Sunday:
Anyone who ever talks to Captain Clegg will tell you this about him: he is PASSIONATE about tackling the root causes of the big freeze in social mobility. You cannot get him to shut up about the subject. And, for him, this means getting in at the earliest possible moment to give the bright-but-poor as much opportunity as the comfortably-off.
So the Government is pleased to announce the Liberal Democrat's PUPIL PREMIUM will start this year at an ADDITIONAL £430 per pupil for every family earning less than £16,000.
To put that in context, that's about an extra 7% on top of the money per pupil that the government gives already.
Remember, that money per pupil is NOT being cut. It is being kept the same. Yes, you might say that there is INFLATION to consider: this money won't go as far next year when things cost more, so that's what we call a "real terms cut". (Where "real terms" means not actually a "real" cut ; it just feels like one.) But remember too that that will be largely offset by freezing public sector pay (including teachers), because salaries, obviously, form the largest part of what the education spending is spent on.
So it's not exactly TRUE to claim that the pupil premium "robs Peter to pay Paul". It would be more accurate to say that Paul gets an increase but Peter doesn't.
And ANYWAY, is it necessarily BAD to rob Peter to pay Paul when Peter is (by the very definition of the pupil premium) BETTER OFF than Paul to begin with. Is that not what we have a PROGRESSIVE tax and benefits system FOR? If anything, this EXAGGERATES the ENHANCEMENT for the least well off.
Look, I'm not, on the whole, in favour of the "levelling down" approach to social inequality favoured by the "just tax the rich more" brigade, but in this instance is it not the case that we are asking those with broader shoulders to bear the greater share of the cuts while those in most need are given a leg up to help them reach the same opportunities?
A secondary criticism of the pupil premium seems to come from the IFS report saying that "gains from this policy will only be modest". As a criticism, this appears to focus rather too much on the word "modest" and not enough on the word "gains". If someone were proposing a scheme that offered BETTER gains (IM-modest gains?) then it would be valid as a critique, but it seems that here we have a choice between the pupil premium that DOES offer a gain and doing nothing which DOESN'T.
If the hypothetical better scheme existed, you can bet that Captain Clegg would be advocating THAT. But it doesn't which is why he is proposing THIS. Without getting all ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT on you, a scheme that has the flaw of NOT EXISTING cannot be as good as one that does!
This last week we've been accused of cutting opportunities for working class and less-well-off people by increasing the cost of going to university.
I don't actually agree with that.
University funding is being PROTECTED in the fairest way we could devise even though the economic crisis means that the taxpayer will be paying one third LESS.
You probably keep hearing the opposition claim that we are CUTTING university money by 80%, while the Government says that the ratio of funding will ONLY be changing from 60% paid by the taxpayer and 40% paid by the students to the other way around. I thought about this and realised that it IS possible for both of these statements to be TRUE: if you have £1000 of funding, at the moment £600 comes from taxation; but not all of that is spent on TEACHING, rather a lot will be spent on RESEARCH. It's just a guess, but say £350 goes on research and £250 on teaching. But the Government has agreed to PROTECT the research funding. So under the NEW arrangement, the taxpayer ponies up 40% or £400, but the University STILL spends £350 on research, meaning that the money spent on teaching goes down from £250 to just £50, which IS an 80% cut. So the opposition claim can be both TRUE and MISLEADING at the same time, because they are only talking about one SLICE of the money. (To be fair: calling it a switch from 60:40 to 40:60 is spinning a 33% cut too!)
(NB: this is just an EXAMPLE to show how the figures COULD work. Variations are possible depending on the real mix of research and teaching spending, and there could be other costs, maybe admin or maintenance and so on, to consider also, but the solution must be something like this to account for the figures used by both sides.)
And you might have noticed that the opposition have already ROWED BACK from saying that the MONEY COST of the Coalition tuition fees policy will dissuade less-well-off people from going to university (probably because their own graduate tax proposals are so similar in effect), and they've fallen back to saying that the PERCEPTION of the huge debt will have a chilling effect. (And I'm not saying that they might not have a point there, although one of the things that is DOING the chilling is the opposition and the NUS banging on about how DAUNTING the debt will be!).
