How Long Will Free Schools be Free?

Is Nick Clegg naïve or just plain deliberately misleading under the ‘it’s not us; it’s the Tories’ umbrella? While he is saying the new free schools must be inclusive and not divisive, I can only think of the student fees fiasco and the broken promises made there.

Has he answered the question of why the first round of free schools is more or less in more affluent areas? No. Has he explained how he intends to force his issue if the Tories manipulate free schools to favour the wealthier parent? No. Should the Tories win the next election outright, how does he intend stopping them from allowing free schools to be profit motivated?  

The way the free schools legislation has been written facilitates this or a future government’s ability to make free schools elitist, based not on academic ability or need but on ability to pay. The way is paved to allow a future government to not just allow, but to insist they are profit motivated; education at a premium; and that could leave local authorities, who currently fund the free schools out of pocket. It is, as this administration is only too aware, almost impossible to reverse such actions.

Is that the plan? Fund free schools with tax payer’s money, then hand them over to their rich supporters to profit from them with little or no cost? And to put another nail in the coffin of local authorities, further weakening their financial position because they have funded the free schools?

Mr Clegg can wax lyrical all he wants about how he sees free schools working. But his party, which is itself divided on the issue, is a junior member of the coalition,  and I have to say once again that the student fees issue show us how much sway the LibDems really have in the coalition. Or if you want to be cynical, it shows us how the LibDems can espouse a cause, only to renege on it later, blaming the impositions of the coalition.

When the next round of free schools begins, in the less affluent areas, what happens if or when the poorer local authorities cannot afford to fund them? Does the coalition bring in private industry, with a profit motive? Or just leave them to decay, physically and intellectually.

Michael Gove has already said that the free school system did not need profit motive “at the moment”. Anybody who doesn’t believe that is political-speak for “its coming” is kidding themselves.

When asked on the Andrew Marr show about the future Michael Gove said "Well we're in a coalition now, and we're working to ensure that we get more free schools."  That avoided the question completely. It also suggests that while in the coalition, they will for now play the coalition game; but that plans are in place for a post coalition administration to change the rules.

At the moment, free schools are paid a premium for taking pupils from disadvantaged areas and backgrounds. When the inevitable private and profit motivated money comes in, that will change. The funders, shareholders, call them what you will are sure to demand the right to fund where and how they see fit and to run the ‘free’ schools to their (the shareholders) best advantage. And they will win, because if they don’t, the private money will dry up; no government could allow that to happen, and as I have already postulated, it will be very difficult for a future government to allow this to happen and reverse the free schools experiment. It is and will be a fait accompli.

But there is a more fundamental issue here. It is the issue of publicly funded industries being sold off, at frankly peppercorn prices to private industry. It is something the Tories have always done. Yet suggesting a privately owned utility, such as water should be returned to the public domain is met with cries of outrage; that it is unfair to investors and shareholders. Well stealing tax-funded public services to hand over to wealthy businessmen is, in my view at least equally abhorrent; and the more so for playing the shady game with education.

But my greatest fear, the thing that becomes more apparent by the week to me is the ultimate aim of government policy that subverts the will of the people; the intention to ensure that the working class, and to some extent the lower middle class receive poorer education and poorer health care, thus making them impotent in the face of authoritarian government; the idea of ensuring the jobs that retain the power to change the system stays with the rich elite from public schools, the mere mention of whose name opens doors.

It isn’t just in education and health care. It is in every aspect of government policy if considered as a whole, rather than considering each area of policy in isolation. It can be seen in the inaction of the police in the recent riots enabling government to promote draconian legislation that will affect us all, not just rioters. It can be seen in genetically modified food, the consumption of which could have effects of which we are not and cannot be aware. It is in the enforced fluoridisation of water, with industrial waste, not the supposedly beneficial, clean fluoride government pronouncements would have us believe are used. It is in the dumbing down of planning legislation from 1,000 to 52 pages, with the possibility of ancient woodland and green belt land being exploited by wealthy developers; and who enjoys this land? Yes, you and me, the ordinary folk. What will be the long term affects on health when trips to the countryside are no longer possible? And what is the point of the right to roam if there is nowhere to go?

Of course, the rich will still have their large homes and adjoining land to enjoy.

As Joni Mitchell sang- “They paved paradise, to put up a parking lot”

Maybe we’ll be lucky. Perhaps they’ll take “all the trees and put ‘em in a tree museum”.  Wonder how much they’ll charge us to get in?

TOP STUDENTS EXPANSION PLAN 'COULD HIT SOCIAL MOBILITY'

BBC News reports that the rules on student admissions are to be relaxed to allow universities to accept more high achieving students. This is likely to result in fewer places for poorer students.

So there we have it- social mobility- if you can afford it. For those that question this statement on the grounds that it is based on ability, not income then I make the case that the wealthier you are, the better the education your children are likely to receive. Not just because you can live in wealthier areas that tend to have better schools but because it is easier for you to travel further to better schools. And of course, wealthier parents can afford private tuition and public school fees.

