Schools to benefit from £7m windfall

DISADVANTAGED primary students in Swindon will benefit from an extra £7.8m next year, designed to help bridge the gap between them and their better-off peers.

The money is being made available through The Pupil Premium, which is additional funding given to schools to help them support their disadvantaged pupils. The cash pays for stationary boxes for pupils, educational visits and after school activities.

The Government gave £1.875bn in 2013-14, with schools attracting £900 per child, with an additional payment of £53 for primary-aged pupils.

It has been revealed that for 2014-15, the funding will rise to £2.5bn, with £1,300 for primary-aged pupils, £935 for secondary-aged pupils and £1,900 for all looked-after children, adopted children and children with guardians.

Haydon Wick Primary School headteacher Simon Cowley said approximately 17 per cent of pupils at his school use the grant.

“We look at what each individual need of our pupils is, then we spend the money accordingly to help them reach their full potential,” said Mr Cowley.

“We are pleased with the extra funding but it is still quite a small proportion of the overall school budget.”

He said the money is spent in a variety of ways including assigning students with extra teaching assistants.

But headteacher at Isambard Community School, Rachel Mattey, said she was disappointed secondary school pupils would not benefit from any extra funding.

“It is an important grant, it helps take the pressure off for parents,” said Mrs Mattey. “Primary schools will see a big increase whereas we will get the same as last year.”

She said a special centre which works one-on-one with pupils to teach them the basics in maths and English would not be possible without the funding.

North Swindon MP Justin Tomlinson welcomed the announcement.

“This is excellent news for disadvantaged pupils and their families in Swindon, providing local schools the support they need to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, can fulfil their potential,” he said.

“I have seen first-hand as I have visited the local schools in my constituency just how this is transforming opportunity, driving up standards and helping equip the next generation of workers with the skills and knowledge needed to make a positive contribution to society.”

Last week an Ofsted report revealed Swindon’s poorest were being let down by the education system with barely a quarter of pupils eligible for free school meals achieving five good GCSEs which is well below the national average.

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:53pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Why are adopted children considered 'disadvantaged'?
Why are adopted children considered 'disadvantaged'? Ringer

12:59pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Localboy86 says...

What a waste of money, would be interesting to know how much is wasted just managing this, all the admin etc
What a waste of money, would be interesting to know how much is wasted just managing this, all the admin etc Localboy86

1:25pm Tue 17 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Localboy86 wrote:
What a waste of money, would be interesting to know how much is wasted just managing this, all the admin etc
Keeps public sector jobsworths in a job though at our expense. And who decides the definition of disadvantaged anyway?
[quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: What a waste of money, would be interesting to know how much is wasted just managing this, all the admin etc[/p][/quote]Keeps public sector jobsworths in a job though at our expense. And who decides the definition of disadvantaged anyway? house on the hill

1:27pm Tue 17 Dec 13

tucker81 says...

More money for nothing
More money for nothing tucker81

2:27pm Tue 17 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

tucker81 wrote:
More money for nothing
Not exactly nothing.....what do you propose to do with the masses of British kids living in council areas? if you fail to educate them as we have done, then employers will recruit elsewhere and leave the lower end of the population under constant social assistance.....
Since we cannot stop them breeding....the best that we can do is to help them get a better education, unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers.
[quote][p][bold]tucker81[/bold] wrote: More money for nothing[/p][/quote]Not exactly nothing.....what do you propose to do with the masses of British kids living in council areas? if you fail to educate them as we have done, then employers will recruit elsewhere and leave the lower end of the population under constant social assistance..... Since we cannot stop them breeding....the best that we can do is to help them get a better education, unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers. A.Baron-Cohen

2:29pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Amberflame says...

house on the hill wrote:
Localboy86 wrote:
What a waste of money, would be interesting to know how much is wasted just managing this, all the admin etc
Keeps public sector jobsworths in a job though at our expense. And who decides the definition of disadvantaged anyway?
Those in receipt of a means tested benefits i would expect?
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: What a waste of money, would be interesting to know how much is wasted just managing this, all the admin etc[/p][/quote]Keeps public sector jobsworths in a job though at our expense. And who decides the definition of disadvantaged anyway?[/p][/quote]Those in receipt of a means tested benefits i would expect? Amberflame

2:34pm Tue 17 Dec 13

express_a_view says...

Nice to see the curmudgeons out in force.

I have no liking for the coalition but this is one of their few decent policies. Is it really so bad to target money towards educating disadvantaged youngsters? Personally I do not think so. Nor is the money allocated without accountability. OFSTED during their inspections will be expecting to see evidence that the money has been spent on approaches that secure improvements in the attainment of targeted pupils.

Ringer - many, but of course not all, adopted children have fallen behind in their learning. Largely as a result of the emotional damage/abuse many of them have incurred in the past. Offering additional support to youngsters impacted in this way seems perfectly laudable. In fact we would be a pretty reprehensible society if we did not want to support young people whose start to life has not been a great one.

Localboy86 - there is minimal funding costs for this scheme. The money is transferred directly into the school budget - this should entail no extra cost. The effectiveness of its usage is monitored by OFSTED as part of their inspection framework and also by governors who are volunteers. Again no extra cost from existing arrangements.

House on the hill - let me give you some ways of defining disadvantage - students on free school meals; students with special educational needs; students with physical/medical conditions that make learning harder for them; students who have no permanent home; students who have proved to be the victim of some form of abuse; students who are looked after by the local authority because their own family is dysfunctional etc, etc. How unworthy that any such disadvantaged groups will be targeted for support by "public sector jobs worths".

After over 30 years of working with young people with special educational needs I read comments like some of those above and despair at the cynicism that prevails. The measure of any decent society is how it looks after, and values, its most vulnerable.
Nice to see the curmudgeons out in force. I have no liking for the coalition but this is one of their few decent policies. Is it really so bad to target money towards educating disadvantaged youngsters? Personally I do not think so. Nor is the money allocated without accountability. OFSTED during their inspections will be expecting to see evidence that the money has been spent on approaches that secure improvements in the attainment of targeted pupils. Ringer - many, but of course not all, adopted children have fallen behind in their learning. Largely as a result of the emotional damage/abuse many of them have incurred in the past. Offering additional support to youngsters impacted in this way seems perfectly laudable. In fact we would be a pretty reprehensible society if we did not want to support young people whose start to life has not been a great one. Localboy86 - there is minimal funding costs for this scheme. The money is transferred directly into the school budget - this should entail no extra cost. The effectiveness of its usage is monitored by OFSTED as part of their inspection framework and also by governors who are volunteers. Again no extra cost from existing arrangements. House on the hill - let me give you some ways of defining disadvantage - students on free school meals; students with special educational needs; students with physical/medical conditions that make learning harder for them; students who have no permanent home; students who have proved to be the victim of some form of abuse; students who are looked after by the local authority because their own family is dysfunctional etc, etc. How unworthy that any such disadvantaged groups will be targeted for support by "public sector jobs worths". After over 30 years of working with young people with special educational needs I read comments like some of those above and despair at the cynicism that prevails. The measure of any decent society is how it looks after, and values, its most vulnerable. express_a_view

3:02pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ringer says...

