[sidicks]

Originally Posted by BISHI

I do believe in what I am doing , I just don't believe the government care enough to listen to what the people 'doing' the doing think.!

Are you honestly suggesting that education standards haven't fallen in the last 20 years?

That being the case, why would anyone continue in a role that they felt wasn't achieving positive outcomes and was subject to significant government intereference?


Sidicks

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BISHI

I do believe in what I am doing , I just don't believe the government care enough to listen to what the people 'doing' the doing think.!

How can the government engage with a profession where the standard response is to reject change and use strike action to back that up?

Where are the positive, pro-active proposals to help improve the governments policies?

If I was Michael Gove, I might be inclined to ignore and sideline the politically motivated union leadership too when all they seem to do is attack the government and bring nothing constructive to the table.

[BISHI]

Unless you have not noticed.......... this government are trying to turn all state schools into academies.............. this is against the advice and wishes of most teachers. By sytematically alienating the proffession from the public do you think the government are more.....or less likely to achieve their goal...!
Do you think this is based on sound educational theory or political doctrine..?

And when pensions, pay and conditions are set to fall accross the public sector board............ this is allowed to happen-

Cabinet ministers to get bigger pensions | Mark Reckless MP

-you expect those ' expected to accept less' from those with already enough yet here are ' expecting to get more' to sit quietly by and accept the situation without saying something...?

Ivory towers, brick walls....!

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Unless you have not noticed.......... this government are trying to turn all state schools into academies.............. this is against the advice and wishes of most teachers. By sytematically alienating the proffession from the public do you think the government are more.....or less likely to achieve their goal...!
Do you think this is based on sound educational theory or political doctrine..?

Some of the proposals make perfect sense - making A-levels relevant to degrees for example, reviewing the performance of teachers, an increased focus on certain 'key' subjects etc or is that 'political doctrine too'??

How did the Unions interact with labour when they proposed / imposed changed?

Originally Posted by BISHI

And when pensions, pay and conditions are set to fall accross the public sector board............ this is allowed to happen-

Cabinet ministers to get bigger pensions | Mark Reckless MP

-you expect those ' expected to accept less' from those with already enough yet here are ' expecting to get more' to sit quietly by and accept the situation without saying something...?

Ivory towers, brick walls....!

There is no justification for MPs to receive bigger pensions - indeed they should be the first to cut back to set an example to the rest of the public sector.

Regardless, I'm not sure why this is relevant to teacher's pensions...?

[icstm]

Out of interest, if we assume that the education changes (like some of the health changes) are not liked by the profession, but the outcomes are useful, what do the teachers suggest as solutions?

1) Ensuring the A-Level students do not require additional teaching at university to bring them up the scratch?

2) That headteachers can run their schools with more freedom to deliver for their pupils?

The solutions on the table might not be the best, but these are 2 outcomes I would like to see.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Unless you have not noticed.......... this government are trying to turn all state schools into academies.............. this is against the advice and wishes of most teachers. By sytematically alienating the proffession from the public do you think the government are more.....or less likely to achieve their goal...!
Do you think this is based on sound educational theory or political doctrine..?

Do you think the objections are based on sound educational principles, or self interest and political doctrine?

Academies were a key policy of the Labour government, introduced by them. The intention was to allow failing schools greater freedom in how they are managed, and improve their standards. Most would say that reasonable succces was achieved with this. (Certainly my eldest sons academy is far superior to the predecessor comprehensive school).

Is it political doctrine to extend a reasonably successful policy more widely?

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

Do you think the objections are based on sound educational principles, or self interest and political doctrine?

Academies were a key policy of the Labour government, introduced by them. The intention was to allow failing schools greater freedom in how they are managed, and improve their standards. Most would say that reasonable succces was achieved with this. (Certainly my eldest sons academy is far superior to the predecessor comprehensive school).

Is it political doctrine to extend a reasonably successful policy more widely?

Now ask yourself, why would you extend a reasonable policy implemented to facilitate improvements in failing schools...............to each an every school in the country including those deemed outstanding by the previous government........... oh, wait a minute.....!!!!


Here are some interesting articles about educational privatisation -

State schools hover on the brink of huge private sector revolution | Education | The Observer

Are we heading for full profit-making schools? | Ron Glatter | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Are profit-making academies the future for education? | Education | The Guardian

Now if this goes ahead schools will be able to become profit generating organisations................Where does this profit come from, to who does it go and from who is it taken..? An important question do you not think..?