But clearly this Pupil Premium is a big step forward to proving that we DO want to increase opportunity for all.
And it's another LIBERAL DEMOCRAT policy DELIVERED.
.
Showing posts with label Schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schools. Show all posts
Monday, December 13, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Day 3550: Freak Schools
Monday:
The BIG controversy of the week – at least according to the meeja – was the policy motion saying: "We think Free Schools stink". I paraphrase. A bit.
Having made ONE speech (collecting MY Blogger of the Year Prize) and then gotten his face on the telly asking Captain Clegg a question ("do you agree with Vince"; pitch him a HARD one why don't you) my normally shy Daddy Richard seems to have gone a bit CRAZED for the limelight and submitted a speaker's card.
To make matters even WORSE, he thought he have a go a speaking AGAINST!
Don't panic, this wasn't Coalition-loyalty gone MAD; it was the USUAL reason for attacking a policy at Lib Dem Conference: it wasn't Liberal ENOUGH!
The central thrust of the motion was contained in lines 16 and 17 which say:
Basically an instruction to all Liberal Democrats, but especially those in local authorities, to scupper the implementation of the Coalition policy. i.e. it's fine to have Free Schools on the statute book so long as we don't let anyone ever USE them.
(Incidentally, Mr Evan was a LITTLE bit naughty in his remark that this was "just" "calling on" people to do this as if this was merely a suggestion, when he knows perfectly well that "calls on" is conference language for "conference says you WILL do this", not "conference says you might like to do this". Having said that, I suspect most Liberal Democrat ministers will use exactly that loophole to totally ignore the motion.)
The second of two amendments submitted was clearly aimed at substantially watering down this main thrust, starting by deleting those powerful lines 16 and 17 and all that followed, and although it restated the risks more clearly, it replaced that command with a softer:
The first amendment, by the way, was to add a further RISK to the table of BAD THINGS that Free Schools might cause, namely a risk of increasing RELIGIOUS divisions, clearly for people worried about Faith Schools
There were more than seventy cards put in and so Daddy's was NOT one of the ones called, but here's what he WOULD have said:
Anyway, in spite of Daddy's dramatic NON-INTERVENTION, the motion was passed by a huge majority (amended with the FIRST amendment on Faith Schools, but not the SECOND amendment that watered it down).
Now, you may very well think that that is a silly thing to do, passing motions that won't really change anything, but of course is DOES change something: it changes the way that the Liberal Democrat conference members felt about THEMSELVES.
When we all arrived in Liverpool we were all, quite separately, worrying away about what the Coalition really MEANT. All of us, every single one, were pretty sure that WE were still Liberal Democrats, but what about everyone else? Was it TRUE what the Hard Labour chorus have been hooting all summer about us being ABSORBED by the Conservatories? Would we find ourselves alone among a breed of POD PEOPLE?
Getting to Conference, the first thing that happened was that we all SHARED these worries; but the SECOND thing that happened was that we all CARRIED ON BEHAVING LIKE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.
Passing the motion opposing Mr Borogrove's silly policy was a way for us to come together and say "we are STILL the Party of Liberal Democracy".
And that is why, or ONE of the reasons why, by the END of the week, the Party was feeling much better about itself.
.
The BIG controversy of the week – at least according to the meeja – was the policy motion saying: "We think Free Schools stink". I paraphrase. A bit.
Having made ONE speech (collecting MY Blogger of the Year Prize) and then gotten his face on the telly asking Captain Clegg a question ("do you agree with Vince"; pitch him a HARD one why don't you) my normally shy Daddy Richard seems to have gone a bit CRAZED for the limelight and submitted a speaker's card.
To make matters even WORSE, he thought he have a go a speaking AGAINST!
Don't panic, this wasn't Coalition-loyalty gone MAD; it was the USUAL reason for attacking a policy at Lib Dem Conference: it wasn't Liberal ENOUGH!
