English schools begging for Charity

[Eldorado]

A desperate school in financial trouble has asked BBC Children in Need for money to support its disadvantaged pupils.

It follows a pattern of schools reaching out to charities and crowdfunding initiatives to back them financially.

At Wales' Daily Post: https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/cash-strapped-school-approaches-bbc-16417320

"School funding has climbed up the political agenda in recent months, with reports of schools closing early, parents being asked for donations, teachers using their own money to buy basic supplies, and headteachers taking on additional roles including catering, safeguarding and cleaning to save money."

Full report at the UK Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jun/12/school-asks-bbc-children-in-need-to-cover-funding-gap?

 

"More than 1,000 English schools turn to online donations to raise funds"

April report at the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/apr/09/cash-strapped-english-schools-turn-to-online-donations-to-close-funding-gap

[ethereal_scout]

What did a school classroom (incl teacher) cost in the 1930s, the 1950s, the 1970s, the 1990s. In the 1930s it would have been a single leaf brick building, rudimentary heating, tables, chairs, books and a teacher on basic wage. Fast forward to today and they'll be feeling 'underfunded' if the specification of a typical school can't have a plasma screen TV, along with a couple of computers with the full MS Office suite on it. The buildings are a work of art at millions a piece and the teachers salaries are through the roof. My old high school is looking for a couple of deputies at £70k a piece. Multiply that up for the district where each school needs a headmaster and some deputies and you get to a bill of over a £1M for head masters alone.

Quote

and headteachers taking on additional roles including catering, safeguarding and cleaning to save money

Didums. A typical small business director is on £40k in the 'private sector' - half the headmasters pay and you could get 3 to 4 auxiliary workers to do the cooking and cleaning (usually around £10k pro rata as they're part time). Basically schools are specifying themselves out of affordability and sending their districts an increasingly unaffordable bill.

Basic schooling is now becoming unaffordable and something needs to break.

Edited June 12, 2019 by ethereal_scout

[itsnotoutthere]

We've had a poplulation increase of approximately 2.5million in the last 5 years...that alone would have a serious impact on schools, housing and healthcare, as indeed it does.

Edited June 12, 2019 by itsnotoutthere

[Setton]

10 minutes ago, ethereal_scout said:

What did a school classroom (incl teacher) cost in the 1930s, the 1950s, the 1970s, the 1990s. In the 1930s it would have been a single leaf brick building, rudimentary heating, tables, chairs, books and a teacher on basic wage. Fast forward to today and they'll be feeling 'underfunded' if the specification of a typical school can't have a plasma screen TV, along with a couple of computers with the full MS Office suite on it. The buildings are a work of art at millions a piece and the teachers salaries are through the roof. My old high school is looking for a couple of deputies at £70k a piece. Multiply that up for the district where each school needs a headmaster and some deputies and you get to a bill of over a £1M for head masters alone.

Didums. A typical small business director is on £40k in the 'private sector' - half his pay and you could get 3 to 4 auxiliary workers to do the cooking and cleaning (usually around £10k pro rata as they're part time). Basically schools are specifying themselves out of affordability and sending their districts an increasingly unaffordable bill.

Basic schooling is now becoming unaffordable and something needs to break.

Yes, how dare teachers expect to be paid for their work. It's not like education is important, right? 

Also, the average head teacher salary is £55k. I don't know where you're getting your numbers but perhaps someone should have paid your teachers better. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Setton

[ethereal_scout]

Quote

Also, the average head teacher salary is £55k. I don't know where you're getting your numbers

https://www.myjobscotland.gov.uk/councils/midlothian-council/jobs/head-teacher-strathesk-primary-school-158661?from=org

That's £61.5k for a primary school head.

https://www.myjobscotland.gov.uk/categories/education?salary=28349&changing=salary

That's £84k for a Coatbridge Headmaster.

Edited June 12, 2019 by ethereal_scout

[L.A.T.1961]

I don't think fund raising is a new phenomenon. I remember being given raffle tickets to sell and going on sponsored walks to raise school funds. This was back in the 60's/70's. School trips would often require contributions from parents.

Some of the problems now being felt date back to Blair's time in government.  Despite the Education-Education-Education mantra schools were sold off for their land and turned into housing. Many teachers left the profession during this time as schools closed. The school buildings were irreplaceable in towns, as few other new sites exist in built up areas.

Now there is shortage of, not just teachers but schools to put pupils in.  

[Setton]

2 hours ago, ethereal_scout said:

https://www.myjobscotland.gov.uk/councils/midlothian-council/jobs/head-teacher-strathesk-primary-school-158661?from=org

That's £61.5k for a primary school head.

https://www.myjobscotland.gov.uk/categories/education?salary=28349&changing=salary

That's £84k for a Coatbridge Headmaster.

The key word, of course, being 'average'. 

