We have pooled thoughts on the NHS, how about education?

Chardy

^Yes I was a teacher and yes I privately educated my children from the age of 11 so they would not be in classes where chairs were being thrown around and children showing no respect for teachers^
As a secondary teacher for 35+ years I find that so offensive. I worked in all sorts of secondary schools in different areas, I never heard of a chair being thrown.

Do you really want me to name the school? I can if you want I will say it was in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Chairs were thrown, and children ran out of some classes as and when they wanted. I went to a parent's evening and was given a glowing report about a child with excellent athletic skills, the same first name as mine but definitely not second.
parents phoned me to ask if I wanted to share tutors when I added the cost up I realised it was as cheap to put her into a local private boys' school that had lately gone co-ed, she took the exam in a small room off the secretaries office no tutoring or prepping and was accepted.
When I wrote to say I was removing DD two others left at the same time, and the head did not even contact me to see why. The deputy did phone and say they would have her back if she would ever like to return as she had been a credit to the school.

Joseanne

I think Yammy offers a very fair assessment of the situation. At the risk of being a lone wolf on this thread, I would say that if people could recognise at least some of the successful practices and benefits in private schools without resorting to resentment and criticism, then there might be a few models worth copying. I'm not necessarily talking about class sizes and resources which go without saying, but for the younger children doing away with constant assessment thus removing stress and feelings of failure. Added to that, expecting high levels of discipline and a common working ethos where achievement is celebrated and confidence instilled in pupils.
In no way do I criticise or look down on staff in the state system, the teachers are some of the finest, but they need to be allowed more autonomy in their teaching and they need to feel valued.

Thank you Joseanne. I think a lot of State teachers would welcome what you have just said. failure at seven/eight is not good for children they need to be nurtured and shown how to value their own attributes not always academic, to build their confidence. To try and maybe not succeed but not feel like a failure. To go on and try again and not be influenced by disruptive elements within the class. Smaller classes allow this.
Much more funding needs to be put into education to encourage people who want to help and work with children be encouraged to join what was once a profession held in high esteem.

I think we need to decide what we want education to be for.

People have been discussing this for hundreds of years. There is no definitive answer, which is why people never agree. I would also add another question, which is who decides what form of education is best. Education is perhaps unique because the users (ie the children) don't get much of a say.

winterwhite

I didn't realise it was that much Galaxy. The £50 (maybe not enough, then) should do away with these constant wearing requests. To be used there and then for the benefit of current pupils, not saved towards long term projects, wh shld be funded differently.

Most schools are no longer run by local authorities, who have almost no control over education, apart from school transport and special needs.

Children don't take any exams at age 7/8, so I don't know where you're getting that idea from, Yammy.

They did do SATs in yr2 (age 6?), but do they still? I didn't hear any mention of them when my GS was in Y2. They certainly still have them in Y6 (age 10+). Then nothing until GCSE in Y11 (age 15+) and A-Levels Y13). This doesn't seem to me to be an unduly stressful schedule. If you compare it to what we did, 11+, then O and A levels, it's not that different.

Of course, the problem arose when the SAT, GCSE and A level results were used to place schools in 'league tables'. While I can see the rationale for this it put pressure on schools and, frankly, a fair few gamed their results, particularly for Y6 SATs, so as to not lose future pupils and lose funding. Thanks to 'parental choice'.

I would be interested to know from Joseanne what state schools could learn from private schools if you discount better funding and resources and smaller class sizes. And, of course, more motivated parents...

State schools have had their funding cut to the bone, meaning the loss of TAs and pastoral support and many of the local support services have also been cut. Added to that, teachers are leaving in droves and some specialist subjects are hard to recruit for.

On the matter of the state funding I'll remain silent. You most of you know my views on taxation & spending by now.. But there has been no will to properly fund state education over the past decade.

P.S I worked in a secondary school in a deprived area for 13 years. Chair throwing was not on the daily menu.. Nor any other missiles...

growstuff

*I think we need to decide what we want education to be for.*

People have been discussing this for hundreds of years. There is no definitive answer, which is why people never agree. I would also add another question, which is who decides what form of education is best. Education is perhaps unique because the users (ie the children) don't get much of a say.

