Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Ok so we agree: more money for Education. What about the other big spend areas?
Pensions: we should ditch the triple lock but I can't see any way to cut the cost in real terms (although we could of course recoup NI equivalent from wealthier pensioners.
Health: even more important than education imo. What is the point in having a better 'standard of living' if we are not healthy? Health is vastly more important than more 'stuff' imo. Medium term I would hope for some health premium from AI in prevention, diagnosis, and medication (though not in care). But we spend less on health as a nation than our peers, so we should not expect reductions in health costs as a %GDP going forward.
Welfare: We should strive to keep spend flat in real terms. Better health care can make a big difference here, especially investing more in mental healthcare services. But I can't see welfare spend come down in real terms.
We should imo tax unhealthy foods heavily to drive better health and welfare outcomes (e.g. causes and impact of diabetes.)
My conclusion is: taxes are going to need to rise further. No one seems to be prepared to face into that reality yet.
What out of curiosity do you consider unhealthy foods though?
If you mean takeaway cooked meals, they're already mostly subject to VAT at 20%.
If you mean foods you can buy in the supermarket, one person's view on unhealthy is very different to others.
For me unhealthy is carbs, especially processed carbs.
The healthiest foods in my eyes are foods high in protein and fat, so foods like meat, cheese and dairy.
Vegan diets in my view are incredibly unhealthy, but should they be taxed more for their beliefs? Or would you tax mine?
For too many years carbs were considered good and fat was considered unhealthy. Still today people advertise "fat free" as if that's a good thing, often filled with sugars, when a lot of modern research shows its not.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Competition costs money - and the Government can't afford to waste that amount of money....
Waste and bureaucracy and nonsense costs money too.
Investing in education is not a waste of money.
Abolish the DFE, cut out nonsense, and give control of the increased purse-strings to parents.
I was thinking, abolish Ofsted and save a lot of money but it from a quick search it looks like Ofsted only costs 0.1% of the Education budget. And some kind of inspection is surely required so those costs wouldn't be all saved.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
That only works if you have quite a lot of spare capacity in the system. Enough that it's realistic for everyone at the sink school to leave.
We could fund that, I suppose, but it would be awfully expensive.
(One of the reasons that school choice doesn't really work is that good schools often don't want to expand. Partly because of physical limits, but also because many heads would rather run a smaller school really well in a hands on way than a larger one where they never leave their office.
Winchester College, to take a non random example, has 700 boys.
The logical extension of this is that in urban areas at least, most parents would want their children to go to the same school. So in our area, that would mean Coopers Coburn would take about 80% of Havering's senior school intake (and presumably half of Thurrock's) and you'd have to size and fund it accordingly.
And then what happens, when that school declines, as it will, and all the others have closed? Or do you fund the others to the same capacity so when suddenly the other schools with about 10 pupils per class start doing really well as a result, everyone switches school?
(And with that, I really must get on...)
Don't be silly, not everyone has the same tastes or makes the same choices.
Does everyone in your urban area shop in the same supermarket? Get their clothes from the same store? Has all but one supermarket, clothing store and every other type of store shut down in the entire urban area leaving only one remaining?
People will make their choices and do what is right for them. What is right for me may not be right for my neighbour with different beliefs or otherwise, let alone what is right for someone across town.
Most people want their kid to go to the local school and for the local school to be good enough for that to not be a problem. Walking to school is great. Having a network of friends nearby is great. Having the school be embedded in the local community is great. I am really happy that our kids go to (or went to) their local schools.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
That only works if you have quite a lot of spare capacity in the system. Enough that it's realistic for everyone at the sink school to leave.
We could fund that, I suppose, but it would be awfully expensive.
(One of the reasons that school choice doesn't really work is that good schools often don't want to expand. Partly because of physical limits, but also because many heads would rather run a smaller school really well in a hands on way than a larger one where they never leave their office.
Winchester College, to take a non random example, has 700 boys.
The logical extension of this is that in urban areas at least, most parents would want their children to go to the same school. So in our area, that would mean Coopers Coburn would take about 80% of Havering's senior school intake (and presumably half of Thurrock's) and you'd have to size and fund it accordingly.
And then what happens, when that school declines, as it will, and all the others have closed? Or do you fund the others to the same capacity so when suddenly the other schools with about 10 pupils per class start doing really well as a result, everyone switches school?
(And with that, I really must get on...)
Don't be silly, not everyone has the same tastes or makes the same choices.
Does everyone in your urban area shop in the same supermarket? Get their clothes from the same store? Has all but one supermarket, clothing store and every other type of store shut down in the entire urban area leaving only one remaining?
People will make their choices and do what is right for them. What is right for me may not be right for my neighbour with different beliefs or otherwise, let alone what is right for someone across town.
Most people want their kid to go to the local school and for the local school to be good enough for that to not be a problem. Walking to school is great. Having a network of friends nearby is great. Having the school be embedded in the local community is great. I am really happy that our kids go to (or went to) their local schools.
And a lot of people want better than "good enough" for their kids.
That's the beauty of choice, we all get to make one.
You can respect those who walk their kids to the closest school if you want to, and I can respect those who drive their kids to the best school in their eyes they can go to instead.
I am really happy my kids do not go to their local school.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Ok so we agree: more money for Education. What about the other big spend areas?
Pensions: we should ditch the triple lock but I can't see any way to cut the cost in real terms (although we could of course recoup NI equivalent from wealthier pensioners.
Health: even more important than education imo. What is the point in having a better 'standard of living' if we are not healthy? Health is vastly more important than more 'stuff' imo. Medium term I would hope for some health premium from AI in prevention, diagnosis, and medication (though not in care). But we spend less on health as a nation than our peers, so we should not expect reductions in health costs as a %GDP going forward.
Welfare: We should strive to keep spend flat in real terms. Better health care can make a big difference here, especially investing more in mental healthcare services. But I can't see welfare spend come down in real terms.
We should imo tax unhealthy foods heavily to drive better health and welfare outcomes (e.g. causes and impact of diabetes.)
My conclusion is: taxes are going to need to rise further. No one seems to be prepared to face into that reality yet.
The heart of the issue for UK public finances is that our productivity is so poor. That means that, even though we have a decent dependency ratio, each worker isn't producing enough economic value to pay for public services at German/Scandinavian/Japanese levels, which is what the UK public expects.
For decades we have tried to generate economic growth by bringing in more and more people, allowing top line GDP to rise. But the issue is that (a) many of these people have been lower productivity, (b) it disincentivizes companies from investing in capital, and (c) we get diminishing marginal value to land the more people we cram in. All of these worsen productivity.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Ok so we agree: more money for Education. What about the other big spend areas?
Pensions: we should ditch the triple lock but I can't see any way to cut the cost in real terms (although we could of course recoup NI equivalent from wealthier pensioners.
Health: even more important than education imo. What is the point in having a better 'standard of living' if we are not healthy? Health is vastly more important than more 'stuff' imo. Medium term I would hope for some health premium from AI in prevention, diagnosis, and medication (though not in care). But we spend less on health as a nation than our peers, so we should not expect reductions in health costs as a %GDP going forward.
Welfare: We should strive to keep spend flat in real terms. Better health care can make a big difference here, especially investing more in mental healthcare services. But I can't see welfare spend come down in real terms.
We should imo tax unhealthy foods heavily to drive better health and welfare outcomes (e.g. causes and impact of diabetes.)
My conclusion is: taxes are going to need to rise further. No one seems to be prepared to face into that reality yet.
What out of curiosity do you consider unhealthy foods though?
If you mean takeaway cooked meals, they're already mostly subject to VAT at 20%.
If you mean foods you can buy in the supermarket, one person's view on unhealthy is very different to others.
For me unhealthy is carbs, especially processed carbs.
The healthiest foods in my eyes are foods high in protein and fat, so foods like meat, cheese and dairy.
Vegan diets in my view are incredibly unhealthy, but should they be taxed more for their beliefs? Or would you tax mine?
For too many years carbs were considered good and fat was considered unhealthy. Still today people advertise "fat free" as if that's a good thing, often filled with sugars, when a lot of modern research shows its not.
Sounds like you're following Zoe Nutrition!
Anyway I agree with your summary of healthy/unhealthy foods.
I'd tax ultraprocessed foods (definition required admittedly) and sugars (with an exemption for fresh-fruit but not fruit juice).
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
That only works if you have quite a lot of spare capacity in the system. Enough that it's realistic for everyone at the sink school to leave.
We could fund that, I suppose, but it would be awfully expensive.
(One of the reasons that school choice doesn't really work is that good schools often don't want to expand. Partly because of physical limits, but also because many heads would rather run a smaller school really well in a hands on way than a larger one where they never leave their office.
Winchester College, to take a non random example, has 700 boys.
The logical extension of this is that in urban areas at least, most parents would want their children to go to the same school. So in our area, that would mean Coopers Coburn would take about 80% of Havering's senior school intake (and presumably half of Thurrock's) and you'd have to size and fund it accordingly.
And then what happens, when that school declines, as it will, and all the others have closed? Or do you fund the others to the same capacity so when suddenly the other schools with about 10 pupils per class start doing really well as a result, everyone switches school?
(And with that, I really must get on...)
Don't be silly, not everyone has the same tastes or makes the same choices.
Does everyone in your urban area shop in the same supermarket? Get their clothes from the same store? Has all but one supermarket, clothing store and every other type of store shut down in the entire urban area leaving only one remaining?