The central thrust of the motion was contained in lines 16 and 17 which say:
In relation to 'free schools', conference calls on all Liberal Democrats to urge people not to take up this option…and then go on to list all the BAD things that might be a RISK if Free Schools go ahead.
Basically an instruction to all Liberal Democrats, but especially those in local authorities, to scupper the implementation of the Coalition policy. i.e. it's fine to have Free Schools on the statute book so long as we don't let anyone ever USE them.
(Incidentally, Mr Evan was a LITTLE bit naughty in his remark that this was "just" "calling on" people to do this as if this was merely a suggestion, when he knows perfectly well that "calls on" is conference language for "conference says you WILL do this", not "conference says you might like to do this". Having said that, I suspect most Liberal Democrat ministers will use exactly that loophole to totally ignore the motion.)
The second of two amendments submitted was clearly aimed at substantially watering down this main thrust, starting by deleting those powerful lines 16 and 17 and all that followed, and although it restated the risks more clearly, it replaced that command with a softer:
urges Liberal Democrat Parliamentarians to work within governmentwhich is both less vocative and rather more touchy-feely Coalition compromise-ive.
The first amendment, by the way, was to add a further RISK to the table of BAD THINGS that Free Schools might cause, namely a risk of increasing RELIGIOUS divisions, clearly for people worried about Faith Schools
There were more than seventy cards put in and so Daddy's was NOT one of the ones called, but here's what he WOULD have said:
Conference, I'm wary of this free schools idea. I'm sure we all are.
But I don't think this motion makes a clear case for why we should be wary or what we should do about it.
Are we wary because it's the Tories?
We all know Free Schools are a Tory totem, something to flourish at their voters, maybe even more importantly at their backbenchers, rushed through the House because, well, because the Tories didn't actually have so many policies and free school were a big visible marker to announce they had arrived
But are we using this motion just to prove we're different? Because that's gesture politics. And I'd like to make that gesture to the Tories too, but it's not a good enough reason for making policy.
Are we wary because of our principles?
Because if we are the motion doesn't say so.
I'm right there with Freedom from Ignorance, but I want us to remember Freedom from Conformity too. We don't know all the answers and I'd rather we put our efforts into making sure resources go to those who need them than stopping other people from trying something new that might work better.
Are we wary because we're too used to used to running local government and this takes us out of our comfort zone?
We are the party of handing power back to people and Conference Free Schools does hand power back to people. If we want to be about giving power away it means giving our power away too.
Are we wary because of the money? Because this as the motion says risks:
"Creating surplus places which is prejudicial to efficient use of resources in a time of austerity"
That's a good reason right now. But alarm bells start to ring. It sounds like we don't just mean for now, but for always.
And I don't agree with that.
I don't think it is wrong to create a surplus of places, and I object to the idea we should be placing the emphasis on efficiency.
When I think of education, I want to think of opportunity first, not efficiency
Conference, efficiency is the enemy of choice.
A perfectly efficient system has exactly as many places as there are pupils and no choices at all.
If you want pupils to have genuine choices, you are going to have to have some surplus places.
I think with this motion we're in danger of missing the point. What is wrong with free schools is not that they create surplus places, but that they risk creating surplus places for people who already have plenty of choice.
Like the movers of amendment one, I'm suspicious of faith schools and the possibility of increasing social divisions.
But I don't think the answer is to reduce parents options.
I think that people end up sending their kids to faith schools because they have too few choices, not because they have too many.
Conference, I wish I could recommend the much better-drafted amendment two, but it contains the same problem, the same emphasis on efficiency not choice, so I'm going to say I'm against the motion.
We don't need to make this Tory policy a whipping boy to prove we are different. We're better than that. So, let's go back and come up with a better Liberal critique so we can make Free Schools into Schools of Opportunity!
Anyway, in spite of Daddy's dramatic NON-INTERVENTION, the motion was passed by a huge majority (amended with the FIRST amendment on Faith Schools, but not the SECOND amendment that watered it down).
