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?

"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 haven't said this is a bad thing, have I?! My point is one cannot compare the outcomes of all-comer state schools and selective (by their very nature) private ones. However I MIGHT just add here that the day we hit 16 we can choose never again to mix or have any deliberate 'doings' with certain sections of our society, can't we? Perhaps BASED on our experiences of mixing with those 'types' in school- or perhaps in recognising our educational chances have been compromised by having those types in our class...

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

-possibly.

"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.".

I believe it has been shown time and time again that the biggest single factor that improves, ON AVERAGE, the outcome of a class is the class size. I use 'on average' deliberately as it has been shown that the influence of class size diminishes with 2 factors: the ability of the teacher (highly experienced, excellent teachers with real charisma and a gift to teach can teach any number of DCs); and ability banding especially the more academically gifted classes. Xenia will tell you that her DCs were taught in classes of 25ish in expensive private schools but the classes moved at a spanking pace due to the discipline, application and similar, narrow band of ABILITY within the class.

And TAs disappear at secondary, don't they?

"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."

I am all for SATS! Really! I have absolutely NO problem with testing DCs! That's not what I mean by continual government meddling in standards. It's the way every year's SATS and GCSE results become a football to be kicked around by a bunch of public school boys scoring points off each other- it's the way WHAT'S tested and HOW it's tested changes year after year. We have no Gold Standard any more.

"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."

Though not strictly relevant to the 'debate', my DCs go state as well.

I think where the private DCs have the advantage is the 'compulsory' aspect of participation ie USING 'opportunities' eg in competitive sport, music, homework! To an extent an issue we have is in MAKING a DC do what we truly feel is 'good' for them like practising an instrument or doing homework. Much of this comes as second nature if EVERYONE around you is singing from that same 'private ethos' hymn sheet whereas MINE ask 'Why should I? No one else does/ my homework rarely gets checked and there are no penalties if I don't do it'.

In fact one reason we have gone to the trouble of moving here is becasue the local state secondary DOES penalise not-done homework and seriously encourages participation in music and sport.

And margot- yes I do agree non-academic DCs need a decent 'education' but the issues, as outlined before are that there aren't the jobs out there as existed 50 years ago for the less academically able; that we have TRIED to make ALL DCs scholars regardless of ability (hence my remarks re education v. training) and we have devalued trade qualifications to the point that they're seen as 'the failure' option. Sometimes both types of education can operate in the same establishment but sometimes they're better separated.

Re private schooling (again) Perhaps this 'perception' of excellence is what gives private school kids that 'confidence' that oh so easily segues into arrogance!

We in the UK could never adopt a Swedish model. We are too selfish. As in "I'm happy for 'your' child's education to be 'good' as long as MY child's education is 'excellent'."

Oh margot as an interst- I was involved in a scheme where graduates mentored the kids who were underachieving at secondary to make HE seem mroe achievable (in the Welsh valleys). fab (until themoney was pulled..... ). We didn't get them all to Uni or even tocare but we did a few, and I was mega chuffed with the girl I got from thinking she was a failure as she couldnt do a level (serious case of very severe dyslexia) to being excited about acceptance on a Btec first in art leading to eventualhigher.

Yes, peachy but once again you're talking about SEN! It is obviously a huge problem that SEN isn't diagnosed and appropriately funded in the state ed system (even worse in private I gather! It's expensive).

That's a whole different ball park from shoving a critical mass of mainstream DCs who come from 'suboptimal' backgrounds of ignorance and neglect- perhaps many with the attendant behavioural issues- into the classrooms of schools with a long record of high achievement and expectation and miraculously expect these DCs to suddenly morph in life-successes. It's the full monty of school/teacher/parent/pupil that have to come together. Otherwise you're weeing in the wind.

It's naive and not going near the 'core' of the problem which often starts at conception. It is merely trying to shove educational and sometimes social problems onto other schools (remember the 'sharing out of bullies' scheme? So EVERY classroom in the land could be disrupted by the antics of the ASBO'ed!). Good schools aren't necessarily 'good' because they turn urban louts into Cambridge scholars. Many a top Public school couldn't BEGIN to cope with the violence, disrespect and aggression some of our inner city comp teachers face every day! And nor can the 'nice comps in middle class leafy suburbs'. They're 'good' becasue they have a ready-to-learn, disciplined and fully supported student body to teach.

This Tory policy also doesn't address the poor provision of 'vocational' training, its 'second-class' perceived nature, the need to get many DCs to just be able to perform basic maths and literacy, sod making Roman lamps! (an earlier post in case you haven't trawled all the way through this!)

Yes, I agree with you Faraday, about we in the UK would never adopt a Swedish model.

Most people do not care about other peoples children, as long as theirs go to the best school in the area.

