politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour believes that Gove has become the Tories’ weakest link
Both Labour and Lib Dem strategists have told me in recent months that they now regard the education secretary, Michael Gove, as the Conservative party’s biggest electoral liability.
The weakest link is Ed Miliband not Michael Gove. Until Labour realise that it will be them who are told "goodbye" by the voters next year. However by then I expect to be preparing for life in an independent Scotland!
Re Ashes, something may not be right about the Test team, when the leading bowler, and one of the leading batsmen appear to be willing to retire or return home mid match or mid series.
The weakest link is Ed Miliband not Michael Gove. Until Labour realise that it will be them who are told "goodbye" by the voters next year. However by then I expect to be preparing for life in an independent Scotland!
I believe that Gove is a bigger problem for the Tories than EdM is for Labour.
I guess most of the voters won't really have a strong opinion of Gove either way, and the ones who do will be people who know about education, who tend to get a strong "stupid person's idea of a clever person" vibe about him.
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Ah! The lessons to be learnt from WWI in The Guardian classroom.
Quiet children, please. Listen to your teacher, Mr. 'Historian' Hunt.
Gove's comments are likely to cause consternation in Germany, where politicians are keen to stress the lessons learned from two world wars and the role that European integration has played in promoting peace.
The president of the European parliament, the German Social Democrat Martin Schulz, declined to be drawn on Gove's intervention, but, in terms that are likely to anger some on the Tory right, he said that the way to ensure future peace in Europe was to promote a more closely integrated EU.
Interpretation of the past is never apolitical for very long. Hunt should know it. There is no monopoly of thought in history, some interpretations are more flawed than others.
Britain's major trading partner pre 1914 was Germany, (and vice versa) but they still went to war. Didn't help Lenin's thesis very much either.
Interpretation of the past is never apolitical for very long. Hunt should know it. There is no monopoly of thought in history, some interpretations are more flawed than others.
Britain's major trading partner pre 1914 was Germany, (and vice versa) but they still went to war. Didn't help Lenin's thesis very much either.
And Gove's article makes his intent clear:
There is, of course, no unchallenged consensus. That is why it matters that we encourage an open debate on the war and its significance.
There's a risk here for Labour as well. Attacking Gove for being horrid (I've skimmed the comments, based on my own limited knowledge of that era it does sound like Gove is wrong) about Germans in a world war may easily be confused by many voters either for WWII, or may make those who don't know much about the First World War feel like Gove is right (on the basis that in WWII the Nazis were about as vile as can be, and that the Germans in WWI may be assumed by some to be similar).
It does sound like Gove has needlessly annoyed a large profession with remarks that are, at best, disputable. As a Cameroon he is almost certain to remain in post (as most people on both sides probably are until the election).
History is not apolitical, as has been mentioned below by Dr. Spyn. We need only seen the revisionism that's occurred by the Left's manipulation of the view of Thatcher (I recall with some amusement a Sky News paper review where a chap scarcely older than myself complained about Thatcher the Milk Snatcher. The older newsreader remarked that the milk was either horribly cold or horribly warm and he was glad to be rid of it, at which point the young chap said it was before his time...)
Interpretation of the past is never apolitical for very long. Always a good way of scoring points. Hunt and Gove know it. There is no monopoly of thought in history, some interpretations are more flawed than others. Look at Taylor and Clark on German or Prussian History. But historians' feuds can be fun to read, a case of light the blue touchpaper and run. Haig and other generals could be criticised for not learning lessons from Russo-Japanese war amongst other things. But bear in mind how difficult it would be to mange the huge expansion of manpower 1914-16.
One of the odd things about 1918, is the sheer pace of the German collapse after Operation Michael's failure, and a relentless Allied advance, but there isn't a single decisive battle like Waterloo which ends the campaign. I am looking forward to Huw Strachan's next volume on the war.
Britain's major trading partner pre 1914 was Germany, (and vice versa) but they still went to war. Didn't help Lenin's thesis very much either.
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
I'm surprised that, on Betfair, Gove is third favourite (behind Boris J and Theresa M) to be the next Tory Leader. He is on 7.2. I would have thought his chances were no higher than George O on 11.0. I would have thought that Philip H's chances were higher than both Michael G and Geroge O.
This betting market may get very active within the next 18 months if Cameron loses the next general election (which I expect) and then steps down (which wouldn't surprise me).
I guess most of the voters won't really have a strong opinion of Gove either way, and the ones who do will be people who know about education, who tend to get a strong "stupid person's idea of a clever person" vibe about him.
Gove is fixing that with his WW1 claims and attacks on lefty history brainbox Sir Richard Evans (knighted in 2012 by whoever was in power then -- probably Gordon Brown) and the "lions led by donkeys" view popularised by Labour Tory MP Alan Clark.
More importantly, though, Gove has presided over a school places shortage.
Pieter Geyl wrote about Napoleon's tyranny in 1940, with a very obvious parallel in the minds of his readers, for which he was arrested. History can be a very dangerous occupation.
Perhaps Hunt and Gove ought to read one of Margaret MacMillan's other books on the usages and abusage of history.
Of course The Whig interpretation of History is apolitical. Re Gove, the social Darwinism stuff did have a appeal for some British politicians, but he probably overlooked that.
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
As I have said before Josias, not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom. For mere mortals the ability to tap into advice, call on subsidised legal help, enjoy beneficial deals with a range of service providers keen to target a defined professional client base etc is too good to ignore - especially when working conditions, pension arrangements and salary scales are being simultaneously altered so radically.
I guess most of the voters won't really have a strong opinion of Gove either way, and the ones who do will be people who know about education, who tend to get a strong "stupid person's idea of a clever person" vibe about him.
Gove is fixing that with his WW1 claims and attacks on lefty history brainbox Sir Richard Evans (knighted in 2012 by whoever was in power then -- probably Gordon Brown) and the "lions led by donkeys" view popularised by Labour Tory MP Alan Clark.
More importantly, though, Gove has presided over a school places shortage.
Otoh, blaming the Germans might go down well.
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
The problem is not that Gove is antangonistic to teachers.It is that his flagship policy of ` free schools` is starting to fail.It has absorbed a lot of money and the first two schools have run into problems and one has been closed.I don`t believe they are the only ones with problems.
This system is also highly unpopular in Sweden where it began.
The older newsreader remarked that the milk was either horribly cold or horribly warm and he was glad to be rid of it, at which point the young chap said it was before his time...)
As one old enough to remember the dubious delights of free school milk I strongly suspect its most enthusiastic proponents either never had to drink the stuff or were in the pay of the producers, the Dairy Industry....
