Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    My first qualm is with this being a requirement for all students to learn coding. Yes, I recognise that it is an important trait to have for some, but surely establishing a base level of literacy and numeracy should be ensured before engaging pupils in extra hours of learning what is an essentially a brand new language. In a time where we should be facilitating all young people into learning skills that complement them and their abilities, we should not be forcing what can be a very difficult skill onto everyone. Doctors, nurses, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, even teachers (outside of CompSci/ICT) will never need to learn how to code, surely it would be better to leave this as a specialisation rather than taking up more time in a teaching week that is already too long.

    We shouldn't get sucked into this idea that computers will save the world because they won't, only people can.


    Jammy Duel brings up an excellent point about a CAMHS representative in each school, although the problem is a little deeper than just money.

    The CAMHS representative in each school is ludicrous, as in impossible. CAMHS is severely overworked as it is, and in some areas like Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire is failing to deal with it's caseload to such an extent that young people that would be in mainstream education are having to go to SEN schools due to the mental health needs displaying themselves as behaviours of concern. There are not enough mental health nurses being trained, which has led to the vast majority of NHS Trusts across the UK switching from MHN postings to 'Mental Health Practitioner' roles at Band 5 level to allow them to recruit Occupational Therapists or even Social Workers who have had mental health training as it is just not sustainable at present. Family liaison posts in schools are there for a reason, and should be administrative but trained to such a level where they have CYP Mental Health First Aid to recognise MH conditions and then refer on. It is NOT a schools place to deal with this, but mental health professionals. If everyone who was observed to have a 'mental health condition' was not triaged by a mental health professional in a separate CAMHS service but just stuck on a list and was required to be seen, waiting lists would be not even worth having as they would be too long. This is what happens when someone thinks the solution to MH problems are chucking more money at it and hoping it'll go away, or that schools are the issue (Hint: They're not).
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    it won't solve problems of **** staff or incapable students.

    This Grammar strategy is also poorly thought through, we either have a percentage set so low as to be ineffective, i.e. rates are already across the board higher, or alternatively you push able students to poorer schools simply to meet quotas, harming their education in the name of social justice, access to grammar schools should be based on ability alone.

    The lockdown plans strike me as being rather alarmist and I would like to ask the minister when the last time there was an incident at a school for which such measures would have been necessary, and the approximate frequency of such incidents; we do not live in the US with firearms being discharged on or near schools on a weekly basis, whether intentionally and with intent to wound or accidentally. I would also like to ask the minister how they came to the £10m figure, approximately £400 per school.
    "problems of **** staff" is a historic problem which is in the process of being fixed in real life, that's a long-term problem with a long-term solution. What you mean by "incapable students" is unclear and how the education system can solve a problem with the students it intakes is also unclear.

    With regards to Grammar, you haven't specified what type of ability you're talking about.
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    1) what is the point of removing Progress 8 and English Bac? Performance indicators are good in quite a few ways, and will often match up with higher quality standards within a school. The English Bac is also a good indicator of a balanced curriculum and I see no real reason stated here or in my opinion why it should be removed.

    2) your implementation of fake news into the National curriculum. I feel like this could work against students and have them blindly trust mainstream media, without developing a critical eye. It’s important to encourage source cross referencing and backing up comments with stats, and is something that should be taught across all essay based subjects. This may limit unconventional sources as immediately false and prohibit discussion of more varied topics. This I feel is a large concern for me in a statement that tries to fulfil the individual parties’ manifestos, that in being overtly extravagant, seems to lose its way when exploring finer details. I like the gist of quite a few points but closer analysis let’s the statement down.
    Performance indicators do nothing apart from making parents want their child to attend one school and not another. When "lower performing" schools get less intake they get less money and end up struggling to survive. Progress 8 does nothing apart from identify exam results as the only thing that's important in a child's education. This isn't true. The National Curriculum, that every child is taught, is a more balanced curriculum than the English Bac. The notion of what is "academic" is an out-dated one; since it's both an idea germinated by the industrial revolution/enlightenment and is unappreciative of evolving technology. E-Bac is based on what is determined to be the "academic" set of subject, that shouldn't be the case.

    The opposite is intended. Without speaking on behalf of government (the last thing I want to do) I am confident that the intention of the inclusion of "fake news" is so that students do not follow anything blindly.
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The changes to the national curriculum also seem poorly thought out, as if a list of ideas has been made and they've all been bunged together rather than thinking of how it can be integrated into current subjects, for instance 2FA could be integrated into ICT, or whatever it is called these days, and matters of inclusion and rights can be integrated into Faith and Ethics or equivalent.

    More concerning however is some of the topics and their the ability of people from a young age to be indoctrinated into certain ways of thinking either by the government or teachers themselves, something this government claims to be against. For instance the relationship between unemployment and wages has been excluded from the economic trade cycle, something that this government denies despite the insurmountable links, further the relationship wages and inflation. Similarly with responsibilities the only thing that really "needs" teaching in that list is moral responsibilities, but these are highly subjective and vary massively depending on personal philosophy, a leftist government would say it is your moral responsibility to pay all your taxes and support welfare measures, while a libertarian or otherwise small state government would say that it is your moral responsibility to minimise your tax liability as much as possible via avoidance even at the expense of moochers. This is even more profound in the politics section where the syllabus or way that it is taught can be meddled with in such a way as to unfairly give the impression of one system being better than another rather than simply teaching what the systems are, particularly when talking about the central beliefs of political parties, ask me what the central beliefs of a party are and I expect the answer will be different to asking, say, Aph.

    Further I am not convinced that the content covered could be realistically stretched to one hour a week for one academic year, let alone all the way through secondary education, there is also the question of what is to be pushed aside, or are we going to see extensions to the week or year to compensate?

    The teaching of "fake news" is also concerning and another potential source of indoctrination. It is true that Twitter and Facebook themselves are not news sources, but does anybody seriously pretend they are? A lot of the time you're looking at sharing of articles from external sources, established or new, fake or real, or are alternatively assessing the reliability of the person speaking, for instance a tweet on the political rumour mill from Laura Kuensberg of Faisel Islam is unlikely to fall in the fake news category despite it merely being a tweet and especially when you look at it through the lens of leaks and the rumour mill in Westminster. Further the government acts as if the mainstream media (which is ultimately what you mean by "reputable outlets" is not immune to fake news, look at the FT brexit coverage, that is highly misleading at times, the Agent COB stories which also at least verge on fake news, or the reporting of pretty much any mass shooting in America.
    "Faith and Ethics or equivalent" doesn't exist in many schools, despite what's supposed to happen.