@express_a_view: not true at all. To be able to adopt in the first place, parents have to PROVE (not just *claim*) to be suitable. The vast majority of adopted children have never been 'abused' at all.
@express_a_view: not true at all. To be able to adopt in the first place, parents have to PROVE (not just *claim*) to be suitable. The vast majority of adopted children have never been 'abused' at all. Ringer

3:04pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ringer says...


After over 30 years of working with young people with special educational needs


This explains your desire to turn everyone into a victim and your endless demand for 'more money', despite the last Labour government proving - conclusively - that simply throwing (other people's) money at problems does NOT make them better.
[quote] After over 30 years of working with young people with special educational needs [/quote] This explains your desire to turn everyone into a victim and your endless demand for 'more money', despite the last Labour government proving - conclusively - that simply throwing (other people's) money at problems does NOT make them better. Ringer

3:24pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

Dept for Education wrote:
The pupil premium was introduced in April 2011 and is allocated to schools to work with pupils who have been registered for free school meals at any point in the last six years (known as ‘Ever 6 FSM’).

Schools also receive funding for children who have been looked after continuously for more than six months, and children of service personnel.

In most cases the pupil premium is paid direct to schools, allocated to them for every pupil who receives free school meals. Schools decide how to use the funding, as they are best placed to assess what additional provision their pupils need.

Official definition of 'a disadvantaged pupil':
Dept for Education wrote:
A pupil who has been on free school meals in the previous 6 years or who was 'Looked After' for at least 6 months in that year.

Source: http://goo.gl/2gbEnu
[quote][p][bold]Dept for Education[/bold] wrote: The pupil premium was introduced in April 2011 and is allocated to schools to work with pupils who have been registered for free school meals at any point in the last six years (known as ‘Ever 6 FSM’). Schools also receive funding for children who have been looked after continuously for more than six months, and children of service personnel. In most cases the pupil premium is paid direct to schools, allocated to them for every pupil who receives free school meals. Schools decide how to use the funding, as they are best placed to assess what additional provision their pupils need. [/quote] Official definition of 'a disadvantaged pupil': [quote][p][bold]Dept for Education[/bold] wrote: A pupil who has been on free school meals in the previous 6 years or who was 'Looked After' for at least 6 months in that year.[/quote] Source: http://goo.gl/2gbEnu Hmmmf

3:27pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ringer says...

So, a child could have had free school meals because their parent was out of work six years ago but has actually been in work and very well paid for the past five years?

This whole charade is even worse than I thought... and, believe me, I always thought it was a complete JOKE for the most part.
So, a child could have had free school meals because their parent was out of work six years ago but has actually been in work and very well paid for the past five years? This whole charade is even worse than I thought... and, believe me, I always thought it was a complete JOKE for the most part. Ringer

3:29pm Tue 17 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

""" The measure of any decent society is how it looks after, and values, its most vulnerable.""

That is a very simplistic view and there is no one measure there are many of which that may be one. And thank you for your definitions, that was my point asking what they actually were. And as for council jobsworths, you have clearly never worked there (or currently do) or you would know how useless most there are (from experience of working in both public and private sectors and comparing them)
""" The measure of any decent society is how it looks after, and values, its most vulnerable."" That is a very simplistic view and there is no one measure there are many of which that may be one. And thank you for your definitions, that was my point asking what they actually were. And as for council jobsworths, you have clearly never worked there (or currently do) or you would know how useless most there are (from experience of working in both public and private sectors and comparing them) house on the hill

3:41pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

The vile judgement casting and stereotyping of people I read on here daily makes my stomach turn.
Some of you are truly horrible people. I'm glad the balance of opinions in the real world isn't as one sided as on this website.
The vile judgement casting and stereotyping of people I read on here daily makes my stomach turn. Some of you are truly horrible people. I'm glad the balance of opinions in the real world isn't as one sided as on this website. Davey Gravey

3:50pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Davey Gravey, well said!
Davey Gravey, well said! Spurs Fan

4:02pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

As the Chair of governors of a local school, pupil premium has to be used to raise the attainment of the pupils that are eligible for the premium. Ofsted check that a school has a focus on how the money is spent and used to raise results. If your school does not use the pupil premium as it is meant to be spent or if the governing body is not directing it's use as directed by the D of E you will fail your Ofsted inspection,as one local secondary has done recently. A further point as far as I am concerned is that a LAC (looked after child or child in care) would be eligible for pupil premium, while an adopted child would not.
As the Chair of governors of a local school, pupil premium has to be used to raise the attainment of the pupils that are eligible for the premium. Ofsted check that a school has a focus on how the money is spent and used to raise results. If your school does not use the pupil premium as it is meant to be spent or if the governing body is not directing it's use as directed by the D of E you will fail your Ofsted inspection,as one local secondary has done recently. A further point as far as I am concerned is that a LAC (looked after child or child in care) would be eligible for pupil premium, while an adopted child would not. Spurs Fan

4:28pm Tue 17 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
The vile judgement casting and stereotyping of people I read on here daily makes my stomach turn.
Some of you are truly horrible people. I'm glad the balance of opinions in the real world isn't as one sided as on this website.
And of course you have never judged anyone or made personal comments on here ever!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The vile judgement casting and stereotyping of people I read on here daily makes my stomach turn. Some of you are truly horrible people. I'm glad the balance of opinions in the real world isn't as one sided as on this website.[/p][/quote]And of course you have never judged anyone or made personal comments on here ever!!!!! house on the hill

4:47pm Tue 17 Dec 13

express_a_view says...

Ringer @ 3.02 p.m.

@express_a_view: not true at all. To be able to adopt in the first place, parents have to PROVE (not just *claim*) to be suitable. The vast majority of adopted children have never been 'abused' at all.

Ringer I am not referring to the adoptive parent. I am referring to past experiences the young person will have had with natural parents/family members prior to adoption. In the past many of these young people are likely to have been abused in some way. Not always physically or sexually - neglect or psychological cruelty can be a form of abuse too.

As for your other comment:

"This explains your desire to turn everyone into a victim and your endless demand for 'more money', despite the last Labour government proving - conclusively - that simply throwing (other people's) money at problems does NOT make them better.

This comment gets to the nub. You seem irked that your money is going to try to solve other people's challenges. You are entitled to that viewpoint. I feel differently. We will merely have to agree to differ.