I expect Gove knows what he's doing. There are probably fewer Tory teachers than there are floating voters who hate teachers. At least, there always used to be.
Sorry to go off topic, but I really wasn't prepared to comment on a stale thread... Isn't the most remarkable thing about the megapoll Our Genial Host reported late last night that the question "which Party is best for the country" produces a Tory lead whilst "which party is best for you and your family" produces a Labour one?
This suggests to me that the Tories' best shot is patriotism - don't have a giveaway budget, Ossie, say instead the country can't afford one. And if their leadership is feeling really Disraelian put in the manifesto a proposal for an elected Lords on a restricted franchise (service in the armed forces, higher-rate tax paying, that sort of thing) with its powers restored in respect of Money Bills.
It's a measure of our society that politicians may choose to attack Gove on social psychological grounds rather than on the unwisdom of appointing someone to head Education who lacks (judging from my admittedly limited knowledge---and I am content to to be corrected on this) a basic comprehension of science and technology.
You might just as well appoint someone to head the Health Service who has a weakness for alternative medicine.
Funny thing. I don't often hear people pointing out that one of Thatcher's biggest assets was her basic numeracy and an understanding of science and its modus operandi.
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
As I have said before Josias, not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom. For mere mortals the ability to tap into advice, call on subsidised legal help, enjoy beneficial deals with a range of service providers keen to target a defined professional client base etc is too good to ignore - especially when working conditions, pension arrangements and salary scales are being simultaneously altered so radically.
"not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom."
Are you going to use that stupid phrase whenever we disagree? I mean, it's a rather pathetic way of starting a response to an argument, one that automatically puts the responder on the back foot.
There's been quite a debate in history teacher world re WW1 leading up to the centenary. In fact I think Gove got much of his stuff from an article by one in the TES. But then he muffs it by implying that teaching is based on 'Blackadder'. He can't help himself.
A major drag? Dunno. But I find him an interesting study, psychology/schema-wise. His secrecy, response to criticism etc (his recent ed comm session was embarrassingly bad).
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
As I have said before Josias, not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom. For mere mortals the ability to tap into advice, call on subsidised legal help, enjoy beneficial deals with a range of service providers keen to target a defined professional client base etc is too good to ignore - especially when working conditions, pension arrangements and salary scales are being simultaneously altered so radically.
Absolutely, anyone can join a Union, and enjoy the benefits of this advice, whether your workplace 'recognises' Unions or not. No-one should ever forget why Unions came into being and the sacrifices that were made by ordinary people to earn their recognition. Mutualism, co-operation and self improvement were the vehicle by which my Chartist ancestors dragged themselves out of feudalism, and I for one am proud to adhere to that tradition.
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
Wasn't Mrs Thatcher forced to sack Nick Ridley over German-baiting?
Ridley was undone by The Spectator. It was their illustration accompanying the article on his interview which caused the most offence. It depicting him painting an Hitlerian moustache onto the face of Helmut Kohl.
What he said in the interview was comparatively anodyne. Who would disagree with his claim that European Monetary Union was "a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe"?
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
An over-literal interpretation of the question.
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
This was a surprise attack using combined arms and led to the 100 days offensive with the Germans retreating all along the Western front, with mass surrenders and desertions. In many ways this was the invention of the Blitzkrieg, by the Brits.
The British Imperial Forces were the only major army that became operationally more effective over the course of the war and never had a major mutiny or mass desertions. The war did not end like in Blackadder, it ended as a war of manouver. Ironically this meant higher casualties as the troops on both sides had to leave their fortifications.
Arguably the Anglo-Serbian offensive in Salonika was as decisive, as it caused. the collapse of the Bulgarian and AustroHungarian forces, and the End of the war for those powers, leaving a Germany defeated in the West free of allies. Alone and defeated, Germany had to sue for peace.
Gove is right and the WW1 debate needs to be more than war poets, Warhorse and Blackadder.
He is not afraid of a scrap himself, and Hunt has met his match!
Mike: do you not have family who are teachers, so some personal interest in the educational debate?
Interpretation of the past is never apolitical for very long. Always a good way of scoring points. Hunt and Gove know it. There is no monopoly of thought in history, some interpretations are more flawed than others. Look at Taylor and Clark on German or Prussian History. But historians' feuds can be fun to read, a case of light the blue touchpaper and run. Haig and other generals could be criticised for not learning lessons from Russo-Japanese war amongst other things. But bear in mind how difficult it would be to mange the huge expansion of manpower 1914-16.
One of the odd things about 1918, is the sheer pace of the German collapse after Operation Michael's failure, and a relentless Allied advance, but there isn't a single decisive battle like Waterloo which ends the campaign. I am looking forward to Huw Strachan's next volume on the war.
Britain's major trading partner pre 1914 was Germany, (and vice versa) but they still went to war. Didn't help Lenin's thesis very much either.
Well, I haven't had my heating on since getting back from the Christmas spree. And rarely before I went.
If the weather carries on like this (and my amateur weather watcher mate - who's been so accurate in the past that I've started taking notice - says it's going to be more of the same all through, 'with maybe a cold snap at the start of February') it can only be good news for the govt.
There's a risk here for Labour as well. Attacking Gove for being horrid (I've skimmed the comments, based on my own limited knowledge of that era it does sound like Gove is wrong) about Germans in a world war may easily be confused by many voters either for WWII, or may make those who don't know much about the First World War feel like Gove is right (on the basis that in WWII the Nazis were about as vile as can be, and that the Germans in WWI may be assumed by some to be similar).
It does sound like Gove has needlessly annoyed a large profession with remarks that are, at best, disputable. As a Cameroon he is almost certain to remain in post (as most people on both sides probably are until the election).
The centenary commemorations mean WW1 will be all over the telly.
As you imply, leaving aside the substantive argument, it does seem like rum politics, so, accepting Gove is not daft, perhaps there is a hidden agenda to attract Kippers, wind up a Cabinet rival, or promote himself as next mayor.
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
An over-literal interpretation of the question.
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
Given the statement "How is this mathematically possible?" I think it is clear that the question was meant literally. The fact that "good" becomes meaningless in the context is precisely the Chair's point.
The weakest link is Ed Miliband not Michael Gove. Until Labour realise that it will be them who are told "goodbye" by the voters next year. However by then I expect to be preparing for life in an independent Scotland!
I believe that Gove is a bigger problem for the Tories than EdM is for Labour.
You couldn't be more wrong Mike.
Come May 2015 the punters will be focused on who will be the PM to come and "pocket book issues" for the next five years and not the perceived foibles of an education minister in the previous government.
Remember who was education minister in the Major government in 1992 and the influence he had as Kinnock was flushed down the electoral toilet ??
