to think running state schools for profit is a terrible idea ...

[threefeethighandrising]

... it won't benefit our children but may make some profit for shareholders, which I guess is OK by this government as it's all they really care about?

Article here: Academies and free schools should become profit-making businesses using hedge funds and venture capitalists to raise money, according to ... Michael Gove.

If this goes ahead, we'll likely see schools selling off their land, expensive lessons (art, music, science) being dropped and schools closing because of bad business deals / debts.

The next time we have a recession, as well as people's homes and jobs being at threat, there will be a load of schools under threat too as their investments are tied to the market.

How on Earth does this benefit children or the country?

Gove is a real danger to our children's education IMO.

Well, how lucky we are that you took three posts to put your political position to us. I'm not sure we get enough 'AIBU TO HATE DER TORAYS' posts in here, so thank you, thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Didn't the Independent run this story six months ago? Oh yes, they did.

flatpack it's important - whether you agree or not with what they're doing, surely you can see it's a massive change and therefore worth talking about?

Yanbu.

YAnBu. But its standard Tory practice isn't ITF they believe that best value is achieved through commercial competition.

Why do you think we do get so many"I hate the Tories" posts?

Could it be, perhaps, that their policies are massively unpopular (and for good reason)?

Quite. It might not be a startlingly original opinion hamster but still repays repeating. Gove is used a the very worst swear word in our house

Ooh, flatpackhamster, I thought the day would never come, but I now award you my first ever .

I wasn't previously aware that populist (on here) political posts weren't allowed, that all posters have to be continually aware of every published news article and that posting more than once on your own thread was not allowed. Thanks for pointing that out to us all.

Threefeethighandrising, I think he is, yes. I'd love to know what his game plan is, because I genuinely have no idea where he's going with all his ideas and initiatives. It's one of those situations where I wish for the kind of perspective gained through hindsight, but here we all are in the middle of it and hindsight is a long way off yet.

I'd love to be proved wrong and for history to look back on Gove as a visionary. For now, though, I'm going to focus on believing him to be my worst nightmare.

threefeethighandrising

flatpack it's important - whether you agree or not with what they're doing, surely you can see it's a massive change and therefore worth talking about?

Firstly, you're not talking about it. You're telling us how evil it is, because in your view the only way education can possibly delivered is by the state and anything else would be a disaster. Never mind that your view is demonstrably wrong and that the best schools in the country are those which are free of direct state control and union meddling.

Secondly, you're not here to 'talk about it' either, or you'd have put it in the news where it belongs, you're here to hyperventilate about it.

Thirdly, this 'massive change' isn't actually happening. This Indy story is the same one that they ran six months ago, and the Guardian wailed about at the same time. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. That didn't stop the looney tunes unions kicking off about it, of course.

There is no way that any privatisation is going to take place under this government. If there were plans to do so, they will not happen. Nick Clegg wouldn't back it and I doubt Cameron would either. If the Tories won a majority in 2015 they might try it but IMO they'll have an awful lot more to worry about.

Fourthly, your lunatic claim that private companies would start asset stripping has no basis in fact. All the schools which are free of government tinkering are academies or Free schools. Free schools and academies are all, without exception, owned by charitable trusts. Those charitable trusts cannot transfer their assets, such as school buildings and/or playing fields, to for-profit companies without running afoul of charity law. Nor could those companies 'sell off' land without running afoul of the same charity law.

Why do you think we do get so many"I hate the Tories" posts?

Because the core MN demographic is urban middle-class left-wing, often public-sector employed. And if there's one thing they love, it's hatin' Tories. It's like Amy Winehouse and crack or the KKK and lynching.

Could it be, perhaps, that their policies are massively unpopular (and for good reason)?

They're only 'massively unpopular' with that demographic. It's just unfortunate that Cameron is such a spineless derp that he bothers pandering to them instead of ignoring them.

Flatpack, I salute you.

oh yabu. Children's education vs turning a profit. What could possibly go wrong? And strangely, loads of schools have started "failing" but hey ho there's the academy programme charging along on its white steed to save them.

"And strangely, loads of schools have started "failing" but hey ho there's the academy programme charging along on its white steed to save them."

Do you know, I've noticed that too stealth. Funny isn't it.....