Hmmmf - you are right Free School Meals is the current preferred criteria of the DFE.

House on the hill - you seem prepared to discuss openly. That is refreshing even if we differ. I actually think the free school meals criterion is too simple and misses some of those who need the support (cited previously) and includes others who do not. Whilst I am no great lover of the coalition government I can though fully understand the appeal of a simple formula to get the money to the classroom rather than tied up in lengthy administration.
Ringer @ 3.02 p.m. @express_a_view: not true at all. To be able to adopt in the first place, parents have to PROVE (not just *claim*) to be suitable. The vast majority of adopted children have never been 'abused' at all. Ringer I am not referring to the adoptive parent. I am referring to past experiences the young person will have had with natural parents/family members prior to adoption. In the past many of these young people are likely to have been abused in some way. Not always physically or sexually - neglect or psychological cruelty can be a form of abuse too. As for your other comment: "This explains your desire to turn everyone into a victim and your endless demand for 'more money', despite the last Labour government proving - conclusively - that simply throwing (other people's) money at problems does NOT make them better. This comment gets to the nub. You seem irked that your money is going to try to solve other people's challenges. You are entitled to that viewpoint. I feel differently. We will merely have to agree to differ. Hmmmf - you are right Free School Meals is the current preferred criteria of the DFE. House on the hill - you seem prepared to discuss openly. That is refreshing even if we differ. I actually think the free school meals criterion is too simple and misses some of those who need the support (cited previously) and includes others who do not. Whilst I am no great lover of the coalition government I can though fully understand the appeal of a simple formula to get the money to the classroom rather than tied up in lengthy administration. express_a_view

4:55pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
The vile judgement casting and stereotyping of people I read on here daily makes my stomach turn.
Some of you are truly horrible people. I'm glad the balance of opinions in the real world isn't as one sided as on this website.
And of course you have never judged anyone or made personal comments on here ever!!!!!
Not in the same way and on a daily basis. No.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The vile judgement casting and stereotyping of people I read on here daily makes my stomach turn. Some of you are truly horrible people. I'm glad the balance of opinions in the real world isn't as one sided as on this website.[/p][/quote]And of course you have never judged anyone or made personal comments on here ever!!!!![/p][/quote]Not in the same way and on a daily basis. No. Davey Gravey

5:40pm Tue 17 Dec 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
tucker81 wrote:
More money for nothing
Not exactly nothing.....what do you propose to do with the masses of British kids living in council areas? if you fail to educate them as we have done, then employers will recruit elsewhere and leave the lower end of the population under constant social assistance.....
Since we cannot stop them breeding....the best that we can do is to help them get a better education, unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers.
However we haven't failed to educate them. They have the same access to state education as every other child regardless of income.

Some children and/or their parents chose to make best with the opportunity and some don't. There is the real problem, and when they chose not to, we throw endless sways of money at them.

They have every opportunity to have an education, and its pretty insulting for you to claim that they don't.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tucker81[/bold] wrote: More money for nothing[/p][/quote]Not exactly nothing.....what do you propose to do with the masses of British kids living in council areas? if you fail to educate them as we have done, then employers will recruit elsewhere and leave the lower end of the population under constant social assistance..... Since we cannot stop them breeding....the best that we can do is to help them get a better education, unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers.[/p][/quote]However we haven't failed to educate them. They have the same access to state education as every other child regardless of income. Some children and/or their parents chose to make best with the opportunity and some don't. There is the real problem, and when they chose not to, we throw endless sways of money at them. They have every opportunity to have an education, and its pretty insulting for you to claim that they don't. LordAshOfTheBrake

5:53pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Claiming that kids from council estates are the lower end of the population is really a step too far. Pupil premium, as this story is about, could be paid to a child who's parent is out of work whatever type of housing tenure they live in. It could be paid to a Looked After Child from a middle class family or a special needs child from a very wealthy family. It is also paid to all children of service personnel from any tenure. Saying it's about council housed kids is demeaning in the least. Lord Ash is correct in saying that all children have the same access to state education. However, the good thing about pupil premium is it has to be targeted at the kids that it is paid for. Not only that but it must be used to support strategies that raise attainment for those pupils.
Claiming that kids from council estates are the lower end of the population is really a step too far. Pupil premium, as this story is about, could be paid to a child who's parent is out of work whatever type of housing tenure they live in. It could be paid to a Looked After Child from a middle class family or a special needs child from a very wealthy family. It is also paid to all children of service personnel from any tenure. Saying it's about council housed kids is demeaning in the least. Lord Ash is correct in saying that all children have the same access to state education. However, the good thing about pupil premium is it has to be targeted at the kids that it is paid for. Not only that but it must be used to support strategies that raise attainment for those pupils. Spurs Fan

6:12pm Tue 17 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

I think it's a really good idea to provide extra money to schools to help bring disadvantaged students forward.

Now how about providing some additional money to give those more gifted students some advantages too rather than dragging them down to the level of the "average".?
I think it's a really good idea to provide extra money to schools to help bring disadvantaged students forward. Now how about providing some additional money to give those more gifted students some advantages too rather than dragging them down to the level of the "average".? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

6:38pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Grumpy Old man you some way to make a fair point. Although my specialism is Special Needs Education I believe that mainstream are supposed to identify their gifted and talented pupils. There are meant to be strategies in place to help them get on. However I do not think there are currently extra funds like the pupil premium available to meet their needs as such. Of course some gifted children will be in receipt of pupil premium as being gifted is not the exclusive domain of the well off or being the child of a parent in work. or for that matter a a stable home. Furthermore some gifted children display challenging behaviour and disruption as their needs are not being met in class. It is not a given that a gifted or talented child will be dragged down to the average as you state. It is entirely possible that the gifted child could be the cause of disruption in class and holding others back.
Grumpy Old man you some way to make a fair point. Although my specialism is Special Needs Education I believe that mainstream are supposed to identify their gifted and talented pupils. There are meant to be strategies in place to help them get on. However I do not think there are currently extra funds like the pupil premium available to meet their needs as such. Of course some gifted children will be in receipt of pupil premium as being gifted is not the exclusive domain of the well off or being the child of a parent in work. or for that matter a a stable home. Furthermore some gifted children display challenging behaviour and disruption as their needs are not being met in class. It is not a given that a gifted or talented child will be dragged down to the average as you state. It is entirely possible that the gifted child could be the cause of disruption in class and holding others back. Spurs Fan

7:10pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ringer says...

@express_a_view:


This comment gets to the nub. You seem irked that your money is going to try to solve other people's challenges. You are entitled to that viewpoint. I feel differently. We will merely have to agree to differ.


Yes, you are entirely correct.

