So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?

Over here even state education is anything but free. Every year you have to pay for all the school books, a maintenance fee of a few hundred dollars, uniforms ( nearly all schools have them, including state schools), excursion fees, computer and laptop costs unless you are extremely disadvantaged. Nothing is for nothing. They seem to have cut back on things like music unless you pay privately for tuition. Plenty of art and other topics like psychology, photography etc. which we never had. I actually think it would be better, in primary school, to get back to the basics because they are being neglected and then the secondary schools have to do a catch up job.

You're movng the goalposts.

You asked:
So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?

You won't link to your source for this idea and are getting annoyed when posters, quite reasonably ask for more information about your reasons for this assertion.

Which makes us wonder if it's true.

It might be easier to ask what you know about the intentions of our government Callistemon

I don't think I am saying anything new. When you look at the extremes of right and left and then at the centre parties how do you think each wants the country to look economically and where do you think this government is on the spectrum?

DaisyAnne

Will we soon find that we pay for anything over the very, very basic needs? We have seen this in dentistry, social care and medical care. It seems as if this is the plan.

Is this what everyone voted for? Did you? We are a democracy, so they say. Is this what everyone wants? Is it what levelling up means and if so, could someone please explain that to me.

It seems as if this is the plan
How do you know? Could you provide the source for this assumption, please.

Obviously you have read it, heard it somewhere and unless we know where the information is published and what is in your source information we can't really comment.

It's no good getting annoyed with other posters when they ask for details and ask why you posted this.

Will we soon find that we pay for anything over the very, very basic needs?
I don't know - will we?
What made you think that?

MayBee70

Before the pandemic, when I was still going to the gym, someone told me that his wife, an art teacher, had lost her job because of government cut backs. Art not deemed to be necessary.

She will probably have to work for a private company MayBee and then those that can afford "Art" will pay for it.

M0nica what are you asking? This is about the aims of this government. I don't really know what more you need as we should surely all know something about that and can find sources that tell us about their policies.

I agree it's controversial but why do you expect me to give you chapter and verse about where this government is taking us? We can all see, they tell us, what more do you need? I am not shrugging my shoulders but I think someone is having a laugh when they ask for "sources". The Conservative manifesto, the Conservative website, the speeches made by Tory ministers, the endless discussions we can see, all are readily available.

You are now attacking me personally and offensively rather than attempting to discuss the aims of this government and how small government will affect all we have as a country so it's probably time just to leave it there.

Before the pandemic, when I was still going to the gym, someone told me that his wife, an art teacher, had lost her job because of government cut backs. Art not deemed to be necessary.

DaisyAnne this is the second time on GN that you have made claims about the aims of the government or some other such controversial subject and then when asked to provide links to your sources for the claim you have just shrugged your shoulders (metaphorically) and said find it out for yourself.

Apart from suggesting that you too know that what you wrote is nonsense, it is discourteous to other members of GN and shows a lack of respect for them.

It is neither vague nor alarmist although I agree that what is being aimed at is alarming.

I am not making "allegations" I am merely repeating back what the Conservatives, led by the New Right after throwing out the centrists, have said they wanted.

Perhaps the problem is that you have not bothered to find out what that is, e.g., - just a quick google and Wikipedia will tell you:

A small government is a principle invoked by New Right conservatives and libertarians to describe an economic and political system where there is minimal government involvement in certain areas of public policy or the private sector, especially matters considered to be private or personal.

and:

While implying the size or budget of a government, the term "small government" in political philosophy refers to the framework of principles underlying a government’s limited role or functions.
Lexico defines small government as:
An approach to government which seeks to minimize the role of the State, especially in providing services and regulating the private sector; government based on these principles.[3]

There is also the Conservative web site and many essays and articles.

I was obviously in error thinking that people would have done some research before voting in 2019. It was in the Conservative Party manifesto. I don't think it unreasonable to think that those interested in politics might have caught up with why the Tories are doing what they are doing by now.

Mamie

Yes things have changed Yammy.
You don't learn to drive by learning all the theory before you get into a car. You learn by applying your skills in a practical context. You learn to drive by driving.
Literacy and numeracy skills also need to be acquired in a variety of contexts.

I don't agree with the comparison with driving either. My father an engineer taught me to drive . He insisted I knew how the engine and other mechanics under the bonnet worked before I was allowed in the car. Then he let me sit in the car showing and telling me what the actions were doing. Then when I knew I was allowed to turn the ignition.
I know even today you do your theory before your practical .
It's no good knowing how to steer a car and reverse if you don't know what all the signs mean.

Starting an alarmist thread with no information or links and then telling posters to do their own research does not inspire any confidence in the truth of the allegations.

DaisyAnne

^I would still like to know where the idea in your OP comes from that foundation subjects are to be dropped.^

Then do what we all do and a) read the thread and/or b) do your own research on small government and views of the New Right in the Conservative Party. I am really not sitting in your classroom, nor am I a child.

A Gransnet thread isn't always a reliable source of information.

and views of the New Right in the Conservative Party
Could you provide some reliable links to reports and proposals please.
New Right was a term used 30+ years ago.

This is all so vague.

I would still like to know where the idea in your OP comes from that foundation subjects are to be dropped.

Then do what we all do and a) read the thread and/or b) do your own research on small government and views of the New Right in the Conservative Party. I am really not sitting in your classroom, nor am I a child.

