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

It is impossible to have any sort of equality in education whilst you have such huge differences in the home circumstances of children. How can you possibly expect a child from a home background of neglect, inadequate nutrition and insecurity to succeed without more help?

Most scholarships in public schools are used to support pupils whose parents are for one reason or another temporarily unable to afford the fees (divorce etc). The number getting 100% fee reduction is 1% and there is no evidence that those pupils are from very deprived backgrounds
schoolsweek.co.uk/private-schools-take-1-of-pupils-from-most-disadvantaged-backgrounds/

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.

The most profound educational inequalities are caused by poverty, hunger, poor living conditions and poor attendance. Low expectations can also be a factor.
The gap between rich and poor is higher in the UK than in many other countries and it shows.
Nurseries, schemes such as SureStart and early years education desperately need proper funding.
Independent schools are not the answer to any of this.

How to solve problem of providing equal schooling across the state system without everyone earning the same is difficult.
Yesterday I read
the youth . . . suffer notably from their parents’ financial weaknesses – which mostly impacts their education
We recognise that as fact.

If I add the whole quote,
the youth in France suffer notably from their parents’ financial weaknesses – which mostly impacts their education
Then add
Amid a national sense of shame that up to a million French children often start classes on empty stomachs,
We can also see that it isn’t just in the UK.

It’s shouldn’t be used as an excuse, but it does show that other countries, wealthier than us, have not managed to solve the problem either.
As has been suggested, if ALL MPs had to send their children to state schools in their constituency there might be a greater interest in state schools. I say might, because local MPs here would still have the choice of Collis Street (no playing field, Victorian building, poorer area), Green Bank, (more modern building, small playing field and quaite naice area) and Minster school (same dated building as Green Bank, playing fields, recently extended and flourishing PTA).
Where do you think they would send their children? How much effort would they put into improving other schools?
(All names changed to protect the innocent)

Would they be able to choose though? Presumably everyone would prefer the 'best' school, which would fill up, and people would be allocated on whatever criteria applied. They would, in an ideal world, have to go through the same application processes as their consitituents, and learn how it feels to worry that your children might have to go to the school at the bottom of the pie.

I can't help thinking that it would concentrate their minds on ensuring that it is 'levelled up' PDQ.

I think that was in the context of the French Education Minister announcing free breakfasts Mollygo. There are already three course lunches in schools.

Twenty years in private nursery on basic wage and know that it won’t get any better. Classes are getting bigger children unruly and I dream if the days passed that now seem lovely. Three years to go to retirement and counting.

MaizieD

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

I think you don't know how very patronising you sound.

Well MaizieD I think we need to stay on point. Why is it permissible for the state to operate a highly variable education system?

If my children go to an outstanding state school and my neighbours go to a variable private school, is this fair? Exactly why is there a huge gap in educational achievement between the highest and lowest performing State schools?

There is also a hierarchy within the private school system here and probably in the UK, too. That one that Prince Charles went to, Geelong Grammar, is the most expensive of the lot ( oh, what a surprise)

Mamie

I think that was in the context of the French Education Minister announcing free breakfasts Mollygo. There are already three course lunches in schools.

The quote about breakfasts certainly was. The other quote was from a report on the impact of poverty on education.

Re being able to choose, the three schools I mentioned anonymously are all in the same area, so outwith the ‘SEND/ looked after/ sibling, criteria you put down your first and second choice. Certainly, if MPs children missed out in their first or second choice their third option might focus them on improving schools like Collis Street. Or should they be deprived of the choice and automatically sent to the least well off school in their area.

^ Or should they be deprived of the choice and automatically sent to the least well off school in their area.^

That's getting down to the nub of it, isn't it.

Instead of focussing and spending money on academically able children we should be putting much more into the schools where the children with social and behavioural (and any other sort of) problems end up. The ones the middle class parents do their utmost to avoid.