Now, you may very well think that that is a silly thing to do, passing motions that won't really change anything, but of course is DOES change something: it changes the way that the Liberal Democrat conference members felt about THEMSELVES.
When we all arrived in Liverpool we were all, quite separately, worrying away about what the Coalition really MEANT. All of us, every single one, were pretty sure that WE were still Liberal Democrats, but what about everyone else? Was it TRUE what the Hard Labour chorus have been hooting all summer about us being ABSORBED by the Conservatories? Would we find ourselves alone among a breed of POD PEOPLE?
Getting to Conference, the first thing that happened was that we all SHARED these worries; but the SECOND thing that happened was that we all CARRIED ON BEHAVING LIKE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.
Passing the motion opposing Mr Borogrove's silly policy was a way for us to come together and say "we are STILL the Party of Liberal Democracy".
And that is why, or ONE of the reasons why, by the END of the week, the Party was feeling much better about itself.
PS:
Yes, of COURSE Daddy Alex wrote the speech for Daddy Richard – or "script edited" it as he insists; you don't think Daddy Richard can WRITE, do you?.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Day 3477: An Education
Friday:
Poor Mr Michael Borogove! He once said he would willingly give up his seat in the Cabinet so that Mr David Laws could get a place. Looks like this might be his opportunity…
It's been a bit of a week for the schools minister, cutting this, cocking-up that, and now getting a pasting from Hard Labour's Mr Bully Balls in a rant about all those cancelled school repairs.
What no one seems to have asked, though, is WHY, after thirteen years of "Education, education, education", do we still HAVE one in five school schools in desperate need of rebuilding?
If it really MATTERED to Hard Labour… why hadn't they done it already?
Of course, the funny thing about the "Building Schools for the Future" program is that it was a scheme to rebuild every single school in the country. Every single one.
Were they really ALL about to fall down where they stood, or was there some hint that this might in fact have been an enormous VANITY PROJECT on the part of a certain senior government figure known only as the then Chancellor who wished to remain anonymous? So long as he got all the credit. And none of it went to Tony.
Mr Bully Balls says that these cuts to school rebuilding are to be recycled to fund Mr Borogove's "unfair ideological experiment", as though there's nothing "ideological" about rebuilding every school in the country whether they want it or not.
How can these cuts fall "unfairly" on Labour constituencies? Why surely only if the building programmes had been unfairly dolled out to Labour constituencies in the first place.
Look, you do have to admit that Mr Borogove's Free Schools ideas are a bit WACKY! Just at the time when his Conservatory Chum Mr Eric "In a" Pickles has been saying local authorities should save money by pooling their support services, Mr Borogove is saying that schools should GIVE UP pooling of support from their local education authority and go it alone.
Still who said ideology had to be consistent so long as local authorities are getting less power – passing it down to schools, handing it up to efficiency savings, what's the difference?
But it's hardly fair of Hard Labour to criticise him for THAT. After all, letting parents and businesses set up "Free Schools" is not that different to Lord Blairimort's City McAcademies with the Christian Fundamentalists filed off.
Nor am I completely convinced by shrill protests that parents setting up new schools will be "taking away money from existing schools". Um, yes, but they'll be taking away PUPILS as well, won't they? Wasn't that kind of the POINT of Hard Labour's own choice agenda – money follows the pupils: bad schools get fewer kids get less money. Or is Mr Balls condemning the education policy of, um, Mr Balls?
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again: you can have CHOICE or you can have EFFICIENCY but you can't have BOTH. A perfectly efficient education system has exactly as many places for pupils as there are pupils. So imagine you are the last pupil to be placed: there's only going to be one place left – so you can't have a CHOICE.
Or if everyone's going to have a choice, then you have to have some spare places left over, and that's just not efficient.
And frankly, who WANTS to be perfectly efficient, anyway? Oh yes, sorry, worst recession ever blah blah blah, stick with the programme.
