Solving the crisis in state education

[judetheobscure]

Thought I'd start a new thread as the state vs private thread is soooo long; and wanted to focus more on possible solutions.

So, fwiw, here are some ideas (aimed at secondary level):

Abolish private schools
Abolish "religious" schools
Abolish grammar schools, foundation schools, CTCs (are they still called this) and any other form of "specialist" school.

Create across-the-board comprehensive system.

Insist on setting. No mixed-ability classes for academic subjects. Allow plenty of opportunity to move "up" and "down" the sets.

Have units within the schools for problem pupils. Remove them from classes as soon as they become disruptive.

Problem pupils who don't improve and who don't have parents that support the school to be sent to boarding schools. (Not necessarily boarding schools for disruptive pupils but normal boarding schools.)

Restrict higher education to top 20%(ish).
Bring back apprenticeships. (Where's a plumber when you need one).
Money saved on universities can go to restoring student grant and better funding for schools.

Train more teachers and train them better. Don't allow teacher training institutions to spend 90% of the course on educational debates and "gender issues" etc. Classroom management and subject specific skills are far more important.

Anything I've missed (tongue-in-cheek)

message withdrawn

message withdrawn

bossykate, you've brought up something I've been meaning to ask: does the state fund the religious schools? I had thought (and now am thinking that this is wrong) that the state funded some of the schools and only partly.. and those schools that were funded had to leave open some "neighbourhood" spaces -- ie, spaces to be filled by children who live nearby but don't fit the religious criteria. But are you saying that the case is the state funds the schools, then allows religion to be the main criterion for admission? Yeah, I definitely think that's wrong. (I'm American and very fond of separation of church and state.) BUT, I think it would be ok if admissions were open (or at least in proportion to the amount funded by the state) with the understanding that if you sent your child there, he would get a Catholic education. So religion isn't part of the admissions criteria, but is part of the curriculum.

I think the 7% of families who send their kids to private school represent a much larger amount of money, power and influence than the numbers would suggest. It's not a cross section of the population. And money, power and influence are what the school system needs. To be honest, the parenting skills of those 7% are probably a cross section of the general population. Even if all private schools were abolished, the overall parent quality level would stay the same. Richer parents aren't better parents, they just have more money. What needs to be done is attract the wealthy good parents into the state system -- those who care about their children's education and have the connections and cash to do something about it.

(I have a feeling I'm losing the ability to make any sense at all, so am going to bed.)

Just e-mailed my mum re funding in religious (voluntary aided schools). Awaiting reply

The only reason I'm posting again is because this would have bugged me and kept me up longer than this takes...

from The Types of Lambeth Secondary School (pdf) :
Voluntary-controlled and voluntary-aided Schools
Voluntary-controlled and voluntary-aided schools are set up by voluntary bodies, usually churches, and hence are often known as church schools. Voluntary-controlled schools but have their running cost paid by public funds, which come through the Council, while for voluntary aided schools, there is a division of responsibility on policy and financial matters between the providing voluntary bodies and the LEA. Voluntary schools are funded through the voluntary body, the LEA and the government. Both provide free education and some were previously grant-maintained schools (see under Foundation schools). Voluntary-controlled and voluntary-aided schools make their own arrangements for admissions. Parents who express a preference for a voluntary-aided or voluntary-controlled school must apply directly to the school. However, it is important that parents notify the LEA of their preference by returning the application form to the LEA.

---

Thanks for emailing your mum, judetheobscure. What does she do that she would know? And what does she think?

Bossykate I was abotu to add what I now read that JJ has already said - it's not the 7% of kids who would raise the standards but the fact that just abotu everyone with money and power in the country usus the private system no the state - if there was no private system then there would be one hell of a lot of pressure from influential and powerful people to make the state system successful - at the moment ( viz this thread) such people just opt out rather than trying to change things. ( as indeed I would if push came to shove- I'm not casting aspertions! sp???)

Our local CoE school is a VA school. I pretended to be doing a study at uni once, and phoned the school to find out how much of their budget is funded by the church as opposed to the state - it is 15% of their maintenence budget. Just maintenence though - they pay for no teachers, no books or equipment, they just maintain about 2 of the classrooms. For this the church gians the right to dictate the criteria by which children should be admitted to a school which is in all other respects funded by the taxpayer - not to mention being able to influence the way the curriculum is taught (although that for me is a lesser issue). I just think it is terrible....

small grammar school in 1974. In 1975 it went comprehensive, which in practice meant that our school & the boys school next door were knocked into one & we were joined by 3 other schools... in the same buildings.

