How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

My definition of success is doing something that makes you happy and proud of your achievement at the end of the day, whatever it maybe

Are you seriously suggesting that children from working class families should be shunted into doing manual jobs

What intellectual snobbery!
It really is.

shunted
Disgraceful attitudes on here.

growstuff

DaisyAnne

growstuff

DaisyAnne

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

That's going to be great for the children.

What on earth are you on about?

You're the only one obsessed with communism.

I'm not. But people who think they can stop others spending their money on education for their children worry me as that is communism. There is no capitalist country that does that.

Good grief! It's not communism! I think you're being a tad paranoid.

PS. Germany and Finland have very few private schools. Do you think all Germans and Finns are communists?

Not Finland again.

Shown to be myths perpetuated by gullible people on the internet.

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

Yes, I am cocerned, but some on this thread think the only way to achieve this is by preventing freedom of choice.
It's illogical.

Anyway, education is devolved here so I'll leave you to it.

I'm curious, why would anyone want to tell us what we can spend our money on? How is what we legally spend the business of government?

If we accept that we may not pay for education for our GC what will we be told we may or may not purchase in future?

Change to taxes seems the answer to me.

What I find wrong with private schools is that it enables parents with enough money to deliberately buy advantages for their children over those with whom in later life they will have to compete.

What is also wrong is Tory govts failure / lack of interest in appointing a half-way competent, half-way committed S of State for education. Someone willing to fight its corner rather than forever blaming teachers and never listening to them (apologies to the latest one, re whom we know little yet).

growstuff

DaisyAnne

growstuff

DaisyAnne

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

That's going to be great for the children.

What on earth are you on about?

You're the only one obsessed with communism.

I'm not. But people who think they can stop others spending their money on education for their children worry me as that is communism. There is no capitalist country that does that.

Good grief! It's not communism! I think you're being a tad paranoid.

PS. Germany and Finland have very few private schools. Do you think all Germans and Finns are communists?

No, they have not banned privately funded schools and they have poured vast amounts of state money into the state schools. That is not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is banning choice completely.

Callistemon21

^So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism^.

Yes, I am cocerned, but some on this thread think the only way to achieve this is by preventing freedom of choice.
It's illogical.

Anyway, education is devolved here so I'll leave you to it.

I do know a few are concerned Callistemon. It's the lack of logic that makes it so difficult to have a reasoned conversation. That and the inverted snobbery.

How is what we legally spend the business of government?

It used to be legal to spend your money on a slave.

It used to be legal to spend your money on bear baiting.

It used to be legal to spend your money betting on a dog fight.

Sometimes things that are legal in one generation are seen to be untenable and are not acceptable any more, and its generally the government which changes the rules. Some people think that those with the money to support it can choose educational advantages for their children, some think that's not acceptable.

DaisyAnne

So it's okay that state schools are often underperforming M0nica. We don't have to worry about opportunities missed because they can come along and build your extension. Seriously?

Unemployment figures do not show those who have given up seeking work, the employed working but in poverty, nor does it show if the "employed" are part-time or full-time. I don't think you can extrapolate the numbers who are actually jobless.

Quite.

Not to mention, quite a few students from schools I've worked in have dropped in on me (online, not actually at my home!) and it's been a succession of McDonalds and other low paid, zero hours contracts, interspersed with unemployment.

I'm not whistling in the wind here. I've been a teacher in inner city schools and also the NE, where Thatcher decimated industry. I see this on a daily basis.

It wouldn't matter how much money you threw at Education if you don't have children who can behave themselves in the classroom to learn and let other children learn. What we found when we took our boy out of State Education wasn't the most wonderful teachers (although they also worked evenings and weekends doing extra-curricular activities for the pupils), the many clubs, etc made the difference, it was the ethos that meant you treated others kindly, you wanted to learn and any disruptive behaviour was dealt with very quickly. The older children helped the younger children rather than slamming doors in their faces when moving through the corridors. Throughout the years, the pupils helped with community projects and there was always a charitable fundraiser going on including the ones which provided scholarships for less affluent pupils. We were shown round by a young lady who lived in a deprived area of the city who was receiving that scholarship. Hard work was encouraged, there was no bullying of the more academic or conscientious.
If we want good education in this country for all, we have to rethink how we educate young people from the first day they step into school, we have to re-educate the parents who look on school as childcare and fund it all properly. Every which way you turn, State School staff are hampered and some are able to do very little except crowd control. Too much effort is put into getting results instead of putting in the work to ensure that young people are leaving school as well rounded people who are able to learn when they finally realise that to get what they want out of life, they have the skills to get it or the ability to learn. We need an education system where everybody's needs are met, not a one sized fits all and I really don't think scrapping Independent Schools will help with that.

I would like to see the justification for the "state schools are often underperforming" remark. In 2020 and 2021 86% of maintained schools inspected were good or outstanding.
I have, however, heard this year of two grammar schools moving into the "requires improvement" category.

