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

I don't think calling me condescending was an attack against the argument Doodledog.

I am no longer taking part in the 'debate', but want to say that I have not made personal remarks of any kind. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as attacking them, and I have not done that either.

what does the dishwasher comment mean?

I don't know about privatising state schools... this is like being in the playground...

I didn't do it. You did it. A big boy did it and ran away.

So when did you do that Volver? I certainly haven't and wouldn't. Have you read the OP?

What is more condescending than thinking you can tell people they cannot pay to educate their children?

Telling them they are too poor to expect a proper education for their children.

By the way Doodledog I do know you have stopped actually reading the posts I write but, just for clarification, I did not ask "how many people use a private school but get involved in state ones." I asked, "What percentage of those sending their children to state schools show any interest in the school outside that connected to their own children?"

Perhaps you have got hold of the wrong end of more than one stick.

What is more condescending than thinking you can tell people they cannot pay to educate their children?

Will you allow them to pay for medical treatment for those children if they feel suitable treatment is not available on the NHS? Will you allow them to rent from a private owner or even buy their home privately or will you stop that in order that they take more notice of Council House building - which would currently, in many areas, be unable to offer them decent housing. These "others" must be brought down to the lowest we have on offer apparently, then they will feel grateful and help. I don't see it.

So far in the past few posts both you and Maizie have decided attacking me personally is the answer. There is obviously no discussion unless I agree that some people have to be stopped from doing something with their money that is perfectly - at the moment and in the majority of countries - legal.

DaisyAnne

*Doodledog*, I can see no proof that shows that "one of the reasons that the 2-tier system is iniquitous is that because the rich and influential tend to use private schools they have (at best) no vested interest in improving state ones". Some do, some don't. What percentage of those sending their children to state schools show any interest in the school outside that connected to their own children?

This is othering. I expect it from the right. I did not expect it from the left. It is no different to identifying a group of people who were seen as rich but often were not, as being the reason for the downfall of a country's economy.

The issue is with the state and the issue with the state lies clearly with the voters. I will, after this thread, probably never vote Labour again. I wasn't, as some were, put off by Corbyn's extremes as the party seemed to resile from those, but I am put off by the far left on GN. Communism is when everything is owned and run by the state. This is what you are demanding for education.

I have no idea how many people use a private school but get involved in state ones. How would I know that? I can't imagine many parents feeling happy about someone having decision-making powers in their children's school when they don't use it for their own children though.

The left/right insults are tired, and show a woeful lack of understanding of what the two things mean, and a strange assumption that people's views are either one or the other. It happens a lot on here. I couldn't care less how you vote - I'm not recruiting for any party, but I can assure you that however my political allegiances could be described, I am not a communist .

This is supposedly a discussion, not a fight to the death, and it would be a lot more interesting if we could actually discuss things. Others have left this thread because of your condescending attitude, and I am going to do the same.

MaizieD

Mollygo

That’s OK. Impressions can differ and we certainly weren’t well funded. I had a TA for 1 afternoon a week which was all our school could afford, and I was on the Governing body, so I saw the finances, so obviously my opinion differs.

I was an actual TA, employed, along with 5 more, as a result of Labour's funding increases and I was on the Governing body for most of the time I worked there. I sawthe finances too.

Just saying

Silly me...... wrong quote got attached to my comment on understanding the finances!

MaizieD

Mollygo

Which is why our opinions differ. We were a poorer school. Now, at the last count, we have a TA per class, plus innumerable TA’s doing SEND support all the way through the school. I have 3 to plan for and we’re still not an academy-perhaps that’s why.

That is so interesting, Mollygo because by the time I retired we had 'pruned' or complement of TAs (including 4 HLTAs) back from 7 to 4 (in a 3 form entry secondary in a disadvantaged area) and doing away with other pupils support staff.

We resisted academisation, too.

My husband WAS the finances at my school and, as the Headmistress my opinion as to how the money was spent differed greatly from his. We had many an argument clash from both a teacher's and businessman's perspective!
There has to be careful spending, and even more skilful budgeting which impacts on everything. Luckily in the independent sector every school is unique and can make adjustments. It's a juggling act, even with a large pot of money. That is why, in my opinion, locally, state schools should receive better support from LAs where they should get to know the individual schools better and be more helpful.

