And yet the teacher that took over from Phillip Lawrence and others like her achieved change within the limitations of modern disciplinary methods.

Found her :)

So you know her then? Or you don't think that a death like that in the school could be partially responsible? It is just that the teachers in other schools don't know how to teach ?

Dear heavens ...make parents take responsibility !!

In hubbys school, thanks to the government , he now has to teach very slow pupils and pupils with severe learning disabilities alongside of the brighter pupils plus the *normal* pupils ..this means virtually 3 lesson plans for each and every lesson that he teaches ...he often only has one TA in with him and a class of 30 children (he teaches 11-16), many of whom are disruptive and several of which have bad home backgrounds

He tries to instill self confidence and respect for each other in to them ...he tries ...in between breaking up fights and teaching 3 different level lessons for each class.....and this is in a rural school, not even an inner city one. Unfortunately, the head teacher is often the one who is the persson responsible for putting teachers in an untenable position. No wonder the good teachers leave bad schools eh??

You keep mentioning the Phillip Lawrence school, you surely must realise that a death in a school is often SO shocking to the pupils that THEY start to wake up to their behaviour? Plus of course, not many teachers are Headteachers like the one you keep mentioning. Plus of course, the government put loads of money into that school ;)

Edited to add:

Just read about the woman herself and very interestingly it does state that PARENTS were made to help as well as the other measures :)

No I don't know her.  But her story interested me and I read quite a bit about it at the time.

>Dear heavens ...make parents take responsibility !!

Yes, that would be wonderful, but how????
You seem to think I am blaming teachers I am not, I agree with you they are not responsible but apportioning blame does not really advance us any.  I just feel teachers are the only feasible solution for the reasons I gave in a previous post, they are far better material than feckless parents to facilitate a change.  Yes, she did manage to influence parents as well :)
I've never heard of a school turning round just because there had been a death but I suppose it could have been that.
Clearly not many teachers are like Marie Stubbs that was one of my points, have the Government spend more money on training inspirations leaders such as that that have domonstrated there skills and have them pass them on but of course funds have to be found :)

I was buying my house with a mortgage - only relatively small but a mortgage.  Like everyone else doing the same, I was free to move where ever I wanted, within my budget of course. :)

I would not have allowed my daughter to go to the local comp for her secondary education.  My first choice, had she not passed the 11+, was to drive her 30 minutes each way to the other side of town, to a school that used to be the grammar school but was now comprehensive, although it had managed to maintain brilliant standards.  The local comp (a brief walk over the field) was never an option as far as I was concerned. 

As it was, she caught the 7.10am train in the morning to Reading, and then either walked or caught a bus to get from the station to the school for 8.45.  I would collect her from our local station at 4.45.  She'd come home and do her homework and still have time for a very full and varied 'other life'.  It was a serious commitment for pupil, parent and school, but it worked very well.

I was well established in life before I chose to have my daughter because I had thought through the implications of bringing a child into the world before doing so.  She is now 28 and maybe things have changed?  But she has done the same and is well established with a nice home and successful business (better than me!) before she is thinking about starting her family.

I feel really sorry for the bright kids whose parents couldn't care less about which school their children go to or who are allocated a school on postcode basis.  Lots of wasted talent I fear through no fault of the child.

Our County Council allows a preference order of secondary schools but not a choice.  So those children living in the catchment area of the popular schools are ok but those who are not might be allocated a school that is poor by comparison just because of where they live.  Also there seems to be a fairly new initiative whereby one school is categorised as a school of excellence for sport, another for science etc.  Seems crazy to me as you don't have a "choice" over which school you allocated.  What if you have a child who wants to follow science and ends up at the school for sport and vice versa or is a who is a good all rounder? 

I was buying my house with a mortgage - only relatively small but a mortgage.  Like everyone else doing the same, I was free to move where ever I wanted, within my budget of course.

Val, I am not having a go at you personally and I admire that you did so well for your daughter.  What I am trying to say (and maybe badly) is that there are many people that cannot afford (and would not even be considered for) a mortgage and where I live (in the South) there is no such thing as a small mortgage, so these people are stuck where they are.  Alot of people do not even have a car and many may only have one car for the main breadwinner to use for work so driving children to schools other than the local one, is not an option. 

