MNHQ here: contribute to 'Schools that Work for Everyone' consultation

[FinnMumsnet]

Hello,

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Education Governance and Leadership have been in touch with Mumsnet.

They'll shortly be meeting to debate the key ideas of 'Schools that Work for Everyone', a Department for Education consultation paper. (The DfE have responsibility for schools in England only.) The consultation is ongoing, so feel free to make your contribution via the online survey on this page.

The Department for Education say:

"We’re consulting on proposals to create more good school places. The proposals include:
· expecting independent schools to support existing or open new state schools, or offer funded places to children whose families can’t afford to pay fees;
· asking universities to commit to sponsoring or setting up new schools in exchange for the ability to charge higher fees;
· allowing selective schools to expand, or new ones to open, while making sure they support non-selective schools;
· allowing new faith free schools to select up to 100% of pupils based on their faith, and introducing new requirements to make sure that faith schools include pupils from different backgrounds."

The consultation window closes at 11.45pm on Monday 12 December.

Thanks,
MNHQ

Noblegiraffe I found the link - the Catholic Education Service is planning to establish up to 40 new free schools if (and only if) the 50% cap on faith-based admissions is lifted.

The proposals are so laden with prejudiced assumptions, for example that private schools are ipso facto in a position to support state schools, or that that is needed.

Unis to support schools in order to be able to charge higher fees? Who to? The students of the very schools they are supporting? Schools who get these kids into Uni on a lower cost per head for way more teaching hours than university offer?

I will do the survey, and a full responses to the paper.

You are right 'TheKing.'
Will need some uninterrupted time to do it justice.
Almost corrupt in its bias....

Both I and my DD filled in the consultation document. My DD was horrified by the biase, as it would fail GCSE Sociology.

What about: letting LAs have local control of schools - including setting up new ones where needed, funding schools fairly, allowing Sixth Form colleges the privilege of not paying VAT, charging private schools VAT (and reducing their charitable status to charitable activities, not the provision of education which parents pay for), getting rid of grammars - certainly not expanding them, letting Universities be universities (they know about teaching from 18+ not schools), oh and funding pre-school education and support which provides the best boost for those from poorer backgrounds.

Basically fund education, and let teachers teach. Taking education out of the control of the latest education minister who just wants to "tinker" just as Gordon Brown gave the Bank of England control over interest rates.

Agree with many of the posts, thank you.

We’re consulting on proposals to create more good school places. The proposals include:
Why are they not asking teachers?
Why not ask the local councillors, who used to be able to keep schools relatively safe and successful and were accountable to local people, parents and teachers, before acadamisation?
Why are trades unions increasingly excluded from school consultations?
Why are so many existing teachers being bullied out of schools?
Why do they think children should have to go to such toxic environments in which they regularly see adults humiliated and abused?
How many teachers have been paid off in the last 5 years?
How much has this cost schools?

· expecting independent schools to support existing or open new state schools, or offer funded places to children whose families can’t afford to pay fees;

Why do private schools get tax exemption when state schools are going bankrupt?

· asking universities to commit to sponsoring or setting up new schools in exchange for the ability to charge higher fees;

Why are children turned into indentured humans through unfeasible debts and fast sales patter from HE institutions?
To whom will these debts be sold on, and what will be the new terms of repayment?

· allowing selective schools to expand, or new ones to open, while making sure they support non-selective schools;

Why? Which areas of the successful German or Scandinavian system use 'selective'(private) model?

· allowing new faith free schools to select up to 100% of pupils based on their faith, and introducing new requirements to make sure that faith schools include pupils from different backgrounds."

Agree with TheKingIsInTheAltogether
Christian religious organisations in this country hold a substantial amount of wealth, and are not politically accountable, why should they have any involvement in a public service?
Why should men in dresses be allowed any where near learning environments and children?

Thanks for asking, but there are millions of pounds worth of trained experienced teachers who wouldn't go back into current schools for love nor money. Most new teachers will not be doing the job in 5 years.
Supply teaching agencies are offering cash to anyone who can help them recruit. They are desperate.
Exam boards, with new dubiously accredited( and even more dubious conflict of interest issues related to Pearson, Murdoch and Gove) syllabi can't recruit examiners. Having been an examiner I can confirm the chaos involved in marking papers which were already well established. ( marking boundaries being changed half way through marking period and all papers being remarked to prevent more children passing).
The new (2017 sitting) Maths and English GCSE exams have no published criteria on how to attain the grades.
My local authority English adviser told us that the 2017 GCSE English results will be a 'bloodbath'.

Like the health system, it's in almost total collapse.
Look at the vastly growing numbers of parents removing their children to home educate.
Trump is setting about privatising the whole american education system, is this where we're going here?
www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/11/14/will-donald-trump-destroy-u-s-public-education/

The only reason I've seen offered against the scrapping of Faith schools that I've thought was reasonable was that it would be too expensive to buy the land and make up the shortfall that the church provides.

If the church won't be expected to provide anything and will simply be delivered children to preach to (100% Faith selected so no complaints allowed) then I'm even more against this proposal than I already was! The sheer amount of lying and coerced pew time being put in just to get entry to a state school is bonkers.

If people are responding to the consultation, Tim Leunig the data director for the DfE who will most likely be reading all the responses says that your response needs to:

1. say who you are and what your stake is (so if you are a parent with children at primary or secondary then put that)
2. be calm and clear, not abusive (no 'this proposal is shit, what you'd expect from the Tories who piss about with state education while knowing they can afford to send their kids private')
3. reference evidence where possible (e.g. Overwhelming evidence that grammar schools do not support social mobility per studies by X, y, z)

He promised that all responses will be read, so don't worry about answering the questions, just write what you want to in each section/leave some blank if you've no opinion.