Doodledog, I can see no proof that shows that "one of the reasons that the 2-tier system is iniquitous is that because the rich and influential tend to use private schools they have (at best) no vested interest in improving state ones". Some do, some don't. What percentage of those sending their children to state schools show any interest in the school outside that connected to their own children?

This is othering. I expect it from the right. I did not expect it from the left. It is no different to identifying a group of people who were seen as rich but often were not, as being the reason for the downfall of a country's economy.

The issue is with the state and the issue with the state lies clearly with the voters. I will, after this thread, probably never vote Labour again. I wasn't, as some were, put off by Corbyn's extremes as the party seemed to resile from those, but I am put off by the far left on GN. Communism is when everything is owned and run by the state. This is what you are demanding for education.

DaisyAnne

Doodledog

DaisyAnne I am not disagreeing that we all (you included) are posting our perceptions and opinions. I don't really see what else we can do, and find it a bit strange that this keeps being reiterated. It's a discussion board, and we are discussing those opinions and perceptions.

But some are doing the equivalent of hanging upside down to make their "perception" work.

Forcing schools, which are doing a good job, to close before we have done anything with the state system to improve it is a very "I am right, and you will do what I say" angle. It is the "hanging upside down to make what I say work" angle.

There is simply no point or need to be so extreme. What schools need first is proper funding and a will to make them good for all. We all agree that is missing so why destroy other schools? We have no proof whatsoever, that doing that will improve state schools or certainly no one has shown any. Those in favour of this, just keep saying that is what we must do because it is what they want. No persuasion, no proof just the iron fist.

Well, that is a point of view. Looked at from a different perspective, however - someone who believes that one of the reasons that the 2-tier system is iniquitous is that because the rich and influential tend to use private schools they have (at best) no vested interest in improving state ones is not going to see the point in trying to improve state schools whilst this system continues.

Of course we should improve state schools, but there is an argument (powerful in my own, personal opinion) that the reason this doesn't happen is that people in positions of influence tend to operate outside of the state system, so it is not a priority for them. Forcing their hand might make a difference, and the worst that can happen is that their children get the same education (plus tutors and extra-curricular activities that their parents can pay for, and space at home for quiet work, and money for computers, books and so on) that everyone else has to use. This may test the idea that we live in a meritocracy to breaking point, but that would (again, in my own opinion) be no bad thing.

Equally, saying 'you must live with something you find offensive until you can prove something fairly nebulous' seems to me to very much like 'hanging upside down to make what you say work'. The only way to prove it would be to test it, and if that testing is not allowed until the anticipated result can be proved you are locking those who disagree with you into a vicious circle.

I don't think that anyone on here is talking about anything remotely close to communism, but that sort of doublespeak would fit right in.

Hatred.

Jeezy peeps.

I'm not sure what dishwashers have to do with it. I have one. Does that make me a champagne socialist communist?

I find the continuing politicisation of education a bit tiring too Maizie, so there is no need for a sense of superiority.

Please point me to those who have shown proof. Just having a belief that something will work is not enough to expect others to buy into anything.

You are right. The state system is not working in many places. Where it is, it could often work better. If my washing machine is not working, I do not blame the dishwasher and throw it out, plodding along with a still inferior washing machine. I will invest in the improvement or replacement of the washing machine.

I am not going to agree with those who think their view has to be believed simply because they hold it. They are entitled to personally hold that view, but no one has shown it to be a truth unless I have missed that moment. This is all about ideology and hatred. It is an attack on those people who are identified as other (dishwasher). I find it all very unpleasant and simply unproven.

They never say how.

Are you reading the same thread as I am, DaisyAnne. I'm sure that I've seen several people saying 'how' banning private education would 'put it right'.

I do find your insistence on politicising the whole debate a bit tiring. What we are discussing is improving education for all our children. Having two systems working alongside each other is palpably not working for those in state system. Looked at objectively one of the solutions to this might well be doing away with the system that appears to be holding back the other one. Other solutions may be available.

This is one area where political dogma needs to be abandoned.

Mollygo

Which is why our opinions differ. We were a poorer school. Now, at the last count, we have a TA per class, plus innumerable TA’s doing SEND support all the way through the school. I have 3 to plan for and we’re still not an academy-perhaps that’s why.

That is so interesting, Mollygo because by the time I retired we had 'pruned' or complement of TAs (including 4 HLTAs) back from 7 to 4 (in a 3 form entry secondary in a disadvantaged area) and doing away with other pupils support staff.

