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?

I certainly don't advocate going back to draconian school discipline (as in my day, when I was frightened some of the time) but there does need to be some mutual respect. Also, after a while you learn not to be frightened but to actually understand the reasoning behind the discipline. I personally think many children (especially at secondary level) would be grateful for a bit more enforced discipline.

I wonder how the voucher system will work in a high turnover school like ours (service children). I can see it being an administrative nightmare.

agree margot

I think my teenager is relieved sometimes now when i lay down the law

too much choice is exhausting!

I've asked MNHQ if they'll ask Michael Gove to come on a webchat and explain the Tory party education policy.....

Stuffit: 'I truly find the view, that private schools succeed only because of their intake, very tiresome. I think that's a minor crib you have there.' eh? Is that in response to me? If so, well sorry you've lost me again, as I didn't say that or anything like. I wasn't being critical in any way was I? So if it was in response to me, how on earth did you reach that conclusion? I am genuinely curious.

Stuffit - When you were sitting learning at school in your very quiet, disciplined classroom, I wonder how many children in your class had totally lost the plot (quietly of course). If you look at illiteracy statistics from 30-40 yers ago, they are much higher than today. If children 'only' get a level 3 in their Y6 SATs, they can read, it's just that they can't infer and deduce to the standard the government have set. They'll still be able to read the tabloids - no problem.

How many children who found literacy challenging in the past had to fill in application forms? How many had to have interviews? The world has changed in many many ways and you don't seem to be acknowldging this.

I think primary school should excite children - the teacher should facilitate what the chidlren themselves want to learn in a planned and logical way. We're talking about little children developing a thirst for knowledge and the ability to think for themselves, which is so important for the future of the country. It is ridiculous to think this can't be done in a disciplined manner - why shouldn't that be possible?

phew trickerg and welcome. Was beginning to think I was a lone voice..

I think primary school should excite children - the teacher should facilitate what the chidlren themselves want to learn in a planned and logical way. We're talking about little children developing a thirst for knowledge and the ability to think for themselves, which is so important for the future of the country.

I like the sound of this. Yes please excite the children. I for one am tired of dealing with a boy who hates school. I mean really hates it. I have to say there is respect and discipline in evidence on both sides and he does comply but he is not in the least bit excited.

interesting trickerg and I accept your points

discipline doesn't preclude excitement however

smee: I meant it was a minor crib about what happens to some private school kids, which you complained about

in fact yes trickerg "it is ridiculous.." i agree with you

smee-if you could point me toward something written about the privately educated students who display problems with self-management and depression in college I would much appreciate it. I don't doubt that this body of writing exists-I just haven't come across it myself.

It seems to me that the ability to make oneself do something that one doesn't want to do through self discipline would be an advantage in battling depression. Disruptive children and/or poor performing students IME often lack this skill.

'An 'old fashioned' education, obviously without the corporal punishment and bullying teachers, is what is needed, to put it very bluntly. '

Don't agree always

Our school is exactly that: I don't think its changed a thing since its inception in 1747 (not exact date but within a few years) and it is certainly very old fashioned. And for a dea of kids it is gabulous, a lot of otherwise-would-pay parents use it.

but for a lot of children it's not at all what's needed. Those children (I would include 2 of mine in that) would benefit better from the school up the hill: small clases, more child focussed attitude etc. Serves mainly a council estate and both schools are very catchment specific. So mine go where they won't make the best of what's available or be nurtured enough, and no doubt toehrs go to the other school when they would no doubt achieve masses more at the local.

So the answer is there- different schools for different needs (including very definitely as it affect so much enough SNUs that those who should attend can- would have masses of effect as the attentions used up with kids who cant help it could be used on those who could)- but hw on earth you'd implement it I don't know. I'd have used the local other if I could have but you have to do an inter LEA transfer thing and it's bloody hard to organise, add in a SN and it's impossible.

