Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!
The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.
And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.
Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.
Didn't you want all those Olympic gold medals ?
Did we get any in swimming?
You're so behind the times, it's rowing, cycling, horses etc. In 2008 nearly half our medals came from private schools. It's a bit like the Labour front bench.
Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!
The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.
And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.
Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.
Didn't you want all those Olympic gold medals ?
Did we get any in swimming?
You're so behind the times, it's rowing, cycling, horses etc. In 2008 nearly half our medals came from private schools. It's a bit like the Labour front bench.
I thought there'd been an Olympics since 2008. I am also happy to accept that private schools are going to provide the majority of medallists in sports where equipment is expensive and competition is restricted.
Educated at an excellent Grammar School which was full of inspirational teachers and had an ex-Harrovian master as Head and so it was run on public school lines. Prefects were in charge of school discipline (under the eye of the deputy head) and so receved excellent experience in 'man-management'.
I was also educated at grammar school and I moved out to Bucks so my girls would have that opportunity if they passed the 11-plus
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
What an utterly absurd post that indicates you actually have no understanding of what I am saying.
You said we never had a conversation. I've proved we've had it.
You're the one being absurd. Just go back and read your posts.
You said that I was defending Labour policies. I have made it absolutely clear on here and in any number of previous threads that I think Labour's policies were deeply flawed. Also, in the quote of mine that you provided I did not state that we would be seeing the results of improvements in primary literacy and numeracy levels by now. Indeed, as the PISA tests were taken in 2012, the same year that you say our exchange (not conversation) took place, it is pretty clear that I was talking about the future not the present.
Oh lordy, you're splitting hairs between "exchange" and "conversation" now? You are being absolutely ludicrous.
And I don't say it happened; it happened. Don't imply I'm making it up - that was a direct quote from you. Unless you're calling me a liar who made up the quote?
It's probably best if we let others decide. I stand by my statements.
I am sure it happened. I just don't know when. You said it was 18 months ago - so in 2012. And as I said back then, at the same time as these PISA tests were being taken, "It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond." I stand by that.
How long before you think we will see these alleged improvements? And if they don't happen, will you be blaming this government for them not happening?
Labour utterly failed a generation of our children.
Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!
The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.
And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.
Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.
Didn't you want all those Olympic gold medals ?
Did we get any in swimming?
You're so behind the times, it's rowing, cycling, horses etc. In 2008 nearly half our medals came from private schools. It's a bit like the Labour front bench.
I thought there'd been an Olympics since 2008. I am also happy to accept that private schools are going to provide the majority of medallists in sports where equipment is expensive and competition is restricted.
similar outcome, but then you'd witter on about Tory unfairness. 2008 - what could be fairer than a team formed after 10 years of Tony ?
Educated at an excellent Grammar School which was full of inspirational teachers and had an ex-Harrovian master as Head and so it was run on public school lines. Prefects were in charge of school discipline (under the eye of the deputy head) and so receved excellent experience in 'man-management'.
I was also educated at grammar school and I moved out to Bucks so my girls would have that opportunity if they passed the 11-plus
Both my sons were educated at RGS High Wycombe (excellent school and full of aspiration for its pupils) and daughter at Beaconsfield HS - as that is where we lived - good commuter territory and near Heathrow.
"It will take time for improvements in primary literacy and numeracy to feed through to the seconday level and beyond. The 19 year olds of 2009 started primary school in 1994/95; the 13 year olds in 2000."
Sadly, the link into PB's database does not work.
It reads like a defence to me.
====
It was not a defence. There's a huge difference in not seeing everything as bleak and "shocking", and believing that everything - or remotely close to everything - that Labour did in education was wonderful. I think they did some good things with early years and at primaries generally, but that they seriously neglected secondaries, thinking that money alone was the solution. That said, there were some beacons of hope - the London Challenge being one of them.
You accuse me of making something up (and indeed an entire conversation). I provide you with a quote from that conversation.
It was a defence: you were saying that the improved results would not feed through for a while. It is now obvious you were wrong.
How deep do you want to dig your hole?
What an utterly absurd post that indicates you actually have no understanding of what I am saying.
You said we never had a conversation. I've proved we've had it.
You're the one being absurd. Just go back and read your posts.
You said that I was defending Labour policies. I have made it absolutely clear on here and in any number of previous threads that I think Labour's policies were deeply flawed. Also, in the quote of mine that you provided I did not state that we would be seeing the results of improvements in primary literacy and numeracy levels by now. Indeed, as the PISA tests were taken in 2012, the same year that you say our exchange (not conversation) took place, it is pretty clear that I was talking about the future not the present.
Oh lordy, you're splitting hairs between "exchange" and "conversation" now? You are being absolutely ludicrous.
And I don't say it happened; it happened. Don't imply I'm making it up - that was a direct quote from you. Unless you're calling me a liar who made up the quote?
It's probably best if we let others decide. I stand by my statements.
He is the worst on the site for never admitting to being wrong, or apologising for making stuff up, even when its there for all to see
Take the hair splitting as the best confirmation you are going to get that you are right and he is wrong
"The top of the league table is dominated by Asia, and China in particular: Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, Korea, Macao and Japan, in that order.
Which means that the gap between per capita wealth in the rich West and in the developing economies of the East will continue to narrow, all other things being equal, given the link between prosperity and education.
