Labour Policy on Education

I do sympathise with the problems you’ve encountered re your GDs school, I’m just doubting your assumption that this woman was in any way a senior official within the Education part of Children’s Services. Though she may well have presented herself as such. The person I knew who had this responsibility was at most Middle Management and had ‘ideas above her station’ as the saying goes. I’d describe her as a cross metween Margot Ledbetter and Hyacinth Bucket!

My point being, don’t judge the old LEAs (now obsolete) by this one person. They did an amazing job of standing between Government bureaucracy and stupidity and the schools and pupils. Many a time their Advisers have stepped in to help schools dubbed ‘failing’ by OFSTED inspectors for no good reasons. Likewise as arbitrators in disputes between HT and governing bodies, and or teachers. In disciplinary procedures. Often drawing down extra funding from little known sourced and so on.

They do, or did, much good work. The reason they were disbanded was because they held too much sway and mitigated the effects of too many successive Conservative government’s attempts to manipulate education. Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to try to dismantle them.

Another reason was that HTs, especially secondary HTs, wanted more control to do everything their own way, and this included tearing up terms and conditions for teachers.

So I do appreciate you had a bad experience but this was not due in any way to LEAs per se, but to one jumped up little official.

Incidentally could you name the ‘LEA’?

Are you saying the Chief Executive of Children’s Services in your area, took an active and personal interest in you particular cases then Gilly?

Granny23 - as it should be. Here in Switzerland, parental choice just does not exist. Kids are sent to the local school- end of- no discussion, no appeal- and it is well accepted - apart from the expats who are used to the concept of choice- and often choose to send their kids to International private schools. In my 67 years- I know of only 3 children who were sent to private boarding school (there are simply no local private schools- apart from a Montesorri and one Steiner for little ones) - mainly to 'get rid of them'. Rich, poor or anything in between.

Your system sounds nothing short of ideal Granny23 . Sadly in our borough the LEA seem to stick pins in large maps and children get sent far and wide ( with the exception of those who were able to get into the right feeders). This results in a system where children travel from miles away to get into the right school and children on the doorstep of the school are forced to travel miles in the opposite direction . No logic whatsoever . No point in arguing though ( I’ve tried) as the LEA say what goes and they are “always right”.

In our village almost all the children attend the local Primary school. A handful of parents (no more than a dozen) send/take their children to the RC Primary in a neighbouring village or a Private School some distance away. The policy is to include children with learning or physical disabilities in mainstream schooling with specialised support workers assigned, but there is one school in the County for children with more severe difficulties.

There is no 11+. All the children (bar the few mentioned above) progress to secondary in the nearest small town. It is called an Academy but is in fact a comprehensive, catering successfully for all abilities. Admission is based on the local catchment area, but requests for an alternative school are usually accommodated with the parents having to meet the travel costs themselves. There is little incentive to send children to an alternative school, as all the Local High Schools score much the same (excellent) in league tables. In general, parents and children assert that 'their' schools are the best.

All these schools are LA run and owned. Their is a proposal to remove charitable status from Private Schools, but I am not sure how far this has progressed.

This is, of course, in Scotland, which was, of course, not mentioned in the LP debate. In fact most of the proposals/promises on Education, child care, benefits, made in JC's speech have already been enacted by the 'left of centre' Scottish Government

To return to education: for free uni and higher education in general (including evening classes which used to be £10 a term for OAPs) 2 words - scrap Trident. Let's develop a good education system instead of a war machine!!

Should have read for 3 primaries.

I have done a lot of research over the last 4 years and no one has won an appeal against our LEA with her at the top . Seems odd don’t you think?

Of course it’s personal OldMeg I have attended 8 appeals in 4 years . Won one (the only one that she had no control over) .

I’m sorry if this sounds harsh Gilly but you are bringing your personal feelings into this. I assure you, despite what you think, or your perceptions, no LEA is ‘controlled by one woman’ and in fact LEAs don’t exist as such these days being subsumed into Children’s Services.

Yes, I read all about your GDGs issues getting into the local secondary school, which is an Acadeny and therefore independent of any ‘LEA’ control. Who this mysterious ‘woman from the LEA’ was, her title and rank, was I’m not sure. But as I understand it justice did prevail through due process and your GD got her place.

Emily Thornberry is married to a high court judge Sir Christopher Nugee , she chooses not to be known as Lady Nugee.

Plenty of good questions raised here. And of course people want to see the best education for their, and others' children.