We were effectively kept as a "grammar stream" right the way through the school, but a lot of subjects were mixed. We had the diversity thing & it was HELL. I was a very quiet shy nervous child. I am academically able but not socially. I was badly bullied by some of the low life who joined our school, & kept myself down because they picked on the bright kids the most. Going comprehensive completely ruined my academic chances.

We now live in Kent & we still have grammar schools. There is a constant argument raging about getting rid of them, but the only people here who want that are those connected with the well-heeled rural comprehensive that wants the bright kids to bump up their league tables & people who don't see why someone else's kids should go to grammar if theirs can't (ring any bells?).

2 of my kids are at (different) grammar schools & the youngest will join DS2 this year. DS1 is at high school (ie secondary modern). Each child is at the school we consider to be most appropriate for them because they are all different. The other children don't get a "better" education than their brother. They all get taught to their ability.

All 3 of the high schools in the town had a bad name several years ago. All 3 have done something about it & have improved their results & the behaviour of their pupils, along with the reputation of the school. Every school here has a home-school contract. All are fanatical about uniform, time off in term time & all the other little things that make a difference. They have strong links with the local colleges & are now very well though of.

My old school - supposedly wide-ability, got 15% A-C in the league tables last year. DS1s school- highest achievers "creamed off" to grammar, got 23%. This is a school in a very deprived area with a high number of pupils from very poor backgrounds.

I was going to say a lot more but I've gone on long enough. I just hate this idea that if you throw loads of different sorts of people in together they will all get along swimmingly & everything will be wonderful. As an adult you can chose to avoid people you don't get on with. Why should a child be denied that choice because of someone elses principles?

That last message should obviously start "I went to..."

I understand that in France parents are given an amount (?vouchers, money?) for their child's education & can choose state or private school. The state schools are better so most go there. Someone else may be able to confirm or deny this?

small grammar school in 1974. In 1975 it went comprehensive, which in practice meant that our school & the boys school next door were knocked into one & we were joined by 3 other schools... in the same buildings.

We were effectively kept as a "grammar stream" right the way through the school, but a lot of subjects were mixed. We had the diversity thing & it was HELL. I was a very quiet shy nervous child. I am academically able but not socially. I was badly bullied by some of the low life who joined our school, & kept myself down because they picked on the bright kids the most. Going comprehensive completely ruined my academic chances.

We now live in Kent & we still have grammar schools. There is a constant argument raging about getting rid of them, but the only people here who want that are those connected with the well-heeled rural comprehensive that wants the bright kids to bump up their league tables & people who don't see why someone else's kids should go to grammar if theirs can't (ring any bells?).

2 of my kids are at (different) grammar schools & the youngest will join DS2 this year. DS1 is at high school (ie secondary modern). Each child is at the school we consider to be most appropriate for them because they are all different. The other children don't get a "better" education than their brother. They all get taught to their ability.

All 3 of the high schools in the town had a bad name several years ago. All 3 have done something about it & have improved their results & the behaviour of their pupils, along with the reputation of the school. Every school here has a home-school contract. All are fanatical about uniform, time off in term time & all the other little things that make a difference. They have strong links with the local colleges & are now very well though of.

My old school - supposedly wide-ability, got 15% A-C in the league tables last year. DS1s school- highest achievers "creamed off" to grammar, got 23%. This is a school in a very deprived area with a high number of pupils from very poor backgrounds.

I was going to say a lot more but I've gone on long enough. I just hate this idea that if you throw loads of different sorts of people in together they will all get along swimmingly & everything will be wonderful. As an adult you can chose to avoid people you don't get on with. Why should a child be denied that choice because of someone elses principles?

