Govt minister celebrates opening foodbank

[Hope]

I saw this elsewhere this morning.
I thought it was a spoof - but it wasn't.
The ultimate in irony - and insult to the people his ravvle of a government have forced into this situation.

Haven't got involved in this discussion before, so hadn't read the item before today.  Whilst it true that the use of the foodbank based in our church has grown over the last 5 years faster than in the previous 5 or 6 - we opened it in the mid-noughties - the fact that we opened it in the mid-noughties suggests that that was a problem as far back as then.  It is interesting that the very first foodbank in the UK was opened in 2000, with a second opening in 2004.  Clearly, even before the financial crisis from 2006 and the recession from 2008, there were people who were not be served by the state.  Rather than simply blaming the Tory/Lib.Dem. coalition, perhaps Labour ought to be being asked to face up to its failings.

[ProfessorDavey]

I saw this elsewhere this morning.
I thought it was a spoof - but it wasn't.
The ultimate in irony - and insult to the people his ravvle of a government have forced into this situation.

Haven't got involved in this discussion before, so hadn't read the item before today.  Whilst it true that the use of the foodbank based in our church has grown over the last 5 years faster than in the previous 5 or 6 - we opened it in the mid-noughties - the fact that we opened it in the mid-noughties suggests that that was a problem as far back as then.  It is interesting that the very first foodbank in the UK was opened in 2000, with a second opening in 2004.  Clearly, even before the financial crisis from 2006 and the recession from 2008, there were people who were not be served by the state.  Rather than simply blaming the Tory/Lib.Dem. coalition, perhaps Labour ought to be being asked to face up to its failings.

I would, of course, be non-sense to suggest that there weren't people who fell through the welfare net back in the pre-recession days. And indeed the presence of organisation to support those people is evidence of that.

But that, I would argue, was an unintended consequence. Over the past 5 years or so there has been a deliberate policy from government to remove the welfare net from some of the very poorest in our society and to transfer responsibility for these people from government to the third sector. This is without doubt a clear (although not overtly stated) policy of both the coalition and now the Tory government, evidenced by both the 'shrink the state, slash welfare' agenda, and the 'big society' agenda.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Jim,

Tory thinking, one size fits all, I have no doubt that there are some who scrounge ( a tiny minority ) but genuine cases are being tarred with the same brush, I have a theory that private schools have a convare belt that churns out unthinking, unimaginative, heartless bastards.

Gonnagle.

Yeah, well not all wealthy people are selfish bastards who get there through treading on others either. Some just get there through hard work.

Do you think my children will emerge from their private school as heartless bastards too?

-
Too often the Harrow/Eton set are the norm by which people measure the private school, Rhi.
The socialist in me wants to burn them to the ground.
Sometimes this Christian thing's a pain....I'd empty them first, out of compassion.

Then you are referring to public schools, not private schools, which include a multitude of different kinds of school outside the state system.

[Anchorman]

My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.

[L.A.]

My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.

And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.

Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?

[ProfessorDavey]

My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.

And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.

Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?

Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.

Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.

[BashfulAnthony]

My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.

And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.

Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?

Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.

Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.

Having had a fair amount of experience of private schools, I can endorse that.  There are private schools that are woefully inadequate, both in terms of resources and staffing.

[L.A.]

My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.

And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.

Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?

Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.

Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.

Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?

If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.

[BashfulAnthony]

My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.

And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.

Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?

Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.

Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.

Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?

If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.

Some people still send their kids there because of the snob value;  some genuinely think they are all better than State schools;  and there are still a few who "hide" their kids away because of some problem or other with the State System and the Authorities.  Having said that, the majority, I am sure, are good or better, but it seems to me that many parents seem unable to differentiate.

[cyberman]

Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?

If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.

Oh come on! Your slavish dedication to market forces is noteworthy, but ridiculous. You could just as easily say "if the Daily Mail is crap, why would people buy it?" or "If McDonald's is crap, why do people eat it?"

[L.A.]

My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.

And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.

Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?

Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.

Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.

Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?

If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.

Some people still send their kids there because of the snob value;  some genuinely think they are all better than State schools;  and there are still a few who "hide" their kids away because of some problem or other with the State System and the Authorities.  Having said that, the majority, I am sure, are good or better, but it seems to me that many parents seem unable to differentiate.

