Posted by canvas on Thursday, 22 February 2007 16:30:37

I can only imagine that if I had a child then I too would want it to have a very good education. I might even be prepared to pay for it. However, what really troubles me is - why do we allow our schools to become so poor in the first place?? Why can't we get this right?

I find DC's comment that he is a 'big fan of faith schools' slightly disturbing.
I don't blame him for wanting to send his daughter to a good school - but he is being very naughty about it. I don't believe for a moment that he would be going to church every single week if he didn't have to place his daughter in school next year. It's a cheap trick used by a large majority of middle class parents living in central London - i.e., pretend that you are religious and then get your child into a good faith school. It's very naughty - and it's very sad that people have to resort to this. What about those parents who don't have that choice?

I guess David Cameron thought that Oxford Gardens Primary wasn't up to scratch. Who can blame him? But what I want to know is - how does David Cameron propose to improve our existing state schools? SERIOUSLY.

Perhaps we should have a civilised and realistic 'upper limit' set for the maximum number of students allowed per class? This could be done on a pro rata basis for rural and smaller communities. At least the children would then have some 'equality'.

 

Comment edited by canvas on Thursday, 22 February 2007 16:44:10

Posted by Tizzy on Thursday, 22 February 2007 17:56:31

DC is free to send his children to whichever school he chooses, and he is a an excellent position to do so. That is up to him and certainly I am not condemning him for doing what he can for his family. Yet I find this sudden outburst of support for faith schools somewhat disingenuous since he has not spoken out before, for example, during the decrying of Ruth Kelly's choice of faith school for her child.

As a taxpayer I am wholly against paying for schools that select children based on their faith or, more correctly, the faith that has been chosen for them.

His own Minister for Higher Education stated that '...we should probably scrap faith schools'. Boris is by no means alone in the Conservative ranks. Faith organsisations pay nothing towards the cost off running these schools.

Posted by davetheslave on Thursday, 22 February 2007 20:27:44

I thought the fuss of Ruth Kelly's choice of school was due to the fact that it was fee-paying, not that it was a faith school.

Posted by canvas on Thursday, 22 February 2007 20:33:19

that's correct. DC is actually on record as saying Ruth Kelly is not a hypocrite and that as a parent she has a right to choose the school that her child attends. Her child needed to go to a special needs school and she didn't think her local state schools could provide him with the care he needed.

Posted by davetheslave on Thursday, 22 February 2007 20:50:55

The whole school thing is a bit of a minefield for a Labour politician. You know in your heart that the state schools are still sub-standard, and you naturally want the best for your child. On the other hand, it's against party policy and shows the government up in a bad light. The whole situation reminds me of John Gummer feeding a burger to his daughter in the wake of the BSC crisis.

Posted by Tizzy on Thursday, 22 February 2007 21:20:23

Absolutely right, the Ruth Kelly fuss was about sending her child to a private independent school, and actually passed over a Catholic special needs school. Apologies for error, but the rest stands.

Posted by Rueben on Friday, 23 February 2007 09:27:00

Canvas: I don't believe for a moment that he would be going to church every single week if he didn't have to place his daughter in school next year. It's a cheap trick used by a large majority of middle class parents living in central London - i.e., pretend that you are religious and then get your child into a good faith school. It's very naughty

Not sure what pretending to be religious is? going to church every sunday isnt a qualification for being religious I believe in a God etc but I don't go to church every Sunday. I think you are "very naughty" for suggesting David may be faking his faith or indeed others may do the same, frankly you are not in a position to make such a bigoted stratement and for someone who constantly talks of how nobody is interested in religion and how bored you get with the subject yawn etc etc you have some very uninformed opinions on the matter.

It seems from here that you like to play at being the broad minded tolerent type attacking people who don't think like you and when you get put on the spot about your point you then use the standard "your a right winger" as if to place a hallo over your rightiousness when in fact you are the left wing bigot sitting on the fence.

Posted by canvas on Friday, 23 February 2007 10:32:33

Rueben - there's no need to be so abusive and aggressive.

I don't blame David Cameron for wanting his daughter to have a good education. I don't hold it against him. However, before David Cameron became the Conservative party leader he went on record as saying 'he didn't attend church as often as he should'. Now that he has decided he wants his daughter to attend a faith school he goes to church every week. It's something that many middle class parents in London do to sidestep the system - to get their children into a good school.

It's a bit naughty. It's known as middle class fraud - people who find God as their child nears school age.
Other tricks are to buy a house in a catchment area and then rent it out. Another is to say that your child lives 'with granny' (who is in the right area). There are all kinds of underhand methods for getting children into the schools that parents believe will be the best for them to attend. My point is - what about the parents who don't have that choice? Why are the state schools failing so miserably? What can be done about this?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/21/ncameron121.xml


"More than 2.7 million pupils now attend faith schools in England, with support for a religious-based education as popular as ever.