I'm going to read this whole thread in the morning since it's late but it looks fascinating and I just wanted to say JJ, thanks for not doing your cleaning today, I'm really looking forward to reading your links tomorrow

message withdrawn

robinw, I am a great fan of using ICT in lesson, and I believe that it can add a lot to the learning experience. I use it when I can get the room booked. But! It doen't free up my teaching time because the pupuls have to be monitored and chivvied along to get the work done. If they are left to their own devices, and given goals to aim for, they will spend a large part of thei time playing with fonts, and looking for dodgy sites! You'd like to think that they would take resonsibility for their own learning, but it doesn't happen sadly.

robinw, you are right in that the admissions policy of many (rc at any rate schools) religious schools does allow children of other faiths. however, at our local primary for example, priority is given to catholic children, and the place is so over-subscribed with catholics, i think the chances of anyone else getting in are minimal.

as jj says in her link below - they can set their own admissions criteria.

jj, thanks for not dong the dusting yesterday and building on that vague idea that parents of privately educated children pay something on top of taxes towards state education, a progressively bigger amount each year as the state schools improve.

I will read your links when I have more time today. I think you, clairandrich and others are spot on in saying that lots of little changes are easier to implement than than a big one. So the cost per parent shouldn't be gigantic, especially in the first few years. And of course the govermment contribute to this extra funding as well.

I am not in education so can't even guess the answers to the following point: The present funding system needs changing, and the education sytem must be overhauled ( a small task , as jimjams etc has pointed out.

But with these changes in place, how long does anyone think it would take for this extra money to produce results in state schools - results that would persuade parents who might consider private education to choose the state system? Are we talkng 2 years, 5 years, 10 years or more?

Good ideas JJ, now I've had time to read your post properly. I like the funding ideas re private pupils part funding state pupils too.

Can anyone answer Bossykate's question - I'm interested too - if she is right, and RC schools perform well but are diverse ethnically and socially yet are not bastions of white, middle-class priviledge, why do they perform well? And can some of these lessons be applied to non-faith state schools? I didn't know about the funding of faith schools before this discussion either but it's interesting.

I'm also interested to know, do most private schools really have charitable status? And if so (excuse my naivity), what does this mean in terms of taxation etc? What are the reasons/benefits behind charitable status? Clearly they're not actually charitable bodies but are (amongst other things) profit making organisations? Maybe this is a very stupid question, apologies if so!

I believe that the private schools are not allowed to make a profit, other than putting money aside for future projects. So, if a school has more income than expenditure, that income has to go towards a new computer suite or something. Therefore, no person profits out of the school itself, and there are no shareholders.

I like JJ's idea too. Also, have just read an article on the state school boy who was sent to private school, and subsequently expelled for a relatively minor offence. What does it say, if anything, about state schools versus private schools?

robinw - yes, it is secondary. We don't actually have any pop and swee machines around school but it is available at break and lunchtime in the canteen. Plus many children go out of school to the local shops -somthing I would put a stop to personally (just let sixth formers as a priveldge, like at my old school). I definitely think diet makes a difference, especially in afternoon classes. Some schools are experimenting with water being allowed in classes too - to help concentration. Good idea at first thought but not practical for my subject - ICT. I would worry about my computers too much.

Talking of ICT and computers - would you believe what some delightful pupils did to my computers last week? Go on... I bet you can't. It was a new one for me. I had left my class with a cover teacher as I was moderating coursework. They were year 11 GCSE ICT pupils - due to do their exams in a few weeks and should have been revising. I am used to coming back and finding the keys on my keyboards all jumbled up or the mouse balls missing. But this one - they ad superglued my monitors, keyboards and mice to te table - about half of them in the room. Amazing or what??? I am currentlytrying to chase this up but having no great support from management who seemed to think it a slightly amusing prank!!! I was furious. Some of my mice are now unusable and the tables are a mess. Next week I am determined to get it sorted. But what punishment when they are leaving next Friday only to return for exams?

Actually I have rechecked the local admissions policies, and VA schools (though not VC schools) in this area set quite definate religious criteria for entry. AS in: (i quote - incidentally these criteria are applied in order - first children fulfilling 1a, then 1b, then 2, etc.)

1. (a) Where the child is resident in the parish of St xxx?s and the family are committed and regular members of the congregation. (Note: "Committed and regular members of the congregation" will be families who are committed to lifelong regular Sunday worship and take full and active part in the life of St xxx?s.)

(b) Where the child, though not resident in the parish of St xxx?s and the family are committed and regular members of its congregation.

2. Where the child is resident in the parish of St xxx?s and is part of the community of the church.
   (Note: "part of the community of the church" is a child who attends church, sufficient to receive its support and nurture for spiritual growth.)