Tub I'm not so far off your friend, I did my access (I had GCSE's but had been away for toolong) and although I didn't attend Yale I was accepted to bristol(didnt go mind, too expensive to raise the kids there- went to a cheaper area if lesser Uni). and discipline for me was an issue.

However I haven't seen it otherwise in my friends- I can't put my finger on it but those people I know who did go the private route seemed to not be so much well disciplined as to put it bluntly fecking magicians. my ex fiance who got a place for maths at York, was dropped to a 2:2 after forgetting to fo to most classes in year 2 as getting out of bed was hard work and still ended up as a Programmer for an aircraft co; my BIL (the two were mates) who got a third after several retakes and now is an international troubleshooter. or their mate who was chucked out of Bristol for being just too damneed DIM- how the feck did he beat the competition to get into a very popular course in the first place?

The answer in a large part from my observations is confidence. That's the one thing they all have in vast amounts that I lack, and it counts for helluva lot.

Tub, I haven't got much time, so can't search now. From memory it wasn't talking exclusively about privately educated students (obviously lots of them do brilliantly at university!). It was research into middle class kids who have their lives so over-organised, they don't know how to cope when their lives are their own.
I think Peachy's made a good point about confidence levels. Private Education does seem to make children believe in themselves, and expect to do well. Nowt wrong with that, but as I said earlier though, I think for a few this can prove to be a problem, as they expect almost too much and when it doesn't deliver it must come as one hell of a let down.

Yes -- many highly qualified people managed by others with lower IQ/qualifications but "better" emotional intelligence and confidence.

Self-management is the issue as Tub points out.

Sorry but PMSL that my BIL etc ('autism doesnt exist, its all about the parents') has a high EQ

I have much higher EQ but less confidence to shout them down / charm everyone into thinking I do far more than actually I can be arsed

LONG ALERT!!

Fwiw- and I SO don't want this to turn into a state v. private debate- don't they all in the end?:

I think private schools do 'so well' for several reasons:

1. Selection. Every DC at a private school is selected either by parental income or having a skill (eg high intelligence?) the school value thus will subsidise.
2. Small class sizes. Take point 1- you have a selected, 'narrow' cohort, THEN give them 1:1 attention, you'd be asking questions if they DIDN'T succeed.
3. By default, highly motivated parents (I'm effin' PAYING for this!) thus a much more direct and quantifiable link between input and output.
4. Our English paradigm measures 'good' and 'success' in a very narrow way. We see this as equating to Number of High Grade GCSEs Achieved.
5. Controversial but I think true: to be able to afford private you need t to earn a certain amount of money. To be that person the chances are you are of above average intelligence, thus genetically your DCs are likely to be of above average intelligence too.

State, on the other hand:

1. Has to take allcomers regardless of ability or social deprivation/suboptimal background. 2)Class sizes of up to 32 3)Continual government meddling in 'standards' and performance-measuring.
2. The insidious belief that fairness equates to sameness.

The world has changed. As another poster pointed out, sadly EVERYONE who wants to enter the modern workforce HAS to be reasonably literate. We look back with rose coloured spectacles at 'the past' but overlook that back 'then' there were often jobs for all be it mucking out pigs or digging coal. 2 things have happened: those jobs are disappearing like Scotch mist and the welfare state has encouraged idleness and feckless breeding. (Obama HIMSELF, the great Obama has said to the urban poor (in this instance- black) population of the USA that they have to take more responsibility for their lives and futures, for having endless children they didn't plan or particularly want and can't afford!)

Yes, I feel 'discipline' is the root cause of many of our 'issues'- the lack of it, that and self-discipline is the basis of our horrifyingly high levels of unparented, 'ill-conceived' (s'cuse the pun!) offspring here in the UK. The total lack of structure and high levels of chaos in so many peoples lives lead to the family strife, poverty, substance abuse thus helplessness and hopelessness that blight the lives of so many kids that OF COURSE they rock up at school as 'problems to be fixed' not young minds to educate.

I think we should be throwing more money at early intervention but that also means discouraging the conception of unwanted of 'love-fix' DCs in the first place.

