UKC

Wots the difrence?

In reply to Trangia:

faffergotgunz finally outed himself?

In reply to Trangia:

One is ready-made for privatisation and the other is state/council run.

In reply to The Lemming:


I was talking to a friend who is an accountant. She said that local authority school management have very little experience in managing finances and lean heavily on the council's own accounts department. Once they become academies that support goes, (no doubt with the jobs at the council). I suspect there will be some very rich pickings to be made when that happens.

In reply to Ridge:

It's all being outsourced by LAs anyway. My dad is a chair of governors at a little primary, and their county has outsourced finance and HR to a company that is mainly known for maintaining the Navy's submarines!?

In reply to Ridge:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855834/Cash-strapped-Islamic-acade...

In reply to Trangia:
Schools are funded by the LEA but also, and most importantly, receive their support services (SEN specialists, IT support etc) from the LEA too.
Academies are funded directly, have to source their own support services and are ripe for financial exploitation by unscrupulous twunts. They also don't have to abide by pay scales or employ qualified teachers.

In reply to Trangia:

It's just about what happens to the finances and how they get spent.

Each school has a pot of money that they are given by the government. This money either goes to the school via a Local Education Authority (LEA) or through an academy trust depending on if the school is a state run school or academy. The LEA and Acadamy trusts will take a percentage of the money to perform various services such as payroll, purchasing etc. These services vary greatly between different counties LEA's and different Academy trusts.

I was a governor in a Northants school. The LEA for Northants was in special measures itself and used to take 15% of the schools budget, for this they did very little - apart from pay their staff quite a lot of money. If a school got itself in a bit of trouble and performed poorly on an OFSTED, the LEA were no where to be seen. They used to run the staff payroll, but things like IT support were left to the school to sort out (and pay for).

Northants LEA even used to buy in services and add markup to the schools to make a profit out of them. For instance, schools were made to get their broadband through a consortium which added 300% profit to the company they were buying it from - so in some cases you had a small village primary paying £12k for 1 meg internet connection per year.

Consequently in Northants, a lot of schools wanted to get away from the LEA. When I was part of a governing body of a school looking to convert to an Academy, we interviewed several trusts and they were looking at taking around 5% for running the school.

Some Academy trusts are really good and have improved schools, others offer the schools very little and others are worse still and are down right fraudulent.

In reply to Ridge:



I'm not sure why there should be "rich pickings" unless I'm missing something. Its not as if KPMG, PWC and the like will be queueing up to offer their services to academies at inflated prices is it?

Private schools large and small seem to manage their payrolls, audit and other financial admin with pretty small (and often lowly paid) bursars or small teams so I imagine that academies will be similar.
And I'd agree with the previous poster that LEA charges/on costs etc can often be prohibitively high and not offer the service that the school actually want.

But if the Academy is free to purchase services anywhere, what would prevent them still buying in from the LEA if that's what they want and the price is right?

In reply to Ian Rock:


Not quite.
They can also set new working terms and conditions for staff and employ unqualified staff to teach lessons. It is also my understanding that they do not have to follow the National Curriculum, though I may be wrong about the last bit.

Your last point about MATs being fraudulent is absolutely spot on.

In reply to Morty:

As I understand it, they also have greater freedom to determine the composition of their governing bodies and will not be required to appoint parent governors. Speaking as a retired secondary head who was kept honest by a very active and involved governing body, I see this as a significant reduction in community accountability. Mind you, recent f*ckwit secretaries of state seem hell bent on wiping out most of the educational advances on which I worked throughout my thirty year career. Sigh.

In reply to Babika:


On the one hand you have local authority and on the other hand you have a business run by one of the trustees of the academy chain. I wonder which one would get chosen and whether price would be a serious consideration.

In reply to KevinD:

The price and service will decide.
My kids school (went academy 2 years ago) isn't an "academy chain" and we have parent governors. A vacancy was advertised just the other day.

Standards and general discipline/ethos have improved although we kept the same head.

I think people need to look at individual examples and not get all het up by scaremongering until they have justification

It seems as though the most important 'stakeholders' in academy trusts are the ones top-slicing the school's budget to pay their large salaries. In time the pockets of shareholders will be more important than the views of stakeholders.

In reply to Babika:


ermm you are taking the piss arent you? No one could live in such a fantasy world, surely.


I take it we are supposed to use your individual example as opposed to all the ones pointing the other way? Or the Education Select Committee finding that there arent sufficient safeguards?

Whilst individual academies may not abuse the process overall it has been set up to remove local accountability and the current plans are to move more to the MAT model which encourages this.

In reply to Babika:


I'm sure many schools will do the same. However, I fear some will not. My own feeling is that schools are so crucial to the well-being of their communities that local accountability should be a duty, not an individual choice. I don't believe the business model of a board of directors is the most appropriate for schools. The idea that accountability can be driven by parents and children 'voting with their feet' and choosing a more successful school is a triumph of ideology over reality.

In reply to Trangia:

Thanks everyone. I hadn't realised it was about funding, and had imagined that academy was just a fancy name for a school.

In reply to KevinD:



Haha! Now who's being naïve?
So this money grabbing profit making corporate is going to make a completely irrational decision and plump for the most expensive finance/admin service that eats up their funds.

Yup, that's exactly how it works in business and private schools.

As for "my individual example" at least I have experience of LEA, Academy and private education in the last few years and have spent years working in finance in local government so have some background knowledge.

But mainly I have an open, rather than closed, mind about the whole subject.

In reply to Babika:


You do realise the trusts arent allowed to be profit making at the moment? Or are you that open minded you dont bother with that sort of minor detail.
As for irrational. Exactly what is irrational about hiring a company, also controlled by yourself, which is allowed to be profit making?It might not be in the best interests of the school but it certainly isnt an irrational decision for the individual.
Its why companies, as well as public sector, will often have checks in place. However those are dependant on the people in charge not being party to it. Which doesnt seem to be working to well for some of the trusts.

In reply to Trangia:


Its not so much about the funding but more about the overall control.
An academy will be outside LEA control and run either on its own or as part of a chain.
It has lower requirements for parent governers and the chain of control goes to secretary of education not via the local authorities (although there are now some new regional managers in place).

In reply to KevinD:

I'm curious - where does your expert knowledge about how this will definitely work come from? Is it real world?

In reply to Trangia:

The Academy is very likely to pay nothing for the school. http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/michael-gove-ideological-va...

In reply to KevinD:




What do you think the government rationale is for academies?

In reply to Babika:


I am curious despite all your claimed expert knowledge of the subject how did you not know that they werent profit making and also that there have been cases where academies have been shown to be hiring their trustees companies.
If you cant be bothered reading the commons report here is some lighter reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10567498/Academies-payin...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/academies-accountability...

In reply to Trangia:

Academies can do what they like while the government play pass the buck.

