Grown up discussion about improving equality in education (hopefully)

[BeRoseBee]

I know everyone is tired of all the VAT on school fees threads - this isn’t one of them. Lots of threads on that if you want to discuss that.

Can we have a grown up conversation about how to improve equality in education for all? I’d like to keep it free from party politics if possible, genuine policy suggestions only please.

The Rest is Politics has a phrase I like - let’s disagree agreeably. Debate is good. Different opinions are good. Personal attacks or attacking a political party are not helpful.

I’ll start - personally I think buying educational privilege is rampant in the state sector. Wealthy parents buy houses at inflated prices in order to get their kids into the “best” state schools.

Wouldn’t equality be improved if we did away with this? If we could work out the logistics (mainly transport) why not have a random selection of state school within your local authority area? Buying a pricey house no longer guarantees your kids go to school with other wealthy kids, you’d get a genuine mix of kids from different backgrounds.

Anyone have any (constructive) opinions on this?

I wish there was an easy answer to give all children the same opportunities and standard of education. But I can't see how there will ever not be inequality.

Ofsted is far from perfect. There needs to be an effective mechanism for measuring schools and holding them accountable to national standards.

In theory, I guess I'm not a supporter of the independent sector. But in reality, I know that if the schools local to me weren't providing excellent education and I was able to afford to go private, then the tiger mom in me would over-ride my moralistic stance.

The immediate issue with your suggestion @BeRoseBee is that it would be impossible to be sure you would go to your local, walkable school. The last thing we need is more traffic at school times. My commute is sooooo much quicker and quieter in school holidays as it is.

Also lots of us are really in favour of our DC walking to school, having school friends who live locally, having activities that they can do in the local area (which might be linked to school - such as sports teams - or might just happen at their school).

DH and I both had long commutes to secondary which we hated for many reasons, and when we bought our house, walkability from the schools was one massive factor.

I personally think money should be spent to bring schools up to a higher standard - even things like enough glue sticks and pens would make a difference, never mind nicer buildings and enough teachers. More needs to be done to support state schools to improve.

It's an absolutely easy answer: funding.

To pay for:
Sure start centres or equivalent to support all parents but especially those struggling.

LSAs in every class primary and secondary.

More enrichment activities and a much more engaging curriculum, this costs an absolute fortune. Sitting working from a textbook or on a computer is cheap.

To actually pay for school resources such as glue.

To pay teacher's properly who have the skills to fill in the gaps for students who come from less privileged backgrounds.

Fund more work experience by paying companies to take students, to raise aspirations.

I could go on.

I think the ideal is for all children to have a well resourced school within walking distance where the vast majority of Parents, Teachers and pupils are fully engaged. Where all achievement is celebrated whether its academic or otherwise and everyone achieves their potential whatever that is.
All paid for via taxes

Faster diagnosis and specialized SEN provision.

ban on "girly" shoes that limit activity

@BeRoseBee ,

And actually abolish private schooling by law? It would seem unfair to allow equality in the non fee paying sector but allow people to buy their way out of it.

I am not really convinced this thread is in good faith. However, bussing was tried in the U.S and it failed for a variety of reasons.

If you want a proper answer, it starts with money. The schools absorbing the teacher salary rises on already very stretched budgets was outrageous.

After money, it is allowing schools to have a proper and enforced behaviour management policy, including exclusion (as a last resort). SEN can only be handled up-to-a-point in mainstream schooling. If students are violent or consistently disruptive, they cannot be educated in a mainstream setting. It just doesn’t work for the other pupils, especially the other quieter SEN pupils, who often struggle to focus and are sensitive to noise.

I do think that we should also bring back some form of grammars for stronger pupils. Maybe deeper and broader than the current ones, which are viciously gamed via tutors, but educating future Oxbridge candidates in the same school (and sometimes in the same class) as those struggling with arithmetic just doesn’t work.

And finally, respect! This means respect for the teachers and the school rules by both pupils and, especially, parents. There is another thread on here about middle class parents describing why it is perfectly ok to take pupils on term time holidays. Ummm, not if you want good educational outcomes for all, it really isn’t.

Funding.

SEN support.

Funding

Appropriate early interventions for children with disruptive behaviours.

Funding

More BTEC options in y10/y11 for those who want them.

Funding

Functional skills L2 English & Maths as option for those who may not pass the GCSEs.

Funding.

I disagree with the whole idea that if you force wealthier kids (whether from state or private) into underperforming schools that the education of the poorer children in that school will improve. I grew up in a place where schools were randomly allocated and children were bussed all over the city and there were still good schools and awful schools. Wealthier students still consistently had better outcomes than poorer students. It maybe helped some kids at the margins, but overall not a great leveller.

I think we expect too much from schools in terms of social mobility - ultimately it is parental input that has the greatest impact on where a child lands, and wealthier parents will have more options for upping input (extracurriculars, travel, tutors, etc.). I think if you want to really change trajectory of a disadvantaged child you need other inputs (in addition to good schools) that will support them early and support them holistically in terms of social, psychological and creative support.

