INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

The future of education (if any)

For discussions related to education and educational institutions.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#781 Postby Alan H » March 17th, 2017, 9:51 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Sound familiar at all? All schools 'to face funding gap by 2020'
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#782 Postby Alan H » March 20th, 2017, 7:12 pm

Presumably Deloitte will do it as long as it's profitable to them: New leadership development programme launched
A leadership development programme for Chief Executives of Multi Academy Trusts has been launched drawing on expertise from the Church of England, academia and the City.

The Church of England Foundation for Educational Leadership programme for Chief Executives of Multi-Academy Trusts will be delivered in partnership with UCL Institute of Education, working with Deloitte.

The programme has been shaped to draw on the Church of England's involvement in education over 200 years, to include UCL IOE's deep expertise across the education system, including academies and leadership, and to learn from Deloitte's business knowledge and practical experience of working in the education sector. There will be input from leading experts and practitioners from education as well as learning from wider sectors.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#783 Postby Alan H » March 28th, 2017, 11:49 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#784 Postby Alan H » April 10th, 2017, 2:12 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#785 Postby Alan H » April 10th, 2017, 10:51 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#786 Postby Alan H » April 12th, 2017, 1:11 am

And it continues... Grammar school among sponsors for 111 new free schools

Another batch of religious schools and now Grammar schools. It'll take generations to undo the damage this Tory Government is inflicting on society.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
coffee
Posts: 632
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#787 Postby coffee » April 12th, 2017, 3:39 pm

I don't care what the government do, They can't detract from my written/printed values below, but for you it is a constant worry because you and the BHA would have nothing left to show because you & the BHA have little or no values left to fight for. Transmitting thought is a lot more difficult than transmitting values. That is why the religious number is less than that the nonreligious but they are occupy in the key positions and making all the key decisions about this country. Good luck with your battles.


http://www.restorativeempathy.com/Unive ... mpathy.pdf
http://www.restorativeempathy.com/Feeli ... mpathy.pdf

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#788 Postby Alan H » April 12th, 2017, 5:30 pm

coffee wrote:I don't care what the government do, They can't detract from my written/printed values below, but for you it is a constant worry because you and the BHA would have nothing left to show because you & the BHA have little or no values left to fight for. Transmitting thought is a lot more difficult than transmitting values. That is why the religious number is less than that the nonreligious but they are occupy in the key positions and making all the key decisions about this country. Good luck with your battles.


http://www.restorativeempathy.com/Unive ... mpathy.pdf
http://www.restorativeempathy.com/Feeli ... mpathy.pdf

Bizarre.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
coffee
Posts: 632
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#789 Postby coffee » April 12th, 2017, 6:19 pm

What I mean is teaching people how to think critically is a lot more harder than pen to paper what values are you believe in, at the moment The BHA make it up as they go along which is harder to follow.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#790 Postby Alan H » April 12th, 2017, 9:26 pm

coffee wrote:What I mean is teaching people how to think critically is a lot more harder than pen to paper what values are you believe in, at the moment The BHA make it up as they go along which is harder to follow.
What is it they are making up as they go along?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
coffee
Posts: 632
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#791 Postby coffee » April 12th, 2017, 9:36 pm

It is lack or not enough values there that I like

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#792 Postby Alan H » April 13th, 2017, 12:12 am

coffee wrote:It is lack or not enough values there that I like
My question was what they were making up as they went along. The fact that you think they lack values or don't have enough of them doesn't answer my question.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#793 Postby Alan H » April 13th, 2017, 1:03 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#794 Postby Alan H » April 13th, 2017, 6:20 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#795 Postby Alan H » April 17th, 2017, 12:14 am

Revealed: how free schools boom helps England’s richest regions
Theresa May’s education policies came under fresh attack on Saturday night amid evidence that the Tories’ flagship “free schools” programme wastes huge sums of public money while benefiting prosperous areas in the south far more than deprived places elsewhere.

With the prime minister already facing cross-party criticism over plans to open more grammar schools, ministers were confronted with data showing that new free schools in England will fail to meet urgent demand for new places, and cost taxpayers vast amounts of money when they fail to get off the ground.