    Teaching student to discern for themselves what is fake news and what is trustworthy, what is right and wrong gives them the skills to avoid indoctrination: to set their own moral responsibilities, and ability to critique that of the governments. While I was contributing to this SoI, "reputable outlets" was not necessarily just mainstream media in my mind. Though I'll concede it's not made totally clear in the actual document.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    I question your reasoning. The government should always attain to keep teaching and school quality as high as possible, regardless of the attainment gap or postcode lottery. In fact, I don't believe the attainment gap is even relevant here - the issue is more to do with pupils and teachers not being engaged during school hours, and less to do with richer students moving closer to better schools. The sentiment is good, but the reasoning is not.

    The issue of lower attainment in poorer schools is much more closely linked with the students themselves. A study by Oxford University shows that poverty is to blame in the grade difference between rich and poor pupils, rather than the schools they attend. This gap appears in all schools, and the way to correct the issue is not to intervene - it is to better support the families of these disadvantaged students.

    I wouldn't say that PSHE is unfit for purpose, but I agree that reforms are needed. Most of my party seem to agree.

    Firstly, I agree with PSHE as a legal requirement. That's something that I would push for, should I be in your position. My issue is with the reform proposals.

    For one, you claimed that these reforms would be 'unrelenting', when they do not change much of the current system, at all. Most schools that offer PSHE have much of the subjects you have chosen as part of the syllabus already. This is hardly dramatic, and you are vastly overstating what you have actually proposed.

    It is conflicting that you are much more centralised on secondary school than primary schools. If the curriculum is so awful, like you say, then it should be changed everywhere.

    The first half of this section is completely pointless. You want to offer incentives to new teachers, and your way about this is to continue to offer 'indefatigable support'. You do not seem to realise that the issue is caused by a lack of this support in the first place. If your department was really capable of offering this support, you would not be facing such a crisis.

    I'm all for changing the system, but you have not promised a dramatic enough change for this to be a good usage of resources and time. If you want to remove SATs, the new focus on life should be respected by changing the way GCSEs and Apprenticeships work.

    This doesn't say much. Changing the exams again would place even more strain on the public, because they are the ones who now need to catch up.

    Why not just make it clear that these qualifications are indicators? No real need to abolish them; they're valuable for employers.
    First of all, thanks for the detailed response.

    You are unclear on what you mean by "teaching and school quality"

    I agree that the welfare system is the better antidote to child poverty than the education system when it comes to governmentally addressing the issue. I'm confident that the Conservative party does not share this belief, and am speaking as myself (as always).

    PHSE is totally unfit for purpose, what's happened is it was created, and then was constantly added to over the years, with no additional curriculum time, and no assessment of the subject to give it weight. You're then left with a lesson with outdated things to learn, little individuality for students to explore the topics discussed, and most importantly, schools recognising it has no impact on their results, and thus rankings, and so no reason to put much time or effort into it. If you have a subject that schools can't be bothered to give effort to, it needs a re-think.

    With regards to teacher support, I think you're mixing this government with the real life government. A thought I personally shudder at.

    My own position is that GCSEs are messed with enough to introduce sweeping changes now. The worst thing that governments do to the education system in my view is change it. As you've just indicated...

    Ebacc and Progress 8 are NOT qualifications, only performance indicators for schools. Employers shouldn't need to look at the performance of schools surely.
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    You state that talented pupils of all backgrounds should be given the chance to get a better standard of education, and yet you've just said two paragraphs ago that all pupils should receive the best possible quality of learning. Which is it?
    Why not both?:curious:
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I would firstly like to publicly commend JellyMilk on his work on making perhaps the best response I have seen in my time on the MHoC. As part of the opposition I stand firmly against this Statement of Intent; it achieves very little beyond the excess of words it possesses. I wish to add to this debate by stating all of the pledges made and offering my own response.



    Pledge 1: Preventing schools rated below 'good' from expanding.

    This understates how easy it is for schools to be rated 'good' with a focus on grades and a reasonable set of students. If the government wishes to achieve anything of use in this area, it should either consider changing how schools are assessed or change 'good' to 'outstanding'.

    Pledge 2: Ending the 'postcode lottery'.

    The government is correct to want to tackle this problem, but suggesting that it can somehow wave a magic wand and improve teaching and the fate of struggling schools is nonsense. If you wish to raise this issue then propose an actual solution.

    Pledge 3: Intervening in poorly performing schools.

    The idea that investigating the issues in struggling schools will do much to assist them is ridiculous. JellyMilk is correct to state the Oxford University study that describes the major issue in these schools as the poverty their students struggle from. With this being the case, the focus should be on inspring these students to learn through different methods. The bureaucracy proposed is more likely to cause harm through taking power and time away from schools.

    Pledge 4: Alliances between different schools.

    This is fanciful rubbish. How is this meant to achieve anything? Shall we have days in which students from better schools mix with poorer children, or shall the headteachers of both schools have discussions about their troubles? Making this a requirement against the will of people involved and without outlining any sort of direction means this is a meaningless pledge.

    Pledge 5: The expansion of grammar schools.

    I am happy to see the government is in agreement with the Libertarian Party in this area. However, more detail would be appreciated. A perecentage of disadvantaged students is mentioned without a number being stated, and without any consideration as to the proportion of applicants that would actually meet entry requirements while being part of this group of disadvantaged students.

    Pledge 6: Implement a lockdown policy in schools.

    It is claimed that there is an increased security threat in schools; I would like to see this proved accurate with statistics. If it cannot be shown that there is a significant rise than any money put towards this is wasted.

    Pledge 7: Introducing better life education.

    Like with the section on grammar schools, I like the suggestions but find the amount of consideration about them disappointing. By allocating an hour a week to this (over two lessons for schools with hours lasting less than an hour), it will need to replace something else. If the government wishes for students to take this any more seriously than PSHE or workshops, then it should create a mandatory GCSE in the area. Otherwise, it is overestimating the extent to which making it a part of the curriculum will stop students using it to muck around, have a laugh and do nothing of use.

    Pledge 8: Teaching students to avoid 'fake news'.

    JellyMilk makes the important point that English has nothing to do with this anyway, but it would still be a waste of time to teach this in any capacity; people are aware of 'fake news' and do not need a teacher to tell them to be careful when using the internet. Any form of education in the area would be ineffective and could be better used actually educating people.

    Pledge 9: Requiring schools to teach coding.

    A common theme with education proposals seem to be requiring schools to spend time teaching new things. Once again, this must replace something else. Technology may be important but coding remains a specialist skill and does not need to be learned by anyone.

    Pledge 10: Encouraging people to enter teaching.

    The government's proposal to help people enter teaching is to continue supporting them through stress; this is the biggest load of rubbish in the entire statement. It does not even mean anything.

    Pledge 11: A CAMHS representative at every secondary school.

    This sounds lovely but, as stated by JoeL1994, is impossible. This would require collaboration between the education and health secretaries to find a way to encourage people to enter the profession, which entails a lengthy process before change. The government could instead strive to increase the percentage of schools with a CAMHS representative as the issues surrounding treatment of mental health are dealt with.