These are the children who need the intensive support, the small classes, the liaison with other professionals, the enrichment activities etc. All of which require a far higher ratio of staff to pupils, more resources and thus more money. All of which the middle classes can either buy or do anyway.

But who is going to push for these children and their schools.?

MaizieD surely the teachers union could start to raise inequalities in State provision? Or could it not be a topic for a conference?

Or a focus group within local political parties?

ronib

MaizieD no more twaddle than what is happening now. State schools can be equally divisive and elitist.

Indeed they can.

My question to the far-left would be - exactly when was there a vote for entirely state-run education, and what was the majority? As far as I can see, we've never done this. The majority have voted, in the past, for a mixed economy and, sadly from my point of view, a far-right libertarian one, but never a state-run one.

And then the standard question. Where else in the world has a non-communist country done this? Where is this model that we can examine and decide if it would work for us? (I suggest we ignore anyone who says "Finland". That will give them time to check their facts)

Why can't we see the private system as a resource? Yes, we need to look at what they are doing as a charity and if they are truly running as not-for-profit, as charities must. Asking a charity to pay more by charging VAT is pointless and looks like the standard vindictiveness of the far-left. It will not make Labour enough new friends to balance those who will then chose not to vote for them.

We cannot make everyone equal. We can work towards greater equality of opportunity, but there will not be a majority for a communistic approach. Jeremy Corbyn looked as if that was what he was offering, and look what happened to him.

Jeremy Corbyn was only a communist in your head, DaisyAnne.

I think we're still waiting for your definition of 'communism', too...

And as I am not 'far left' I can't answer your initial question...

I DID NOT SAY HE WAS A COMMUNIST. There was a time when you would analyse and discuss Maizie. What happened? I find it very sad to read how dictatorial and rude you can now be.

I don't know you. I can only define the policies you feel should be inflicted upon the nation. They are to the left and a long way to the left. I think, but am willing to hear the counter-thinking, that an acceptable synonym for "a long way to the left" is "far-left". Suggesting anything can only be state-run is usually seen as "far-left". If it isn't, please give me an example of a moderate government that does this.

Daisy Anne
What I find really sad is that people who say they are teachers don’t seem to grasp the point.

It’s left to the grannies with small grandchildren to ask what is happening to their education? And because we care, we shall keep on asking despite the professionals obviously obstructing the issues.

DaisyAnne- there are many countries where the political decision has been made to spend good momey on education as it is the future of the country. And not 'far left' ones either.

Of course you can't make everyone equal. Which is why money and resources should be spent on areas of deprivation- because that is where the inequalities already are, to try and attempt to redress the balance and give them a chance.

Even if you don't believe this is the fair thing to do, and you want to look at it from a very centred 'my kids first' kind of way- it makes sense. A society which is so divided, where so many kids seen that have no chance and no hope or upward mobility- is a doomed society. In a modern world, it means a vast number of the population will not have the necessary skills for a modern world. It also means less and less security and more danger, for all- wherever they live. As the rich become targets. Go to rich areas in JBurg, and the rich only move by car, and behind electric fences with armed guards. Drug abuse, health issues, violence, criminality.

Is that in the interest of anyone?

And saying this does NOT make me far left. Common sense! Humanity.

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.

My question to the far-left would be - exactly when was there a vote for entirely state-run education, and what was the majority?
I'm not sure what the questions you would ask the far left have to do with the discussion on this thread.

Have we been offered a referendum on whether to have entirely state-run education? There hasn't been one in my lifetime. Who knows what the result would be - much would probably depend on what was written on buses and so on.

We cannot make everyone equal. We can work towards greater equality of opportunity, but there will not be a majority for a communistic approach.
We will never have equality of opportunity when there is a two-tier education system, and IMO as long as that exists it is pointless to pretend that we are 'working towards' anything of the kind.

I really don't see how having a state run education system equates to a communistic approach. Depending on the government wo implemented it, it could go entirely the other way. It would need to be thought through carefully, but as with any new approach, there would be a lot of opportunity to make it as good as it can be. Anyway, this is simply a conversation about possibilities.