Please don't think I am arguing my case against yours - I am lucky enough to own my own home and car also, but many around me are not so fortunate.

I was well established in life before I chose to have my daughter because I had thought through the implications of bringing a child into the world before doing so

Some people will never be high earners, no matter how long they have been working, so do you mean that they should not have children? (yet another choice taken away for low earners).  Someone has to do all the low paid jobs!!!!

I feel really sorry for the bright kids whose parents couldn't care less about which school their children go to or who are allocated a school on postcode basis.  Lots of wasted talent I fear through no fault of the child.

Yes this is another case where the inequality of the school system is not right.

>many may only have one car for the main breadwinner to use for work so driving children to schools other than the local one

That was my situation when I was a child. I walked half a mile to catch the bus to take me the 4 miles into town and then I walked the mile to school.

Recently the house next door to us was rented out to a family who'd moved to be nearer a good primary school. Now their children have progressed to secondary school they've moved to another rented property. Lots of people don't own their own homes - and as such have greater mobility than many.

Apparently, the latest thing is for well-off families to rent a house in a good catchment area (for the address only), just until their child gets into the school :(

Daisy

That isnt new ...my husbands Aunt and Uncle did this many, many years ago ;)

Of course, you could all move to my part of the world where we have Grammar schools :D :D

We have grammar schools - but only 8 (4 for each sex) in the whole of Essex :( Taking the 11 plus is optional and if you sit the exam, you only have a one in six chance of getting in. Our nearest is over 20 miles away :(

Daisy

many may only have one car for the main breadwinner to use for work so driving children to schools other than the local one

That was my situation when I was a child. I walked half a mile to catch the bus to take me the 4 miles into town and then I walked the mile to school.

My point was that the families could not afford two cars.  If you live outside the catchment area of a good state school, you would find it very difficult to get your child into that school so this would not really apply.

Recently the house next door to us was rented out to a family who'd moved to be nearer a good primary school. Now their children have progressed to secondary school they've moved to another rented property. Lots of people don't own their own homes - and as such have greater mobility than many.

I am stunned that some people just cannot comprehend the situation of some people on low incomes! :(.  The rent for a house in my area is higher than my mortgage repayments!  I could not afford to rent here unless I was on benefits! and I certainly do not live in an expensive area. Also the cost of moving is more than alot of low wage earners could afford. There is also the small matter of being able to find a new job in a new area!

That was my situation when I was a child. I walked half a mile to catch the bus to take me the 4 miles into town and then I walked the mile to school.

Yes and when I was a child I walked to the same school my children go to when I was in infants.  However, I would not let my children walk to school alone until they are 11.  The roads are soooo much busier.

> I am stunned that some people just cannot comprehend the situation of some people on low incomes! .

I know exactly what it's like being on a low income, I've been there (and I live in the expensive south too).  However, I think the problems that you are referring to reflects the lack of good state education rather than the unfairness of being able to afford to pay for it. 

However, I think the problems that you are referring to reflects the lack of good state education rather than the unfairness of being able to afford to pay for it. 

That is true - the point I am making is that unfair that people with a lower income cannot always get good educations for their children (state or otherwise)

the point I am making is that unfair that people with a lower income cannot always get good educations for their children (state or otherwise

What part of life is fair?  So we have to make the best we can of the situation as it is - not focus on what we think we can't do!

What part of life is fair?

So that makes it right does it? 

So we have to make the best we can of the situation as it is - not focus on what we think we can't do!

Well I agree as individuals that is true, but surely the whole point of society is to help each other and not just to accept that some people have it harder and that's tough

The trouble is in this country you are unelectable if you vowed to raise taxes to improve things like education for all which is what it would take.  This leaves it down to parents to either accept the basic level offered or prioritise to purchase more as they see fit.

The trouble is in this country you are unelectable if you vowed to raise taxes to improve things like education for all

Yes because it is evident that some people, maybe some of those who have a good education for their children, would not want to help those less fortunate.  Any why?  Because those people who cannot understand why a family on £10,000 cannot make sacrifices, when they on their £50K + salaries can't spare another 10p or so in the pound.