Hard Labour are really keen as mustard to pretend that we DON'T have to try and fix this great big hole that they've whacked through the bottom of the economy as though the cold waters of an over-extended metaphor were not already flooding in.
They want to say that the Coalition are offering a FALSE DICHOTOMY between cuts now or ruinous economic consequences.
But actually that's a FALSE false dichotomy.
For every year from 2001 onwards, come rain or shine, Mr Frown SPENT more than he RAISED in taxes. For every year, good or bad, he INCREASED the amount that we borrowed.
It's no GOOD saying: "It's not our fault, it was the bankers!" Sure, at the end, the bankers really blew the roof off, but we were on the road to ruin LOOOOOOONG before that.
(And it's not like Hard Labour policy – being "intensely relaxed" about the City getting "filthy rich" – contributed NOTHING to the whole "bet the farm on red and let her riiiiide!" attitude…)
We really DO have to do something about this, and BEFORE the election, even Hard Labour admitted it.
But now, every cut is a BAD cut, every choice is the WRONG choice. The escalating whines of "we wouldn't have done it like that" are only exceeded by the deafening silence about what they WOULD have done instead.
Hard Labour did actually LOSE the election and it would show a little GRACE if they would just accept that people chose austerity NOW rather than running up more DEBTS for LATER.
Instead, this refusal to accept that Hard Labour's policies have been REJECTED by the voters is making them sound like SPOILED BABIES.
Worse, when voters vote "YES" to "time for a change", it means "leave it the way it was" is really NOT a credible alternative. Which means that Hard Labour haven't actually GOT any policies at all.
At least not beyond spitting "TRAITOR!!!!" at the Liberal Democrats in a way that confirms everyone's suspicions about why we SHOULDN'T have had a coalition with selfish deluded THEM!
Mr Balls may THINK that brazenly honking about how "Mr Borogove will DECIMATE the education service" SOUNDS good, but it just doesn't make SENSE!
"Decimate" means "reduce by one tenth" (yes, I've seen "Last of the Time Lords"), and that's merely the LEAST of Mr Borogove's options.
Hang on, I'm not helping…
I think it would be a good idea to lower the rhetoric on BOTH sides a bit.
If the Coalition could maybe agree to STOP saying how Labour "spent all the money" and "there's none left" every five minutes, perhaps Labour could agree that they will stop saying that every SINGLE thing the Coalition does is BOUND to cause a double-dip recession and sixty-million people in perpetual unemployment.
Not least because what's the POINT?
I'm sure it makes THEM feel a lot better about being such BAD LOSERS, but it won't benefit them at the election in five years: if they're right they'll win anyway, and no amount of "we told you so" will make them look anything other than SMUG about the misery of people they're supposed to represent; if they're wrong, they'll no doubt deny everything anyway. And in the meantime, all they're doing is spreading fear and misery.
So let's all just drop it.
Then Labour could go away and have their leadership contest and actually decide some POLICIES; and the Coalition can have some time to see if the policies THEY are trying are any good or not.
And then we might ALL learn something.
.
Poor Mr Michael Borogove! He once said he would willingly give up his seat in the Cabinet so that Mr David Laws could get a place. Looks like this might be his opportunity…
It's been a bit of a week for the schools minister, cutting this, cocking-up that, and now getting a pasting from Hard Labour's Mr Bully Balls in a rant about all those cancelled school repairs.
What no one seems to have asked, though, is WHY, after thirteen years of "Education, education, education", do we still HAVE one in five school schools in desperate need of rebuilding?
If it really MATTERED to Hard Labour… why hadn't they done it already?
Of course, the funny thing about the "Building Schools for the Future" program is that it was a scheme to rebuild every single school in the country. Every single one.
Were they really ALL about to fall down where they stood, or was there some hint that this might in fact have been an enormous VANITY PROJECT on the part of a certain senior government figure known only as the then Chancellor who wished to remain anonymous? So long as he got all the credit. And none of it went to Tony.
Mr Bully Balls says that these cuts to school rebuilding are to be recycled to fund Mr Borogove's "unfair ideological experiment", as though there's nothing "ideological" about rebuilding every school in the country whether they want it or not.