In a further sign of unease, former schools minister David Laws, writing in Sunday’s Observer, called on May’s government to drop plans for more grammars from the next Queen’s speech because they are likely to “make our country a more unequal place”.

Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said analysis of data about the 111 new free schools announced last week showed that the 20 most deprived areas of the country would get just 12 new schools, with the 20 least deprived areas seeing 18 new free schools. Labour said that government figures showed the new schools meeting 50% of the requirement for new places in the south-east, and just 2% in the north-east.


It’s time for Theresa May to ditch grammar school plans
It is one of the worst kept secrets in Westminster that education secretary Justine Greening is not the biggest supporter of the policy that is now the social mobility “flagship” of Theresa May’s government – expanding the number of grammar schools.

Greening must be aware of the clear UK and international evidence that selective education both fails to raise overall standards, and undermines the prospects of poor children. Education Policy Institute researchers last year analysed the government’s own schools data and drew two key conclusions. First, that almost no children on free school meals get into grammar schools – a risible 4,000 out of more than eight million pupils in the whole of England. Second, that although there is a small benefit for pupils who are admitted to selective schools, this is offset by the worse results for other pupils in areas with a significant number of grammar places.

Greening is nevertheless doing her best to support the prime minister’s ill-judged policy. Last week she made a speech in which she sought to divert attention away from the poorest quarter of children, to a so-called “ordinary working families” group (previously JAMs – Just About Managing). This more affluent group, argued Greening, does far better in securing access to grammar schools. The education secretary is quite right – but only because these children are already doing better at school.

But if these OWFs are doing relatively well, why is the government talking so much about them? It is the poorest quarter of children who really lag behind. Two-thirds of these poorest children already fail to secure the modest benchmark of five C grade GCSEs, including English and maths. That “failure” rate will rocket to 80% when the new, more challenging GCSE standard is introduced this year, so it makes no sense educationally to move the emphasis away from these poor children. So what is driving this new government narrative? It is tempting to conclude politics, not education.

The poorest children are very unlikely to gain from any solution involving a selection test at age 11. By then, 60% of the disadvantaged gap has already emerged – meaning these children are on average 10 months of learning behind their peers. To give these children a chance, the government needs to improve the quality of early years education, increase the number of excellent primary schools in poor areas, attract and develop more high quality teachers, and protect pupil premium funding from the coming budget squeeze.

Nor are quotas likely to be the answer. They would be highly controversial, and to make a material difference they would require grammars to admit poor pupils of much lower performance. Do we really want classes of lower-attaining, predominantly poor children taught in a segregated stream?

Greening is loyally trying to make the best of a policy that all the evidence suggests should be buried. Scarce time spent trying to make the unworkable work is diverting her from the important efforts she is making to improve teacher training and target the areas of greatest need.

Education policy should be driven by evidence. It is surely now sensible for Downing Street to drop the grammar plans from the Queen’s speech. If not, Greening, who could be a rather good education secretary, will waste her time and talents on a policy which is likely to make our country a more unequal place.

David Laws was schools minister from 2012 to 2015 and is executive chairman of the Education Policy Institute
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#796 Postby Alan H » April 24th, 2017, 11:29 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#797 Postby Alan H » June 2nd, 2017, 10:29 am

‘Trojan Horse’ teachers free to return to classroom after independent panel throws out case
Five teachers at the centre of the so-called ‘Trojan Horse’ scandal in Birmingham will be free to return to teaching after the case against them was thrown out due to procedural errors made by government lawyers. Humanists UK has expressed its disappointment at the outcome, which it hopes will be challenged.

An independent disciplinary panel at the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) has been hearing the case for the last two years, investigating allegations that teachers and school leaders were involved in facilitating the imposition of a fundamentalist Islamic ethos in three Birmingham state schools with no religious character.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#798 Postby Alan H » June 2nd, 2017, 10:30 am

The harm being inflicted on society will take years to undo: Religious landgrab continues as Church tries to gain control of nine non-church schools
The Church of England is proposing to assume overall control of a multi-academy trust (MAT) in Northumberland despite only one of the nine schools in the proposed MAT having a religious character.