I don't think we can just blame the wealthy.  The proportion of those buying private education could easily be out voted by those that don't if they really wanted to see taxes raised to improve the state resources. 

Because those people who cannot understand why a family on £10,000 cannot make sacrifices, when they on their £50K + salaries can't spare another 10p or so in the pound

Goodness I've never had £10,000 coming in - I'd like to have had the chance!:rolleyes:

Goodness I've never had £10,000 coming in - I'd like to have had the chance!

Well Val, all I can say is that you must have had an EXTREMELY large deposit if you manage to buy a property on less.  As I say I don't want to pry but it is a bit misleading to say how well you coped when really you must of almost paid for your house outright.

I can't speak for Val, but when we took out our mortgage in 1984 our two-bedroomed house was priced at £21,000. Right now our gross annual income is less than £10,000.

Our first marital home in 1970 was £4,650!  But we were earning less than £19 PER WEEK! :)

We furnished our house with other peoples throw outs - fridge with broken thermostat that froze everything etc. ;)  Wedding presents were money towards carpet to cover the concrete floors.  We both worked and moved house every couple of years before our daughter was born more than 8 years later.  I left on my 10th anniversary!:rolleyes:

My annual income is less than £10,000 now too! :D  I do only have me to look after but still have all the gas, electric etc which would be the same with another body here! :D

So you are agreeing then Val that you did infact have an extremely large deposit to put down on your home when you were a single parent?  Not alot of lower income families are in that position!

I too had a good amount from my first property as a deposit for the next and I would certainly not compare myself to people who have always earnt £10K and can't afford a property.

Same story..... before we married in 1963, we were earning a total of £14.17s. 6p. a week - between us.  The LCC (forerunner to the GLC) annouced that it would give 100% mortgages to people living and working in London  without any income requirements - BUT the interest rate would be 6.125% (.125% higher than any other lending authority).   We got a 100% mortgage on a new 3 bed semi, costing £3,250 - and were paying £20.5s.1d. per month.   We sold our car to pay the legal fees.

As we both worked in London, fares came to about another £5 per month - so there wasn't much money over for incidentals like food/furnishings :)

We moved in with my parents' old double bed, two armchairs, a new kitchen table & chairs set (which cost £5.5s.0), and a new cooker, bush transister radio and my dansette record player ;).  No fridge, no washing machine, no telly.

Most of our neighbours were in the same situation as ourselves - if we went a-visiting them, we took our own chairs :)

No central heating - coal or electric fires/dimplex radiators.    We put in central heating about 4 years later, with bonuses we earned, which is the same way that we furnished it - oh and working 3 evening a week in a pub.    If we were cold and couldn't afford to use any more electricity then we went to bed!

Life doesn't have to be as complicated as we have made it.

Margot

But Val said she managed to get a mortgage earning only £40 per week!   To say you now have an income less than £10K is irrelevant unless you are about to get a mortgage. :rolleyes:

£40 a week back then wasn't as unreasonable as it would be nowadays, remember. ;)

Generally, if you can get a mortgage - you can afford it :) If you can't (barring a change in circumstances) then that's your own fault :D

Daisy

I've been thinking back and remember that my fulltime job as a PA for the Marketing Manager of an international company grossed me £8000 a year, and I lived very comfortably in a shared rented house in a popular town in Sussex - not a cheap area then or now. A salary of £10,000 a year back then would have been excellent money. But we couldn't afford to buy a property there at that time, so when we married we moved to the Midlands where property was cheaper. If we hadn't been prepared to move we'd have kept renting. You cut your coat according to your cloth. :)

You cut your coat according to your cloth

....and that's how we came to live in Essex.......houses were £500 less in Essex that in Berkshire - and OH worked in City/East London - so travelling in from the west didn't make any sense.
However there is now more like a £50,000 difference in costs :D - so no chance of me becoming a Berkshire Lady again...... :(

Margot  

Well Val, all I can say is that you must have had an EXTREMELY large deposit if you manage to buy a property on less.

