So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?

we need a better parliamentary system one where we have better representation of our communities and party politics needs to be done away with imo. Even at council level it is only the Independent councillors who just do not tow the party line. It is

DaisyAnne

Your post is a reflection of my views, my interest in "for the many, not the few, only to realise the weakness in the man and in the views of those supporting him. I had the same questioning over Brexit. Just how good is it; just how flawed?

Your summary of the New Right explains why, if people look at it carefully, they would destroy what we have believed is our natural way of living. It is most certainly not the Tory party many don't think twice about supporting. Anecdotal support for this. I have several friends who are as right of centre as I am left of centre i.e., not a lot. They will almost certainly always have voted Conservative. We now talk about the "Johnson Government" not the "Conservatives". We still have a common ground between us but this government is an elephant in the conversation. I have to say that I believe that, given the same sort of majority, Jeremy Corbyn in power would, almost certainly, scare me just as much.

A great post Dickens. You write so well and managed to both sooth and spark my thinking . Thankyou. I hope everyone else hasn't given up and can come back and give their thoughts.

I think we both share the same philosophy.

I feel politically homeless. Because I can see the merits of individualism, but also of collectivism, and I don't want the extremes of either.

I've been told many times there is no middle-ground in politics, but I don't think that's true. Very generally speaking, I think that is where the British public would, on the whole, prefer to be.

I, too, hope others join in and continue this thread... looking at the political landscape through other people's eyes is the only way to gauge the nature of where we might be headed. Many among us GN'ers know of a different world, the world of post-war social and economic improvement to the lives of the ordinary citizen, something subsequent generations have not experienced.

Your post is a reflection of my views, my interest in "for the many, not the few, only to realise the weakness in the man and in the views of those supporting him. I had the same questioning over Brexit. Just how good is it; just how flawed?

Your summary of the New Right explains why, if people look at it carefully, they would destroy what we have believed is our natural way of living. It is most certainly not the Tory party many don't think twice about supporting. Anecdotal support for this. I have several friends who are as right of centre as I am left of centre i.e., not a lot. They will almost certainly always have voted Conservative. We now talk about the "Johnson Government" not the "Conservatives". We still have a common ground between us but this government is an elephant in the conversation. I have to say that I believe that, given the same sort of majority, Jeremy Corbyn in power would, almost certainly, scare me just as much.

A great post Dickens. You write so well and managed to both sooth and spark my thinking . Thankyou. I hope everyone else hasn't given up and can come back and give their thoughts.

Amazing posts Dickens.

DaisyAnne

Thank you Dickens. I don't think it mattered how much I clarified, some posters just didn't want to know. I notice Callistemon21 edited what she showed as a quote from me without making the edit clear. Interestingly, the bit she took out did give more of an idea that I was going with the wider look at this government's intentions and how it could affect education.

It was obviously a subject some could not bring themselves to discuss. I wonder why?

It was obviously a subject some could not bring themselves to discuss.

TBH I think some voted for this current government in good faith. For a 'natural' Tory-voter, there was no reason not to on the face of it. Boris Johnson was very gung-ho and upbeat, the Lib-Dems were lacklustre and Corbyn was considered too far left (amongst other things). I think the result was inevitable.

... and I think there might be quite a few - well, I know some anyway - Tory voters who are, to say the least, disappointed with the way the government has performed under Johnson, and with the man himself.

Whilst I'm a dedicated Remainer, I can still see the appeal of Brexit and, let's face it, the EU is far from perfect in the way it functions. But I don't want to delve into the Brexit / Remain argument.

I do believe that the trajectory the government has taken is not necessarily the one its supporters hoped for - or some, many - I dunno how many. Did they pay attention to the small-print, do any of us? I was 'seduced' by Corbyn's "for the many not the few" but ultimately could not bring myself to vote for him for various reasons. I don't think all Tory voters are nasty people who are going to defend him come what may, he made 'promises' he hasn't kept, and under his leadership many of his supporters are going to be in dire straits... I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that, and they are probably feeling a tad reflective and subdued. I'm deliberately leaving out the 'Russian connection' not ignoring it, because this is about ideology - the ideology of market-driven, right-wing, libertarian beliefs / principles. This is not the Tory party of old where there could be some common ground, if only a tad, between left and right, and where the needs and welfare of the country as a whole were, or seemed to be, the prime concern.

All that you fear, I fear. I think it's axiomatic that we are headed for the dystopian world of Ayn Rand... but slowly, by stealth.

As for Johnson, I leave you with this description made by Rand about someone she admired greatly, almost obsessively - without mentioning who he was -

"Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.

(He) had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

I think that's a fair description of our PM.

I'm here, no need to chat behind my back!

