advertisement


Labour to abolish independent schools?

Should we abolish independent schools in the UK?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 24.7%
  • No

    Votes: 57 70.4%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 4.9%

  • Total voters
    81
Why is that 'the real problem'. It a problem I am sure if you have examples, but an equal problem is the governments reluctance to address this topic, the proliferance of middle managers and their salaries, lawyers fees, money wasted on unwanted rail lines, the cost of research groups etc etc. One mans bee is another mans gnat.
The real problem with our education system is that it’s exclusive rather than inclusive. The reluctance to change that is with the sort of parents represented here on pfm, who, whenever there the topic of addressing the exclusivity of fee paying schools, grammar schools or even so called state schools who perpetuate their exclusivity by house prices, become quite angry and that anger soon becomes directed at the thought of their own children being educated with disruptive kids.

The problem first and foremost is do we want a level playing field for all kids, or do we want walls between our own precious offspring and kids from deprived backgrounds with their attendant issues
 
  • Like
Reactions: vuk
The real problem with our education system is that it’s exclusive rather than inclusive. The reluctance to change that is with the sort of parents represented here on pfm, who, whenever there the topic of addressing the exclusivity of fee paying schools, grammar schools or even so called state schools who perpetuate their exclusivity by house prices, become quite angry and that anger soon becomes directed at the thought of their own children being educated with disruptive kids.

The problem first and foremost is do we want a level playing field for all kids, or do we want walls between our own precious offspring and kids from deprived backgrounds with their attendant issues

How would that be achieved?
 
What we really need for the playing field to be levelled then is for all the little unruly and disruptive so and so's to be evenly distributed across all schools.
I mean, if the reality is they don't impact negatively on our precious offspring's chances in state schools where's the harm?
Truth is they do and I count myself among those parents who go/went some way to bring my kids up properly and fail to see why I should see their chances spoilt by feckless and indifferent parenting.
 
The problem first and foremost is do we want a level playing field for all kids, or do we want walls between our own precious offspring and kids from deprived backgrounds with their attendant issues

I expect Dianne Abbott would be well-placed to comment on this point.
 
This could be the labour "dementia tax" bogey that will affect their chances adversely.
 
I expect Dianne Abbott would be well-placed to comment on this point.
I don’t criticise anyone for wanting the best for their kids, and I don’t criticise anyone who takes advantage of an iniquitous system because they have the good fortune or the means to do so. But that doesn’t stop it being an iniquitous system.
 
The real problem with our education system is that it’s exclusive rather than inclusive. The reluctance to change that is with the sort of parents represented here on pfm, who, whenever there the topic of addressing the exclusivity of fee paying schools, grammar schools or even so called state schools who perpetuate their exclusivity by house prices, become quite angry and that anger soon becomes directed at the thought of their own children being educated with disruptive kids.

The problem first and foremost is do we want a level playing field for all kids, or do we want walls between our own precious offspring and kids from deprived backgrounds with their attendant issues

The problem is we as a society need to level up, not level down. Until state education really is of the same level, and that means dealing with disruptive kids (e.g. me!) properly. Until that point those who have a choice will always chose to prevent their kids being educated in less than ideal environments either by choosing their catchment areas or going the whole hog and fee paying, and really, can you blame them? To put it another way who the hell would pay tens of thousands a year privately educating their kids if the local comp was actually better/safer?
 
How would that be achieved?
I was initially only trying to identify the problem, not a solution. It seems to me that we haven’t answered the question of if we want an inclusive or exclusive education system. Most people on pfm would appear to back an exclusive system, but a two tier system is not without obvious problems too. Not least condemning large sections of kids to a second class education and creating an explicit ‘them and us’ society.

First of all an inclusive education system would still require separate schooling for some cases, but the overall principle could still be towards inclusivity.

Second it must be recognised that exclusivity is alive and well in state schools as well as fee paying and grammar schools. Many high performing state funded school maintain their standards by excluding certain groups through such devices as house prices and expensive uniforms but also through the less well recognised use of off rolling.

An inclusive system would need to ensure that all schools are equally inclusive.

There are a host of other things that need to be done to move towards creating a level playing field in education but once created the next big change that needs to happen is in the classroom.

It is possible to integrate disruptive pupils with careful classroom management and teaching techniques. It is possible to use the bright kids to teach to less able to the advantage of each. There are a number of ways of achieving this through group work and group targets, class ‘legends’ and pairing. In order to demonstrate a skill or communicate some understanding, the bright kid will need to re think what they can do instinctively for someone who can’t. I’ve done it and it can work even in large classes, but it quickly becomes more difficult with rising class sizes.

