State schools and Question time

Most secondaries 'set' now Grandma70. Children are assigned to sets for each subject depending on their ability. So you could have a child who was in top set for maths, but a lower set for literacy. It's more succesful than streaming. Some secondaries do advanced sets for very clever children which can result in them sitting some GCSEs earlier

Was there ever a time when all schools were good? I doubt it. It’s not ONLY the fault of Conservative politicians.

It is hypocrisy to vote against grammer schools yet send your children to private schools

One thing that still puzzles me about comprehensives is how teachers cope with both the ultra-bright and ultra-dim children. (Somebody is going to object to those terms.)
Are different teachers employed, because I’d have thought that would be essential? I’m honestly not sure how it worked in my children’s school, and in any case that was many years ago.

In primary school there was definitely only one one main teacher per class. The brighter children tended to be neglected and left to get on with it by themselves.

Not hypocrisy because as the party out of power you have no opportunity to change things and so you use the system as it exists that's pragmatism
Jalima1108 if you knew anything about education you would know that one parent sending their child to a "sink' school will not change anything. The only thing that turns sink schools around is a massive investment, providing highly qualified, experienced and dedicated staff and quality resources. Otherwise nothing can change.
The education system is in crisis. There are more failing schools, teachers leaving the profession in droves, low levels of recruitment and retention, more exclusion (35 children a day), bigger classes and less special needs support. So all those who are blethering on about the choices of a few individuals are doing so to distract from the absolute chaos this government has created. Unfortunately as they chunter away a whole generation of children are losing out and being cast on the scrap heap.
But do Tory MPs care? Of course not. They live in afluent areas and private school their kids while voting for education cuts and austerity policies that cause sink schools and create more social problems. But they are so honest aren't they?

I think that you are using words that suit your agenda, trisher. It's out and out hypocrisy.

Grammar schools succeed because the children are selected. State schools take everyone regardless of educational ability or social needs. I would like to see all private education abolished. Then we would see some rise in standards and a level (or more level) playing field.
State schools are good enough for the masses, but not good enough for their precious gene pool.

trisher It's not hypocrisy it's pragmatism

One who is bad for failing to pratice what he preaches, and one with the nature to change their mind on an issue when the facts support the other side.

when Parents pay for private education they take a huge amount of interest in making sure that their children succeed. In the state sector so many parents don’t fully engage with their children’s education by instilling good behaviour, a strong work ethic and respect for education. Grammar schools succeed because they have parental support, good comprehensives likewise.

I’m a recently retired education director and inspector, two of my children teach, my parents taught. Our various careers have been in widely different schools in the state sector and we all rapidly learned that without good parental support for education you face a class of entitled and ill disciplined children and have to spend precious time and resources sorting out what should be family issues rather than teaching.

So many have lost sight of the fact that we are all paying for our children’s education and we all need to get behind it rather than knock the teachers and schools who are running on fresh air!

I don't like MPs sending their children to private schools either, but I do think that Grammar schools are a separate issue.
Grammar schools segregate children at far too young an age on the basis of an outdated I.Q. test.

Intelligence is not fixed at age 11. There used to be a 13+ that children could take (which was also far too early in my opinion) but passing that meant changing schools and losing friendship groups.

Far better for all children to start at the same secondary school and classes can be streamed to cater for different levels of academic ability, as the children develop.

Grammar schools also cater for the same level of academic ability across all their subjects, this may not suit all children, who may be gifted in say, the arts, but not the sciences, or vice versa.

In a comprehensive school, streaming would also take this into account.

I can’t agree that houses are the same principle, Grandma70. The ‘nice house’ is the prize at the end of the race; the principle here is about paying or not to put one’s own child ahead at the starting line.

you do what you can and buy the best you can afford.
Selection by the ability to pay and also by entrance examination.

She spends £20,448/year to send them to Dulwich College.
Pamela - that's for one child, not them

Grandma70s not at all and that is not what I said. I did say that, even with going without, it is beyond the means of most to pay £20,00+ p.a. for school fees to privately educate one child - plus all the extras on top of that.