“I am not really convinced this thread is in good faith.”

Can I ask why you think this?

I started the thread because any mention of VAT on fees descends into a huge argument with less than sensible opinions on both sides.

I thought removing that might mean a proper debate on education.

I believe in the last Labour manifesto (under Corbyn) they proposed the state taking over all private schools and ending private education in the U.K. I think this is a much more sensible policy than what is being proposed but I’m convinced by it.

I understand the argument that this would improve equality but if the formerly private schools continued to perform well wouldn’t wealthy parents buy property near them and we’d continue to have a system whereby the wealthiest kids get the best education?

@BeRoseBee ,

Maybe I am wrong about ‘good faith’. If so, I apologise.

I don’t think we will ever have total equality of education and I am not sure it is even a reasonable goal. It is like any pure communism, great in principle, but totally working against human nature.

What we do want is every pupil to have a fair chance to succeed. I hope my ideas above are reasonable in this regard.

But the problems are at a societal level. We over value wealth and undervalue non monetary contribution to society. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves. It is partly about the money, but more about the lack of respect, by both pupils and parents.

I'd say a good start would be to start formal education at 6 like a lot of other countries do. Starting at 4 is bonkers really - 4 years olds can be so different at that age; some are barely out of nappies and naps and not very good at talking; others can be articulate, able to read etc. Nothing to do with intelligence, just kids mature differently

I think it's a much more level playing field at 6 and I reckon a lot of problems in British education stem from starting at a time when too many kids just aren't ready for formal learning.

Of course, no one would ever go for it, it seems counterintuitive, but I bet kids would achieve a lot better if they actually started later.

For any kind of "random" allocation system, we'd need more schools, much smaller, and reverse the trend of ever-bigger schools. If we don't do that, there'll be a ridiculous amount of traffic criss-crossing our towns and cities where pupils are allocated schools at the "other" end of town, or even in neighbouring towns. Or if you want to avoid traffic, we need a whole new system of free school buses (US style) to provide transport between home and school for anyone living further than easy walking distance.

At the moment, "having" to live near the best schools actually means people move into their catchment areas so less need for transport.

Also for any kind of "random allocation", then NO schools could be selective, i.e. no grammars obviously, but also no faith schools, no specialist sports/language/arts schools etc. Literally every school would have to be equal, offer the same choice of subjects, etc.

Good luck with making all that happen!

Bring back & extend Sure Start Centres - they were proven to improve outcomes for children & families who used them.

More funding. But also a recognition that funding needs to be tailored to the school & environment. It's great that inner city schools got increased funding as problems were found; but now many rural schools receive much less funding & yet often have higher costs than inner city schools.

More SEN specialist schools, that cater for different needs - not lumping all SEN children together & not trying to get them to struggle through mainstream schools when it isn't in their best interest.

Better funding for people wishing to train as teachers - presently, unless you're a recent graduate or have a lot of savings, it's practically impossible to afford the training year of a PGCE.

Better salaries for teachers; & reduce the administrative burden on teachers. Having to record everything & outcomes is just bonkers.

education on the surface appears relatively unchanged since its inception.
with so many societal changes, more movement flexibility working from home to name a few, I think a total rethink on delivery is needed. Blazers in hot weather, ties???
I too think smaller more personal schooling is needed. Although I realize some communities are small.

I think at primary level and below, teachers and TAs absolutely have to plug the gaps that disengaged parents fail to fill. In our state primary, there was a group of intervention DCs who either had SEN or the parents just could not be bothered to read, send in PE kit etc etc. They absolutely knew that the school was quite middle class and privileged and so the gaps would be plugged. In a poorer school where there are 15 kids with SEN or disengaged parents or more than 15, the schools have no hope in hell in plugging the gaps. TAs are essentially underpaid but their role is quite vital. Our school offered additional morning and after school catch up sessions. Quite often the middle class children with SEN like dyslexia would take those up, but the disengaged parents would refuse to show up for 8.30am for intervention.

I think if every primary in the whole country would actually bring every child up to their best version of themselves by Year 6, then by Year 7 teachers could be engaging the children directly with additional resources to help themselves, regardless of their parents. That is if they have an internet connection and are given a safe space to study. Schools can offer this if they want. It happens in some schools in London, I have seen it in person.
So personally I think we need to reengage parents first but it is much harder in deprived areas where hardly anyone is engaged, because humans are social animals so they all copy each other. Competitive middle class parenting drives itself. Disengaged parenting is the same.

Deprived communities need mentoring and engagement and often a footballer can inspire kids more than a teacher. If teachers/services/red tape are distrusted - you first have to build that trust.

As for teachers leaving in droves - well it is a difficult job which cannot be done from home. Most teachers are clever enough to do easier jobs with better pay and more flexibility. Same applies to nurses and medicine. I am starting to wonder whether younger staff should be offered higher pay now vs the option of a final salary pension scheme.