We resisted academisation, too.

Mollygo

That’s not a list Daisy Anne, just some things that stood out for me whilst trawling through the posts. Labour started academies. The promise was that if you became an academy you would get more funding. As with anything new, new infrastructure was introduced to manage the funding, which ate away at the money. Because we refused to become an Academy, we saw a fall in our funding. Then that became especially noticeable when compared with those schools who took up the offer. For quite a long time, we were one of the poorest schools in the area. Is it more equal now I wonder when Academy funding is siphoned off to feed the expanding management?

So did you ask your MP to consider banning independent education? That's what I thought you said. If not, what did you ask? Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post.

Your story is why I favour communities working to bring out the best. I appreciate that not every community can, as some have been so beaten up and kept short of government cash. But with help, they will be able to.

We live in an area where you would expect good schools. However, for various reasons, the one in our town ended up "failing". What has brought it around, and it has taken eight years - the whole of some children's secondary education - has been those who were prepared to use their knowledge and be co-opted onto the Board of Governors.

They worked with the Council (Labour) and the support of other schools in the area and are now thriving. Not a single child was "banned" from going to another school, either nearby state schools or independent ones. I do not understand why people think banning choices would make a difference. More to the point, no one has yet given any proof that it does.

Academisation, under this government, is a road to privatisation. That, and everything else this government has done to make it seem that we cannot have excellent schools under a state system. This is the far-right ideology ruining the education of many. Now the far left wants to use their way to use their ideology against parents who want the best for their children.

However, I don't think people read the OP. They just continually shout their view that banning independent and public schools will put things right. They never say how.

Which is why our opinions differ. We were a poorer school. Now, at the last count, we have a TA per class, plus innumerable TA’s doing SEND support all the way through the school. I have 3 to plan for and we’re still not an academy-perhaps that’s why.

Mollygo

That’s OK. Impressions can differ and we certainly weren’t well funded. I had a TA for 1 afternoon a week which was all our school could afford, and I was on the Governing body, so I saw the finances, so obviously my opinion differs.

I was an actual TA, employed, along with 5 more, as a result of Labour's funding increases and I was on the Governing body for most of the time I worked there. I sawthe finances too.

Just saying

Doodledog

DaisyAnne I am not disagreeing that we all (you included) are posting our perceptions and opinions. I don't really see what else we can do, and find it a bit strange that this keeps being reiterated. It's a discussion board, and we are discussing those opinions and perceptions.

But some are doing the equivalent of hanging upside down to make their "perception" work.

Forcing schools, which are doing a good job, to close before we have done anything with the state system to improve it is a very "I am right, and you will do what I say" angle. It is the "hanging upside down to make what I say work" angle.

There is simply no point or need to be so extreme. What schools need first is proper funding and a will to make them good for all. We all agree that is missing so why destroy other schools? We have no proof whatsoever, that doing that will improve state schools or certainly no one has shown any. Those in favour of this, just keep saying that is what we must do because it is what they want. No persuasion, no proof just the iron fist.

MaizieD

Just to point out that Cuba has good standards of education. Including a literacy rate that many English speaking countries come nowhere near to. Nothing wrong with the Cuba route.

And that the Labour version of Academies was intended to put money and expertise into poorly performing schools to improve their standards. A policy which the tories promptly turned on its head by Academising 'good' schools, mainly, it seems with a view to releasing them from local authority control. And from the National Curriculum.

There would be everything wrong with any "route" that took away the choice as far as I am concerned Maizie. Presumably Cuba properly funds and cares about their state system. That should be our first step. At that point there will be a decrease in those wanting any other system.

I do not want to live under communism. Why do you?

That’s OK. Impressions can differ and we certainly weren’t well funded. I had a TA for 1 afternoon a week which was all our school could afford, and I was on the Governing body, so I saw the finances, so obviously my opinion differs.

P.S. The squeeze on school budgets didn't go on until the tories came to power in 2010 either. We were pretty well funded until then.

Mollygo

MaizieD

Labour's academies were completely different from the tory academies, Mollygo. The extra money was to improve the school.

That might have been the aim, but it affected those who didn’t take the offer negatively and the management of the infrastructure started then.

It was my impression that the real push for academisation started with the tories. I was working in a school from 1999 until 2013. The pressure didn't go on until after 2010.