At the moment they have parents as governers but tbat is being changed.

The school I work in has gone from good with outstanding areas to requires improvement along with its conversation to academy status. Now we won't get LEA support to get us out of this mess.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Putting more Public cash into private hands?

In reply to Lusk:


I'll rephrase the question: can you summarise what the Government describes as its rationale for academisation?

In reply to Postmanpat:

A long euphamism for encouraging the movement of public cash into private hands??

In reply to Lusk:


Who'd have thought it eh?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/28/perry-beeches-academy-chai...

In reply to Postmanpat:

I believe the government line is

- Better results
- Self Determination
- Financially more efficient

Whilst undoubtedly, some Academies have performed well and have operated in the interest of the school and it's community (as per Babika's example) there have been multiple cases of Academy Trusts working in a more self interested manner and the research show that that the academy system fails the poorest in society. Removing the link to local authorities and requirement for the parent governor relationship tying them into the community can only be a bad thing.

LEAs are not the be all and end all and undoubtedly need reforming but this doesn't seem the right way to go for me.

In reply to Trangia: As someone almost said: ideology, ideology, ideology

In reply to galpinos:


Removing the link to local authorities can only be a bad thing.

Why?

In reply to Postmanpat:

No local accountability.

In reply to marsbar:


How do a bunch of largely anonymous bureacrats represent "local accountability".

In reply to Postmanpat:

Who pays seems a bit of a red-herring - it's all tax money in the end. What I don't follow are the arguments for this. Since the 1980s governments of all stripes have been imposing more and more top down regulation, assessments and governance on schools (tests, inspectiongs, national curriculum), apparently because that would increase standards. Now they wake up one morning and decide the opposite approach is needed and schools should all do their own thing. What's changed?

In reply to Trangia:

I don't know if this is true

https://www.facebook.com/279110982277106/photos/a.315103838677820.107374182...

But are we really giving away our schools?

In reply to MG:


Oh, governments of different hues (eg.Baker, Blunkett etc) have been trying to counteract the prevailing educational orthodoxy by imposing change from above. It hasn't really worked. That orthodoxy is regarded as entrenched in the LEAs so this government has decided that rather than impose against the wishes (of many) LEAs, it will simply take them out of the equation.

In reply to krikoman:



Community Schools account for the majority of schools in England. They almost always
occupy public land held by the local authority. There may
be rare cases where land at community schools is not held by the local authority for
some reason, or where the governing body holds additional land on trust.

It is not permissable for the academy trust of a converting community school to have a
freehold interest in the land on becoming an academy. Community schools have no
ownership of the land before becoming academies and, because as much as possible we
wish to see schools convert with arrangements that mirror their current position, they may
not gain land ownership as part of the conversion.

(Source: DOE)

In reply to Postmanpat:


Those largely anonymous bureaucrats are accountable to elected representatives of the public and decisions are made publicly by those elected representatives. But you knew that!

In reply to The New NickB:


Yes, but how does this actually work in practice?

In reply to Postmanpat:
Because they are part of the accountable system that at it's head are the elected local representatives.

Edit: or what Nick B said more eloquently above....

In reply to Postmanpat:


In terms of accountability, compared to say a charitable body with a board of trustees or similar?

It's certainly a lot more accountable.

In reply to Postmanpat:
That orthodoxy is regarded as entrenched in the LEAs so this government has decided that rather than impose against the wishes (of many) LEAs, it will simply take them out of the equation.

Not really being sold that way, is it? Also interesting that you normally rail against the incompetence of the civil service and against top-down dictats from central government but now seem happy for schools to be forced via dictat to be directly funded from government.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What exactly is the "prevailing educational orthodoxy"?

In reply to MG:


>
Removing the LEAs is the means not the end so why sell that bit?
Do the changes result in more or less micromanagement by the State or arms of the State?

In reply to KevinD:


Look it up yourself. Try googling something like "seven myths about education" for a start.

In reply to Trangia:
In binary terms, one is capitalist and the other is communist. Is your anorak red or blue? At it's core are two political ideologies struggling to influence future voters.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I am interested in your interpretation of it since that is going to be a term with a thousand and one interpretations ranging from the sensible to the f*cking insane.

In reply to KevinD:


As a relatively long-serving headteacher - now retired - I'm looking forward to a pithy and impartial analysis of the box inside of which I was thinking for all those years.

In reply to KevinD:

The prevailing educational orthodoxy is that the state should dole out education with an international socialist bias to all children regardless of ability, like a battery farm for little labour voters..

In reply to Postmanpat:
The seven myths would have provided a very poor account of common practice in my own school, or, come to that, other successful local schools with which I was familiar. I wish Daisy had stayed in the classroom for a few more years.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Difficult to say long term. Right now, less due to the current government's views. Something tells me a Corbyn led government would be more controlling, and would conveniently have all schools under one central department that could impose one set of centrally dreamt up rules. The current setup means each LEA (still) has a degree of control and local input.

In reply to MG:

A recent poll showed that 93% of Headteachers were opposed to forcing all Schools to become Academies (3% in favour and 4% didn't know).

Seems odd to me that the Government are "giving schools more freedom" by forcing them to do something. Something that they could opt to do anyway, if they wanted those additional freedoms.

In reply to The New NickB:

It's all right. It's for their own good - the education secretary knows best.

In reply to KevinD:


Its not mine that matters. Its the goverment's. Would ypu reply to my initial question?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I cant see their definition. Perhaps you have the gov.uk page?


Which one was that? Their claimed reasoning for doing so? To be honest I am not overly fussed about that since politicans arent always honest about that sort of thing and frankly the tory education policy is so confused its hard to keep up eg the shouting and screaming about the national curriculum whilst letting the favoured groups ignore it.

In reply to dangle:


thanks for the example of the latter interpretation. Now could you provide the former.

In reply to KevinD:
Probably something like "insisting on using a teaching method developed since the 1950s". This is clearly terrible, which is why you and I can't read or add up.

In reply to KevinD:



So you're perfectly happy to debate or resist something without any knowlesge or curiosity about yhe reasons behind it? Really?

In reply to MG:


Come on MG, you can do better than that.
Doesnt it strike you as somewhat weak that the critics can so often deal in cheap caricatures ?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I am more interested in the actual impact than the claimed impact. Particularly when those claims are often confused.
Now, speaking of curiosity, can you provide the government definition for prevailing educational orthodoxy?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I could, but don't have the time just now. KevinD is making some rather valid points, I think.


Hardly one-sided - see your "seven myths" reference above.

In reply to KevinD:



What makes you think they have or require a simple definition? Bizarre

In reply to MG:


Possibly, but he's not addressing my question.


Why is that a caricature?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Who said I wanted a simple definition?
As for them having a definition I would point you back to your comment "Its not mine that matters. Its the goverment's." which would imply you feel you they had one.
Lets leave that aside then and go back to my original question.
What is your definition of it?