Mamie

I would like to see the justification for the "state schools are often underperforming" remark. In 2020 and 2021 86% of maintained schools inspected were good or outstanding.
I have, however, heard this year of two grammar schools moving into the "requires improvement" category.

Ofsted are directed by the government. Schools that aren't academies are judged more harshly, to encourage the switch over to academisation.

Anyone that thinks an Ofsted report is a good judge of a school is deluded. There is a school in Northumberland that I worked in for 7 years. It was always a good school. Probably not outstanding, but good, solid school with a lot of support for the students. It was down graded repeatedly until it was forced to become an academy. Lo and behold, it's just been graded as good again. Very little has changed.

As a former Ofsted inspector of many years experience I disagree with you GagaJo.
In any case are not talking about academisation here. We are talking about the judgement that the vast majority of schools are rated good or outstanding.

GagaJo

DaisyAnne

So it's okay that state schools are often underperforming M0nica. We don't have to worry about opportunities missed because they can come along and build your extension. Seriously?

Unemployment figures do not show those who have given up seeking work, the employed working but in poverty, nor does it show if the "employed" are part-time or full-time. I don't think you can extrapolate the numbers who are actually jobless.

Quite.

Not to mention, quite a few students from schools I've worked in have dropped in on me (online, not actually at my home!) and it's been a succession of McDonalds and other low paid, zero hours contracts, interspersed with unemployment.

I'm not whistling in the wind here. I've been a teacher in inner city schools and also the NE, where Thatcher decimated industry. I see this on a daily basis.

So are you saying that the schools and their teachers failed them?
Or was it lack of motivation and enterprise? Were the expectations of their families non-existent?
Are you saying that all these ex-pupils could have gone to university and got a better job?
Did they all have the intellectual capacity to do that and were failed by the system?

If they had motivation and enterprise and had been encouraged by their schools and their families could they have gone on to further education as not every good job, career, needs a degree.

We need many different types of workers to keep society going.
Including those who may start out working in fast food outlets.

I'm not particularly in favour of academies btw

Callistemon21 I think we are talking about equality of opportunity here aren't we? Funding does matter and if you put money and resources in to schemes like SureStart, early years education, support for children with learning and behavioural difficulties, support for children from disadvantaged backgrounds then you are far more likely to give all children the opportunity to access further and higher education.
This is where recent governments have failed abysmally.

Mamie

Callistemon21 I think we are talking about equality of opportunity here aren't we? Funding does matter and if you put money and resources in to schemes like SureStart, early years education, support for children with learning and behavioural difficulties, support for children from disadvantaged backgrounds then you are far more likely to give all children the opportunity to access further and higher education.
This is where recent governments have failed abysmally.

I agree, Mamie

But, no matter what the aspirations, not everyone is capable of going into higher education. Some seem to think that anything else is a failure. It is not.

What matters is that each child is given the opportunities to reach their potential, whatever that may be.

That is where a re-think is required.

M0nica

Gagajo If he'd been working-class, he'd have been condemned to a life unemployed after an under funded state education.

Why? Over the last two years we have had an extension built, kitchen refitted and currently have some guys in the garden doing landscaping work and laying a patio. As do almost any school leavers in most parts of the country

All the people who have done this work have been pleasant sensible lads, who I doubt would be university material, but they have good jobs, providing a good living.

Unemployment is currently as low as it has been for some time. Of course there are unemployment black spots and industries which are reducing staff, not employing them, but most education leavers, regardless of level, get jobs, and stay employed.

And while the number of people living in poverty is too many and the variation in incomes is too wide. The fact remains that the majority of households in this country have an adequate income.

Government statistics show that 80% of households have an income in excess of £20,000, 60% have incomes in excess of £30,000, 40% in excess of £40,000. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021

It is the same with university education. When I went to university in the early 1960s, well less than 10% went to university. Now it is 50%. When that proportion of school leavers go to university, there are going to be a lot of mediocre students getting to university from all kinds of schools, because the whole basis of university education has changed. More school leavers now go to university than did O levels in 1960, when only 20% of children went to grammar schools and outside grammar schools, opportunitities for secondary modern and technical school children to take O levels were few and far between.

Indeed.

People want different jobs. Some want to build, work with their hands, work in gardens - not everyone yearns to academia, the arts, medicine, teaching.

We cleaned our home until we were 72, a bit unsteady on steps. Now we pay a cleaner £20 an hour (£35,000/ year). Seems reasonable to me, her calendar is full. Same with our gardener, good with the things we can't do any longer, nice wage.

Callistemon21

Mamie

Callistemon21 I think we are talking about equality of opportunity here aren't we? Funding does matter and if you put money and resources in to schemes like SureStart, early years education, support for children with learning and behavioural difficulties, support for children from disadvantaged backgrounds then you are far more likely to give all children the opportunity to access further and higher education.
This is where recent governments have failed abysmally.