    Pledge 12: Training teachers to be aware of mental health.

    This is a good idea and one that is feasible. We must be honest that this would do very little to help students, but making teachers more understanding of the issues that students face is a tiny improvement that can actually be achieved, unlike attempting to have a CAMHS representative at every secondary school.

    Pledge 13: Increase funding for Gifted and Talented programs.

    It is fine to state that you wish to help advance the education of our most able students, but there is no point stating you will use funding to do so if you do not explain how that funding will be used.

    Pledge 13: Create a public register for private tutors.

    Even if £1 million was an accurate figure, there is little reason to suggest that a public register would do anything to increase the amount of people hiring private tutors. Those who hire private tutors will remain in the same demographic, and those already interested in doing so can easily find private tutors as it is. If this government wishes to change anything it would need to find ways to make private tutors more accessible to working class families.

    Pledge 14: Begin to phase out SATs.

    I am of the belief that SATs should be merged with 11-plus examinations to make grammar schools accessible to everyone; the stress exists for students of that age as it is so creating greater opportunity for social mobility would be a positive change. If SATs are to be phased out, the government should actually explain how schools should teach 'key skills' in their place, and what this actually means.

    Pledge 15: Reforming exams so they are less memory-based.

    Please, no. The Michael Gove reforms have not even been completely phased in yet. Every government in real life seems to see a need to constantly change things, which is why it seems to be just as popular on the MHoC. If you want to stop overwhelming both students and teachers with change and allow change to work, stop undermining it.

    Pledge 16: Phase out EBacc and Progress 8.

    These are exceptionally important if we have any interest in meeting the standards that other countries meet. We need to encourage more academic students to make the most of their potential, but a better way of stopping both from having too much influence is increased provisions for less academic students to go down different routes.



    There were a few 'pledges' I missed out because they were even less useful than the worst of the pledges I have addressed above, but I hope this list of pledges can add to JellyMilk's efforts in making this statement accessible to the house and show how this government once again is doing very little to help improve the country. In spite of this, I am glad to see the government pledge to expand grammar schools, and - in spite of the content lacking - many of the pledges do go in the right direction. I can only imagine writing a statement being difficult and exceptionally time-consuming, so I would like to close by offering ns_2 praise for his work on this. I am sure he knows where to improve if he writes another statement in the future and I look forward to seeing it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    I would firstly like to publicly commend JellyMilk on his work on making perhaps the best response I have seen in my time on the MHoC. As part of the opposition I stand firmly against this Statement of Intent; it achieves very little beyond the excess of words it possesses. I wish to add to this debate by stating all of the pledges made and offering my own response.



    Pledge 1: Preventing schools rated below 'good' from expanding.

    This understates how easy it is for schools to be rated 'good' with a focus on grades and a reasonable set of students. If the government wishes to achieve anything of use in this area, it should either consider changing how schools are assessed or change 'good' to 'outstanding'.

    Pledge 2: Ending the 'postcode lottery'.

    The government is correct to want to tackle this problem, but suggesting that it can somehow wave a magic wand and improve teaching and the fate of struggling schools is nonsense. If you wish to raise this issue then propose an actual solution.

    Pledge 3: Intervening in poorly performing schools.

    The idea that investigating the issues in struggling schools will do much to assist them is ridiculous. JellyMilk is correct to state the Oxford University study that describes the major issue in these schools as the poverty their students struggle from. With this being the case, the focus should be on inspring these students to learn through different methods. The bureaucracy proposed is more likely to cause harm through taking power and time away from schools.

    Pledge 4: Alliances between different schools.

    This is fanciful rubbish. How is this meant to achieve anything? Shall we have days in which students from better schools mix with poorer children, or shall the headteachers of both schools have discussions about their troubles? Making this a requirement against the will of people involved and without outlining any sort of direction means this is a meaningless pledge.

    Pledge 5: The expansion of grammar schools.

    I am happy to see the government is in agreement with the Libertarian Party in this area. However, more detail would be appreciated. A perecentage of disadvantaged students is mentioned without a number being stated, and without any consideration as to the proportion of applicants that would actually meet entry requirements while being part of this group of disadvantaged students.

    Pledge 6: Implement a lockdown policy in schools.

    It is claimed that there is an increased security threat in schools; I would like to see this proved accurate with statistics. If it cannot be shown that there is a significant rise than any money put towards this is wasted.

    Pledge 7: Introducing better life education.

    Like with the section on grammar schools, I like the suggestions but find the amount of consideration about them disappointing. By allocating an hour a week to this (over two lessons for schools with hours lasting less than an hour), it will need to replace something else. If the government wishes for students to take this any more seriously than PSHE or workshops, then it should create a mandatory GCSE in the area. Otherwise, it is overestimating the extent to which making it a part of the curriculum will stop students using it to muck around, have a laugh and do nothing of use.

    Pledge 8: Teaching students to avoid 'fake news'.

    JellyMilk makes the important point that English has nothing to do with this anyway, but it would still be a waste of time to teach this in any capacity; people are aware of 'fake news' and do not need a teacher to tell them to be careful when using the internet. Any form of education in the area would be ineffective and could be better used actually educating people.

    Pledge 9: Requiring schools to teach coding.

    A common theme with education proposals seem to be requiring schools to spend time teaching new things. Once again, this must replace something else. Technology may be important but coding remains a specialist skill and does not need to be learned by anyone.

    Pledge 10: Encouraging people to enter teaching.

    The government's proposal to help people enter teaching is to continue supporting them through stress; this is the biggest load of rubbish in the entire statement. It does not even mean anything.

    Pledge 11: A CAMHS representative at every secondary school.

    This sounds lovely but, as stated by JoeL1994, is impossible. This would require collaboration between the education and health secretaries to find a way to encourage people to enter the profession, which entails a lengthy process before change. The government could instead strive to increase the percentage of schools with a CAMHS representative as the issues surrounding treatment of mental health are dealt with.

    Pledge 12: Training teachers to be aware of mental health.

    This is a good idea and one that is feasible. We must be honest that this would do very little to help students, but making teachers more understanding of the issues that students face is a tiny improvement that can actually be achieved, unlike attempting to have a CAMHS representative at every secondary school.

    Pledge 13: Increase funding for Gifted and Talented programs.

    It is fine to state that you wish to help advance the education of our most able students, but there is no point stating you will use funding to do so if you do not explain how that funding will be used.

    Pledge 13: Create a public register for private tutors.

    Even if £1 million was an accurate figure, there is little reason to suggest that a public register would do anything to increase the amount of people hiring private tutors. Those who hire private tutors will remain in the same demographic, and those already interested in doing so can easily find private tutors as it is. If this government wishes to change anything it would need to find ways to make private tutors more accessible to working class families.

    Pledge 14: Begin to phase out SATs.