Key to improving education at the chalk face will be class sizes
 
Really interesting, and lots to chew on. A couple of points though - a school can hardly be blamed if it happens to be in an area where house prices are high. And what is 'rolling'?
 
The problem is we as a society need to level up, not level down. Until state education really is of the same level, and that means dealing with disruptive kids (e.g. me!) properly. Until that point those who have a choice will always chose to prevent their kids being educated in less than ideal environments either by choosing their catchment areas or going the whole hog and fee paying, and really, can you blame them? To put it another way who the hell would pay tens of thousands a year privately educating their kids if the local comp was actually better/safer?
Yes, I agree. I’ve said elsewhere that I don’t criticise anyone with the means from taking advantage of an iniquitous system, but we need to decide if we want to continue with a system that is explicitly iniquitous. A two tier system comes with it’s own obvious issues.
 
They main issue with this whole discussion from a Labour perspective as I don't see it as a vote winner i.e. the folks who are really in favour would probably be voting Labour anyway, but those for which it raised concerns may have wanted to vote Labour (as a less worse option that the Tories over Brexit) but may now not.

I don't really think this is an election where Labour should be pursuing a radical left wing agenda when we really need them to be appealing to the middle ground. From what I've seen of the polling so far it looks like it's going to be a disaster for Labour, leading to a large outright majority for the Tories - which really is that last thing we need. Labour doing their best to make themselves unelectable is going to mean we'll be leaving the EU at the end of January either with the current shite deal, or even worse - with no deal.
 
Really interesting, and lots to chew on. A couple of points though - a school can hardly be blamed if it happens to be in an area where house prices are high. And what is 'rolling'?
Off rolling is getting kids ‘off roll’ one way or another. For example, an LEA school will be part of a ‘managed move’ system whereby a pupil permanently excluded by one school is taken on by another. The long term effect is that if you exclude one disruptive pupil, you will get one from somewhere else. Unless they have a Service Level Agreement, Academies are not under LEA control and are not required to take part in the managed move arrangements and can therefore exclude without the same reciprocity. This means that more and more disruptive pupils end up in fewer and fewer schools

There is also growing evidence that schools are encouraging parents of disruptive pupils to be ‘home educated’.

Other off rolling devices are available https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8444
 
I was initially only trying to identify the problem, not a solution. It seems to me that we haven’t answered the question of if we want an inclusive or exclusive education system. Most people on pfm would appear to back an exclusive system, but a two tier system is not without obvious problems too. Not least condemning large sections of kids to a second class education and creating an explicit ‘them and us’ society.

First of all an inclusive education system would still require separate schooling for some cases, but the overall principle could still be towards inclusivity.

Second it must be recognised that exclusivity is alive and well in state schools as well as fee paying and grammar schools. Many high performing state funded school maintain their standards by excluding certain groups through such devices as house prices and expensive uniforms but also through the less well recognised use of off rolling.

An inclusive system would need to ensure that all schools are equally inclusive.

There are a host of other things that need to be done to move towards creating a level playing field in education but once created the next big change that needs to happen is in the classroom.

It is possible to integrate disruptive pupils with careful classroom management and teaching techniques. It is possible to use the bright kids to teach to less able to the advantage of each. There are a number of ways of achieving this through group work and group targets, class ‘legends’ and pairing. In order to demonstrate a skill or communicate some understanding, the bright kid will need to re think what they can do instinctively for someone who can’t. I’ve done it and it can work even in large classes, but it quickly becomes more difficult with rising class sizes.

Key to improving education at the chalk face will be class sizes

This is not just aimed at you but using terminology like inclusive or exclusive is deliberately antagonistic and just pandering to class warriors on the left. I see this as nothing but a political statement by Labour (or any party) to an issue that is impossible to fix in the way they are describing. It is an unfortunate fact of life that money buys advantage, people need to accept that no matter how much they hate it and concentrate on making beneficial achievable changes rather than political statements pandering to voters or their support base.

That said there is an issue with education which has been perpetuated by Tony Blairs insistence that everyone should go to university and Thatchers assault on schools/universities in the 70's and 80's. The truth is that not everyone is suited to university or academia. There is a great emphasis now on labelling 'trouble' kids as ADHD or ADD etc when in truth I suspect many are just not suited to mainstream education.