True. To be fair though, I don’t think I’d have had much of a clue if I’d been asked as a child. It’s one of those things you don’t understand until you’re much older, and even then a lot might depend on circumstance.

I agree that which adults decide is important though. That’s why I asked whether employers should fund vocational courses. So many people seem to write off subjects that don’t lead to an obvious career path, but I think that’s a very narrow view and one that is likely to be limiting for a lot of students.

Charitable Status should not removed. At a stroke it would ensure that thousands of children would be removed from independent schools and put into the already struggling state system, which would impose a lot of extra expense on the state system and disadvantage the state pupils as there would be a rise in class numbers and more children competing for funds to address all the children’s additional needs. Schools like Eton are the minority, most independent schools are fairly small and unremarkable.

Additionally the parents pay for their children’s education twice, firstly through the school fees they pay, and secondly through their taxes that everyone pays which in turn pays for state education. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that the parents of all independently educated children are rich. Many struggle and do without things other people enjoy in order to independently educate their children in the manner and ethos that they choose.

I wouldn't want to see any overtly vocational courses in schools until the age of 16. There's a core of skills (punctuality, resilience, understanding instructions, etc) which everybody needs for a successful career.

Young people have to stay in education until age 18, so 16 is the time to think about vocational courses.

My priority would be to make sure all young people can read a newspaper (or alternative) article and understand beyond the headline. I would want them to understand the importance of checking sources and to understand basic statistics, so they understand what "average" means.

The private and state systems can't be compared meaningfully without recognising the huge disparity in funding.

Charitable status should IMO definitely be removed from private schools. There is no justification for it.

The state system could cope with the 7% of pupils who currently go to private schools (if indeed all of them were withdrawn) by building a few extra classrooms and paying for more teachers.

I think we all agree that without smaller class sizes, more teachers, better resources etc the state system can't really be compared with the private sector. In my comments MaizieD I didn't mean for people to necessarily just "learn", as you suggest, from the private sector, but to consider how different schools operate, to extract some useful ideas, to adapt these to their own needs, to be open minded and innovative, and to accept that there are many positives in the private system. State schools don't need to emulate independent schools at all, sorry, "copy" was not the right choice of word.
Growstuff makes good points about the core of skills, not necessarily academic, needed for every child to succeed. Most private schools do treat children as individuals and develop unique talents without requiring everyone to reach the same levels. They are not hung up on immediate outcomes, but can be more flexible. The schools can do this because they are independent and not controlled by government. Nothing is overly prescriptive nor laid in stone by a controlling body, so they can be creative, innovative, contemporary or traditional in their own way. Even if state schools do have to follow a national curriculum, and prescribed learning, they could consider how private schools add value to that learning experience in other areas.

There are posts on this thread that make me want to weep.

Keep independent schools so the favoured ones don't have to put up with chair throwing?

Keep charitable status so that the state schools don't get over crowded? Its a public service, you know.

Emulate the lovely private schools who get to teach children how they like?

And don't come at me with accusations about being nasty to little children or not being an educationalist.

You can call me left wing if you like.

I am a retired head of a primary school and a former governor of a special school. I think that it's important to include in the debate parental involvement, interest, and commitment to their children. Schools " results" are,usually, in some way a reflection of this . Additionally, state schools, quite rightly, take their share of children with additional needs, including behavioural, which can be very demanding of time and resources. Independent schools can determine if/ how many of such children they take; if we extended that option to state schools there may be an increased need for special schools.
I will ( gently) take to task those who say they " went without extras" to educate their children privately. My nearest Independent charges £ 5250 per term - £ 15600 over a year - for years 7 and 8. That's well over £ 1200 a month ( before any extras) - or £ 2400 a month for two children. That was my take home pay at the end of my career. Extra trimming would pay for this? I don't think so. And don't get me started on Academy trusts..

