Kemi elected leader of the Tory party

[cariadlet]

Let's hope she really holds Labour to account about women's rights and the dangers of gender ideology.

@TempestTost I actually find your opinion on this quite disturbing.

Is it just children with autism you think shouldn't get help, or does this extend to other disabilities? Should, for example, a child with a visual impairment not be given help in the classroom because the same amount is not spent on someone talented at maths?

If she had 'explicitly' stated that you presumably would have quoted her. She didn't say that however so you can't. You are paraphasing those who have taken her out of context. She was talking about red tape and regulations especially on small businesses not the 'pay' itself. She actual clarified this later by saying, "Of course maternity pay isn’t excessive". Her words. Originally she was also talking in isolation about "statutory maternity pay," not all maternity pay, because of it being paid out taxation - which we all pay, even the very low paid who don't pay income tax pay VAT at a disproportionately high level. So it is a question which can at least be asked surely without going "Woo! She's sexist!" and hiding behind the sofa?

She has a different view of economics to you apparently - that jobs and wealth are created by lower taxation and less regulation. That does not make her sexist. Anymore than Reeves budget makes her sexist (even though it could be catastrophic for those on the lowest page jobs - that many jobs will disappear because of the NI and increased minimum wage - many cleaners, care home workers, usually women, and others might loose their jobs entirely as care homes are sying they may close). Neither economic view is sexist nor pro-women. They are just economic views. For some reason people let Labour off on this but over-study (and mis-quote) the Tories.

One poor decision by a teacher, already under pressure through being a sub, doesn't mean the whole system of adjustments is unreasonable.

'Jenny' starts out at a higher level than her average classmates. Not having a quiet room may slightly impact that level, but it is not comparable to getting a child up to a level where they can participate at school. By this I mean things as basic as being able to travel to school. Talented kids tend to do well even in schools that don't go the extra mile to nurture them.
A wider point is that I think all state schools should be better resourced so they can have adequate numbers of excellent teaching staff, so that classes are smaller and quieter. I also think all state schools should have quiet spaces like libraries where talented kids can study. I can't see a Tory government, under KB or anyone else, doing this.

I'm an ex teacher. The condition of state schools is very variable. Though some have fantastic facilities, far better than the facilities you'd find at most small independent schools.

Talented children often don't get stretched enough, certainly in mixed ability classes. Academic children really need academic teachers. Not all teacher are academic. I find matching the right teacher to the right set of pupils is over-looked and not really done. Some staff work best with certain kinds of pupil. Some teachers are scared of very bright children. Some teachers prefer to work with lower ability. Some with SEN children

I know the condition of state schools is very variable. My belief is that it shouldn't be; that they should all be excellent.
I don't disagree that talented children often don't get stretched enough.
I don't know what point you're making about matching the right teacher to the right set of pupils; I agree this is important, but it's not what I was discussing right now.

Dunno. It's stuck at the bottom of his Ming vase.

I can make whatever points I choose. You are talking abvout excellence in teaching, well in my experience, as a teacher, in a wide range of different schools I'd say that different teachers excel with different types of pupil. Not all teachers are excellent with all groups, and not all teachers excel. Excellence is not something that you can be trained in. Excellence is something you achieve. Certainly as an individual practitioner.

Schools will always be variable because people are different. Teachers are different, Headteachers are different and it is they that set the standards. If you have a school in a leafy, middle class area of London then you'll most likely find fewer behavioral issues of the sort that tend to be common in more deprived areas. Behavioural issues affect the learning experience for the rest of the class, and also make the teacher's job much more stressful

Some teachers can do excellent things with challenging pupils, others just coast by with pupils who pose no major issues. I'm not sure you can ever eliminate all differences of this type.

Support is pretty uneven, but that's part of the problem - some kids aren't getting supports at all, others get substantial supports.

There are more and more children being pulled from schools because the environment is unsuitable and they can't cope. These kids aren't special in any academic or cognitive way. They can't access one on one support, help to get to a school that is a better ft, a quiet place to take a test away from other kids, time out alone when they feel overwhelmed.

Parents trying to advocate for these kids can't make any demands, they aren't entitled to anything different or special. They are expected to just accept that things are as they are, and some kids may be able to demand accommodations.

What's interesting about this is that KB actually hasn't said that children in need shouldn't get supports - just that the system isn't working or fair for children over all. Which weirdly parents trying to access supports seem to agree with, but balk at looking at other approaches.

You are the one talking about children not getting help. No one else has suggested that.

So you are saying that a child who is average or bright doesn't deserve the same resources because she or he will be ok just bumbling through.

I mean - you could make a social argument the other way. Many students with extra needs may never get even to the point of being self-supporting. My niece, for example, will never have a "real" job or live alone. It doesn't matter how much money we put into her education, she will be a cost to society.