Actually, DaisyAnne, I saw a snippet of a Government report recently and the suggestions in it were very odd - not about education though.

Thank you Dickens. I don't think it mattered how much I clarified, some posters just didn't want to know. I notice Callistemon21 edited what she showed as a quote from me without making the edit clear. Interestingly, the bit she took out did give more of an idea that I was going with the wider look at this government's intentions and how it could affect education.

It was obviously a subject some could not bring themselves to discuss. I wonder why?

Callistemon21

^So I don't understand why people don't 'get' that this is a philosophical discussion about ideology^

Perhaps because it wasn't presented as philosophical discussion in the OP?

So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?
It seems as if this is the plan

If it is just ponderings by the OP then that wasn't clear.

I've seen part of Government reports recently bu not seen this one.

We asked for a philosophy forum but GNHQ turned the idea down.

OK - strictly speaking, it wasn't clear. But a few posts later DaisyAnne expanded further. At which point I think it became obvious that this was one of those "what-do-you-think?" postings.

I have also had discussions with friends etc where one or two individuals have pondered this, some of whom had the benefit of 'free' tertiary education (me included).

I admit to not having actually read any government reports on education, apart from the one on 'Education Investment Areas' where there is mention of 'levelling up' which "will mean that every young person in England will have access to regular clubs and activities, adventures away from home and volunteering opportunities by 2025." All well and good - so maybe the fears are groundless, and I certainly understand the need to concentrate of reading / literacy skills without which other subjects become rather closed shops.

However, the questions are still there because this is a government which believes in 'small state' whether under Johnson or anyone else (this isn't 'Boris Bashing' - he's not responsible for previous government's dictums on education).

... interesting to wonder why a 'philosophy' forum was turned down. Maybe GNHQ think Politics, Religion and even "Chat" forums cover it - which maybe they do?

So I don't understand why people don't 'get' that this is a philosophical discussion about ideology

Perhaps because it wasn't presented as philosophical discussion in the OP?

So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?
It seems as if this is the plan

If it is just ponderings by the OP then that wasn't clear.

I've seen part of Government reports recently bu not seen this one.

We asked for a philosophy forum but GNHQ turned the idea down.

DaisyAnne

Given the rather obvious direction in which this government is travelling, you posed a question based on what you think might happen in the future if they are re-elected (which I think they will be).

Of course the government hasn't announced that they plan to cut back on certain parts of the curriculum, but their ideology makes this a possibility in the future. It's guesswork, based on what we already know and have experienced, thus...

Will we soon find that we pay for anything over the very, very basic needs? We have seen this in dentistry, social care and medical care. It seems as if this is the plan.

It's not possible for you to quote 'sources' because what you are doing is simply asking people where they think this RW government is heading - based on what has already happened under Tory rule.

What each person 'believes' cannot always be substantiated with facts because the belief is based on what one thinks might happen. So I don't understand why people don't 'get' that this is a philosophical discussion about ideology - in this case right-wing, libertarian philosophy, and where it might lead. Given that dentistry, social care and some aspects of medical care have now become commodities, I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that the same will happen with education.

It is however a fact that in dentistry, social and medical care, most of what we had when we were growing up - for 'free' - is no longer available unless you pay for it.

What no one ever takes into account when considering how other people vote is that in many cases people vote for a party, not because they support it, but because it is seen as the lesser of 2 evils.

This was very much the case in the last election. Given the choice between Johnson and Corbyn. People who had been Labour all their lives voted, not for Johnson, but to make absolutely sure Corbyn didn't become the next Prime Minister.

The curriculum has been redrawn at least 5 times since it's original introduction, so I can't see another redrawing being a problem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Curriculum_for_England
Look at the subjects which are no longer compulsory after 14.
and what is.

Yes I know Trisher. There is still no logic to the idea of going to the trouble of re-drawing the curriculum and ditching foundation subjects to further a right wing agenda is there?
I am a great supporter of teaching assistants, but their skills should be properly employed.
I have consistently said that lack of funding is a huge threat to schools. I still have plenty of former colleagues in the system at all levels to keep me updated.

Mamie

As an idea this really doesn't hold water.
Apart from anything else the logistics of teaching only "reading, writing and arithmetic" would be bonkers. First you would have to make statutory changes to the curriculum, produce new materials and re-train teachers. In primary schools you are talking about class teachers teaching all subjects so you still need the same number of bodies to teach three skills.
In secondary schools you could in theory sack all but the staff required for maths and English, but they might be a bit overstretched teaching a thousand or so students all day every day. I suppose the other staff could hang around to provide pay as you go lessons in other subjects, but I somehow don't think they would.
?