These schools can control their own curriculum's...........now, who scrutinises this and what consequences might this have...?

These schools can set their own terms and conditions.............. if your face does not fit, or you disagree with certain things.......... but are still an excellent practitioner................is your job secure.....?

What will happen to those continually failing schools at the bottom of the social spectrum...? The ones that no 'profit making enterprise' would be sensible to touch....? I will again draw your attention to the Wire season 4 for a probable outcome.

There are many questions here that do indeed need to be discussed, debated and answered. Up to now they have not been. This situation is being driven without the consent, advice or acceptance of the profession. Would you not be a little worried if you profession was being so completely overhauled for political reasons and potential profitability or would you just sit there and accept it..?

I will again point out that the previous privatisations did not serve the public in the long run but the corporate often at the expense of the public..... is in not unreasonable to expect the same thing now and should questions not be being asked very quickly before it is too late............?

Or do all of you actuaries and bankers with sufficient funds to send their offspring off to private schools not care a jot because it won't really affect you...?

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Now ask yourself, why would you extend a reasonable policy implemented to facilitate improvements in failing schools...............to each an every school in the country including those deemed outstanding by the previous government........... oh, wait a minute.....!!!!

If the academy structure supports improving standards, why wouldn't it be rolled out further?

Originally Posted by BISHI

There are many questions here that do indeed need to be discussed, debated and answered. Up to now they have not been. This situation is being driven without the consent, advice or acceptance of the profession. Would you not be a little worried if you profession was being so completely overhauled for political reasons and potential profitability or would you just sit there and accept it..?

The point is the teachers are not discussing or debating it. Their answer is a bit fat No, end of discussion.

Originally Posted by BISHI

I will again point out that the previous privatisations did not serve the public in the long run but the corporate often at the expense of the public..... is in not unreasonable to expect the same thing now and should questions not be being asked very quickly before it is too late............?

Ah, the old "all privatisations are bad" argument. Even if I did accept education was to be privatised - which I don't - who is to say it would be a bad thing anyway?

Originally Posted by BISHI

Or do all of you actuaries and bankers with sufficient funds to send their offspring off to private schools not care a jot because it won't really affect you...?

Perhaps you missed my previous post where I mentioned the excellent academy my eldest son already attends?

Play the ball, not the man. No need to make any of this personal.

Oh, and not that it matters but working for a bank does not make me a banker. Similarly not everyone working for the NHS is a doctor or nurse, not everyone working in a school is a teacher, etc.

Although if I was a banker I don't really see why that would preclude me from having a valid opinion on this topic.

[Squiffy]

Incidentally, did you even read your own links? You think these make a case AGAINST privatisation?

Are profit-making academies the future for education? | Education | The Guardian
The Ark chain has high expectations of the schools it has been slowly acquiring since Labour's academy programme was unveiled over a decade ago. Its secondaries are expected to achieve 80% five A*-C grades including English and maths in five years. Last year, there was a 12% rise in the number of pupils achieving this benchmark.

How can anyone object to such remarkable improvements and success, other than blind adherence to "private is evil" political dogma?

[NewMan]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

How can anyone object to such remarkable improvements and success, other than blind adherence to "private is evil" political dogma?

In fairness, you can't really argue that education standards have dropped sharply over the last 15-20 years in favour of sexed-up exam statistics, and then use the increase in higher grades to prove your point.

[BISHI]

I think between all the articles it makes cases for both sides. I do try to be balanced and not too polarised as often as possible. I accept in some cases it may be good and in others bad. But to impose such a massive change so quickly smacks more of politics than balanced reason in my opinion. And I did not know you worked in a bank. However sidicks has been very vociferous defending the aspects of his profession, all I am doing is reciprocating.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by NewMan

In fairness, you can't really argue that education standards have dropped sharply over the last 15-20 years in favour of sexed-up exam statistics, and then use the increase in higher grades to prove your point.

True, but with a 12% improvement they've outperformed the sector wide grade inflation, so the private firm running the school has made a positive difference.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BISHI

But to impose such a massive change so quickly smacks more of politics than balanced reason in my opinion.

What massive change is happening that quickly?

We have a very small number of schools which may be run by private firms. This isn't a massive, wholesale change is it? And the results so far, as per Ark, have been very encouraging.

Originally Posted by BISHI

And I did not know you worked in a bank. However sidicks has been very vociferous defending the aspects of his profession, all I am doing is reciprocating.