We should not shy away from the reality that some DCs will only ever be 'trainable' not educatable'. I agree that for several DCs, time 'wasted' on Roman lamp production SHOULD go instead go into table chanting, basic numeracy, competitive sport. Long ago I think this was recognised- there was no fear in spotting tomorrow's plumber, builder, even hod-carrier early thus DC started apprenticeships at 12, 14. Meanwhile the more academic, with the advent of the grammar, quietly got on with their academic learning and gradually became 'middle class'. Then we all threw up our hands at the idea of classifying DCs so young so we made them ALL pseudo-academics cos THAT'S what we thought we valued. We abolished all those trade qualifications and made 'em all sit GCSEs- which becasue so many DCs were fundamentally unable to pass, we made them easier and easier so they became valueless. Meanwhile, though the issues now touched on their lives (less clever and/or wilfully destructive DCs invading their GCSE class), the truly academic got quietly on with it, getting 13 A*s and 4 A levels and getting Russell Group 1sts, and thus into the ranks of the Middle Class to repeat the exercise. Meanwhile, the more vocational classmates walked out of school at 14, then 15, then 16, now we're proposing 18 with nothing useful at all.

SO in final and long winded conclusion:

I don't want MY DSs education compromised by the influx of DCs can't or won't behave, who are totally unsocialised and have been utterly NOT school-ready since 4. DCs who can't or won't comply with the school's ethos. Different facilities appropriate to their needs should be provided but that doesn't necessarily mean attending the same classes as DCs from committed and caring homes who DO want to learn and succeed in life.

Yes, my local secondary selects to a large extent by house price. As a parent you make sacrifices and endure inconveniences to live in this catchment to ensure your DC a place. Committed parents are a major factor in the success of the school. I don't want to see that wrecked by sledge hammer political policy thought out by a bunch of public school boys, thanks.

'I don't want MY DSs education compromised by the influx of DCs can't or won't behave, who are totally unsocialised and have been utterly NOT school-ready since 4. DCs who can't or won't comply with the school's ethos. Different facilities appropriate to their needs should be provided but that doesn't necessarily mean attending the same classes as DCs from committed and caring homes who DO want to learn and succeed in life.'

Notes implication that kids who can't succeed don't come from caring backgrounds

Remembers heaps of praise of aprneting received yesterday from Psych at ASD session

Shrugs and says fuck off then

I don't want my kids to be amde to feel bad by other aprents who want their precious academic school reserved for them regardless of the fact that we live near and they don't. I have fought tooth and nail to get them the eduication they need only to have comments made about the cost by other parents. I don't want my boys very real talents to go un noticed because the school doesn't have the skill pr willingness to nurture anything that doesn't smack them as obvious (such as ds1'spoetry)

I don't see the point of this any more

Peachy:

Some points:
I haven't said "kids who can't succeed don't come from caring backgrounds"- but you need to define what YOU mean by succeed. A child with SEN perhaps CAN'T succeed in an academic environment. Therefore it is detrimental to ALL including THAT DC to be there.

Appropriate funding needs to be in place to provide appropriate schooling for all TYPES of DCs (this was the fundamental idea behind comprehensive education but in many areas (including society as a whole?) this became derailed by the idea that ONLY academe counts thus ALL Dcs had to BE academic thus many fail early and become 'a problem'). Sadly as I saide in one of my remarks, the modern post-industrial world demands a higher level of academic ability than before therefore perhaps the schools are only responding to societal 'need'.

IS ASD Aspergers? In which case you have a DC with particular educational needs. This isn't specifically ABOUT such DCs. This Tory Education Policy is about NS DCs.

It's perfectly possibly your DC with appropriate support might do very well at 'my
precious academic school'. However, in fact the reason I fought tooth and nail' to get my DCs in here (see how it cuts both ways?) is becasue it takes ALLCOMERS from within what is inevitable a narrower social background (note high house prices- we rent!)and not only does well with them but value adds as well. DS2 is NOT particularly academic. I have chosen THIS school with him in mind (DS1 would do OK anywhere) because due to the type of intake the school has (ie- yes, middle class) there ARE fewer DCs who don't know how to behave, who therefore disrupt and bully others.