You see, the vast difference between you and I is that I am absolutely convinced that you should retain all the money you can accrue. I don't want you to be forced to have to hand it over for the things that I might happen to want it spent on. Of course, if you then wish to spend your own money on 'deprived' children, that's great and I would fully support you doing so.

What I find abhorrent is your apparent wish to ensure that the money I manage to accrue should be stolen from me to spend on the things you want it spent on. You also would therefore seek to deprive me of being able to spend my money in the manner I would prefer.

My way is entirely fair and proper. Your way is unfair and, well, not over pleasant.
@express_a_view: [quote] This comment gets to the nub. You seem irked that your money is going to try to solve other people's challenges. You are entitled to that viewpoint. I feel differently. We will merely have to agree to differ. [/quote] Yes, you are entirely correct. You see, the vast difference between you and I is that I am absolutely convinced that you should retain all the money you can accrue. I don't want you to be forced to have to hand it over for the things that I might happen to want it spent on. Of course, if you then wish to spend your own money on 'deprived' children, that's great and I would fully support you doing so. What I find abhorrent is your apparent wish to ensure that the money I manage to accrue should be stolen from me to spend on the things you want it spent on. You also would therefore seek to deprive me of being able to spend my money in the manner I would prefer. My way is entirely fair and proper. Your way is unfair and, well, not over pleasant. Ringer

7:10pm Tue 17 Dec 13

express_a_view says...

Grumpy Old Man - as someone who has been supportive of comprehensive education I have to concede that the support for the gifted and talented has not always been as good as it could be in all schools. This in part does reflect an obsession with measuring success against general grade benchmarks i.e. 5 A-C's measure rather than measuring individual progress. I do though think you make a fair point. It is not a new phenomena either - research in the 60's by Rutter cited disaffection from lower set pupils educated in grammar schools who were able but underachieving.

Spurs fan also makes some really good points in his post.
Grumpy Old Man - as someone who has been supportive of comprehensive education I have to concede that the support for the gifted and talented has not always been as good as it could be in all schools. This in part does reflect an obsession with measuring success against general grade benchmarks i.e. 5 A-C's measure rather than measuring individual progress. I do though think you make a fair point. It is not a new phenomena either - research in the 60's by Rutter cited disaffection from lower set pupils educated in grammar schools who were able but underachieving. Spurs fan also makes some really good points in his post. express_a_view

7:23pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer, I have seen from our various posts over the last few days that we a politically polar opposites. However, as far as I can see, as member of a civilised society you and I have responsibilities to others as well as ourselves. You say that you should be able to keep the money you accrue and not have it stolen from you. Do you not use the NHS, dfd you not have a state education, do you not drive on the roads? The list goes on and on and all of these things need funding. I understand that politically you want a smaller state and you think that both central and local government cost too much. But, to say that what you want is fair and proper while others is not is not fair unless you are prepared to remove yourself from the society that allows you to hold these points of view.
Ringer, I have seen from our various posts over the last few days that we a politically polar opposites. However, as far as I can see, as member of a civilised society you and I have responsibilities to others as well as ourselves. You say that you should be able to keep the money you accrue and not have it stolen from you. Do you not use the NHS, dfd you not have a state education, do you not drive on the roads? The list goes on and on and all of these things need funding. I understand that politically you want a smaller state and you think that both central and local government cost too much. But, to say that what you want is fair and proper while others is not is not fair unless you are prepared to remove yourself from the society that allows you to hold these points of view. Spurs Fan

7:34pm Tue 17 Dec 13

express_a_view says...

Ringer @ 7.10 p.m.

All of us pay taxes for the national good - some of which go to causes we do not necessarily use or approve of at a personal level. I would rather my taxes did not go towards, for example, Trident, Free Schools or underpinning charitable status for private schools. However, the government that is elected makes that choice and if I am unhappy I will vote against them and accept the majority verdict of the voters post the next election. That is how democracy works.

I certainly recognise that I have a societal duty to pay taxes for the good of all members of society - including you. None of us can ever be certain when ill health will befall us; when we will need an emergency service or when a future family member might fall upon vulnerable times. I see nothing unpleasant in that and in fact your attitude that you think you should only spend on what is good for you with no sense of duty of care to the wider society is the attitude that strikes me as "unfair" and "unpleasant."
Ringer @ 7.10 p.m. All of us pay taxes for the national good - some of which go to causes we do not necessarily use or approve of at a personal level. I would rather my taxes did not go towards, for example, Trident, Free Schools or underpinning charitable status for private schools. However, the government that is elected makes that choice and if I am unhappy I will vote against them and accept the majority verdict of the voters post the next election. That is how democracy works. I certainly recognise that I have a societal duty to pay taxes for the good of all members of society - including you. None of us can ever be certain when ill health will befall us; when we will need an emergency service or when a future family member might fall upon vulnerable times. I see nothing unpleasant in that and in fact your attitude that you think you should only spend on what is good for you with no sense of duty of care to the wider society is the attitude that strikes me as "unfair" and "unpleasant." express_a_view

9:20pm Tue 17 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

express_a_view wrote:
Ringer @ 7.10 p.m.

All of us pay taxes for the national good - some of which go to causes we do not necessarily use or approve of at a personal level. I would rather my taxes did not go towards, for example, Trident, Free Schools or underpinning charitable status for private schools. However, the government that is elected makes that choice and if I am unhappy I will vote against them and accept the majority verdict of the voters post the next election. That is how democracy works.

I certainly recognise that I have a societal duty to pay taxes for the good of all members of society - including you. None of us can ever be certain when ill health will befall us; when we will need an emergency service or when a future family member might fall upon vulnerable times. I see nothing unpleasant in that and in fact your attitude that you think you should only spend on what is good for you with no sense of duty of care to the wider society is the attitude that strikes me as "unfair" and "unpleasant."
I guess the concern is that so many dont share your sense of duty. there are still 53% of the population who are are net takers rather than contributors and for a so called first world civilised society that is clearly way too high.

Education is extremely important and pupil premium is one way of simplifying the process of helping those deemed in need, I am not sure how that will work if they start to give free school meals to everyone in a certain age range but you like to think they have thought that through. Education is a combination of teachers, pupils, parents, govt, etc and they all have their part to play. Everyone should have a part to play and there will always be good and bad in all those groups.