[Setton]

13 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I don't think fund raising is a new phenomenon. I remember being given raffle tickets to sell and going on sponsored walks to raise school funds. This was back in the 60's/70's. School trips would often require contributions from parents.

Did you ever have to raise £10000 in a term to fix a leaking roof? Because we did when I was teaching. 

Quote

Some of the problems now being felt date back to Blair's time in government.  Despite the Education-Education-Education mantra schools were sold off for their land and turned into housing. Many teachers left the profession during this time as schools closed. The school buildings were irreplaceable in towns, as few other new sites exist in built up areas.

Now there is shortage of, not just teachers but schools to put pupils in.  

To some extent, maybe. The majority of problems though stem from the current government's chronic underfunding of education and its woeful mismanagement of the sector. 

If they actually listened to teachers they might be able to retain more than half the ones they train (yes, half leave into he first 5 years) without having to offer extra money. 

Unfortunately, the simple truth is that, even with wages where they are, most teachers at the lower end of the scale are effectively paid below minimum wage. 

[skookum]

Remember that few teachers actually "teach" full time. Classroom assistants and assistant teachers often "take" the lesson on a plan made by the teacher. Lesson planning often takes 3 times the amount of time to plan than the actual lesson time. However most schools insist on lesson plans and resources being uploaded to the school system to be shared. Although I appreciate the amount of prep goes into lessons these are recycled for future classes. Going back to when I was at school we had one teacher per class who acted alone. I really do struggle to understand why teachers today with all help struggle so much.

[Duke Wellington]

The UK education system needs stream lining because it currently doesnt represent value for money.

Social mobility is for most a dream that will never lead anywhere. This is because the majority of people dont have the intelligence needed to get their A-Levels, BAs, and research degrees. A large chunk of those who are bright enough just end up working in retail, office, and factory jobs, anyway.

Why? There are only ever going to be a limited number of positions available in the economy for highly skilled personnel. We treat higher numbers of students going to University every year as something to be celebrate. What is it up to now? 230,000? Most of them are heading for disappointment because most arent ever going to get a job in their chosen field

We need quotas where we limit how many students can study each course. Then select the brightest to fill its seats first (regardless of social-economic background). It should include GCSE students too. If a person isn't bright enough to stand a good chance of getting their GCSEs keeping them at school past the age of 14 is just a waste of taxpayers money.

I propose at 14 people get assessed to determine if they will get their GCSEs. If they wont give then give them 6 years National Service instead where they can be taught a trade.

At 16 cap those who only just got their GCSEs to prevent them going to College. Give the positions to the grade A and B students instead. Release the rest into National Service for 4 years instead where they can be taught a more advanced trade and given junior level management skills.

That should cut the education budget in half. Use the saving to send those brighter students to College and University for free. Use the freed up teacher manpower to reduce class and lecture hall size too. And if any spare money is left knock it off business NICs so its cheaper to employ more people.

[Setton]

1 hour ago, skookum said:

Remember that few teachers actually "teach" full time.

Source please because you don't have one. 

Quote

Classroom assistants and assistant teachers often "take" the lesson on a plan made by the teacher.

No, they don't. Only HLTAs are qualified to cover lessons. Usually 2 hours a week for teachers PPA (planning, preparation and assessment) time. 

Quote

Lesson planning often takes 3 times the amount of time to plan than the actual lesson time.

This part is actually true(!) 

Quote

However most schools insist on lesson plans and resources being uploaded to the school system to be shared.

Some. Definitely not most. 

Quote

Although I appreciate the amount of prep goes into lessons these are recycled for future classes.

Nope. Every lesson has to be rewritten for the specific class. The children aren't duplicates of last year's so the lesson can't be either. 

Quote

Going back to when I was at school we had one teacher per class who acted alone. I really do struggle to understand why teachers today with all help struggle so much.

Perhaps because they have so much more admin to do than in the past. 

For each 1 hour lesson, there's at least 1-2 hours planning and prep, 1 hour teaching, and 1 hour of assessment. Most teachers prepare and deliver 20-25 lessons a week so that's between 60 and 100 hours work a week as a minimum. Which would be illegal if required in any other job. 

That's without running extra curricular clubs, writing reports, helping with fundraisers or taking children on residentials. All of which take place in their own time and are not paid. They are also not optional. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Setton

[Setton]

9 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

The UK education system needs stream lining because it currently doesnt represent value for money.

Social mobility is for most a dream that will never lead anywhere. This is because the majority of people dont have the intelligence needed to get their A-Levels, BAs, and research degrees. A large chunk of those who are bright enough just end up working in retail, office, and factory jobs, anyway.

