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

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.

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 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.

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...

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.

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?

^ 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.?

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.

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)

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?

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

Understood

MaizieD

^All I know is that some clever poor children do thrive in the right academic environment^

It may astonish you to know this, ronib, but some 'clever poor children' flourish in state schools, too.

Have a look at this. The wikipedia entry for the current Chancellor of the University of Durham

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Hill_(presidential_advisor)

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that offering an infinitesimal percentage of 'poor' children a few places at private schools is going to make the slightest bit of difference to ironing out inequalities in education in the UK.

I f and I don’t think you will agree, each child was given a voucher for education that voucher could be offset against the cost of a place at an independent school which might offer more parental choice or go to pay for a place at a State school.

Fiona Hill is a success story but there are even harder family scenarios where some children overcome almost impossible obstacles and still emerge half in tact.
I still think you have not fully understand the inherent inequalities in our current State system.

Mamie

ronib

In fact the more I think the worse it gets. The old dogma surrounding privilege and public schools is so engrained in our thinking that it’s impossible to think any other way.

The State itself is the key driver to social inequalities in education and therefore society. The State has not reformed schools in any meaningful sense. We have a complete hotpotch . We don’t have a fully comprehensive system nor even a standardised infant primary system.

The State needs a limited supply of the well educated middle class hence the continuation of the top academic schools.

Complete shambles

I would say quite a few of us have no problem thinking there is another way ronib.
I don't think it is dogma to think that a fully comprehensive system based on local catchment with excellent resources and quality of teaching can do just as well if not better (a look at the progress data in grammar schools can be quite revealing).
Other countries manage it.

Yes they do. And it is entirely a POLITICAL choice. Other countries where the belief is that a good education for all is the kep to a countries future, jobs but also peace and equality. And NO, those are not left-wing- it is just common sense.

Having a poorly educated workforce causes so many social problems, and real issues with finding the right people for a modern society.

That is exactly my point, ronib.

Do you think that that perpetuation would continue if the people responsible for education had no choice but to send their own children to a partially-functioning comprehensive school?

Doodledog you have missed my point. This country does not have a fully functioning comprehensive state system. The State itself is perpetuating inequalities in its provision of education.

All I know is that some clever poor children do thrive in the right academic environment

It may astonish you to know this, ronib, but some 'clever poor children' flourish in state schools, too.

Have a look at this. The wikipedia entry for the current Chancellor of the University of Durham

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Hill_(presidential_advisor)

You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that offering an infinitesimal percentage of 'poor' children a few places at private schools is going to make the slightest bit of difference to ironing out inequalities in education in the UK.

All I know is that some clever poor children do thrive in the right academic environment.

Of course they do. Others less so, if they stand out for being the poor one who can’t afford the luxuries on offer, or who talks differently or all the other things that set them apart from the average-but-rich kids at the school. Or of course they can change, so they no longer fit in at home.

As we all know, it’s not just education that is bought by school fees. It is initiation into the middle class for those outside it, and protection from the working class for those within.

If all pupils were taught together class wouldn’t vanish, but it wouldn’t be perpetuated in schools as it is now.