How can these cuts fall "unfairly" on Labour constituencies? Why surely only if the building programmes had been unfairly dolled out to Labour constituencies in the first place.
Look, you do have to admit that Mr Borogove's Free Schools ideas are a bit WACKY! Just at the time when his Conservatory Chum Mr Eric "In a" Pickles has been saying local authorities should save money by pooling their support services, Mr Borogove is saying that schools should GIVE UP pooling of support from their local education authority and go it alone.
Still who said ideology had to be consistent so long as local authorities are getting less power – passing it down to schools, handing it up to efficiency savings, what's the difference?
But it's hardly fair of Hard Labour to criticise him for THAT. After all, letting parents and businesses set up "Free Schools" is not that different to Lord Blairimort's City McAcademies with the Christian Fundamentalists filed off.
Nor am I completely convinced by shrill protests that parents setting up new schools will be "taking away money from existing schools". Um, yes, but they'll be taking away PUPILS as well, won't they? Wasn't that kind of the POINT of Hard Labour's own choice agenda – money follows the pupils: bad schools get fewer kids get less money. Or is Mr Balls condemning the education policy of, um, Mr Balls?
I've said it before and I'll probably say it again: you can have CHOICE or you can have EFFICIENCY but you can't have BOTH. A perfectly efficient education system has exactly as many places for pupils as there are pupils. So imagine you are the last pupil to be placed: there's only going to be one place left – so you can't have a CHOICE.
Or if everyone's going to have a choice, then you have to have some spare places left over, and that's just not efficient.
And frankly, who WANTS to be perfectly efficient, anyway? Oh yes, sorry, worst recession ever blah blah blah, stick with the programme.
Hard Labour are really keen as mustard to pretend that we DON'T have to try and fix this great big hole that they've whacked through the bottom of the economy as though the cold waters of an over-extended metaphor were not already flooding in.
They want to say that the Coalition are offering a FALSE DICHOTOMY between cuts now or ruinous economic consequences.
But actually that's a FALSE false dichotomy.
For every year from 2001 onwards, come rain or shine, Mr Frown SPENT more than he RAISED in taxes. For every year, good or bad, he INCREASED the amount that we borrowed.
It's no GOOD saying: "It's not our fault, it was the bankers!" Sure, at the end, the bankers really blew the roof off, but we were on the road to ruin LOOOOOOONG before that.
(And it's not like Hard Labour policy – being "intensely relaxed" about the City getting "filthy rich" – contributed NOTHING to the whole "bet the farm on red and let her riiiiide!" attitude…)
We really DO have to do something about this, and BEFORE the election, even Hard Labour admitted it.
But now, every cut is a BAD cut, every choice is the WRONG choice. The escalating whines of "we wouldn't have done it like that" are only exceeded by the deafening silence about what they WOULD have done instead.
Hard Labour did actually LOSE the election and it would show a little GRACE if they would just accept that people chose austerity NOW rather than running up more DEBTS for LATER.
Instead, this refusal to accept that Hard Labour's policies have been REJECTED by the voters is making them sound like SPOILED BABIES.
Worse, when voters vote "YES" to "time for a change", it means "leave it the way it was" is really NOT a credible alternative. Which means that Hard Labour haven't actually GOT any policies at all.
At least not beyond spitting "TRAITOR!!!!" at the Liberal Democrats in a way that confirms everyone's suspicions about why we SHOULDN'T have had a coalition with selfish deluded THEM!
Mr Balls may THINK that brazenly honking about how "Mr Borogove will DECIMATE the education service" SOUNDS good, but it just doesn't make SENSE!
"Decimate" means "reduce by one tenth" (yes, I've seen "Last of the Time Lords"), and that's merely the LEAST of Mr Borogove's options.
Hang on, I'm not helping…
I think it would be a good idea to lower the rhetoric on BOTH sides a bit.
