What do we think about the Tories proposed education policy?

[faraday]

here

This is just one article I read- there will be links here and in The Guardian on the same subject.

The bones of it seems to be that the Tories will effectively give parents 'vouchers' to spend where they want, school-wise, 'good' schools will be allowed to expand, and poorer DCs will get higher value 'vouchers' thus making those DCs more attractive to a school.

Can you see a 'middle-class backlash'?

Can we REALLY follow a Swedish model seeing as our societies are so very different?

Barbara Bush?

Yes, I'm genuinely scared one two levels:

1)The completely selfish nimby- I don't want hoards of snotty nosed ASBO'ed louts in MY DSs classroom thanks especially as I have paid well over the odds for a house in the catchment (but please allow me some leeway- DH and I are middle of the road NHS workers, no City Bonuses financing us!)- AND there are social housing projects in catchment too!

2. It's a sticking plaster designed to patch up the greater social ills of a society, (via its government) too scared, over many decades now to stand up and say what we will not tolerate. Whilst those who CAN change policy and grab the bull by the horns can afford, via banking bonuses and MP expense claims to buy their way out of ever having the confront face on the reality of the monster this massive Welfare State has created.

no no

it's specious or spurious or puerile or something (but not any of those obv)

aha

facile

House point to Mrs Badger! Like your work! (and word!)

faraday, you can't write kids off from one, surely you don't mean that. Yes of course parents need to take responsibility, but that's surely a bit unrealistic. Lovely if we could make all people good parents, but it's never going to happen. A good primary can really show kids the way. I've seen miracles worked on a couple of kids in my son's reception class by kind but firm teaching. One boy in particular has gone from being a chair throwing demon, to a smiling happy kid who loves school because it's giving him the boundaries and nurture that he's not getting at home. Not a uniform in sight either, but a complete culture of respect expected from teachers to kids and vice versa.

why criticise "aspirational" parents if they do so much good for schools?

Because they only do good for their kids' schools, and the schools with less aspirational parents go to hell in a handcart
I wish there was a way to spread the love a bit, iyswim

This may be a bit of a stretched analogy, but my parents are Methodists, and the Methodist church is organised in 'circuits' of six or so local churches.

So in their circuit is a big thriving church in a trad building with an organ, a modern church struggling for members in a grotty residential area, a small neighbourhood church full of old dears and two tin chapels in the countryside with one man and a dog each.
But when there are events, parties, fundraising etc it is often circuit-wide so everyone shares the fun and the work and gets the benefit. The tin-hutters get some money to improve facilites and feel like they're part of something bigger, and the affluent organ-owners don't think they're better than anyone else.
But everyone still goes to their local church on a Sunday.

Actually reading that back its no madder than some of the ideas in the Tory documents...

Then we should all aspire to be aspirational. Instead knocking those who are. This is the reality.

I agree with you so much of what happens in schools deliberately excludes those with don't care parents. The homework, the coursework, the lax rules schools should be showing that this is a place which is different to homes -- the teachers care what the pupils look like, what they wear, how they speak, where they how, what their work looks like, how they behave, how they treat each other.

This isn't love, it's discipline, not the "birch" kind, but the firm boundaries kind.

where they how? where they are

jeez

I guess if it came down to this Tory Policy BUT going hand in hand with hugely increased powers for actually disciplining and yes, PUNISHING wrong doing instead of 'including' it and hand-wringing over it, I might be more interested! I can't think there'd be many schools that'd DARE haul in the thuggish, ignorant ASBO parent of a DC who hadn't bothered with their homework/uniform whatever and DEMAND improvement! It's easier to ignore or kick out the DC.

Though of course with this Tory policy, what MIGHT happen is that schools become hotbeds of motivated, achieving discipline whilst the streets around are awash with gangs of permanently excluded youths, thieving their way from house to car...

And stuffit, sadly schools are merely a microcosm of society that 'deliberately excludes' those who can't be arsed- AND their offspring.