We should be developing schools more suited to the education needs of all kids which includes things like trade or vocational tech colleges for skills like carpentry, plumbing, building and electricians etc. We also need to be changing the perception that vocational trade skills are worth less than degrees or a PhD when in fact these are skilled trades in great demand (how can we build the social housing we need without them)

The truth is that if we bring up every school to the same standard you eliminate the situation of expensive catchment areas and a need for private schools. Doing that is a long term strategy that doesn't tie in with the 'now' politics used by parties to win elections.

Personally I would like to see education, social care and the NHS taken away from govt and run by a council of experienced non political (i.e not MPs) people. These services are needed by everyone and it baffles me why different counties have different policies or approaches for what should be a national service.
 
You have hit the nail on the head firmly and squarely thebiglebowski. For far too long education has been weaponised by all political parties. Removing it from political dogma and control and recognizing that education is the prerogative of all and for the benefit of the whole of society would bring immeasurable improvements to the country as a whole in terms of social cohesion and opportunity. I will let Billy Bragg have the last word.

https://www.youtube.com › watch
 
We should be developing schools more suited to the education needs of all kids which includes things like trade or vocational tech colleges for skills like carpentry, plumbing, building and electricians etc. We also need to be changing the perception that vocational trade skills are worth less than degrees or a PhD when in fact these are skilled trades in great demand (how can we build the social housing we need without them)

The truth is that if we bring up every school to the same standard you eliminate the situation of expensive catchment areas and a need for private schools. Doing that is a long term strategy that doesn't tie in with the 'now' politics used by parties to win elections.

Personally I would like to see education, social care and the NHS taken away from govt and run by a council of experienced non political (i.e not MPs) people. These services are needed by everyone and it baffles me why different counties have different policies or approaches for what should be a national service.

Agree with the above, and it's why I suggested the mechanisms I did upthread. Note, though, that the NHS, etc, *are now* largely run by bodies that aren't National Government. The snag is that they are hog-tied by the dogmas of 'outsourcings', 'pfi', etc, and both starved of money and vampired dry of what they get. This also explains why the details vary from place to place.

Analogy here with 'Social Housing'. Nominally local, but dominated by - largely out of sight - behaviour by National Government. e.g. who here has noticed that the National body that loans Government money for councils to borrow to build social housing has just more than doubled its interest rate? Thus throwing a spanner into plans by local councils to build more social homes for rent. There are parallels across funding areas with the way Thatcher required council homes to be sold off cheap, but then blocked councils even using the money towards build replacements. In effect, she took the credit, and the councils (and later people neeing a home) took the hit. Now look at, say, FE as a sector, and the hikes in charges by the OU, say, and see the same pattern.

Which comes back to my central point. That those with the most wealth and influence tend to buy their own way out, whilst supporting governments who cut taxes needed to pay for their education, health, etc. Until we tackle that root, the weeds will continue to grow, and just change their appearance to hide from view.

N.B. Should declare that many years/decades ago my better half did 'do time' on Health Councils / Boards and got to see what went on. She finally gave up trying to get them to change. FWIW I've just been mentioning this in outline on my 'biog' pages. I'd be surprised if it were much better even now, because this is all out of the sight of most people because they don't know how the game is played.
 
This is not just aimed at you but using terminology like inclusive or exclusive is deliberately antagonistic and just pandering to class warriors on the left. I see this as nothing but a political statement by Labour (or any party) to an issue that is impossible to fix in the way they are describing. It is an unfortunate fact of life that money buys advantage, people need to accept that no matter how much they hate it and concentrate on making beneficial achievable changes rather than political statements pandering to voters or their support base.

That said there is an issue with education which has been perpetuated by Tony Blairs insistence that everyone should go to university and Thatchers assault on schools/universities in the 70's and 80's. The truth is that not everyone is suited to university or academia. There is a great emphasis now on labelling 'trouble' kids as ADHD or ADD etc when in truth I suspect many are just not suited to mainstream education.

We should be developing schools more suited to the education needs of all kids which includes things like trade or vocational tech colleges for skills like carpentry, plumbing, building and electricians etc. We also need to be changing the perception that vocational trade skills are worth less than degrees or a PhD when in fact these are skilled trades in great demand (how can we build the social housing we need without them)

The truth is that if we bring up every school to the same standard you eliminate the situation of expensive catchment areas and a need for private schools. Doing that is a long term strategy that doesn't tie in with the 'now' politics used by parties to win elections.