I had been married for 10 years before I left and bought my first house on my own so of course I had a deposit - though not as large as you are assuming.  It was not easy juggling the money and responsibilities!  I was only giving you figures (because prices have changed) so that you could understand the percentage of my income that went on the mortgage and still left enough for a full and rounded life for my daughter.  IT IS possible, but parents need to be imaginative, creative and 'step out of the box'!  I agree that not everyone feels that they can do that, as I couldn't become a brain surgeon and drive a Rolls Royce, but that's they way that it is.  I didn't expect anyone else to pay extra for my child's education becauee I didn't want her to go to the local comp. I would have made other provision if she hadn't got to the grammar school.

If you are asking me to feel sorry for a family who are struggling to provide a roof over their heads with 3 children and a low income, then I dont.  It's their choice!  And we're back to the beginning again.  We ALL have choices to plan our own lives. :) 

I 'could' have stayed with my husband in a nice house, with a nice car, all the bills paid, regular holidays abroad and a plastic smile on my face if I didn't mind being chased around the house with a stone mallet or be pinned in an armchair with an onyx ashtray over my head!  But I chose to leave, live in a smaller house, worry about paying the bills and bring up my daughter in a calm and pleasant atmosphere.  And I chose to make her my priority until she was established, which I did.   It WAS tough but we survived very happily and I'm very proud of my 'nice' daughter - her PA, 10 years older, says that she's the nicest boss that she's ever worked for, and that made me proud!

PS - Just so that you understand I DID pay tax before my daughter was born and I DO pay tax now.  I didn't pay any tax when I was bringing her up on my own as the government give a tax allowance for children and I my income was not more than that.  Other people with children, single or couples have the same consession. :)

Whatever I tell you about my circumstances you don't accept what I say so I'll leave this discussion and not waste anymore time.  Places to go, people to see! :)

Whatever I tell you about my circumstances you don't accept

I think it is the other way around - you cannot accept that infact there are many families (maybe with only one child) that are worse off than you were.  You were able to buy yourself a house, which is simply NOT possible now - even for young working childless couples.

I didn't expect anyone else to pay extra for my child's education

I haven't argued that - just everyones child is entitled to an education.

If you are asking me to feel sorry for a family who are struggling to provide a roof over their heads with 3 children and a low income, then I dont.

No that is blatantly obvious.  Circumstances change as you have experienced.  My sister in laws husband died when their daughter was six and she had to provide for her daughter.  It was in the 80s and she had -ve equity in her house so was completely trapped.  What choice would she have had about schools for her daughter.  She had always worked full time (and continued to do so with the help of her family - again not something everyone has). did her daughter deserve any less than anyone elses?  Still as long as some people are OK who cares about the rest eh? :rolleyes:

> and not just to accept that some people have it harder and that's tough

I don't think anyone has said that... just that we all have different priorities and values - things are seldom as 'easy' or 'straightforward' as they may appear ;)

What's fair is that the state provides all children with the means to learn to read, write and be numerate. Anything more is a bonus from living in a wealthy nation, and if parents choose to spend money they may or may not have on extras, then that's their choice.

the state provides all children with the means to learn to read, write and be numerate

I think you will find this is not the case at some schools

Then that's the fault of either the teachers or the pupils for not taking their education seriously and concentrating on their lessons (ill-discipline at home? Who can say?), not the state.

Then that's the fault of either the teachers or the pupils for not taking their education seriously and concentrating on their lessons (ill-discipline at home? Who can say?), not the state.

It is part of the teachers job to control the class :rolleyes:  It is the states responsibility to provide education.  If the children are not being educated then obviously the state is failing them.

ill-discipline at home?

One badly behaved child in a class affects the whole class - why should they all suffer? 

I can't help but be saddened by the views on this thread who think that because something was possible for them, then anyone can do it.  That is not always the case for many reasons.  And that is why we have such a class divide still.  What is that about 'walking in another mans shoes.....'

But you haven't exactly explained how you are going to stop the badly behaved/badly motivated child from stopping the other children in the class from learning :) If you removed all these children from class, then the others would learn much better and get the education that they deserve. But what do you do with all the others that you have 'removed' ? I have no answers - perhaps you have some to help out the hard pressed government :D

Daisy

>One badly behaved child in a class affects the whole class - why should they all suffer? 

