Hearsay then. Like the original post.
Paul
You lazy ****er, I'll find out later and post it.
Hearsay then. Like the original post.
Paul
This has been exacerbated by pay scales for teachers and support staff that have lagged far behind inflation - a situation that has seen this staffing pool evaporate over time due to emigration and departure from academic life to commerce and industry. This has left schools staffed with woefully inadequate teaching capability - both in capacity and in expertise.
As a result of this, a number of exclusive private schools have sprung up - all with fee levels that put them way beyond the reach of all but the most wealthy. These private schools can (and do) afford to pay over the norm, so tend to wind up with the best of any teaching staff remaining - which further impacts the quality of education in state schools.
As someone who has had the job of hiring school leavers and graduates for roles in one of the Big Four accountancy firms, I just cannot believe what the stats appear to be telling us regarding being in the top ten. I could pay top whack for starting salaries and theoretically have my pick of candidates but most candidates could not communicate accurately, although some could count. I'd be lucky to find four or five out of one hundred, and these were allegedly the cream of the crop.
Interesting and valuable post, Peter.DevillEars,
Education is too much of a political football anywhere where the government is directly involved in providing it.
It is not as if it is anything special in this country, at least in the state sector. It is a booming export market in the private sector to the degree that many private schools need to cap the number of overseas pupils they admit in order to avoid killing the golden goose - if there are too many Chinese/foreign students in a school, prospective parents will question whether they will actually receive an English public school education! The national attainment stats which feed into the multinational PISA study are fatally flawed and tell us nothing very interesting, not least as they are are self-reported (and, many suspect, manipulated) on their way to the OECD.
As someone who has had the job of hiring school leavers and graduates for roles in one of the Big Four accountancy firms, I just cannot believe what the stats appear to be telling us regarding being in the top ten. I could pay top whack for starting salaries and theoretically have my pick of candidates but most candidates could not communicate accurately, although some could count. I'd be lucky to find four or five out of one hundred, and these were allegedly the cream of the crop.
On your points above, I know a fair number of teachers in both sectors and it is not just the pay and rations which attract them to private schools in the UK. They also cite respect and discipline ( and, yes, I know it is easier to teach a bunch of middle class pupils etc...) and the relative absence of education management bollocks emanating from their heads, the centre and LAs. The pay differentials are not that great between sectors here and teachers in the private system tend to work longer hours and, in boarding schools, have considerably more responsibility.
Re overhead/ideology, I am also the Chair of Governors of a state-funded school and I get a ream or so of stuff every week from the local authority, which after a cursory glance to ensure I don't miss anything goes straight into the bin. Very little of it has much to do with teaching children...and most of it a statement of bleeding obvious.
I really can't see why the state does not get out of the way. I see little added value from either centre or LA. We could rely on an internationally respected organisation to provide testing, say Oxford or the International Baccalaureate. Beyond that surely, all that is needed is a law compelling parents to have their children educated (oh, we have one already!) and an equalising grant to ensure that the poor can afford the fees. Schools could be given charitable status and left to get on with it...
And for those who say that the poor are feckless or ignorant and can't be trusted to have their children educated, what do they think happens now?
Peter
You lazy ****er, I'll find out later and post it.
It's quite complex. I'll try to describe things neutrally.
We are talking about what in the US are called public schools. In the UK public schools is a term for private schools. (Don't ask!)
Most schools are funded by the taxpayer (i.e. Central Government) and have been under the control of local authorities (roughly equal to a school district in US terms). Some are part funded by Churches and are semi-independent of this control.
The Academies policy is designed by Central Government to raise standards by removing local control and handing control to the governing body of the school direct with oversight by the central government Ministry instead. The assumption being that some local authorities do not add much value to the quality of education. This is the subject of furious debate as evidenced by the
discussion here.
The original post was on behalf of an anonymous 'friend' (and was easily shown to be factually incorrect). Does that not qualify as 'hearsay'?A petition against academy status sounds to me documentary evidence not heresay .
What Google query did you use?For the Googly challenged.
It's a big assumption, based on zero evidence.
You have also omitted the bit about how Gove is playing his part in the over arching Tory policy objective of transferring as much public money as possible to private business interests.
Mull
There's a press release at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raising-ambitions-and-standards-for-primary-schools which states that the school fails to reach standard if both low levels of attainment and low levels of progress occur simultaneously.Latest government emission. They want to test 5 year olds - presumably so progress can be measured as they go through primary school. But they also announced in the same breath that any school with fewer than 65% of pupils reaching level 4 at age 11 will trigger an immediate OfSTED inspection - but why no link to the intake at 5? Schools in nice middle class areas will cruise, whereas schools with more challenging intakes will be battered.
Surely they should be saying that schools with fewer than 65% of pupils making a specified level of PROGRESS should be the ones inspected?