I have no problem helping those who truly need our help and understand that taxation is a "pot" of money drawn from many different sources and used in many different ways. Not all tax from road users goes into roads, not all tax from smokers goes into the NHS or to pay benefits when they become ill, it is a much bigger picture than that. where i have always struggled is with those who dont think they have any personal responsibility for the areas of thier lives they do have some control over, health, saving for retirement rather than pi55ing it up against a wall every friday night and then expecting taxpayers to fund their retirement etc. If everyone had that attitude, the country would collapse, the NHS would collapse if no one had private healthcare as it would never cope with the numbers, education would collapse without private fee paying schools. You say that you never know when you or a loved one might need the NHS but if you have private healthcare then you wont need it but you still have to contribute and with education if you have no kids or go private. The whole "tax" system is a bit outdated in all areas to be honest, but i cant see it changing any time soon.
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: Ringer @ 7.10 p.m. All of us pay taxes for the national good - some of which go to causes we do not necessarily use or approve of at a personal level. I would rather my taxes did not go towards, for example, Trident, Free Schools or underpinning charitable status for private schools. However, the government that is elected makes that choice and if I am unhappy I will vote against them and accept the majority verdict of the voters post the next election. That is how democracy works. I certainly recognise that I have a societal duty to pay taxes for the good of all members of society - including you. None of us can ever be certain when ill health will befall us; when we will need an emergency service or when a future family member might fall upon vulnerable times. I see nothing unpleasant in that and in fact your attitude that you think you should only spend on what is good for you with no sense of duty of care to the wider society is the attitude that strikes me as "unfair" and "unpleasant."[/p][/quote]I guess the concern is that so many dont share your sense of duty. there are still 53% of the population who are are net takers rather than contributors and for a so called first world civilised society that is clearly way too high. Education is extremely important and pupil premium is one way of simplifying the process of helping those deemed in need, I am not sure how that will work if they start to give free school meals to everyone in a certain age range but you like to think they have thought that through. Education is a combination of teachers, pupils, parents, govt, etc and they all have their part to play. Everyone should have a part to play and there will always be good and bad in all those groups. I have no problem helping those who truly need our help and understand that taxation is a "pot" of money drawn from many different sources and used in many different ways. Not all tax from road users goes into roads, not all tax from smokers goes into the NHS or to pay benefits when they become ill, it is a much bigger picture than that. where i have always struggled is with those who dont think they have any personal responsibility for the areas of thier lives they do have some control over, health, saving for retirement rather than pi55ing it up against a wall every friday night and then expecting taxpayers to fund their retirement etc. If everyone had that attitude, the country would collapse, the NHS would collapse if no one had private healthcare as it would never cope with the numbers, education would collapse without private fee paying schools. You say that you never know when you or a loved one might need the NHS but if you have private healthcare then you wont need it but you still have to contribute and with education if you have no kids or go private. The whole "tax" system is a bit outdated in all areas to be honest, but i cant see it changing any time soon. house on the hill

10:07pm Tue 17 Dec 13

FlowerPower says...

How about funding for extra staff to teach the non-English speaking pupils to speak and understand the language? And before anyone screams racism, I have no issue with immigration or the children being taught here, they bring a lot to the schools and all the children can learn a lot about each others cultures. BUT if a teacher has to spend a significant amount of time teaching the immigrant kids to understand what is being taught, it follows that none of the children are actually receiving a full education.

A problem that is rarely mentioned, for fear of being labelled racist, yet is becoming an ever growing issue and is set to get even worse with the predicted influx of immigrants in 2014.

The gov't welcome them in, but for goodness sake fund the education so ALL children, wherever they hail from, are given an equal chance
How about funding for extra staff to teach the non-English speaking pupils to speak and understand the language? And before anyone screams racism, I have no issue with immigration or the children being taught here, they bring a lot to the schools and all the children can learn a lot about each others cultures. BUT if a teacher has to spend a significant amount of time teaching the immigrant kids to understand what is being taught, it follows that none of the children are actually receiving a full education. A problem that is rarely mentioned, for fear of being labelled racist, yet is becoming an ever growing issue and is set to get even worse with the predicted influx of immigrants in 2014. The gov't welcome them in, but for goodness sake fund the education so ALL children, wherever they hail from, are given an equal chance FlowerPower

3:53am Wed 18 Dec 13

Ringer says...

express_a_view wrote:
Ringer @ 7.10 p.m.

All of us pay taxes for the national good - some of which go to causes we do not necessarily use or approve of at a personal level. I would rather my taxes did not go towards, for example, Trident, Free Schools or underpinning charitable status for private schools. However, the government that is elected makes that choice and if I am unhappy I will vote against them and accept the majority verdict of the voters post the next election. That is how democracy works.

I certainly recognise that I have a societal duty to pay taxes for the good of all members of society - including you. None of us can ever be certain when ill health will befall us; when we will need an emergency service or when a future family member might fall upon vulnerable times. I see nothing unpleasant in that and in fact your attitude that you think you should only spend on what is good for you with no sense of duty of care to the wider society is the attitude that strikes me as "unfair" and "unpleasant."
And who decides what is 'for the greater good'? You?

This is the precise attitude that I find so arrogant and repellant.

You want to use my money to fund what you consider 'good', regardless of what I think.

Also, of course people use the NHS, roads, state education etc. because we HAVE to pay for them, under duress and threat of law.

My belief is that we should all be allowed to make our own choice with our own money. If enough people believe that your way is for the 'greater good', you will have no problems convincing them to hand their money over to pay for it all.

The fact that all taxation is underpinned by threat of law and, essentially, force, means that the reality is that the majority do NOT agree with you - they just have no choice but to fund your welfare state and the rest of our largely poor public services.
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: Ringer @ 7.10 p.m. All of us pay taxes for the national good - some of which go to causes we do not necessarily use or approve of at a personal level. I would rather my taxes did not go towards, for example, Trident, Free Schools or underpinning charitable status for private schools. However, the government that is elected makes that choice and if I am unhappy I will vote against them and accept the majority verdict of the voters post the next election. That is how democracy works. I certainly recognise that I have a societal duty to pay taxes for the good of all members of society - including you. None of us can ever be certain when ill health will befall us; when we will need an emergency service or when a future family member might fall upon vulnerable times. I see nothing unpleasant in that and in fact your attitude that you think you should only spend on what is good for you with no sense of duty of care to the wider society is the attitude that strikes me as "unfair" and "unpleasant."[/p][/quote]And who decides what is 'for the greater good'? You? This is the precise attitude that I find so arrogant and repellant. You want to use my money to fund what you consider 'good', regardless of what I think. Also, of course people use the NHS, roads, state education etc. because we HAVE to pay for them, under duress and threat of law. My belief is that we should all be allowed to make our own choice with our own money. If enough people believe that your way is for the 'greater good', you will have no problems convincing them to hand their money over to pay for it all. The fact that all taxation is underpinned by threat of law and, essentially, force, means that the reality is that the majority do NOT agree with you - they just have no choice but to fund your welfare state and the rest of our largely poor public services. Ringer

8:14am Wed 18 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
tucker81 wrote:
More money for nothing
Not exactly nothing.....what do you propose to do with the masses of British kids living in council areas? if you fail to educate them as we have done, then employers will recruit elsewhere and leave the lower end of the population under constant social assistance.....
Since we cannot stop them breeding....the best that we can do is to help them get a better education, unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers.
However we haven't failed to educate them. They have the same access to state education as every other child regardless of income.