Why? There are only ever going to be a limited number of positions available in the economy for highly skilled personnel. We treat higher numbers of students going to University every year as something to be celebrate. What is it up to now? 230,000? Most of them are heading for disappointment because most arent ever going to get a job in their chosen field

We need quotas where we limit how many students can study each course. Then select the brightest to fill its seats first (regardless of social-economic background). It should include GCSE students too. If a person isn't bright enough to stand a good chance of getting their GCSEs keeping them at school past the age of 14 is just a waste of taxpayers money.

I propose at 14 people get assessed to determine if they will get their GCSEs. If they wont give then give them 6 years National Service instead where they can be taught a trade.

At 16 cap those who only just got their GCSEs to prevent them going to College. Give the positions to the grade A and B students instead. Release the rest into National Service for 4 years instead where they can be taught a more advanced trade and given junior level management skills.

That should cut the education budget in half. Use the saving to send those brighter students to College and University for free. Use the freed up teacher manpower to reduce class and lecture hall size too. And if any spare money is left knock it off business NICs so its cheaper to employ more people.

Ideologically, I don't like this suggestion as some learners develop later than others. 

But it does make a lot of sense... 

So absolutely no chance of the DfE ever implementing it 

[hetrodoxly]

On 12/06/2019 at 12:17 PM, Eldorado said:

A desperate school in financial trouble has asked BBC Children in Need for money

What a good idea, they had 50,000,000 donated last year with all these poor children in the UK how can anyone think it a good idea to send it out of the country, even stranger is all these schools who raise money for CIN when they need it more than anyone.

[hetrodoxly]

On 12/06/2019 at 4:37 PM, L.A.T.1961 said:

I don't think fund raising is a new phenomenon. I remember being given raffle tickets to sell and going on sponsored walks to raise school funds. This was back in the 60's/70's. School trips would often require contributions from parents.

Some of the problems now being felt date back to Blair's time in government.  Despite the Education-Education-Education mantra schools were sold off for their land and turned into housing. Many teachers left the profession during this time as schools closed. The school buildings were irreplaceable in towns, as few other new sites exist in built up areas.

Now there is shortage of, not just teachers but schools to put pupils in.  

Same here, i thought it had always been a thing.

[+and-then]

On 6/12/2019 at 7:39 AM, itsnotoutthere said:

We've had a poplulation increase of approximately 2.5million in the last 5 years...that alone would have a serious impact on schools, housing and healthcare, as indeed it does.

The immigration fairy mustn't have gotten the memo to make supplies and funds magically available.  It just goes downhill from here.

[Imaginarynumber1]

5 minutes ago, and then said:

The immigration fairy mustn't have gotten the memo to make supplies and funds magically available.  It just goes downhill from here.

 

 

 

xen·o·pho·bi·a

/ˌzenəˈfōbēə,ˌzēnəˈfōbēə/

Learn to pronounce

noun

 

1. dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries

[+and-then]

33 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

 

 

 

xen·o·pho·bi·a

/ˌzenəˈfōbēə,ˌzēnəˈfōbēə/

Learn to pronounce

noun

 

1. dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries

If you want to compare vocabulary prowess, I'm ready any time.  Just to be clear, not acknowledging the danger in an unlimited flow of people into any nation without proper vetting and planning is stupid.  It's self-destructive to the nation and will do nothing to help those who arrive to the party late.  So, Mr. Compassion... where would you draw a line?  How many would be too many?  It's a real question because the Democrat candidates seem in lockstep on open borders for all and free healthcare for them as well.  If you don't attempt a serious answer for this then I'll know you are just trolling.

Edited July 1, 2019 by and then

[Imaginarynumber1]

5 hours ago, and then said:

If you want to compare vocabulary prowess, I'm ready any time.  Just to be clear, not acknowledging the danger in an unlimited flow of people into any nation without proper vetting and planning is stupid.  It's self-destructive to the nation and will do nothing to help those who arrive to the party late.  So, Mr. Compassion... where would you draw a line?  How many would be too many?  It's a real question because the Democrat candidates seem in lockstep on open borders for all and free healthcare for them as well.  If you don't attempt a serious answer for this then I'll know you are just trolling.

Don't misunderstand. I am FAR from compassionate. I hate everyone with a passion you only reserve for "lefties".

Your post, regardless of intent, just reeks of xenophobia. "Here's what happens when you let OTHERS in"

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Your post, regardless of intent, just reeks of xenophobia. "Here's what happens when you let OTHERS in"

That's because you seem incapable of understanding other opinions on this issue could even potentially be better than your own.  If you believe that unlimited, unvetted immigration is no threat then you are in a very small minority in America.  That's just a fact.  

[Duke Wellington]

8 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Don't misunderstand. I am FAR from compassionate. I hate everyone with a passion you only reserve for "lefties".

Your post, regardless of intent, just reeks of xenophobia. "Here's what happens when you let OTHERS in"

I have no idea what planet you are living on but no his comments dont. 2.5 million immigrants over 5 years for a small country the size of the UK is far too much. Its unsustainable. It causes housing shortages, NHS bed shortages, and school shortages.