Almost no influence .... and the name you'll be struggling for is ....
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
An over-literal interpretation of the question.
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
The phrasing "how is this mathematically possible?" clearly indicates the question is meant literally. The fact that "good" becomes meaningless in the context is precisely the questioner's point.
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
An over-literal interpretation of the question.
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
If the interview had been on the Clapham Omnibus, you'd be quite right. But...
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
As I have said before Josias, not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom. For mere mortals the ability to tap into advice, call on subsidised legal help, enjoy beneficial deals with a range of service providers keen to target a defined professional client base etc is too good to ignore - especially when working conditions, pension arrangements and salary scales are being simultaneously altered so radically.
"not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom."
Are you going to use that stupid phrase whenever we disagree? I mean, it's a rather pathetic way of starting a response to an argument, one that automatically puts the responder on the back foot.
But I guess that's just your level.
I'll do it when I think you deserve it. My level is, of course, far below yours :-)
My original point was that if Gove wants to marginalise teaching unions, the best way to do it is to make the important safety net they provide to members less compelling. But if you are simultaneously seeing your working conditions and pay scales changed, the way you are assessed altered, the curriculum you teach turned upside down and your pension reduced, it is quite likely that you will feel a need a level of advice and guidance to see you through - as well as a safety net should you run into difficulty for whatever reason. Teachers clearly see significant benefits in union membership.
Off Topic. Having returned to England yesterday and then drove 320 miles yesterday from one coast to another I failed to see one flood or a sign of this "national disaster". Our hosts in Ireland thought we may have troubles driving through this emergency zone based on the tv reports they watched! The family are now all firm climate change sceptics. Later I will check on a few local rivers which used to regulalrly flood every winter 40 years ago.
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
An over-literal interpretation of the question.
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
Given the statement "How is this mathematically possible?" I think it is clear that the question was meant literally. The fact that "good" becomes meaningless in the context is precisely the Chair's point.
The only way the first question makes sense is to break it down into a major and minor premise:
"Good" means an assessment that a pupil's performance has exceeded the national average.
All schools should aim for their pupils to be assessed as good (and therefore above average).
It would be logical fallacy to infer a conclusion from the above premises that all pupils performances would be good.
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
As I have said before Josias, not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom. For mere mortals the ability to tap into advice, call on subsidised legal help, enjoy beneficial deals with a range of service providers keen to target a defined professional client base etc is too good to ignore - especially when working conditions, pension arrangements and salary scales are being simultaneously altered so radically.
Absolutely, anyone can join a Union, and enjoy the benefits of this advice, whether your workplace 'recognises' Unions or not. No-one should ever forget why Unions came into being and the sacrifices that were made by ordinary people to earn their recognition. Mutualism, co-operation and self improvement were the vehicle by which my Chartist ancestors dragged themselves out of feudalism, and I for one am proud to adhere to that tradition.
All good points. I'm not sure that all unions necessarily adhere to that grand tradition, though.
If I was a teacher, I would almost certainly join a union, if only for the legal protection.
I see our much vaunted navy is on top form yet again. All that money Scotland pays Westminster for the great benefits is obviously being well spent.
Battle stations! Navy scrambles destroyer to challenge Russian warship off British coast (but it takes 24 hours to make 600-mile journey from Portsmouth base - was Putin testing our response time?)
Russian vessel detected 30 miles away from Scotland last night Only ship available to respond was on south coast of England Tensions heightened when aerial photos showed ship full of missiles
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Wrong forced choice from you as a politician there Nick.
99.9% of schools can be above average, in the same way that 99.9% of people can have an above average number of legs.
The average number of legs would be 1.99, and therefore most of us are above average.
For some number distributions median or mode are more useful than the mean!
The issue really is not one of numeracy, it is whether Britains poor educational performance could be improved by competition or by centralist state intervention. In many ways Gove is the heir to Thatcher in terms of patriotism and policy, gauche at times, but with the confidence of the zealot. He is an opponent to be feared.
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
An over-literal interpretation of the question.
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
The phrasing "how is this mathematically possible?" clearly indicates the question is meant literally. The fact that "good" becomes meaningless in the context is precisely the questioner's point.
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
As I have said before Josias, not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom. For mere mortals the ability to tap into advice, call on subsidised legal help, enjoy beneficial deals with a range of service providers keen to target a defined professional client base etc is too good to ignore - especially when working conditions, pension arrangements and salary scales are being simultaneously altered so radically.
Absolutely, anyone can join a Union, and enjoy the benefits of this advice, whether your workplace 'recognises' Unions or not. No-one should ever forget why Unions came into being and the sacrifices that were made by ordinary people to earn their recognition. Mutualism, co-operation and self improvement were the vehicle by which my Chartist ancestors dragged themselves out of feudalism, and I for one am proud to adhere to that tradition.
All good points. I'm not sure that all unions necessarily adhere to that grand tradition, though.
If I was a teacher, I would almost certainly join a union, if only for the legal protection.
That's why - from a survey I saw a bit back - most teachers join.
Tbh when we hear what union leaders are coming out with, more often than not, we're holding our heads in our hands. I'm sure that's the same across unions. On pay, for example - as I've said many times - I've yet to hear a teacher complain about their pay. The union regularly fiddles in the flames. But nonetheless I'm pro unions. For lots of obvious (I'd hope) reasons.
Unions are fair game for politicians in many ways. But confusing unions with members is idiotic.
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
An over-literal interpretation of the question.
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
Given the statement "How is this mathematically possible?" I think it is clear that the question was meant literally. The fact that "good" becomes meaningless in the context is precisely the Chair's point.
The only way the first question makes sense is to break it down into a major and minor premise:
"Good" means an assessment that a pupil's performance has exceeded the national average.
All schools should aim for their pupils to be assessed as good (and therefore above average).
It would be logical fallacy to infer a conclusion from the above premises that all pupils performances would be good.
I can see straws drifting past in the wind! And being clutched at!!
Farage on Sky talking about ukip voters. And said certain that Ed would offer a referendum.
Farage is being disingenuous but clearly the strategy of the UKIP leadership is to hope there is no referendum as that would remove the main reason for UKIP existing. The UKIP Leadership need to be able to keep "calling for a referendum" as that keeps them in paid employment from their MEP salaries and supporting roles. Thus a Milliband win is a win for the UKIP Leadership. Of course the UKIP activists have a more principled stance and have no financial gain from the EC continuing.
Well, I haven't had my heating on since getting back from the Christmas spree. And rarely before I went.
If the weather carries on like this (and my amateur weather watcher mate - who's been so accurate in the past that I've started taking notice - says it's going to be more of the same all through, 'with maybe a cold snap at the start of February') it can only be good news for the govt.
