The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

yes - it was an opportunity to have a poke at Starkey, though - and why waste such an opportunity!

people I know have done this also - I have no objection to that - it's not the idea that Gove is floating! I also strongly disagree with Monty that all good graduates should have a higher calling than high school teaching. I'm a graduate - and was for a very long time very tempted to become a maths teacher... if I were not doing my current job then teaching would be my next option - no question...

Educations loss. You'd make an awesome teacher.

I may not have been clear here. I assume all high school teachers have an undergraduate degree (B.A. of B. Ed.) as they do here. I was talking more about the brilliant graduate who goes on to advanced (post-graduate) study. The PhD is a requirement for all professors hired at my university. Nothing in my experience in the last forty plus years leads me to believe that having a doctoral degree makes one a good teacher. Rather the reverse. While there are good teachers at the University level, most are at best average and quite often more interested in research than in teaching. They do not understand students having difficulty with subjects that come easily to them, and they consider the onus is on the student to learn. It is different at the high school level where one deals with a whole range of student abilities (not just those who could get to university). Here the teacher needs a different set of skills, and have the ability to motivate and inspire. They also measure success quite differently. If a high school student fails, it may be perceived in part to be the teacher's fault because the principle role is to get students through and not to drop out. Conversely if university students fail it is their fault. Put another way, teaching at the university level is a profession, while teaching at the high school level is a vocation. I still don't think one should put people with PhDs to teaching high school, though I would certainly like to see well-motivated university graduates in the role.

I think must have been at crossed purposes. I was talking about good graduates who have just completed their undergraduate studies. What I like about Teach First is that it challenges that myth that graduates need to be absolutely fixed in what they want to do when they leave university. I think good people 'giving teaching a try', when they might not otherwise, is great for everyone involved.

[Montreal Wanderer]

yes - it was an opportunity to have a poke at Starkey, though - and why waste such an opportunity!

people I know have done this also - I have no objection to that - it's not the idea that Gove is floating! I also strongly disagree with Monty that all good graduates should have a higher calling than high school teaching. I'm a graduate - and was for a very long time very tempted to become a maths teacher... if I were not doing my current job then teaching would be my next option - no question...

Educations loss. You'd make an awesome teacher.

I may not have been clear here. I assume all high school teachers have an undergraduate degree (B.A. of B. Ed.) as they do here. I was talking more about the brilliant graduate who goes on to advanced (post-graduate) study. The PhD is a requirement for all professors hired at my university. Nothing in my experience in the last forty plus years leads me to believe that having a doctoral degree makes one a good teacher. Rather the reverse. While there are good teachers at the University level, most are at best average and quite often more interested in research than in teaching. They do not understand students having difficulty with subjects that come easily to them, and they consider the onus is on the student to learn. It is different at the high school level where one deals with a whole range of student abilities (not just those who could get to university). Here the teacher needs a different set of skills, and have the ability to motivate and inspire. They also measure success quite differently. If a high school student fails, it may be perceived in part to be the teacher's fault because the principle role is to get students through and not to drop out. Conversely if university students fail it is their fault. Put another way, teaching at the university level is a profession, while teaching at the high school level is a vocation. I still don't think one should put people with PhDs to teaching high school, though I would certainly like to see well-motivated university graduates in the role.

I think must have been at crossed purposes. I was talking about good graduates who have just completed their undergraduate studies. What I like about Teach First is that it challenges that myth that graduates need to be absolutely fixed in what they want to do when they leave university. I think good people 'giving teaching a try', when they might not otherwise, is great for everyone involved.

I'd certainly agree with this.

[Lord Kangana]

Great for everyone except perhaps for the pupils who they're "giving it a go" with, presumably? In a non-fnar sense, topically, you understand.

[William the White]

It's the £3k parental contribution that rather trips it up for me. Maybe an ordinary working family could manage that for one child... but then there's the sister... and the younger brother...

Not to mention the comp round the corner (the one that sent my last two kids to university)...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Great for everyone except perhaps for the pupils who they're "giving it a go" with, presumably? In a non-fnar sense, topically, you understand.

Well it is thought that the Teach First scheme as it runs now has been very good for pupils so far.

Anyway, of course there is no substitute for good experienced teachers and it has to be a mix.

But I do see getting better people into teaching as being an important challenge, as the profession has become relatively less attractive for good graduates over the last 30 years.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's the £3k parental contribution that rather trips it up for me. Maybe an ordinary working family could manage that for one child... but then there's the sister... and the younger brother...

Yes, I know this will always be a problem for you, as with all the other schools that charge much higher fees and are out of reach of far more people.

I am relaxed about this.

And I'm sure having several kids has an effect on everything a family on an ordinary income can afford.

Which is one major reason I wouldn't.

