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.

Didn't inequality increase over the course of the last Labour government?

Gove seems to be the only one that is prepared to stand up to the teaching unions. You know there's something wrong when the teachers say schools are "amazing" at a time when we have a colossal level of youth unemployment!

Most parents couldn't give a shit about "qualified teachers", they just want their children to recieve a good education that enables them to be able to find work and earn a good living upon leaving school.

Tabitha
we have a colossal level of youth unemployment
Not according to the Economist magazine we don't : in fact its significantly lower than it was during the last two recessions
www.economist.com/news/leaders/21580143-wave-anger-sweeping-cities-world-politicians-beware-march-protest

Sorry did I say that the previous government got it right? They made their own colossal mistakes, usually in the wasting of money sector. Gove is doing quite nicely in that front anyway.

I'm not sure why you think standing up against the unions is a good thing? Yes I appreciate it's popular to paint all unions as the last bastion against progress and the evil that wants to hold every child back. However, even a superficial understanding of what is actually happening would enlighten many. Although I must admit that the unions are very poor at explaining the reasoning behind the stances taken.

I have to say I was under the impression that youth unemployment was high because there were no jobs? Again discussion about the employability of these children needs to be directed at the government not teachers and schools as we don't choose what to teach and when. The government does.

If there are many parents out there who don't care if their child has a qualified teacher then they are very short sighted. Would you take your child to an unqualified doctor? After all they can just Google the symptoms and as long as your child gets better, it doesn't matter about the others who stay sick does it?

I'm a parent and a teacher and I want my child taught by a qualified person who knows what they are doing in an environment based on educational research and excellence not political whim.

TabithaStephens so please feel free to put forward a refutation.

Didn't inequality increase over the course of the last Labour government?

I am not making the case that labour is any different to the Tories. You obviously are. ALL parties are hamstrung by the previous policies which allowed neo-liberalism to take root. I am making the case that politicians have little choice, the state is impoverished and therefore private investment becomes an inevitable and necessary course of action.

I give a shit about who teaches my children. I might though differ from corporations and global capital about what the benefit of education is. Why make the case for children to be educated whilst making the contradictory case that teachers don't need to be. Either we all need education or none of us do.

Tabitha
What is Gove doing to "stand up to the unions"
Most of the actions he is taking will have little or no impact on union membership, strike action, pay deals etc.
You seem to forget that most private school teachers are in the unions too. As are Academy teachers.
Unions per se are no bad thing. How some have abused their power in the past is.

MY problem with Gove is that he makes decisions without evidence, advice or appraisal. From anybody.

Sorry, the old "we were only following orders" excuse isn't going to wash.

Kids are leaving school lacking basic skills necessary to gain employment. 16 year olds today are simply not ready to enter the workplace. This is a marked difference from when I left school 20 years ago.

Tabitha
16 year olds today are simply not ready to enter the workplace. This is a marked difference from when I left school 20 years ago.
Utter bilge.
What has changed from 20-30 years ago is that almost all of the unskilled manufacturing and labouring jobs have gone from the UK workplace (thanks Maggie) and there are no longer jobs for the kind of kids who used to go down mines, out into fields or march into battle.

If teachers are now to be de-skilled and it isn't necessary for them to be qualified and educated themselves, doesn't it pose the question, What is the purpose of educating our children. Doesn't it simply come down to the fact that semi-skilled workers can be paid much less than qualified professionals? Would you send your child to school everyday, help with their homework and encourage them to aim to be a teacher themselves if the social/economic value of teaching is reduced to that of a low skilled char on NMW and a zero hours contract.

Talkinpeace excellent point.

The flow of global capital out of the west into other areas where labour is cheaper won't stop just because a few venture capitalist make a fast buck investing in schools here. When profit comes before re-investment and the venture capitalists puts his profit before the needs of the productive capitalist who need skilled workers, it will be down the those two groups to finger point and pass the blame. The venture capitalist isn't interested in the labour requirements of other businesses unless he has shares in those also!

Sorry you can't have this both ways.

Either the government are at fault for their poor policies which teachers have had to implement. Legally required not optional policies. Even the optional ones aren't really optional.

or

The teachers are at fault for not fighting the poor decisions made by the government. Which we are doing but are being hounded for it because the last people to know anything about education are teachers. Apparently.