In reply to KevinD:





The argument I making on this thread is that the critics of the government's policies consistently refuse to debate or address the actual policies. They take refuge in employing caricatures and strawmen to mock the policies.
So, I am trying to find out if this is because they have no don't what they are talking about or because prefer not to talk about it.
The tone of your question seems to imply that there has not been and is is not a "progressive orthodoxy" in education. If this is what you think then clearly you don't know what you are talking about. I suspect you know perfectly well what is being referred to so why ask the question?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well her first "myth" is "That facts prevent deeper understanding"

No one actually believes that because it is obviously stupid. It is a caricature of various positions along the lines of "only memorising lots of facts isn't learning of any depth", which make sense. There is perhaps a discussion to be had about where the balance should lie between the two types of knowledge but painting the "progressive orthodoxy" or whatever your term was as believing the above is ridiculous.

In reply to Postmanpat:


eh? The only person failing to address the actual policy is you who wants to just talk about the claimed policy intentions and also have people google random phrases to see which variant you use.
You have repeatedly failed to engage in debate instead coming out with the normal caricatures about local bureaucrats and unaccountable officials whilst not explaining exactly how the changes fix this.
If you want an easy starter for ten. If you are concerned about accountability of those local officials explain exactly how the changes will improve things.


Again. I am interested in what you see as it since there are plenty of ideas as to what it means. Then we see, for example, whether Andy Clarke agrees with you.

In reply to MG:


So oyu don't think that using one line out of context from a while book may be something of a caricature?

In reply to KevinD:


Because i'm not here to debate whether the policies are good or bad. I'm here to question whether its critics are actually interested in the policies and the intentions of the policies, or just in gobbing off about privatisation blah blah.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not, in this case. It is her chapter title (actually without even the "deeper") - her summary of her position.

In reply to MG:


I know that. A few words out of a whole book.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It is clear people are interested in the policies. There is less interest in the claimed intentions not least because they have been so poorly explained. We have the vague claim about taking control away from bureaucrats but then fails to explain why handing it to other bureaucrats working for the MATs is an improvement.
We then dont have a clear comment about why there is a need to force schools to convert to academies even if, as surveys seem to indicates, many headteachers are opposed. Doesnt really match the rhetoric about giving headteachers control does it?

Its fascinating that you have no interest in actually debating whether the policies are working but just want to talk about the claimed policy goals. Although even there you are failing.

In reply to KevinD:

I've often debated the topic in the past, as I think MG will attest. It seems to me that to be able that to debate them properly one has first to establish 1) What is their intention? One an then discuss 2) Is this a sensible intention? 3) Are the policies likely to achieve these intentions?

Do you disagree?

PS. I don't understand either why they are insisting compulsory academisation and until I do I won't support it. My suspicion is that MG has inadvertently hit upon the explanation: that it will make it harder for a Corbyn or other government to reverse the process.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Yes, a few words summarising one of the "myths" you pointed to as being the instigator of these reforms before complaining opponents of the reforms dealt only in caricatures. A "myth" that is itself clearly a caricature.

In reply to MG:


Have you read the book?

In reply to Postmanpat:

The intention of every govt (Labour or Conservative) has always been to improve standards in schools, and as far as the intention goes there is no room for debate, everyone wants improved standards.

As ever the devil is in the detail - why do academies not have to use qualified teachers? why do LEAs give the freehold of a school to academies (or offer them long peppercorn rents)? Why should academies not have to follow the national curriculum? What happens when an LEA hasn't enough places and all the local schools are academies? Who provides for statemented kids? What happens to excluded children? What happens to teachers pensions?

Apart from blind faith that private enterprise is always better than the state at providing everything, what is the point of *forcing* schools to become academies?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I would have liked Daisy to have tackled a myth that I believe is far more pervasive than most of those she chose: Standards are Raised by Structural Change. Sadly, whatever their sometime protestations to the contrary, it is my experience that this has been an article of faith for government ministers for far too long now. As any fule kno, educational standards are raised essentially through improving classroom practice, ie professional development, collaborative curriculum design and cultural change. As a head, I wasn't about to take any lessons in school improvement from anyone who hadn't done it themselves. This would exclude both Daisy and any minister I can call to mind.

In reply to Andy Hardy:



As I said above, I don't think they should be forced. My guess is that the government wants to make the change very hard to reverse.

As to your questions above, most of them appear to be addressed, at least in principle, in the white paper. I'm not clear that LEAs do give the academies the freehold to school but if they do it's presumably tio give them stability.
The issue about non qualified teachers is a red herring. Independent schools can do it and it's not an issue. Regarding following the national curriculum-obviously because the idea is to provide diversity, built on the bck of certain basi knowledge and skills.

What I want to understand is why, when the whole thrust of the changes seems to be to devolve power to headteachers ad teachers and away from the State, albeit with the latter responsible for funding and basic standards, that teachers and head teachers say it is doing the opposite.

In reply to everyone:

This might be useful:

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/what-is-an-academy-and-other-questions-about-conve...

In reply to JR:



Thx

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Structural change could improve results, if the change led to lower teaching ratios, more qualified staff and better facilities. From what I've read I don't see how switching to academies will guarantee to improve any of those.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I am more interested in actual outcomes rather than claimed aims. Particularly given the confusion in those claimed aims.
For example if autonomy of teaching is important then why is a phonics reading test, which requires a specific teaching method, used? Admittedly it did allow them to claim it as a success after a couple of years of use when teachers started teaching to it but doesnt really support the autonomy model.
Or all of the talk about new training for teachers which can then be ignored if a MAT feels like it.

Now still waiting for your definition of prevailing educational orthodoxy.

In reply to summo:


I agree all those would certainly be welcome. As you say, schools converting now are unlikely to benefit from any additional funding, which the first and last of them would require. There was plenty of dosh for facilities around to attract early converters, but I've no doubt it will be mostly gone by now. This a well-established pattern where large-scale government education initiatives are concerned - eg Specialist School Status.

In reply to KevinD:


What aims?


You really haven't a clue what is going on have you or are you just pretending? Do you understand the struggle over progressive teaching and where phonics sits in that struggle at all?


Is this part of the ridiculous obsession with allowing unqualified teachers?


Why? I'm not here to give you a ladybird version of fifty years of argument over educational methods. If you are unaware of them then discussion is impossible. My argument is that that government believes there is an entrenched progressive orthodoxy.

I assume what you are actually building up is is to say that there is no entrenched progressive orthodoxy. Well, possibly, but the government believes there is, which explains a lot of what is being done.

Now, It seems to me that to be able that to debate them properly one has first to establish 1) What is their intention? One an then discuss 2) Is this a sensible intention? 3) Are the policies likely to achieve these intentions?

Do you disagree?