Shami Chakrabarti married well,
trisher
I find that rather an odd statement - married well - does that mean she married a wealthy ex-public schoolboy?
So that's OK then.


Surely the best way of fighting for the best education for all is to lead the way, send your child to that 'sink school' and do your utmost to improve it - and all schools.

Sorry, but it is hypocrisy. Everyone wants the best for their child.

If you have a government that you know is cutting funding to education, or shifting money so one lot of children will benefit more than another, you vigorously oppose and vote against that. If the resulting cuts mean that your child will be pushed into a sink school you do what you can and buy the best you can afford. You can still be fighting for properly funded education for all. It's not hypocrisy it's pragmatism. What is hypocrisy is voting for cuts in education for most children whilst spending money on your own.

You're absolutely right Grandma70s, funding is vital to ensure that all children can access a good education. But that doesn't address the fact that several MPs, who have lobbied for grammar schools to be closed, on the grounds that "selection means rejection for the majority" sounds good doesn't it, actually send their own children to fee paying schools. Can anyone explain how that's not hypocrisy?

Good points, trisher.’ Funding is the most important thing.

Shami Chakrabarti married well, and her ex-husband was public school educated, so possibly he got his way with their children's education.
Comprehensive education properly funded would be the ideal, with public schools absorbed into the system. Unfortunately this government have used the "Free school" system to starve local authority schools of funding.. So the answer, sadly, to gillybob's question is it is a downward spiral caused initially by poor funding, accelerated by multiple problems in society which schools are left to deal with resulting in lack of staff willing to commit to such complicated and difficult work. It's why parents are looking at schools when their children are small and moving house to get into somewhere that is successful. Unfortunately for the failing school they also pick up the problem children who are excluded from succesful schools, and the downward spiral continues.

I know that, Jalima1108.

For those who are objecting to parents who pay for their children’s education buying something that not everyone can afford: would you expect someone who can afford a nice house in a good district to move to somewhere cheap and unpleasant just because not everyone can afford to live in the nice house? It’s the same principle.

Neither of them are from families with lots of money.
However hard some people work, they will not be able to afford the £20,000 or so p.a. for each child's fees!

My problem lies in MPs who want to abolish such schools as being elitist, but who have no compunction in sending their own. I fail to see how this is anything other than hypocrisy.
Absolutely Chewbacca!

Many MPs, even if they do not send their children to private schools, live in areas where the local comprehensive school is excellent, or manage to get their children into a school in a 'neighbouring borough' .
In a country town there is often only one comprehensive school, even if it is failing there is no other choice.

I will say that the only MP who did not behave in a hypocritical fashion was Jeremy Corbyn, who did not want his son to go to the grammar school after he passed the 11+ (why let the child take the exam?) but his wife insisted and they got divorced anyway.

Would I sacrifice my child's future for my political principles by sending them to a bog-standard or failing comprehensive school?
If I could afford to choose, I would not and neither do these MPs - but I do not preach otherwise.

Anniebach, no. I’m just pointing out how my son and DIL do it and what they put first. Neither of them are from families with lots of money.

Grandma70s, are you claiming all,parents could afford to pay for their children’s education if they worked harder?

2 (very new) large secondary schools in our town are failing . One is in special measures and there is talk of closing the other. How has this been allowed to happen? Is it because once they are on a downward spiral they can’t attract good teachers ? Is it a poor head? Surely it can’t be the children.

Ideally I think there would be no private schools, and then perhaps the standard of state schools would improve. The difficulty is that those who have school age children NOW are dealing with what’s available at the moment.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think all state schools are bad or all private ones good - far from it. Go by the individual school.

Anniebach, of course it does depend on income to some extent, though there can be scholarships. My son and his wife both work incredibly hard to afford the fees. What they earn goes on school fees, not cars, holidays or a bigger house. Priorities.