I have said before that I believe.the nearest system to an ideal one is the Finnish system. Virtually all schools are state schools and all classes are mixed ability - of course there is strong support for those who cannot cope. Private education is seen as irrelevant. Testing is illegal before the age of 16 and very little homework is set as out of school time is for clubs etc. Teachers and their contributions are valued in Finland and there is no need for the sort of heavy handed policing that Ofsted does.

The nearest we have to this is the Comprehensives that have done so well in educating their mixed ability intake. All the evidence is that mixed ability classes help the high flyers but the slower learners will need some extra help. Grammar schools do not seem to help any ability level and also prove divisive.

Emily Thornberry can do what she likes as a person in our society, but as a representative of the Labour movement she should not be supporting a divisive education system. Actually, she should be living on the average wage (which would probably make that impossible anyway) and campaigning for better for everyone.

Whilst I agree with some of the points you raise, I have to ask a few questions oldmeg . Why is the only outstanding secondary school in our borough an academy and out of the LEA control ? Why is it that the LEA in my borough is controlled by one woman who no one (and I mean no one) dare cross ? Why is it that that our LEA have a twisted policy on school admissions seeing children travelling miles away to schools when there are perfectly good ones within a stones throw of where they live? I have many more questions that I have put to our LEA but they are complete incompetents and either cannot answer or choose not to. So to sum up, I do not want to see the demigods in the LEA’s have any more power than they already do.

Believe me teachers would welcome change for the better.

Abolish free schools and faith schools. Return all schools to,LEA control. Improve conditions for teachers and bring back subjects lost to cuts. Reinstate the school Music Service, school crossing patrols and allow the experts, not politicians, to set the curriculum.

What annoys me about support for grammar schools is the implicit assumption that comprehensive schools are uniformly bad. A well led comprehensive with good teachers can do just as much for a 'bright' child as a grammar school. What is more, it can nurture the late developers mentioned by ilovecheese and allows children to mix with children from diverse backgrounds instead of being hothoused in an educational bubble.

Grammar schools separate children into supposedly academic and not so academic far too early. 11 years old is too young to make this judgement. We know so much more now about children's development. It used to be thought that a person's IS was fixed at age 11, We now know that this is not the case. An exam taken at 11 years old is irrelevant.

The odd book of practice papers is not the same as a year or more's tutoring. I do not remember any tutoring when I took the 11+ and not much around when my children did entrance exams. Mine certainly had no tutoring.

Yes, Annie, and most parents understand that .'Emily Thornberry said her children were privately educated because she wanted the best for them.'...

in countries where the State system is properly funded, with decent class size and facilities - parents do not choose private education- because all schools are excellent, all classes have reasonable numbers and support. In the large valley where I live, I do not know of a single child being privately educated, however rich the parents.

I can see your point about private tutoring MOnica but hasn't this always been the case? Despite this, plenty of state educated children have secured a place at Grammar schools.

I remember some years ago that WH Smith sold practice papers. They were only a couple of pounds or so.

Of course now there are so few of those schools, places are going to be in short supply. If more Grammar schools were built then that would certainly give bright state educated children more of a chance.

The reason grammar schools are no longer practical, is that nowadays parents who can afford it will be hiring tutors to coach their children, putting all those children whose parents cannot afford coaching at a severe disadvantage.

I think there was an LA with grammar schools that divided the places around all the potential feeder schools, so that every school got, proportionately, the same number of children into the school. They nominated their brightest children, who I think, were interviewed.

Nowadays that would be unfeasible because parents would 'game' the primary school they sent their child to, as well as the pressure head teachers would be under, especially in, advantaged housing areas. I wouldn't want to be a Head teacher in that position these days.

The one thing I have never understood about the Labour party and education is why it is so against Grammar schools.

The idea of them of course is that bright children from poorer families can still have a good education with other more academically inclined children. They are state schools, so free. What's not to like?

Surely it's in this country's interest (well every country really) to encourage and nurture intelligent children as these are the future of the country - our doctors scientists, inventors etc.

It seems to me that children of lower ability, as well as those with any number of the latest behavioural 'disorder' or other, are given more attention than the very children who will be the future of this country.

Of course under a dreaded Labour government Grammar schools will never return. Their egalitarian philosophy has put paid to that.

No matter how many private schools there are parents choose them and I do not believe the choice is forced because there are so many poor state schools , that’s the excuse put forward by some Labour MP’s, Emily Thornberry said her children were privately educated because she wanted the best for them.

No Annie - most private schools are not Eton and Harrow, Charterhouse, etc, Public Schools are a tiny minority, as you well know.