Off Topic The Politics Thread

Really? How will there be competition between Academies? What requirement to service the public will exist that makes Academies want to outperform each other? I just can't see it, therefore my current position, but I'm very happy to have someone explain it to me.

There will definitely NOT be an oversupply of Academies in a local area, as the government just won't grant licences for schools that are not needed, any more than an LEA today would build them. It's public money, after all. Private schools, in comparison, are run as businesses and not subject to educational capacity requirements planning, so there is always a state-funded school alternative that they must compete with and justify their extra fees.

Any money saved by closing down an LEA will be swallowed up by Ofsted or its replacement, as they'll have to do the same work from a central position instead of a local one.

So, I genuinely cannot see how the brave new world of Academies would be any different to the current situation. If I thought it would be better, I'd support it. I think it will be the same, so I don't.

 

Underperforming academies will be put into special measures / taken over / shut down just as LEA schools are today, because they are still accountable to Ofsted, but they are also accountable to the oversight board. There will be an undeniable drive to the top in this just as there is in every single industry where private enterprise has a foothold. Academies will be competing with each other for the best : the best pupils, the best teachers, the best resources. Those that succeed will deliver the next generation that will carry the nation forward (yes I know that sounds pompous, but it's actually true) by producing well educated, well qualified, confident kids. Those that don't will eventually fail and be taken over by a different board that will put new people in place and work towards success.

There's your competition, right there.

 

Our local (oversubscribed) primary school is a free school. I find out if my 3 year old got in next month, so I'll let everyone know then whether they are wonderful or an absolute disgrace.

 

****ing hell, Keith Joseph is alive. I am so happy that the private sector providers in care homes (Winterbourne, Southern Cross), security (G4S), health care (Circle - oh hold on they've given up, Serco, Care UK, Harmoni) back office (Southwest One), justice (Serco, Capita), IT (BT and just about every company involved in IT contracting), benefits (ATOS, a4e) etc etc haven't ended in tears, broken contracts, arrests and fraud cases. Oh they have.

Your competition scenario forgets one thing. Education funded by the state is meant to be of an equal (high) standard for everyone. In your vision the pupils who are not 'the best' will have worse teachers and less resources because they won't get into the 'best' schools, because competition drives inequality, there are always losers. If you are happy with that, fine.

I've worked in the public, not for profit and private sectors (small companies and multinationals). And been self employed/ freelance. In all cases the quality of the people in the organisation, the clarity of their objectives, and their focus on their users/ customers have been the determinants of success, not ideology. I really couldn't care less who runs tax payer funded schools as long as the quality of all of them is good, and every kid has access to the same quality.

 

Haven't the cleverer kids always got into the best schools mainly? At least around here, all kids before Year 7 do the 11+ which partially dictates where they'll end up. I dislike the fact you can guarantee a place by buying a home near a school, inflating prices. Might as well send them private.

 

Not sure how many places have state funded selective grammar schools now. They do round my way, and people spend a fortune getting their kids coached to get in to them. Then they spend hours on buses and trains everyday going to schools that are miles from where they live. Daft.

 

Excellent budget. I'll save a tiny bit of tax and those pesky disabled people are going to pay for it.

 

But they are not - that's the problem that you're ignoring. This 'equal for all' drags down those kids who are able and capable, and really does nothing to raise the level for kids who would underachieve in ANY set up. I have children going through school, and I see it all over the place. 'Equal for all' deprives able children of the opportunity to attain their full potential. No matter how hard they work - and my kids work damn hard - I know that this is true.

I do agree about the factors that make a business succeed. I also know that if you remove targets, local and central Government control, salary banding and put all of that into the hands of a board and a head teacher who knows the area, the kids and the needs, then you'll give kids a better chance to fulfil their potential than if you're more focused on hitting an arbitrary number a few times a year so that your budget is maintained.

As far as ideology is concerned, I think your words "competition drives inequality, there are always losers" says it all. That's probably the most telling statement about ideology that I have seen on this board, and saddens me that you look upon enabling people to succeed in such a negative light. I guess we need to go back to three day weeks, power cuts and re-open British Leyland. If you're happy with that, then fine.

Oh, and by the way - welcome back to usual service

 

I'm £11 a month better off, as long as I drink six or fewer glasses of wine a week. What would I spend £11 on other than a semi decent bottle of wine?

Competition is fine in many areas, including car production. The three day week was a direct result of capitalism at work in oil pricing. My job is to maximise price and access for the products my company makes, on a global basis, I understand a little about this stuff. It starts with understanding what the customer/ consumer/ user values.