I would suggest that banker-bashing is much more prevalent, and there isn't much need for you to provide any balance by adding to an already overwhelming case of evil gene-itis.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by BISHI

I think between all the articles it makes cases for both sides. I do try to be balanced and not too polarised as often as possible. I accept in some cases it may be good and in others bad. But to impose such a massive change so quickly smacks more of politics than balanced reason in my opinion. And I did not know you worked in a bank.

However sidicks has been very vociferous defending the aspects of his profession, all I am doing is reciprocating.

I am not a banker, I am an Actuary who has worked in a bank in the past.

I have only defended bankers where claims have been made which are wildly inaccurate.

Sidicks

[BISHI]

The government want to academise the whole public education system..... Which part of that is not massive....? There may be shining examples held up to support the process..... But when major privatised the rail system there was no mention of standing from Manchester to London on a £100 ticket, or systematic cost cutting that resulted in people dying in unsafe trains . When the power industry was privatised what mention was there of foreign companies taking over and consistently profiteering at the expense of the tax payer who owned the assets in the first place, or hundreds of pensioners dying over the winters unless we the tax payer supplied supplements to keep our grandparents from freezing.
Banker bashing....? That's so last year, didn't you realise the government wants you to teacher bash now.....

[NewMan]

Originally Posted by sidicks

I am not a banker, I am an Actuary who has worked in a bank in the past.

Do you really expect the "Tory = Scum" set to care about the distinction?

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by BISHI

The government want to academise the whole public education system..... Which part of that is not massive....? There may be shining examples held up to support the process..... But when major privatised the rail system there was no mention of standing from Manchester to London on a £100 ticket, or systematic cost cutting that resulted in people dying in unsafe trains .

And there is no difference between trains and education?

Originally Posted by BISHI

When the power industry was privatised what mention was there of foreign companies taking over and consistently profiteering at the expense of the tax payer who owned the assets in the first place, or hundreds of pensioners dying over the winters unless we the tax payer supplied supplements to keep our grandparents from freezing.

How much of price increases are due to profiteering by private companies and how much due to increases in the price of the underlying raw material?

Originally Posted by BISHI

Banker bashing....? That's so last year, didn't you realise the government wants you to teacher bash now.....

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by sidicks

.

I have only defended bankers where claims have been made which are wildly inaccurate.

Sidicks

Likewise......

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by sidicks

And there is no difference between trains and education?
:

Privatisation promises the public much and ultimately lets them down.......... it serves capitalism and not democracy.....!
It applies as much to education as it does to trains............. without a reasonable debate we will never know how bad it will be until its too late...!

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BISHI

The government want to academise the whole public education system..... Which part of that is not massive....?

Sorry, which policy are you arguing against now?

I thought it was about privatisation of education, which is where the discussion was.

But if we are back to academies. The first academy was established twelve years ago. Since then, there has been a reasonable track record of success.

I hardly think this is a massive, rushed, unproven programme.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by sidicks

How much of price increases are due to profiteering by private companies and how much due to increases in the price of the underlying raw material?
:

Well the 15% rise before winter and the 5% drop after in prices would suggest profiteering to me....!

You're the number juggler, what would you say...?

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Well the 15% rise before winter and the 5% drop in prices would suggest profiteering to me....!

You're the number juggler, what would you say...?

The first few years after privatisation saw prices fall in real terms. Only since raw energy prices have risen so dramtically have we seen the consumer prices go up too.

It is ridiculous to assert that all of the price rises are due to profiteering in defiance of the underlying energy costs.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

Sorry, which policy are you arguing against now?

I thought it was about privatisation of education, which is where the discussion was.

But if we are back to academies. The first academy was established twelve years ago. Since then, there has been a reasonable track record of success.

I hardly think this is a massive, rushed, unproven programme.

..................? Academies are the privatisation of local education authorities...one and the same.!!!

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BISHI

..................? Academies are the privatisation of local education authorities...one and the same.!!!

No, it is not.

Academies do not imply the introduction of a profit motive, which is what most people would assume privatisation to mean.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

The first few years after privatisation saw prices fall in real terms. Only since raw energy prices have risen so dramtically have we seen the consumer prices go up too.

It is ridiculous to assert that all of the price rises are due to profiteering in defiance of the underlying energy costs.

Energy firms' profits per customer rise 733%, says Ofgem | Money | guardian.co.uk
...............................shut up !!!!!