LEAs of all political colours have done things like sell off school playing field, 'excess' land etc. So I do think much of the potential risk here is overstated - and also wrongly attibuted as solely Tory or solely Gove. All parties do this, via whatever levers they have.

I don't actually think that this is going to be worse than the status quo - but I do think the existing situation is misunderstood. As are the protections that exist for assets currently in public ownership. Operators of free school or academies cannot for example sell off land/buildings, and if land/building are no longer to be used for a maintained school, they must be returned.

What matters, really matters, is a fair and rigorous system to maintain standards in schools. If someone can deliver those standards at lower cost, then what's the problem? If low standards are unchecked, it matters - really matters - and that's no related to how much is spent or who is spending it.

Private companies making profits out of basic essentials of life, like power and water, is wrong too.
They don't even pay tax on their profits.

we are being threatened with power cuts in 18 months time, because the wonderful private companies have failed to invest their profits in new power stations.

Thank you once again, Mrs Thatcher.

Flatpack i award you for best fisking of the week. Masterfully done! And strangely you are right. Most of the handwringing over Gove seems to come from the vested interests who exist to serve purely the agenda of the teaching profession. My view is that the majority of teaching unions only care about education in so far as it supports the terms and conditions of their members.

Anything which diminishes the power of the union and the LEA is resisted - why is that I wonder?

I don't care whether schools are run for profit. As long as they educate our children properly. Currently not-for-profit schools are not doing a very good job of that, hence massive youth unemployment.

Gove is a disaster

Timeofchange I agree - private companies shouldn't make money out of people for essentials.

Lets nationalise Tesco, Asda, Saisnbury and while we are at it nationalise all food production because evil land owning farmers make money from crops - lets collectivise the farms! Yeah - right and while we are at it - there should be centrally planned and organised bread supplies as that is a basic? Isnt it? Then to make it fair it should be rationed. Sure. Yeah - thats fair. Reducto ad absurdam? Nope 50 year experiment with that - didnt turn out too well did it?

Its raining today - must be Thatchers fault too?

faltpack and voiceof

what are your feelings on schools being run to make a profit?

Boney

Some already are, some produce excellent results. Of course they are quite eye wateringly expensive.

I take it you mean to ask what are my views on all schools being run to make a profit? Ah well that depends. If they remain free at the point of consumption to the parent and the parent has a choice over which school to use they why should the state have the monopoly?

Seriously why do we as a community get so worked up about people making money from things we need? You dont begrudge 1 in every 8 quid going to Tesco - if you dont like Tesco ham (not generally naive etc) you can go to Aldi etc. Better still if it remains free for parents - why should you care if someone is making money? I mean technically Teachers make a profit from teaching? They dont get paid in love and fresh air? The people who build the schools make a profit - why not the people who run it? Give me a cogent argument - please - anybody as to why it is a bad idea for profit to be made from schooling provided it remains free to the parents. Oh and i will award 0/10 to any fule who stayt that it is a slipery slope ect ext.

Well, where is the profit coming from? Let's assume the cost to the taxpayer remains the same, free at the point of delivery to parents, and we're not cocking about with vouchers or anything. So the profit is delivered by cutting costs, right? Which is cutting teacher's salaries, or losing TAs maybe. Or selling off land, after they've changed the law to allow it.

How are you going to justify something like upgrading playground equipment that is legally fit for purpose, if it's reducing your shareholder dividend? How do you justify giving violin lessons to every Year 4?

You mocked the mention of the privatised utilities, but they're not exactly the best advert for accountability and reduced prices through privatisation, are they?

Parents aren't going to be pleased when the head of Schools-R-Us gets paid £2m a year, but the company claims it hasn't got the money to remove the asbestos from little Johnny's classroom roof. And you know it's going to happen.

"I mean technically Teachers make a profit from teaching?"

IMO you are wrong that teachers make a profit from teaching, they are paid a rate to do a job, but if we take your example of teachers making a profit then all workers make a profit from their job.

If a school is run for profit who will see that profit? Will it be put back in to the school for renovations? Making sure that the building is safe? That there are enough books to go around?

A profit making organisations first loyalty is to its shareholders, and its downhill from there, the water companies increased the money to shareholders at the cost of replacing pipework, who paid for the replacement pipework when it became to old and inefficient to do the job?

Well Indie schools' have charitable status in tax terms? So where will the 'profit' go?