Assuming that all that is true - Why would it be of any concern to anyone? It means that the state sector has less children to educate!

Are you all concerned that the rich are getting a poor deal ☺

[ProfessorDavey]

My first move would be to withdraw charitable status from such schools.
Happily, the Scottish government may well have the powers to do this once the Scotland Bill is made law.

And that would achieve what exactly? - you don't improve education by destroying excellence.

Might it not be better to concentrate on getting state schools up to and even beyond the levels of private schools?

Firstly not all private schools are excellent and many aren't as good a state schools when the characteristics of their intake are taken into account, e.g. by looking at added value, in other words the progress the students male during the time at the school. The notion that all private schools are beacons of excellence is absolutely laughable.

Secondly removing tax breaks (which is what charitable status is) increases the revenue of the treasury which can then be used to increase funding for state schools.

Well, if they the schools are crap - Why would anyone pay good money to get a worse education?

If you are correct, I don't understand why they exist.

Oh the naivety.

There are plenty of people with more money than sense in all sorts of areas and that includes education. Interestingly where I live there are some of the best state schools in the country (and some less good ones) and also a range of private school, ranging from excellent to ... well ... schools that have taken on really poor teachers from the state sector who really weren't good enough in state school, but have now been put in positions of senior responsibility in private schools - wtf!!

Anyhow, with my wife I own a preschool nursery which caters for children up to 5 so before the age when there is universal state provision. SO not surprisingly we have kids who head off to both state schools and private schools. And you would be astonished by the levels of snobbery that exist in some people in justifying sending their kids to private school, indeed often to private schools that are worse than state schools they could have chosen. Common examples are:

1. If you pay for it directly (i.e. private) it must be better than a state school - the kind of 'throw money at it' argument.

2. The socially mobile social climber snob - we've made it in the world if we send our kids to private school.

3. The 'can't let down the family tradition' argument - from parents who went to private school themselves and therefore feel they are letting themselves and their parents down if they don't send their kids their.

4. The pushy grandparents argument - where one set of grandparents insists on paying for private education (whether or not they have any idea of the quality of schools available in local state and private schools). Often links to '3' but where just one parent (and set of grandparents) went to private school.

5. The 'just don't understand what quality in schools is' argument. In other words that a school must be better if it gets better overall grades, regardless of the intake. Rather than realising that the best school is the one where your child will make most progress (purely talking about academic quality here).

So there are all sorts of reasons why 'a fool may be easily parted from their money'. I've seen it loads of times, parents sending their kids to poor private schools when they could have sent them to better state schools. But of course ounce they've started paying for something they are loath to admit it isn't top quality.

Now none of this should be taken to imply that all private schools are poor. That's not the case. There are fantastic private schools, just as there are fantastic state schools. But there are also really poor private schools as well, ones that often hide they poor academic standards and coasting nature behind the nice middle class intake (who would do pretty well in any school).

[Rhiannon]

I pretty much agree with PD. Interestingly lots of private schools are closing because they just aren't good enough - I know of two in the last two years.

But these aren't the only reasons. The school we chose has as one of its policies to offer bursaries to children with autism, dyslexia and who are bullied in mainstream school. My daughter fell into the latter category, but also we wanted the children to learn alongside others who often get excluded from mainstream schools (I used to be a school governor and saw how schools try to keep out those who won't do well in SATs in order to maintain their league table position).

Our second reason was linked to that - we wanted our children to be more than an exam statistic. The state school here excludes pupils from its sixth form who it believes won't get A grades at A level to keep its league table position, no matter how hard a pupil works. And yes, that is against the rules, but it still does it.

The thing that would slam the private schools into extinction would be if we still had proper grammar schools. It was a grammar school that let my mum escape a life of poverty in the East End and rise to become one of our country's leading experts in her field.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I pretty much agree with PD. Interestingly lots of private schools are closing because they just aren't good enough - I know of two in the last two years.

But these aren't the only reasons. The school we chose has as one of its policies to offer bursaries to children with autism, dyslexia and who are bullied in mainstream school. My daughter fell into the latter category, but also we wanted the children to learn alongside others who often get excluded from mainstream schools (I used to be a school governor and saw how schools try to keep out those who won't do well in SATs in order to maintain their league table position).