One thing that puzzles me is how much teachers are expected to design their own lessons, monitor the individual progress of each child, and provide a bespoke service in a model that is clearly not resourced for it. It seems a recipe for demoralisation to burden teachers with mountains of paperwork and a demand to reinvent the wheel.

Sure, the ideal dinner might be a bespoke meal designed by the chef to meet the individual tastes and needs of each diner, drawing on chef's subtle understanding of culinary arts and years of practice. But if you haven't resourced accordingly, attempting that model will lead to worse outcomes than a decent, fairly standardised menu for 70% of the diners, which can be perfected and scaled, creating capacity to cater for the 30% of diners with specific needs.

There's a reason that pub food has improved massively in the past few years, and it's because a few food service providers have the resources to design excellent meals that can be prepared in a wide range of kitchens, are nutritious and popular with diners, and are designed with an eye on ease of preparation for the staff. They also support a much wider range of dietary needs than when it was a local chef asked to manage as best they can.

This is based on second-hand observation of friends in teaching, so I'd be interested to know if this resonates with any teachers here.

I may be way off-base, but I compare it to my own profession, where we rely on well-proven standard approaches wherever possible, and are trusted to adapt as needed to special cases. We don't figure it out from first principles each time while being micromanaged.

Ok, have a look at this thread:
To ask school to stop sending me these texts? | Mumsnet

The difference between an excellent school and sink one is parents - in the former such messages as OP on linked thread describes would lead to some tough measures at home; in latter parent just abdicates responsibility. Or like this one Toilet training and high anxiety - how schools are changing - BBC News

Yes, funding etc would help, but still not fix the issue. At the moment supportive and invested parents push to get into the best schools with likeminded families. Mixing with the likes of OP on first thread won't level up her kids but drag down the ones who could have a chance of a good educational environment. And it's not always fully linked to wealth.

I do believe we should leave selective education as is to give a chance to at least some proportion of kids (future contributors) to reach max and focus heavily on supporting sink areas but with pragmatic understanding of what is possible to achieve there

I would also axe the exam centric orientation of education, as I think it is stultifying for students and teachers, creates a very narrow definition of academic success, and underserves children at the lowest and highest levels of attainment. All students should be assessed for math and English , but the threshold for a ‘pass’ should be fixed rather than grade bounded.

I think a massive shift towards modules would make a real improvement instead of the "year by year" approach and allow pupils to progress at their own pace, with some kind of school leaving certificate at the end, made up of an amalgamation of marks for each module.

I also think there has to be a much closer connection between public health and schools. There is no point trying to make sure a child reads fluently over and above making sure their teeth are fine and that they get food and enough exercise. I realise the latter should be the parents’ responsibility but if we know that children are obese and not exercising, that surely has to come above reading levels? As well as social and emotional development which has to be second straight after physical health.

I find my DCs sat way too much in state primary during the day and that is the one thing I was jealous about preps. A bit of skipping and running around a playground or field is more important than fitting in the phonics. If Ofsted is too focussed on the latter, schools have no choice but to cram the curriculum at the expense of the physical and emotional & social health of children.

Thoughts on why some parents choose private:
Smaller classes
Longer day fits in better with full time work
More positive engagement - no option for the child to not try (eg, can't go and sit in a quiet room because they are finding the lesson hard, their effort is required, appreciated and valued)
Competitive sports
Generally similar families who have similar attitude to and value the importance of self discipline and taking responsibility
Access to alternative education system e.g. International Baccalaureate
Effective behaviour policy, sanctions that work and ultimately the ability to expel those who are disruptive

Movement breaks are SO important for adults and children, but especially primary age children. For my not very athletic but very SEND child it makes a massive difference in her ability to maintain regulation and stay engaged in the academics all day long. Their current indie is great for this - they easily get a couple of hours of physical movement time per day. There’s a growing body of data supporting the importance of frequent movement breaks for office workers - the human body is not designed to sit at a desk for hours at a time.

I think the key is to make sure we level up, not level down. So closing schools that are working well (however they are funded) to make sure those who in schools that don’t work as well is a mistake.

Also being clear that humans are individuals. What is a great school for one child can be a disaster for another. Removing choice is also a mistake.

My view is we should be doing far more on parental responsibility, aspiration and behaviour. Schools reflect the communities where the kids come from.

I always wonder where home schooling fits into this debate. As increasing numbers of kids are home schooled and technology makes this more feasible there will be big changes to education. The increased flexibility could significantly increase inequality.

All this innovation will probably happen outside of the state schooling system. At the moment we can’t force children into state schools in this country. The government will have to come up with nudges to improve equality rather than central control policies. That will be very challenging.

I feel so cross that the media are focusing on just VAT policy when they talk about education and the election. All the parties have a broad range of policies, but for some reason they get almost ignored to focus on the thing that will affect less than 7% of children. For what it's worth I think it is wrong to put VAT on fees for children already at the schools as it might disrupt their education, but would be supportive of it going on for new starters so that parents can enter with eyes wide open. But I want to read about all the other education policies in the media and I think it shows up how many journalists and editors have children in private school.