Personally I would like to see education, social care and the NHS taken away from govt and run by a council of experienced non political (i.e not MPs) people. These services are needed by everyone and it baffles me why different counties have different policies or approaches for what should be a national service.

Spot on.

I have a friend who has just retired from the NHS, where his job was in the lab of a major central London hospital preparing isotopes. He still has to go in though, sometimes several times a week, because he is essentially almost irreplaceble. I talked to him about it a while back and he made some interesting points that extend beyond this topic. His main point though was that the trust found it impossible to hire qualified staff in this country, and they therefore had to hire abroad, with all the attendant difficulties and costs. He too placed the blame squarely on Thatcher and Blair, 'universal' uni education and the loss of the technical colleges. He said that the youngsters who came out of the techs would go into industry and stream naturally into the place where their potential was most realisable. Some would go onto the shop floor, some into the machine shop, some to the drawing office. Wherever they ended up they would be amongst people of similar backgrounds and interests, and work relationships would extend into social, familial and community interests. All that has gone. It desperately needs to be replaced.
 
This is not just aimed at you but using terminology like inclusive or exclusive is deliberately antagonistic and just pandering to class warriors on the left. I see this as nothing but a political statement by Labour (or any party) to an issue that is impossible to fix in the way they are describing. It is an unfortunate fact of life that money buys advantage, people need to accept that no matter how much they hate it and concentrate on making beneficial achievable changes rather than political statements pandering to voters or their support base.

That said there is an issue with education which has been perpetuated by Tony Blairs insistence that everyone should go to university and Thatchers assault on schools/universities in the 70's and 80's. The truth is that not everyone is suited to university or academia. There is a great emphasis now on labelling 'trouble' kids as ADHD or ADD etc when in truth I suspect many are just not suited to mainstream education.

We should be developing schools more suited to the education needs of all kids which includes things like trade or vocational tech colleges for skills like carpentry, plumbing, building and electricians etc. We also need to be changing the perception that vocational trade skills are worth less than degrees or a PhD when in fact these are skilled trades in great demand (how can we build the social housing we need without them)

The truth is that if we bring up every school to the same standard you eliminate the situation of expensive catchment areas and a need for private schools. Doing that is a long term strategy that doesn't tie in with the 'now' politics used by parties to win elections.

Personally I would like to see education, social care and the NHS taken away from govt and run by a council of experienced non political (i.e not MPs) people. These services are needed by everyone and it baffles me why different counties have different policies or approaches for what should be a national service.

While I might bridle at being called a class warrior I do not feel that terms like inclusive or exclusive are class terms, they are just the reality. The reality is that many kids are excluded and what’s more, as you have said, many parents want that exclusivity and go to great lengths to secure it. Thanks not a criticism, as I’ve said many times, most parents with the means (including me) would likely take advantage of an iniquitous to ensure the best for their kid, but that doesn’t make it any the less iniquitous.

So the question still remains; do we want a more iniquitous system, in which case let’s be clear and not try to hide from it and make it explicit? Or do we want an inclusive system and face the expense and the difficulties of making it happen?

For me the only answer, which of course makes me an explorer of boundaries rather than a class warrior, is....
giphy.gif
 
Spot on.

I have a friend who has just retired from the NHS, where his job was in the lab of a major central London hospital preparing isotopes. He still has to go in though, sometimes several times a week, because he is essentially almost irreplaceble. I talked to him about it a while back and he made some interesting points that extend beyond this topic. His main point though was that the trust found it impossible to hire qualified staff in this country, and they therefore had to hire abroad, with all the attendant difficulties and costs. He too placed the blame squarely on Thatcher and Blair, 'universal' uni education and the loss of the technical colleges. He said that the youngsters who came out of the techs would go into industry and stream naturally into the place where their potential was most realisable. Some would go onto the shop floor, some into the machine shop, some to the drawing office. Wherever they ended up they would be amongst people of similar backgrounds and interests, and work relationships would extend into social, familial and community interests. All that has gone. It desperately needs to be replaced.

We are left with a lot of uneducated children who drop out early with no obvious path forwards.

It's very hard to find anyone with basic maths and English skills. This is a real problem with our population. many don't have the basic skills to comprehend a newspaper article.

I did loads of tech college courses and we used to send key employees on day release through the winter. None of this is now available.

The surge in uni places has been paralleled by a fall in status of practical skills. Good news if you're one of the few skilled plumbers or brickies out there.
 


advertisement


Back
Top