On the other hand, with a bright students, if we give them more resources we could really see a social advantage because that person is not only likely to be highly productive, and contribute more to the economy, they might do great things like figure out how to fix the health system.

Now, I wouldn't advocate for that, because education isn't actually a numbers game. It's about understanding that each student is a person whose best interests and mind, and I'll even say spirit, has to be nurtured.

And that won't happen if the system has a hierarchy in terms of serving students.

Apologies, I inferred that wrongly from your posts.

But to be honest I don't really understand what you are actually arguing. It comes across as "it's not fair, some disabled kids are given some help but the state won't pay for private school for talented kids". More support for everyone? I'm in favour of that. I doubt Kemi is though - she's in favour of a small state and "personal responsibility".

Apologies, I inferred that wrongly from your posts.

But to be honest I don't really understand what you are actually arguing. It comes across as "it's not fair, some disabled kids are given some help but the state won't pay for private school for talented kids". More support for everyone? I'm in favour of that. I doubt Kemi is though - she's in favour of a small state and "personal responsibility".

Smaller class sizes would be good for ALL kids but we barely have enough teachers to go around with class sizes back at 32 (for all except KS1) and the ones we do have are demoralised and under supported.

The Coalition Gov followed by various Tory Govs have chipped away at the services that used to help with adolescent mental health, wellbeing and behaviour (youth services, camhs, subsidised extra curriculars, parenting courses, adult literacy sessions to help parents help their kids etc) and it’s all been dumped on schools who already had more than enough to do.

I’m hoping that Kemi’s ‘bootstraps’ philosophy sharpens Labour’s resolve to reinstate some of the state provision that has been jettisoned so that crony Tories could benefit from third sector contracts (and that Labour are able to effectively communicate exactly how the Tories caused the current shitshow).

Just looked at a YouGov Chat poll about KB.

Most responses seem to be:

She is far right
She is obsessed with being anti-woke
She will be hopeless

Not sure if this more about those completing the survey or the media coverage she gets.

Have to say this more than anything makes me question KB's judgement / politics. What a nightmare to have this.

Priti Patel has made a comeback as Kemi Badenoch has appointed her shadow foreign secretary
https://news.sky.com/story/kemi-badenochs-shadow-cabinet-priti-patel-makes-comeback-as-shadow-foreign-secretary-13248406

Idk I think whoever is in that position in the next five or so years is going to need to be pretty hardline

Hearing the former chief immigration officer today Starmer's policy is not feasible.

If those numbers keep going up, someone's going to have to talk about doing something the electorate probably won't accept rn

As for a chat poll, that's pretty useless. But look at the comments on any DM article for KS if people want to see similar and worse

The Foreign Secretary doesn’t hold the remit for immigration, that’s the Home Secretary.

Applied to the make up of the shadow cabinet five years is a long time and using a policy which is not feasible will have an impact

Not sure if anyone has seen this, but this is tweet that Dawn Butler referred to https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1852601476721344629.html#google_vignette

My point is that she's not said what you think she's said.

She hasn't said that children of any kind shouldn't be helped. She's said that the current system, which works by saying the state has an obligation to give extra funding/help/accommodations to certain categories of child isn't just, and isn't working practically.

This is the simplest kind of example - we can see classrooms where a child with some kind of diagnosis of having additional needs being integrated is every day making the class ineffective and awful for the other kids in the class.

Why is what is supposed to be good for one child allowed to be the deciding factor, not what is good or bad for the other children? The reason is the school is legally obligated to provide for that child's needs, and difficult though it may be at times for parents to get that in place, there are processes to get it to happen. There are no such processes or rules to protect the other children in the classroom in the same way.

It's the difference between trying to produce outcomes as similar as possible for all kinds,and attending equally to all kids needs.

It's unfortunate that people, and organizations like those for parents of autistic children, are so myopic that they would rather defend a system that doesn't even work that well for those they are responsible for, before the discussion even gets to questions like, what would work better for all children and treat them all as deserving help.

It's not possible to develop solutions or a way forward without understanding what's not working now.

I can make whatever points I choose.
That's a bit prickly I didn't say you couldn't, I'm just saying that's not quite what I'm discussing.

You use very emotive language that in no way reflects my view or what I said ('doesn't deserve'). And I didn't say, 'just bumbling through.'

Surely there MUST be a 'hierarchy' in the sense of support for children with disabilities and issues? Otherwise a bright child who can and does get the bus to school, or is driven by an available and competent parent, will do just fine at getting to school, but a child who for whatever issue cannot get the bus or be driven will not even successfully get to school.
This is not giving children with autism an 'advantage', as KB has it, it's simply (to use a dread phrase) levelling up.

Why should the state NOT have an obligation to give extra funding/help/accommodations to certain categories of child?
If you're KB I suppose the answer is because you believe in a small state and in private schools for those who can afford them,
But I'd be interested to hear whether you have any different reasons why you think this should not be the case.

Butler was caught out by Poe's law?