If the Coalition could maybe agree to STOP saying how Labour "spent all the money" and "there's none left" every five minutes, perhaps Labour could agree that they will stop saying that every SINGLE thing the Coalition does is BOUND to cause a double-dip recession and sixty-million people in perpetual unemployment.
Not least because what's the POINT?
I'm sure it makes THEM feel a lot better about being such BAD LOSERS, but it won't benefit them at the election in five years: if they're right they'll win anyway, and no amount of "we told you so" will make them look anything other than SMUG about the misery of people they're supposed to represent; if they're wrong, they'll no doubt deny everything anyway. And in the meantime, all they're doing is spreading fear and misery.
So let's all just drop it.
Then Labour could go away and have their leadership contest and actually decide some POLICIES; and the Coalition can have some time to see if the policies THEY are trying are any good or not.
And then we might ALL learn something.
.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Day 3341: Teaching The Facts of Balls
Tuesday:
Special Guest Diary from Sister Apocalypstic of the Convent of the Little Sisters of Reductio ad Absurdum.
Thanks to the forthcoming General Election, the Government is hoping to BRIBE Catholic voters with another SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, and therefore Sister A is allowed to write in a way that reflects the character of her religion…
Mr Ed Balls is NOT the School Bully.
.
Special Guest Diary from Sister Apocalypstic of the Convent of the Little Sisters of Reductio ad Absurdum.
Thanks to the forthcoming General Election, the Government is hoping to BRIBE Catholic voters with another SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, and therefore Sister A is allowed to write in a way that reflects the character of her religion…
Children,The Liberal Democrats are opposed to HOMOPHOBIC PANDAS. Spokesperson Mr David Laws said: "bless you Sister."
Today, the Secretary of State for Schools – who is a WICKED sinner – has decreed that I have to talk to you about the TERRIBLE things that so called HO-MO-SEXUAL MEN do with each other.
Well, children: they BURN IN HELL TOGETHER, that's what!
Mr Ed Balls is NOT the School Bully.
.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Day 2725: Make More of Maths
Tuesday:
In the light of the "Reform" Think Tank's pamphlet saying that we'd all be nine BILLION quid better off if we learned more MATHS, the Government is to send Champions of Mathematics into schools to try and improve things. And probably to fight SKELETOR and his Warriors of Innumeracy.
Mr Simon Jenkins writes in the Grauniad to deride the need for maths saying no one ever needs it. Well no one NEEDS to study "Hamlet" or the causes of the English Civil War, but that doesn't mean that studying them isn't a good thing in and of itself.
Learning and the HABIT of learning are GOOD things and to be encouraged.
Meanwhile, the "No SH…stuff Sherlock" award goes to the discovery by Ofsted that tests are boring.
Liberal Democrats would cut the number of tests getting rid of pointless testing at seven and fourteen and slimming down the national curriculum so that schools are able to EDUCATE rather than merely train pupils to jump through the next Ministry hoop.
In the light of the "Reform" Think Tank's pamphlet saying that we'd all be nine BILLION quid better off if we learned more MATHS, the Government is to send Champions of Mathematics into schools to try and improve things. And probably to fight SKELETOR and his Warriors of Innumeracy.
Mr Simon Jenkins writes in the Grauniad to deride the need for maths saying no one ever needs it. Well no one NEEDS to study "Hamlet" or the causes of the English Civil War, but that doesn't mean that studying them isn't a good thing in and of itself.
Learning and the HABIT of learning are GOOD things and to be encouraged.
Meanwhile, the "No SH…stuff Sherlock" award goes to the discovery by Ofsted that tests are boring.
Liberal Democrats would cut the number of tests getting rid of pointless testing at seven and fourteen and slimming down the national curriculum so that schools are able to EDUCATE rather than merely train pupils to jump through the next Ministry hoop.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Day 2598: Cultural Revolution
Tuesday:
Minister for Ruining our Childhoods, Mr "Total" Balls, and Minister for Spoiling our Fun, Mr "Crash and" Burnham, have got together as a PANTOMIME HORSE to inflict five hours a week of "quality culture" on kids.