    I am of the belief that SATs should be merged with 11-plus examinations to make grammar schools accessible to everyone; the stress exists for students of that age as it is so creating greater opportunity for social mobility would be a positive change. If SATs are to be phased out, the government should actually explain how schools should teach 'key skills' in their place, and what this actually means.

    Pledge 15: Reforming exams so they are less memory-based.

    Please, no. The Michael Gove reforms have not even been completely phased in yet. Every government in real life seems to see a need to constantly change things, which is why it seems to be just as popular on the MHoC. If you want to stop overwhelming both students and teachers with change and allow change to work, stop undermining it.

    Pledge 16: Phase out EBacc and Progress 8.

    These are exceptionally important if we have any interest in meeting the standards that other countries meet. We need to encourage more academic students to make the most of their potential, but a better way of stopping both from having too much influence is increased provisions for less academic students to go down different routes.



    There were a few 'pledges' I missed out because they were even less useful than the worst of the pledges I have addressed above, but I hope this list of pledges can add to JellyMilk's efforts in making this statement accessible to the house and show how this government once again is doing very little to help improve the country. In spite of this, I am glad to see the government pledge to expand grammar schools, and - in spite of the content lacking - many of the pledges do go in the right direction. I can only imagine writing a statement being difficult and exceptionally time-consuming, so I would like to close by offering ns_2 praise for his work on this. I am sure he knows where to improve if he writes another statement in the future and I look forward to seeing it.
    Response to P1
    Crucially, this Government believes that schools, who are struggling to control a set amount of pupils or apportion correctly a set amount of resources, should not expand; rather than take on more pupils they should, with the help of Government and the LAs, aim to address issues within their own school as to increase their rating. From that point, when stability has been achieved, they would be allowed to expand.

    Response to P2
    By bringing in the policies detailed (concerning the preventing of expansion for below 'good'), the standard of teaching will be forced to increase as to meet ever augmenting demands.

    Response to P3
    To say that poverty is the most pressing issue in failing schools is far from the truth: the likes of Pupil Premium and decentralised measures of support continue to enable the poorest in society to assimilate in a society with their wealthier, more affluent brethren. Poorly performing schools are just that due to an inherent lack of discipline, management and effective resource apportionment - thousands are being spent on consultancy agencies being brought in, as was noted in a Panorama programme in which the same issue was brought up in regards to local authorities. However, these consultancy agencies do little to actually ameliorate the standard of teaching.

    Response to P4
    No outstanding school will be forced to join in an alliance, and these alliances will exist only in the set up of new schools, and, if necessary, the support of struggling schools. Many outstanding schools have already established alliances to pool resources and expertise - thereby ameliorating the standard of teaching in both schools.

    Response to P5
    The set percentage would give priority to those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; we do not want to reduce the aptitude of those admitted - where schools can prove that they are unable to meet said percentage using 'viable candidates', they will be exempt; as a Department, for that school, we may request that said pupils receive additional one-to-one care.

    Response to P6
    I am sorry to repeat this but 'it is better to be safe than sorry'. Ultimately, we shouldn't wait until something actually happens or credible threats are made against children. As some of the most vulnerable in society, we must be able to protect them come what may.

    Response to P7
    Many schools, nowadays, have already implemented a very loose form of life education - some under the premise of a 'creative curriculum'. These worthless lessons can be forgone, in place for a more structured, defined and applicable life education curriculum. We envision that provisions for life education and internal assessments will form a significant part of all future OFSTED inspections.

    Response to P8
    Whilst I acknowledge that this policy is slightly brash, we must hammer home to students, through any means necessary, that, in a modern society, we must not rely on one single source; we must read a range of sources from across the spectrum to ensure that one is fully informed and knowledgeable of the situation at hand.

    Response to P9
    We live in an age where the basic technological understanding is no longer enough. In order to fully appreciate and understand the workings of computers, one must be aware of the underlying systems and protocols. That being said, I understand that coding may not be for everyone.

    Response to P10
    This Government, mainly through the actions of the Conservative Party last term, has continued to support new and prospective teachers: notably, through bursaries; bursaries now enshrined in law, ensuring a degree of stability and long term certainty.

    Response to P11 and P12
    Our long term goal remains to have an onsite representative at every secondary school for 10 hours - however, we acknowledge that the amount of CAMHS representatives at present may not be able to support this. Hence, the provisions detailed under P12: as a temporary measure to address the shortfall (but one that will be implemented on a permanent basis), all teachers must undergo training concerning mental health. This will greatly increase targeted referrals to external CAMHS services or other physiological services.

    Response to P12
    Gifted and Talented funding will be used to support extra-curriculum provisions, notably, the teaching of Further Maths GCSE, projects like FMSP and nrich. Crucially, any school or entity receiving G and T funding must have these funds ring fenced for extra provisions.

    Response to P13
    The £1 million figure was based on circumstances using existing infrastructure - i.e. the find and compare schools (https://www.gov.uk/school-performance-tables) database. Ergo, private tutors on a duplication of the aforementioned database would register as 'schools'. Checks would then be regularly conducted to ensure the maintained integrity of the database.

    Response to P14
    In the place of SATs preparation, we hope schools to 'smoothen the progression between primary and secondary' by introducing the key basic concepts of many subjects at a KS3 level as well as begin to implement and teach elements of the 'life education' 'pledge'.

    Response to P15
    We do not wish to make significant changes to the specifications of subjects; the Michael Gove reforms to specifications themselves have actually improved most subjects. We shall only require that examinations tend towards understanding rather than autonomous regurgitation.

    e.g. instead of a question asking: "State 2 basic implications of a 'boom' in the economic trade cycle" the question would be "Evaluate the role and issues of increasing GDP per capita".

    Response to P16
    Again, EBacc and Progress 8 are meant to be performance indicators - not in any way shape or form used to tailor curriculums. Their increased significance is leading to a significant downturn in Art and Music qualifications.

    ----
    I apologise to all for a somewhat delayed response; due to unexpected circumstances, I was unable to dedicate significant time to the MHoC for a few days.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ns_2)
    Response to P1
    Crucially, this Government believes that schools, who are struggling to control a set amount of pupils or apportion correctly a set amount of resources, should not expand; rather than take on more pupils they should, with the help of Government and the LAs, aim to address issues within their own school as to increase their rating. From that point, when stability has been achieved, they would be allowed to expand.

    Response to P2
    By bringing in the policies detailed (concerning the preventing of expansion for below 'good', the standard of teaching will be forced to increase as to meet ever augmenting demands.

    Response to P3
    To say that poverty is the most pressing issue in failing schools is far from the truth: the likes of Pupil Premium and decentralised measures of support continue to enable the poorest in society to assimilate in a society with their wealthier, more affluent brethren. Poorly performing schools are just that due to an inherent lack of discipline, management and effective resource apportionment - thousands are being spent on consultancy agencies being brought in, as was noted in a Panorama programme in which the same issue was brought up in regards to local authorities. However, these consultancy agencies do little to actually ameliorate the standard of teaching.