People will make their choices and do what is right for them. What is right for me may not be right for my neighbour with different beliefs or otherwise, let alone what is right for someone across town.
Most people want their kid to go to the local school and for the local school to be good enough for that to not be a problem. Walking to school is great. Having a network of friends nearby is great. Having the school be embedded in the local community is great. I am really happy that our kids go to (or went to) their local schools.
And a lot of people want better than "good enough" for their kids.
That's the beauty of choice, we all get to make one.
You can respect those who walk their kids to the closest school if you want to, and I can respect those who drive their kids to the best school in their eyes they can go to instead.
I am really happy my kids do not go to their local school.
If everyone was the same, life would be boring.
Good enough means precisely that: good enough. I have high standards so good enough means very good. I've never seen "good enough" as a pejorative phrase and I think it's a bit odd that some do. Searching for perfection usually means ignoring other things that matter, IMHO. A child's educational and developmental journey involves a lot of factors - being rooted in a supportive local community to my mind is actually quite an important part of that journey. But as you say, everyone has their own priorities.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Anyone who can't do that is a slacker...
where I grew up it was literally not an option.
You are King Charles and I claim my £5.
you find the arse end of nowhere I grew up five miles further out. not only were there no better jobs there were no better schools.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
That only works if you have quite a lot of spare capacity in the system. Enough that it's realistic for everyone at the sink school to leave.
We could fund that, I suppose, but it would be awfully expensive.
(One of the reasons that school choice doesn't really work is that good schools often don't want to expand. Partly because of physical limits, but also because many heads would rather run a smaller school really well in a hands on way than a larger one where they never leave their office.
Winchester College, to take a non random example, has 700 boys.
The logical extension of this is that in urban areas at least, most parents would want their children to go to the same school. So in our area, that would mean Coopers Coburn would take about 80% of Havering's senior school intake (and presumably half of Thurrock's) and you'd have to size and fund it accordingly.
And then what happens, when that school declines, as it will, and all the others have closed? Or do you fund the others to the same capacity so when suddenly the other schools with about 10 pupils per class start doing really well as a result, everyone switches school?
(And with that, I really must get on...)
Don't be silly, not everyone has the same tastes or makes the same choices.
Does everyone in your urban area shop in the same supermarket? Get their clothes from the same store? Has all but one supermarket, clothing store and every other type of store shut down in the entire urban area leaving only one remaining?
People will make their choices and do what is right for them. What is right for me may not be right for my neighbour with different beliefs or otherwise, let alone what is right for someone across town.
Most people want their kid to go to the local school and for the local school to be good enough for that to not be a problem. Walking to school is great. Having a network of friends nearby is great. Having the school be embedded in the local community is great. I am really happy that our kids go to (or went to) their local schools.
And a lot of people want better than "good enough" for their kids.
That's the beauty of choice, we all get to make one.
You can respect those who walk their kids to the closest school if you want to, and I can respect those who drive their kids to the best school in their eyes they can go to instead.
I am really happy my kids do not go to their local school.
If everyone was the same, life would be boring.
Yes, horses for courses, but you are unusual. Even if the "best school in your eyes" was just around the corner you'd send your kids to one miles away so you can drive them there.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Ok so we agree: more money for Education. What about the other big spend areas?
Pensions: we should ditch the triple lock but I can't see any way to cut the cost in real terms (although we could of course recoup NI equivalent from wealthier pensioners.
Health: even more important than education imo. What is the point in having a better 'standard of living' if we are not healthy? Health is vastly more important than more 'stuff' imo. Medium term I would hope for some health premium from AI in prevention, diagnosis, and medication (though not in care). But we spend less on health as a nation than our peers, so we should not expect reductions in health costs as a %GDP going forward.
Welfare: We should strive to keep spend flat in real terms. Better health care can make a big difference here, especially investing more in mental healthcare services. But I can't see welfare spend come down in real terms.
We should imo tax unhealthy foods heavily to drive better health and welfare outcomes (e.g. causes and impact of diabetes.)
My conclusion is: taxes are going to need to rise further. No one seems to be prepared to face into that reality yet.
What out of curiosity do you consider unhealthy foods though?
If you mean takeaway cooked meals, they're already mostly subject to VAT at 20%.
If you mean foods you can buy in the supermarket, one person's view on unhealthy is very different to others.
For me unhealthy is carbs, especially processed carbs.
The healthiest foods in my eyes are foods high in protein and fat, so foods like meat, cheese and dairy.
Vegan diets in my view are incredibly unhealthy, but should they be taxed more for their beliefs? Or would you tax mine?
For too many years carbs were considered good and fat was considered unhealthy. Still today people advertise "fat free" as if that's a good thing, often filled with sugars, when a lot of modern research shows its not.
Sounds like you're following Zoe Nutrition!
Anyway I agree with your summary of healthy/unhealthy foods.
I'd tax ultraprocessed foods (definition required admittedly) and sugars (with an exemption for fresh-fruit but not fruit juice).
I must admit I've never heard of Zoe before.
Different diets work well for different people (again not everyone's the same) but what I find works best for me is a ketogenic carnivore diet.
I'm off my diet over Christmas as I've been eating vegetables with my Christmas meal and chocolates and other treats etc, made a conscious choice I'd resume my diet when I return to work on the 8th, but I try to predominantly eat meats, cheese, eggs and dairy etc and eat vegetables only infrequently.
As a rule, I aim to stick to fewer than 20g of net carbs a day.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
That only works if you have quite a lot of spare capacity in the system. Enough that it's realistic for everyone at the sink school to leave.
We could fund that, I suppose, but it would be awfully expensive.
(One of the reasons that school choice doesn't really work is that good schools often don't want to expand. Partly because of physical limits, but also because many heads would rather run a smaller school really well in a hands on way than a larger one where they never leave their office.
Winchester College, to take a non random example, has 700 boys.
The logical extension of this is that in urban areas at least, most parents would want their children to go to the same school. So in our area, that would mean Coopers Coburn would take about 80% of Havering's senior school intake (and presumably half of Thurrock's) and you'd have to size and fund it accordingly.
And then what happens, when that school declines, as it will, and all the others have closed? Or do you fund the others to the same capacity so when suddenly the other schools with about 10 pupils per class start doing really well as a result, everyone switches school?
(And with that, I really must get on...)
Don't be silly, not everyone has the same tastes or makes the same choices.
Does everyone in your urban area shop in the same supermarket? Get their clothes from the same store? Has all but one supermarket, clothing store and every other type of store shut down in the entire urban area leaving only one remaining?
People will make their choices and do what is right for them. What is right for me may not be right for my neighbour with different beliefs or otherwise, let alone what is right for someone across town.
Most people want their kid to go to the local school and for the local school to be good enough for that to not be a problem. Walking to school is great. Having a network of friends nearby is great. Having the school be embedded in the local community is great. I am really happy that our kids go to (or went to) their local schools.
And a lot of people want better than "good enough" for their kids.
That's the beauty of choice, we all get to make one.
You can respect those who walk their kids to the closest school if you want to, and I can respect those who drive their kids to the best school in their eyes they can go to instead.
I am really happy my kids do not go to their local school.
If everyone was the same, life would be boring.
Yes, horses for courses, but you are unusual. Even if the "best school in your eyes" was just around the corner you'd send your kids to one miles away so you can drive them there.
And yet, for all these disasters, England continues to outpace both Scotland and Wales on the PISA measurements, widening attainment gaps in Science, reading and Maths. Although the absolute scores were down, probably due to Covid effects, the relative performance improved and not just with the rest of the UK but internationally.
Why is this, given the apparent shambles in English regulation over the last decade? I think that the answer is that, for all its faults, the English system does actually try to do something about failing schools whilst in Scotland and Wales they are allowed to carry on, failing generation after generation of children.
I understand this government has taken us upward in the recently published World Rankings. 😌
We could probably learn from those countries still above us in the world rankings.
One is struck by the similarity between the Government's (lack of) control of the Education system and its (lack of) control of the Post Office. In both cases, indifference and detachment from what has actually been going on at the coal-face masquerades as a 'hands off' approach.
The results in both cases are there for all to see.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Anyone who can't do that is a slacker...
You missed out:
3) Have richer parents/grandparents
I also missed out:
4) Marry a rich man / woman 5) Have a rich daddy 6) Win the lottery
Honestly, anyone using a foodbank who hasn't bothered to win the Euromillions deserves our contempt.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Anyone who can't do that is a slacker...
where I grew up it was literally not an option.
You missed my biting sarcasm...
You call it sarcasm, but anyone opposed to choice in schools who wants everyone to just send their kids to their local one instead - that's the alternative they're proposing.
In my proposal you can live where you want and get a say in your kids education even if it means travelling to get them there (or when they're older, them getting a bus).
The alternative is if the local school is the only option then house prices determine school access.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
So if all parents want to send their kids to the good schools what do you do?
(The obvious answer is improve the less good ones but that takes time)
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Anyone who can't do that is a slacker...
where I grew up it was literally not an option.
You missed my biting sarcasm...
You call it sarcasm, but anyone opposed to choice in schools who wants everyone to just send their kids to their local one instead - that's the alternative they're proposing.
In my proposal you can live where you want and get a say in your kids education even if it means travelling to get them there (or when they're older, them getting a bus).
The alternative is if the local school is the only option then house prices determine school access.