Our second reason was linked to that - we wanted our children to be more than an exam statistic. The state school here excludes pupils from its sixth form who it believes won't get A grades at A level to keep its league table position, no matter how hard a pupil works. And yes, that is against the rules, but it still does it.

The thing that would slam the private schools into extinction would be if we still had proper grammar schools. It was a grammar school that let my mum escape a life of poverty in the East End and rise to become one of our country's leading experts in her field.

Exam statistics are encouraged by the millionaires who run the Conservative Party.

[Rhiannon]

Not true. I was a governor under Labour and they were just as enthusiastic in encouraging high stakes testing and performance tables.

[ProfessorDavey]

I pretty much agree with PD. Interestingly lots of private schools are closing because they just aren't good enough - I know of two in the last two years.

But these aren't the only reasons. The school we chose has as one of its policies to offer bursaries to children with autism, dyslexia and who are bullied in mainstream school. My daughter fell into the latter category, but also we wanted the children to learn alongside others who often get excluded from mainstream schools (I used to be a school governor and saw how schools try to keep out those who won't do well in SATs in order to maintain their league table position).

Our second reason was linked to that - we wanted our children to be more than an exam statistic. The state school here excludes pupils from its sixth form who it believes won't get A grades at A level to keep its league table position, no matter how hard a pupil works. And yes, that is against the rules, but it still does it.

It is certainly true that there are some private schools that market themselves on the basis of supporting children with SEN. But this is the minority. Sadly for most private schools (even more so than state schools) the need to demonstrate fantastic academic results is paramount to ensuring they get bums on seats (and of course fees in the bank) and are often both wary of taking kids with known special educational needs and often very poor at catering for those kids, probably hoping that the parents will choose to move their children. Indeed I know some private schools that don't really even have the most basic of provision, i.e. a designated member of staff who is the SEN coordinator.

So it is certainly true that many state schools have become obsessed by their grades, but most private schools have been similarly obsessed and for a great deal longer, plus have a lot more to lose if they aren't able to demonstrate sufficiently impressive exam results in their marketing brochure to prospective fee paying parents.

To stress - this doesn't apply to all schools but is certainly the norm.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not true. I was a governor under Labour and they were just as enthusiastic in encouraging high stakes testing and performance tables.

Compared with Gove and Morgan that was mild interest. Besides like Woodhead they were kept up by Blunkett so as not to upset the Daily Mail readers.

League Tables came in with the Education Reform Act 1988.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not true. I was a governor under Labour and they were just as enthusiastic in encouraging high stakes testing and performance tables.

Compared with Gove and Morgan that was mild interest. Besides like Woodhead they were kept up by Blunkett so as not to upset the Daily Mail readers.

League Tables came in with the Education Reform Act 1988.

The big difference is that under the Labour administration a focus on standards was matched by an increase in funding for schools to support them improve. Under the current government schools are expected to be achieving more but with massively less resource.

Rhiannon - you should be glad you aren't a school governor now (as I am) - We don't have time to focus on improvement, so busy are we working out how to deal with the huge financial black hole that is looming in a couple of years time. And that isn't just our school, but for all schools as income is flat cash (no increase in funding per pupil as all despite inflation etc) coupled with significant increases in expenditure which is totally beyond the control of schools largely due to NI and pension changes.

[Rhiannon]

It doesn't surprise me, Prof. I used to be a governor at an over-subscribed small village school. Its funding fell by a third - the policy is clearly designed to persuade small schools to merge, probably through having infants on one site and juniors on another.

[Udayana]

Not really getting this ... you could close all the private schools, and then the grammar schools if you like and there would not be one less person in the food bank queue.

You could send all the middle classes back to work the land, then send the intellectuals to the gulags - we have tried this before - there will be no queues as there will be nothing available to queue for!

[Anchorman]

Not really getting this ... you could close all the private schools, and then the grammar schools if you like and there would not be one less person in the food bank queue.
-
Grammar schools?
History, as far as Scotland goes.
Unlike food banks, which multiply like Westminster snouts in the trough.
-

You could send all the middle classes back to work the land, then send the intellectuals to the gulags - we have tried this before - there will be no queues as there will be nothing available to queue for!

-
When did we try this in the 'UK', please?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Udayana,

Yeah!! Funny how threads evolve

Gonnagle.