The government should:
Spend money on school buildings, equipment and resources, support staff, in-service training, strategies for recruitment and retention, teachers' pay, support for differentiation and additional needs.
Ensure that developments in the National Curriculum are teacher led and not subject to the whims of government.
Restore local and national support services for inspection and advice by experienced practitioners.
Stop messing about with funding models.
Get rid of charitable status for independent schools.
Get rid of grammar schools and learn from the experience of highly successful comprehensive schools.

Keep charitable status so state schools don’t get overcrowded.

What’s wrong with that? Do we want state schools to be even more overcrowded than they already are? Is that to be our aim, pressurise the parents of children who are at independent schools into sending their children to state schools by making the fees higher?
Let’s face it, we all know that the government aren’t going to put more money into education in order to reduce class sizes. Remove charitable status and class sizes will rise. As an ex state school teacher, that is not what I want. Class sizes are big enough already. Let the independent schools get on with doing what they do and state schools get on with doing what they do. In both cases, educate children.

Speaking as a chair of school governors, these are what I see as the problems in education:

- first and foremost the micromanagement by the government is stultifying to broad-based imaginative teaching.
- the narrowness of the curriculum puts a strait-jacket on teachers being able to be flexible and respond to children's needs.
- the amount of data collection, policies and plans are hugely burdensome and wholly unnecessary at the level it all now is.
- the role of OfSted as a scrutinising body is like a sword of Damocles on schools - previously there were schools inspectors who had two roles: two scrutinise and more importantly to assist when things were going wrong. The latter aspect is now gone.
- inspections inspect a narrow range of what education should be about. It is tempting for teachers to "teach to OfSted" rather than focus on the needs of the children.
- the pressure to academize results in lots of "jobs for the boys" in the form of CEOs, accountants, lawyers and other highly paid spurious roles.
- academization takes away the on-the-ground flexibility of heads and governing bodies and leaves them having to tolerate decisions taken at arm's length from their school (e.g. changes of staff that might seem on paper to suit the needs of the trust, but is detrimental to the individual school.
- the curriculum favours academic children with good concentration - sadly this causes problems for some boys and favours little studious girls.
- the curriculum places a heavy academic load on children and causes the less academic to switch off and think it is not for them. We see the results of this with bored unmotivated teens wandering the streets.
- teachers have to work massive amounts of unpaid overtime in order just to keep up.
- the narrow curriculum squeezes out arts and music and ignores the huge benefits that these bring, both academic and social.
- schools are grossly underfunded. Not many people realise that in order for schools to get the sort of advice and support from the LA that was once taken for granted, they have to pay out of their meagre funding, e.g. an annual fee ("Service Level Agreement") for legal advice, special needs input, governor training, teacher professional development.
- LA education departments, who used to provide many services - e.g. legal, buildings advice, special needs support - are dwindling as the multi-academy trust bandwagon rolls on and pushes them out.
- Schools and trusts are forced to act like businesses rather than professional educators.

Heavens - I could go on ....... it is so very depressing and all driven by political dogma. It is all so very very wrong, and is a mess that will be hard to untangle.

Do we just say, oh they're not putting enough money into education so its every man for himself for evermore and they should continue making independent schools pretend to be charities?

Or do we work toward a situation where everyone has the same opportunities for education and there are enough resources allocated to state schools that they can run properly?

Its a political decision. Think more than one term ahead.

I agree with you Volver. I was brought up socialist and want all children to have an equal chance. I rest my case after being bitten, having things thrown at me and seeing other members of staff attacked with scissors and kicked.
The whole education system needs a big overhaul where every child gets a fair chance and that can only be achieved by a lot more money being put in and the right kind of teachers being recruited and much smaller classes. More teacher aides and nursery nurses at a young age and teachers with specialist knowledge and training for the older pupils.
Though I would ask, would anyone see their child cry every day because they did not feel they were in a safe environment, never mind learn if they could by working themselves take them out of it?
They shouldn't need to but at the moment they do.

Lucky girl 13 you have summed it up exactly as I was typing. It's a pity the government do not see or does not want to know what you have just stated.
Schools need more governors like you to see what is happening. When a lot are not governors to help children but to make their own Curriculum vitae look good when applying for their own jobs.

Why the necessity for fee based schools to have charitable status? Schools won't close for not having tax relief, fees will adjust.

