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

So much to agree with in your post, Luckygirl13, and I completely agree with you, volver.

But there is the element that I touched on much earlier in this thread, that of teachers themselves not being in agreement about the best way to approach teaching children and their ability to be swayed by quite dubious theories of how best to teach and handle 'difficult' children .

I don't particularly blame them; they have so much on their plates that they don't have the time to dig deeply into the evidence for the latest fashionable methodology, or strategies that they are assured will cure their behaviour problems. They take a lot on trust and belief in others expertise.

I've seen Brain Gym, learning styles, thinking hats, discovery learning, knowledge based learning, group work, ask a friend, peer assessment, target setting and review, inclusion, exclusion, restorative justice, mentoring, both adult and peer, and that's just what I can remember from working on the periphery in one school. Some of it worked for some pupils, some of it didn't. Some of it depended on the individual teachers; I've seen teacher who can quell a whole class with a look and others who couldn't keep the same class quiet for 5 minutes.

It's all very well calling for more teacher autonomy when some autonomous practice can be ineffectual or positively harmful. I've seen the Reading Wars, I've seen the heated debates over exclusion, debates over maths teaching, debates over discipline. I've seen parents of children with special needs fighting to get adequate provision for their child when schools don't have the money to provide it.

It's just not straight forward at grass roots level. Some of it stems from lack of funding some of it is down to influences on teacher practice which may or may not be beneficial.

It seems to me that it is something of a mess at all levels and, apart from more funding to give schools more opportunity to deal with children with highly diverse needs I just don't know what the answer is.

Sorry for the rather disjointed ranting...

Rant away! - it is a rantable subject!

On the subject of special needs, one of the problems is that a child can have an EHCP recommending X hours of extra input, but the government will not fund that - you might get half of X if you are lucky. So the school has to find this extra funding out of their tight budget - and it deters schools from taking on children with SEN simply because the school cannot afford to.

So many amazing insights on here, I’m not sure what to add. More money will certainly help in a lot of ways but isn’t the whole answer.
The ‘build additional classrooms’ is dependant not just on having money but also space and, as I know very well, planning permission. We have the grounds to extend but planning permission and agreements with the LA took ages.
Children with highly diverse needs also requires space and staff. It’s not easy teaching a class of 30 mixed ability including children with SEND with multiple support staff in the classroom with the teacher. Good support staff are unobtrusive and effective. Some have to learn to be like that and some never do.
The point about teachers’ differing views on the ‘right way’ to teach is another excellent point.
My extra point is the cramming of the curriculum. Think how many additional things have been added to the primary curriculum, with nothing being taken out. Some, like finance can be or were already included in maths, but what about the ever increasing letters on the PSHCE curriculum? What about computing? What about the MFL requirements? All great ideas, but the school day only has so many hours and more money would not help.

Mollygo, one of my fellow inspectors always used to say, "if you want to add that into the curriculum what are you going to take out?" So true.
I often think that when I read "schools ought to teach.... on here". Quite often whatever it is is already in the curriculum.....

So much good thinking here. I wish there were some way of getting this thread under the eyes of the education leads in all the political parties.
How on earth can things begin to improve? Education obvs needs its own stand-alone body equiv to the NHS but this won't happen with this very centrist govt. Is there an education car? Didn't the last resign because BJ ignored his recommendations?

maddyone

^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.

Why would they be more overcrowded? Frankly, I think that's a poor argument. Not all parents would withdraw their children, if charitable status were to be withdrawn and the extra capacity could be found. Even now, the numbers needing state schools places can vary by a few percent from one year to the next.

It's estimated that private schools benefit by approximately £3 billion from various tax exemptions. To put that into context, that's about 5% of the currents state school budget. It's a direct subsidy by all taxpayers to those who can afford private education, who tend to be the wealthiest.

Doodledog Would you insist that everybody studying a skills-based course has an A level in a traditional academic subject?

Having read through this thread there are a few misunderstandings. Under the 2014 education act, a state school cannot discriminate against a child with SEND requirements but it is true that the child's needs are mostly funded from the school's budget. This is a real issue for schools, there are certain categories that attract additional funding eg Looked after children, children with a parent in the forces, free school meals etc but the use of that money is monitored as part of an OFSTED inspection also on a schools website.
I was COG of a primary school for several years, we chose to join a local MAT because our LA was unable to properly support the school because it had been cut to the bone. Our experience has been totally positive but we chose carefully. Not all MATs are the same, just like schools.
I certainly didn't become a governor to enhance my CV and thinking of my fellow governors, who sat for hours in meetings, I doubt they did either. I gave my time because I wanted to contribute to my local community and had skills and experience to offer. I served for 8 years, 5 of them as COG, I was only able to take on the chair when I retired as it was so time consuming.
I'm ambivalent about removing charitable status, the schools it will affect most will be the smaller less popular schools, the really elite schools would be fine. Many of these schools cater for children who would struggle in mainstream education and I wouldn't wish to deny parents the right to spend their money on helping their children. It just seems rather mean and petty so I'd rather focus on improving State schools. I am particularly concerned about the financial support for children with SEND, it is totally inadequate.

Disapproving of private education is neither mean nor petty.

I wish people (some posters? 🙂) would understand that the disapproval is not driven by jealousy but by a desire to see the best education for all, irrespective of how much money their parents have.

I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that jealousy is the reason for disapproval of private schools.
I wish some posters would realise that private schools are not the major problem, and come up with ways to make schooling fairer for state education. Who would gain from the removal of charitable status? Would there suddenly be more money in the system for state education?

Would giving more funding to schools in poorer areas (once called EPA) make more parents want to send their children there? It didn’t work before.