    Response to P4
    No outstanding school will be forced to join in an alliance, and these alliances will exist only in the set up of new schools, and, if necessary, the support of struggling schools. Many outstanding schools have already established alliances to pool resources and expertise - thereby ameliorating the standard of teaching in both schools.

    Response to P5
    The set percentage would give priority to those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds; we do not want to reduce the aptitude of those admitted - where schools can prove that they are unable to meet said percentage using 'viable candidates', they will be exempt; as a Department, for that school, we may request that said pupils receive additional one-to-one care.

    Response to P6
    I am sorry to repeat this but 'it is better to be safe than sorry'. Ultimately, we shouldn't wait until something actually happens or credible threats are made against children. As some of the most vulnerable in society, we must be able to protect them come what may.

    Response to P7
    Many schools, nowadays, have already implemented a very loose form of life education - some under the premise of a 'creative curriculum'. These worthless lessons can be forgone, in place for a more structured, defined and applicable life education curriculum. We envision that provisions for life education and internal assessments will form a significant part of all future OFSTED inspections.

    Response to P8
    Whilst I acknowledge that this policy is slightly brash, we must hammer home to students, through any means necessary, that, in a modern society, we must not rely on one single source; we must read a range of sources from across the spectrum to ensure that one is fully informed and knowledgeable of the situation at hand.

    Response to P9
    We live in an age where the basic technological understanding is no longer enough. In order to fully appreciate and understand the workings of computers, one must be aware of the underlying systems and protocols. That being said, I understand that coding may not be for everyone.

    Response to P10
    This Government, mainly through the actions of the Conservative Party last term, has continued to support new and prospective teachers: notably, through bursaries; bursaries now enshrined in law, ensuring a degree of stability and long term certainty.

    Response to P11 and P12
    Our long term goal remains to have an onsite representative at every secondary school for 10 hours - however, we acknowledge that the amount of CAMHS representatives at present may not be able to support this. Hence, the provisions detailed under P12: as a temporary measure to address the shortfall (but one that will be implemented on a permanent basis), all teachers must undergo training concerning mental health. This will greatly increase targeted referrals to external CAMHS services or other physiological services.

    Response to P12
    Gifted and Talented funding will be used to support extra-curriculum provisions, notably, the teaching of Further Maths GCSE, projects like FMSP and nrich. Crucially, any school or entity receiving G and T funding must have these funds ring fenced for extra provisions.

    Response to P13
    The £1 million figure was based on circumstances using existing infrastructure - i.e. the find and compare schools (https://www.gov.uk/school-performance-tables) database. Ergo, private tutors on a duplication of the aforementioned database would register as 'schools'. Checks would then be regularly conducted to ensure the maintained integrity of the database.

    Response to P14
    In the place of SATs preparation, we hope schools to 'smoothen the progression between primary and secondary' by introducing the key basic concepts of many subjects at a KS3 level as well as begin to implement and teach elements of the 'life education' 'pledge'.

    Response to P15
    We do not wish to make significant changes to the specifications of subjects; the Michael Gove reforms to specifications themselves have actually improved most subjects. We shall only require that examinations tend towards understanding rather than autonomous regurgitation.

    e.g. instead of a question asking: "State 2 basic implications of a 'boom' in the economic trade cycle" the question would be "Evaluate the role and issues of increasing GDP per capita".

    Response to P16
    Again, EBacc and Progress 8 are meant to be performance indicators - not in any way shape or form used to tailor curriculums. Their increased significance is leading to a significant downturn in Art and Music qualifications.

    ----
    I apologise to all for a somewhat delayed response; due to unexpected circumstances, I was unable to dedicate significant time to the MHoC for a few days.
    Right, only 4,000 words of plain English response to go 96 hours on
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Mr Speaker, this statement has been published now for nearly 5 days with responses starting almost immediately with a significant response from myself within hours, one from JellyMilk before the 48 hour mark along with one from JoeL1994 pretty much on the 48 hour mark, and one from Saunders16 a few hours later. Thus far the Secretary of State has ignored almost all of these, as has the Prime Minister instead choosing to go for the short and simple one. With just over 24 hours to go on this item can the Secretary of State please confirm to us that he has absolutely no intention of defending these 4,000 words of pretentious ****?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Mr Speaker, this statement has been published now for nearly 5 days with responses starting almost immediately with a significant response from myself within hours, one from JellyMilk before the 48 hour mark along with one from JoeL1994 pretty much on the 48 hour mark, and one from Saunders16 a few hours later. Thus far the Secretary of State has ignored almost all of these, as has the Prime Minister instead choosing to go for the short and simple one. With just over 24 hours to go on this item can the Secretary of State please confirm to us that he has absolutely no intention of defending these 4,000 words of pretentious ****?
    Sources within the government parties say that that the pm knows this Government is incompetent and is pushing for ns_2 to ignore it as it was completely torn apart.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    Response to P11 and P12
    Our long term goal remains to have an onsite representative at every secondary school for 10 hours - however, we acknowledge that the amount of CAMHS representatives at present may not be able to support this. Hence, the provisions detailed under P12: as a temporary measure to address the shortfall (but one that will be implemented on a permanent basis), all teachers must undergo training concerning mental health. This will greatly increase targeted referrals to external CAMHS services or other physiological services.
    So you accept that your initial pledge is unmanageable and a claim made without knowledge of the intricate workings of the mental health system in this country, the current state of CAMHS, the problems facing schools with regards to Children and Young People's (CYP) mental health and behaviours of concern, without costing the price of having all teachers mental health trained? The last time I checked, the Mental Health First Aid course for CYP, for a week, was £2000. To train all 438,000 state-school teachers in the country you're looking at a minimum £876,000, before paying them to attend the course as it's a weeks course, without paying the trainers, or for buildings where this could take place. This isn't including private schools, universities or independent schools. There's part of your costings for you, but it's a terrible idea in the first place. Having one mental health trained person in the school is a far better solution but your bold claims for a blanket fix all solution are clearly not thought out. This is also reliant on the fact you're going to give the full training to teachers, the limit of which comes to calming techniques or knowing which resources to access (which is essentially just CAMHS anyway). I would know, I've done the course.

    (Original post by ns_2)
    Response to P9
    We live in an age where the basic technological understanding is no longer enough. In order to fully appreciate and understand the workings of computers, one must be aware of the underlying systems and protocols. That being said, I understand that coding may not be for everyone.
    I'm sorry but neither I nor any of the other 70 people on my course can code, for good reason - we're doing a very specific job and we don't need to know how. That is a ridiculous claim. I will never learn how to code and for good reason; I don't need to. I know the basic workings of a computer and computer system from ICT in school, throwing (as I previously said) a whole new language into the mix is not going to suit anyone who already struggles with basic formulation of the English language. If I have a problem with a computer, I see IT services because they're the experts. In the exact same way, if I break a bone, I go to the Doctor. I don't stick an ice pack and some masking tape over it because I'm first aid trained. Specialist jobs are those for a reason, leave them be and don't try and force this conservative view of STEM must be taught to everyone and everyone must be great at it onto people.

