Pupils' right to one-to-one catch-up tuition ended

[telsa]

Oh great. First they come for the students......and then the little ones.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11718968

Because I'm not sure education even can fill the gaps for children with unsupportive parents.

It can do small things, but it's akin to a sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

Riven- I don't have any problem with giving children 1 to 1 tuition if the teachers think it is what will help them. I just don't think that Central Government should prescribing it and not giving teachers the freedom to help their pupils in the way they think would be most beneficial.

I think there's a massive difference with what can be achieved with pupils with SEN and supportive parents and NT pupils who may just be behind with unsupportive parents.

Give me the former any day of the week.

The cutting isn't about giving teachers freedom - its about pretending that education is being given extra money ('ooh look extra money for schools to do what they want') while in reality cutting back and making the most vulnerable suffer - for those who think that education can't fill the gap for those for unsupportive parents what do you think should be done? back to the workhouse?
In a so called civilised society we should be caring about everyone and giving everyone access to education - this is not some altruistic dream - it benefits us all.

I think that teachers know better than LEA or DoE officials how best to educate the pupils in their schools and that if we left them to get on with it then we would see better results.

Why should the state have to pick up after lazy parents though? When it won't make any real difference to the outcome of these children's education. SEN children need extra support withing school. Slow learnes need extra support at home. If parents aren't prepared to help a child learn to read at 5, then they are unlikely to help them plan a revision programme or help when it comes to GCSE's. The country simply can't afford to give unending support. At some point, parents have to take responsibility for their children who are slow to learn.

I agree that the Government should do its upmost to help children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds as someone who grew up on a council estate it saddens me when I see what has become of some one the kids I used to play with when I was growing up. I just don't think that Central Governments endlessly dictating to teachers how to run their schools is the way to do it. Far better to put trust in them and let them teach.

Society wouldn't pay too harsh a price though if people who are fit to work are no longer able to rely on benefits when they could be working. And crimes were punished appropriately.

Attempts are made to educate these children anyway. They have a right to an education, and every child gets that. What they and their parents choose to do with that is up to them. I have family living in a very deprived area of London, at a school that nobody would ever choose for their children, but my cousin is doing a fantastic job of raising her child because she puts in the time and effort at home. All children already have access to education. The state cannot afford to do anymore.

I do love this MN mantra 'lazy parenting'. If your child is overweight - it's down to lazy parenting, if your child misbehaves, LP again. If your child isn't potty-trained until 3 - LP! If your child is behind at school - you wicked lazy parent, pull your socks up!

FFS - sometimes these things happen inspite of your best efforts.

Agree with Riven the 'I'm alright jack' attitude is disgusting - not much of we're all in it together is there?

It's nothing to do with I'm alright Jack. If I felt that way I wouldn't have spent most of my legal career working with children in care, when I could have been making hepas more cash doing commercial stuff.

Nor would I be volunteering in a school where my own children don't even attend.

I just question whether state education can ever bridge the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged.

I did once think it was possible, but now see I was naive.

The state cannot equalise the lives of children whose parents who canot or will not support them in their education. There are just too many other variables.

"we're all in it together "
does anyone really believe that??

Agreed, Riven.

But I suppose I am starting to reduce my expectations of what it can do.
The Labour government really did spend enormous sums on education, and sadly, the social gap widened.

I guess now I have children of my own, I can see the stark difference in their lives compared to many.

And not just how ludicrously privileged they are in terms of money.

It's all the seemingly small stuff that comes with having two committed, supportive, educated parents:

I've been reading to them since the day they were born, and still do so even now they are eleven.
We have a house brimming with books.
DH has papers and magazines by the bucketful.

My Mum visits and plays scrabble with them.

I can see that no matter how much cash and resources are poured into education, those children with unsupportive parents are never going to have the same opportunities.

I think it is very sad that this may end, our pupils have really gained from it.

DP do you object to all individual tuition. I provide some for of individual tuition for my pupils most days of the week as do many of our staff. Should I now stop running extra classes in my frees, lunchtimes and after school. Or is it just students who struggle with their literacy that you think are not worthy of help?

Agree with Litchick that's it's not about 'I'm alright Jack'. And that children whose parents aren't interested in their education are always going to be at a disadvantage to those whose parents are. It's about a whole attitude, work ethic, habits that are created. I just can't see that an hours tuition every week is going to make a huge change to all that. And it costs alot of money, that could be better spent elsewhere.

Nobody is saying that those children aren't worth effort, of course they are.

It's also not about having a go at 'lazy parenting' Some problems will occur anyway, and need extra support, that's a given which is why schools should be funded to deal with that anyway. Schools should not need to access extra funding because parents can't be arsed, the funds shoud already be in place. And the parenting should be in place, but if it's not, well the country can't afford to be surrogate parents. It's a nice idea, but the money isn't there.

What I've said through lots of my posts on this thread is that of course children should be supported at school, but they do need to be supported at home too. Schools should support children that are slower learners out of their budget, because every school is likely to have slower learners. That's why we have sets and TA's. The state can't sort out every single problem that is created at home.