How do we build more classrooms for schools that have no space, even if they had the finance?
Should we bus children from local schools that have no capacity for increase in classrooms, to schools that have the land?

How can we ensure that all parents have a high level of interest in and high expectations of their children’s school and education.
Low levels of interest are not necessarily apparent only in less well off schools, but more parents in the EPA school I taught in had lower expectations of what their children would achieve and that was often reflected in their children’s attitude.

How do we ensure that all schools have funding for educational visits and visitors which are increasingly regarded as an essential part of education, whether it’s a visit to a high school to use their tech or musical equipment or a visiting drama group to inspire children’s speaking, listening and writing skills?
How would the decision about which schools get the funding be made? Would it be like an OFSTED of poverty? Schools have to prove they need funding more than the next school?
Interestingly, many ‘better off’ schools have parents affected by current economic problems. Should they be allocated funding along with the ‘less well off’ schools?

Mollygo, many have attempted to explain this already. The tax gained from removing charitable status would go to help with extra funding for state schools, and also rebalance perception and injustice. And no, it would not solve all the problems overnight- the divisions are based on Centuries of educational divisions in the UK.

volver

Disapproving of private education is neither mean nor petty.

I wish people (some posters? 🙂) would understand that the disapproval is not driven by jealousy but by a desire to see the best education for all, irrespective of how much money their parents have.

I just don't see how depriving people of choice improves the quality of education for all. The very rich will always find ways of giving their children the best of everything, whilst the middle classes are extremely adept at "working the system" by moving to the right catchment area (and paying a premium for their house) paying for coaching etc to try to get the grammar school place or the better grades etc. If you read my post carefully you will see I have not written in support of private education merely supported the right of people to spend their money as they want on their own children. I'd rather up taxes and spend more money on state schools to support those children who's parents don't have a choice. I don't think there is a snowball in hells chance of getting the upper classes to support the local Comprehensive School, by all means put some of the poorer independent schools out of business but I really don't see how that would improve anything. In my area we already have too few school places.

I'm not objecting to people spending their money as they wish. I'm objecting to them buying advantage for their children, subsidised by the 93% who don't send their children to private schools. It's estimated that the tax exemptions are worth £3 billion.

Well, no-one is saying it would be easy- and that all problems can be solved. But statistically, and the same works for private heatlh care- the private system requires a much higher proportion of staff at all levels.

Incidentally, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the "upper classes", but my local comprehensive does have some children whose parents are most definitely "upper class" - and it shows. Some of these parents have made donations to the school, so that some of the facilities are equal to or better than any private school.

It can be done. The school has had three heads who, quite deliberately, have targeted the kind of parent who would previously have sent their offspring to private schools.

Realistically though, most staff who work in private schools however, would not last 5 minutes in State schools.

Miryam Margolyes on BBC2 now. How the "fair go" works in Australia, and how private education impacts that.

foxie48 really good comments.y

Soz, that y just crept in there.

Fleurpepper

Realistically though, most staff who work in private schools however, would not last 5 minutes in State schools.

Not all state schools are Bash St Academy y’know.

Oh I do know, having worked all my adult life in town comprehensives (secondary and 6th Form) - the intake is very mixed, many social and special needs issues, and at least, and often more, double the class size,

Many private school teachers are there either because they went to private schools themselves, or because they could not cope with larger and very mixed class size. I can honestly say this from experience.

Two of my grandchildren are in a primary school which requires improvement. This is confusing to me as the progress both children have made is pretty good. Joined up handwriting, competent reading and a good understanding of mathematics and history plus an in-depth almost encyclopaedic knowledge of dinosaurs in a 6 year old is very pleasing to witness. His younger brother is also very primed to learn and is developing well as a potential leader of the pack. (Little Emperor syndrome is not confined to the private sector).

I have known children miss months of education through illness and still emerge years later with a doctorate.

Mamie

*Mollygo*, one of my fellow inspectors always used to say, "if you want to add that into the curriculum what are you going to take out?" So true.
I often think that when I read "schools ought to teach.... on here". Quite often whatever it is is already in the curriculum.....

Gosh - I don't agree with that!

What about music in primary schools? I used to go into schools to teach singing. The whole staff body was often terrified of music, and frequently did not know whether there was a piano in school or, if they did, where it might be! I remember asking one staff member to give us a starting note from some chime bars - play a G please, says I. How do I know which is G? - it's the one with G written on it!

Music and arts are under rated. So much evidence of higher academic achievement in schools where music is a high priority. But so many schools think there is not time for that.

The primary where I am governor does value music and the arts - they all got bored with me grinding on about it, so found time for it, and soon saw the huge benefits.

The music curriculum that is supposed to be followed in primary schools is just plain awful - unimaginative, dull, repetitive, designed to be done quickly as a side issue by staff who believe they have no skills.

The whole curriculum needs enriching with music, painting, performance, sport, community involvement etc. etc.

ronib

Two of my grandchildren are in a primary school which requires improvement. This is confusing to me as the progress both children have made is pretty good. Joined up handwriting, competent reading and a good understanding of mathematics and history plus an in-depth almost encyclopaedic knowledge of dinosaurs in a 6 year old is very pleasing to witness. His younger brother is also very primed to learn and is developing well as a potential leader of the pack. (Little Emperor syndrome is not confined to the private sector).

I have known children miss months of education through illness and still emerge years later with a doctorate.

Well I do agree with that!

The real joke is that primary school children are force fed a curriculum for which many are unsuited (and they switch off) and which pushes them ahead - and then when they get to secondary school, they do all the same stuff again; and the opportunity to enjoy being a child and to gain wide experience of life and people has been lost.

Excellent post Luckygirl3.