Instead of focussing and spending money on academically able children we should be putting much more into the schools where the children with social and behavioural (and any other sort of) problems end up. The ones the middle class parents do their utmost to avoid.
I’m not sure I understand this.
Teaching in a school in an EPA, we got more funding because of that, even though there were far fewer children with EBD back then. It didn’t mean an influx of better off parents applying for places.

Instead of focussing and spending money on academically able children - is this making a private school or a grammar school point?

We should be putting much more into the schools where the children with social and behavioural (and any other sort of) problems end up.
I agree.
Children with SEND problems who have an an EHCP, attract funding. We have an increasing number of these children and TA support to go with them. That funding and other funding is also used to enable less well off children to go on school trips and access after school activities. (Though even a 50%reduction doesn’t help if you haven’t got the other 50%).

What about this situation?
Prospective parents have a ‘normal’ child (actually most parents describe their child as bright) visited 2 schools,
a) a welcoming primary school with lively polite children, one TA in each class
and
school b) a welcoming primary school with lively, polite children where there are several adults in each class. They
know that that is because several children need support for behaviour etc.
Which school do you think parents would choose?
Why?

Can I ask ronib and others, when you are making judgements about schools are you looking at the data?
For secondary schools the Progress and Attainment 8 data, for example, can tell you much more about a school than raw results.
This is quite helpful for those who are interested.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1112046/Secondary_accountability_measures_2022_guide.pdf

ronib

Daisy Anne
What I find really sad is that people who say they are teachers don’t seem to grasp the point.

It’s left to the grannies with small grandchildren to ask what is happening to their education? And because we care, we shall keep on asking despite the professionals obviously obstructing the issues.

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting ronib. I do apologise. Could you explain it in a little more depth?

Thanks DaisyAnne I was going to ask that too.

Fleurpepper

DaisyAnne- there are many countries where the political decision has been made to spend good momey on education as it is the future of the country. And not 'far left' ones either.

Of course you can't make everyone equal. Which is why money and resources should be spent on areas of deprivation- because that is where the inequalities already are, to try and attempt to redress the balance and give them a chance.

Even if you don't believe this is the fair thing to do, and you want to look at it from a very centred 'my kids first' kind of way- it makes sense. A society which is so divided, where so many kids seen that have no chance and no hope or upward mobility- is a doomed society. In a modern world, it means a vast number of the population will not have the necessary skills for a modern world. It also means less and less security and more danger, for all- wherever they live. As the rich become targets. Go to rich areas in JBurg, and the rich only move by car, and behind electric fences with armed guards. Drug abuse, health issues, violence, criminality.

Is that in the interest of anyone?

And saying this does NOT make me far left. Common sense! Humanity.

I did not say anything that relates to your first paragraph. So why tell me - ... there are many countries where the political decision has been made to spend good momey on education as it is the future of the country. And not 'far left' ones either.

What, exactly, have I said that gave you the need to offer that information? Is it that you are another one who thinks the public system does not only need to be well funded to thrive but that it can only do well if there is no private one? If so, as I asked before, please give me an example of another country which show this would work.

As for your views being far-left or not, it is a matter of perspective. If you are saying we may only have a public system of education, I imagine those in North Korea would see that as a centrist. I, from a UK centrist perspective, see it as far-left.

Daisy Anne I had my children all very close together in ages, twins and a 2 year old and I became very aware that I simply could not stretch to provide them with the same educational stimulation that parents with only two children and maybe a 3 year age gap.

Maybe I live in an area where pushy mothers seem very efficient, they’re certainly in abundance. Cambridge, Oxford, LSE seem final destinations from either state or private day schools. I am concerned that the basic needs of all children are not being met whether they are bright or struggling with some disability due to some haphazard political dogma which has attained religious proportions.

My own grandchildren are now my concern and I know that the problems in education have not gone away over the years.