In reply to Andy Clarke:

I'm meeting my brother and his wife tomorrow, they both work at a school for kids excluded from mainstream education, I suspect nothing will change for them. I doubt they'll see a decline in customers.

In reply to JR:



Thanks, useful. I haven't really got my head around the policy with respect to how it's supposed to change anything for children. The teachers I know in academies don't seem to feel that it has released them from any bureaucracy or heavy-handed control (neither local nor national), only that they have a few silly, superficial duties bordering on marketing to do as well implementing all the usual government guff. I imagine each case is different. I also haven't got my head around the so-called prevailing educational orthodoxy or the 7 myths (just read a review of that book).

But then, I am highly sceptical about education policy in general. Politicians are compelled to come up with education policy, but it's very difficult if not impossible to evaluate whether any of it makes any difference, so vast and dynamic is the context within which it operates. Randomised control trials are not really a thing in education; finding some undercooked 'evidence' from wherever you fancy if it supports what you've already decided to do is however de rigueur, cf the Swedish Model. What happened to those Free Schools anyway? Binned I hope!

In reply to summo:

They may see a decline in funding though.

Schools have to pay (a large premium) for their pupils to attend alternative provision. Increasingly, schools are deciding that it is more cost effective to provide an alternative provision on site.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I am not arguing for or against phonics but simply that the claim about autonomy for teachers to teach is accompanied by one boasting about a test that requires a specific form of teaching to pass.
Do you really not understand the subtle difference?


No its pointing out a disjoined strategy. It really isnt a difficult concept.


You keep claiming this but you then repeatedly fail to support it with evidence or even manage to put forward a coherent description of what you think the governments position is.


Dear f*cking god. I know you are incapable of answering a question outside of an irrelevant rant but you could try and read someone elses response rather than just regurgitating the same shit.

In reply to Trangia:

Linguistically, it's obviously absurd to call any junior or even senior school an 'academy'. Just playing with and abusing language. But then, what should anyone expect from a government that's happy to deregulate everything?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Nope. They havent been cut and are if anything due for expansion. The theory is five hundred in this parliament.
Unless you mean in Sweden where I believe they are under review due to the less than sterling results.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

What was the government deregulating 1824?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Academy

In reply to Morty:



Don't knew. Will ask. It must cost schools a fortune as these are pretty hardcore cases, looks more like a detention centre than School, the level of supervision is very high and most board Mon to fri, as parents can't cope or they live too far away. Any kid leaving who passes just one gcse is considered a success.

In reply to KevinD:

I didn't say you were. You don't seem to be able to grasp that "liberating" teachers and heads is a means to an end-better education. So insisting on some basic methodology to achieve the same end is not a contradiction.



Dear God, that, that is what, as I have i pointed out, is what I am asking its critics, but answer came there none. I don't want to discuss my understanding of them. I want to find out theirs. Got it???


I've made it clear that I am not interested today in discussing the pros and cons of government policy. I am asking what it's critics think that policy actually is and why. You refuse to answer, and keep trying to draw me into something else. It would appear from your refusal to reply to my question that you don't think understanding the policy or the rationale or the articulated rational for the policy are are important.
In which case there is nothing for us to discuss today,

Cheers x
PS> Do you REALLY not think the Government believes their is a progressive orhtoxy, or are you just trolling?

In reply to MG:



'In 1822, the school's founders, Henry Cockburn and Leonard Horner agreed that Edinburgh required a new school to promote classical learning. Edinburgh's Royal High School provided a classical education, but the founders felt that greater provision was needed for the teaching of Greek, to compete with some of England's public schools.'

I'm sure that Greek and classical learning to a competitive standard with 'some of England's public schools' will be a prime concern at my local, err Academy (formerly a shagged out skool).

Mick

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


It was a nulabournomenclature.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Why should that make my argument any weaker? I thought the Tories were meant to be opposed to Labour? But (if what you say is correct) they seem to have adopted this load of nonsense with alacrity.

In reply to Postmanpat:

As I say, this kind of abuse of language suits their purpose.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

What, Nulabour's? If the Tories hd changed the name how do you think people would have reacted?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I can grasp it quite well. The bit you seem completely incapable of grasping is that this liberation goes straight out of the window once the government pet scheme comes in.
If you think about it for a while you might be able to answer your own question about why most headteachers and teachers are a tad skeptical.


Actually several people answered including me. Just because people dont answer how you want them to doesnt mean you arent answered. This isnt a GCSE exam. Your arrogance is pretty amazing, are you aiming for a government post?


Correct. I really shouldnt have wasted time on your attempt to divert the discussion.

In reply to KevinD:


So did you get the idea that the aim was to introduce a laissez faire free for all or that the government claimed it would be?

> If you think about it for a while you might be able to answer your own question about why most headteachers and teachers are a tad skeptical.

Of course, if somebody can demonstrate that the new system will be more dirigiste than previous systems or a Labour alternative . That's why I asked MG if he thought that might be the case.


Galpinos gave an answer (which I should have acknowledged). Andy Clarke said it was about improving education-which is a useful but not very detailed answer, although his other comments were very interesting. Are you including "Putting more Public cash into private hands" as answers? Really?

I haven't noticed your answer.


Good, we can agree on something.

Do you REALLY not think the Government believes their is a progressive orthodoxy?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Whoops! "there"

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think one of the big issues, certainly for me, is that the government haven't articulated their reasons very well. Apart from the "freeing the school leadership" and waffle about "self determination", they haven't given us a clearly defined set of reasons.

This, I believe, leads people to think there are another set of reasons, the real reasons that they want to keep secret.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Although it is a few years since I retired from headship, it still seems pretty clear to me that recent administrations have suffered from the lazily unexamined assumption that there is a prevailing progressive orthodoxy in education, as if the Easter Union conferences somehow represented the daily reality of what is happening in classrooms up and down the land. Daisy's 7 myths give a reasonable summary of these mistaken beliefs and sadly have given them a spurious intellectual credibility, but for me the book is based far too much on selective reading and research and far too little on broad experience. The pernicious effects of politically calculated government meddling in education can be seen everywhere and I fear it won't be long before we have resurrected in its entirety the woefully limited curriculum on which I was examined at O-level in the 1960's. I'm making this my last post since I'm now suffering the dangerous stirrings of crusading zeal, making me feel like taking up my chalk/interactive whiteboard stylus again.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You really aren't being very clear here. Is it your belief that the government thinks there is a "progressive orthodoxy" (meaning?), that it objects to, and that forcing academy status is a means of changing this to something else (what?), with a side benefit of the whole process being difficult to reverse?

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Don't stop posting on this thread. It's nice to have informed opinion instead of the idle ranting of the rest of us.....

