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

Well, that's a point of view, of course. I agree that it is not straightforward as there are areas that would struggle to get representation (although not all MPs have school age children). If there were no private schools it would be better, IMO, as we would really be 'all in it together', but we are a long way from that happening, unfortunately.

I knew Diane Abbott would come into this - I think it was a bad move on her part to educate her children privately, but she got so much racial abuse (and still does) that she maybe thought that they'd be safer somewhere they wouldn't stand out. I don't know, though, and can't speak for her.

I just feel that it is wrong that the people of the country are ruled by those who are not impacted by the policies they put into place. It's easy to cut funding the the NHS when neither you nor your family use it, and the same is true, IMO of education and housing.

Doodledog in a nutshell in the nicest possible way no this is never going to happen.

Mps do understand the impact of their policies when it comes to election time. They want to stay in power.

The children of mps will take the best state school places which otherwise would have gone to less wealthy families. I don’t think this is right.

Also I don’t see that because a person is an mp that anyone has the right to tell them where to educate their children. Diane Abbott sent her son to a private school but not for us to judge.

Parents should always have the ability to make decisions about their own children surely? I would much rather see a broader access policy to private schools rather than strive to close them down. In some cases parents will mix and match state and private school provision, there are no hard and fast rules anymore.

No idea, but the PM and Chancellor have constituencies outside of that area, so it's not really relevant.

My point, as I'm sure you do understand, is that if MPs, and particularly cabinet ministers, had to live with the consequences of their policies by having average earnings and using the services that the people they are supposed to represent use, they will have a better idea of the impact of those policies.

Admittedly, that would mean that the less public spirited ones would vie for positions in better off areas where the services are better; but I suppose that means that the areas in need of levelling up will get the more socially concerned MPs, which has to be better than an area of deprivation being 'represented' by a millionaire.

Either way, if MPs are personally affected by socially divisive policies they are likely to put pressure on the cabinet to do something about them, aren't they?

I don’t understand. What is the catchment area for Downing Street?

We've just said that it would be fairer if they had to go to a catchment school that is in an area where people on average incomes live.

please someone explain why going to a sought after State school, if you have a very large income, is such an egalitarian move? From my point of view, children from poor families would benefit much more from going to a school like Brompton Oratory.

Fair point about the schools. Even if it had to be the catchment school, and even if they were living in an average salary, most of them would have funds to buy a house near the best school in the area. I don't blame them - I wouldn't have wanted my children to go to poorly performing schools either, but it is so wrong that the people who make policies for the rest of us never have to live with the results of them.

Doodledog

I think they should have to, varian, as well as use only NHS medicine.

It would be interesting if they also had to live in council houses and get by on a modal average wage, although I can see that there would be problems with enforcing those things. It would be good if they benefited/suffered from the results of their policies though.

Do you know, if it achieved what we wanted it to achieve, it would be a good idea. At least some of our local MPs already do send their children to state schools, but they are the schools nearest to where they live and I haven’t noticed them having any impact on the other schools.
Sadly, unless you can specify which state schools they must use, I doubt it would make much difference.
Using NHS might have more impact though.

Mollygo

Missed that one, but it’s true. Schools’ main funding is bums on seats.
Is there a reason for fewer children starting- low birth rate in 2018-2019? Or is there another cause?

There is plenty of data showing the higher the education of women, the lower the birth rate. For some years, there has been a slowly increasing gap. In the academic years of 2017/2018, the initial participation rate of women was 56.4% and of men was 44.6%.

Why does female education have a direct effect on fertility? The economic theory of fertility suggests an incentive effect: more educated women have higher opportunity costs of bearing children in terms of lost income. The household bargaining model suggests that more educated women are better able to support themselves and have more bargaining power, including on family size.

According to the ideation theory, more educated women may learn different ideas of desired family size through school, community, and exposure to global communication networks. Finally, more educated women know more about prenatal care and child health, and hence might have lower fertility because of greater confidence that their children will survive. *

It is good to know that a) more women are being allowed access to education to a higher level, and b) we no longer rely on the survival of a reasonable number of children to keep us when we can no longer keep ourselves.

*World Bank blogs.

There has been a huge expansion in provision for 3 to 4 year olds nursery school and disadvantaged 2 year olds under the Conservative government which I think is an attempt to improve
life chances for all.

MaizieD

Grany

Hey,
@Keir_Starmer
! You're on record as saying on TV that you believe Corbyn was being smeared, that you stood by him & his actions, & that he was a decent leader and a good man.

Now you claim he was the exact opposite of those things.

Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

@simonmaginn
'I want to pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn, who led our party through some really difficult times, who energised our movement, and who’s a friend as well as a colleague.' Starmer, K

'Corbyn allowed hate to spread in the party.' Starmer, K

A Starmer for every occasion.