Supply costs are just used as the excuse and the myriad different tariffs smoke and mirrors.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

No, it is not.

Academies do not imply the introduction of a profit motive, which is what most people would assume privatisation to mean.

The removal of the public sector education authority, and it's replacement with a private sector 'sponsor' would suggest otherwise..

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Energy firms' profits per customer rise 733%, says Ofgem | Money | guardian.co.uk
...............................shut up !!!!!

Supply costs are just used as the excuse and the myriad different tariffs smoke and mirrors.

And you can prove costs would have been cheaper with a nationalised monopoly because....?

Originally Posted by BISHI

The removal of the public sector education authority, and it's replacement with a private sector 'sponsor' would suggest otherwise..

It suggests nothing of the sort.

From wikipedia.
In the education system of England, an academy is a school that is directly funded by central government (specifically, the Department for Education) and independent of direct control by local government in England, however the latter are responsible for the funding formulae used to allocate funds between sections of education within an authority. An academy may receive additional support from personal or corporate sponsors, either financially or in kind. They must meet the National Curriculum core subject requirements and are subject to inspection by Ofsted. Academies are self-governing and most are constituted as registered charities or operated by other educational charities. Most are secondary schools, i.e. for pupils aged 11 to 16, but some cater for children from nursery age upwards, i.e. for children aged 4 and upwards. All academies have a curriculum specialism within the English Specialist Schools Programme (SSP).[1]

There is no profit motive whatsoever at my sons academy school.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Are you honestly suggesting that education standards haven't fallen in the last 20 years?

I don't know what the intent was of the post to which you were replying, but I can say that education standards haven't fallen over the last 18 years - indeed they're far higher now than when I entered the profession.

If there was a golden age of poor, PC-driven teaching, it was the '70s and '80s.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by BISHI

..................? Academies are the privatisation of local education authorities...one and the same.!!!

Speaking as someone who works in an academy, I disagree.

The main difference for us is this. We used to get £x from the government, only it came through the local authority who took a slice to pay for things like music services, external referal units, and so on.

The money now comes direct to us. We decide if we want to use the local authority's music services - we do (it's very good indeed).

We decide if we want to use the local authority's referal unit - we don't (it's pants). Instead we use the unit of another school in the authority; it's both cheaper and better, but it's not privately owned.

Whilst we could technically spend some of our money on provision offered by private companies, I'm not sure we do at all, and I suspect that's the case with most academies.

Steve W

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I don't know what the intent was of the post to which you were replying, but I can say that education standards haven't fallen over the last 18 years - indeed they're far higher now than when I entered the profession.

Steve W

This does not chime with the view of Universities and employers Morrisons forced to retrain school-leavers - Telegraph, especially in the areas of English and Maths.

So that would be both the top and the 'bottom' end (of students ability) covered by the increased quality of education you speak of.

The problems may not be so much to do with teaching, but the exams and curriculum itself. For example in Maths and Science exams are plainly easier than they were in the 80's or 70's (as someone doing exams late 90's and early 00's it was quite clear from old past papers etc that was the case).

Grade inflation is a real thing and I don't think anyone will claim that it is not, especially since the public has seen the jockeying of various exam boards to have the easiest exams (which schools then buy into).

I doubt individuals within teaching are doing anything but teaching to the best of their ability, as a group/organisation though I think they have let down their students and ultimately undermined their own profession.
Its quite easy to see that the politicising of certain areas, for example league tables has a lot to answer for. This has pushed the teaching establishment to peruse easier exams, softer subject or more 'guaranteed results' courses (kids being put on an unsuitable Vocational courses that are coursework based so almost every one passes and they are worth 3-5 A-C GCSEs, for example).

I'll reiterate the education system is broken not because of individual teachers but a number of factors, no doubt including meddling from politician and others from non teaching professions.

As a profession I personally would have a had a lot more respect for the teaching establishment if stood up to the government during these times when educational standards were being eroded.
We did not hear much, certainly no threat of strikes. Once there is a suggestion that might effect the pocketbook of teachers or their holiday 'entitlement' or indeed an increase in the level of genuine scrutiny any school or teacher is under all we hear about is shouts of strikes left, right and centre (imagine more from the former though ).

Maybe this is the narrative a very manipulative government is trying to put out and I've fallen for it hook link and sinker. I see an organisation that has been complicit in the dubbing down of educational standards, that cares more about their pay and conditions than they do about the very very important job they do and the effect it has on the individuals they are charged to educate.