    Perhaps the Prime Minister will comment on why such an ill-thought out statement was sent out when there are glaring holes raised not just by myself but by Jammy Duel and others, let alone why his minister provided an inadequate response?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    Response
    This paragraph completely contradicts itself. You spend the first several sentences criticising the current system, describing it as 'convoluted' and 'inefficient'. This is true - our education system is inherently flawed and struggles with many problems. However, you then finish the paragraph by stating that you wish to 'preserve the integrity' of the system, which doesn't make sense - why would you want to keep a broken system in place?

    Ignoring the oxymoron, however, I agree with you in this section.

    Response

    I question your reasoning. The government should always attain to keep teaching and school quality as high as possible, regardless of the attainment gap or postcode lottery. In fact, I don't believe the attainment gap is even relevant here - the issue is more to do with pupils and teachers not being engaged during school hours, and less to do with richer students moving closer to better schools. The sentiment is good, but the reasoning is not.

    The issue of lower attainment in poorer schools is much more closely linked with the students themselves. A study by Oxford University shows that poverty is to blame in the grade difference between rich and poor pupils, rather than the schools they attend. This gap appears in all schools, and the way to correct the issue is not to intervene - it is to better support the families of these disadvantaged students.

    Response

    We are in agreement that schools should work together, rather than compete. However, this is not an issue based on schools lacking alliances. This is an issue based on schools and parents placing average test scores above all else when it comes to selecting an institute of education.

    I take issue with the idea of forcing schools into alliances. My reasoning is that schools advocate towards different types of pupils. It is not beneficial to have these specialised schools connected with schools that bear no resemblance towards the same focus groups. Moreover, if the alliances have no financial benefits, there is really no reason for them whatsoever.

    You think the policy will not cost anything tangible, but this proposal would require moderate administrative fees. It is always good to cost everything.

    Response

    This is a very confusing section.

    You state that talented pupils of all backgrounds should be given the chance to get a better standard of education, and yet you've just said two paragraphs ago that all pupils should receive the best possible quality of learning. Which is it?

    You further state that you do not expect all students to accept the same education as each other, which is true, but I am firmly of the opinion that extending grammar and selective schools is not the way to go about this issue, especially in the way you've described. You have attempted to limit the amount of selection those school can have, but you have not given an example of this percentage of poorer students, nor have you realised that those schools will always discriminate on income in some way. Once that percentage is fulfilled, the anti-discrimination policy is rendered void.

    You have not specified what is classed as a 'low' participation level in higher education. Is it level 2 and below? Level 3? POLAR3 values are also outdated - it is better to use those of POLAR4.

    Response

    Nothing wrong here, although I question how this costs £10m and the alliance policy cost would be negligible.

    Response

    I wouldn't say that PSHE is unfit for purpose, but I agree that reforms are needed. Most of my party seem to agree.

    Response

    Firstly, I agree with PSHE as a legal requirement. That's something that I would push for, should I be in your position. My issue is with the reform proposals.

    For one, you claimed that these reforms would be 'unrelenting', when they do not change much of the current system, at all. Most schools that offer PSHE have much of the subjects you have chosen as part of the syllabus already. This is hardly dramatic, and you are vastly overstating what you have actually proposed.

    I am legitimately shocked at one of your proposals, however. You have made it very clear that you believe in an unbiased education. However, you wish to make it a legal requirement to teach 'the implicit need for private pensions' which is implicitly a conservative belief. How can you possibly claim to want a non-partisan education and then force partisan beliefs into it?

    I don't know why you've called the already established 'Diversity and Mindfulness' topic 'Inclusion'. You can also combine the first seven proposals into one, which I have done so in the translation. Please refrain from making your work look bigger.

    Response

    An incredibly flowery paragraph, when in fact you're saying very little in the way of proposals.

    It is conflicting that you are much more centralised on secondary school than primary schools. If the curriculum is so awful, like you say, then it should be changed everywhere.

    Response

    Really? This is not an issue in the slightest, because English is taught with literature - that is to say, books - which has not changed in many years. No part of the current English course requires you to use real-time news. A pointless paragraph, and a waste of time for the Department.

    Response

    Okay, for one, if you're going to use complex language, use it correctly. This was incredibly hard to decode. I'd need to rebuild Colossus to do it, although I suppose, going by the content of this section, you have no idea what that is.

    I agree with the issue of the NEA, and I wholeheartedly support you goal to teach all students a good programming language, in order to make sure we stay progressive as a society. However, this is not a reform - it was set in place a couple of years ago. Glad that you're supporting it, though.

    Response

    The first half of this section is completely pointless. You want to offer incentives to new teachers, and your way about this is to continue to offer 'indefatigable support'. You do not seem to realise that the issue is caused by a lack of this support in the first place. If your department was really capable of offering this support, you would not be facing such a crisis. You also wish to cut bureaucracy, but you haven't told us how. It's not as easy and closing a few sub-departments and saying "Abracadabra". Intimate risk assessments exist to ensure the safety of pupils. If you wish for all schools to introduce a lockdown procedure, they are required to make sure that pupils are indeed safe.

    Response

    "We didn't like the yearly report that came out less than a year ago, so we'll have another one this year."

    It's an annual report. It comes out every year.

    Think about this for a minute, and get back to me.

    Response

    This is extremely hard to understand. How you attempt to pay for a dedicated psychiatrist remains to be seen, although the Right Honourable Jammy Duel has offered a very conservative costing for you.

    Response

    This isn't needed. SENCos already have the power to request from the governing, and they are teachers, first and foremost.

    Response

    Good idea, as long as you intend to fund it as well.

    Response

    This is very vague. Where will that £10 million go? Gifted and Talented programs are important, but I fail to see how the scheme needs an extra £10 million investment. I am beginning to see a trend with costing issues.

    Response

    In no way is £1 million enough for regular checks, assessments, and creation of this register. I agree with the sentiment, but online services already exist, and I don't see a need for a government-created register anyway. This seems like padding, and a waste of money.

    Response

    I'm all for changing the system, but you have not promised a dramatic enough change for this to be a good usage of resources and time. If you want to remove SATs, the new focus on life should be respected by changing the way GCSEs and Apprenticeships work.

    Response

    This doesn't say much. Changing the exams again would place even more strain on the public, because they are the ones who now need to catch up.

    Response

    Why not just make it clear that these qualifications are indicators? No real need to abolish them; they're valuable for employers.

    Response

    What is the point for this addition? It's how most, if not all, apprenticeships work nowadays anyway. Seems like more padding.

