What does Nicky Morgan not seem to understand?

[theluckiest]

Nicky Morgan urges teachers' unions to 'do their bit' www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35899478

No Nicky, teaching is not wonderful at the moment. No, teachers are not just moaning yet again (because that's what we usually do, isn't it?). No, your constant interfering, moving of goalposts and unnecessary 'reforms' are not helping anyone. In fact, you are damaging education irreparably.

Here's an example: the 'more rigorous' testing that you insist all 11 year olds should be put through are actually damaging. They are demoralising teachers but much more importantly, they are seriously damaging children's mental health. Yes, really. The stress these children are being put under is unforgivable this year. As a school we are held to ransom because of these tests (let's be honest, tests that we teachers, parents and schools know are bullshit).

They feel like they have failed already because your 'rigour' is inappropriate, unnecessary and completely pointless. They despise learning this nonsense and I can't blame them. At a time of their lives when learning should be exciting, they are force-fed inaccurate, archaic grammar and given the message that their writing cannot be good enough if it doesn't have a semi-colon.

Sounds crazy doesn't it? Because it is. So forgive me if I don't "Use the tools available to them to build up teachers, promote the profession and tell the story of what a rewarding job teaching really is" at the moment. (how I laughed when I read that one!!)

And don't get me started on academisation....Nicky, take your fingers out of your ears and listen. Before it's too late.

The section of the application form titled "capacity and capability" sets out what the DfE require.

So if they are all of proven capacity and capability, why are some Academy Trusts failing?

Good question. What did Whilshaw say in his report?

No, you tell us PrettyBright because you are the one trying to argue for this change.

the data required by the form that you link to asks for data on academic performance.

How is your carpet salesman going to provide proof of his capacity when they have had nothing to do with the teaching or leaning of the pupils?

I recollect that Wilshaw said that some Academies were as bad as the LAs they replaced and offered the same excuses, which is hard to reconcile with 'proven capacity and capability'.

you are the one trying to argue for this change.

Is that how you've interpreted my comments? Goodness, no wonder I'm being hounded out of the staff room.

I'm not arguing for this change - I don't need to, the Government have decided this is what they want to do.

My argument is that rather than fight against it, why not give it a go? I don't see how it can be any worse than the current system (which is still considered to be patchy, variable and failing DCs despite its long pedigree) and, if the Civil Servants actually use the powers that the new legislation provides, it has the potential to be a lot better.

PrettyBrightFireflies

But we have already seen that it doesn't work, there are links upthread that show that civil servants are not using the powers, the links show that academies are not improving and that there are academies passing the buck and going round in one big circle through the complaints procedure as no-one will take control.

How is your carpet salesman going to provide proof of his capacity when they have had nothing to do with the teaching or leaning of the pupils?

Well, he's not, is he. So, he's unlikely to be approved as a sponsor.

I think it's pretty apparent to everyone that the first few MATs it approved weren't all as fabulous as they made out. The application for, has changed several times to gather more info.

But, instead of insisting that the government scrap the whole system (which I do believe has got the potential to be far better than the LA model), why don't the teaching unions call for changes to the way in which Trusts are selected and approved? Actually get involved in the process?

My argument is that rather than fight against it, why not give it a go?

Are you so easily swayed into believing things will be worth 'giving it a go' other areas of your life?

a) I am not 'in the staffroom', not being a teacher.
b) "I'm not arguing for change." So is "why not give it a go?" not an argument for change?

Your whole argument seems to rest on - your Local Authority is bad, then let's try another system. What you are struggling to admit, as Wilshaw did, is that some alternative providers are equally bad, because you are telling us that all Academies have 'proven capacity and capability'.

c) The Government did not put this in their manifesto, so therefore they have no mandate for such a huge change. That might not upset people much if the existing Academies were proved to be better, but the results are mixed.

the Government have decided this is what they want to do.

But the government aren't always right and if the public disagree, white papers are not passed. Things can be cancelled and as this wasn't in their manifesto-people will object. Quite a lot of people actually.

PrettyBrightFireflies
Well, he's not, is he. So, he's unlikely to be approved as a sponsor.

Very few people are, so the whole you can start your own academy/school is redundant,

why don't the teaching unions call for changes to the way in which Trusts are selected and approved? Actually get involved in the process?

because the government have repeatedly shown that they are not interested in having teachers or their unions involved in the process.

Ant that attitude goes back to gove and the SoW/curriculum he wrote that was so bad that that even his supporters told him it was bad and it had to be rewritten by? yes teachers.

But the government aren't always right and if the public disagree, white papers are not passed.

Passing legislation is not a public decision. It's a decision for MPs. The public can disagree all they want, but that makes not one jot of difference unless the MPs choose it to.

Why would MPs be convinced that the majority of the people who they represent disagree with this proposal? Last time I checked the petition maps, there were only a few 100 signatories from each Constituency.

Politicians are used to a small number of people shouting loudly to try and get their own way; Union representation no longer has the credibly it once had and unless London is brought to a standstill, demonstrations don't even make the news.

Politicians are used to a small number of people shouting loudly to try and get their own way;

Yes, they are politicians its how most of them got in.

It's a decision for MPs. The public can disagree all they want, but that makes not one jot of difference unless the MPs choose it to.

Members do keep an eye on what their constituents say when they know they can be booted out at the next election, particularly in marginal seats .

Steve Hilton had people like you in mind, pretty when he advised Cameron to hype the 'Big Society' strategy. Earnest, well-meaning people genuinely wanting to make a difference to those less fortunate etc etc. in order to paper over the cracks in society left by successive governments' cuts to front-line services.

Sadly, humans being the fallible creatures they are, it was never going to work as the bottom-feeders (volunteers bidding for funding for their own jobs & projects), were subject to the whims of cynical bureaucrats, distracted by shagging their secretaries, flipping houses, claiming expenses for dovecotes etc.

These people don't live in the communities you serve, or the ones in which teachers work, and they certainly don't care about service- users as teachers do.

Why on earth would the offer of unlimited power and £££, with no accountability, change their priorities ?

People like you, in your naivety, are a large part of the problem.

My argument is that rather than fight against it, why not give it a go?
Perhaps because experimenting with children's education in this way is immoral?

There has been a whole movement in education recently towards asking for evidence - Tom Bennett's ResearchEd has been at the forefront. It means that stuff like Brain Gym and Learning Styles have been thoroughly debunked. Schools are told to look at the research before implementing new initiatives.

And yet here, we are being told to ignore the lack of evidence (or rather, ignore the fact that the given evidence doesn't support the argument) and just 'give it a go'.

why not give it a go?

I am just gobsmacked at this!!

Haven't we been 'giving academies a go' for over a decade now?

You'd think, if they were better, there would by now be evidence to that effect.

& yy to albertcamus.

why not give it a go?

Because if it fails (as it is doing will do) the government will slide the blame on to teachers as they have done many times before.

Even more Tories speaking out against this now: www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/02/backbench-pressure-on-osborne-academy-scheme

The Gov doesn't like evidence. This is true of Labour, as well as Tory. The Gov has an ideology, just like religions do, and evidence is irrelevant.

The Gov has an ideology, just like religions do, and evidence is irrelevant.

Sort of blows the "doing what they believe is the right thing" notion out of the water then, doesn't it?

But people didn't vote for this secret ideology. You can't get into power by seeming slighty normal and then get in and go right, now we're wheeling out the secret-poor-children-and people-with-disability-hating agenda.