If this government is dedicated to social mobility and a fair education system then it is high time they took that education away from privatisation and back into the hands of the state. Let a politician's child have the same options as a labourer's child. This should not be a fear for the politician- or any other parent. If their child is truly gifted, they will excel in any system.

NICK CLEGG ATTACKS OXBRIDGE

What a laugh! The coalition increases tuition fees to £9,000 and Nick Clegg, Mr. Trustworthy himself then lambasts Oxford and Cambridge for having the audacity to charge £9,000 tuition fees!

Does he think this attack on the institutions he and his fellow conspirators gave the rise to will win him brownie points with students; or with any of us, for that matter?

If, as he claims, the universities can't decide tuition fees, then who will? And saying they need to open their doors to poorer students is ridiculous. This is only reasonable if the poorer students have the academic ability to study at that level. And if they do then there should be an open door policy irrespective of fees.

But the whole education strategy is designed to see that poorer students- or prospective students- stay that way, with a poorer education to match which will see far fewer at any university.  Nice big pool of uneducated unemployed to hold down wages and keep us in fear of our jobs.

I call for us to stop calling ourselves 'working class' and start to use the more accurate 'mostly unemployed class'.

Who’d be a Teacher?

According to a BBC report new teachers cannot find secure jobs. Welcome to the real world. Ordinary workers haven't had job security for three decades. This is a result of the new world economy where profit supersedes people.

However, I must ask what the problem is? If the current advertisements on T.V. are to be believed, a teacher can expect a starting salary of £30,000 a year. Not bad, in my book. I wish somebody would offer me that sort of money for working my butt off in a manual job. So O.K., the issue seems to be they can't get these jobs. But the report goes on to say that 95% of newly trained teachers find temporary or supply work. Assuming temporary means short term contracts and assuming that as in real-world jobs this means showing ability, commitment and reliability results in an offer of a permanent position the onus is on them to show they are worthy of such consideration. As for supply teachers, I see advertised supply positions paying £100 a day and more. I would be happy to seek work as a supply plastics moulding technician at £100 a day.

What do they want? Jam on it?

Brave New World

In these times of 'restraint' isn't it amazing the British government has found another £32.9 billion to put into Lloyds and RBS?

Why is it only we ordinary, poor folk have to tighten our belts and have public services slashed?

It seems to me if I squander my money; pay myself more than I am worth for failing in my job or fiddle my expenses I need only be sure I am already extremely wealthy or a public official to have UK Government PLC bail me out or turn a blind eye.

Where was the funding for Rover, LDV etc and where is the funding for the Royal Mail to keep people in jobs and maintain a state owned and managed mail? Or is keeping people in jobs, particularly service jobs diametrically opposed to the Government view of Great Britain LTD where we are all stockbrokers or bankers?

Of course, we cannot all be financial wizards and so must ask what is to become of those not inclined to such careers? I suggest you look at the veneer of the education system, purporting to make a good education available to all. The best education still goes to the wealthiest. Poke a little more through the thin skin of the education system and you will see that even a mediocre education is being priced out of the reach of ordinary people. With tuition fees and student loans (soon to be sold off to the highest bidder) families either reliant on benefits or in low paid jobs one can see that further education will soon be the domain of the elite. The producers of wealth (that's you and me) will be consigned to a life of drudgery and want. And our ability to advance reasonable argument against such inequality is severely curtailed by our lack of education.

Welcome to our Brave New World.

Careers Advice for Seven-Year-Olds

The government now wants to give careers advice and introduce university to 7 year olds.

What a ridiculous idea. Children need to be allowed to be children. Better focus on discipline and teaching children to be able to read, write and do basic mathematics before moving to high school. That is the place to introduce them to careers advice and the aspiration of university.

But if we look closely, this is just another 'seen to be doing something' scheme by the government which I believe will do little for children, education or employment.

Indeed, I suggest it may have the opposite effect, that of reducing aspirations because children feel pressurised and 'switch off'.

Considering, also that there just is not and probably never again will be such a thing as full employment, we are setting up young children to fail, the effects of which could be devastating both at a personal and socio-economic level.

And what do we tell the children who we convince university is the career path for them, those this idea is focused toward from deprived backgrounds, when they find they cannot afford to go to university?

Once again I see a proposal that on the face of it appears to be advantageous to the disadvantaged, but the result will be the opposite. The education and aspirations of those people will be reduced, leaving an underclass that can more easily be controlled.

I suggest to the government another way, if better education and greater aspiration is the aim. First, we invest in real jobs that produce goods people want. Pay a decent wage and allow employees the right to negotiate better conditions. Then we will find more children in families where the mother can afford to stay at home to raise children. We will have a generation of children growing up in a working household and will see that as the norm, rather than benefits and low esteem.

