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

Oh, no, Doodledog I wasn’t disagreeing or debating anything;
I was just carrying on from your point about the change of expectations. I understood what you were saying and agree.

I became a TA just at the time when the role of the TA was really changing; they wanted people with an academic background, and they wanted to put them through training.

And then it culminated in the development of the role of the HTLA, which was a bit of a dog’s dinner and a way to exploit TAs (if you ask me!)

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.

Fanny, I’m not sure why my post was quoted when you mention degrees. I am not saying that TAs are unqualified- quite the reverse. When teachers’ help was left to whichever mums were free to go in it was far more likely that children would be taught by people with no qualifications than it is now. A lot of the time it won’t matter whether they are qualified or not anyway - my point was that many of them gossiped and felt that they were more invested in the school than other parents.

nanna8

You know the reason that private schools give out scholarships is so that their results are high and this attracts more potential pupils. They don’t do it because they are altruistic. It benefits the pupil but it also well and truly benefits the school. Here we have the nasty situation where if a pupil doesn’t live up to his scholarship he/ she can be asked to leave or pay full fees. Not nice and a lot of pressure on those kids.

Okay so a new arrangement needs to be constructed if public schools want to keep vat free.

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

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

MaizieD top state secondary schools

1. Queen Elizabeth Barnet
2. Henrietta Barnet
3. Wilson’s School Wallington
4. Tiffin Girls
5. St Olave’s Grammar
6. Pate’s Grammar
7. Reading School
8. Altrincham Grammat
9. Colchester Royal

And if Keir Starmer persists in his educational policies, the small private schools will empty out into these schools.

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

ronib

MaizieD private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to children admittedly of academic, sporting or artistic ability. Working class children can benefit from funding too .
Rather than increase fees for parents by 20 per cent by imposing vat on school fees, I would rather see private schools expanding the number of assisted places to enable wider social bands to attend.
Bright children are not the sole province of the upper and middle classes. I think every child deserves an education regardless of social class origins.
I know of one child from a poor economic background who was academically gifted ending up with a double first from Oxford. His only mistake was to become a lawyer when he wanted to teach.
Seems to me that high performance State funded schools can be even more exclusive in their intake than private schools. There are many barriers to entry and they don’t offer a level playing field.
There are also a number of State funded boarding schools in England which offer a very good standard of education. So this might help children who have a limited choice of adequate local schools.
I think we suffer from not caring enough about children and have too long mouthed a limited left wing ideology without regard for individual circumstances.

Twaddle, ronib. Utter twaddle.

It's still elitist and divisive however you want to dress it up.

You know the reason that private schools give out scholarships is so that their results are high and this attracts more potential pupils. They don’t do it because they are altruistic. It benefits the pupil but it also well and truly benefits the school. Here we have the nasty situation where if a pupil doesn’t live up to his scholarship he/ she can be asked to leave or pay full fees. Not nice and a lot of pressure on those kids.

I think you can have pragmatic initiatives governed by educational principles. I once worked with a cluster of small rural schools grouped together to share expertise and resources. The educational principle was to raise standards.
It worked well for pupils and teachers and standards improved.

Yes I read that ronib, but I was wondering more about the measured impact post 2014.

Are preferable…

Mamie Case look at study 5 The London Challenge by The King’s Fund available online. There might be more studies.

I think pragmatic solutions rather than a continued dogmatic ideological approach is preferable to improve educational outcomes in the years ahead.

What has the long-term impact of the London Challenge been? Have they been able to sustain the improvements?

It also just had infant / junior / primary and comprehensive schools. I worked in another authority which had grammar and two sorts of middle schools where you could change schools at 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.

Mamie that’s encouraging. Although London and the south east is over populated and that impacts on provision.

Parts of it were ronib, but catchments generally included areas of deprivation. It was a combination of reasonable funding, a supportive county council and a positive ethos around education that attracted good candidates.

Mamie was the authority less densely populated I wonder?

In one authority I worked in which had outstanding comprehensive schools and sixth-form colleges, the number of families opting for independent schools was much lower than average. It can be done.

Doodledog I understand that you feel it’s unfair that decision makers are remote from the effects of inadequate services. I agree that it’s very unfair to have badly funded health and unequal education provision.
I don’t like the economic or political situation we have here just now.
I don’t think that elites worldwide are ever bound by the rules of the majority. If you stop private health and education here, the elite will buy it elsewhere.
Don’t have any solutions but wish for a return to some kind of sanity in public life in the short term!

The best way to provide good education for all children would be to put sufficient resources into all state schools. There are plenty of highly effective primary and comprehensive schools; why not emulate the best practice in those?
England has a mish-mash of different types of schools and funding models, many buildings are not fit for purpose, there is a huge crisis in recruitment and retention of staff, insufficient in-service training and low morale.

Doodledog

I wasn't saying that all parent helpers were busybodies, but that many of them were, in my experience, and that I think that TAs with proper contracts are a far better solution.

In my experience, most TAs have a degree.
And at least a Level 3 Diploma in Supporting Teaching and Learning.
(When I was a TA I was the most highly qualified member of staff)

MaizieD private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to children admittedly of academic, sporting or artistic ability. Working class children can benefit from funding too .
Rather than increase fees for parents by 20 per cent by imposing vat on school fees, I would rather see private schools expanding the number of assisted places to enable wider social bands to attend.
Bright children are not the sole province of the upper and middle classes. I think every child deserves an education regardless of social class origins.
I know of one child from a poor economic background who was academically gifted ending up with a double first from Oxford. His only mistake was to become a lawyer when he wanted to teach.
Seems to me that high performance State funded schools can be even more exclusive in their intake than private schools. There are many barriers to entry and they don’t offer a level playing field.
There are also a number of State funded boarding schools in England which offer a very good standard of education. So this might help children who have a limited choice of adequate local schools.
I think we suffer from not caring enough about children and have too long mouthed a limited left wing ideology without regard for individual circumstances.

ronib the Blair sons went to the London Oratory School, a state funded Catholic school. I imagine they went because they are Catholics.
I don't personally agree with faith schools, but they were entitled to choose it.

I would much rather see a broader access policy to private schools rather than strive to close them down.

I think that would only benefit middle class parents. Private schools aren't very thick on the ground in my area, travel costs alone would rule it out for poorer parents. Besides which, who'd be paying the fees and if you introduced state funded children the schools would need to expand to accommodate the extra intake.

And why should only some children be able to access this elitist education?