    Response

    This is an interesting proposal, although it should be costed before you stick it as padding in your statement of intent.
    I, first, wish to take the time to apologise to the Right Honourable Gentleman for my delay in a full response; other obligations, sadly, superseded my commitment to TSR MHoC, temporarily.

    Regardless, I, also, wish to take the time to thank the Right Honourable Gentleman for his sensible and reasoned comments; they are appreciated.

    Response 1
    I disagree that this element of the statement is a contradiction: in stating that we wish to 'preserve the integrity' of the system, we mean that we wish to 'ensure that the education system remains central to its core values and that it remains committed to free education for all; we do not wish to see the infiltration of private companies in a sector which remains vulnerable to external influences'.

    Response 2
    I, sadly, wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that 'poverty engenders poor attainment'. Elements like the Pupil Premium have been introduced to offset any 'poverty-related drawbacks'. The Pupil Premium, inherently, allows schools to facilitate a greater level of care and support for these pupils. Issues arise from the lack of effective resource apportionment - an issue we wish to resolve through direct intervention, as stated.

    Response 3
    I sense a contradiction between this and your response to the abolishment of direct performance indicators. You claim that 'issues [arise due to] schools and parents placing average test scores above all else' - however, are against the abolishment of performance indicators, which are, by definition, 'average test scores'.

    As already mentioned, many schools, who tailor to different sets of children, have already entered, by their own accord, 'teaching alliances' - which have been successful with negligible costs.

    New schools may be unaware of certain quirks in the education system; quirks only known by established schools.

    Response 4
    This government remains committed to ensuring that all pupils, regardless of background, can receive the best possible quality of education; education inherently tailored to their style of learning - more academic pupils ought to be given the chance to harness said academic skills; similarly, with technical pupils.

    Low participation shall be designated at a school level; we expect that schools either specify a lack of a Level 3 qualification (i.e. equivalent to A-level) or higher.

    Response 5
    As mentioned, funding will be attributed on a case-by-case basis, with priority given to systemic issues i.e. holes in a wall, unsecured doors etc.

    Response 6
    Nice to know that we are in agreement.

    Response 7
    'The implicit need for private pensions' is far from a conservative belief. The raw amount of the State Pension is decreasing year-on-year; in the near future, it is likely that the State Pension will be abolished all together or be practically worthless. Ergo, a private pension will be needed to meet the shortfall between what remains of the State Pension and the amount actually needed to live an adequate life.

    I am unaware of a subject designated as 'Diversity and Mindfulness' pertaining to the fact that it is not part of the National Curriculum, and is likely a school-based subject.

    Response 8
    The biggest issue in primary education is the lack of preparation for the transition and progression from primary to secondary - the removal of SATs and a more liberalised curriculum allows primary schools to more assidiously prepare for and account for said transition.

    Furthermore, certain topics are too complex for most primary pupils.

    Response 9
    As mentioned, we must 'hammer home' the need to read, learn and explore with discretion; pupils ought to be taught not to rely on one source alone, instead using a variety of sources from across the sociopolitical spectrum to properly formulate an informed view.

    Response 10
    The language used here is standard in the Computer Science GCSE qualification and specification; I, nonetheless, apologise for any issues caused. The reform instituted in previous years did not actually stipulate the extent to which knowledge of a programming language and Pseudocode must be known; we have simply built upon it clarifying our short-term and long-term goals.

    Response 11
    This Government remains committed to the teaching profession - evidently, in last term's Educational Bursaries Bill. We are highly aware of the stress on the education sector and are aware that we must implement new strategies tailored towards teachers themselves to ameliorate the underlying system.

    The abolition of an intimate risk assessment in all circumstances will not comprise the security and safety of pupils. Nowadays, an intimate risk assessment must be conducted for each activity and each trip - we aim to introduce a streamlined process where trips like a walk around the block undergoes a simpler risk assessment that sledding down Mount Snowdon.

    Response 12
    Whilst the Report is indeed annual, it requires institution and instruction from the SoS - this was simply a box-ticking exercise.

    Response 13
    This remains our long-term goal; in the short term, we shall be, as detailed further on, requiring that teachers undergo basic mental awareness courses in order to more accurately spot, refer and tailor one's scheme of work towards those with mental health conditions.

    Response 14
    SENCoS have the power to request from the governing body - in an age where mental health conditions are common in pupils, SENCoS ought to be given the innate power to propose cases directly to the governing body, reducing unnecessary burearcy.

    Response 15
    Said courses would be subsidised through existing CPD mechanisms.

    Response 16
    The G&T Fund would be set aside for the likes of the FMSP, nrich, UKMT, projects like Science Live! - and the provisions surrounding Further Mathematics GCSEs and A-levels (as well as other subjects).

    Response 17
    The register would be built upon existing infrastructure i.e. that used for the schools database - thereby £1 million has been set aside to deal with any administrative costs in establishment and continued maintenance. A government-backed and created register gives parents needed certainty and assurance.

    Response 18
    As mentioned, the removal of SATs is to reduce stress and facilitate a smoother transition between primary and secondary.

    Response 19

    The content of the examinations would not change; rather, the way in which said content is tested - all subjects (where possible) would be required to more heavily weight examinations to evaluation and understanding AOs rather than fact-recall.

    Response 20
    [see earlier point of de facto contradiction]

    Response 21
    We remain committed to an education system that works not only for the privileged few but each and every one of us.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    So you accept that your initial pledge is unmanageable and a claim made without knowledge of the intricate workings of the mental health system in this country, the current state of CAMHS, the problems facing schools with regards to Children and Young People's (CYP) mental health and behaviours of concern, without costing the price of having all teachers mental health trained? The last time I checked, the Mental Health First Aid course for CYP, for a week, was £2000. To train all 438,000 state-school teachers in the country you're looking at a minimum £876,000, before paying them to attend the course as it's a weeks course, without paying the trainers, or for buildings where this could take place. This isn't including private schools, universities or independent schools. There's part of your costings for you, but it's a terrible idea in the first place. Having one mental health trained person in the school is a far better solution but your bold claims for a blanket fix all solution are clearly not thought out. This is also reliant on the fact you're going to give the full training to teachers, the limit of which comes to calming techniques or knowing which resources to access (which is essentially just CAMHS anyway). I would know, I've done the course.
    Your concerns over this are noted.

    I'm sorry but neither I nor any of the other 70 people on my course can code, for good reason - we're doing a very specific job and we don't need to know how. That is a ridiculous claim. I will never learn how to code and for good reason; I don't need to. I know the basic workings of a computer and computer system from ICT in school, throwing (as I previously said) a whole new language into the mix is not going to suit anyone who already struggles with basic formulation of the English language. If I have a problem with a computer, I see IT services because they're the experts. In the exact same way, if I break a bone, I go to the Doctor. I don't stick an ice pack and some masking tape over it because I'm first aid trained. Specialist jobs are those for a reason, leave them be and don't try and force this conservative view of STEM must be taught to everyone and everyone must be great at it onto people.
    We think subjects like that are becoming more important and there's significant demand for it. It will only be for KS3 and KS4 so those moving onto further education do not have to do it.