In reply to MG:


Yes to the first three, probably to the last. But what I think is not the point really which is why I'm not expounding it. I only mentioned it as a reply to your question. I'm trying to discover what the critics thinks the government is reasoning, saying and doing and why.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well OK. I suppose I am a critic but mainly because I don't what the government's reasoning is because they haven;t said. Doing stuff without a clear reason isn't a good idea, I would say.

Their manifesto says they will move failing schools to academy status because academy leadership is proven and this is improving schools. And that's it. Why it is now all schools and how this helps isn't explained, as far as I can see.

In reply to galpinos:


Yes, totally agree.

Mick

In reply to MG:



Regarding the belief in and attack on a "progressive orthodoxy", that has been explicit. (So actually, has their belief that academies are a tool in winning this battle.)

From the Grauniad (you can easily google the full speech) but this was a repetitive theme of Gove's period.

"In a long, dense address to the Social Market Foundation thinktank, taking in themes as varied as cognitive science, the schools attended by Stella McCartney's children and the historic reading habits of housemaids, the education secretary lambasted what he sees as the pernicious, decades-long effect of progressive education. The speech, titled the Progressive Betrayal, said: "We are clearing away the outdated and counterproductive assessment methods of the past. So that more time – much more time – is available for teaching, for reading around the subject, and for the cultivation of the habits of proper thought."
...Knowledge, Gove said, must be "imparted at school, in a structured way, by gifted professionals, through subject disciplines". He continued: "Unless that knowledge is imparted in school then students from poorer homes will continue to perform less well in the exercise of every basic skill that one needs to be employed in the modern world." This was central to all education, Gove said: "The accumulation of cultural capital – the acquisition of knowledge – is the key to social mobility."

In reply to Andy Clarke:


Well, the problem is that every teacher of head will have different personal experiences and reach their own conclusions accordingly. The point of academic research, and commentators on that research, is to aggregate and analyse the views of professionals (ie. teachers and heads) and the theoretical work on the subject to reach some sort of overview.
It sounds as if you think governments shouldn't be involved in setting syllabii, standards or methodology. Given that the government's stated aim is to do less of this (whilst insisting on some core subjects and standards), I am trying to understand what the issue is. Are they doing more of it (despite their claims)? Are they doing it differently?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I suspect that the real reason for converting schools to so-called 'Academies' is quite a vague one: that, deep down, most right-wing Conservatives have a deep-rooted hatred of many councils, which they see as 'hotbeds of socialism'. They are, in effect, on a crusade to reduce the voice of the people in the broadest sense. In other words, it amounts to sticking two fingers up at those who do not vote for them. No more, no less.

Just a hunch.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I have just downloaded and read the 2015 Tory manifesto. Nowhere in the education section could I find 'progressive orthodoxy' as a phrase and nowhere in it did it say that all schools would become academies (it did say failing and coasting schools would be forced to become academies unless thay could show a plan to improve quickly)

Please let the thread know what you mean by the phrase "progressive orthodoxy". Then we can come to a view as to how pernicious such a thing is and the ability of academies to change it.

In reply to Trangia:


None.

"No proof academies raise standards, say MPs"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30983081

In reply to Postmanpat:

I have read the speech (and actually agree with a lot of it). OK, Gove, clearly believes there is such a thing a "progressive orthodoxy". I would say he is laughably deluded in a lot of what he thinks about it, but anyway. You think this thinking is still current and the reason for the policy?

In reply to Postmanpat:
That's a speech from Michael Gove, he's no longer the education secretary, he wasn't the education secretary when the announcement about turning ALL schools to academies was made and there has been no statement by the current education secretary, Nicky Morgan, as to why they are doing this.


Hmmm, so Gove was saying academies will help students from poorer homes, but the research we have on this, undertaken by the Sutton Trust for 2014 (no idea of their political affiliations/bias so feel free to shoot it down) seems to imply this isn't so:


It also seems to imply that academies seem to do no better than state schools under the LEA's control:


So unless the government can give clear reason as to why they are doing this, it seems like there is an ulterior motive. This is what, I assume, people are uneasy about.

Edit: Source - http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/chain-effects-2015/ and various spelling mistakes

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



Although some of that no doubt exists, but as I said above (9.59 Wednesday) I think it's much more about regarding the LEAs specifically as part of the entrenched "progressive orthodoxy" which blocks reform.

Do you really think that voting in local councillors, usually on a low turnout, based on a myriad of issues, and often by people with no stake in the local school, is the best form of "people power" in 2016?

In reply to MG:


I can't see any change in the direction of travel, just a ratcheting down in the rhetoric, so on the basis of Ockham's worn razor I assume so.

In reply to Postmanpat:


You could make exactly the same argument for this (or any) government's education policy.

Tell us how Academies provide a better form of "people power".

In reply to Postmanpat:


But it's not just councillors that are being bypassed, but parent governors. Non?

In reply to Postmanpat:


What's the people power involved in chains of academies?

In reply to galpinos:


See my reply to MG above.


Well, as I've said above numerous time, I'm trying to discover what the critics believe the policies are aimed to do at this stage, then one can measure their success or failure. It was actually Andrew Adonis who produced the research based on the success of CTCs, which were independent of LEA control, that underpinned the initial Academy policy.



If you read the parliamentary report (to which Sutton contributed) you'll see it is very complicated to assess. For example, the evidence shows that "spnonsored academies" improve more quickly that maintained schools, but on average produce worse results maintained schools. So, the proponents of academies highlight the first point, and critics the second.
The point is that there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that academies work, and the government has chosen to rely on that rather than contrary evidence. You don't need to find some ulterior motive.

In reply to tony:


Are you a "critic" and if so are you arguing that the plans make no provision for accountability ?Can you tell me what the plans are for accountability?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


No,it is saying that there is no formal requirement for parent governors and that governors should preferably have additional skills to those of just being parents.
But, to understand your position (if you are a critic). Is it that the government is actually trying to take away the influence of parents (and of teachers?) , or something else?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm neither. I'm simply asking a question.


No.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

No, the reason for the former is pretty obvious. Morgan was specifically charged with abandoning the rhetorical and confrontational style of Gove. As I noted above, I am surprised, not sure of the reasons for, and therefore not particularly supportive of compulsory academisation.

As an aside, the other day they carried out some policy (I forget which one) which was in the manifesto, and critics on here countered that this was illegitimate "nobody reads the manifesto"!


Do you think is my invention or something?

In reply to tony:



From the 2016 white paper P.65.