Some children and/or their parents chose to make best with the opportunity and some don't. There is the real problem, and when they chose not to, we throw endless sways of money at them.

They have every opportunity to have an education, and its pretty insulting for you to claim that they don't.
The important cue that you have missed "unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers"
Everyday, kids from deprived areas/background are given access to huge resources: qualified dedicated teachers some even funded by foreign embassies, teaching assistants, EPs, free books, free computers, and top of the art classroom board display, unfortunately most throw all this back in the face of teachers.
This is not an IQ problem (I hope not), this is an attitude and cultural issue, these kids know that whatever they do or not do, they will be taken care of by Society.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tucker81[/bold] wrote: More money for nothing[/p][/quote]Not exactly nothing.....what do you propose to do with the masses of British kids living in council areas? if you fail to educate them as we have done, then employers will recruit elsewhere and leave the lower end of the population under constant social assistance..... Since we cannot stop them breeding....the best that we can do is to help them get a better education, unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers.[/p][/quote]However we haven't failed to educate them. They have the same access to state education as every other child regardless of income. Some children and/or their parents chose to make best with the opportunity and some don't. There is the real problem, and when they chose not to, we throw endless sways of money at them. They have every opportunity to have an education, and its pretty insulting for you to claim that they don't.[/p][/quote]The important cue that you have missed "unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers" Everyday, kids from deprived areas/background are given access to huge resources: qualified dedicated teachers some even funded by foreign embassies, teaching assistants, EPs, free books, free computers, and top of the art classroom board display, unfortunately most throw all this back in the face of teachers. This is not an IQ problem (I hope not), this is an attitude and cultural issue, these kids know that whatever they do or not do, they will be taken care of by Society. A.Baron-Cohen

9:20am Wed 18 Dec 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
tucker81 wrote:
More money for nothing
Not exactly nothing.....what do you propose to do with the masses of British kids living in council areas? if you fail to educate them as we have done, then employers will recruit elsewhere and leave the lower end of the population under constant social assistance.....
Since we cannot stop them breeding....the best that we can do is to help them get a better education, unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers.
However we haven't failed to educate them. They have the same access to state education as every other child regardless of income.

Some children and/or their parents chose to make best with the opportunity and some don't. There is the real problem, and when they chose not to, we throw endless sways of money at them.

They have every opportunity to have an education, and its pretty insulting for you to claim that they don't.
The important cue that you have missed "unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers"
Everyday, kids from deprived areas/background are given access to huge resources: qualified dedicated teachers some even funded by foreign embassies, teaching assistants, EPs, free books, free computers, and top of the art classroom board display, unfortunately most throw all this back in the face of teachers.
This is not an IQ problem (I hope not), this is an attitude and cultural issue, these kids know that whatever they do or not do, they will be taken care of by Society.
The important bit was your wording " if you fail to educate them as we have done"; specifically the last part. "as we have done".

Your subsequent comment "unfortunately you cannot force them to learn" is contradictory to the first part.

You can not blame "us" for failing to educate and then say its their fault because we cannot force them; unless of course your proposing laws to force children to be in education....... Wait a minute I think we already have those!
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tucker81[/bold] wrote: More money for nothing[/p][/quote]Not exactly nothing.....what do you propose to do with the masses of British kids living in council areas? if you fail to educate them as we have done, then employers will recruit elsewhere and leave the lower end of the population under constant social assistance..... Since we cannot stop them breeding....the best that we can do is to help them get a better education, unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers.[/p][/quote]However we haven't failed to educate them. They have the same access to state education as every other child regardless of income. Some children and/or their parents chose to make best with the opportunity and some don't. There is the real problem, and when they chose not to, we throw endless sways of money at them. They have every opportunity to have an education, and its pretty insulting for you to claim that they don't.[/p][/quote]The important cue that you have missed "unfortunately you cannot force them to learn and that is where the problem lies for teachers" Everyday, kids from deprived areas/background are given access to huge resources: qualified dedicated teachers some even funded by foreign embassies, teaching assistants, EPs, free books, free computers, and top of the art classroom board display, unfortunately most throw all this back in the face of teachers. This is not an IQ problem (I hope not), this is an attitude and cultural issue, these kids know that whatever they do or not do, they will be taken care of by Society.[/p][/quote]The important bit was your wording " if you fail to educate them as we have done"; specifically the last part. "as we have done". Your subsequent comment "unfortunately you cannot force them to learn" is contradictory to the first part. You can not blame "us" for failing to educate and then say its their fault because we cannot force them; unless of course your proposing laws to force children to be in education....... Wait a minute I think we already have those! LordAshOfTheBrake

10:23am Wed 18 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

express_a_view wrote:
Grumpy Old Man - as someone who has been supportive of comprehensive education I have to concede that the support for the gifted and talented has not always been as good as it could be in all schools. This in part does reflect an obsession with measuring success against general grade benchmarks i.e. 5 A-C's measure rather than measuring individual progress. I do though think you make a fair point. It is not a new phenomena either - research in the 60's by Rutter cited disaffection from lower set pupils educated in grammar schools who were able but underachieving.

Spurs fan also makes some really good points in his post.
We have had two children on the gifted and talented register. This has made little to no difference to the education they receive at school, and the things they have been identified as gifted in are things we have taught them at home rather than anything they have learnt at school. I therefore conclude that the gifted and talented register is a complete waste of time.
[quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: Grumpy Old Man - as someone who has been supportive of comprehensive education I have to concede that the support for the gifted and talented has not always been as good as it could be in all schools. This in part does reflect an obsession with measuring success against general grade benchmarks i.e. 5 A-C's measure rather than measuring individual progress. I do though think you make a fair point. It is not a new phenomena either - research in the 60's by Rutter cited disaffection from lower set pupils educated in grammar schools who were able but underachieving. Spurs fan also makes some really good points in his post.[/p][/quote]We have had two children on the gifted and talented register. This has made little to no difference to the education they receive at school, and the things they have been identified as gifted in are things we have taught them at home rather than anything they have learnt at school. I therefore conclude that the gifted and talented register is a complete waste of time. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