It's really important to respond even if you only respond in part. Laura McInerey of Schools Week has promised to do a Freedom of Information request to see whether the responses are negative or positive, so the DfE won't be able to hide anything (and I think the DfE may be against the proposals so wouldn't want to).

Faith schools are divisive by nature.

That was the core gist of my entire letter.

It's pants imho if we parents are expected to academic-style reference all our points. People like Tim Leunig know the literature and the quality of the literature far better than I do. What we parents can do is make clear what our priorities are. TL or others can then consider whether our perspectives are supported by valid evidence.

Else in this post-truth world it's enough to say "I don't like faith schools and Joe down the pub agrees with me. I think Joe's a solid man, so you should believe him too."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-grammar-schools-backlash-240m-a7439716.html

Really is important to fill in the consultation. As you can see in the piece above some Tory MPs are upset about this - many others may be thinking even if they have no personal views on grammars that its a mistake to give Labour such an obvious attack line in the £240 million for the most advantaged pupils. The government will not be able to prevent a negative response from being known - they have just been ordered to release the document concerning the Sevenoaks "annexe". Considering the fight they have put up one can only assume there is something to hide there.

Also worth writing to your MP. I wrote to mine (Tory) and their response indicated that they agreed with me and didn't expect the proposals in the white paper to survive intact.

How about they focus on the real issue.

Children who don't fall into certain categories not making the same progress as their peers.

Sen is a major problem ATM. Schools get a notional budget which is not ring fenced. They have no legal requirement to meet any needs suggested by professional agencies yet to get Sen funding the child must be seeing them. And unless a child gets a statutory assessment and EHCP then the schools can pick and chose which needs to meet to benefit their results - often not what benefits the child. And an la can and does refuse to carry out statutory assessment unless the school has tried everything.
Pupils are leaving school having been spoon fed information yet without some bery basic skills which are needed for further education and adulthood.

I do not see how getting schools run on massive budgets and as businesses will help state funded schools who cannot afford the same equipment and ratios they can.

I don't see how increasing selective schools will help those children who could acheive academically as well with the right support acheive it.

And how does increasing fees on universities help those on a lower income?

Instead of coming up with such an eye catchy title, the government should better increase funding or budgets to ALL educational settings, provide free training courses to those wanting to become qualified teachers or education specialists in order to increase numbers of good teachers in every classroom around the country and pay them better!
The government's proposal sounds very lazy and unrealistic! Why on Earth does the government thinks it is right to put pressure on other educational establishments who are probably already being stretched to the limit? I know many teachers who are already helping other schools improve and they say that the whole process is very draining! If the government thinks that shifting the duty of care from themselves to other educational establishments is right then they are deluded.
'Schools that work for everyone' sound VERY insulting!
The schools I know are already working for everyone! The government's duty of care is slipping at a higher rate and they know it! It makes me really angry to see that they are trying to put the blame on somebody else every time! What we need is more good teachers in every school! In my area, child education & teaching courses are very expensive, some people can't afford training for free, many teachers are leaving the profession and are not replaced or are replaced by people with very little training! What is the government doing about it?... Just proposing 'Schools that work for everyone'? I would say to the government to get on ASAP and provide Teaching courses FREE for everyone, improve pay to support increase in numbers of teaching staff and provide the CORRECT budget in every educational setting and then the schools will work for everyone!

Done.
Some VERY strange starting points in the consultation.
Thankyou for giving us the chance to make our feelings known.

Is a bit odd in the first question it wants you to just choose one of the options of 'who you are' - surely many of us wear several hats from that list?

The questions are irritating but it is possible to answer them in a way that shows your disapproval - or you could always just submit an accompanying letter

Apologies - you are absolutely right, and indeed that is exactly what I did a while back. My 'no thanks' was inappropriate.

TheKing Interesting. I wrote to my Tory MP as well and while she spouted the government line she also urged me "very strongly" to respond to the consultation, even though it was obvious that I was strongly opposed. I got no feeling that she was herself enthused by the proposal.

multivac What a very gracious response. Thank you. I think we all share your feelings about this appalling consultation, I'm glad people aren't allowing it to silence them.

I did my best to answer the questions. I feel really exasperated. This is so stupid.

yet another "rubber stamp" job

I answered the questions mostly in a 'I reject the premise of the question' kind of way. I'd like to see government research have to undergo some kind of assessment for validity and impartiality (in the way academic research does?) as this was propaganda. I've seen this over the years in all governments, it's not particularly a party political issue.

What terrible ideas.

Started to answer survey but it's so ridiculous & misguided I'll need to go back to it.

A key difference in England between independent and state schools is class size. Class sizes should be equalized across sectors. This would enable pedagogical innovation to be tested in the private sector and then rolled out in the state sector. Currently, discrepancies in class size make experimentation in the private sector largely irrelevant in the state sector.

A key driver of cost savings is ensuring teachers are supported to work effectively with large classes.

MNHQ why is this only in education and not stickied at the top of the site? It's an important subject.

@TheCrowFromBelow

MNHQ why is this only in education and not stickied at the top of the site? It's an important subject.

Good point -- I'd be happy to sticky it in a few more topics and in Active.

A user has been in touch to point out that the OP doesn't make clear which schools are actually affected by the consultation. I'm sorry for any confusion this has created, and have updated it to reflect the fact that the Department for Education's jurisdiction extends to schools in England only.

Bobo- do you really believe parents would continue to fork out £12k p.a. +++ if class sizes were increased by 50%?
What do you think they are paying for?
Because that is what your proposal would mean, there is no way the state system would reduce class size by a third, they cannot afford more teachers.