Empowering pupils, parents and communities, with a clearly defined role for local government
4.44.
This devolution of power to the school-led system means that the traditional roles of central and local government will change. Our approach enables school and system leaders
to make high quality, local decisions; putting the needs of local communities first and helping to build a more diverse, innovative and autonomous school system.
4.45.
In making these changes to improve outcomes for children, it is important to support parents. We want to make it much easier for every parent to navigate the schools system, to choose the best school for their child, to support their child to succeed and to help them make the choices that will best prepare themfor adult life in modern Britain.
4.46.
We will also establisha clearly defined role for local government. Local authorities
will step back from running schools and will focus instead on delivering and strengthening core functions
– becoming one of the key partners working to deliver educational excellence everywhere.Putting children and parent first
4.47.
Children are at the heart of these reforms, and at the heart of our vision for the education system –to provide world
class education and care that allows every child and young person to reach his or her potential, regardless of background.
4.48.
Every parent in this country has a stake in the quality of our education system and our schools; every parent wants the best for their child. Yet parents have not always been at the heart of the systemand they have not always had the information they need to challenge schools to improve. This must change.
4.49.
The role of parents is crucial;from supporting their child to holding schools to account. Our approach puts parents and children first, not through symbolic representation on a governing board,but through engagement with schools, a voice in the key decisions about their child’s school, and clear information that means parents can support their child’s learning and demand more from the school. The free schools programme also empowers parents where they feel a new school would better deliver the ype of education they want for their children

In reply to Postmanpat:


As many have said on this thread, we don't know. That's why it seems both odd and suspect.

In reply to Postmanpat:

[...]



No, but it would be useful to know what you think it means. I haven't personally heard of anyone else using it - but that could be because I don't move in political circles.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm none the wiser after all that. What role will local authorities actually have - what are 'core functions'? I would have thought that planning the provision of a high standard of education for all children would be a core function.
And where is there any mention of local accountability?

You have to admit, reading that does sound like a bunch of management bollocks-speak.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Hmmm, as Tony says, that reads like a load of management consultant bo***cks to me (I’m an engineer so don’t have a lot of time for that much unnecessary wordiness).

One thing that hits me about those quoted passages, especially 4.48 & 4.49 is that it’s the parents responsibility. Academy are shown to disadvantage those at the poorer end of the spectrum, who will also probably not have the proactive parenting that’ll ensure their academic success, this seems to hint that they will still be the sector of society, most in need, who will once again lose out.

I’ll admit I’ve not read the white paper but my concerns are things like school places; who’s responsible with ensuring there is sufficient provision, special needs; will there only be pooling of resources within the Academy Trust instead of across the whole LEA like they used to be, etc

In reply to Andy Hardy:



It's one of the most commonly used description in the education wars of the past fifty years.It's quite hard to reduce to a few lines but I'll try:

1) Education should be "child centred" ie.that children should direct their own learning rather than be led by teachers.
The latter should"facilitate" not "teach". Practices such as dividing subjects, enforcing homework, and learning information should be resisted. Children should be allowed grow in their own time and way, like plants.
2) Knowledge is not central to education. Knowledge is is intrinsically politically or culturally biased. Children should be encouraged to create and to think not to "know" information.
3) Strict discipline is repressive. The teacher should amend their ways to align with the needs of the child.
4) Socio-economic background dictates success. Education cannot overcome this strait jacket.Thus working class children should not be expected learn the same things as middle class children.

In reply to galpinos:

>
How many white papers have you read recently??? It's hardly unique in that! If inserted a sentence with a brilliant new idea eg" at least one parent of a pupil must sit on the board of governors" would it suddenly change things? I think not.
I actually supect its a work in progress having been criticised on this issue in the parliamentary report.


Well, Gordon is worrying that parents (people) are not being represented. You can't have it both ways! OFSTED maintains a key role (for better or worse) inmonitoring standards.


As I understand it, the DOE is required to ensure sufficient provision by providing sufficient funding .
Regarding special needs

6.64.
We also want to ensure that all children and young people with SEND
achieve well in the early years, at school and at college; and arewell prepared for happy and healthy adult lives. 15.4% of pupils(just over 1.3 million) have special educational needs with a wide spectrum of types and severity of need
.
406.65.
Reforms brought in by the Children and Families Act 2014 represent the biggest change to the SEND systemin a
generation and are transforming the experience ofchildren and young people with SEND,and their families.
6.66.
New statutory duties give children, young people and their parents more protections and rights, and ensure that local authorities, schools, health and social care services work better together. ‘Local Offers’ have been published,
setting out in one place information about the provision available across education, health and social care,
and schools are required to publish information reports showing what they are doing for children and young people with SEND.
6.67.
For children with more complex needs we have introduced information, advice and supportservices andIndependent Supporters, to help families navigate the system and access the support they need. We have also introduced more streamlined needs assessment processes, coordinated across education, health and care; integrated
Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans; and the right for young people and parents of children who have EHC plans to request a Personal Budget
.
6.68.
We are closely monitoring the implementation of these reforms and have provided
over £212 million since 2014 to support implementation. Progress so far is encouraging,
with parents reporting they have received better support and that their views are being
taken into account more fully.
41
Ofsted and the Care Quality Commissionwill begin to
inspect local area implementation from May 2016, focusing on how well the needs of children with SEND
are identified and met, and how well local agencies (including health and social care) work together to do so.
6.69.
We intend to review what is happening in practice for all children with SEND, not
only those with statutory plans, and what more can be done to improve these children’s attainment, outcomes and experiences
.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't do this often, but
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

In reply to Postmanpat:


None, I'm too busy arguing on UKC from an ill-informed point of view......


Well, having, say a sentence along the lines of "The percentage of parent governors on the board must stay the same" would to me


I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. Yes, parents need to be represented but the academic future a child shouldn't rest on the fact they have a pushy proactive parent that makes sure the school provides everything the child is eligible for, the education system should do that. There's plenty of research that seems to show that parents are a massive factor in a child's academic success, it'd be nice is the less privileged weren't disadvantaged at school as well as at home.

In reply to Postmanpat:
And people really think that's a vaguely accurate description of the approach in any school? I went to school at the peak of the loony left in a leftwing authority and it was nothing like that. In the last 30 years "facts" have become more prominent, I understand.

In reply to the thread:

Can academies be academically selective?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't know where you got those ideas from, but to imagine that that is what is going on in a ll schools is bollocks.
I did PGCE in secondary maths, taught for a year and never came across any of those. The only one that is remotely close to anything I came across is no. 4, except that it was put as "wealth provides more opportunities" hence "rich kids do better at school". This was mainly about enabling statistical comparison of added value or attainment, by allowing for wealth or poverty of the student. It most emphatically was not about working class kids can't be expected to do well. Raising expectation and aspirations were very much the name of the game.

That the education secretary would believe such tripe is just depressing. No wonder there's continual strife.

In reply to galpinos:



It's highly likely that the "pushy proactive parent" is the one currently on the board of governors and yet you seem to think that his is some sort of panacea. I don't really understand how you think parents' concerns should be represented if not by parents.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I've been teaching in state schools for a while now.

I think you have got stuck in the 1960s.

When did you last visit a state school?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Hopefully there is more than one parent on the board of governors and if they are on the governors then there input will benefit all those pupils at the school.


