As well as starving the NHS, Education has been starved by this government too.

Sorry, on the last post I quoted Fleurpepper but it disappeared.

If you want to achieve anything you have to decide what it is and then plan how to arrive at your destination. The whole condemnation of the public, independent and private schools is a complete left-wing distraction.

It's like deciding to climb Ben Nevis but planning to go to London first to assure yourself that they know you are going. This is not the way to achieve your climb and faffing on about a few schools is not the way to achieve a better state education system.

I am horrified by the right-wing of the Conservatives disabling the government and stopping them achieving anything worthwhile over the last 12 years, But you are rapidly persuading me that the Labour Party with it's ideological left wing would be no better.

Grantanow

Of course the Tories have starved state education. They simply don't care about ordinary childrens' education - most of them are products of the fee-paying private sector. How many Tory PMs went to state schools - a minute number compared with the old Etonians, Harrovians, etc.

And this is where my strong objections to Private Education (and health care)- is that they just don't care, because they can afford the alternative. And it is a deliberate and hugely expensive political choice.

Because, as said above, the massive expense comes as an aside, often later. An un-educated and often bitter workforce not fit for a modern world and innovation, high divisions, criminality and massive social issues of every kind. THIS is not cheap, and afects everyone, in the end.

(and I have said it before, my GCs, nieces, nephews, and family at large attend/ed top private Public schools).

Doodledog

Agreed, Glorianny.

The notion that 'dyslexic' is just a term for middle class children whose parents can't accept that they aren't very bright was discredited decades ago.

It seems to be a way of thinking, including within teaching, that less education, for any reason, means less bright.

We saw this in recent discussions where voters for one side were frequently reported to have a lower level of education. They did. It was a statistic. However, that statistic did not say they were less bright, although you would have thought from some of the posts on Gransnet, that this was exactly what it said.

Those people were disadvantaged from an early stage. The percentage going to university in the following generations shot up. Were they suddenly brighter? Not at all. They were just given an advantage that previous generations didn't get. In the same way, only some were allowed to take O and A levels. Was this decided on "brightness". No, it was decided on the percentage the powers that be thought needed that level of education for the economy.

Opportunity is what we need to offer all children, with the possibility of that opportunity being delivered by the best people in the best surroundings with the best support. Left or right, ideologies simply don't come close

Fleurpepper

I don't know you. I can only define the policies you feel should be inflicted upon the nation. They are to the right and a long way to the right - this is what is inflected on the majority, right now. The vast majority who is not privately educated, 93% I believe.

I have no idea why you said ^ I can only define the policies you feel should be inflicted upon the nation. They are to the right and a long way to the right - this is what is inflected on the majority, right now.^

The policies of "right now" are those of a far-right Conservative government. Could you tell me one far-right policy I have supported Fleurpepper, or once when I have supported this government?

Deriding things that were never posted is not an argument. We we seem to be dredging the bottom of the barrel of discussion when you can honestly suggest that a mixed economy which could give children the modern, well-resourced teaching they need is "a long way to the right".

I can see you don't want to listen to others ideas, but that doesn't mean you have to be so mean-spirited.

Agreed, Glorianny.

The notion that 'dyslexic' is just a term for middle class children whose parents can't accept that they aren't very bright was discredited decades ago.

Mamie

Thanks ronib I felt very privileged to see so many excellent schools at work, even if you sometimes had to deliver a more negative judgement.
Then we moved to France in retirement and I ended up in classrooms teaching English and being inspected myself. 😂

My sister ended up in Trilla in France and has now moved to Germany.

Village life had its moments!

MaizieD

^So what were they, Maizie? And who labelled them as such?^

Mostly, Doodledog they were children who hadn't been taught to read and spell in a way that made sense to them.

The official labels usually came from educational psychologists, who were ex teachers who'd always taught reading in the way that had actually disabled these children. (Can't blame them for that, it was the way they'd been trained to teach it.)

A very few had processing or comprehension difficulties. There is no doubt that some children have difficulties that affect their ability to learn to read (which is a completely artificial skill)

I'm not going any further than that. It becomes a very emotive subject. I spent years discussing & arguing about it. Don't need to start now.

As far as I am aware the standard test used to diagnose dyslexia was the Weschier test which can only be administered properly by a trained educational psychologist. Most of the ones I met were not ex-teachers. (which many teachers thought was a problem)
The ability to read is not necessarily an indication that a person is not dyslexic.
Many students in higher education are diagnosed as dyslexic, because although they can read, they have much more complex language processing difficulties and organisational problems.

Doodledog

*I still think you have not fully understand the inherent inequalities in our current State system.*

Disagreement does not necessarily indicate a lack of understanding.

If a voucher were to be 'given' to all parents, private fees would simply rise to a level which included the amount of the voucher, so taxpayers would be further funding the private sector.

Private education is not all about the education itself. They have social connotations too, and it is naive to suggest otherwise. When I was young, a few of my friends were sent to private schools at 11, as otherwise they would have gone to the secondary modern, and their parents didn't like that idea. Had they been bright enough to pass the 11+ they would have gone to the grammar school, which would have been acceptable. It was well-known which schools were the ones for the 'nice but dim' and which were genuinely selective, although I'd be more than surprised if a parent who wanted to get their less than talented child in there would have been turned away if they offered a sizeable donation.

When I was young, a few of my friends were sent to private schools at 11, as otherwise they would have gone to the secondary modern, and their parents didn't like that idea. Had they been bright enough to pass the 11+ they would have gone to the grammar school, which would have been acceptable. Doodledog

Of course, their parents should have understood that selection on one particular day, at the age of 10, which put them into a system that determined that the education on offer to their friends would never be available to them was the best possible choice the state could make on their behalf.

