letter to Michael Gove

[muminlondon]

from Michael Rosen in the Guardian

This contains a really important question: why does Michael Gove want to impose a prescriptive curriculum and yet enouraging schools to turn into academies where the curriculum won't apply ? If the curriculum is to be that much improved why should academies be allowed to opt out?

Or a cunting twat-faced arsing cunt, perhaps?

There's line in an old rugby song about a little naive lad called Craven A, which I think applies, Thought that 'cunt' was something people called him at school.

Rosebud, I'm not sure I understand it myself but a lot of grammar schools (like in Sutton) and socially selective schools are now 'academies'. The old 'academies' are now 'sponsored academies'. I think he is sees the latter as pickings for businesses like ARK, and like old style technical schools but making profit. The few LA maintained ones left he wants to control via the national curriculum. But the 'academies' without a sponsor may in turn be able to sponsor other schools and/or expand, which is his way of allowing grammar schools without any local planning or accountability that might stop adverse impact on surrounding schools.

The Ofsted Chief Inspector, that Wilshire bloke, has also just announced extra inspections for 'Outstanding' schools because he thinks that they might not be outstanding after all.

A few more academies coming up, then, perhaps?

muminlondon, I think I'm sort of with you. His mates get to make money out of poor kids and his other mates get to make money out of richer kids.

Does that sound about right?

I heard that linerunner - I just love the heads of education in this country suggesting that everyone has to be above average. It's just such an obvious solution to, well, everything really.

Rosebud05, I salute you

Why, thank you.

This is so bloody depressing. Between the Education Act and the 'new but soon to be old' Ofsted framework, Gove and Wilshaw have started the privatisation of our education system in the space of less than 2 months.

Did anyone vote for this?

Rosebud05 yes, 'good' /'bad' school is that glib shorthand politicians/newspapers use when it's really about intake - the BBC publishes its 'top 200/bottom 200' lists with reference to league tables without explaining why selective schools might be at the top and schools battling complex educational needs and deprivation at the bottom. The 'sponsored academies' are associated with previous failure, poor and needing rich patrons (Arpad Busson, Lord Ashcroft). Meanwhile he likes the academic 'academies' while wanting to impose his curriculum on the rest.

In fact you're right, Lord Ashcroft may be eyeing up richer kids.