It is not hard to see why. In recent league tables for primary schools, Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools made up 127 of the 209 achieving "perfect" results — as every pupil reached the expected standard for 11-year-olds. Even though faith schools make up only a third of English schools, they accounted for almost two thirds of those with top results.

Church leaders have traditionally championed the results, claiming they are the product of the special "ethos" behind church schools.

But faith schools' increasing success has prompted an often ugly battle among parents to win a place. Families are known to go to extreme lengths to get children into the most popular schools.

Some critics of faith schools — the overwhelming majority of which are Christian — have claimed that they are a way for middle-class parents to avoid fees.

Andrew Copson, the education office for the British Humanist Association, said: "It remains one of the few mechanisms of covert selection left for middle-class parents."

Indeed, official Government figures in the past have revealed the extent to which faith schools — particularly Church of England primaries — are weighted towards children from affluent homes."

 

Comment edited by canvas on Friday, 23 February 2007 10:35:20

Posted by kozmicstu on Friday, 23 February 2007 10:45:38

Bring back grammar schools!

The only fair system for getting kids to the best schools no matter what 'class' they are is to select them by ability

Posted by davetheslave on Friday, 23 February 2007 11:17:04

@Kozmicstu

Isn't it strange then, that the country which has the best education system in the world, Finland, actively discourages selection? Here's a quote from the Finnish schools minister in 2004:

"We don't divide at an early stage between students who do well and those that don't manage so well in schools.... Studies show that it is dangerous to divide too early into different educational paths.... We believe that if we invest in all children for nine years and give them the same education then we will reach the best results."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4031805.stm

Posted by kozmicstu on Friday, 23 February 2007 12:11:46

davetheslave, first of all Finland is a different country with different needs, second of all your quote says 'invest in all children for nine years' which is essentially from nursery until the end of primary school. They're saying they don't have streamed classes for primary school kids. In fact they DO seperate kids, it's just they do it when the kids are 11, they wait till they're around 14 instead IIRC.

The issue I was responding to is canvas's assertion that the school system is unfair because richer people can send their children to better schools. She's right, and by far the best solution is to have GOOD kids go to better schools rather than RICH kids. Naturally, if all schools were equal it would be better to have kids go to the closest school to them, but they're not, so that leaves fewer options.

Over time, the best long-term solution I see is to have good kids go to the best schools, and then work hard on improving the 'worse' schools so as to bring everyone's education up to the same standard. It's not something you can just wave a magic wand at, though, it will take time to make serious changes and improvements.

The point remains that the grammar school system is intrinsically more fair than the comprehensive system

Posted by canvas on Friday, 23 February 2007 12:15:04

Kozmic, just checking but by saying 'good' children - do you in fact mean 'clever'?

Posted by kozmicstu on Friday, 23 February 2007 12:18:01

That depends - do you have to be clever to get good results?

It doesn't really matter what means you use to define ability - anything is surely better than being divided by whether your parents can afford a house near a good school, no?

Posted by canvas on Friday, 23 February 2007 12:32:20

I think there is the need for a 'good local school for all', with better resources, better trained and paid teachers, smaller classes, no selection, less streaming, a phasing out of the exams regime, and a 'balanced' 'academic' and 'vocational' curriculum.

Education for all til 18. The government should raise the school starting age to 6. We should have a stronger nursery system where young children can learn in an informal environment through play .

Is this too much to ask for? :)

Posted by davetheslave on Friday, 23 February 2007 13:04:20

@Kozmicstu

I see that you never bothered to read the article that I linked too, or misunderstood it, so I'll start with a quick recap of the Finnish system.

They start school at 7 years old, and are at the same school until 16 (hence the "9 years"). These classes are organised along comprehensive lines, with no streaming. This is the only compulsory schooling. After this, the vast majority choose further education at an upper secondary. These are specialised, with "a la carte" subject choice, and vocational qualifications for those who choose. The time spent at these upper secondaries is anywhere between 2 to 4 years. The system is similar throughout the whole of Scandanavia (and all Scandanavian countries do well in education tables).

Now, I'll take issue with your points. You say "Finland is a different country with different needs". Are you claiming that the Finnish have a greater need of education than us Brits, or was it merely a churlish statement for lack of a better reply?

With regards to separating kids, they do it at 16 years of age, after they all have a good quality compehensive education behind them. This reduces the inequalities due to the parents' socioeconomic status. In the UK we separate at 11 years, after a wildly differing quality of primary education, depending on location, religion and parents income. Therefore, it's more or less an impossibility to (using your categorisation) tell the GOOD kids from the RICH ones.

Finally, I make the point that if you have streaming, then the imperative for the ruling classes to improve education for the masses vanishes. Only if a country shows a little solidarity, and realises that everyone should be in the same boat together, do conditions improve.