That's a good point. The 2015 election could be decided by a cold winter, and some power cuts.
Of course this definition of schools as "good being above the national average" is just a very silly target. The same as the very silly poverty definition which moves up as the average increases so that poverty defined in this way can never be eradicated as it will eventually include cars, holidays and other "necessities". A black mark on Gove for failing to understand that.
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Both Gove and Hunt know that if you control the past you have a much better chance of controlling the future. It's why politicians should not be allowed anywhere near the history curriculum. Instead, children should be equipped with: (1) a knowledge of what happened when and in what order (facts, dates, figures), and (2) the skills that enable them to work out for themselves why. Both are equally as important. When I was at school we did a great deal of (1) and almost none of (2); now it seems to have swung the other way.
Quite right: just as all Championship teams should aspire to promotion, all schools should aspire to be good. Not all will be successful, but lack of ambition for their pupils is a factor in our poor educational performance. It was notable even at my sons Comprehensive school (generally rated as the best state school in the county).
I should take this opportunity to point out that Leicester City are top of the league!
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible? Michael Gove: By getting better all the time. Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it? Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time. Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State? Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Gove is incorrect, since the question isn't about whether the average can rise forever. The question is whether all schools can be 'good' where 'good' means above average, thus it is asking "Can all schools be above average simultaneously?" to which the answer is clearly 'No'.
An over-literal interpretation of the question.
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
Given the statement "How is this mathematically possible?" I think it is clear that the question was meant literally. The fact that "good" becomes meaningless in the context is precisely the Chair's point.
The only way the first question makes sense is to break it down into a major and minor premise:
"Good" means an assessment that a pupil's performance has exceeded the national average.
All schools should aim for their pupils to be assessed as good (and therefore above average).
It would be logical fallacy to infer a conclusion from the above premises that all pupils performances would be good.
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Wrong forced choice from you as a politician there Nick.
The answer is the patient and the pupil.
I think it comes down to who is trusted to deliver.
Gove is right to challenge the leaders of the teaching unions; but what he is doing on the ground increases their importance to teachers. Giving more power to managers, changing Ofsted rules, working conditions, pensions and curriculum requirements means that teachers will need more advice on where they stand. That only comes from one place.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
As I have said before Josias, not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom. For mere mortals the ability to tap into advice, call on subsidised legal help, enjoy beneficial deals with a range of service providers keen to target a defined professional client base etc is too good to ignore - especially when working conditions, pension arrangements and salary scales are being simultaneously altered so radically.
Absolutely, anyone can join a Union, and enjoy the benefits of this advice, whether your workplace 'recognises' Unions or not. No-one should ever forget why Unions came into being and the sacrifices that were made by ordinary people to earn their recognition. Mutualism, co-operation and self improvement were the vehicle by which my Chartist ancestors dragged themselves out of feudalism, and I for one am proud to adhere to that tradition.
All good points. I'm not sure that all unions necessarily adhere to that grand tradition, though.
If I was a teacher, I would almost certainly join a union, if only for the legal protection.
That's why - from a survey I saw a bit back - most teachers join.
Tbh when we hear what union leaders are coming out with, more often than not, we're holding our heads in our hands. I'm sure that's the same across unions. On pay, for example - as I've said many times - I've yet to hear a teacher complain about their pay. The union regularly fiddles in the flames. But nonetheless I'm pro unions. For lots of obvious (I'd hope) reasons.
Unions are fair game for politicians in many ways. But confusing unions with members is idiotic.
Absolutely. And making unions more important to members is not a very clever way of reducing their influence.
Wiki claims the distant origin of the phrase "lions led by donkeys" is an ancient Arabian proverb:
"An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep".
Now that would make an interesting GE 2015 thread.
I think the army of lions should dine out on their leader, enjoy the mutton and then take to gluttony for a period on the enemy sheep.
Jack W = Kim Fat Wun
Although it's difficult to beat roast pork for a Sunday lunch, I do especially enjoy roast hoggart (today's offering Chez JackW) - a little less fatty than lamb and more flavoursome.
Most butchers don't offer mutton let alone hoggart and the last time I enjoyed either in a restaurant was many a long year ago.
Off Topic. Having returned to England yesterday and then drove 320 miles yesterday from one coast to another I failed to see one flood or a sign of this "national disaster". Our hosts in Ireland thought we may have troubles driving through this emergency zone based on the tv reports they watched! The family are now all firm climate change sceptics. Later I will check on a few local rivers which used to regulalrly flood every winter 40 years ago.
I think the weather must have moved the goalposts.
Serriously, what is all this COBRA nonsense about. It seems this thing is convened whenever someone breaks wind these days.
Perhaps teachers should be intelligent enough to work out where they stand without help from unions?
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
As I have said before Josias, not everyone has your deep intelligence and profound wisdom. For mere mortals the ability to tap into advice, call on subsidised legal help, enjoy beneficial deals with a range of service providers keen to target a defined professional client base etc is too good to ignore - especially when working conditions, pension arrangements and salary scales are being simultaneously altered so radically.
Absolutely, anyone can join a Union, and enjoy the benefits of this advice, whether your workplace 'recognises' Unions or not. No-one should ever forget why Unions came into being and the sacrifices that were made by ordinary people to earn their recognition. Mutualism, co-operation and self improvement were the vehicle by which my Chartist ancestors dragged themselves out of feudalism, and I for one am proud to adhere to that tradition.
All good points. I'm not sure that all unions necessarily adhere to that grand tradition, though.
If I was a teacher, I would almost certainly join a union, if only for the legal protection.
That's why - from a survey I saw a bit back - most teachers join.
Tbh when we hear what union leaders are coming out with, more often than not, we're holding our heads in our hands. I'm sure that's the same across unions. On pay, for example - as I've said many times - I've yet to hear a teacher complain about their pay. The union regularly fiddles in the flames. But nonetheless I'm pro unions. For lots of obvious (I'd hope) reasons.
Unions are fair game for politicians in many ways. But confusing unions with members is idiotic.
That was my big issue with SO's initial contribution: it assumes that the union's 'advice' is correct and in the best interest of the member, not the union. sadly, that often seems not to be the case.
As I've said passim (although some will doubtless laugh): unions play an important and valuable role in the workplace. Striking is also a legitimate means to try to improve matters for their members, but it is a nuclear option.
You are right in differentiating between the union and its members. After all, it seems rather likely that most union leadership is well to the left politically of their membership.
I see our much vaunted navy is on top form yet again. All that money Scotland pays Westminster for the great benefits is obviously being well spent.