I have several (OK 4) kids

1 aspergers, 1 asutism (ASD = autistic spectrum disorder), 2 NT (one apparenlty as younger than age of redgression IYSWIM)

not one o fthem is academically minded though alla re bright in their own ways. DS3's way doesn't equate with most people I guess but why would it?

DS1 and ds2 (As / NT) are above average readers both on scales and from observation at home and school yet underperform in every single area.

Goodness knows why, just is. As it happens ds1 wants to be a stage make up artist so academics only a part of it, ds2 could do it when ready I recon

There was that implication though I felt faraday- plenty of not bright kids in loving caring homes

There can be no such thing as choice of school because all the best schools are over-subscribed. If a school is full and you want your child to go there they can't. We have been in the fortunate position of being able to move to areas where the better schools are and even then we had to appeal. One thing you can be very sure of (and they have said so) is that the Tories will slash public spending dramatically if they get elected. And that means on education as well as health care. Not more but less choice.

Very true, saldy

OK anyay this is how i'd work it. Bear in mind I have experience of SN, being placed into SN calsses myself at school becuase I was not so wellliked by teachers and yet going on to a fairly academic degree. I come from a rough estetae and now live in a very posh MC area with well palced school, so I think i've seen most if not all of the range.

1. Sort out statements and SNU provision, until you do there is no chance of sorting it out. That includes placements for kids who have milder SEN /SN- aspergersm, dyspraxia, dyslexia- probably ideaslly integrated into MS with separate facillities when needed. N These resources do exist but here as in most palces they have ended up as SNU's simply because of the lack of other provision.

1. Sort out wrap around education properly. learn from the SureStart model to make sure the parents who coulda fford to choose don't just take all the aplces and make sure that the kids who can really benefit get first pick (ther should obviously be enough places for all kids who want it). At school I had homework exemption becuase low grades would affect me badly yet schoolr elaised that a chaotic homelife with no heating except in one room and a large family was negatively inpacting on my ability to work. It's far better to give those kids the support they need than exempt them. A decent breakfast, somewhere warm and resourced to study will help lots of kids.

1. make being a sahm a possibilityt, or childcareaffordable. Either way fdon't plunge kids into being latchkey or relying on a disorganised gamute of friends and family to provide care. This is especially important for shift workers who can really struggle- make it financially viable for example for grandparents to care, or fro a family to use a Nanny (often cheapest anyway if siblings).

1. Place value on things other than exam results- absolutely we need academics but ATM we seem only to value kids with great exam results and the like, nobody is measuring the skills of the child who is stunning with small babies or animals, or a whizz at electronics but not so academically gifted. Give these kids options beyond failure, ignominity or lesser peformance in a mainstream academic system. The FE college we all attended (no sixth form) taught children building and mechanics alongside a-levels and business, taking pride in both. Absolutely right.

1. Whilst it is true that carers, TA's etc cn only be apid so much from budgets their value has to be bumped societally as we need them and we need people to feel they are real choices. Persoanlly i'd give a small bump in tax credit allowance for these and realted career choices which I would call the 'essential workers low pay' range.Let'sface it, it wouldn't have to be much to help out and would massively boost the staus of such jobs. We may not all need regular access to a highly qualified geophysicist but tere's adamned good cahnce someone will be wiping our bums or those of someone we love at some stage.

1. Force schools that are failing both gifted and non academic (inclusing SN kids) to change by spreaduing the specialist teacher advisory services into G&T as well as SN areas. So the local CofW is forced to use routine timetables, have a changinga rea, use PECs if needed and the schools that can barely cope with what they have are receiving support arund the rovision of access to G&T kids.

7.Sport for all, a mix of competitive and not so allkds can either develop skills or just enjoy.