The only way a voucher system would work would be if some people were prepared to compromise, but I can't see that happening. I just really can't see how it would work.

I think people would have to accept different schools for different needs and change their mindset completely about what an education is for these days, eg only the most academic go to university and the non-academic children have a different kind of education, but then that goes back to selection and so on and so forth. If the stigma that surrounded my generation of not passing the 11+ were removed and it wasn't made such a big thing (i.e. doing vocational courses being seen as a proper and respected alternative), may be it could all change for the better.

Proper special needs education would need to be a priority too.

Yes, margot. I oppose grammar schools (despite having been to one!) because of what happens to the 75-95% of DCs who didn't pass thru the 'academic' gate.

I think you're right about the perception of some privately educated children is that their elite education somehow makes them better than the hoi polloi, and therefore much more confident. Also, the networking factor is important - it's very interesting wiki-ing all the comedians and success stories at the BBC - politicians too.

I was talking to a person at work the other day who had won a scholarship to a public school when she was young - she said they had lessons in public speaking, which all state school children could do with as well.

I know I left a grammar school in the 1970s with no idea how to debate (and subsequently wasted time at uni), and my son, who is at grammar school now, is just as bad! Why hasn't this been addressed, I wonder?

(BTW I hate the gr school system - apart from being divisive, I think the teachers become complacent as their results are ALWAYS better than surrounding schools. They also offer a v narrow curriculum, which doesn't suit the least academic (like my son!).

The private schools elite education doesn't just give them confidence though, it gives them better exam results too! And thus the places at top universities. I absolutely refuse to believe that all children at private schools are much brighter than those at state schools. Some are, some aren't, yet they consistently get better exam results for the averagely bright child.

So why not take some of the better aspects of the private schooling system and use it in the worse state schools, thus ensuring some of those children reach their potential.

My DCs' grammar school does do debating etc. Not all children want to do it though (esp mine), but agree gives them confidence and public speaking skills (there's a thin line between being very confident and being arrogant though!). I agree the grammar school system is very divisive now as there are so few, and they are mainly hijacked by the middle classes/private school lot. But if there were ALOT more, and the alternative
WAS a different school, rather than a worse school, perhaps it would be ok.

I'm not just talking about SN

I have children who aren't SN, we don't automatically lose our views on everything else with the dx!

But many teachers will tell you that removing SN related issues from the equation is an important step towards class management. Of course it'sfar easier to deal with the intentionally misbehaving when you don't have 2 kids melting down in the background becuase you changed the time of PE.

So it is an essential component, as my post suggested, with other factors.

Just sidelining this a bit. Back to the OP!

The policy is that 'poor children' are supposed to be given premiums that they can take from school to school - the assumption being that they will become more attractive to good schools:

'New Academies, like existing Academies and other schools within the maintained system, will thus be incentivised to seek out and accept pupils from more challenging backgrounds.' (Con party policy doc)

Surely, these 'poorer' people will not have the facilities to travel far to these new primary academies, which will, presumably be trying to lure them in, in order to maximum budgets (all managed by the HT and governors). How will this be possible?

What are they on about?

sorry, not maximum - maximise!

Trickbery + margot, shock horror my son's inner city primary school has just won a major debating competition...

Presumably the new 'academies' will be conveniently situated in poorer parts of the cities, towns, countryside or whatever, thus 'encouraging' the poorer people to get vouchers for those schools because they can't afford to travel to the alternative schools. Or are they going to have vouchers to cover travelling costs too!

Excellent Smee - may it extend into secondary schools within the next 20 years!!!!!

I think public speaking is an excellent idea, too. Though I always remember smiling at Xenia when she said her DD, newly at uni, was appalled by the inarticulacy and lack of confidence of her fellow students as SHE felt she was the only one continually contributing. I can imagine what the other students secretly THOUGHT of Little Miss Look-At-Me!

Interestingly, re funding: I went to a grammar in 1973. The facilities were, compared to my brother's SM, dire, really. I recall my issued atlas was published in 1948! The government of the time just were not financing grammars as they were in a state of abolition. Thing is, we all did really well despite that because we were all clever, all our teachers were experts in their fields. Note we were by no means all middle class! There was ONE private prep school girl in our class and several came from the adjoining council estate. And many of our teachers would have been taken to pieces by a rough and tumble class in an inner city comprehensive!

My point is I do wonder how many 'good' schools WILL scramble to take the problem pupils just for the extra cash they bring with them? It does depend on whether that extra cash is on top of extra funding given to pay for that DC's behavioural special needs- making the wild assumption here that a 'very poor' DC equates to a badly behaved one! I'd imagine no school would have an issue with taking a properly socialised, disciplined DC from a cash poor background, but I think what the Policy MEANS is those DCs from deprived, neglected and irresponsible backgrounds, the ones that are destroying the educational chances of their peers in failing schools right now, don't you?

margot, of course private school kids aren't necessarily more clever than state school kids though I stand by my idea that being of above average intelligence begets DCs of above average intelligence. Those other factors are just as important (small class size, selection, high expectation)

Well done to your son, Smee. As I said, my DCs won't do debating, even though it is on offer!