I do think it should be by the parents but I also think that those children whose parents don't have their best interests at heart or don't shout as load, for whatever reason, aren't forgotten about. It's not a binary option......

In reply to MG:

They believe that there are still large elements of that being taught in teachers' training colleges and being promoted by OFSTED. They believe is why eg.standards have been "dumbed down", phonetics is still resisted by many teachers, the teachers' unions or other critics dismiss the learning of knowledge as "rote learning" and the teachers unions have just condemned the teaching of "British values".
They recognise that many teachers are far too smart to adhere to such methodologies and want to encourage those teachers rather than the recividists . To wit:
"....analyse a sample of secondary school inspection reports from the autumn term 2013. Of all 130 Ofsted reports, 52 per cent advocated pupils learning £independently£ from teacher instruction; 42 per cent advocated group work; 18 per cent criticised teachers for talking too much; and 18 per cent criticised lessons in which pupils were £passive£ (i.e. listening to a teacher). In all 130 reports, I could find only one example of an inspector recommending a more teacher-led, and less child-centred approach. "

The 2007 curriculum, written by a leading "progressive" Mick Waters, avoided any discussion of subject content but highlighted instead "self management", "team learning","healthy lifestyle", "identity and cultural diversity", "global dimension and sustainable development"

The 2010 OFSTE handbook focused on ..."the use of postive emotions, great relationships, creativity"....and condemned teacher led lessons as "superficial".

In reply to Andy Hardy:


>
I don't think anyone believes it's going on in all schools. As I've said many times, I acknowledge that since many schools seems to be doing fine as they are I don't really see the need to enforce a structural change on them.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Eh? What on earth is wrong with children learning independently of teachers, or in groups? How can creativity be a bad thing? Sustainability is a huge concern in many fields, why would it not be taught and discussed in schools? This is is just getting more and more bizarre!

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's simply not true. Even a cursory glance at programmes of study for the 2007 NC shows guidance on required content, differentiated by the attainment levels. The idea that the whole of the NC is wrapped up in "self management", "team learning","healthy lifestyle", "identity and cultural diversity", "global dimension and sustainable development" is to ignore what was actually published as guidance.

In reply to Postmanpat:


If my training was typical (2006) it isn't going on in any schools.

Given that 'progressive orthodoxy' is a myth, then the question of whether or not academies counter it is moot. Which then leaves us another question, what do you think the real reasons are for forcing schools to become academies?

In reply to tony:

Indeed. One quote from English:

"Pupils should be taught to use the vocabulary, structures and grammar of spoken standard English fluently and accurately in informal and formal situations. "

In reply to MG:

Well, I'm not going to rehearse the whole of the debate for you. Nobody is saying that creativity or independent thinking is a bad thing. They are saying that it should be a key end of education, but that it cannot achieved without basic knowledge which provides a framework for thinking and creating and the "cultural literacy" to put such creativity or thinking in context.

Think of history teaching, which, apart from being limited to very limited periods of time, has focused largely on the skills of assessing and analysing evidence. My daughter brought home some documents about some campaign/battle in WW2 which she had to analyse for their meaning, and was struggling. So I asked her to put them in the context of who won the war. "I don't know, we haven't done that". Do you have a textbook so you can find out "No, we don't have textbooks"
Well, she was being particularly obtuse that day. But the point is that it is impossible to think rationally or analyse anything without the context of basic knowledge.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well I am pleased "they" think that but your quote (from who) implied the opposite. Equally no one is saying that only creativity etc. is needed. Your "progressive orthodoxy" is a complete straw man.


She didn't know who won WW2? I'd have a word with the parents -

In reply to Postmanpat:


You realize that recommending "some X" or "more X" is different from recommending "mostly X" or "exclusively X"?

If not then you'd probably have benefited from more time at school learning critical reading skills and less time memorizing dates :p

In reply to Ramblin dave:


You don't think that the fact that the reports almost exclusively recommend one style but not another might be of significance, especially in the context of OFSTED's sample lessons that specifally encourage one over the other.

In reply to MG:


Ditto, only critisisms I would have of my schooling was not quite enough basic grammar and not enough exam technique. So a bit of knowledge and a bit of skill.

I don't remember if they taught us who won WW2, I don't think they had to, we all knew people who had lived through it and fought in it.

In reply to MG:

Which quote? IT really isn't "my" progressive orthodoxy. It's a standard term in the educational wars. I'm actually amazed that people are unaware of it, not least given the prominence the much hated Gove gave to it.


I did! Given that she is half Japanese it did seem to be a remarkable oversight! But I think she knew who'd won that bit

In reply to The New NickB:

Well English was appallingly taught, I suppose, but that was the individual teachers not the style.

There was actually one meeja studeez teacher who meets PMPs stereotype, but that's it. The hatred between was mutual...

In reply to Postmanpat:

The "analyse a sample of secondary school inspection reports..."/bit

In reply to Andy Hardy:



I think the real reason is that the government believes that there is a "progressive orthodoxy" and wants avoid it being promoted, and it believes that they key to a successful school is a quality head teacher so it wants to devolve more power to head teachers.

In reply to tony:


Sorry, my mistake. Missed out the words "introduction to".

Compare the emphases in the 2007 curriculum and the 2013 curriculum, in the particular the emphasis on subject content from pretty much page 1. There is a very clear difference in approach, no?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Speaking as someone who deals with the "output" of schools, I think I would like to see more ability at self-led learning, questioning and creativity. More factual knoweldge wouldn't be a bad thing but shortcomings here are quicker to rectify.

In reply to MG:

Yes, but the point of the "anti progressives" is that self led learning, questioning and creativity depend on a core knowledge base of the world-on which further learning, questioning and creativity can be based. You can't analyse anything effectively in an information (and therefore understanding) vacuum.

The progressives, it is argued, want to to do it back to front.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The anti-progressives, very oddly, seem to see it as a binary choice - facts or thinking. Hence your list above that everyone seems to agree is nonsense. The idea that education is all dates and grammar to 16(?) and then applying this to real problems later is absurd. Both parts are needed all the time. There may room for discussion about the balance between the two but, going back a hundred posts, pretending anyone thinks facts are "bad" is a caricature.

In reply to Postmanpat:

From Ofsted's handbook:

Clarification for schools
28. The information below, originally published by Ofsted in the autumn 2014 and revised in March 2015, serves to confirm facts about the requirements of Ofsted and to dispel myths about inspection that can result in unnecessary workloads in schools. It is intended to highlight specific practices that are not required by Ofsted. Inspectors must not advocate a particular method of planning, teaching or assessment. It is up to schools themselves to determine their practices and for leadership teams to justify these on their own merits rather than by reference to this inspection handbook.