Battle stations! Navy scrambles destroyer to challenge Russian warship off British coast (but it takes 24 hours to make 600-mile journey from Portsmouth base - was Putin testing our response time?)
Russian vessel detected 30 miles away from Scotland last night Only ship available to respond was on south coast of England Tensions heightened when aerial photos showed ship full of missiles
Quite. Add to that the effective abandonment a few years ago of any attempt to fulfil UK's naval and air maritime patrol obligations to NATO, now taken up by Canada and Norway etc., and the destruction of Nimrod and of the air-sea rescue helicopter service (privatised companies do not count in my view, because of the obvious issues, and the long-term problem of maintaining skills and continuity). I seem to recall reading in a plane-spotter magazine that the sole UK long range air-sea rescue facility, of which the MoD made much at the time of the destruction of Nimrod, was now a container of kit in an Oxfordshire airfield which would fit into only one specific Hercules aircraft. I was never very clear what happened if that plane was loaded with something else, or worse still out in the Middle East, and an alarm came through ...
ANYTHING is going to be better than that - including the sensible enough SNP proposals, which are at least a basis.
This is of course true for the UK as a whole - but Scotland is disproportionately dependent on maritime defence and area support for its large coastline and economic area, and the resources therein. Remember Piper Alpha and the Nimrod that acted as the on-site control post.
What price the incessant Unionist sneers at SNP NATO policy, which is no different from that of some other existing members, or an indy Scotland not being able to bomb people with funny names on the other side of the globe, if the UK is already failing to defend itself - surely one of the key roles of any competent government?
This is a classic example of what is so wrong with the indy debates in the media: it is all about what is deemed wrong with the Yes proposals, but the debate never compares them with the No proposals - or, for want of such, the current status quo.
In the papers that the waiting time for cancer tests is up.
From my experience, and that of family and friends, once you've got through past that hurdle treatment has been swift and good. Getting past the GP has proved another matter.
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Wrong forced choice from you as a politician there Nick.
The answer is the patient and the pupil.
I think it comes down to who is trusted to deliver.
Off Topic. Having returned to England yesterday and then drove 320 miles yesterday from one coast to another I failed to see one flood or a sign of this "national disaster". Our hosts in Ireland thought we may have troubles driving through this emergency zone based on the tv reports they watched! The family are now all firm climate change sceptics. Later I will check on a few local rivers which used to regulalrly flood every winter 40 years ago.
I think the weather must have moved the goalposts. Serriously, what is all this COBRA nonsense about. It seems this thing is convened whenever someone breaks wind these days.
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Wrong forced choice from you as a politician there Nick.
The answer is the patient and the pupil.
I think it comes down to who is trusted to deliver.
Both should be but I fear neither are.
I think teachers are trusted. Not everyone confuses teachers with policy and management.
I see our much vaunted navy is on top form yet again. All that money Scotland pays Westminster for the great benefits is obviously being well spent.
Battle stations! Navy scrambles destroyer to challenge Russian warship off British coast (but it takes 24 hours to make 600-mile journey from Portsmouth base - was Putin testing our response time?)
Russian vessel detected 30 miles away from Scotland last night Only ship available to respond was on south coast of England Tensions heightened when aerial photos showed ship full of missiles
Scaremongering report from the DM, 2 weeks after the event, about a ship sailing well inside international waters. The Scotsman printed an article on the 'Russian visit' before Xmas.
Teaching on the world wars at both my sons schools was very much on the suffering of troops and civilians and on the home front and the holocaust. The only significant discussion of a military nature was on D day. He was not taught on any other major battle. Not Singapore, not El Alamein, not the battle of the atlantic, and certainly not the arctic convoys, Stalingrad, Kursk or operation Bagration.
I think this emphasis is in part that most primary and history teachers are women, and few if any have any sympathy or experience of military matters. The emphasis on domestic social history is a reason for the underperformance of boys re girls at school. Boys quite like facts, usually more than roleplaying child refugees.
Most of my secondary school teachers, whether science or english or history had served in the forces in the war. They had different perspectives. Often quite anti war, but speaking from experience.
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Both Gove and Hunt know that if you control the past you have a much better chance of controlling the future. It's why politicians should not be allowed anywhere near the history curriculum. Instead, children should be equipped with: (1) a knowledge of what happened when and in what order (facts, dates, figures), and (2) the skills that enable them to work out for themselves why. Both are equally as important. When I was at school we did a great deal of (1) and almost none of (2); now it seems to have swung the other way.
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Wrong forced choice from you as a politician there Nick.
The answer is the patient and the pupil.
I think it comes down to who is trusted to deliver.
Both should be but I fear neither are.
I think teachers are trusted. Not everyone confuses teachers with policy and management.
I think less so than in the past. The same is true of the police and the medical profession. The scrutiny of 24 hour media, the internet and a breakdown of implied reverence in society and corresponding confidence of the "consumer" has chipped away at these seemingly bulwarks of society.
The armed forces remain one of the few, largely untarnished groups, although recent courts martial are a warning that even the mighty may be laid low , if only temporarily.
Leaving aside the accuracy of the history and Gove's odd misunderstanding of the "can all schools be better than average schools?" question, what are Gove and Hunt trying to do politically? Gove seems to have been pressing the "we should be more patrtiotic" button, using the WW1 anniversary as a hook: Mail readers may have empathised. Hunt is pressing the "Ministers are meddling and ignorant" button, which Observer readers are likely to identify with.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
Wrong forced choice from you as a politician there Nick.
The answer is the patient and the pupil.
I think it comes down to who is trusted to deliver.
Both should be but I fear neither are.
I think teachers are trusted. Not everyone confuses teachers with policy and management.
I think less so than in the past. The same is true of the police and the medical profession. The scrutiny of 24 hour media, the internet and a breakdown of implied reverence in society and corresponding confidence of the "consumer" has chipped away at these seemingly bulwarks of society.
The armed forces remain one of the few, largely untarnished groups, although recent courts martial are a warning that even the mighty may be laid low , if only temporarily.
i agree. But don't miss out the hammering we get from politicians/supportive media. Which is obviously part of a strategy.
I see our much vaunted navy is on top form yet again. All that money Scotland pays Westminster for the great benefits is obviously being well spent.
Battle stations! Navy scrambles destroyer to challenge Russian warship off British coast (but it takes 24 hours to make 600-mile journey from Portsmouth base - was Putin testing our response time?)
Russian vessel detected 30 miles away from Scotland last night Only ship available to respond was on south coast of England Tensions heightened when aerial photos showed ship full of missiles
Scaremongering report from the DM, 2 weeks after the event, about a ship sailing well inside international waters. The Scotsman printed an article on the 'Russian visit' before Xmas.
