Monday, November 15, 2010

School Funding

The Government wants to fund schools directly, rather than the current method of giving the money to Local Councils, who syphon some off to pay for Black History Month, trips to cities they are twinned with and their additional level of bureaucracy, before allocating what's left on a random basis.

The idea was roundly criticised by the teaching unions, which is further evidence that it's probably a good idea.

9 comments:

Don said...

Interesting.

It wouldn't surprise me one little bit if it turns out to be the precursor of a move towards taking schools out of Local Authority control altogether.

Contented Lib Dem said...

Most local authority education advisory posts are a sinecure for failed teachers who know where the bodies are buried. Can't see anything wrong with bypassing some of them.

Dack said...

This would be fine if not for the assumption that heads/management are universally competent.

Just like giving control to GPs who, in my experience (and the experience of a number of friends/family members), are the main barrier to accessing prompt and effective treatment. We diagnosed cancer from the bloody internet after being fobbed off for months by an arsehole GP in one case.

There's a breed of target driven/jargon spouting/data manipulating wankers in schools that have floated to the top and multiplied beyond belief. They promote the yesmen (& women) and make life intolerable for those who stand up to them (and on the whole speak sense - or, at least, the truth). Give them all the power? Er... nah.

Plus, when these folk who on the whole know nothing of the world outside fuck up the taxpayer will come knight-in-shining-armouring in to bail them out. As with many opted out schools already. Just like the rail network.

It's privatisation by the back door, whatever you think of it. And though I think education's a mess, I wouldn't give more say-so to the NewLab drones who run many of our schools.

The Defence Brief said...

Wow Dack really is angry about this isn't he.

Just picking up on what Dack said about privitisation by the back door. I've never thought about it before, but would it be such a bad thing if private companies ran schools? Most people would love to send their kid to a private school if they could afford it. The kids seem to go to school a lot less often and still get much better grades than those in the state system.

Is privitisation a good idea or are there other factors at play in private schools being generally perceived as better?

Dack said...

Hi and yes DB I am angry (an angry 'she' though).

I'd say the big differences between private and state are smaller class sizes (if it doesn't make a difference - which anyone with a brain cell knows is bullshit - why do private schools have 'em?) and more motivated/better behaved/(generally) brighter students (ie selection).

Friends who teach in private schools (I just can't bring myself to do it) after having taught in state schools say it's a piece of piss by comparison.

Not that I'm enamoured with the state system as it stands as you can tell. But - for example - how would you deal with 'inclusion' in your private school when the inclusion of the few excludes the many?

Kit said...

Dack, we deal with 'inclusion' at the private school i work at by not bothering with it at all.

We never even use that word.

If a pupil is persistently disrupting the other childrens education then they are out.

It works, it's great, i love it.

Dack said...

Well when we're all private schools I guess the streets will be awash with the (deservedly) turfed out.

Kit said...

Kick out a few and the rest pull their socks up damn fast.

In private schools actions actually have consequences. The pupils know it and it makes a huge difference.

Inclusion is a foul imposition. It is a formalisation of favouring ill behaved thugs at the expense of the decent.

Dack said...

Let's hope we're given the power back. We'll have to see what Gove says this week. And if it's freedom to get rid of them, let's hope he means it.