I am aware that I come across as nimby- it goes with the parenting territory. No, I don't want to see any DC 'written off' at one, but sadly that's what a fair slab of parents DO and I can't change that- but I DO want to keep MY DC away from the aggro that seems to inevitably follow.

If there was a school for children of aspirational parents I would most certainly aspire to get my kids into it.

I didn't feel particularly well-informed about the proposed policies from this article, so I went to check from the horse's mouth here. Some of this stuff sounds, you know, sort of okay. There are indeed plans to allow schools to exclude permanently and increase units that deal with persistently disruptive children.

Is that true, faraday.. sometimes it seems kids have to virtually commit murder to be expelled, but I'm ready to be corrected.

To say that a fair slab of parents write their own kids off is imo far from true. The boy I mentioned in my last post is a typical cliche in lots of way - single mum, lives on an estate, the scourge of the DM if you like. But she's always there to pick him up, he's on time and he's well dressed and fed. but equally he's a troubled kid and I've seen the way she handles him and from that it's kind of obvious why. The onlooker sees all iyswim. But then she probably grew up with the same sort of parenting that she's handing onto her child and she's doing her best. Amidst this then schools do and have to make a difference. And all parents regardless of where they're from are aspirational at the core - the mother of this boy certainly is. Do you really believe there are whole hoards of people who don't give a damn about what happens to their kids? That's surely so obviously daft. Trouble is most often they feel let down constantly by people who write them off and their kids off. So schools from the start are vital. They have to get the parents on-side and work with each child as an individual. It's crucial not just for that child, but for society in general isn't it?

oh of course they won;t do what they say they'll do, but what they say atm is the only clue we have as to what they might do once in power. I suppose the only question is whether they'll be harder line than they currently seem, or softer...

I must say this interests me, as by the time dd is heading for secondary school in 9yrs time some of the things they are suggesting now may actually have come to pass, whereas for those with older (or indeed younger) kids it either won;t have happened yet or will all have changed completely again.

Am wondering if I will be the spearhead of aspirational parenting at our incipient City Academy... who knows?

Smee I think you are right re the 'hoards of people who don't give a damn about what happens to their kids' - of course everyone gives a damn.

But I suspect that their own experience of education might perhaps lead them to devalue their children's experience of education, iyswim.
If they felt their own teachers were nosy interfering old busybodies who they'd much rather had left them alone then how much input will the accept from their kids' teachers?

It's the whole 'I'm all right jack, never did me any harm' thing that you see re other issues too (oh I don't know, smoking, early weaning, suncream?)

Smee, point taken.

There are those children and those parents. But there are parents who struggle with time and money, some have low levels of literacy, they often simply cannot help their child or children.

This is how they are being excluded. No uniform means their child could be singled out for ropy clothes. Lax rules on, say, mobile phones for example, means exactly the same. Extended project work left behind by the Mums who get overinvolved. Reading for homework instead of in class left behind. Times tables for homework instead of in class -- left behind.

Get all the crap out of the NC and ditch the stupid projects. Get back to the stuff they NEED.

the more I look at this the more it is to me meaningless

If you live in a city or town with several schools then I can see it would make differences but we don't all do that

There's one school here that takes all the local primaries, the next would place kids within LEA transport cost criteria so the LEA would never go for that voluntarily

Presuming kids with statements get the current priority choosing (which I hope to use to get ds1 into a school where ds2 won't have to follow in his eternal footsteps) it will make a total of no difference

If however it means that schools that cannot expand (none of ours can- conservation area) get to accept the better placed academically (ds2 is neither bright nor SN though we are classed as deprived, woo hoo ) kids from outside the area then we'd be lost.

Ah well. By the time any of this got through it'd be modified to high heaven and dc's will be 27, as ever.