1. If aprents really work against the ethos ofeducation, feed thir kids full of shit (or nothing) sot heyca n't concentrate etc- call them on it. Instead of pussyfootinga round complulsory aparenting / nutrition classes and then some kind of penalty. Points on a prenting livence that makes it essential for interbvention when full ors oemthing similar.

Sorry, can't let this one go!

Re. Faraday's post:

'State, on the other hand:

1. Has to take allcomers regardless of ability or social deprivation/suboptimal background.

....thus giving the children a rich experience of the broad social spectrum that exists in this country.

I also wonder whether boarding school can be seen as a form of social deprivation, or suboptimal parenting.

2)Class sizes of up to 32
True. That old chestnut. There are often trained helpers in the class, which can make a big difference.

3)Continual government meddling in 'standards' and performance-measuring.

.... thus enabling the teachers to access current thinking through subsidised training courses.

I concede that government meddling can be annoying at times. What makes me even more cross, is that this meddling is generally done by government ministers who have no experience of state education themselves.

Performance measurement (for teachers and pupils) is extremely important to make sure teaching and learning in all state schools is progressing to an acceptable standard by a certain age. I would hope that something similar goes on in private schools.

4. The insidious belief that fairness equates to sameness.'

No, fairness = equal opportunity, NOT sameness.
By inference you do not perceive that my child (at a state school) receives the same opportunities as your child at a private school. If he did, why would you need to pay for a private education? This may be misguided - it may be true: it is the perception of excellence that divides our education system.

Finally, I know we'll never agree on this one, but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth when people denigrate state schools, generally based on shock-horror reporting in the Telegraph and the Mail. Quite honestly, I'm glad my child won't grow up with this superior, arrogant and smug attitude. At least he'll feel equal to 90% of the population, leaving your lot free to govern us and to tell us what to do.

Your very 'umble servant......

This shouldn't dissolve into a state v private thread but it does have a bearing.

All state school children should have the same opportunities as those in the private sector, some do (especially in grammar schools) but many don't, due to subtle differences, eg children taking 'soft' subects at GCSE, not realising that they would be eligible for top university entrance, that sort of thing. Thus there is a disproportionate number of privately educated children at Russell Group universities and I personally don't believe they are all any brighter than those state educated pupils.

So to get equal opportunities you have to get the state system up to a level to be able to compete with the private sector, or the divide is just going to get worse.

The children who are non-academic also have to be given an equally decent education too.

The problem with the state schools are crap thing is that it really doesn't cover the country as a whople, there are many excellent schools nationally, and indeed many of those are village schools where the children are going to get a good chahnce at education from a provision perspective.

the interesting thing of course is that it's a fallacy that village = well off; rural poverty is a massive social issue. So what we need to learn is why someschools are excellent regardless- community, values, involvement- what is it that makes them tick?

That is when we can really start to make progress.

As for private schools- well some kids will always be removed from state for compeltely different reasons to standards: fifteen generations of family before them went there, or faith, wrap around provision or even proximity. There shouldn't be a felt need to remove kids for eprformance reasons, but even if all schools achieved the same some would, becaase paying has a kudos no matter what.

Amazed nobody jumped n my aprenting license idea as crap becuase truly it is LOL. Shows how much my posts get read . youc an't penalise becuase A) soe aprents are doing their best B) There's no better alternatives- care after all is better than very little; C) you'll just alienate the already alienated.So can you do a reward thing- not if its benefits related as you'dpenalise those who can't attend classes etc for very good and real reasons (the idea oft toted on here of benefits reliant on parenting class- if parents are ill or work shifts or don't speak English or ahve childcare- then what?) also removing benefits will likely hurt the very kids you wish toprotect.

Ultimately it seems to be about providing a safety net that can provide for family failures or difficulties (such as homework support access) and maybe a nationwide look at extending mentoring as per homestart would be useful. Kids pass at 5 from HV and charitable support (as an optimum obviously to what- nothing? Not school burses for sure:even with 2 sn kids i have yet to have contact with one.