They shouldn't - but nowadays a teacher's hamstrung as to how they can discipline a child - they can't even lay a finger on them to make them sit down without getting accused of assault and suspended - and the children know it! :rolleyes: Absolutely ridiculous.

>And that is why we have such a class divide still.

Income has nothing whatever to do with class though, has it? It boils down to one's personal attitude to Life; whether to organise ourselves to try to get what we want or to expect it to be handed to us on a plate. If we don't like it we can always do something about it if it's important enough.

That's where our votes come in, I'm afraid. Our children's free education is decided by the people we vote into government. Remember, the parents who pay for private education are actually paying twice over, and thus subsidising the rest of us. The proportion of their income tax that goes to education isn't given back to them simply because they don't use it!

>The proportion of their income tax that goes to education isn't given back to them simply because they don't use it!

Thank goodness :)  Very bad news for those left with the state system and even less funds.

Quite right. People surely are entitled to spend their own money how they want, and if they choose to pay for their child's education twice, then they should be applauded by those unable or unwilling to. :) Not forgetting, of course, that the childless are also contributing to the education of everyone else's children - again quite rightly, because those children are the providers of pensions and care for all of us in the future.

Well they are not really paying for their child twice they are contributing to the education of societies children, for example, I have no children but somehow I just can't seem to get a refund ;)  Not sure that private payers for education or health or whatever always see it like that though :)  (I feel a branch coming on ;))

>I feel a branch coming on

I've twigged what you mean, but I don't beleaf it ...! :D :D :D :D
*falls off chair laughing*

:D Think I'll bough out of that one, can't think of any :)

>My point was that the families could not afford two cars.

No, nor could we. So what? There are alternatives to being driven to school, now as well as then.

>I am stunned that some people just cannot comprehend the situation of some people on low incomes!

And I am stunned that some people can't comprehend the sacrifices some people are prepared to make to ensure their child gets a decent education! ;) Seriously, my neighbours could only find part-time work and were definitely on low income.

>There is also the small matter of being able to find a new job in a new area!

It's harder to find a job you want to do rather than just find a job to pay the bills! ;)

>I would not let my children walk to school alone until they are 11.

So I assume you walked or cycled with them, as parents do here?

No, nor could we. So what? There are alternatives to being driven to school, now as well as then.

Not always.  My eldest son is driven to school along with 3 of his friends simply because his friends Mum drives that way to work.  He walks home with a group of friends.  If he had had to walk home alone when he was in year 7, I would not have been happy as it is a very long walk, across very busy roads. Also he would need 3 buses to get home (now they are free but they weren't when he was in year 7).


And I am stunned that some people can't comprehend the sacrifices some people are prepared to make to ensure their child gets a decent education!  Seriously, my neighbours could only find part-time work and were definitely on low income

I completely understand the sacrifices made by some people, I have to make them myself, BUT, I also understand how much more difficult those sacrifices are to make for low wage earners, although it seems others do not ;). 

Seriously, my neighbours could only find part-time work and were definitely on low income

Well in my area you would have to have an EXTREMELY well paid job to be able to afford the rent on a part time salary!!!

It's harder to find a job you want to do rather than just find a job to pay the bills!

Of course, but to find a job that will pay rent/mortgage, etc and leave ANY disposable income at all is beyond some people.  Not everyone earns enough money to have anything they are able to sacrifice - I suppose they could stop eating?

So I assume you walked or cycled with them, as parents do here?

Yes I did.  Even when I had my middle son wearing calipers at 18 months (and later in a wheelchair) and my youngest in a pram I still walked the eldest to school and back every day.

Hi Alexanders,

You may feel a little like a candle in a Cathedral here but be assured your points are not entirely lost ;)  I know single parents who have to work 3+ jobs just to keep enough plain, wholesome food on the table and barely juggle their most basic domestic utility bills!

Sadly poverty is alive and thriving in our so called green and pleasant land :(

Thanks Teri.  I feel there is some 'let them eat cake' mentality here :(.