Only thing the RN is good at now is making Admirals. We could not even protect our own coastline, this is the second time this has happened, what a joke. Only in deluded heads could they be giving out they are a world power and yet the coastline is supported by one ship out of Portsmouth, as said our £4B is well warranted. It is not even up to dad's Army standards.
Teaching on the world wars at both my sons schools was very much on the suffering of troops and civilians and on the home front and the holocaust. The only significant discussion of a military nature was on D day. He was not taught on any other major battle. Not Singapore, not El Alamein, not the battle of the atlantic, and certainly not the arctic convoys, Stalingrad, Kursk or operation Bagration.
I think this emphasis is in part that most primary and history teachers are women, and few if any have any sympathy or experience of military matters. The emphasis on domestic social history is a reason for the underperformance of boys re girls at school. Boys quite like facts, usually more than roleplaying child refugees.
Most of my secondary school teachers, whether science or english or history had served in the forces in the war. They had different perspectives. Often quite anti war, but speaking from experience.
More about what is in the curriculum than whether history is taught by women or men who are all too young to have served in WW2.
First, history (like many other subjects in what I think of as the Americanisation of education) has been split up into self-contained modules; secondly, there has been an attempt to add the skills and techniques of the professional historian to the GCSE curriculum, but since the average 14-year-old cannot discover and translate original documents buried in German or Russian archives, this tends to reduce to "imagine what it is like to be a mediaeval peasant/WW1 soldier/holocaust victim".
Territorial-waters are twelve nautical-miles from the mean shore-line: Any warship is allowed passage outwith such area (regardless of what Wee-Fr'Eck might tell you otherwise).
NImord failed Haddon-Cave. This was mentioned at PPRuNe in February 2010.
If SNats wish to troll then they should - at least - learn some facts first. Their argument is as ridiculous as their party-leader....
As far as the teachers/teachers unions are concerned, isn't it a case of something about the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing! Anyone who is a member of anything knows that when it comes to electing officers, representatives etc there's a stampede for the door, leaving those who "really care" or have some devious motive!
I see Cameron making a real tit of himself as usual, fake as a three pound note.
PM's right-to-buy poster girl revealed to be estate agent - who sold the flat to herself
PM visited Sharon Ray at her home, bought with Help To Buy, on Thursday Last night it emerged she is sales director at the firm which sold the flat Anonymous blogger also revealed she drives £33,000 BMW convertible Ms Ray defends herself on Twitter saying she's 'done nothing wrong'
I see Cameron making a real tit of himself as usual, fake as a three pound note.
PM's right-to-buy poster girl revealed to be estate agent - who sold the flat to herself
PM visited Sharon Ray at her home, bought with Help To Buy, on Thursday Last night it emerged she is sales director at the firm which sold the flat Anonymous blogger also revealed she drives £33,000 BMW convertible Ms Ray defends herself on Twitter saying she's 'done nothing wrong'
Of course that Russian ship would not have been closely monitored and observed by one of those old Submarines MG wants to get rid of.
Ha Ha Ha , Richard. Yes that £100B life saver , you bet they would have been all around it or maybe they were doing a 6000 mile dash to sort it out. You prove my point wonderfully. Our only option , beg the US to let us nuke Russia whilst we could not knock our way out of a chocolate teapot. LOL.
@Foxinsox- At my grammar school we did neither of the WWs. From the 4th year up to upper 6th we covered UK and European history from George III to 1914. I have no memory of what we did in the first three years. My best teacher was a woman.
At our kids' school they jumped from pillar to post. The Tudors to the Holocaust to a really detailed (and excellent) local history module. The teachers were mostly male.
Teachers teach what they are told to teach. As I said, a mix of what I got and what my kids had would be ideal in terms of approach; but from a content perspective it strikes me as plain wrong that for decades now no child in a state school has had to have been given an overall timeline of how we got to where we are today.
Territorial-waters are twelve nautical-miles from the mean shore-line: Any warship is allowed passage outwith such area (regardless of what Wee-Fr'Eck might tell you otherwise).
NImord failed Haddon-Cave. This was mentioned at PPRuNe in February 2010.
If SNats wish to troll then they should - at least - learn some facts first. Their argument is as ridiculous as their party-leader....
Fluffy , read it and weep, our fast response ship based in Portsmouth with only a couple of thousand miles of coastline to protect , LOL only tits in Westminster could come up with that crap. Dad's Army were more professional.
I see Cameron making a real tit of himself as usual, fake as a three pound note.
PM's right-to-buy poster girl revealed to be estate agent - who sold the flat to herself
PM visited Sharon Ray at her home, bought with Help To Buy, on Thursday Last night it emerged she is sales director at the firm which sold the flat Anonymous blogger also revealed she drives £33,000 BMW convertible Ms Ray defends herself on Twitter saying she's 'done nothing wrong'
Only thing the RN is good at now is making Admirals. We could not even protect our own coastline, this is the second time this has happened, what a joke. Only in deluded heads could they be giving out they are a world power and yet the coastline is supported by one ship out of Portsmouth, as said our £4B is well warranted. It is not even up to dad's Army standards.
And the SDF OPV's based out of Faslane would be quicker? Get yourself an atlas Unckie' Malc....
Territorial-waters are twelve nautical-miles from the mean shore-line: Any warship is allowed passage outwith such area (regardless of what Wee-Fr'Eck might tell you otherwise).
NImord failed Haddon-Cave. This was mentioned at PPRuNe in February 2010.
If SNats wish to troll then they should - at least - learn some facts first. Their argument is as ridiculous as their party-leader....
The Nimrod MR4A project was poorly conceived by the previous Conservative administration, and shamefully continued by Labour years after it was obviously a dead-duck project. It should have been cancelled in the 2003-5 period.
Comments
Quiet children, please. Listen to your teacher, Mr. 'Historian' Hunt.
Gove's comments are likely to cause consternation in Germany, where politicians are keen to stress the lessons learned from two world wars and the role that European integration has played in promoting peace.
The president of the European parliament, the German Social Democrat Martin Schulz, declined to be drawn on Gove's intervention, but, in terms that are likely to anger some on the Tory right, he said that the way to ensure future peace in Europe was to promote a more closely integrated EU.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/04/labour-gove-first-world-war-comments
Gove / Daily Mail article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532923/Michael-Gove-blasts-Blackadder-myths-First-World-War-spread-television-sit-coms-left-wing-academics.html
Interpretation of the past is never apolitical for very long. Hunt should know it. There is no monopoly of thought in history, some interpretations are more flawed than others.