The alternative is shit.
Your *proposal*
Here is reality. Millions of people who cannot get a better job or move to find a better school.
Which is why comprehensive education is critical. Ensure standards in schools. Something OFSTED is failing at.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
Yes it is: 1) Get a better job 2) Move to a nicer house
Anyone who can't do that is a slacker...
where I grew up it was literally not an option.
You missed my biting sarcasm...
You call it sarcasm, but anyone opposed to choice in schools who wants everyone to just send their kids to their local one instead - that's the alternative they're proposing.
In my proposal you can live where you want and get a say in your kids education even if it means travelling to get them there (or when they're older, them getting a bus).
The alternative is if the local school is the only option then house prices determine school access.
The alternative is shit.
Your *proposal*
Here is reality. Millions of people who cannot get a better job or move to find a better school.
Which is why comprehensive education is critical. Ensure standards in schools. Something OFSTED is failing at.
Excuse me, who's suggesting people move? Not me.
Money should follow the student, and the parents should get a say in where their child goes.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Indeed so. As much as it pains to agree with Mr Eagles, the answer is something like a voucher scheme, alongside increased transport options, to give parents a genuine choice of school. It does require some slack in the system though, although AIUI there’s been a reduction in births over the past decade or so which might help in that regard.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Ok so we agree: more money for Education. What about the other big spend areas?
Pensions: we should ditch the triple lock but I can't see any way to cut the cost in real terms (although we could of course recoup NI equivalent from wealthier pensioners.
Health: even more important than education imo. What is the point in having a better 'standard of living' if we are not healthy? Health is vastly more important than more 'stuff' imo. Medium term I would hope for some health premium from AI in prevention, diagnosis, and medication (though not in care). But we spend less on health as a nation than our peers, so we should not expect reductions in health costs as a %GDP going forward.
Welfare: We should strive to keep spend flat in real terms. Better health care can make a big difference here, especially investing more in mental healthcare services. But I can't see welfare spend come down in real terms.
We should imo tax unhealthy foods heavily to drive better health and welfare outcomes (e.g. causes and impact of diabetes.)
My conclusion is: taxes are going to need to rise further. No one seems to be prepared to face into that reality yet.
The triple lock should be kept. The way to save money on pensions is to abolish top rate tax relief but as that would hurt newspaper columnists, think tank researchers and MPs, it is never discussed. Strange that.
On tax rises, we already have a record tax take yet everything seems underfunded and in disrepair. Someone cleverer than me should investigate where the money is being spaffed up the wall.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Indeed so. As much as it pains to agree with Mr Eagles, the answer is something like a voucher scheme, alongside increased transport options, to give parents a genuine choice of school. It does require some slack in the system though, although AIUI there’s been a reduction in births over the past decade or so which might help in that regard.
Fewer children is already being used as the justification for closing and amalgamating schools. Without slack, choice and competition are mirages, for at the end of term, all schools are full, in other words the same number of pupils will be in the same number of schools. The only question is how many can walk to school and how many need to be driven by car or bus.
But she does have a point: imprison him and he is a martyr. Shame him, pardon him and ignore him then the healing can begin
The US... nor us, to be fair... does not appear to be capable of ignoring Trump. So, why don't we just start with shame him and then shame him some more.
You can't compromise with Donald Trump because he's a 100% taker with zero interest in anything other than himself. He's going to have to be taken down by any means necessary. I think this is dawning and will continue to dawn until it happens.
"By any means necessary"
And there we have it. What does that mean?
If the legal maneuvers are struck down by SCOTUS, what next? Where do the Dems go? Intern him without trial? Kidnap him ane send him to Guantanamo? Take him out with an assassin?
That is the logic of "by any means necessary": if Trump escapes these legal dirty tricks and looks set to win in 2024, will you approve of shooting him?
Does the same petty literalness apply to Trump's intention to be a dictator?
Do you think that all it would take to turn the US into a dictatorship would be for one man with bad thoughts to become President?
I don’t. I think it would need that man to be supported by an extremist and anti-democratic political movement connected to media sources producing disinformation, backed up by an army of “useful idiots” posting to social media and online forums.
And this all failed to materialise in 2016-2020 just because Mike Pence escaped the mob?
No, because Trump didn't really understand how the politics of dictatorship works. Fortunately, he still doesn't - though he understands it better.
As well as the points needed above is, crucially, a toleration of violence against those the system deems to be social outsiders. See the South, blacks and the Klan for an example. Or Russia, now.
How do you turn any country into a dictatorship while preserving a figleaf of democracy and the rule of law in the constitution? Intimidation. You have to prove that there is a price to be paid for going against the regime, and that the system of law will act on the side of the regime, not on the letter of the law. And you have to create the expectation that there *will* be a price to be paid.
In 2016 Trump was a chancer; now he thinks that winning in 2024 is his hope for staying out of prison, potentially for life, and has people around him who may know something about what they are doing.
He does not believe in the basics of US democracy - separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, federal vs state separation - and is arguing that a President in power should be entirely above the law.
His organisation has plans to use Executive Powers inappropriately to destroy everyone - elected reps, DOJ employees, judges and all the rest - who he thinks has been against him or who will stand in his way.
It's the playbook of every aspiring Dictator who wants to take over a democracy; I think you will find parallels with Lukaschenko, Mugabe, even the early days of Hitler in the early 1930s.
I think it also says things about how vulnerable a US democratic system which still has one foot the 18C has become, but that's one for another time after Trump has been safely locked up.
On Ofsted. I know an awful lot about Ofsted, for reasons I'm not going to disclose. And I'm not going to quibble with the excellent header, although I would dispute a few elements of it. However, I would put forward a defence of Ofsted on its impact, if not on its current practice.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Indeed so. As much as it pains to agree with Mr Eagles, the answer is something like a voucher scheme, alongside increased transport options, to give parents a genuine choice of school. It does require some slack in the system though, although AIUI there’s been a reduction in births over the past decade or so which might help in that regard.
Fewer children is already being used as the justification for closing and amalgamating schools. Without slack, choice and competition are mirages, for at the end of term, all schools are full, in other words the same number of pupils will be in the same number of schools. The only question is how many can walk to school and how many need to be driven by car or bus.
A justification for closing and amalgamating schools by whom?
Teachers? School governors? Parents? Civil servants? Politicians?
If you have a voucher system then the cash follows the pupils and the school staff have to answer to their own policies, governors and parents of pupils to ensure that parents keep choosing to send children to the school.
Politicians and civil servants should have nothing to do with it. Politicians should decide the level of voucher, then let schools and parents operate with minimal interference.
If the number of pupils changes then schools should be competing for the extra or fewer vouchers available and mergers should only happen if that's what the schools themselves want as they'd be making their own decisions.
Whatever you set the voucher at, the schools should get that much funding per pupil (plus extras for premiums like disadvantaged pupils or SEND). Then be operationally independent.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
So if all parents want to send their kids to the good schools what do you do?
(The obvious answer is improve the less good ones but that takes time)
It's tough to provide a free market in education. Good schools will be oversubscribed. Meaning there has to be a process for how kids are selected. Does the school itself get to choose, on whatever metric they like? Well, they will choose the least troublesome, who are strongest academically, and whose parents are most likely to generous with time and money.
And if they don't get to choose, then catchment areas will get ever smaller.
It's not like a firm with a better tasting biscuit, who can increase the number of shifts, and buy new machines, and create a new factory.
Indeed, what's the incentive for the Headteacher at a successful school to expand? (Indeed, the most successful private schools - the Westminsters, Etons, Winchesters and the like - have usually been loathe to dilute what makes them so successful.)
And while there are clear financial incentives for our biscuit maker to expand (more sales, more profit) there's no such financial benefit to a Headteacher in doing so. Plus, the skills required to manage such an expansion are likely very different to those required to run an efficient school.
We could, I suppose, privatize all schools. But even that is full of pitfalls. What's to stop me from creating a school that is designed to deliver maximum margins, and barely teaching the kids. If I'm the only school in five miles, then I'll get plenty of kids, irrespective of the education I provide.
FWIW, I have no solutions. I just want to make clear the scale of the challenges.
It's rather less possible in small towns and in the countryside.
that's an accusation that could be used on lots of public policies. It works in London why doesn't it translate to everywhere else?
If you live somewhere with no trains, and only a few busses a day what do you do? Take the car? not if the locals protest against any road improvements.
it's not just rural areas which have this problem though.
people in London, who only see a world class transport system, don't get how disruptive it can be for the rest of the country when you can't get a bus home after 6pm and a uber/taxi will be prohibitively costly on a daily basis.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Indeed so. As much as it pains to agree with Mr Eagles, the answer is something like a voucher scheme, alongside increased transport options, to give parents a genuine choice of school. It does require some slack in the system though, although AIUI there’s been a reduction in births over the past decade or so which might help in that regard.
Fewer children is already being used as the justification for closing and amalgamating schools. Without slack, choice and competition are mirages, for at the end of term, all schools are full, in other words the same number of pupils will be in the same number of schools. The only question is how many can walk to school and how many need to be driven by car or bus.
A justification for closing and amalgamating schools by whom?
Teachers? School governors? Parents? Civil servants? Politicians?
If you have a voucher system then the cash follows the pupils and the school staff have to answer to their own policies, governors and parents of pupils to ensure that parents keep choosing to send children to the school.