And what does this have to do with the topic of this discussion, Grany?

Why don't you start your own Starmer hate thread?

Because there would be only one person posting when the saw the weird, out of context, extremisms?

Grany

Hey,
@Keir_Starmer
! You're on record as saying on TV that you believe Corbyn was being smeared, that you stood by him & his actions, & that he was a decent leader and a good man.

Now you claim he was the exact opposite of those things.

Were you lying then, or are you lying now?

@simonmaginn
'I want to pay tribute to Jeremy Corbyn, who led our party through some really difficult times, who energised our movement, and who’s a friend as well as a colleague.' Starmer, K

'Corbyn allowed hate to spread in the party.' Starmer, K

A Starmer for every occasion.

Or, we could see it as an extremists remark for every occasion.

What has this comment got to do with the thread?

varian

I do wonder how much difference it would make to state education if all ministers, or perhaps all MPs, were obliged to send their own children to state schools.

Brompton Oratory for Tony Blair’s children. How did this help anyone?

Mollygo

JaneJudge

I don't want to be controversial but I'm sure quite of few of that percentage will be children with SEN too and complex home living situations, the very children who should be in school

Yes.

Undoubtedly and there will be schools who use this to actually keep control and reduce classroom disruption. If the child who causes trouble is consistently absent it makes teaching so much easier. This isn't a criticism of teachers or schools it is simply a way of coping with a system that is massively underfunded and which is left to clear up the problems of a fractured society.

I think they should have to, varian, as well as use only NHS medicine.

It would be interesting if they also had to live in council houses and get by on a modal average wage, although I can see that there would be problems with enforcing those things. It would be good if they benefited/suffered from the results of their policies though.

I do wonder how much difference it would make to state education if all ministers, or perhaps all MPs, were obliged to send their own children to state schools.

JaneJudge

I don't want to be controversial but I'm sure quite of few of that percentage will be children with SEN too and complex home living situations, the very children who should be in school

Yes.

I don't want to be controversial but I'm sure quite of few of that percentage will be children with SEN too and complex home living situations, the very children who should be in school

MaizieD

^There is evidence that more and more children are being excluded from mainstream education.^

Are you suggesting that they are dropping out of mainstream education altogether?

I'm talking 10 years ago now, but we had a Pupil Referral Unit for children excluded from school, and we have a number of 'special schools' which can take on children with behavioural problems.

PRU’s still exist. I’m currently teaching a child who spent most of the autumn term at the one nearest us. He has a 1-1 TA to facilitate his reintegration into school.

Alternative education numbers are rising. A substantial number of these children are what was termed Special Needs. (80%)
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8522/

Perhaps far more worrying are the numbers of children persistently absent. The government cut the funding for attendance officers. So who bothers? schoolsweek.co.uk/most-councils-dont-know-how-many-children-are-missing-education/

There is evidence that more and more children are being excluded from mainstream education.

Are you suggesting that they are dropping out of mainstream education altogether?

I'm talking 10 years ago now, but we had a Pupil Referral Unit for children excluded from school, and we have a number of 'special schools' which can take on children with behavioural problems.

Glorianny I am not saying anything. This year has seen a shortfall in children starting school I believe.
My understanding is that 700000 less pupils are anticipated over the coming years.
I wonder if the figures given in the ifs report are all that transparent as there’s provision for the age range 2 to 4 years now which wasn’t in place around 2010?
I have just been gathering kindling for my fire … so maybe that’s enough intellectual endeavour for today.

ronib

I would like to return to the original premise of this post. The IFS said the cut to the education budget etc ….well do you know if the IFS took into account the drop in population. Simply 15 per cent less children born?

Just because we continually have the wool pulled over our eyes, doesn’t mean it need be that way!

The problem is the 15% reduction in the birth rate will not affect education until 2027. Until then although the numbers of primary school children have begun to decrease they have been rising since 2010, with no equivalent rise in education spending. Even when primary school numbers drop, secondary school numbers will still be on the increase. And they cost more.
What you are essentially saying is it's OK to cut budgets because there won't be so many children in the future, Given the rising costs of everything even that doesn't make sense economically.
www.statista.com/statistics/412219/school-students-in-the-uk/

There won't be a significant drop in secondary schools until 2026
explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/national-pupil-projections
Mind I seriously doubt the projections for out of school learning numbers. There is evidence that more and more children are being excluded from mainstream education.

The original report is available to read on ifs.org.uk

I would like to return to the original premise of this post. The IFS said the cut to the education budget etc ….well do you know if the IFS took into account the drop in population. Simply 15 per cent less children born?

Just because we continually have the wool pulled over our eyes, doesn’t mean it need be that way!