Great post, Luckygirl3.

I would definitely remove charitable status from private schools. The only reason I would stop short of banning them altogether is that doing so would leave the system entirely under government control.

I would like to see an overhaul of the system to bring in some of the things I mentioned upthread. I believe that all children should be taught to understand how politics and the media work, and that the mocking of these subjects (along with sociology) is deliberate, to discourage people from understanding how they are being manipulated. I recognise that it is important to remove bias from their teaching, however, and that checks and balances need to be in place.

I would raise the status of practical skills-based subjects such as plumbing, childcare and catering, perhaps by insisting on all university entrants having to have at least one A level equivalent in a subject from a list. Many courses insist on English and Maths, even when the course has nothing to do with either, and Latin used to be a pre-requisite too, so there is precedent. I don't think that just saying 'oh, practical subjects should have the same skills as academic ones - your children should be able to study BTECs in carpentry and hairdressing, and mine should go to university to study classics and medicine' is enough. We need to mean it and enforce it.

I would prefer all education to be free for those who will use it, but if it can't be provided by the state I think that vocational subjects should be paid for by the employers who profit from them. At one time that happened, up to a point, when large employers would send people on day release, night classes or sandwich courses, but the burden of fees has transferred to students, who now pay for the right to earn salaries making profits for others. I believe that the study of subjects such as literature or history are also beneficial to society, as they teach the sort of skills that can be applied more generally, and without them we would be a country of barbarians. It's less clear who should pay for them, though - making those students pay, whilst making employers pay for STEM courses would put those courses out of the reach of many, and I wouldn't want to see that happen. It makes more sense to me for everyone to pay for each other, but in that case there should be no elitism and denial of opportunity meaning that school leavers pay for the education of those who will always earn more than they do.

Where I live there was a local school where the children were fairly disruptive. Their newly appointed head teacher came from a private school and introduced his ways. The reputation of the local school shot up, the children were well presented and well behaved in public areas and now it is on a par with the public schools in the district.

volver

There are posts on this thread that make me want to weep.

Keep independent schools so the favoured ones don't have to put up with chair throwing?

Keep charitable status so that the state schools don't get over crowded? Its a public service, you know.

Emulate the lovely private schools who get to teach children how they like?

And don't come at me with accusations about being nasty to little children or not being an educationalist.

You can call me left wing if you like.

And what about the poor teachers who work very long hours having to go into a classroom with disruptive children, have their lesson plans demolished and suffer with mental breakdowns? It is the most depressing, discouraging type of gainful employment after having spent four years training to 'teach', not be a security guard or object of contempt.

Joseanne 'to consider how different schools operate, to extract some useful ideas, to adapt these to their own needs, to be open minded and innovative, and to accept that there are many positives in the private system. State schools don't need to emulate independent schools at all, sorry, "copy" was not the right choice of word.'

how can State schools with very different children, some with very special needs, some who don't speak or read English, very different parents, totally different facilities, and double or even treble the class size? Sorry but it makes no sense.

My GCs go to amazing private schools- all my nieces and nephews too. The facilities are amazing, academic, arts, sport, and class size is less than half the local State school. Selective too- so no difficult children or with low ability of any kind.
So no, there is no 'jealousy' on my part.

But it is not fair- and it is not how it should be. Charity Status cannot remain, there is NO justification for it. Yes, they have a handful of scholarships- but that makes little difference in the grand scale of things.

And there is NO denying that what happens with education is a political choice. As long as the Elites who make the decisions on education funding have NO idea what things are like in some State schools, from buildings falling apart and dodgy heating, to facilities and staff levels/class sizes, etc- can opt out of the system- they will never prioritise it- same for Health provision.

The cost to all, longterm is massive- unemployment, social issues, crime, health issues, and massive resentment slowly but surely building up. In the end, everyone loses.

BTW my children went to their local schools, and I taught all my life in Comprehensives, by choice. No chair throwing, but 'easy' no, it was not- but I worked with fabulous colleagues who worked so hard to try and support all kids, and we worked together and supported each other in the most amazing of ways too.