So, we add the "Culture Hour" to the "Sport Hour", the "Literacy Hour" and the "Numeracy Hour" and… we'd better hope there are a few more TIME LORDS masquerading as teachers in our schools!
Art, theatre, music… these are things that you should DISCOVER for yourself, not have thrust down your throat like COUGH MIXTURE!
And anyway, isn't that what BBC4 is for?
What's that buzzing noise?
You should not underestimate the POWER and IMPORTANCE ofthe Dark Side Art and Culture like SPORT it has the power to move people, uniting them in feeling – after all, that is why China are so JOLLY CROSS about Mr Spielberg quitting their Olympic bash.
("Oh, nobody understands our policy in Darfur," yeah, yeah; tell it to the Archpillock of Canterbury!)
What IS that buzzing?!
Anyway £15 a year does NOT amount to a whole load of OPERA… unless you mean OPRAH, and we're back to sitting in front of the TELLY.
On the PLUS side, though, at least there are a whole load of opportunities in CREATIVE WRITING opening up again in America!
Can NO ONE else hear BUZZING???
Is there not some IRONY in us trying to find EXOTIC ways to keep our young people out of our hair with compulsory after-school culture club at the same time as installing the electronic midge and kiddie zapper?
Meanwhile, I am going to deal with that buzzing by calling GHOSTBUSTERS!
Apparently I can now get PSYCHIC EXORCISM paid for by the council (give me strength!)
Minister for Ruining our Childhoods, Mr "Total" Balls, and Minister for Spoiling our Fun, Mr "Crash and" Burnham, have got together as a PANTOMIME HORSE to inflict five hours a week of "quality culture" on kids.
So, we add the "Culture Hour" to the "Sport Hour", the "Literacy Hour" and the "Numeracy Hour" and… we'd better hope there are a few more TIME LORDS masquerading as teachers in our schools!
Art, theatre, music… these are things that you should DISCOVER for yourself, not have thrust down your throat like COUGH MIXTURE!
And anyway, isn't that what BBC4 is for?
What's that buzzing noise?
You should not underestimate the POWER and IMPORTANCE of
("Oh, nobody understands our policy in Darfur," yeah, yeah; tell it to the Archpillock of Canterbury!)
What IS that buzzing?!
Anyway £15 a year does NOT amount to a whole load of OPERA… unless you mean OPRAH, and we're back to sitting in front of the TELLY.
On the PLUS side, though, at least there are a whole load of opportunities in CREATIVE WRITING opening up again in America!
Can NO ONE else hear BUZZING???
Is there not some IRONY in us trying to find EXOTIC ways to keep our young people out of our hair with compulsory after-school culture club at the same time as installing the electronic midge and kiddie zapper?
Meanwhile, I am going to deal with that buzzing by calling GHOSTBUSTERS!
Apparently I can now get PSYCHIC EXORCISM paid for by the council (give me strength!)
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Day 2356: No Balls Games
Tuesday:
Only a Party so UNCONTROLLABLY in love with the ideas of CENTRALISATION and NANNY KNOW BEST could possibly come up with the idea of a National Play Strategy.
And only one living in COMPLETE DENIAL could forget that they themselves continued the Conservatories' policy of SELLING OFF THE SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS!
(Yes, I know THEY STARTED IT – what is this: the playground? Oh... so it is.)
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have discovered that SNEAKY Councils are using LOOPHOLES in planning law to get around the Government's restrictions on the sell-off of playing fields.
Only a Party so UNCONTROLLABLY in love with the ideas of CENTRALISATION and NANNY KNOW BEST could possibly come up with the idea of a National Play Strategy.
And only one living in COMPLETE DENIAL could forget that they themselves continued the Conservatories' policy of SELLING OFF THE SCHOOL PLAYING FIELDS!
(Yes, I know THEY STARTED IT – what is this: the playground? Oh... so it is.)
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have discovered that SNEAKY Councils are using LOOPHOLES in planning law to get around the Government's restrictions on the sell-off of playing fields.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)