Timeofchange - I don't know much about schools being run for profit (except that the government has strenuously denied it, most recently two days ago I think) but I do know that you're wrong in saying that energy providers don't pay tax on their profits - British Gas paid £1.1billion tax in 2012.

adeuce
energy providers don't pay tax on their profits - British Gas paid £1.1billion tax in 2012.
yes but the vast vast bulk of that was Employee taxes.
not Corporation tax (the one on profits)

You might be right but this Telegraph article, and others, suggest otherwise. Do you have a link for clarification?

However, Centrica is expected to argue that the sum should be put in the context of a UK tax bill of about £800m, up from £763m the previous year. Total tax paid by the company is expected to rise from £891m to around £1.1 billion
and
Centrica pays both corporation tax and a supplementary impost on its upstream North Sea assets

The CT on profits is a small part of the total ....
And other energy companies do not own gas fields

Just wanted to add minitheminx - I like your posts. :-)

I don't know what percentage of the total is corporation tax, but I do know that they pay the normal rate of uk corporation tax on profits so it's not true to say that they don't - article from This is Money

When someone makes an untrue statement, and presents it as fact, it makes me wonder how much of the rest of their argument is untrue too.

I don't want to labour the point, which has nothing to do with the OP, but always worth challenging factual inaccuracies I think.

adeucalione
You're not an accountat are you. They may indeed pay a lot of CT, but how profit is defined is another game all together.

And back to the point.
Centrica are one of the very, very few big PLCs that do pay decent CT
the hedge fund managers who are looking at buying up schools do not

I fail to see the evidence that profit making leads to an inferior product - look at cars, electronics, food etc - all significantly better than years ago due to the profit motive.
See what happens to industries where profit isn't the motive (such as Russia and Eastern Europe) and see the lack of any improvement.
Profit making groups will want to improve education in order to attract more pupils, open more schools and make more money.
No business makes money in the long term by ignoring the product, and there is no evidence that any providers would only want short term involvement.

caroldecker
cars, electronics, food : all things where there is a true market
ie the consumer can choose not to purchase at all or can purchase from one of several places
therefore market forces produce competition and improvement

schools, hospitals, utilities, councils are not true markets.
If you are sick you go to "the hospital"
if you turn on the tap you get "the water"
if you have kids and are not in the top 7% by wealth, they go to "the school"

and where there are captive markets, abuse arises and excellence vanishes
hence why there are anti-trust laws and governance

and if a school goes wrong, the kids who are failed have their lives trashed : which is not acceptable.
State funded education SHOULD be tightly regulated
and ensuring maximum funds go to the front line means not paying dividends

What about food? Would we be better off if all food was provided by the state sector?

Can the consumer really choose not to purchase food at all? I guess you could grow your own. But people can choose to teach their kids at home too.

most people cannot actually choose to teach their children at home becuase they MUST work.

how is it envisaged that schools make the profit ? this is the crucial question. How.

if education is to remain free - how will schools make a profit?

so if education remains free - but must be profitable then one assumes corporate sponsored lessons

Healthy eating brought to you by macdonalds?

hey, maybe large christian organisations can sponsor religious education - i mean no conflict of interest there

PE brought to really poor schools by Addidas new pump up glow in the dark trainers at only £250.00 ( no corporate pressure there mum, no shaping of small minds toweards consumerism)

ooh what else

nationalism brought to you by the EDL - well if they have the money to keep your school afloat whynot?

or THE best one politics sponsored by Newscorp

Why must "one assume corporate sponsored lessons"?

How do the schools make a profit? By providing the service at a lower cost than that charged to the government. You know, the same as any other private company involved in the state sector.

companies make profits by driving best practice and investing in money saving initatives.
Take lesson plans/books/worksheets - a company will develop these and share them across their schools, enabling teachers to access them easily and fit to their class - invest in technology, such as tablet computers for teachers, enabling easy access to resources.
At the moment, no-one is driving shared best practice and resources between schools as it is down to teachers who have enough to do. A company would provide these resources to free up valuable teacher time. This would reduce costs and improve education as it frees teachers to teach not do paperwork.