Britain's major trading partner pre 1914 was Germany, (and vice versa) but they still went to war. Didn't help Lenin's thesis very much either.
There is, of course, no unchallenged consensus. That is why it matters that we encourage an open debate on the war and its significance.
Open debate? Challenge the consensus?
Surely that's not in the National Curriculum.
It does sound like Gove has needlessly annoyed a large profession with remarks that are, at best, disputable. As a Cameroon he is almost certain to remain in post (as most people on both sides probably are until the election).
History is not apolitical, as has been mentioned below by Dr. Spyn. We need only seen the revisionism that's occurred by the Left's manipulation of the view of Thatcher (I recall with some amusement a Sky News paper review where a chap scarcely older than myself complained about Thatcher the Milk Snatcher. The older newsreader remarked that the milk was either horribly cold or horribly warm and he was glad to be rid of it, at which point the young chap said it was before his time...)
One of the odd things about 1918, is the sheer pace of the German collapse after Operation Michael's failure, and a relentless Allied advance, but there isn't a single decisive battle like Waterloo which ends the campaign. I am looking forward to Huw Strachan's next volume on the war.
Britain's major trading partner pre 1914 was Germany, (and vice versa) but they still went to war. Didn't help Lenin's thesis very much either.
As the rest of us in non-unionised workforces do.
This betting market may get very active within the next 18 months if Cameron loses the next general election (which I expect) and then steps down (which wouldn't surprise me).
More importantly, though, Gove has presided over a school places shortage.
Otoh, blaming the Germans might go down well.
Perhaps Hunt and Gove ought to read one of Margaret MacMillan's other books on the usages and abusage of history.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Abuses-History-Professor-Margaret-MacMillan/dp/1846682045
Of course The Whig interpretation of History is apolitical. Re Gove, the social Darwinism stuff did have a appeal for some British politicians, but he probably overlooked that.
And not for the first time we have the Tories on the side of the consumer, Labour, the producer....
Since we are on WWI. - Max Hastings "Catastrophe -Europe goes to War 1914" is 99p on Amazon Kindle (vs £30 hardback list) as is Moore's Thatcher biog.
This system is also highly unpopular in Sweden where it began.
Sorry to go off topic, but I really wasn't prepared to comment on a stale thread... Isn't the most remarkable thing about the megapoll Our Genial Host reported late last night that the question "which Party is best for the country" produces a Tory lead whilst "which party is best for you and your family" produces a Labour one?
This suggests to me that the Tories' best shot is patriotism - don't have a giveaway budget, Ossie, say instead the country can't afford one. And if their leadership is feeling really Disraelian put in the manifesto a proposal for an elected Lords on a restricted franchise (service in the armed forces, higher-rate tax paying, that sort of thing) with its powers restored in respect of Money Bills.
You might just as well appoint someone to head the Health Service who has a weakness for alternative medicine.
Funny thing. I don't often hear people pointing out that one of Thatcher's biggest assets was her basic numeracy and an understanding of science and its modus operandi.
Observer article by ex BBC hack and 2nd rate Labour MP in shock attack on govt minister.
Yes that'll clearly push the voters into a love affair with Miliband:))))
The thing I saw shared a lot was this conversation:
Committee Chair: One is: if "good" requires pupil performance to exceed the national average, and if all schools must be good, how is this mathematically possible?
Michael Gove: By getting better all the time.
Committee Chair: So it is possible, is it?
Michael Gove: It is possible to get better all the time.
Committee Chair: Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?
Michael Gove: I cannot remember.
Gove is correct.
Improved performance will lead to a higher average performance.
Why is it assumed the average is a constant?
Are you going to use that stupid phrase whenever we disagree? I mean, it's a rather pathetic way of starting a response to an argument, one that automatically puts the responder on the back foot.
But I guess that's just your level.
A major drag? Dunno. But I find him an interesting study, psychology/schema-wise. His secrecy, response to criticism etc (his recent ed comm session was embarrassingly bad).
What he said in the interview was comparatively anodyne. Who would disagree with his claim that European Monetary Union was "a German racket designed to take over the whole of Europe"?
The man on Clapham Omnibus would read "if all schools must [aspire to] be good". Otherwise "good" as a relative judgement is meaningless in context.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918)
This was a surprise attack using combined arms and led to the 100 days offensive with the Germans retreating all along the Western front, with mass surrenders and desertions. In many ways this was the invention of the Blitzkrieg, by the Brits.
The British Imperial Forces were the only major army that became operationally more effective over the course of the war and never had a major mutiny or mass desertions. The war did not end like in Blackadder, it ended as a war of manouver. Ironically this meant higher casualties as the troops on both sides had to leave their fortifications.
Arguably the Anglo-Serbian offensive in Salonika was as decisive, as it caused. the collapse of the Bulgarian and AustroHungarian forces, and the End of the war for those powers, leaving a Germany defeated in the West free of allies. Alone and defeated, Germany had to sue for peace.
Gove is right and the WW1 debate needs to be more than war poets, Warhorse and Blackadder.
He is not afraid of a scrap himself, and Hunt has met his match!
Mike: do you not have family who are teachers, so some personal interest in the educational debate?
If the weather carries on like this (and my amateur weather watcher mate - who's been so accurate in the past that I've started taking notice - says it's going to be more of the same all through, 'with maybe a cold snap at the start of February') it can only be good news for the govt.
As you imply, leaving aside the substantive argument, it does seem like rum politics, so, accepting Gove is not daft, perhaps there is a hidden agenda to attract Kippers, wind up a Cabinet rival, or promote himself as next mayor.
Come May 2015 the punters will be focused on who will be the PM to come and "pocket book issues" for the next five years and not the perceived foibles of an education minister in the previous government.
Remember who was education minister in the Major government in 1992 and the influence he had as Kinnock was flushed down the electoral toilet ??
Almost no influence .... and the name you'll be struggling for is ....
John Patten.
"An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep".
Now that would make an interesting GE 2015 thread.
His tenure has been about putting the consumer ahead the producer.
But Mike is right that Ministers are ill-advised to set up politicians vs teachers or politicians vs doctors fights, unless there is some overwhelming policy reason to do so. The majority of public opinion is in no doubt whatever which side they prefer in those choices.
My original point was that if Gove wants to marginalise teaching unions, the best way to do it is to make the important safety net they provide to members less compelling. But if you are simultaneously seeing your working conditions and pay scales changed, the way you are assessed altered, the curriculum you teach turned upside down and your pension reduced, it is quite likely that you will feel a need a level of advice and guidance to see you through - as well as a safety net should you run into difficulty for whatever reason. Teachers clearly see significant benefits in union membership.
Wales.
What could possibly go wrong???