OTOH looking back, I ended up at a terrible ocal school thatr was so bad it no longer exists in the original form (name change etc), saw kids threatening with knives in Juniors etc- I'm quite academic and frankly didn't stand a bloody chance at Comp becuase of the education I had received compared to all the kids from the posh village schools we were merged with. Mum was big on education and would have very likely used the scheme to buy me a palce elsewhere, and heck maybe i'd have got my degree before 35 and not ended up with such crippling low self esteem from being shoved into SN classes when I have a fairly IQ. So can see the usefulness in some areas where incomes / deprivation vary massively such as the poor industrial Somerset place I grew up in that was surrounded by high achieving well off schools. Hmmmmmmm

Couldn't have put it better stuffitllama.

Ah come on stuffit, shops like Primark, etc means clothes uniform or not are cheap, so not having a uniform doesn't mean they look ropey. And just because a child can't be helped at home in terms of literacy doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be excluded. I agree a lousy home life, can make for disturbed kids, who often have behavioural problems, but no money doesn't mean that, far from it.

• yes there will always be the parents who help at home and give their kids an advantage, but I wouldn't go so far as to say kids without that are excluded. Seems a mite extreme to me..

Oh and the units for persistently disruptive kids- wouldn't bet on it

They cost a fortune

The Tories have a poor record with SN Units, which are related to exclusion units in terms of cost. Reduce the SN Units and the EBD places will fill with the SNU kids and there won't be much of a difference except that those who can be included or helped to achieve with decent input (equalling cost) will be sidelined earlier.

Average (ie non- SN) Joe Bloggs OTOH who has a knack of causing problems and disruption won't get a look in still, as it would cost extra.

Which as far as I can work out ain't far off what we have now.

Quelle Surprise.

Yes, agree with stuffitllama too.

Yes, you can be sure you won't see many exclusion units!

Thing is, I haven't actually classified 'slabs' as a number, have I?

And also, I think there is already a fair bit of help out there for parents of low educational attainment themselves who want to help their own DCs achieve as much as they possibly can and realise that can be found IN school.

This sentence tells you as much re that particular DS of whom smee spoke: "But she's always there to pick him up, he's on time and he's well dressed and fed". That's probably WHY that DS has done so well in that class- for all her supposed faults that mum CARES.

As for this: "Do you really believe there are whole hoards of people who don't give a damn about what happens to their kids?" .....(no I didn't use the term 'hoards'- just 'gangs'!- but yes I do feel there are rather a lot of parents out there who, beyond the control they can exert on a 2 year old, walk away once in gets tougher: SureStart was designed for these people. Some reports say SureStart has been a great success, others say that's because it's full of middle class DCs whose parents recognise a good thing when they see it BUT the people who SureStart is REALLY aimed at cannot be 'persuaded' to attend, they are unreachable.)

... "Trouble is most often they (disaffected parents) feel let down constantly by people who write them off and their kids off. So schools from the start are vital. They have to get the parents on-side" - We-e-ll, once again, that plays into the Victim Mentality that stifles Personal Responsibility. If they 'choose' to have kids and send those kids to school- why should it be the school's job to 'get the parents on side' as such, implying those parents are like cowering, suspicious and potentially aggressive creatures that need to be wooed and handled with kid gloves in order to gently, slowly gain their trust- and get them to DO THE RIGHT THING by their own DCs? Isn't that demeaning to all concerned?

The people SS is aimed at can be persuaded to attend, we used to get ours in just fine, BUT when the waiting list for the very best provision is full of non needy aprents (who are just as entitled when they live within the postcode area that has SS support).

There are undoubtedly some unreachables but once you run the gamut of SS, social services, home start....... there's usually someone who can get in there, it just takes the right eprson with enough time (I used to be an organiser for HomeStart, often best palced with both time and a Non LA organisation0

I have an idea: Why not pay teachers more who work in the most challenging schools i.e. schools that serve a poorer demographic and have more than their fair share of challenges to face. My DCs go to a school that has many many challenges and the teachers seem unusually committed and yet there is no extra money to pay for extras. 65% speak English as an additional language and 85% are from ethnic minority backgrounds many coming from war torn countries. Teaching in such an environmnet should bring with it extra rewards I think.

In france I think teachers are placed in schools and don't have much choice.