Mamie it's nice to see that some people still believe teaching should be done by qualified people, sadly this isn't true anymore. Lessons can be delivered by all sorts of people under the supervision of a qualified teacher. So it could be someone training to be a teacher, a teaching assistant, a cover supervisor or anyone else recruited by the school and given some sort of title (and paid less than a QT of course). It's all about the money, money!!!

Lucca

I’m sorry but I’m with Callistemon. I still don’t understand your OP totally

Not just me, then!

I don't think my questions are silly, DaisyAnne, I would just like some clarification of the question and your basis for it.

You have now explained that The source is my brain. I am asking others what they think so just musings with no basis in fact.

Thank you.

My daughter left teaching several years ago because she was fed up of the lack of funds. I’m sure things haven’t improved since she left.

DaisyAnne your entire OP and your ideas are based on your assumption that the U.K. will have a majority Conservative Government after the next election. U.K.

Unless you have an extremely good crystal ball, you or anyone else have absolutely no idea who will form the next Government or indeed what their education policy will be…

This post will be my last on this thread as there seems little point in continuing. I have previously apologised if my OP was not clear to some and I am happy to do so again.

However, what has surprised me and shocked me the most is the number of posters asking for links to the basic economic history of the Conservative Party. I had assumed that voters, and I did take it for granted that the majority posting on this forum are UK voters, would have ensured they understood what the party they wanted in power or didn't want in power, stood for. This has been a big reminder to "never assume".

The rise of the New Right in the Thatcher era, their attempts to reverse what was termed increasing 'statism' was something we lived through and presumably voted for or against. The Keynesian settlement after the war was something that fed our childhood and the attempted restructuring of the British model of government under Thatcher are surely a known period to us all. The New Right neoliberal ethos has acknowledged that a more egalitarian model of society would never be the practical outcome of its preferred economic structure. This possibly led to it becoming less popular and the demise of Thatcher and the sidelining, for a period, of "Thatcherism.

The New Right view never died. We have been through its resurgence. Cameron moved towards it and George Osborne was certainly a New Right Chancellor. The Austerity agenda was out and out New Right and it seems we have a follower of this path in Rishi Sunak. We have watched the "are we, aren't we New Right" wars in the Conservative Party over recent years, culminating with the ejection of those who were not New Right enough for the leadership. And you were all there!

The pandemic led to the government being forced to turn on their principles and support the economy. However, we can hear from the treasury, and from Johnson, the intention to reverse back to the position they believe in and put forward in their manifesto and in almost everything they have said since except when they were forced to U-Turn.

Having assumed you would have taken the stance of this Tory government into account I simply asked the question "what will peeling-back the state eventually do to education". It seems that is not a question anyone wants to answer and, of course, that is your right.

As an idea this really doesn't hold water.
Apart from anything else the logistics of teaching only "reading, writing and arithmetic" would be bonkers. First you would have to make statutory changes to the curriculum, produce new materials and re-train teachers. In primary schools you are talking about class teachers teaching all subjects so you still need the same number of bodies to teach three skills.
In secondary schools you could in theory sack all but the staff required for maths and English, but they might be a bit overstretched teaching a thousand or so students all day every day. I suppose the other staff could hang around to provide pay as you go lessons in other subjects, but I somehow don't think they would.
?

I think there are plenty enough things to worry about with the current government. So until there are signs from the DfE of statutory changes to the core and foundation curriculum (which think highly unlikely) I would be far more concerned about overall cuts to school budgets and the evidence that is emerging about the apparently rather haphazard implementation of the catch-up programme.

I’m sorry but I’m with Callistemon. I still don’t understand your OP totally

I see you haven't answered my question Callistemon21. It would help to know, what you know, about the intentions the Conservative government have laid out for the economy.

Which makes us wonder if it's true.

Us?

nanna8

Over here even state education is anything but free. Every year you have to pay for all the school books, a maintenance fee of a few hundred dollars, uniforms ( nearly all schools have them, including state schools), excursion fees, computer and laptop costs unless you are extremely disadvantaged. Nothing is for nothing. They seem to have cut back on things like music unless you pay privately for tuition. Plenty of art and other topics like psychology, photography etc. which we never had. I actually think it would be better, in primary school, to get back to the basics because they are being neglected and then the secondary schools have to do a catch up job.

I'm sure I should know by now nanna8, but may I ask where "over here" is?

Callistemon21

You're movng the goalposts.

You asked:
So is the idea now that the state just provides for skills in reading, writing and arithmetic for free?

You won't link to your source for this idea and are getting annoyed when posters, quite reasonably ask for more information about your reasons for this assertion.

Which makes us wonder if it's true.

The source is my brain. I am asking others what they think. I would have thought that was obvious by the So is the idea .... I have no idea why you are doing this but surely asking for others opinions is not rule-breaking. I am beginning to feel stalked by these silly questions.