Tax payer funded education , which is what I was referring to, and tax payer funded healthcare may not be among those areas most suited to the private sector ethos if the purpose of them is to provide high quality services to all. Some kids will benefit more through this than others, that's life, but at least they would have equal opportunity. Government after government of all shades has ****ed this up, and also the NHS, by focussing on structures and funding streams rather than quality. Quite simple and non ideological really. But as you seem stuck in some time warp right v left universe and find it convenient to badge people as whatever, I doubt this computes for you. In some things I am left leaning, in many others not. Issue by issue. My focus is usually on quality, which is why I sent my kids through private education (mostly). It's a shame that was necessary, not just for my pocket, but for opportunity as a whole. And I would remove charitable status for private schools, which are declining as they price themselves out of the U.K. Middle classes market to focus on foreign income generation (just like our universities) with no second thoughts.

 

I actually agreed with you about quality - shame you didn't call that out.

And what you might see as being 'stuck in a time warp right v left universe' is simply a reflection that - on the majority of issues - I do find myself more on the right than the left. That is by necessity an ideological stance, and I don't apologise for that. But less control from Central Government and more opportunities for people to succeed by hard work and application is always the best way to go for me. You see that as creating losers, I see it as providing the basis for people to succeed. I disagreed a decade or so ago when there was all the debate about competitive sports in schools. Yes - kids need to learn what it means to enter a competition and not win. If they don't ever experience that, then they never value it when they win. That will then flow on to the rest of their lives.

That doesn't mean that I believe it's OK for a child to miss out, or be left behind. However, the current target driven, red-tape dictated state school system actually holds many kids back from achieving their potential for the sake of others who - in many cases - don't achieve because they don't see the point. And I don't want kids being carried along with that attitude, because when they leave school, they will perpetuate the benefits culture we all see, where it's ok not to work, because someone else will pay. I think it's too difficult to change the adults who have settled for that. But if we don't instil that attitude into the kids, then when they leave school they won't be satisfied to sit around all day achieving nothing either.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. When I was 11 I lived in Borehamwood, whose local school is dog rough. I was pretty bright back then and did well enough in most exams I took to get offered places at various state and private places, but those that were any good were at least half an hour in morning traffic for a coach.

 

Name 11 things you could put in a rucksack

Discuss

 

I heard that live. I think it's may have been spotted that I'm not Gid's greatest fan, but I felt the opposite. Humphrys comes across as his usual, interrupting, rude, self obsessed self. Gideon has taken instruction well, always returning to his key messages, even if they are mendacious ****. Tallest dwarf competition between those two anyway.

 

He's not even any good at being mendacious though, he's so transparent - Blair could teach him a lesson or two. I would actually like to see Gideon as next Tory leader, he's a satirist's dream.

 

Perhaps my memory is rose-tinted, but I don't recall politicians of the past being as stupid as Nicky Morgan.

 

I was at college with her side kick, Schools Minister Nick Gibb, a truly hideous specimen, career topped out at junior education minister despite nearly 20 years in parliament. Didn't see much of him after he came round canvassing for the Thatcher Youth (this was 79/80) and my scouse mate threatened to chuck him out of the (first floor) window, picking him up to illustrate the strength of his intentions.

 

Clever people in the UK?
Millions of them?
But still too thick to realise that top jobs go to connections
Still too thick to see that they are in debt getting a degree that may get them a catering job
You can however make it if you go it alone and that's what they want you to try any way

I challenge anyone on here to look in their own working environment because each of you will find a person who you have no idea how they got their job ... Find that and then look at the culture underneath it all ... Align that if you find it with natural human features like kindness , happiness or love ... It won't fit

 

I work for an organisation that has fifteen thousand employees, based in all corners of the globe. Of COURSE there are some there whose ability you question. Of COURSE there are some who have their job due to being recruited by a former boss. (Those two groups are not mutually inclusive, by the way). If that's your yardstick, then I suggest you also look at France, Germany, the USA, in fact everywhere. You'll see exactly the same the world over. It's not a problem that's exclusive to the UK, and your point therefore holds no water, mate...

 

Despite Nicky Morgan saying on QT that the changes to Disability Benefit announced in the budget were still under consideration, Downing Street insists that they will go ahead. Corbyn says that Labour will force a vote on the issue, which the government would surely lose. Cue another Osborne U-turn.