I agree, Mamie

But, no matter what the aspirations, not everyone is capable of going into higher education. Some seem to think that anything else is a failure. It is not.

What matters is that each child is given the opportunities to reach their potential, whatever that may be.

That is where a re-think is required.

Who here has advocated Higher Education for all? I don't believe any of us did. However, I know from experience that many children who are sent to private schools are pushed way beyond their capabilities, because they have the 'sort of parents' who expect them to go into HE and top jobs.

And then the others, who, in the current circumstances, huge classes and poor funding, never ever get the opportunity to reach their potential.

I am not talking out of jealousy here, most in my family on all sides have gone to top Public Schools, for generations. My GCs and all nephews, nieces and grand n & n are at top private schools too. They are given fabulous opportunities. And said recently, 1 GC did exceptionally well in GCSEs recently, all As (9s, 8s and 7s). Worked very hard, but was taught full lessons during Covid and given access to everything needed during schooling. So proud- but we all know she was given the amazing chance to succeed. Totally unfair that her exams were marked the same as a child on top of highrise, sharing a room with many sibblings, no computer or quite space or access to tuition or information, or academic support.

So, this cleaner on £35k...

Presumably she gets 4 weeks holiday a year?

And I don't think she works exclusively for you, so let's say she spends 2 hours a day travelling between clients? Let's give her another hour for lunch and tea breaks.

So annually, her total number of hours p.a. that she actually gets paid for is 1,200. 1,200*20 is £24,000. No sick pay or holiday pay. Then take off tax and NI.

The average wage in the UK is £32k. Being a cleaner isn't quite as lucrative as you seem to think it is.

Totally unfair that her exams were marked the same as a child on top of highrise, sharing a room with many sibblings, no computer or quite space or access to tuition or information, or academic support.

I understand why you feel this is unfair, FP, but exams are supposed to be completely unbiassed so thay should be marked the same way for all.

The problem is what your post highlighted earlier: that not all children get the same amount of good teaching and good opportunities. That is what we need to work on, not marking down kids who have learned a lot or marking up kids who haven't.

volver

So, this cleaner on £35k...

Presumably she gets 4 weeks holiday a year?

And I don't think she works exclusively for you, so let's say she spends 2 hours a day travelling between clients? Let's give her another hour for lunch and tea breaks.

So annually, her total number of hours p.a. that she actually gets paid for is 1,200. 1,200*20 is £24,000. No sick pay or holiday pay. Then take off tax and NI.

The average wage in the UK is £32k. Being a cleaner isn't quite as lucrative as you seem to think it is.

Yes, I accounted for 4 weeks holiday.

I assume everyone has to have lunch and tea. Everyone gets to work driving, walking, or by whatever means. In this village all her clients are near, I'd give an hour drive time between. I do live here, I do know.

I used 37 hrs a week * £20 * 48 = £35520

Everyone pays tax and NI.

The number of times people said to me 'ah but it's ok for you to send your kids to state schools, because they are very bright. But not for ours, because they have 'problems'.

When our eldest started at Primary school in the village, there should have been 2 classes, but 2 local parents decided to send kids privately at quite last stage, so tipped the balance and there was only 1 class of 30.

I used 37 hrs a week * £20 * 48 = £35520

Fair enough.

So she is actually doing paid physical work for 37 hours a week, spending another 5 hours a week driving or walking, another 5 hours or so eating during her working day (or maybe she just grabs a sandwich in the car?), gets no sick pay or holiday pay and is living the life of riley.

I'm sure you know your area very well indeed, but my sympathies are still with the cleaner.

Baggs

*Totally unfair that her exams were marked the same as a child on top of highrise, sharing a room with many sibblings, no computer or quite space or access to tuition or information, or academic support.*

I understand why you feel this is unfair, FP, but exams are supposed to be completely unbiassed so thay should be marked the same way for all.

The problem is what your post highlighted earlier: that not all children get the same amount of good teaching and good opportunities. That is what we need to work on, not marking down kids who have learned a lot or marking up kids who haven't.

I certainly did not suggest that private school kids should be marked down, did I?

But how can exams be 'totally unbiased' in a system where teaching time, quality, etc, be so totally different. Not to say that teaching quality is not good in state schools- but during Covid it was a real problems for many without computers, etc. In my experience, the quality of teachers in state schools can be much better actually, and the dedication huge. But large classes with all sorts of SN mixed in, are not easy to teach, and much time is spent dealing with issues which have nothing to do with teaching. Teaching small classes of hand-picked children, with massive parental support, is another kettle of fish, for sure.

What I am saying, is that the education system, in the UK in particular, for very long hisotrical reasons- is not equal, not unbiased, and heavily squewed to lead to 'success' for some groups of people, and perpetuated.