plans for one to one tuition blocked by Tories

[cornsilk]

This makes me very sad.
'Reforms of the primary school curriculum, allowing schools greater flexibility to tailor teaching to their children, have also been shelved, as have catch-up lessons, one-to-one tuition and small group support for pupils needing extra support.'
The rest of the reforms I am not too bothered about but one to one tuition and small group support is so important.

Just read Feenie'slink -how ironic that the parental satisfaction surveys are to be taken out also as Gove is thinking of letting parents open schools.
'Parental satisfaction surveys ? this duty on local authorities would require them proactively to seek parents? views on the range and quality of secondary school places in their area and then act on their responses.'
Now why on Earth would the Tories block that?

Yes I know about the 1-1 and I also know about SEN support.Many children with SpLD don't actually qualify for SEN support though do they Mme Blueberry? Also there is a very strong link between poor attendance and SEN as highlighted in the Lamb Enquiry.

Cornsilk

If Labour really did think it was a good idea then they could have introduced it at any time during the last 13 years they've been in office.

Did they? - NO! It was unfinished business at the end of a Parliament that had run out of time.

They were probably ecstatic that the Tories refused to help them get this particular (expensive) initiative onto the statute books.

But funding has been there for 1 to 1 and small group work previously.My ds had benefitted from it in year 2.

How long ago, cornsilk?
If last year, it might have been the pilot scheme. If longer ago, then some other scheme with a similar name, or just provision that the specific school set up, perhaps with the Teaching Assistant.

But funding has always been there for small group work and always will be. It's provided to schools by the LA under delegated budgets for additional support for those pupils usually on School Action or School Action Plus.

That's not being taken away.

AFAIK Labour planned to provide additional 1:1 funding for holiday / Saturday tuition. That's what has failed to pass into law.

In which case, in the light of my school's experiences today, it's probably money well-saved!

Why clam?

I do One to One sessions in a secondary school. I firmly believe it has made a real difference. One of the criteria, IIRC is actually that attendance is GOOD - that way the initiative is not being "wasted" on kids who don't turn up. Without doubt, the biggest issue amongs the students I tutor is lack of confidence and self-belief. The attention they get during our sessions has allowed them to realise what they are capable of, and every single one has come on in leaps and bounds since we started. I wish that more students in my school could benefit from it, but obviously the places are limitted.

And to those cynics who think it's just about "leaping up a grade" - well yes, that's part of it. But oddly enough, the students themselve benefit if their English or Maths GCSE is a C grade rather than a D - it's not just for the benefit of the schools' places within the league tables.

cornsilk, see my post of 19:04

Thanks for the links as I thought this was a conservative policy launched that I had missed instead of a topic we had discussed on the boards previously.

It's just the 'guarantee' that's been vetoed, there is already the provision in most schools to do one to one catch up during school time and if there's not then the parents need to be asking why of the head IMO. I'd love to know how labour would have paid for this or did they just expect it to come out of the existing school budget, Lord knows most schools and LA's are struggling to provide the SEN requirements and duck giving a child a statement if they can help it already.

They also vetoed some other parts of this bill that had no business being there either, they listened to what the general public were saying and went with it (democracy that actually works, miracle).

But then they also supported some parts of the bill that were worth supporting.

I think the problem atm with One to One (the extra tutoring initive) is the Labour guarentee saying all children who fall behind in literacy or numeracy will be entitled to it - our school got funding for 30 children, I'm happy that the tutoring did help the majority of those children significantly, however we are a Challenge school, we 70% of our 700 pupils don't get 5 A-C's at GCSE, we simply couldn't give every child who fell behind One to One.

"It's just the 'guarantee' that's been vetoed, there is already the provision in most schools to do one to one catch up during school time and if there's not then the parents need to be asking why of the head IMO. I'd love to know how labour would have paid for this or did they just expect it to come out of the existing school budget"

Money was specifically put into budgets for this initiative - no way could a school fund tthis alone.

And a hundred quid of it has been wasted in our school just in the last couple of days.

But clam problems like that can be solved with better organisation on the part of the school/teacher.

How?
How is it the school's/teacher's fault that a child doesn't turn up for sessions? Their parents committed to the scheme. If there had been any doubt about that, then others would have been selected

clam I would suggest that your school isn't choosing the right students then. The Deputy Head in charge of our One to One session specifically told me that good attendance is one of the criteria - presumably in order to avoid the issue you are describing.

How do the "guarantees" work? Is the idea that pupils who "should" eligible for 1:1 can sue if they don't? Or....?

Sorry - should have proof-read the above. Meant to say:

How do the "guarantees" work? Is the idea that pupils who "should" be eligible for 1:1 tuition can sue (the school/the LEA?) if they don't get it? Or what...?

The kids concerned all have good attendance. But you can't legislate for them deciding to take up a better offer during the holidays despite, as I've already said, the parents agreeing to participate.
And before you say "don't do it in the holidays then," I'd point out that it's one of the suggested formats and plenty of other schools do the same.
And actually, most of our 1:1 is done in term-time. Still throws up problems.
And we're damned whatever we do, or whoever we choose. If we'd have passed over this particular child, we'd have been accused of letting her sink.

Clam, I said before that I didn't think scheduling it in the holidays was the best idea.

We also had a child who didn't attend after school because of poor parenting; we then moved her session to within school time, and the teacher takes her for an hour at lunchtime, extending into the afternoon teaching session till 1.30 (in the teacher's management time).

That's a pretty intensive day for any kid, let alone one who's struggling. The session is, by its very nature, intensive (under the spotlight of a teacher's sole attention and scrutiny for an hour, with no one to dilute it) so to run it during the child's lunch break is quite a tall order.
We do both, apparently; after school too (the drawback here being that the kids are knackered after a full day in school). I wasn't aware of the holiday sessions myself until I bumped into the teacher concerned who was pretty hacked off.

Half an hour extra at lunch? Not sure I agree with you there.

Depends on the timings of your lunch-hour then, I guess. 12:30 to 1:30 for us would take up 3/4 of the lunch break.
Anyway, I thought they weren't supposed to miss any curriculum time for this scheme?

12.30 till 1.00 is last half hour of lunch break, then 1.00 till 1.30 would be quiet reading/change for PE. Needs must, I guess.