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

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.

And how exactly does that show teachers , or even who say they are teachers don’t grasp that?

MaizieD

ronib

Well were dyslexic children supported 40 years ago?

Not usually. I recall parental battles in to even get it recognised as a problem.

(I have my own views on 'dyslexia', not mainstream, as usual...but I worked with many children labelled as such who weren't at all)

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

I apologise I have misled you. There was no support 40 years ago for any dyslexic child at our local school. The head teacher did not think it existed.

I recall the teaching of basic literacy was shameful too.

MaizieD

ronib

Well were dyslexic children supported 40 years ago?

Not usually. I recall parental battles in to even get it recognised as a problem.

(I have my own views on 'dyslexia', not mainstream, as usual...but I worked with many children labelled as such who weren't at all)

Oh yes, agreed.

Mamie! Laptops barely existed 40 years ago!

Are you talking about France or the UK?

ronib

Well were dyslexic children supported 40 years ago?

Not usually. I recall parental battles in to even get it recognised as a problem.

(I have my own views on 'dyslexia', not mainstream, as usual...but I worked with many children labelled as such who weren't at all)

ronib

Well were dyslexic children supported 40 years ago?

Yes absolutely. We had specialist peripatetic teachers in, support from educational psychologists, liaison with the dyslexia association, specialist training courses and increasingly (my own specialism) support with a range of IT equipment including laptops.

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

Not particularly, Mollygo. It was partly in response to the idea that the state should somehow fund children to go to a private school. It's something I see as fraught with difficulty because you just know that it will be middle class parents who take advantage of it.

I worked in a secondary comprehensive school in an area of high deprivation from 2000 to 2013. We were never what I'd call 'generously' funded, but, thanks to Labour funding levels we had several TAs (a new concept in secondaries then), and mentors. There was also regular input from outside agencies.

Once the tories started their swingeing cuts to public services post 2010 this support slowly died away; cuts made to the numbers of TAs and mentors, outside agency support cut, access to CAHMS became more difficult. Yes, we had the pupil premium, after 2010 but the pupil criteria for it meant that it didn't really cover the costs for all the needy children. And the SEN allocation was never really sufficient.

I'm not saying take from one sort of school to give to another, all schools should be adequately funded, but a significant number of children, who tend to be in the schools that m/c parents avoid, need so much more support to fulfil any potential that they might have.

Wasn't the original Labour concept of Academies based on giving more funding to struggling schools?

Well were dyslexic children supported 40 years ago?

ronib

Mamie dyslexia of course

Well there are other learning difficulties and disabilities you know.... I don't think random political dogma was part of my world view as a Senco, more about ways to best support the children.

Mamie dyslexia of course

ronib

Mamie

"struggling with some disability due to some haphazard political dogma which has attained religious proportions."
Sorry ronib but what on earth do you mean by that?

What I mean by haphazard political dogma is the whole debate around alternatives to failing State provision.
If the State is failing your children, you are allowed to seek other solutions, even if you have to starve to pay for them.

It is the bit about children with disabilities that I am questioning.

Mamie

"struggling with some disability due to some haphazard political dogma which has attained religious proportions."
Sorry ronib but what on earth do you mean by that?

What I mean by haphazard political dogma is the whole debate around alternatives to failing State provision.
If the State is failing your children, you are allowed to seek other solutions, even if you have to starve to pay for them.

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.

"struggling with some disability due to some haphazard political dogma which has attained religious proportions."
Sorry ronib but what on earth do you mean by that?

I have a UK perspective, and don't see wanting a fair and equitable education system as being far-left. Not at all.

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?

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.

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.

Thanks DaisyAnne I was going to ask that too.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.