Politicians and civil servants should have nothing to do with it. Politicians should decide the level of voucher, then let schools and parents operate with minimal interference.
If the number of pupils changes then schools should be competing for the extra or fewer vouchers available and mergers should only happen if that's what the schools themselves want as they'd be making their own decisions.
Whatever you set the voucher at, the schools should get that much funding per pupil (plus extras for premiums like disadvantaged pupils or SEND). Then be operationally independent.
Whether or not politicians and Academy beancounters should have nothing to do with it, they are making closure decisions now.
Rather than have vouchers, which is effectively what happens now anyway under a different name, if these schools remained open, then less popular schools would see their class sizes shrink, which would improve education and attract more children (or parents) so everything would balance nicely with no need for complex bureaucracies. Look at any private school and count the staff and pupils. What they are selling is smaller classes than the state sector can manage even with TAs.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
No, I'm not suggesting you send your children to a shit school. Far from it.
I'm just trying to point out that driving your child to a better school miles away isn't an option for a lot of people.
And I'm saying it should be.
We should remove as many barriers as possible that stand in the way of parents putting their children's education first.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
Fair enough, but of course it's not the parents you despise who suffer.
Quite right, nobody "suffers".
And I don't despise anyone, just don't respect them.
Their children "suffer", going to what inevitably becomes a sink school as all the parents with the means to take their children elsewhere do so.
Now you may say 'that's the market' but the consumers are not the ones choosing the product.
Anyhow, it's other people's kids so why should you care?
Nobody has to go to a sink school and if nobody chooses to go to a school it should shut down.
If the children of parents who don't give a damn end up going to shitty schools because their parents don't care, that's their parents fault, not my fault.
Why should I send my child to a shit school just to even it out?
Um, clearly you are in an area where there are more school spaces than pupils wanting a space.
Round this neck of the woods you choice of primary school is determined by where you live as the number of children wanting a space is greater than the spaces available - hence you get a choice of the school you are given with zero chance of an appeal working.
That's a terrible situation to be in and should be fixed.
One of those barriers is having shit schools, which is what Ofsted is supposed to prevent. (Unfortunately we have a shit Ofsted too.)
Driving kids to a better school doesn't deal with the shit a school, which still remains.
Either you invest time and money in improving the shit schools or you invest time and money in closing them and increasing capacity in the good schools (hoping the 'good' schools remain good over time).
Neither option comes without cost.
There will always be shit schools, because as quality improves so too do expectations. What was good enough in the past shouldn't be considered acceptable in the future.
Progress works very often by trimming the bottom or worst performers and lifting your expectations.
Have a well-funded education system with choice that enables schools to expand and lets parents shop around for which school they want to take their kids to, and let standards be higher.
Todays mediocre school might cut the mustard today, but if other schools improve and it doesn't, then it might be considered the shit school in the future, in which case it would either have to shape up or lose its children.
Competition works.
Indeed so. As much as it pains to agree with Mr Eagles, the answer is something like a voucher scheme, alongside increased transport options, to give parents a genuine choice of school. It does require some slack in the system though, although AIUI there’s been a reduction in births over the past decade or so which might help in that regard.
Fewer children is already being used as the justification for closing and amalgamating schools. Without slack, choice and competition are mirages, for at the end of term, all schools are full, in other words the same number of pupils will be in the same number of schools. The only question is how many can walk to school and how many need to be driven by car or bus.
A justification for closing and amalgamating schools by whom?
Teachers? School governors? Parents? Civil servants? Politicians?
If you have a voucher system then the cash follows the pupils and the school staff have to answer to their own policies, governors and parents of pupils to ensure that parents keep choosing to send children to the school.
Politicians and civil servants should have nothing to do with it. Politicians should decide the level of voucher, then let schools and parents operate with minimal interference.
If the number of pupils changes then schools should be competing for the extra or fewer vouchers available and mergers should only happen if that's what the schools themselves want as they'd be making their own decisions.
Whatever you set the voucher at, the schools should get that much funding per pupil (plus extras for premiums like disadvantaged pupils or SEND). Then be operationally independent.
Whether or not politicians and Academy beancounters should have nothing to do with it, they are making closure decisions now.
Rather than have vouchers, which is effectively what happens now anyway under a different name, if these schools remained open, then less popular schools would see their class sizes shrink, which would improve education and attract more children (or parents) so everything would balance nicely with no need for complex bureaucracies. Look at any private school and count the staff and pupils. What they are selling is smaller classes than the state sector can manage even with TAs.
If politicians or civil servants are talking about closures then that can only be because we don't have a true voucher system. If we did, school opening and closings would have jack all to do with them.
Politicians should be determining the voucher level. Schools and parents should be all that matter after that.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
So if all parents want to send their kids to the good schools what do you do?
(The obvious answer is improve the less good ones but that takes time)
It's tough to provide a free market in education. Good schools will be oversubscribed. Meaning there has to be a process for how kids are selected. Does the school itself get to choose, on whatever metric they like? Well, they will choose the least troublesome, who are strongest academically, and whose parents are most likely to generous with time and money.
And if they don't get to choose, then catchment areas will get ever smaller.
It's not like a firm with a better tasting biscuit, who can increase the number of shifts, and buy new machines, and create a new factory.
Indeed, what's the incentive for the Headteacher at a successful school to expand? (Indeed, the most successful private schools - the Westminsters, Etons, Winchesters and the like - have usually been loathe to dilute what makes them so successful.)
And while there are clear financial incentives for our biscuit maker to expand (more sales, more profit) there's no such financial benefit to a Headteacher in doing so. Plus, the skills required to manage such an expansion are likely very different to those required to run an efficient school.
We could, I suppose, privatize all schools. But even that is full of pitfalls. What's to stop me from creating a school that is designed to deliver maximum margins, and barely teaching the kids. If I'm the only school in five miles, then I'll get plenty of kids, irrespective of the education I provide.
FWIW, I have no solutions. I just want to make clear the scale of the challenges.
The way to manage the "which kids get selected" is a pupil premium value, where the unwanted kids have more funding attached. Catchment areas should be scrapped - parents can choose how far is too far a commute.
And the incentive for a headteacher to expand is a bigger salary - perhaps capped as a percentage of revenue. Let them have schools with multiple campuses.
As for rip-off schools, you need a powerful DfE that is active on watching out for schools manipulating the system.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
So if all parents want to send their kids to the good schools what do you do?
(The obvious answer is improve the less good ones but that takes time)
It's tough to provide a free market in education. Good schools will be oversubscribed. Meaning there has to be a process for how kids are selected. Does the school itself get to choose, on whatever metric they like? Well, they will choose the least troublesome, who are strongest academically, and whose parents are most likely to generous with time and money.
And if they don't get to choose, then catchment areas will get ever smaller.
It's not like a firm with a better tasting biscuit, who can increase the number of shifts, and buy new machines, and create a new factory.
Indeed, what's the incentive for the Headteacher at a successful school to expand? (Indeed, the most successful private schools - the Westminsters, Etons, Winchesters and the like - have usually been loathe to dilute what makes them so successful.)
And while there are clear financial incentives for our biscuit maker to expand (more sales, more profit) there's no such financial benefit to a Headteacher in doing so. Plus, the skills required to manage such an expansion are likely very different to those required to run an efficient school.
We could, I suppose, privatize all schools. But even that is full of pitfalls. What's to stop me from creating a school that is designed to deliver maximum margins, and barely teaching the kids. If I'm the only school in five miles, then I'll get plenty of kids, irrespective of the education I provide.
FWIW, I have no solutions. I just want to make clear the scale of the challenges.
How about resourcing all state comprehensive schools to grammar school levels of funding? From experience, resourcing is your answer. I went to first a well funded excellent Comprehensive and then (change of location) a poorly funded, poorly resourced, poor grammar (about to be subsumed into Mrs Thatcher's comprehensive project).
Funding is the key, and I know Barty will chirp in with public affordability, but a well resourced quality education is a down payment on the nation's future. Surely more imaginative use of private sector sponsorship could be looked at, if the public purse is empty. School meals sponsored by Tesco, no not McDonalds. Books purchased by Disney Plus.
Psy the teachers, enthuse the teachers, enthuse the students.
It's rather less possible in small towns and in the countryside.
So should we run a different system in big cities to how we run schools in rural areas? (We do with transport...)
We could have a team of roving teachers for rural areas, like the Australian Flying Doctors. That way students wouldn't be restricted to just the local teachers.
It's rather less possible in small towns and in the countryside.
So should we run a different system in big cities to how we run schools in rural areas? (We do with transport...)
We could have a team of roving teachers for rural areas, like the Australian Flying Doctors. That way students wouldn't be restricted to just the local teachers.
On Ofsted. I know an awful lot about Ofsted, for reasons I'm not going to disclose. And I'm not going to quibble with the excellent header, although I would dispute a few elements of it. However, I would put forward a defence of Ofsted on its impact, if not on its current practice.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
Independent inspection is absolutely essential in some form; Ofsted isn't.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
So if all parents want to send their kids to the good schools what do you do?
(The obvious answer is improve the less good ones but that takes time)
It's tough to provide a free market in education. Good schools will be oversubscribed. Meaning there has to be a process for how kids are selected. Does the school itself get to choose, on whatever metric they like? Well, they will choose the least troublesome, who are strongest academically, and whose parents are most likely to generous with time and money.
And if they don't get to choose, then catchment areas will get ever smaller.