10:29am Wed 18 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Grumpy Old man you some way to make a fair point. Although my specialism is Special Needs Education I believe that mainstream are supposed to identify their gifted and talented pupils. There are meant to be strategies in place to help them get on. However I do not think there are currently extra funds like the pupil premium available to meet their needs as such. Of course some gifted children will be in receipt of pupil premium as being gifted is not the exclusive domain of the well off or being the child of a parent in work. or for that matter a a stable home. Furthermore some gifted children display challenging behaviour and disruption as their needs are not being met in class. It is not a given that a gifted or talented child will be dragged down to the average as you state. It is entirely possible that the gifted child could be the cause of disruption in class and holding others back.
Yes indeed that is possible, it is children's natural learning behaviour to always test limits, and being gifted probably gives them greater means to do that if they so wanted.. So, if the child is being disruptive in class because they are not being given the education they deserve, who's fault is that? The fault of the parent? The fault of the teacher? It's certainly not the fault of the child that is simply reacting in a way that is very likely due to the way our education system is failing them.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Grumpy Old man you some way to make a fair point. Although my specialism is Special Needs Education I believe that mainstream are supposed to identify their gifted and talented pupils. There are meant to be strategies in place to help them get on. However I do not think there are currently extra funds like the pupil premium available to meet their needs as such. Of course some gifted children will be in receipt of pupil premium as being gifted is not the exclusive domain of the well off or being the child of a parent in work. or for that matter a a stable home. Furthermore some gifted children display challenging behaviour and disruption as their needs are not being met in class. It is not a given that a gifted or talented child will be dragged down to the average as you state. It is entirely possible that the gifted child could be the cause of disruption in class and holding others back.[/p][/quote]Yes indeed that is possible, it is children's natural learning behaviour to always test limits, and being gifted probably gives them greater means to do that if they so wanted.. So, if the child is being disruptive in class because they are not being given the education they deserve, who's fault is that? The fault of the parent? The fault of the teacher? It's certainly not the fault of the child that is simply reacting in a way that is very likely due to the way our education system is failing them. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:09am Wed 18 Dec 13

Ringer says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
express_a_view wrote:
Grumpy Old Man - as someone who has been supportive of comprehensive education I have to concede that the support for the gifted and talented has not always been as good as it could be in all schools. This in part does reflect an obsession with measuring success against general grade benchmarks i.e. 5 A-C's measure rather than measuring individual progress. I do though think you make a fair point. It is not a new phenomena either - research in the 60's by Rutter cited disaffection from lower set pupils educated in grammar schools who were able but underachieving.

Spurs fan also makes some really good points in his post.
We have had two children on the gifted and talented register. This has made little to no difference to the education they receive at school, and the things they have been identified as gifted in are things we have taught them at home rather than anything they have learnt at school. I therefore conclude that the gifted and talented register is a complete waste of time.
The State education system has zero interest in gifted and talented children. In fact, I genuinely believe that many teachers seek to 'bring them back into line' with the average/poor students as that far better fits the widespread left-wing ideology that infects the public education system in the UK.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]express_a_view[/bold] wrote: Grumpy Old Man - as someone who has been supportive of comprehensive education I have to concede that the support for the gifted and talented has not always been as good as it could be in all schools. This in part does reflect an obsession with measuring success against general grade benchmarks i.e. 5 A-C's measure rather than measuring individual progress. I do though think you make a fair point. It is not a new phenomena either - research in the 60's by Rutter cited disaffection from lower set pupils educated in grammar schools who were able but underachieving. Spurs fan also makes some really good points in his post.[/p][/quote]We have had two children on the gifted and talented register. This has made little to no difference to the education they receive at school, and the things they have been identified as gifted in are things we have taught them at home rather than anything they have learnt at school. I therefore conclude that the gifted and talented register is a complete waste of time.[/p][/quote]The State education system has zero interest in gifted and talented children. In fact, I genuinely believe that many teachers seek to 'bring them back into line' with the average/poor students as that far better fits the widespread left-wing ideology that infects the public education system in the UK. Ringer

11:15am Wed 18 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Spurs Fan wrote:
Grumpy Old man you some way to make a fair point. Although my specialism is Special Needs Education I believe that mainstream are supposed to identify their gifted and talented pupils. There are meant to be strategies in place to help them get on. However I do not think there are currently extra funds like the pupil premium available to meet their needs as such. Of course some gifted children will be in receipt of pupil premium as being gifted is not the exclusive domain of the well off or being the child of a parent in work. or for that matter a a stable home. Furthermore some gifted children display challenging behaviour and disruption as their needs are not being met in class. It is not a given that a gifted or talented child will be dragged down to the average as you state. It is entirely possible that the gifted child could be the cause of disruption in class and holding others back.
Yes indeed that is possible, it is children's natural learning behaviour to always test limits, and being gifted probably gives them greater means to do that if they so wanted.. So, if the child is being disruptive in class because they are not being given the education they deserve, who's fault is that? The fault of the parent? The fault of the teacher? It's certainly not the fault of the child that is simply reacting in a way that is very likely due to the way our education system is failing them.
There are lots of reasons they would be disruptive in class. They are finding the curriculum too hard and dont understand it so they get frustrated and that comes out in them giving up and being disruptive. And the other end of the scale where they are finding it too easy and so get bored easily and disruptive. There are also those who maybe know what they will be doing when they leave school (family business etc) and dont see the point of studying and become disruptive too.

The secret is to identify the reasons and put appropriate interventions in place mentoring, extra one on one teaching, giving them the tools to learn etc) and monitor them on a regular basis to make sure they are receiving the support they need and also ensuring their behaviour improves and doesn't impact on other pupils. Once pupils get the link between succeeding in school giving them a better chance of succeeding in life that will turn around many. By teachers, parents and pupils working together there are many things that can be done to improve our educational standards for all not just the gifted or disadvantaged as it seems we are slipping behind so many other countries.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Grumpy Old man you some way to make a fair point. Although my specialism is Special Needs Education I believe that mainstream are supposed to identify their gifted and talented pupils. There are meant to be strategies in place to help them get on. However I do not think there are currently extra funds like the pupil premium available to meet their needs as such. Of course some gifted children will be in receipt of pupil premium as being gifted is not the exclusive domain of the well off or being the child of a parent in work. or for that matter a a stable home. Furthermore some gifted children display challenging behaviour and disruption as their needs are not being met in class. It is not a given that a gifted or talented child will be dragged down to the average as you state. It is entirely possible that the gifted child could be the cause of disruption in class and holding others back.[/p][/quote]Yes indeed that is possible, it is children's natural learning behaviour to always test limits, and being gifted probably gives them greater means to do that if they so wanted.. So, if the child is being disruptive in class because they are not being given the education they deserve, who's fault is that? The fault of the parent? The fault of the teacher? It's certainly not the fault of the child that is simply reacting in a way that is very likely due to the way our education system is failing them.[/p][/quote]There are lots of reasons they would be disruptive in class. They are finding the curriculum too hard and dont understand it so they get frustrated and that comes out in them giving up and being disruptive. And the other end of the scale where they are finding it too easy and so get bored easily and disruptive. There are also those who maybe know what they will be doing when they leave school (family business etc) and dont see the point of studying and become disruptive too. The secret is to identify the reasons and put appropriate interventions in place mentoring, extra one on one teaching, giving them the tools to learn etc) and monitor them on a regular basis to make sure they are receiving the support they need and also ensuring their behaviour improves and doesn't impact on other pupils. Once pupils get the link between succeeding in school giving them a better chance of succeeding in life that will turn around many. By teachers, parents and pupils working together there are many things that can be done to improve our educational standards for all not just the gifted or disadvantaged as it seems we are slipping behind so many other countries. house on the hill

1:08pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer said "The State education system has zero interest in gifted and talented children. In fact, I genuinely believe that many teachers seek to 'bring them back into line' with the average/poor students as that far better fits the widespread left-wing ideology that infects the public education system in the UK."