DaisyAnne it isn't just about arithmetic rather than maths.
It is about people making sweeping statements about illiteracy without reference to actual data in relevant key stages. I worked in school improvement at a senior level for many years and have observed hundreds of lessons. I know how good UK schools and teachers can be and I am afraid that I get cross on their behalf when people give negative opinions without evidence.
I would still like to know where the idea in your OP comes from that foundation subjects are to be dropped.

Mamie

I can't believe anyone who knows anything about education is still talking about arithmetic. I started teaching in 1975 and it was Maths by then. ? And sweeping statements about illiterate school leavers are irrelevant without current data.

Well that's at least me told. I think others are aware that, when people comment on "reading, writing and arithmetic" it's more of a reference to what we all know as the "Three Rs". I imagine that is how most people read it, not as a point of educational one-upmanship.

As well as castigating those you believe to know less than you do about education you could add spice to the post and attack from further back in history and tell us we should be saying "reading, reckoning and wroughting". I'm sure some could make a good argument for that being a good basic curriculum. I would happily argue, with a suitable astringent tone, that it was the Victorians that led us astray when they dropped the "wroughting" and that we should see it as an intrinsic part of the curriculum.

Meanwhile, you can happily enjoy the points you have scored with "maths" until the education world thinks they are not scoring on the knowledge of subject names any more - and change it.

Yes things have changed Yammy.
You don't learn to drive by learning all the theory before you get into a car. You learn by applying your skills in a practical context. You learn to drive by driving.
Literacy and numeracy skills also need to be acquired in a variety of contexts.

Sorry to disagree with most but if you can't read, write and don't have a reasonable grasp of maths you can't access most subjects, science geography and history come to mind. How do you read music if you can't count? Read the T. V. times or know if you are getting the right change when shopping.
When I had reluctant readers I used to ask if they wanted to drive, the answer was, of course, then I would say well how are you going to know where you are going if you can't read the road signs and the miles on them.
I worked in a special school with children aged 10/11 the main aim was to get them to understand the 3R's. Then the other subjects were added and could be followed and expanded.
Art and P.E. were used to show that you didn't have to be academically good to show your talents.
I might add this was 30+ years ago and things have probably changed now.

I can't believe anyone who knows anything about education is still talking about arithmetic. I started teaching in 1975 and it was Maths by then. ? And sweeping statements about illiterate school leavers are irrelevant without current data.

trisher, the post did mention children with dyslexia. It's good that your son has such excellent support from you but I'm sure you would agree that not all are so fortunate, and also that not all children with poor literary skills are dyslexic. I'm also sure we know that literacy isn't (necessarily) a measure of intelligence or ability but without the support they need to achieve the best level of literacy that they can, and access everything to which literacy opens doors, children with less able parents than you will be written off, most unjustly. I expect those of us who are older remember children who the teachers wrote off as 'slow' but who probably had other skills that they weren't allowed to access. I can certainly remember one such boy back in the 50s whose parents were illiterate and he was written off, but a kinder chap with so much to offer and nicer, kinder parents you couldn't hope to meet.

grandtanteJE65

The sad truth is that a lot of 16 year olds leave school, barely able to read properly.

This means that they have not benefited from other subjects on the school syllabus, as you basically have to be able to read to even do maths these days, when what we called "problems" at school - the kind of excercise where you had to read a certain amount of information to tackle the sum in question is exceedingly prevelant.

A pupil with poor reading skills is handicapped in practically every subject, as to study them you need to be able to read the relevant information.

This may be the background for the goverment "telling teachers to concentrate on reading, writing, and arithmetic". I don't know, not having followed the debate.

If my guess is correct, this does not mean that children will in future not be taught anything else, but ought to mean that by the end of Primary 1 or 2 every child, whether dyslexic, or unable to get help at home, because parents are semi-illiterate will be able to read and do basic arithmetic, as well as be beginning to express themselves in writing, thus having a base to build all future education on.

This is the biggest load of twaddle I have ever read. My dyslexic DS is the youngest of 3. The rest of the family including my other 2 DSs are avid readers. He isn't. When he dropped out of school at 14 it was partly because his skills and talents remained unrecognised.
If a child was blind would you expect him to see if you just kept showing him things?
If a child couldn't walk would you expect him to start if he went to enough PE lessons?
Dyslexia is a disability. Disabilities need special provision. That special provison includes presenting work in different ways accessing information in different ways, using the best modern technology can offer to help.
Higher eductaion has recognised this for some time.
My DS has greater aural skills than mine. He uses his computer to read complicated information and he can remember much of it and certainly more than I can.
Literacy is a skill it is no measure of intelligence or ability.

I went to primary school in the 70s and I don't think we did much more than 3 Rs (and the maths was a bit dodgy). I find most people under 50 are illiterate and innumerate.

When I was working in school improvement (second half of my career) I was involved in research about raising attainment. The biggest single factor was attendance. I dread to think how catastrophic Covid has been for disadvantaged pupils and pupils of of lower ability. They will need sustained professional support to catch-up.
You also have to factor in the impact of poverty, hunger and inadequate living conditions on pupil progress. If you are hungry you don't learn.

You have to provide support the under-achieving students to get there.

Yes.

I think they were free here as well, which is a good idea.
This was years ago when my friend took them as a volunteer.

Callistemon21

Baggs

If only the State could get everyone to an acceptable reading, writing and arithmetic level.

Good point from luluaugust.

It's interesting that some who left school illiterate do learn to read at adult literacy classes later in life.

Wanting to learn for whatever reason is a great motivation. For a job, to read to their children, just to make life easier.
People fail to learn for all kinds of reasons and IQ is not always an indicator.

True.

My mum gave individual adult literacy lessons to people who had lost out for whatever reason at school.