In a letter to parents and carers seen by Humanists UK, plans are outlined for the creation of ‘The Tynedale Community Trust’, comprising nine local schools with no religious character and one voluntary-controlled Church of England school. Existing model arrangements issued by the Department for Education dictate that the Church should be entitled to appoint 25% of the MAT’s board members (a figure that in itself is too high), but the letter ignores this and instead proposes that the Church will directly appoint two of the five board members and jointly appoint a third along with the 10 schools involved. A majority of the MAT’s members will therefore be appointed by or linked to the church.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#799 Postby Alan H » June 2nd, 2017, 6:22 pm

Can't read the whole article, unfortunately (£): The Tories are embracing education apartheid
A little-noticed manifesto pledge to let new schools select entirely by faith will encourage divisions and indoctrination

Tucked away on page 50 of the Conservative Party manifesto is a mild-mannered, seemingly inoffensive line that is designed to be overlooked. I suspect it’s meant to sound so harmless and boring it’s hard to get to the end of the sentence — but try: “We will replace the unfair and ineffective inclusivity rules that prevent the establishment of new Roman Catholic schools, instead requiring new faith schools to prove that parents of other faiths and none would be prepared to send their children to that school.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#800 Postby Alan H » June 21st, 2017, 2:11 pm

Some good news, at least, in the Queen's Speech: Plan for more grammar schools abandoned
The creation of a new wave of grammar schools in England is not included in the government's plans for legislation.

The Queen's Speech says the government will "look at all options" for opening new schools, but that will not include removing the current ban on expanding selection.

The controversial plan to stop free lunches for all infants is also absent.

This takes away the biggest source of extra funding promised for schools in the Conservative manifesto.

The government, setting out its plans for the next two years, has not announced any legislation for education.

This means dropping their most high profile proposed education reform - the expansion of selective education in England.
Budget shortages

The re-written plans now call for "every child to go to a good or outstanding school" - but with the recognition that any changes will depend upon being able to "command a majority".

A Department for Education source said that the Queen's Speech was an unambiguous decision not to go ahead with creating more grammar schools.

Schools have been campaigning about budget shortages - with a letter being sent this week to two million families warning about funding cuts.

But the government's biggest proposal to find extra funding, announced in the Conservative manifesto, also seems to have been ditched.

The scrapping of free meals for all infants was meant to save about £650m, which would have been the majority of an extra £1bn per year to boost school budgets.

This leaves a significant shortfall in the manifesto promise for extra school funding.

A joint response from four teachers' unions said schools were "sending out begging letters to parents" and the "lack of urgent action is deeply disappointing".

Jules White, the West Sussex head teacher who has co-ordinated a funding campaign in 17 local authorities, said: "The government said that it had heard the message from the electorate.

"It's high time they acted to put things right and fund schools in a way that every child deserves."

The government says it will bring forward its proposals on school funding at a later date.

Jo Yurky, who ran a parents' campaign over school cuts, said the lack of movement on funding had shown a "baffling disregard for the concerns of parents, teachers and school leaders".

But the government says it is pressing ahead with changes to how budgets are allocated to individual schools, through a new National Funding Formula.

The new formula is meant to resolve unfairness and anomalies in how funding is allocated.

There is also a commitment to improving vocational education and improving the level of skills in the workforce - training people for "high-skilled, high-wage jobs of the future".

The ambition is for vocational exams to be given as much status as their academic counterparts - and there are plans for so-called "T-levels" for technical qualifications.

Liberal Democrat education spokeswoman, Layla Moran, said: "It is incredulous that the government have claimed they will deliver fair funding for every school in today's Queen's Speech.

"The reality is that pupils and teachers will still bear the brunt of billions of pounds of cuts under Conservative plans."
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21994
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of education (if any)

#801 Postby Alan H » June 21st, 2017, 3:32 pm

But we, the taxpayers, pay religious organisations to inspect religious education in their own (tax-payer funded) religious schools: NSS calls for end to state funded ‘religiosity inspections’ in schools
In the last six school years, figures from the Department for Education (DfE) show that almost £5 million in Section 48 grants has been handed out to "faith bodies". The vast majority of the £4,904,800 grant money went to the Church of England (over half a million pounds per year) and the Catholic Church (over a quarter million). The Association of Muslim Schools, the Board of Deputies and two Sikh organisations also received tens of thousands of pounds.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Education”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest