said, private schools just exclude disruptive children. On that basis, private schools are not currently the most suitable place for disruptive children because they won't get the support that they need.
Even in mainstream state schools the vast majority of teachers don't have the skills required to effectively manage disruptive pupils without impacting negatively on the education if the rest of the class. I have to agree with wordfactory, mainstream classes whether private or state is not the right place for disruptive pupils. No child should have their education damaged because of disruptive pupils. Whilst segregating disruptive pupils isn't ideal, it is the best way to prevent the disruption from impacting on others. If we had a policy of not keeping disruptive pupils in mainstream classes more parents might not be drawn towards private education and we would have a better mix in state schools as private schools wouldn't be able to 'cream' off so many pupils.

Rootandbranch there aren't enough private schools to spread the disruptive pupils thinly across them. 93% of children are educated in the state sector so if we spread disruptive pupils evenly across all schools it wouldn't make a huge difference as you would only be taking 7% of the disruptive pupils out and placing them in private schools, you would still have the other 93% of disruptive pupils in state schools.
Putting all disruptive pupils in private schools wouldn't work either as because I said earlier, the schools would go out of business. Fee paying parents might not mind a poor bright child having a free or heavily subsidised place in the same school where they are paying £15kpa because they know that bright children have an overall positive impact butt hey won't be happy paying £15kpa to have lessons constantly disrupted by a badly behaved kid who is there on a free place. Parents would vote with their feet and wallets and the schools would go out of business. Govt would never try to impose such a policy because they know that the resulting impact would be much more expensive than the current tax breaks that private schools get.

Hold on everyone! We had some consensus. Let's not spoil the thread with arguments about what type of schools are better and mix of abilities and so on. Whether we have today's "varied" system or a pure non-selective, secular, comprehensive system, the job of the Department of Education would be to raise the standards of the under performing schools. Hunt and his opposition have said nothing convincing about that.

I think we can do a better job of coming up with policies than they can.

So, if you saw a failing/underperforming school in your neighbourhood what would you do to improve it?

1. employ more teachers
2. invest in better facilities
3. change the curriculum
4. weed out and replace bad teachers
5. other (ideas on a post[card])

Clearly some measures require lots of money, but perhaps that's part of the answer.

I would:

1. Weed out and replace the bad teachers.
2. Ensure that the most able children are stretched and given extension work to ensure that they meet their potential.
3. Ensure that the least able children are given targeted work and additional support to help them achieve as much as possible.
4. Remove the most disruptive children into another environment (probably a spear ate unit within the same school building) to ensure that they don't have a negative impact on the education of others.
5. Employ a specialist career person who can guide the children and help with applications for further education including things like interview techniques and writing personal profiles.

The problems with uninterested parents would still exist and would still impact enormously on the education of their children and there really isn't much that can be done about that.

TBH A lot of the "low level disruption" can be dealt with by making use of effective PRU and specialist Units.

A case in point is Southampton.
The city was at the bottom of the league tables for results and attendance.
So it closed its 15 little PRUs and opened a massive one with a full range of staffing.
All of the other schools instantly knew that they could send the 'problem' kids away for a week or a month or a term and they would get specialist help and support.
Its working : results are up and truancy is down.

But the government has now slagged Southampton schools of for too many temporary exclusions - to the PRU FFS

If EVERY Lea or secondary cluster was required to learn from the best 'disruptive pupil' practice THAT would make a difference to those who most need it.

Private schools are pretty much irrelevant to that issue.

Talkinpeace
yyy

I agree talkinpeace.
I do support the use of PRUs but I also worry about the effects of putting a large number of disruptive children together. It works fine when you have good staff with appropriate training but not do fine when not properly resourced. I would rather disruptive pupils be placed in PRUs than left in mainstream classrooms to disrupt others.

Inthedark
The PRU in question (pupils number up to 90) is not far from here.
I have never ever been aware of it : nor are most of the other residents
because it is properly resourced

DH did some work at a PRU in London where all the kids were gang members excluded from schools for carrying weapons (girls and boys).
The haircuts freaked him a bit
but the kids were fab - because for the first time in their lives they were being listened to on a ONE TO ONE basis.
If the PRU had been available when they were in year 4, living in disrupted families, they would never have joined the gangs.

The point is that the greatest fears of MC parents who run to the private sector

• disruption
• violence
• bullying for working

are entirely avoidable and ARE avoided in many areas of the country THAT is what the fuckwit Ministers should be concentrating on sharing not Greek lessons FFS

It sounds like a win all around. Why are these not more popular? What does PRU stand for?

Toomany
Pupil Referral Unit
Yes, well used that are a Win Win
BUT
badly used they are just holding tanks
and sadly in many areas there is the "we have a PRU for every catchment" attitude
which did not work then and it does not now

Southampton only sorted it out because they got roasted by Ofsted
but now they have a system that works
one of DDs class mates was sent to it for half a term and it turned him around so completely its astounding , and saved his mum and his siblings .... hundreds of thousands of taxes saved long term
and if naice Mr Hunt actually cared he'd put more money into sharing expertise

FWIW
one thing I think private schools have a massive potential symbiotic relationship with state schools
is
further maths, extra languages, debating skills
possibly where the private schools make it the end of their school day, so the State school kids arrive by minibus after their day

the state kids will be as bright and as motivated as the fee payers and the bigger group will be fun for the teachers

it struck me as I wandered through Winchester College after lunch today and then parked the car by Peter Symonds