    I wouldn't call it a Conservative view that STEM must be taught to everyone and everyone must be "great at it" - especially the latter which I find a bit odd... That's just nonsense I'm afraid. For some they will be good at it, like any other subject and for others they may not do as well.

    Perhaps the Prime Minister will comment on why such an ill-thought out statement was sent out when there are glaring holes raised not just by myself but by Jammy Duel and others, let alone why his minister provided an inadequate response?
    I wouldn't make such a judgement on that after focusing on two(?) things you have a problem with (that do not make up the majority of the SoI) - you haven't even made an effort to mention what you agree with and your response has been so far nothing but pessimistic.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Your concerns over this are noted.



    We think subjects like that are becoming more important and there's significant demand for it. It will only be for KS3 and KS4 so those moving onto further education do not have to do it.

    I wouldn't call it a Conservative view that STEM must be taught to everyone and everyone must be "great at it" - especially the latter which I find a bit odd... That's just nonsense I'm afraid. For some they will be good at it, like any other subject and for others they may not do as well.



    I wouldn't make such a judgement on that after focusing on two(?) things you have a problem with (that do not make up the majority of the SoI) - you haven't even made an effort to mention what you agree with and your response has been so far nothing but pessimistic.
    Please tell members if the SoS Education is going to bother responding in depth or if he will ignore everything like he ignored the Speaker when the Speaker was trying to hold an SoS Education question time.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    Please tell members if the SoS Education is going to bother responding in depth or if he will ignore everything like he ignored the Speaker when the Speaker was trying to hold an SoS Education question time.
    He did not ignore the Speaker when holding Education QT.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    He did not ignore the Speaker when holding Education QT.
    He provided a delayed response which prevented the opposition Shadow Minister fulfilling their duties; a full exchange was not had. I would appreciate it if you answered the question before becoming defensive.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    He provided a delayed response which prevented the opposition Shadow Minister fulfilling their duties; a full exchange was not had. I would appreciate it if you answered the question before becoming defensive.
    That was not a question.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    He provided a delayed response which prevented the opposition Shadow Minister fulfilling their duties; a full exchange was not had. I would appreciate it if you answered the question before becoming defensive.
    I refute allegations that any blame ought to be apportioned to myself; I was not made aware by the Speaker of a deadline to conform to. He has already confirmed this, on a previous occasion.

    Regardless, I opened the floor for further questioning and was happy to assuage any other concerns held by the Shadow SoS and other members - and I remain happy to do so provided the question is direct.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    Please tell members if the SoS Education is going to bother responding in depth or if he will ignore everything like he ignored the Speaker when the Speaker was trying to hold an SoS Education question time.
    I have provided responses that cover a wide range of qualms and issues; however, if you feel that an in depth answer is required for any given question or wish me to clarify any element, please feel free to draw my attention to it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    I refute allegations that any blame ought to be apportioned to myself; I was not made aware by the Speaker of a deadline to conform to. He has already confirmed this, on a previous occasion.

    Regardless, I opened the floor for further questioning and was happy to assuage any other concerns held by the Shadow SoS and other members - and I remain happy to do so provided the question is direct.
    You have appeared from the woodwork after days of silence. I would be interested to hear your responses to members who have raised points in this thread. You have made a few responses but a lot of points made have been ignored by you, for example, Joe L is waiting for a response.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JoeL1994)
    My first qualm is with this being a requirement for all students to learn coding. Yes, I recognise that it is an important trait to have for some, but surely establishing a base level of literacy and numeracy should be ensured before engaging pupils in extra hours of learning what is an essentially a brand new language. In a time where we should be facilitating all young people into learning skills that complement them and their abilities, we should not be forcing what can be a very difficult skill onto everyone. Doctors, nurses, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, even teachers (outside of CompSci/ICT) will never need to learn how to code, surely it would be better to leave this as a specialisation rather than taking up more time in a teaching week that is already too long.

    We shouldn't get sucked into this idea that computers will save the world because they won't, only people can.


    Jammy Duel brings up an excellent point about a CAMHS representative in each school, although the problem is a little deeper than just money.

    The CAMHS representative in each school is ludicrous, as in impossible. CAMHS is severely overworked as it is, and in some areas like Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire is failing to deal with it's caseload to such an extent that young people that would be in mainstream education are having to go to SEN schools due to the mental health needs displaying themselves as behaviours of concern. There are not enough mental health nurses being trained, which has led to the vast majority of NHS Trusts across the UK switching from MHN postings to 'Mental Health Practitioner' roles at Band 5 level to allow them to recruit Occupational Therapists or even Social Workers who have had mental health training as it is just not sustainable at present. Family liaison posts in schools are there for a reason, and should be administrative but trained to such a level where they have CYP Mental Health First Aid to recognise MH conditions and then refer on. It is NOT a schools place to deal with this, but mental health professionals. If everyone who was observed to have a 'mental health condition' was not triaged by a mental health professional in a separate CAMHS service but just stuck on a list and was required to be seen, waiting lists would be not even worth having as they would be too long. This is what happens when someone thinks the solution to MH problems are chucking more money at it and hoping it'll go away, or that schools are the issue (Hint: They're not).
    (Original post by Jacob E)
    You have appeared from the woodwork after days of silence. I would be interested to hear your responses to members who have raised points in this thread. You have made a few responses but a lot of points made have been ignored by you, for example, Joe L is waiting for a response.
    I feel that his concerns were answered in my other responses; but, nonetheless...

    In our ever globalising and technological dependant society, a deeper underlying knowledge of coding and the mechanisms that facilitate the usage of the internet and database to function will be required. The United Kingdom, as a whole, is being held back by our innate lack of productivity, one that may be addressed through advances in technological only possible through a systemwide amelioration of the standard of coding and understanding of computers. By the same way of thought, it is unlikely that many people use elements of Music, Art (both compulsory at KS3) and Religious Education (compulsory for KS3, and for many (not all) at KS4) in their everyday lives - the same could be said about Maths: an author is unlikely to use the Factor Theorem and long division of polynomials. Ergo, that requirement will not be removed, especially given the annulment of ICT.

    In conjunction with our requirement for teachers to undergo basic mental health awareness courses, we aim to make a more cohesive system in regards to provisions regarding mental health. We concede that the NHS, as a whole, is stretched - let alone mental health elements (I have first hand of the delays and long waiting lists). However, schools must be able to tailor their education practices to better support said 'cohesive system' - notably, through ameliorated detection. Ergo, the CAMHS representative shall remain a long-term goal for us.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Division!

    Clear the lobbies!
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 1, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.