"Good" means an assessment that a pupil's performance has exceeded the national average.
All schools should aim for their pupils to be assessed as good (and therefore above average).
It would be logical fallacy to infer a conclusion from the above premises that all pupils performances would be good.
If I was a teacher, I would almost certainly join a union, if only for the legal protection.
Battle stations! Navy scrambles destroyer to challenge Russian warship off British coast (but it takes 24 hours to make 600-mile journey from Portsmouth base - was Putin testing our response time?)
Russian vessel detected 30 miles away from Scotland last night
Only ship available to respond was on south coast of England
Tensions heightened when aerial photos showed ship full of missiles
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533846/Battle-stations-Navy-scrambles-destroyer-challenge-Russian-warship-British-coast-takes-24-hours-make-600-mile-journey-Portsmouth-base-Putin-testing-response-time.html#ixzz2pWEIkkAu
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/keep-the-flame-alive/10516870/One-school-playing-field-sold-off-every-three-weeks-since-Coalition-was-formed.html
That and the BBC will pick it us the the News team will have read it.
Before Xmas the Hon Hunt was expounding on Tory views of history too:
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/tristram-hunt-history-made-with-a-very-ukip-vision-in-mind-9021932.html
The answer is the patient and the pupil.
The average number of legs would be 1.99, and therefore most of us are above average.
For some number distributions median or mode are more useful than the mean!
The issue really is not one of numeracy, it is whether Britains poor educational performance could be improved by competition or by centralist state intervention. In many ways Gove is the heir to Thatcher in terms of patriotism and policy, gauche at times, but with the confidence of the zealot. He is an opponent to be feared.
I have a few quid on him as next Tory leader.
Tbh when we hear what union leaders are coming out with, more often than not, we're holding our heads in our hands. I'm sure that's the same across unions. On pay, for example - as I've said many times - I've yet to hear a teacher complain about their pay. The union regularly fiddles in the flames. But nonetheless I'm pro unions. For lots of obvious (I'd hope) reasons.
Unions are fair game for politicians in many ways. But confusing unions with members is idiotic.
That's a very important point that the tories should be making. A Miliband win keeps Farage in a job.
Quite right: just as all Championship teams should aspire to promotion, all schools should aspire to be good. Not all will be successful, but lack of ambition for their pupils is a factor in our poor educational performance. It was notable even at my sons Comprehensive school (generally rated as the best state school in the county).
I should take this opportunity to point out that Leicester City are top of the league!
Most butchers don't offer mutton let alone hoggart and the last time I enjoyed either in a restaurant was many a long year ago.
Serriously, what is all this COBRA nonsense about. It seems this thing is convened whenever someone breaks wind these days.
As I've said passim (although some will doubtless laugh): unions play an important and valuable role in the workplace. Striking is also a legitimate means to try to improve matters for their members, but it is a nuclear option.
You are right in differentiating between the union and its members. After all, it seems rather likely that most union leadership is well to the left politically of their membership.
ANYTHING is going to be better than that - including the sensible enough SNP proposals, which are at least a basis.
This is of course true for the UK as a whole - but Scotland is disproportionately dependent on maritime defence and area support for its large coastline and economic area, and the resources therein. Remember Piper Alpha and the Nimrod that acted as the on-site control post.
What price the incessant Unionist sneers at SNP NATO policy, which is no different from that of some other existing members, or an indy Scotland not being able to bomb people with funny names on the other side of the globe, if the UK is already failing to defend itself - surely one of the key roles of any competent government?
This is a classic example of what is so wrong with the indy debates in the media: it is all about what is deemed wrong with the Yes proposals, but the debate never compares them with the No proposals - or, for want of such, the current status quo.
From my experience, and that of family and friends, once you've got through past that hurdle treatment has been swift and good. Getting past the GP has proved another matter.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/navy-shadows-russian-warship-off-moray-coast-1-3242089
Discussed here, with reference to the SNP.
http://www.navy-net.co.uk/current-affairs/73322-russians-coming-russians-coming.html
And here -
http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/208630-russians-invading-scotland-according-mail-2.html
I think this emphasis is in part that most primary and history teachers are women, and few if any have any sympathy or experience of military matters. The emphasis on domestic social history is a reason for the underperformance of boys re girls at school. Boys quite like facts, usually more than roleplaying child refugees.
Most of my secondary school teachers, whether science or english or history had served in the forces in the war. They had different perspectives. Often quite anti war, but speaking from experience.
The armed forces remain one of the few, largely untarnished groups, although recent courts martial are a warning that even the mighty may be laid low , if only temporarily.
First, history (like many other subjects in what I think of as the Americanisation of education) has been split up into self-contained modules; secondly, there has been an attempt to add the skills and techniques of the professional historian to the GCSE curriculum, but since the average 14-year-old cannot discover and translate original documents buried in German or Russian archives, this tends to reduce to "imagine what it is like to be a mediaeval peasant/WW1 soldier/holocaust victim".
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Territorial-waters are twelve nautical-miles from the mean shore-line: Any warship is allowed passage outwith such area (regardless of what Wee-Fr'Eck might tell you otherwise).
NImord failed Haddon-Cave. This was mentioned at PPRuNe in February 2010.
If SNats wish to troll then they should - at least - learn some facts first. Their argument is as ridiculous as their party-leader....
Anyone who is a member of anything knows that when it comes to electing officers, representatives etc there's a stampede for the door, leaving those who "really care" or have some devious motive!
PM's right-to-buy poster girl revealed to be estate agent - who sold the flat to herself
PM visited Sharon Ray at her home, bought with Help To Buy, on Thursday
Last night it emerged she is sales director at the firm which sold the flat
Anonymous blogger also revealed she drives £33,000 BMW convertible
Ms Ray defends herself on Twitter saying she's 'done nothing wrong'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2533994/PMs-right-buy-poster-girl-revealed-estate-agent-sold-flat-herself.html#ixzz2pWPxgpd5
At our kids' school they jumped from pillar to post. The Tudors to the Holocaust to a really detailed (and excellent) local history module. The teachers were mostly male.
Teachers teach what they are told to teach. As I said, a mix of what I got and what my kids had would be ideal in terms of approach; but from a content perspective it strikes me as plain wrong that for decades now no child in a state school has had to have been given an overall timeline of how we got to where we are today.
Wait a minute, journalists and politicians below *ankers !
It would be nice if Gideon cut the HR tax rate.
Haddon-Cave's comment on the MR2 fiasco are well worth a read. Wiki's got a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_XV230#Nimrod_review
That's the sort of military we had at the time: we lose an aircraft and 14 men, and the bureaucracy starts shredding files ...