3. Where the child is resident in the parish of St xxx?s and has been served by its pastoral ministry.
   (Note: "Has been served by its pastoral ministry of the church" is defined in this context as a member of the parish Playgroup or the Toddler group or under its pastoral care.)

4. Where the child is resident in the parish of St xxx?s.
   So in a school that is constantly over subscribed you are very unlikely to get in without Church connections.

About the curriculum issue - the governers have a lotof control over how it is taught in their school - and obviously with a religious Head of Governers it will have a strong religious bias. I don't personally have a problem with this - if you want that it is there - if you don't then don't send your child there - fairly easy really.

What I object to is that since I was unprepared to start turning up at the family services just so my child could get a place there, then there was really no chance of him getting a place there - even though my friends who started going to Church a year before their daughter was due to start school and live outside both the parish and catchement got a place - we who live inside the parish had no chance. It just seems unfair, that's all.

I will grant that not all schools are the same, but there are some that are very disriminatory, if you ask me.

Oakmaiden, I completely agree. I think school funded by the state should not be allowed to discriminate (ah, such a harsh word.. but that's what it is) on religious grounds. At least as far as the state funding goes. If the state funding is x% of the overall budget, then regular admission (ie without religious criteria) should apply to x% of the students. It's not like the Churches are poor. What I mean is that the C of E and Catholic churches, as a whole, are not poor. They're very wealthy, in fact. (The Pope and Queen don't seem to be hurting, at any rate.) Individual parishes might be poor. I see that as a church problem. Honestly, it's not mine. Churches could support religious schools.. in the UK, it's just that they don't have to do that. In the US, a religious alternative is usually easily available to all, not just the religious folk, and fairly inexpensive. The Lutheran school my son would have most likely attended costs under 2000 GBP / year (not semester or term, but per year). Not a huge expense and my quote is for a non-member -- members of the congregation have a cheaper tuition rate and scholarships available if they are not able to pay. Fair enough. It's private, after all. Anyway, I'm sure if the state discontinued the funding of religious schools the Churches would, um (way to drunk to think of proper words), deal. They'd deal. The Queen has a lot of money (isn't she the C of E something?) and the Pope is not hurting either. There's money there somewhere, is what I mean. Obviously, church and state separation is not going to happen. Again, follow the money.

Grammar is me. I am grammar. Grammar and me go together like this .

And it's good to hear that changing the admissions policies to reflect the funding wouldn't affect some schools, RobinW. (The next bit is the general "you" and not you, RobinW, because from what you've said you would have no objections to the scheme. Well, that bit was to Robin, but from here on out, I mean "you" as the general you. My husband has commented that I've consumed a bit too much gin and somehow, I think that might be relevant. Please excuse the errors.)

I have to think that you'd be happy for the whole scheme as it wouldn't affect your schools (and if they aren't actually religious then what the fuck is the point? I mean, you're getting to send your kids to better schools simply because they are religious and then the curriculum isn't focussed on that? So basically, if you're religious you get better schools but not the religious education? Don't you care? Ah, your argument is the families are part of the church and it's their responsibility to do the religious bit. Then why not state? Your school isn't doing it. The state has no part in religious education. The Queen (C of E) wants her subjects to be religious she can pay for it. She has the money. I'm surprised Catholicism is subsidized. Really, actually. I'm surprised.

Uhhh... so there? The state funds x% of a school, therefore x% of of a school's intake should be non-discriminatory, except in the siblings and nearest kids sense (usually the top two in schools).. I mean, apply normal LEA criteria.

I have to admit that I'm coloured by being an American -- this sort of thing is unthinkable, kinda, there. As much as Evil Bastard From Hell would like it, there is still a huge separation of church and state. I can't believe it's acceptable to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs. And pay for such discriminaton, to boot.

message withdrawn

Doesn't discrimination on religious grounds depend on where you live though?

DS1 will be starting at a church primary (VA) in September. We are not religious (and havn't pretended to be), nor do we live in the catchment area. We don't even live in the same LEA.

Before moving here we live in London- and my friends there have nightmares!

I guess what I'm saying is it all comes down to population pressure. Once you're in an overcorwded area you have selection in terms of house prices (in London we lived in a house now worth approx 250-300 thousand and still the local primary was crap- you would need to pay 750 thousand ish for a good local primary), or in terms of religion.

Neither criteria is fair!

message withdrawn