Thanks ronib I felt very privileged to see so many excellent schools at work, even if you sometimes had to deliver a more negative judgement.
Then we moved to France in retirement and I ended up in classrooms teaching English and being inspected myself. 😂

ronib

Well were dyslexic children supported 40 years ago?

They were - my daughter is dyslexic - but funding could, even then, be cut off arbitrarily.

ronib

Mollygo

ronib
What I find really sad is that people who say they are teachers don’t seem to grasp the point.
Could you explain what you mean?

That fundamentally we have an educational system which is very unequal in State provision.

I can't imagine anyone would disagree with that ronib. That should be where we start. I would say this, the research and the funding are far more important than the ideological fights.

So what were they, Maizie? And who labelled them as such?

Mostly, Doodledog they were children who hadn't been taught to read and spell in a way that made sense to them.

The official labels usually came from educational psychologists, who were ex teachers who'd always taught reading in the way that had actually disabled these children. (Can't blame them for that, it was the way they'd been trained to teach it.)

A very few had processing or comprehension difficulties. There is no doubt that some children have difficulties that affect their ability to learn to read (which is a completely artificial skill)

I'm not going any further than that. It becomes a very emotive subject. I spent years discussing & arguing about it. Don't need to start now.

Mamie what a good career. I am impressed. I am interested in this subject from the sociological position -observation in part and theory from the 1970s.

Yes must remember not to listen to politicians.

Mollygro ''A child from a very low baseline who achieves 9A* has made far greater progress than a child who started from a higher baseline, but it won’t be reflected, except in data. ''

however, at A'Levels, this could make a big difference. School Mentors have to write references for Uni applications, and this can be stated loud and clear then. I have done this often. And students also have to write an application for all Uni places, and do have the opportunity to make a statement to that effect. Some Unis selectors will take notice, and may well make allowances in grades and other factors.

Of course I understand that ronib and I don't approve of their selection processes.
I have spent my career in education as teacher, advisory teacher and inspector and I believe in equality of opportunity in education and the need for state schools to maintain the highest standards for the whole range of ability.
As an LA and Ofsted inspector I have been at the sharp end of school improvement and I have the greatest respect for staff who do their best in difficult circumstances.
The schools should not be the target here; it is the politicians who need to be held to account.

Mamie Actually double firsts at Oxford are pretty good usually and maybe a few more is what is needed.

However the point to emphasise is that these high achieving schools are free and State funded. Access is denied to all however. Do you understand that this might be contrary to the notion of egalitarianism in education?

Mamie
I would ask again ronib how you are judging attainment and progress. Not everyone will end up with 9s and A*s. The school may have enabled the pupils to make outstanding progress from a low baseline; that is why the the data matters.

Well said Mamie. How much progress a child makes depends on their starting point. A child from a very low baseline who achieves 9A* has made far greater progress than a child who started from a higher baseline, but it won’t be reflected, except in data.
But even data doesn’t always give an accurate result if it only gives outcomes.
It also depends on the assessment.
e.g.
With early PIPS (Performance Indicators in Primary Schools) a child who scored highly on the initial test often appeared to have made little progress at the end of the year. This was because originally, PIPS didn’t measure writing progress at all, or maths beyond what a reception child might be expected to do.
The data therefore showed less progress by the brighter children than by the poorer starters.

Exactly ronib, so you are basing that on highly sought after schools with entrance exams.
You can't compare those schools with an intake based on geographical distance and a mixed ability intake.
Attainment is not the same as progress. Nor does a country need an entire population with double firsts at Oxbridge.

Mamie

I would ask again ronib how you are judging attainment and progress. Not everyone will end up with 9s and A*s. The school may have enabled the pupils to make outstanding progress from a low baseline; that is why the the data matters.

I googled top ten State schools and Queen Elizabeth Barnet is first with Henrietta Barnet second. Both schools are highly selective with outstanding results.

I would ask again ronib how you are judging attainment and progress. Not everyone will end up with 9s and A*s. The school may have enabled the pupils to make outstanding progress from a low baseline; that is why the the data matters.

Must have missed that. Must have been people who only said they were teachers.
People at the SmartBoard face who have worked in different schools know only too well that there are huge differences between state schools.

Mollygo a few previous chats it appeared to me that people who implied that they were teachers could not or wouldn’t recognise that the State offers very unequal provision in access to education. The top ten State secondary schools outrank a number of private schools in examination results.

These schools often interview parents to ensure compliance to end goals and are highly selective. At the other end of the scale, children are under performing. So the idea is that the State reinforces social inequality itself and the chasm between public v state isn’t the only indication of social inequality.

Sorry support for dyslexia even 30years ago was patchy and certainly not something all teachers acknowledged never mind supplied. I still have my son's report-aged 9 "X has ability but this is not evidenced in his written work" Doh!

MaizieD

Mamie! Laptops barely existed 40 years ago!

Are you talking about France or the UK?

I became an advisory teacher for IT and SEN in the late eighties. I worked supporting children and young people across the LA in mainstream and special schools. We had simple word processors by the early nineties and laptops later in the decade. We had specialist equipment for children who had never been able to speak and devices for accessibility for children with conditions such as cerebral palsy and muscular dystrophy.
The programs for dyslexia appeared pretty early on.
We had training regionally and nationally and worked closely with colleagues in other LAs.
It was one of the great privileges of my career to be part of it.