And you never know, contrary to popular belief that high wages cause inflation and cripple the economy, all this extra money to spend and being spent might actually stimulate and strengthen the economy, truly bringing prosperity to all.

Truancy at Record Level

According to this report, truancy is at record levels. Not really surprising when I know of at least three local children who have not attended school since they were 14 and are not in any other educational program as they are regularly seen walking the streets. Nothing, it seems is being done.

This despite the report 'Truancy jailing every two weeks' because it certainly is not happening round here. Or if it is happening, it isn't having any effect.

When I see three girls from the same street leave education at 13/14 because they are pregnant, I have to wonder at the society our de-regulation and liberalism is creating. And of those three, only one prosecution. Then it was only the father, despite him being invited to stay in the family home by the parents.

We should bring back the 'wagman' who instilled fear in children and parents alike when I was at school. With today's digital connectivity an unauthorized absence report from each school could be sent to the LEA or a local communication point who can then send Mr. 'Wagman' to the house to question the parents and assess whether the child is legitimately off school or 'wagging it', with or without the parents consent. Appropriate action should then be taken.

Or is this, together with student loans, tuition fees etc. another part of the educational 'dumbing down' plan to keep us in our place?

Let's face it. If we don't enforce the law and educate the children, they won't grow up to be a thorn in the government's side.

That could be New Labours election cry. 'You'll never miss what you never had. And if you had it, you shouldn't have.'

Finland makes broadband a legal right

Finland makes broadband a legal right for its citizens. Uruguay gives a laptop to every primary school pupil with plans to extend the provision to older schoolchildren next year. What are we doing in Britain? Arguing over whether formal education should start at five or at six years old.

I have theory about education in Britain. That there is a state conspiracy to see its people less well educated to better suit them to the totalitarian state the major parties seem to be inching toward.

While more and more of us go on to college or university, the quality of education seems to be falling. At the same time, the cost of higher education is being put beyond the reach of ordinary people. And this is done by the people who got where they are through free higher education paid for by the taxes of our parents and grandparents.

There have only been two major and successful revolutions in the UK. In 1215 when the Barons forced King John to sign Magna Carta and the English civil war. This is because the rulers, be they king or commoner, elected or appointed have known not to push too hard. Because the British people are essentially loyal, forgiving and accommodating. But the two instances stated show we will not be pushed too hard or too far.

Watchdog to get tough on Health Service

I am heartily fed up of this government, and its predecessor introducing quangos, watchdogs, monitors and other sundry employment agencies for their pals. While they remain above investigation, or as the recent expenses scandal shows, above consequences they pass laws, introduce working practices and force unnecessary, inadequate and untrained managers onto services that by definition cannot be run on monetary disciplines. Then blame the services, not the restrictions introduced by the managers for failing to meet the targets imposed on them.

Business Managers for Schools

Schools minister Vernon Coaker says a business manager could help schools ride out the recession, claiming they could save schools thousands of pounds per year.

The claim is that they can save head teachers up to 20% of their time to devote to teaching.

Well, I think it is just another bureaucrat creating bureaucracy to give jobs to the boys.

Margaret Thatcher did this in the 1980's. While she destroyed manufacturing, she created thousands of non-jobs paying intellectuals huge salaries to sort out finances and to manage in the National Health Service. Most weren't worried about people. The onus was on cutting costs. We've all seen the result of that.

Not only is this an issue, but also the move to privatise public service industries by the back door by introducing such jobs. Once the principle of 'business management' is accepted, we are on our way to privatising education. And isn't it odd that this idea has been thought up at a time when the government is meeting strong opposition to their attempt to introduce private academies?

Here are a few figures I have put together. Not scientific or statistically accurate. But accurate enough, I believe to give some idea of what we are heading towards. I got my figures by a Google search any one of you could try.

 

	Average Salary	Minimum Salary	20% of Salary
Head Teacher	£ 100,000.00	£ 70,000.00	£ 20,000.00	£ 14,000.00
Business Manager	£ 50,000.00	£ 25,000.00

 

So you can see that even paying a business manager the minimum salary of £25,000, while saving 20% of the average salary of £100,000 of a head teacher (£20,000), the difference is £5,000 which presumably the business manager will have to save (cut) from the budget just to break even.

Pupils are already buying their own books. Where will it come from? Education is non-profit making and one of the most important public services we have. Do we want to see it brought to its knees like the health service?

So is this just another 'jobs for the boys' and/or a 'make it look like we're doing something' exercise?

Either way, we have seen what managers did to the health service. Do we want it to happen to our schools?

 

Dumb Policy Department

Where does this government get its ideas from? Does it have a 'dumb policy department' hidden away? They now want to teach sex education in primary schools. Apart from allowing children to be children for a few years at least, can't they see that when sex education was made compulsory for 11 year olds we saw an explosion in teenage pregnancy to the point it is now the norm?