In reply to MG:


Why do you think they see it as a binary choice? And why do you think they are arguing for no analysis or questioning before the age of 16?
It's quite interesting reading the posts in CIF following articles on her book: a very significant number of teachers say they recognise what she was saying and recognise her experience at training college. Maybe they aren't real, or maybe they are freakishly unrepresentative, but it would seem she is not alone.

In reply to Morty:




Yes, are you familiar with the various bust ups over Ofsted?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well your description above had

"Children should be allowed grow in their own time and way, like plants.
Children should be encouraged to create and to think not to "know" information."

as a description of "progressive" thinking, while above you had

"You can't analyse anything effectively in an information (and therefore understanding) vacuum. The progressives, it is argued, want to to do it back to front."

to outline the opposite side. If these are correct descriptions, they imply a binary choice.

In reply to MG:



To go back to the history example:

The "progressives" might present some documents on the Battle of Stalingrad and ask pupils to discern who was doing what and why and debate the pros and cons. They on't really know what happened and so can't really have a meaningful debate (remind you of anything ?)

The "anti progressives" would teach pupils the battle history of the Battle of Stalingrad, within the context of WW2, and then ask the pupils to explain how and why it happened as it did and its implications-giving them the opportunity to analyse and question. Further down they line they might be encouraged to question whether the version of the "facts" of Stalingrad was actually accurate.

This is also true on a longer time scale-as pupils amass a body of knowledge they are more able argue and question effectively. The idea is that by amassing this knowledge (and analytical skills) they achieve the "cultural literacy" to participate fully in society.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Of course they can't but that doesn't happen, does it! (Obtuse daughters excepted...)

In reply to MG:

Well, actually it seemed to. They were given documents on topics they didn't have any narrative knowledge of and essentially asked to make sense of them.

I'm probably deeply scarred by having been an early victim of Nuffield science teaching, whereby 14 year olds were expected to work out in 2 hours on a Friday afternoon what it had taken mankind's scientific community 100,000 years to work out

In reply to Postmanpat:
I suppose we are all affected by our experiences

BTW, your daughter didn't do an engineering. PhD in Tokyo did she?

In reply to MG:



No, TV production and theatre technology in Liverpool!

In reply to Postmanpat:

In that case I haven't met her!

In reply to Postmanpat:


Do they really think that there's a cabal of bearded leftists, with leather patches on their elbows, poisoning the minds of our young with their socialist propaganda?

Do you subscribe to this view?

I'd say the real reasons revolve around money.

In reply to Postmanpat:

She didn't know who won WW2!?

You do know that "we haven't done that" is teenage speak for "I wasn't listening and if I blame the teachers Dad might leave me alone"?

In reply to marsbar:


Yes, I do know my daughter. She was reflecting her frustration. As I said, the real point, and I've discussed it with her since, is the whole thing was without sufficient knowledge of the background to the events or the events themselves. Like Nuffield bloody science, the students were supposed to pretend to be professional historians and piece together the events.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm sorry to be rude, but I would expect most children to have some background level of general knowledge. Who won WW2 would probably fall in that category.

As for the teaching style, it may not have been the prefered way for her to learn, but for some children that may have been a far more interesting way than copying some dates out of a textbook. The short term frustration at not knowing what happened could be more seen as a way of sparking curiosity as to what happened.

In reply to marsbar:

Well you are, but so would I. As i have tried to explain, i think she knew, but was expressing her frustration that she didn't know anything about how the campaign in question related to the outcome.Hence my use of the term "obtuse".


I'm aware of the concept! Now you are just doing the usual thing of caricaturing the concept of passing on knowledge as "copying dates". Who gave you that impression? How do you think general knowledge is actually accumulated?

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Can you elaborate?

In reply to Morty:
It's largely a myth that academies don't have to follow the national curriculum. They still have to do end of key stage national tests which include reading, writing, SPAG, and maths and next year will quite probably include science as well. This means they will have to teach the national curriculum in those subject areas if they want their children to pass. Given that they will also want to do at least 90 mins PE if they want to keep OFSTED and parents happy (and keep their children healthy) that doesn't leave much curriculum time left not to follow, and the curriculum for the foundation subjects is pretty bland anyway.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:
Assuming that they have roughly four hours of English, four hours of Maths, four hours of Science and two hours of PE per week then that still leaves ten or eleven hours per week to fill - so I'm not sure where you get the idea of 'hardly any curriculum time to fill' from.

My concern is how schools are prioritising the subjects that they offer. What about schools that don't offer music, drama, tech, both geography and history together, or force pupils to study a single language beyond Year 8? This is becoming an issue as schools transition to pupils choosing their options at the end of Year 8. It is narrowing the curriculum so that schools can start to focus on only the subjects that pupils will take exams in. And I'd rather have some experience of some 'pretty bland' foundation subjects than the experience that pupils are being faced with now in many schools.

In reply to Morty:

I speak as a primary school deputy head. We do around 9 hours of English and 5 to 6 hours of maths per week plus science and PE. We try to cover foundation subjects in as much depth as possible. In secondary they have even less freedom as they are teaching to examination board GCSEs.

I didn't mean that the subjects were bland but the curriculum guidance. The primary history curriculum for example gives guidance on what to teach but is not overly prescriptive.

I agree the focus has narrowed and now secondary schools performance is only judged on success in a narrow band of generally academic subjects - no space for vocational studies.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


I was talking about secondary education. The point I was trying to make was that they are not constrained by 'teaching to examination board GCSEs' until KS4. However, many schools are opting to start their preparation for KS4 a year early and asking pupils to take their options in Year 8. They don't have to do this. They don't have to impose such a narrow focus on only the subjects that their pupils will take tests in at the end of Year 11. However, this is what they are choosing to do in an attempt to prepare pupils for passing tests rather than a broad and balanced education.

If you are spending 15 hours a week on maths and English then it sounds like primary has problems too.

In reply to Morty:

It has huge problems. This May 11 year olds need to be able to identify fronted adverbials, past progressive, modal verbs determiners, the list goes on. And SATS this year are pass/fail and schools are hung out to dry based on their results. Not what I joined this profession to be part of.

In reply to Morty:
The school I teach at (rural secondary, Good at last ofsted) removed the 'Agricultutal Studies' qualification because too many children were choosing to do it who could have got another GCSE that looks better on the stats. It started off as a dumping ground for the dipshits, but when the more intelligent/well behaved children decided they fancied it as a career path and ditched geography or history for it, that's when it disappeared.

It is quite scary being a D&T teacher in a school headed up by an ex-maths teacher and his collection of pencil-pushers who couldn't put up a shelf, as there's times when you start to doubt if they think your existence is valid or not.

In reply to Bimble:

You have my sympathy - I know the type...

In reply to Trangia:
If, as we are told, teachers know best, then they should become politicians and get elected. That would be democratic, not bureaucratic. But being far left Corbynite supranationalists, that isn't going to happen anywhere in the West.