[thebish]

It's the £3k parental contribution that rather trips it up for me. Maybe an ordinary working family could manage that for one child... but then there's the sister... and the younger brother...

Yes, I know this will always be a problem for you, as with all the other schools that charge much higher fees and are out of reach of far more people.

I am relaxed about this.

And I'm sure having several kids has an effect on everything a family on an ordinary income can afford.

Which is one major reason I wouldn't.

there's always a chance of triplets....

[Lord Kangana]

It's the £3k parental contribution that rather trips it up for me. Maybe an ordinary working family could manage that for one child... but then there's the sister... and the younger brother...

Yes, I know this will always be a problem for you, as with all the other schools that charge much higher fees and are out of reach of far more people.

I am relaxed about this.

And I'm sure having several kids has an effect on everything a family on an ordinary income can afford.

Which is one major reason I wouldn't.

So just to clarify here, what you're proposing is a private business with a 70% government subsidy, then?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's the £3k parental contribution that rather trips it up for me. Maybe an ordinary working family could manage that for one child... but then there's the sister... and the younger brother...

Yes, I know this will always be a problem for you, as with all the other schools that charge much higher fees and are out of reach of far more people.

I am relaxed about this.

And I'm sure having several kids has an effect on everything a family on an ordinary income can afford.

Which is one major reason I wouldn't.

So just to clarify here, what you're proposing is a private business with a 70% government subsidy, then?

Sort of. But governments buy services from private companies all the time. Do we describe that as a 100% government subsidy?

[Lord Kangana]

Where the Civil Sevice buys its pencils from is a fundamentally different proposition to what you describe. That is for, ultimately, the benefit of all. You are asking for taxpayer funding for a school that will exclude based on the ability to pay. I assume you'd be pocketing the dividends yourself too?

[Hoboh]

Best get rid of the beds in my sheds I reckon otherwise I'll be paying the three grand fees!!!

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Where the Civil Sevice buys its pencils from is a fundamentally different proposition to what you describe. That is for, ultimately, the benefit of all. You are asking for taxpayer funding for a school that will exclude based on the ability to pay. I assume you'd be pocketing the dividends yourself too?

At the moment, the state says to every parent that it will spend £7k a year on their child's education - take it and you can't top it up, or leave it completely and spend north of £10k.

For me the prospect of a middle ground is interesting for families who can't afford the £10k plus fees for private schools.

[Lord Kangana]

Its still a subsidy, whichever way you put it. And again, should it go tits up it will be expected that taxpayers will pick up the tab. So, what you're proposing is a private business that is highly subsidised, and is guaranteed not to fail. I like it. Perhaps we should try it in other fields?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Its still a subsidy, whichever way you put it. And again, should it go tits up it will be expected that taxpayers will pick up the tab. So, what you're proposing is a private business that is highly subsidised, and is guaranteed not to fail. I like it. Perhaps we should try it in other fields?

I prefer to see it as a joint meeting of costs, rather than a technical subsidy as such, but I'm not too bothered. As I say, there occasions when the state buys things on behalf of its citizens and bears 100% of the cost... I don't find the giving citizens the option to add a bit and get something a bit better (as long as the free provision is still there for those that need it) objectionable.

It's a bit like NHS optical vouchers in my mind... perhaps you object to these too? http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcost ... costs.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If it goes tits up... I would expect the pupils to be accommodated in others schools, but not for the provider to be bailed out.

[Lord Kangana]

Yes, I think the NHS is being made into a body that you will love.

And who would own the property, the physical buildings? Books? Computers? Furnishings? Etc etc etc?

As for not caring if it went tits up, thats, I'm afraid to say, an idiotic and hubristic attitude to have towards other children's education.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

As for not caring if it went tits up, thats, I'm afraid to say, an idiotic and hubristic attitude to have towards other children's education.

I do care quite passionately, as it happens - but risk can be managed and mitigated once you know what it is. Some risk is acceptable and the consequences of taking no risk can be as bad as taking too much.

[Lord Kangana]

Risk is fine in areas aren't essential. Just as the government won't see old people turfed out on the streets because somebody wanted to make a fast buck, so they shouldn't allow it with schools. Your ideas may be well thought through, but they are incredibly naive. People don't go into business for altruistic reasons.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Risk is fine in areas aren't essential. Just as the government won't see old people turfed out on the streets because somebody wanted to make a fast buck, so they shouldn't allow it with schools. Your ideas may be well thought through, but they are incredibly naive. People don't go into business for altruistic reasons.

My ideas were, primarily, a sketched thought experiment to demonstrate that some things are better discussed than dismissed out of hand. As such, they are neither well thought through or naive.

[Lord Kangana]

Maybe not well thought through, but its still naive not to immediately see the glaring pitfalls.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Maybe not well thought through, but its still naive not to immediately see the glaring pitfalls.

I'm delighted to have achieved that concession.