It should be on offer at all schools, regardless of the type of school it is, if it is proved to be a good tool in the 'confidence' building of all pupils.

Just to remind (as I'm sure we all know), but problem kids can come from middle class backgrounds too. In DS's year two boys are more than a bit of a handful. One is the predictable DM stereotype, so single mother lives on an estate, etc, etc. The other is from middle class professional, very aspirational parents. Both boys are at heart nice, spirited kids who can be nightmares and both sadly can be violent.

• faraday, you're right it is a bit of a wild assumption. Howabout children from immigrant/ asylum families. Parents (if allowed to work - asylum seekers aren't) are often in low paid jobs, yet from what I've seen amongst DS's friends, those parents are often the most pushy, aspirational ones. So while there isn't some correlation in what you're saying, you definitely can't lump everyone into easily defined groups.

• there are other activities that build confidence, other than debating - drama for example is used in a way that never was when I was at school. And for little ones, a lot of schools start them with 'show & tell', which though not debating, is a way of encouraging children to be confident and voice their thoughts and opinions. I think there's actually lots more than when I was at school.

smee, I think the Tory policy is aimed at trying to spread the load of low aspirational, failing and probably difficult DCs around more by allowing parents to plump for 'good' comprehensives with the additional carrot of more cash accompanying these DCs. If these DCs weren't 'a problem' they'd be performing well enough for us not to HAVE the problems that endless government educational policy seeks to address.

Even if we're looking at secondary school, how does the premium attached to the child alleviate his/her behavioural problems? I wonder what the 'good' comprehensive would do? Also, in a grammar school area (like ours), would this mean that the grammar schools would lose a significant amount of funding? Just wondering!

Gosh! I went to a comprehensive with strict uniforms and prefects. I hated the uniform and being a prefect. Hated the prefects too. It was just embarrassing!

One of my primary schools had no uniform and that was by far the most interesting place I ever studied at.

Sixth form college was good too....no uniforms and no prefects. You were even allowed to smoke. It didn't stop loads of us going on to Oxbridge and getting lots of As at A-level.

I also hate the idea of my children going to a 'good school'. e.g. one full of the children of middle-class parents. It is so important to meet people/children from all backgrounds. Plus, you get very good teachers in the more mixed schools; they have to be able to teach all types and all nationalities so they can differentiate the work brilliantly.

I love my dd's creative, 'unpopular', mixed, low-parental income school...she loves it too.

Well, I am really glad for you, Builde, that you have had such a positive experience of schools. That is fantastic,and for your dd too.

Your experience is obviously the ideal, that every child should have the same opportunity regardless of the schools they attend, and that schools should not be 'good' or 'bad'. I am really heartened by your post.

"I also hate the idea of my children going to a 'good school'. e.g. one full of the children of middle-class parents. It is so important to meet people/children from all backgrounds. Plus, you get very good teachers in the more mixed schools; they have to be able to teach all types and all nationalities so they can differentiate the work brilliantly."

I too am very happy for you in this respect. However, it is my belief that you would get a lot of parents who would challenge the idea that 'you get very good teachers in the more mixed schools'..... this would depend what you mean by 'mixed'. What I seek to avoid is a school with a wide 'range (or mix!) of behaviour'. 'Middle class/ working class/ hey, even what the media call 'underclass'- neither here nor there PROVIDED all those DCs know how to behave and are school ready. The unavoidable reality of the prevalence of poorly performing schools in socially challenging areas implies that there IS a link- those teachers may 'have to be able to teach all types and all nationalities so they can differentiate the work brilliantly'.. but patently this isn't the case or there'd be no NEED for any U turns or massive changes in Educational Policy for any party in the first place! Nothing 'broken' to fix!.

I have no problem with diversity whatsoever: My DSs primary is heavily used by local families of Asian heritage. Why have they, too, moved into the area? (note: This area was FIELDS 10 years ago! Nothing 'traditional' about the cultural, racial or social mix here!) Same reason as me: A highly disciplined, high achieving, focused school where the DCs, the parents, the teachers, the Head and the Governors all pull together in the same direction, espousing the same ethos.

By ability I mean mixed ability, mixed parental income, mixed ethnic origin.

The behaviour has to be good for any child to be happy, but our dds school has beautifully behaved children. (When in school!)

And, you can get some appallingly behaved children from high income families. When at Cambridge, some of the higher income students behaved without any consideration towards our cleaners, staff and lecturers.

People also have to remember that a school's sats results are an average, and not what a bright child will get.