The total for 5 years should have been 100,000 maximum. When its 2.5 million immigrants then that isn't to fill vital skill gaps, that isn't people fleeing from a nearby country for their lives, thts the mass migration of low skilled economic migrants.

We need a points based system to get immigration down to 20,000 per year. And the only time it should be increased is if internal problems amongst our neighbours (Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, and France) creates refugees.

It is not the UKs job to sort out the worlds problems, sort them out yourselves.

[quiXilver]

Never enough money for books, but always plenty for bombs.

 

Military folk, routinely firing munitions that cost more than they'll earn in a year, onto people who would never earn that much money in their lifetime... (assuming it wasn't shortened by the munitions...).

 

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/

[quiXilver]

also on a side note... am i the only one who finds it ironic... a man firing .50 cal bullets at targets on distant hills, who routinely can't get the stream inside the bowl while peeing?

[Duke Wellington]

26 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

Never enough money for books, but always plenty for bombs.

Military folk, routinely firing munitions that cost more than they'll earn in a year, onto people who would never earn that much money in their lifetime... (assuming it wasn't shortened by the munitions...).

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/

I am wholly against reducing the military budget to finance yet higher levels of education.

Its about time we made better use of every £1 going into our education system. This belief that everybody capable of it should go to college and university completely ignores the level of demand for skills in our economy. For example, if we only have openings for 20 geologists a year then whats the point in 5000 people going on to study geography degrees?

The current education budget is a non-sensical waste of money. While its popular because it sells to people the social mobility dream, that sad fact remains that most people with a degree arent working in their chosen field. Most of them work in shops, warehouses, offices, and on production lines.

Lets cut the education budget and cut employer NICs to aid in job creation instead. At the same time we need to increase our military budget from 2% of GDP to 5%. That spending should include another couple of aircraft carriers now we are leaving the EU.

Edited July 2, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[RoofGardener]

16 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

....... For example, if we only have openings for 20 geologists a year then whats the point in 5000 people going on to study geography degrees?

No point at all, if what you want is geologists.  

Apart from that, I agree with you wholeheartedly. 

Except for the two additional aircraft carriers. We do NOT need two additional aircraft carriers.  What we NEED is about 6 (minimum) additional Type-45 air defence destroyers, around 20 advanced type-26 frigates - with at least 12 of them being anti-submarine variants, with an additional 10 lower-grade Type 31 frigates, and at LEAST one "Ocean" class Assault Helicopter carrier. Oh.. and about 4 more conventional attack submarines. 

That would give us TWO balanced aircraft-carrier FLEETS, consisting of... 

1. Aircraft Carrier
2. Four Type 45's for air defence (including anti-missile defence).
3. Six Type 26's for anti-submarine defences, along with anti-missile screens. 
4. Two attack submarines for anti-submarine and anti-shipping functions. 
5. Possibly one Albion-class assault ship, and also possibly the "Ocean" class helicopter assault carrier.
6. Misc replenishment ships.

This would give us TWO powerful carrier-based task forces, with about 20 major surface ships (destroyers and frigates) left over for general 'flag-flying' type work. 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Duke Wellington]

12 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

No point at all, if what you want is geologists.  

Apart from that, I agree with you wholeheartedly. 

Except for the two additional aircraft carriers. We do NOT need two additional aircraft carriers.  What we NEED is about 6 (minimum) additional Type-45 air defence destroyers, around 20 advanced type-26 frigates - with at least 12 of them being anti-submarine variants, with an additional 10 lower-grade Type 31 frigates, and at LEAST one "Ocean" class Assault Helicopter carrier. Oh.. and about 4 more conventional attack submarines. 

That would give us TWO balanced aircraft-carrier FLEETS, consisting of... 

1. Aircraft Carrier
2. Four Type 45's for air defence (including anti-missile defence).
3. Six Type 26's for anti-submarine defences, along with anti-missile screens. 
4. Two attack submarines for anti-submarine and anti-shipping functions. 
5. Possibly one Albion-class assault ship, and also possibly the "Ocean" class helicopter assault carrier.
6. Misc replenishment ships.

This would give us TWO powerful carrier-based task forces, with about 20 major surface ships (destroyers and frigates) left over for general 'flag-flying' type work. 

I would like to see:

1. 50,000 extra land soldiers.

2. Two more aircraft carriers take us to a total of four. Each carrier should have 4 x type-45 defending it and 8 x type-26.

3. Four more Astute Class Subs.

4. Development of a Eurofighter replacement to allow us to break our defence away from the EU.

5. Development of a F-35 replacement to allow us to break our defence away from the US.

6. 200 extra nukes.

While I think we should be committed to our allies, I also think we shouldn't be dependent on their industries to wage war.