It's not like a firm with a better tasting biscuit, who can increase the number of shifts, and buy new machines, and create a new factory.
Indeed, what's the incentive for the Headteacher at a successful school to expand? (Indeed, the most successful private schools - the Westminsters, Etons, Winchesters and the like - have usually been loathe to dilute what makes them so successful.)
And while there are clear financial incentives for our biscuit maker to expand (more sales, more profit) there's no such financial benefit to a Headteacher in doing so. Plus, the skills required to manage such an expansion are likely very different to those required to run an efficient school.
We could, I suppose, privatize all schools. But even that is full of pitfalls. What's to stop me from creating a school that is designed to deliver maximum margins, and barely teaching the kids. If I'm the only school in five miles, then I'll get plenty of kids, irrespective of the education I provide.
FWIW, I have no solutions. I just want to make clear the scale of the challenges.
The way to manage the "which kids get selected" is a pupil premium value, where the unwanted kids have more funding attached. Catchment areas should be scrapped - parents can choose how far is too far a commute.
And the incentive for a headteacher to expand is a bigger salary - perhaps capped as a percentage of revenue. Let them have schools with multiple campuses.
As for rip-off schools, you need a powerful DfE that is active on watching out for schools manipulating the system.
Pupils with statemented issues do bring more funding. Fox Jr's primary school was very good at that, even 20 years ago.
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
So if all parents want to send their kids to the good schools what do you do?
(The obvious answer is improve the less good ones but that takes time)
It's tough to provide a free market in education. Good schools will be oversubscribed. Meaning there has to be a process for how kids are selected. Does the school itself get to choose, on whatever metric they like? Well, they will choose the least troublesome, who are strongest academically, and whose parents are most likely to generous with time and money.
And if they don't get to choose, then catchment areas will get ever smaller.
It's not like a firm with a better tasting biscuit, who can increase the number of shifts, and buy new machines, and create a new factory.
Indeed, what's the incentive for the Headteacher at a successful school to expand? (Indeed, the most successful private schools - the Westminsters, Etons, Winchesters and the like - have usually been loathe to dilute what makes them so successful.)
And while there are clear financial incentives for our biscuit maker to expand (more sales, more profit) there's no such financial benefit to a Headteacher in doing so. Plus, the skills required to manage such an expansion are likely very different to those required to run an efficient school.
We could, I suppose, privatize all schools. But even that is full of pitfalls. What's to stop me from creating a school that is designed to deliver maximum margins, and barely teaching the kids. If I'm the only school in five miles, then I'll get plenty of kids, irrespective of the education I provide.
FWIW, I have no solutions. I just want to make clear the scale of the challenges.
How about resourcing all state comprehensive schools to grammar school levels of funding? From experience, resourcing is your answer. I went to first a well funded excellent Comprehensive and then (change of location) a poorly funded, poorly resourced, poor grammar (about to be subsumed into Mrs Thatcher's comprehensive project).
Funding is the key, and I know Barty will chirp in with public affordability, but a well resourced quality education is a down payment on the nation's future. Surely more imaginative use of private sector sponsorship could be looked at, if the public purse is empty. School meals sponsored by Tesco, no not McDonalds. Books purchased by Disney Plus.
Psy the teachers, enthuse the teachers, enthuse the students.
Actually I'm not going to chirpy in about public affordability. I completely agree that education needs to be better resourced.
I simply think the control of those resources should be in the hands of the pupils, via their parents, and not in the hands of civil servants.
And I despise catchment areas. A true lottery would be better than a postcode lottery. Housing shouldn't affect schools, and schools shouldn't affect house prices.
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
Who had the government's wine cellar on their next government scandal bingo card?
33 000 bottles with a value of £3.2 million works out at an average of nearly £100 a bottle.
Rather better than my wine cellar!
Well, they haven’t been shopping at the local supermarket!
My brother was once a guest at an official dinner at the British embassy in Paris a couple of decades back. Tremendous wines he said, after all can't insult the French!
Abolish the Department of Education and privatise the state education system.
Private schools are the best.
The money we spend on the DfE give it to parents as vouchers so they can send their sprogs to the best schools.
End the postcode lottery.
You jest, but that in part has already happened with academies etc which in part is why the education system is coping as well as it is in my view despite the DfE and despite Ofsted and despite the poor level of funding.
We should also encourage and enable more parents to drive their kids to school too. End the postcode lottery of having to go to crap schools that are in walking distance, if a better school is a drive away, then choose that one instead.
FFS that is so disconnected from the reality of many parents who may not have a car, or need their car to get to work, or both work full-time so don't have time to ferry their kids to school, or can't afford the fuel and mileage.
To say nothing on the effect on roads, rush-hour, the environment, children's health,...
It's already bad enough with the middle-class yummy-mummies in their 4x4 driving from one end of the village to save Johnny having to walk to school at the other end.
Rant over. You're welcome.
Its a shame if parents can't afford a car or fuel, which is why we should seek to make cars and their fuel (ideally electricity in the future) as cheap as possible so that there is as little a barrier as possible to private transportation.
Yes people do need to go to work, but most schools in my experience offer before and after school clubs. I drive my kids and drop them off at club if I can't drop them off at the school gate.
As for those yummy-mummies driving their kids to school - good on them! They should be praised for taking an interest in their kids education. 👏👏👏
Nice trolling!
Deadly serious.
I could walk my kids to the school next to my estate, but its not got a good reputation and I value my kids education more than I value the cost of fuel. So I drive much further to drive them into a better school (still a state school btw).
I have more respect for parents who value their children's education and drive them to school than I do parents who view education as no more than childcare and dump them without thinking about it at the nearest drop-off point.
So if all parents want to send their kids to the good schools what do you do?
(The obvious answer is improve the less good ones but that takes time)
It's tough to provide a free market in education. Good schools will be oversubscribed. Meaning there has to be a process for how kids are selected. Does the school itself get to choose, on whatever metric they like? Well, they will choose the least troublesome, who are strongest academically, and whose parents are most likely to generous with time and money.
And if they don't get to choose, then catchment areas will get ever smaller.
It's not like a firm with a better tasting biscuit, who can increase the number of shifts, and buy new machines, and create a new factory.
Indeed, what's the incentive for the Headteacher at a successful school to expand? (Indeed, the most successful private schools - the Westminsters, Etons, Winchesters and the like - have usually been loathe to dilute what makes them so successful.)
And while there are clear financial incentives for our biscuit maker to expand (more sales, more profit) there's no such financial benefit to a Headteacher in doing so. Plus, the skills required to manage such an expansion are likely very different to those required to run an efficient school.
We could, I suppose, privatize all schools. But even that is full of pitfalls. What's to stop me from creating a school that is designed to deliver maximum margins, and barely teaching the kids. If I'm the only school in five miles, then I'll get plenty of kids, irrespective of the education I provide.
FWIW, I have no solutions. I just want to make clear the scale of the challenges.
The way to manage the "which kids get selected" is a pupil premium value, where the unwanted kids have more funding attached. Catchment areas should be scrapped - parents can choose how far is too far a commute.
And the incentive for a headteacher to expand is a bigger salary - perhaps capped as a percentage of revenue. Let them have schools with multiple campuses.
As for rip-off schools, you need a powerful DfE that is active on watching out for schools manipulating the system.
Why do you need a DfE let alone a powerful one?
Parents should be able to do the job better than the DfE ever could.
I agree completely with everything else you wrote and absolutely catchment areas should be abolished. That people can buy their way into a good school paid for entirely by taxes, solely by buying a house is an utter disgrace on this country.
It's rather less possible in small towns and in the countryside.
So should we run a different system in big cities to how we run schools in rural areas? (We do with transport...)
We could have a team of roving teachers for rural areas, like the Australian Flying Doctors. That way students wouldn't be restricted to just the local teachers.
“Whaddya teach, sport?”
“Maths”
“Great sport”
“No, I teach maths”
Just realised I’d absolutely ballsed that up and got the Aussie flying teacher the wrong way round, should be,
The Tories are going to lose so many council seats in May. These seats were the ones that should have been contested in 2020, but elections were delayed until 2021 because of Covid. The Tories did very well that year, NEV was Con 40%, Lab 30%. A repeat of 2023 would mean an 8 or 9% swing* - shellacking territory.
Using this as a stepping stone to an autumn election would be a less than ideal strategy for Sunak.
So, the argument here is that in order to avoid an 8-9% swing against them, and the concomitant shellacking in the May local elections*, they should take a 9-10% swing against them at a general election and hence an even bigger shellacking? I think I can see a problem in that?
* Not that it would; it would just mask those losses.
When given the choice of date, a lot of PMs chose spring elections. Thatcher and Blair governments worked towards spring elections.
If you look at the polling in this parliament, the governing party have had great April and Mays, but their polling late summers and Autumns leading up to Christmas been dire. If Sunak bottles May 2nd he will have to reverse historical trend right on its head.
I think what is strongest for the Torys, or any governing party, isn’t time with the tax cut in peoples pockets, where people will actually not feel very much better off, but the “prospect” of feeling better off before they get it. The expectation of tax cut so much stronger psychology than the having.
By delaying to other side of the summer all Rishi will be doing is two things. Firstly giving opposition time to take the policy apart, it being tax giveaway based not on growth but paid for by borrowing and previous taxes and future taxes. And secondly the gamble of pledges on health, immigration, cutting borrowing, growth, and stopping boats not just not getting better but even getting worse.
It has to be May 2nd. Getting people optimistic about things can only get better in May, has to be far easier than trying to do so next autumn or December.
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
One term. The economics will undermine him. Rayner is the obvious most likely successor, and it'll be a very unfortunate legacy for her. (Burnham isn't and won't risk being an MP, Streeting just looks weak, and Nandy really can't resurrect her fortunes.)
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
2024: General Election: after the summer hols, not before. (50p on September) Result: NOM, Labour led government POTUS: Trump Gaza: Still sub optimal Premiership: Not Arsenal. Again.
Off topic, I don't normally go for blended whisky, but yesterday I sampled some Chivas 18, which was rather nice. I then discovered that it retails at £94 a bottle, so I think I'll be sticking to 12 year old Single Malts.
It's all much the same now. The distilleries just target the cash. Their premium lines have almost no additional cost, and if it tastes better then roll it out.
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
What democratic outrage? We do not elect the Prime Minister.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
One term. The economics will undermine him. Rayner is the obvious most likely successor, and it'll be a very unfortunate legacy for her. (Burnham isn't and won't risk being an MP, Streeting just looks weak, and Nandy really can't resurrect her fortunes.)
Saw Rayner being interviewed on The Rest is Politics. Quite a back story and likeable but not a PM. Her role will be more akin to Prescott keeping the troops on board.
The Tories are going to lose so many council seats in May. These seats were the ones that should have been contested in 2020, but elections were delayed until 2021 because of Covid. The Tories did very well that year, NEV was Con 40%, Lab 30%. A repeat of 2023 would mean an 8 or 9% swing* - shellacking territory.
Using this as a stepping stone to an autumn election would be a less than ideal strategy for Sunak.
So, the argument here is that in order to avoid an 8-9% swing against them, and the concomitant shellacking in the May local elections*, they should take a 9-10% swing against them at a general election and hence an even bigger shellacking? I think I can see a problem in that?
* Not that it would; it would just mask those losses.
When given the choice of date, a lot of PMs chose spring elections. Thatcher and Blair governments worked towards spring elections.
If you look at the polling in this parliament, the governing party have had great April and Mays, but their polling late summers and Autumns leading up to Christmas been dire. If Sunak bottles May 2nd he will have to reverse historical trend right on its head.
I think what is strongest for the Torys, or any governing party, isn’t time with the tax cut in peoples pockets, where people will actually not feel very much better off, but the “prospect” of feeling better off before they get it. The expectation of tax cut so much stronger psychology than the having.
By delaying to other side of the summer all Rishi will be doing is two things. Firstly giving opposition time to take the policy apart, it being tax giveaway based not on growth but paid for by borrowing and previous taxes and future taxes. And secondly the gamble of pledges on health, immigration, cutting borrowing, growth, and stopping boats not just not getting better but even getting worse.
It has to be May 2nd. Getting people optimistic about things can only get better in May, has to be far easier than trying to do so next autumn or December.
I think it will be the autumn - using conference as launchpad - but that is certainly a persuasive case for May
Leon doesn't quite rate the sympathy level accorded the Victorian English travelling salesman who, unawares, rocks up to Wick the night before the Burgh Fast Day and Communion long weekend. Christmas is somewhat predictable, and most of the time off is taken out of the annual leave entitlement and means the assorted minions are that much more likely to be there to fulfil his demands for the rest of the year.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
One term. The economics will undermine him. Rayner is the obvious most likely successor, and it'll be a very unfortunate legacy for her. (Burnham isn't and won't risk being an MP, Streeting just looks weak, and Nandy really can't resurrect her fortunes.)
Saw Rayner being interviewed on The Rest is Politics. Quite a back story and likeable but not a PM. Her role will be more akin to Prescott keeping the troops on board.
Very easy to underestimate Rayner. People have done it many times, and have been proven wrong. She is good at politics.
“If we hadn't had Keir Starmer putting up with Corbyn during all that nonsense…he would not have been elected."
@DannytheFink asks Peter Mandelson if Keir Starmer was wrong to serve in Jeremy Corbyn’s shadow cabinet.
Peter Mandelson is as usual, correct.
But what if Corbyn had won? Saying “Oh I only pretended to agree with him, and campaigned for him to be PM because I thought we’d lose and then I’d take over” wouldn’t be the most believable excuse for promoting someone Sir Keir and Mandelson consider an anti semite who would be terrible at running the country
If Corbyn had become PM, I suspect that a VONC would have been engineered so that a PM more to the liking of the PLP could be installed.
And you don’t see that as a democratic outrage? Johnson was given 2-3 years
It wouldn't have been engineered; it would have happened organically.
The first thing to pin down in this counterfactual is when Corbyn became PM, and on what basis. Both matter massively. In 2017 - by far the more likely - it's not difficult to construct a narrative where the Tories screw up even more during the campaign (or earlier), and there's an anti-Tory / Brexit-sceptic majority. In 2019, that's much harder - though had the May government fallen in Spring 2019, who knows what parliament might have resulted.
But we do know that after the Labour MPs No Confidenced Corbyn by 80-20, then lost their challenge, they pretty much all fell back into line. That effect would have been magnified several times had Corbyn's mandate come from the electorate rather than the party.
Either way though, how Corbyn handled Salisbury, Brexit, Ukraine or Covid - to name just the most obvious policy challenges - could have led to his downfall. He could have seriously alienated his MPs, coalition colleagues and public on any of them. And had he led a minority government, that could have ended his government. Indeed, in a weak 2019 win, the Lib Dems might have been able to demand a different PM as their price of support, though Labour could (and probably would) have said 'no'.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
One term. The economics will undermine him. Rayner is the obvious most likely successor, and it'll be a very unfortunate legacy for her. (Burnham isn't and won't risk being an MP, Streeting just looks weak, and Nandy really can't resurrect her fortunes.)
Saw Rayner being interviewed on The Rest is Politics. Quite a back story and likeable but not a PM. Her role will be more akin to Prescott keeping the troops on board.
Very easy to underestimate Rayner. People have done it many times, and have been proven wrong. She is good at politics.
Agree, but she won't be leader. Deputy + cheerleader for the vast raucous decent working class + starring in Basic Instinct is enough for any career.
There's a little bit of a test between now and the election. She could, by her own efforts, lose it for Labour if she really tried. It seems to me she will do us all a favour if she doesn't.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
2.5, and Wes Streeting!
Bridget Phillipson
A good call, but could be Reeves, or Rayner. I would expect a change of leader in the second term.
Between Phillipson and Streeting. Not Rayner.
Keir - one term
Wes - one term
Mystery CON person - one + terms
it's interesting to see someone predicting another Con win in the next couple of elections. it really depends on what is left of the Cons in parliament and how long it takes them to get back to something nearer the centre ground. As a reaction to losing the next election they'll take a sharper turn to the right and alienate the middle ground of the electorate.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
One term. The economics will undermine him. Rayner is the obvious most likely successor, and it'll be a very unfortunate legacy for her. (Burnham isn't and won't risk being an MP, Streeting just looks weak, and Nandy really can't resurrect her fortunes.)
Saw Rayner being interviewed on The Rest is Politics. Quite a back story and likeable but not a PM. Her role will be more akin to Prescott keeping the troops on board.
Very easy to underestimate Rayner. People have done it many times, and have been proven wrong. She is good at politics.
"She is good at politics." - I think this is the point.
I think people are very naive if they think the Tories will be back in any time soon. If they are out, they are out for a decade or more IMHO.
And at the current rate, they may never govern again. They don't seem like they are going to take the Labour option of 2019 and instead do Labour of 2015 so will be out even longer.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
One term. The economics will undermine him. Rayner is the obvious most likely successor, and it'll be a very unfortunate legacy for her. (Burnham isn't and won't risk being an MP, Streeting just looks weak, and Nandy really can't resurrect her fortunes.)
Saw Rayner being interviewed on The Rest is Politics. Quite a back story and likeable but not a PM. Her role will be more akin to Prescott keeping the troops on board.
Very easy to underestimate Rayner. People have done it many times, and have been proven wrong. She is good at politics.
"She is good at politics." - I think this is the point.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
One term. The economics will undermine him. Rayner is the obvious most likely successor, and it'll be a very unfortunate legacy for her. (Burnham isn't and won't risk being an MP, Streeting just looks weak, and Nandy really can't resurrect her fortunes.)
Saw Rayner being interviewed on The Rest is Politics. Quite a back story and likeable but not a PM. Her role will be more akin to Prescott keeping the troops on board.
Very easy to underestimate Rayner. People have done it many times, and have been proven wrong. She is good at politics.
"She is good at politics." - I think this is the point.
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
Term and a half. He's 61 now, and will retire at a sensible age with mild gratitude from the nation for a job adequately done. It could have been a lot worse.
As for his successor, I doubt they are a household name in their own household yet. There's no sign of a Blair/Brown thing happening, and thank goodness for that.
What I would also like to see is a list of non-bonkers stars on the Conservative candidates list. There must be someone good there, mustn't there?
I think people are very naive if they think the Tories will be back in any time soon. If they are out, they are out for a decade or more IMHO.
And at the current rate, they may never govern again. They don't seem like they are going to take the Labour option of 2019 and instead do Labour of 2015 so will be out even longer.
they said the same of the Tories in 1997 it took two defeats for them to realise that they needed someone who could drag them back to the centre. they will be back again but it'll take over a decade
How many terms will SKS serve? And who will succeed him?
2.5, and Wes Streeting!
Bridget Phillipson
A good call, but could be Reeves, or Rayner. I would expect a change of leader in the second term.
Between Phillipson and Streeting. Not Rayner.
Keir - one term
Wes - one term
Mystery CON person - one + terms
Of course there is the small matter, that he has to win the General Election first, I don't think it's all over bar the shouting, just yet
no they don't have to 'win' the general election. they just have to do well enough that the Tories can't form a government
What numerical point that is is an interesting question. There are 650 seats. If SF+Speaker is 8 seats it becomes 642. 322 seats gives a majority of 2. If (I don't they they will) the DUP/Prots supported the Tories and got about 8 seats, the Tories would need 314. No-one else will touch them with a 10 foot pole.
If Tories lose 52 seats (313) they are dished. Probably fewer. What was emerge from the scrum if of course another matter, except that a result anywhere like that will mean another election very soon.
There is a possible set up therefore where Labour have massively fewer seats than the Tories but lead the government.
On Ofsted. I know an awful lot about Ofsted, for reasons I'm not going to disclose. And I'm not going to quibble with the excellent header, although I would dispute a few elements of it. However, I would put forward a defence of Ofsted on its impact, if not on its current practice.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
I agree about inspections. And I said as much. Self-evaluation is not the answer, as OFSTED itself has undoubtedly proved.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
And he did that in over a hundred schools, up and down the land. That's the lives of thousands of children improved.
That's what OFSTED can be. And should be. An organisation that can give excellent advice, and be relied on to be fair, but when necessary actually show some balls and sort shit out. Whether it was doing that under Woodhead, himself a failed teacher twice fired from schools, is a different question. But under Tomlinson and Bell, it certainly was.
The anger I express in my somewhat prolix thread header is because it's currently not doing that.
OFSTED is necessary. It does not have to be evil. The fact it is, and in particular the fact that it is a serious risk to children through institutional lethargy, should be unacceptable to us all.
Who had the government's wine cellar on their next government scandal bingo card?
33 000 bottles with a value of £3.2 million works out at an average of nearly £100 a bottle.
Rather better than my wine cellar!
Well, they haven’t been shopping at the local supermarket!
My brother was once a guest at an official dinner at the British embassy in Paris a couple of decades back. Tremendous wines he said, after all can't insult the French!
Apparently the wine cellar at the Elysee is quite something. Possibly the best in the world alongside the royal wine cellar in London, I'd guess
I think people are very naive if they think the Tories will be back in any time soon. If they are out, they are out for a decade or more IMHO.
And at the current rate, they may never govern again. They don't seem like they are going to take the Labour option of 2019 and instead do Labour of 2015 so will be out even longer.
they said the same of the Tories in 1997 it took two defeats for them to realise that they needed someone who could drag them back to the centre. they will be back again but it'll take over a decade
Important difference, though.
In 1997, there were enough bright young moderates to gather in Notting Hill and keep the dream alive, ready to be reactivated in 2005-10.
That's much less clear now. The party is less bright, older and more right wing than in the past. There's a decent risk that there won't be anyone left to do the dragging in eight years time.
Who had the government's wine cellar on their next government scandal bingo card?
33 000 bottles with a value of £3.2 million works out at an average of nearly £100 a bottle.
Rather better than my wine cellar!
Well, they haven’t been shopping at the local supermarket!
My brother was once a guest at an official dinner at the British embassy in Paris a couple of decades back. Tremendous wines he said, after all can't insult the French!
Apparently the wine cellar at the Elysee is quite something. Possibly the best in the world alongside the royal wine cellar in London, I'd guess
Trinity maybe, although they have no repute for great wines (But you'd expect them to keep such things quiet).
Cracking article, ydoethur (so that's how it's pronounced). No doubt some will complain of its length.
It's too long
(To explain. Back in the day the article limit was around 800 words. But Cyclefree's articles started creeping up, eventually hitting the 1000-1200 word mark. This was noted and I coined the phrases "Cyclefree limit" (1200 words) and "The Usual Review" ("interesting, well-written, too long, nothing to do with betting"), Cyclefree then dialed it back, making her articles more punchy, although still with a tendency to spike up.
But this new one from Ydoethur weighs in at omigod over 1800 words, which is another step change. I propose the term "Ydoethur limit" (1800 words) for this, although "The Usual Review" still applies)
1890 to be exact.
I did say he faced an appallingly long list of problems...
And I actually left some out. For example, I didn't note the issues with exam data.
On Ofsted. I know an awful lot about Ofsted, for reasons I'm not going to disclose. And I'm not going to quibble with the excellent header, although I would dispute a few elements of it. However, I would put forward a defence of Ofsted on its impact, if not on its current practice.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
I agree about inspections. And I said as much. Self-evaluation is not the answer, as OFSTED itself has undoubtedly proved.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
And he did that in over a hundred schools, up and down the land. That's the lives of thousands of children improved.
That's what OFSTED can be. And should be. An organisation that can give excellent advice, and be relied on to be fair, but when necessary actually show some balls and sort shit out. Whether it was doing that under Woodhead, himself a failed teacher twice fired from schools, is a different question. But under Tomlinson and Bell, it certainly was.
The anger I express in my somewhat prolix thread header is because it's currently not doing that.
OFSTED is necessary. It does not have to be evil. The fact it is, and in particular the fact that it is a serious risk to children through institutional lethargy, should be unacceptable to us all.
Nice anecdote - I've seen similar. Out of curiosity, was your Ofsted inspector an HMI or an Additional Inspector? In my experience there's usually, though by no means always, quite a difference.
Comments
If you mean takeaway cooked meals, they're already mostly subject to VAT at 20%.
If you mean foods you can buy in the supermarket, one person's view on unhealthy is very different to others.
For me unhealthy is carbs, especially processed carbs.
The healthiest foods in my eyes are foods high in protein and fat, so foods like meat, cheese and dairy.
Vegan diets in my view are incredibly unhealthy, but should they be taxed more for their beliefs? Or would you tax mine?
For too many years carbs were considered good and fat was considered unhealthy. Still today people advertise "fat free" as if that's a good thing, often filled with sugars, when a lot of modern research shows its not.
That's the beauty of choice, we all get to make one.
You can respect those who walk their kids to the closest school if you want to, and I can respect those who drive their kids to the best school in their eyes they can go to instead.
I am really happy my kids do not go to their local school.
If everyone was the same, life would be boring.
For decades we have tried to generate economic growth by bringing in more and more people, allowing top line GDP to rise. But the issue is that (a) many of these people have been lower productivity, (b) it disincentivizes companies from investing in capital, and (c) we get diminishing marginal value to land the more people we cram in. All of these worsen productivity.
1) Get a better job
2) Move to a nicer house
Anyone who can't do that is a slacker...
Anyway I agree with your summary of healthy/unhealthy foods.
I'd tax ultraprocessed foods (definition required admittedly) and sugars (with an exemption for fresh-fruit but not fruit juice).
3) Have richer parents/grandparents
Different diets work well for different people (again not everyone's the same) but what I find works best for me is a ketogenic carnivore diet.
I'm off my diet over Christmas as I've been eating vegetables with my Christmas meal and chocolates and other treats etc, made a conscious choice I'd resume my diet when I return to work on the 8th, but I try to predominantly eat meats, cheese, eggs and dairy etc and eat vegetables only infrequently.
As a rule, I aim to stick to fewer than 20g of net carbs a day.
One is struck by the similarity between the Government's (lack of) control of the Education system and its (lack of) control of the Post Office. In both cases, indifference and detachment from what has actually been going on at the coal-face masquerades as a 'hands off' approach.
The results in both cases are there for all to see.
4) Marry a rich man / woman
5) Have a rich daddy
6) Win the lottery
Honestly, anyone using a foodbank who hasn't bothered to win the Euromillions deserves our contempt.
In my proposal you can live where you want and get a say in your kids education even if it means travelling to get them there (or when they're older, them getting a bus).
The alternative is if the local school is the only option then house prices determine school access.
The alternative is shit.
Expect similar rulings in one or two other Jan. 6-related lawsuits:
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1740760153111109644
(The obvious answer is improve the less good ones but that takes time)
Here is reality. Millions of people who cannot get a better job or move to find a better school.
Which is why comprehensive education is critical. Ensure standards in schools. Something OFSTED is failing at.
Money should follow the student, and the parents should get a say in where their child goes.
Housing shouldn't determine schooling.
(US version)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/29/2023-worst-political-predictions-00132568
What are ours ?
On tax rises, we already have a record tax take yet everything seems underfunded and in disrepair. Someone cleverer than me should investigate where the money is being spaffed up the wall.
He does not believe in the basics of US democracy - separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, federal vs state separation - and is arguing that a President in power should be entirely above the law.
His organisation has plans to use Executive Powers inappropriately to destroy everyone - elected reps, DOJ employees, judges and all the rest - who he thinks has been against him or who will stand in his way.
It's the playbook of every aspiring Dictator who wants to take over a democracy; I think you will find parallels with Lukaschenko, Mugabe, even the early days of Hitler in the early 1930s.
I think it also says things about how vulnerable a US democratic system which still has one foot the 18C has become, but that's one for another time after Trump has been safely locked up.
I spent my career in post-16 education, which Ofsted started inspecting in 2001. The first tranche of inspections between 2001 and 2003 highlighted dreadful practice in many colleges, with success rates (the proportion who start a course and finish it successfully) being simply appalling - often less than 50%, sometimes as low as 20/30%; alongside much poor teaching practice, obviously. The impact of accountability from Ofsted led to a very rapid improvement in such measures - by the time I retired (2018), if the success rate wasn't at least 80% the institution was in trouble. In schools, I think the impact was similar, albeit more mixed.
I'm in danger of writing too much, especially as I've just come back from the pub. But I'd conclude by saying that some form of inspection accountability is probably a necessary evil.
Labour accuses government of holding back data on use of official alcohol stock between March 2020 and 2022
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/dec/29/uk-ministers-asked-to-explain-fourth-delay-to-covid-wine-cellar-report
Who had the government's wine cellar on their next government scandal bingo card?
Teachers?
School governors?
Parents?
Civil servants?
Politicians?
If you have a voucher system then the cash follows the pupils and the school staff have to answer to their own policies, governors and parents of pupils to ensure that parents keep choosing to send children to the school.
Politicians and civil servants should have nothing to do with it. Politicians should decide the level of voucher, then let schools and parents operate with minimal interference.
If the number of pupils changes then schools should be competing for the extra or fewer vouchers available and mergers should only happen if that's what the schools themselves want as they'd be making their own decisions.
Whatever you set the voucher at, the schools should get that much funding per pupil (plus extras for premiums like disadvantaged pupils or SEND). Then be operationally independent.
And if they don't get to choose, then catchment areas will get ever smaller.
It's not like a firm with a better tasting biscuit, who can increase the number of shifts, and buy new machines, and create a new factory.
Indeed, what's the incentive for the Headteacher at a successful school to expand? (Indeed, the most successful private schools - the Westminsters, Etons, Winchesters and the like - have usually been loathe to dilute what makes them so successful.)
And while there are clear financial incentives for our biscuit maker to expand (more sales, more profit) there's no such financial benefit to a Headteacher in doing so. Plus, the skills required to manage such an expansion are likely very different to those required to run an efficient school.
We could, I suppose, privatize all schools. But even that is full of pitfalls. What's to stop me from creating a school that is designed to deliver maximum margins, and barely teaching the kids. If I'm the only school in five miles, then I'll get plenty of kids, irrespective of the education I provide.
FWIW, I have no solutions. I just want to make clear the scale of the challenges.
It's rather less possible in small towns and in the countryside.
Rather better than my wine cellar!
If you live somewhere with no trains, and only a few busses a day what do you do?
Take the car? not if the locals protest against any road improvements.
it's not just rural areas which have this problem though.
people in London, who only see a world class transport system, don't get how disruptive it can be for the rest of the country when you can't get a bus home after 6pm and a uber/taxi will be prohibitively costly on a daily basis.
Rather than have vouchers, which is effectively what happens now anyway under a different name, if these schools remained open, then less popular schools would see their class sizes shrink, which would improve education and attract more children (or parents) so everything would balance nicely with no need for complex bureaucracies. Look at any private school and count the staff and pupils. What they are selling is smaller classes than the state sector can manage even with TAs.
Politicians should be determining the voucher level. Schools and parents should be all that matter after that.
And the incentive for a headteacher to expand is a bigger salary - perhaps capped as a percentage of revenue. Let them have schools with multiple campuses.
As for rip-off schools, you need a powerful DfE that is active on watching out for schools manipulating the system.
Funding is the key, and I know Barty will chirp in with public affordability, but a well resourced quality education is a down payment on the nation's future. Surely more imaginative use of private sector sponsorship could be looked at, if the public purse is empty. School meals sponsored by Tesco, no not McDonalds. Books purchased by Disney Plus.
Psy the teachers, enthuse the teachers, enthuse the students.
“Maths”
“Great sport”
“No, I teach maths”
I simply think the control of those resources should be in the hands of the pupils, via their parents, and not in the hands of civil servants.
And I despise catchment areas. A true lottery would be better than a postcode lottery. Housing shouldn't affect schools, and schools shouldn't affect house prices.
Parents should be able to do the job better than the DfE ever could.
I agree completely with everything else you wrote and absolutely catchment areas should be abolished. That people can buy their way into a good school paid for entirely by taxes, solely by buying a house is an utter disgrace on this country.
“So what do you teach?”
“Maths, sport”
“Maths and sport?
“No, maths, sport”
“So maths and sport then”
“No, sport, maths”
“So sport and maths then?”
“No, sport, simple English, maths”
“So, maths sport and English?”
And on and on.
If you look at the polling in this parliament, the governing party have had great April and Mays, but their polling late summers and Autumns leading up to Christmas been dire. If Sunak bottles May 2nd he will have to reverse historical trend right on its head.
I think what is strongest for the Torys, or any governing party, isn’t time with the tax cut in peoples pockets, where people will actually not feel very much better off, but the “prospect” of feeling better off before they get it. The expectation of tax cut so much stronger psychology than the having.
By delaying to other side of the summer all Rishi will be doing is two things. Firstly giving opposition time to take the policy apart, it being tax giveaway based not on growth but paid for by borrowing and previous taxes and future taxes. And secondly the gamble of pledges on health, immigration, cutting borrowing, growth, and stopping boats not just not getting better but even getting worse.
It has to be May 2nd. Getting people optimistic about things can only get better in May, has to be far easier than trying to do so next autumn or December.
The economics won't be pretty, but there will be little appetite for the party that is seen to have messed them up in the first place.
General Election: after the summer hols, not before. (50p on September)
Result: NOM, Labour led government
POTUS: Trump
Gaza: Still sub optimal
Premiership: Not Arsenal. Again.
At least I'm going to get two out of five.
Wes - one term
Mystery CON person - one + terms
The first thing to pin down in this counterfactual is when Corbyn became PM, and on what basis. Both matter massively. In 2017 - by far the more likely - it's not difficult to construct a narrative where the Tories screw up even more during the campaign (or earlier), and there's an anti-Tory / Brexit-sceptic majority. In 2019, that's much harder - though had the May government fallen in Spring 2019, who knows what parliament might have resulted.
But we do know that after the Labour MPs No Confidenced Corbyn by 80-20, then lost their challenge, they pretty much all fell back into line. That effect would have been magnified several times had Corbyn's mandate come from the electorate rather than the party.
Either way though, how Corbyn handled Salisbury, Brexit, Ukraine or Covid - to name just the most obvious policy challenges - could have led to his downfall. He could have seriously alienated his MPs, coalition colleagues and public on any of them. And had he led a minority government, that could have ended his government. Indeed, in a weak 2019 win, the Lib Dems might have been able to demand a different PM as their price of support, though Labour could (and probably would) have said 'no'.
But sooner or later, he would have made so big a political failure with serious real world consequences that his government would have become unsustainable.
There's a little bit of a test between now and the election. She could, by her own efforts, lose it for Labour if she really tried. It seems to me she will do us all a favour if she doesn't.
And at the current rate, they may never govern again. They don't seem like they are going to take the Labour option of 2019 and instead do Labour of 2015 so will be out even longer.
Without going into too much detail, I find the description of Ofsted to be true, which is depressing. They are lost as a inspectorate
And don’t even get me started on the DfE as a whole…
As for his successor, I doubt they are a household name in their own household yet. There's no sign of a Blair/Brown thing happening, and thank goodness for that.
What I would also like to see is a list of non-bonkers stars on the Conservative candidates list. There must be someone good there, mustn't there?
If Tories lose 52 seats (313) they are dished. Probably fewer. What was emerge from the scrum if of course another matter, except that a result anywhere like that will mean another election very soon.
There is a possible set up therefore where Labour have massively fewer seats than the Tories but lead the government.
What larks.
I agree about inspections. And I said as much. Self-evaluation is not the answer, as OFSTED itself has undoubtedly proved.
A little anecdote, if it helps. When I first became a Head of Department, after just two terms in teaching, I was taking over a failing department in a school at risk of closure.
Having looked at what was going on, the first thing I did was go to a good friend who was an OFSTED inspector and ask his advice on what would, from his very wide experience of these things, be the right thing to do.
He gave me the best advice I've ever had, and by following it in twelve months I had not only turned my own department around but was supporting three others in their attempts to lift them out of the mire. With considerable success. That school went, following his guidance transmitted through me, from 'bloody lucky not to get inadequate' to 'outstanding' in just three years.
And he did that in over a hundred schools, up and down the land. That's the lives of thousands of children improved.
That's what OFSTED can be. And should be. An organisation that can give excellent advice, and be relied on to be fair, but when necessary actually show some balls and sort shit out. Whether it was doing that under Woodhead, himself a failed teacher twice fired from schools, is a different question. But under Tomlinson and Bell, it certainly was.
The anger I express in my somewhat prolix thread header is because it's currently not doing that.
OFSTED is necessary. It does not have to be evil. The fact it is, and in particular the fact that it is a serious risk to children through institutional lethargy, should be unacceptable to us all.
In 1997, there were enough bright young moderates to gather in Notting Hill and keep the dream alive, ready to be reactivated in 2005-10.
That's much less clear now. The party is less bright, older and more right wing than in the past. There's a decent risk that there won't be anyone left to do the dragging in eight years time.
Venice otherwise.
I did say he faced an appallingly long list of problems...
And I actually left some out. For example, I didn't note the issues with exam data.