The gap between the mean maths attainment of Shanghai adolescents and British ones is a particularly stunning 24%. That's almost as unbridgeable a gap as between Barcelona FC and AFC Wimbledon in football.
And what is perhaps even more shattering, low achievers in maths represent just 3.8% of Shanghai's total, compared with an OECD average of 23% and 22% in the UK.
A couple of years ago, I spent some time with a Shanghai family, when making my documentary series "How the West Went Bust". The girl student in that family would put almost any western student to shame, with her industry and application.
Or to put it another way, these differential outcomes between places like the UK and Shanghai are not just about the structure and resources of schools, but also about national culture and family values. This Chinese family not only created a study-conducive atmosphere in their small apartment, but were saving a huge share of a small income so that their child could afford to go to the best university.
So if the UK wants to secure a rosier economic future, as much of the necessary work to raise education standards may well have to take place in the home as in the school."
Labour always measure the public sector by the scale of inputs and never the quality of outputs. That's the core problem with leftyism. It IS possible to get more for less. Every company in the private sector routinely has to address its efficiency and competitiveness - or die. Applying a similar rigour to the public sector would benefit everyone.
This seems spot-on to me; and I'd just add that the situation in a lot of the public sector (in my local experience, and from what I hear generally) is pretty much opposite to the private sector approach. There's often a temptation to spend right up to your annual budget (even if that means doing stuff that's not really relevant or beneficial) because if you don't, next year's budget may well be lower!
The private sector in education blows more cash than almost any other industry, fees have been going up way above inflation for decades as they indulge in an arms race of sports facilities.
And according to PISA the private education sector is not actually providing any value added to those that use it.
Of course they don't most of the whacking fees increases go on swimming pools, why would anyone expect any different.
Didn't you want all those Olympic gold medals ?
Did we get any in swimming?
You're so behind the times, it's rowing, cycling, horses etc. In 2008 nearly half our medals came from private schools. It's a bit like the Labour front bench.
I thought there'd been an Olympics since 2008. I am also happy to accept that private schools are going to provide the majority of medallists in sports where equipment is expensive and competition is restricted.
A public schoolboy won the the first Gold medal for Team GB at London 2012. Peter Wilson, a clay pigeon shooter, was an Old Millfeldian and farmer's son.
You would have thought that a gang-ridden, bog-standard, inner city comprehensive might have stood a better chance of producing a shooting medallist.
Yet, even provided with the right material, the State School systems failed.
They are not "shocking". They are average. That is not good enough, but it is not a disaster. Improvement is obviously necessary, but before we can improve we have to be honest about where we are; and that is with most of the rest of Europe and the developed world outside of East Asia. What the PISA tests measure is the ability to do PISA tests. If we started teaching
We did not have that conversation. You are making that up.
Clearly you do not know how school assessments are undertaken? Do you seriously believe they are not looked at by outside sources. This is a major part of what OFSTED inspectors do.
Do you believe, then, that teachers deliberately underplayed literacy and numeracy results in 1996 and then started to manipulate them from 1997 onwards?
Yes, absolutely! Labour manipulated data, on education and otherwise right from the start.
Meaning that the type of medium influences what message is perceived by the receiver. Different media project different messages with the same content.
Content on TV is likely to have more impact than the same content in the press. What we don't know is the impact Twitter and Facebook messages have compared with TV or print. How authoritive are Twitter and Facebook messages? How gullible are those who receive the messages by different media forms?
Comments
Labour utterly failed a generation of our children.
Take the hair splitting as the best confirmation you are going to get that you are right and he is wrong
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/03/uk-construction-recovery-nikkei-high-live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25198153
"The top of the league table is dominated by Asia, and China in particular: Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei, Korea, Macao and Japan, in that order.
Which means that the gap between per capita wealth in the rich West and in the developing economies of the East will continue to narrow, all other things being equal, given the link between prosperity and education.
The gap between the mean maths attainment of Shanghai adolescents and British ones is a particularly stunning 24%. That's almost as unbridgeable a gap as between Barcelona FC and AFC Wimbledon in football.
And what is perhaps even more shattering, low achievers in maths represent just 3.8% of Shanghai's total, compared with an OECD average of 23% and 22% in the UK.
A couple of years ago, I spent some time with a Shanghai family, when making my documentary series "How the West Went Bust". The girl student in that family would put almost any western student to shame, with her industry and application.
Or to put it another way, these differential outcomes between places like the UK and Shanghai are not just about the structure and resources of schools, but also about national culture and family values. This Chinese family not only created a study-conducive atmosphere in their small apartment, but were saving a huge share of a small income so that their child could afford to go to the best university.
So if the UK wants to secure a rosier economic future, as much of the necessary work to raise education standards may well have to take place in the home as in the school."
You would have thought that a gang-ridden, bog-standard, inner city comprehensive might have stood a better chance of producing a shooting medallist.
Yet, even provided with the right material, the State School systems failed.
Meaning that the type of medium influences what message is perceived by the receiver. Different media project different messages with the same content.
Content on TV is likely to have more impact than the same content in the press. What we don't know is the impact Twitter and Facebook messages have compared with TV or print. How authoritive are Twitter and Facebook messages? How gullible are those who receive the messages by different media forms?