Do the Conservatives think we are stupid?

It has been pointed out in the past on this site that correcting other posters' spelling, grammar or punctuation is regarded as bad netiquette here as well as on other internet forums.

I agree absent. Plus pedantics can be used as put downs.

But I dont think that Ana was doing that here. I think she was correcting bad spelling.

I have partly disagreed with myself

And another one bites the dust

Sadly, Gracesgran, I believe your'e right, there is probably nothing we can do about the privatisation and centralisation being put through in the name of raising standards. I'm still feeling a bit flat after the election. I voted Labour without feeling a great deal of enthusiasm for EM, feeling fed up with the lack lustre campaign but in the firm belief I'd no choice if I was to do my bit to try and prevent a tory government.

The move away from LA schools towards more faith, free schools and academies does worry me. LA's aren't problem free zones but there is a wealth of experience in providing ongoing training, encouraging schools to work together, safeguarding policies and accountability. All that is lost it seems with the move away from LA involvement.

Sorry to be so gloomy and not to put forward any constructive suggestions about this but I feel it's part of the government drive to reduce public services and increase privatisation.

Our LA used to be great. No problem with it at all. I didnt realise that other places had or has problems with theirs.

I used to agree with privitisation of some things in the 80s or whenever it mostly happened.
But most of the large private companies just seem to be mainly money driven only nowadays, sadly.

It's a poltical power struggle, as always. Labour-run LEAs were very successful and were thought by Tories, back in the late eighties and early nineties, to hold too much local power. So it became Tory policy to remove power from them by changing laws that affect schools and by changing who runs schools.

Odd in a way when Labour was traditionally the party in favour of more state power rather than less.

Whoops, pressed post too soon.

...and Tories traditionally in favour of less state power. But I suppose giving control of schools to faith groups and business groups is removing control of them from the state to other interested groups.

Right mix up. Right mess. I'm glad Minibags is at school in Scotland. Mind you, there are plenty of things that need changing here too but more, as I see it, about school attitudes than about who runs schools.

I share your feelings about the election Iam64. I voted Lib Dem as I have most of my adult life and would be loathe to turn my back on them. However, coming initially from the SDP strand I have yet to see any party other then the SNP talk about Social Democracy. I am sure there are good people who could lead either the Labour Party or the Lib Dems but what I don't see is clarity of purpose. Of the two I think the LDs may clarify soonest but I fear they will major on the Liberalism - nothing wrong with that as there is a such a need for it at the moment with an illiberal government in power - but I do feel we also need the opportunities Social Democracy offers. However, this is probably for another thread.

I am extremely concerned about the way things are going with the schools. As you say there are issues with the LAs and, I would say, some issues in the Conservatives minds with the unions. However we cannot reproduce the way the independent schools work within the state system (Gove's aim) as they are so underfunded and also, the one thing that is never discussed, independents are not run by the parents. Yes, parents can take their money elsewhere and yes, if enough do the school will close but they are much more autonomous in their governance and can sack a child as easily as they can be sacked by a parent.

Excellent state schools will always offer something different, both more and less than independents and we should celebrate that difference while ensuring that excellence is available to all. Just taking schools down the privatisation route does not, in any way, seem to me to be the answer.

E & O E (please )

I get very upset about education being in the political arena and subject to ideological whims (especially as with Gove if they are planned on the back of an envelope) - these are our children's lives they are messing with.

The old system of education inspector support to raise standards has now gone - OfSted fly in, make a judgement, and then fly out - there is no LA support on offer.

I am proud that we have managed to employ a very good head who cuts through all the crap and makes sure the children receive a good rounded education. But it is a battle, believe me; and she has the total support of us governors. Well done to her!

But if there is no LA support, what is wrong with academies?
Perhaps that is why academies have grown.

I am a few years out of the system.
If there is no LA support, then I would take a look at all schools.

Presumably, as like everything else, there are good academies and bad academies.

There is little or no objective assessment of academies (English version). There is certainly no evidence that turning a school into an academy of itself improves it. There is little or no accountability of academy schools except to central government through unelected regional officers. There is no coherent and evaluated system of supporting failing or struggling schools. There is no convincing definition of 'coasting' as in 'coasting schools'. When the process of cutting schools adrift from locally elected councils was started, one of the motives was to give parents 'choice'. Now parental involvement is seen as an obstacle to central government plans, to be prevented at all costs.

No one has answered my question yet because presumably there isn't one - to whom do the parents go if the academy is failing?

ana the "we" has nothing to do with whether or not one voted Tory and everything to do with the Tories (spelt correctly I think although no doubt you will tell me if not) attitude to the electorate, namely vote for us even though we have no intention of telling you what we are going to do and continue to do to the poor by way of cuts.
However we will ensure that those who earn most will benefit from our policies, regardless of how the economy is performing.

Well summed up Lilygran. The government is not producing any facts; I am quite prepared to be persuaded. One of the things that is confusing is that the first Academies chose to convert and had to be "good" or "outstanding" to do so. I can imagine that these schools did, in many cases continue to improve as the management of the school was already working well. I am not sure but I am under the impression that their funding is improved too.

The new schools which have to move into Academy status are poorly performing - where is the evidence that this improves them?

I think the definition of "coasting" will be all other schools that the government wants to move into their pet system.

More than anything I want the evidence so I can make up my mind based on this rather than prejudice.

Whitewave they were asking Nicky Morgan this on the Daily Politics (I think it was) and she simply didn't answer.

Perhaps there is no answer or perhaps we wouldn't like it but they cannot think, with the level of communication now available, that we will accept their paternalistic/maternalistic attitude and not challenge the "leave it to mummy" stance.

E & O E (please )

My son teaches in a school which was asked to become an academy. He was a union rep.
The teachers and parents both voted against it. There were redundancies threatened. They were told that if they became an academy there would be no redundancies.
The teachers and parents both reluctantly agreed. Within a month of the school becoming an academy there were more redundancies than had been previously mentioned.
My son is no longer a union rep because there is no point. There is nothing the staff and parents can do about it now.

So the education threatened redundancies.
Then it became an academy, and who then made the redundancies? The board of the academy? In which case, that wasnt the LA's fault?
Or have I got that all wrong?
But if I didnt, then your son is still needed as a union rep? By the academy? Or are you saying that under an academy, unions no longer are effective at all?

education authority

Becoming an academy usually removes the requirement to abide by the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document which regulates employment in the Local Authority sector. This leaves little protection for staff.

Good grief.

Just realised that that may be a local saying, so apologies if that is a bad expression.

Heck may be better.

You really have led a sheltered life haven't you, soontobe?

I'm afraid that nothing has changed when it comes to the Conservatives wish to destroy the unions soontobe