How can you say this Ringer? What evidence do you have to support such an outrageous statement? We have a center right coalition government that has succeeded a center left government. there is as far as I can ascertain no left wing ideology infecting the state education system as you claim.. I ask again to please give evidence for your statement.
Ringer said "The State education system has zero interest in gifted and talented children. In fact, I genuinely believe that many teachers seek to 'bring them back into line' with the average/poor students as that far better fits the widespread left-wing ideology that infects the public education system in the UK." How can you say this Ringer? What evidence do you have to support such an outrageous statement? We have a center right coalition government that has succeeded a center left government. there is as far as I can ascertain no left wing ideology infecting the state education system as you claim.. I ask again to please give evidence for your statement. Spurs Fan

2:10pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Spurs Fan wrote:
Ringer said "The State education system has zero interest in gifted and talented children. In fact, I genuinely believe that many teachers seek to 'bring them back into line' with the average/poor students as that far better fits the widespread left-wing ideology that infects the public education system in the UK."

How can you say this Ringer? What evidence do you have to support such an outrageous statement? We have a center right coalition government that has succeeded a center left government. there is as far as I can ascertain no left wing ideology infecting the state education system as you claim.. I ask again to please give evidence for your statement.
My brother in law is a head teacher and I know a number of teachers (in different schools and varying levels). They are all very open about the fact that the NUT is extremely militant and very left-wing. They also make regular comment about the left-wing ideology than infests state schools and, especially, colleges and universities.

Like most people, I have attended various schools for business and personal matters and it's always very apparent what the prevailing mindset is. It's not even as if any attempt it made to hide it and most teachers seem to wear it as a badge of honour, if anything.

Your post is also rather ironic, given the very obvious left-wing views you clearly hold quite passionately.

The current government is marginally left of centre, it is ridiculous to even attempt to try and portray them as right in any accepted sense of the ideology. Indeed, they've barely changed anything to any worthwhile degree since Labour were in office.
[quote][p][bold]Spurs Fan[/bold] wrote: Ringer said "The State education system has zero interest in gifted and talented children. In fact, I genuinely believe that many teachers seek to 'bring them back into line' with the average/poor students as that far better fits the widespread left-wing ideology that infects the public education system in the UK." How can you say this Ringer? What evidence do you have to support such an outrageous statement? We have a center right coalition government that has succeeded a center left government. there is as far as I can ascertain no left wing ideology infecting the state education system as you claim.. I ask again to please give evidence for your statement.[/p][/quote]My brother in law is a head teacher and I know a number of teachers (in different schools and varying levels). They are all very open about the fact that the NUT is extremely militant and very left-wing. They also make regular comment about the left-wing ideology than infests state schools and, especially, colleges and universities. Like most people, I have attended various schools for business and personal matters and it's always very apparent what the prevailing mindset is. It's not even as if any attempt it made to hide it and most teachers seem to wear it as a badge of honour, if anything. Your post is also rather ironic, given the very obvious left-wing views you clearly hold quite passionately. The current government is marginally left of centre, it is ridiculous to even attempt to try and portray them as right in any accepted sense of the ideology. Indeed, they've barely changed anything to any worthwhile degree since Labour were in office. Ringer

3:46pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Spurs Fan says...

Ringer your evidence is based on anecdote insofar as you know a number of teachers. You specifically said that " I genuinely believe that many teachers seek to 'bring them back into line' with the average/poor students as that far better fits the widespread left-wing ideology that infects the public education system in the UK." You do not have any empirical evidence for your statement. but it is what you believe.

Your analysis that a Tory led coalition government is marginally left of center politically is I would argue reflecting your own very right wing world view rather than any accepted measure of where the government sits on the political spectrum. Many political commentators have gone so far as to say that the governments of Blair and Brown were more politically aligned with the governments of Thatcher and Major as opposed to the Labour governments of Wilson and Callaghan. Therefore most would argue that no government since 1979 has been overtly left wing.

You are very correct in saying that I am politically left wing, and as I have said before I am an old school social democrat. I believe in the rule of law and that we have power to change things through the ballot box. However, my political view has no bearing on the school where I am Chair of Governors. We operate within the law and implement change as directed by central government even if the government is not one that I have voted for.
Ringer your evidence is based on anecdote insofar as you know a number of teachers. You specifically said that " I genuinely believe that many teachers seek to 'bring them back into line' with the average/poor students as that far better fits the widespread left-wing ideology that infects the public education system in the UK." You do not have any empirical evidence for your statement. but it is what you believe. Your analysis that a Tory led coalition government is marginally left of center politically is I would argue reflecting your own very right wing world view rather than any accepted measure of where the government sits on the political spectrum. Many political commentators have gone so far as to say that the governments of Blair and Brown were more politically aligned with the governments of Thatcher and Major as opposed to the Labour governments of Wilson and Callaghan. Therefore most would argue that no government since 1979 has been overtly left wing. You are very correct in saying that I am politically left wing, and as I have said before I am an old school social democrat. I believe in the rule of law and that we have power to change things through the ballot box. However, my political view has no bearing on the school where I am Chair of Governors. We operate within the law and implement change as directed by central government even if the government is not one that I have voted for. Spurs Fan

6:16pm Wed 18 Dec 13

express_a_view says...

Ringer ref your 3.53 a.m. post:

i) The decision to target the money to this cause is not mine - it is a decision of the centre right coalition. Who in this instance I happen to believe have made a good call.
ii) I have to say we are clearly repulsed by different things.
Ringer ref your 3.53 a.m. post: i) The decision to target the money to this cause is not mine - it is a decision of the centre right coalition. Who in this instance I happen to believe have made a good call. ii) I have to say we are clearly repulsed by different things. express_a_view

8:59pm Wed 18 Dec 13

PeeGee says...

Its just going to get blown on £50 trips to Pencelli for free school meal kids while everyone else is expected to stump up £300 quid. Who becomes the disadvantaged kids then?
Its just going to get blown on £50 trips to Pencelli for free school meal kids while everyone else is expected to stump up £300 quid. Who becomes the disadvantaged kids then? PeeGee

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree