1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Arguments for School Privatisation

Discussion in 'Education news' started by Scintillant, Mar 27, 2016.

  1. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    From the fantastic Disidealist blog:

    https://disidealist.wordpress.com/2...atisation-is-this-really-the-best-you-can-do/

    Makes some excellent points and is entertaining with it. Lots of this sort of thing:

    Academy chains will bring higher standards

    There’s nobody left in the world who knows anything about education who isn’t now aware that this is, well, ********. The Sutton Trust, the Educational Select Committee, even Ofsted – all have noted that there is no connection at all between “standards” and academy status. I mean, come on lads, you’re not even trying.

    Illogical Rating: 8/10. The education policy equivalent of saying “If we repaint the car, it’ll go faster”

    Detached-From-Reality Rating: 9/10. This statement is played on a recurring loop on tiny speakers implanted in the brains of Govians. It’s possible that they genuinely believe that the clear evidence that there is no impact on “standards” is some sort of NUT conspiracy.

    Total Score: 17 Goves
     
    wanet, Middlemarch, vannie and 3 others like this.
  2. johnberyl

    johnberyl Occasional commenter

  3. chelsea2

    chelsea2 Star commenter

    Excellent.
    And the final section says it all:

    'Policy Exchange: the new market leaders in fantasy fiction

    The Govian gnomes are beavering away in the bowels of Policy Exchange making up new specious arguments, and pumping out more downright lies, every single day. Yet each one is stripped away by the application of logic or reality. If you hear any new ones, send them to me, and I’ll mark them.

    There’s a serious point to this, other than me having fun poking Govians, and it’s this : Occam’s Razor. This is the principle that, when you strip away the less likely (or downright silly) explanations offered for any event or action, whatever you have left is likely to be the true cause.

    The Govian establishment are proposing what even they admit is a huge, monumental upheaval in education, using the hammer of primary legislation to force the great majority of our schools, against their stated will, into the arms of private companies. For such a huge policy, there has to be a huge explanation. Yet it takes very little effort before the offered explanations fall away:

    • We know it’s not about “standards”, because academies and MATs don’t improve standards.
    • We know it’s not about “freedom” or “autonomy” because MATs reduce freedom and autonomy.
    • We know it’s not about administrative reform, because there is a much easier, less expensive administrative reform available (returning all schools to LEAs).
    So, having stripped away all those, what’s left ?

    Privatisation.

    This is about privatisation. It’s about who controls the money, and where that money goes. It is about removing the education budget from scrutinised, accountable public control, and placing it in the hands of unscrutinised, unaccountable private companies competing in a private “marketplace”. Many of these companies not only have strong links to the Conservative Party, but some hold official positions within the education policy-making structure at DFE.

    Every other argument is demonstrable nonsense.

    Privatisation? Of course it’s bloody privatisation.'
     
    Skitashi, wanet, Middlemarch and 3 others like this.
  4. stupot101

    stupot101 Established commenter

    These comments below are very revealing
    1. Gove wasn’t moved because of policy disagreements. He was moved prior to the election because Lynton Crosby was aware that he was losing the Tories votes every time his name was mentioned or his face appeared on TV. Most teachers loathed him (still do), and there are lots of teachers and teacher relatives. He may not have written this, but it’s got Gove all over it. It’s why I still use the term “Govianism”, as shorthand for this tight ideological cult of zealots.

    2. I think Morgan is a bit thick. Not just because she’s scared to do the times tables questions which she demands of 11 year-olds. Or because she looks terrified whenever anyone asks her a question which she hasn’t been pre-programmed to answer. But because when she goes to NASUWT and blames teaching unions for the recruitment and retention crisis, I think she actually believes it. People look for conspiracies like “she deliberately provoked them to heckle so she can use the footage of confronting teachers to win Tory Party leadership votes”. But in my view, ****-ups are always more likely that conspiracies. I think she believes that, because her thought processes don’t go far past traditional privately-educated upper class Tory clichés about state schools and state school teachers. Just like Gibb: I know for a fact that he genuinely believes that everything in education was great until the 1960s, when it was spoiled by “trendy” left-wing practices, and Marxists in universities. These people are not very clever or thoughtful. The brains of the trust come from much closer to Gove and his coterie of ideological fellow-travellers at Policy Exchange and its environs.

    3. No, they’ll force them into existing MATs by order. But they’re hoping that more schools will jump before they’re pushed. I recall when my previous Head first started pushing his MAT idea, I argued against it and he kept repeating “well, it’s the direction of travel”, as if this was something irresistible. Bear in mind that MATs can create many “winners” in terms of greater status, cash and power from amongst people who are already in the decision-making ranks of schools. It’ll take a strong governing body and/or headteacher to resist the temptations.

    4. You’re assuming logic and consistency in Government policy-making. I once again refer you to the ****-up over conspiracy point above.
     
  5. stupot101

    stupot101 Established commenter

    Excellent report by the way
     
    wanet and nomad like this.
  6. NoseyMatronType

    NoseyMatronType Star commenter

    The blog really is fantastic. Disidealist is an entertaining, natural born writer, as well as being spot on when it comes to analysis.
     
    Shedman likes this.
  7. Shedman

    Shedman Star commenter

    Stupot101 wrote:

    2. I think Morgan is a bit thick. Not just because she’s scared to do the times tables questions which she demands of 11 year-olds. Or because she looks terrified whenever anyone asks her a question which she hasn’t been pre-programmed to answer. But because when she goes to NASUWT and blames teaching unions for the recruitment and retention crisis, I think she actually believes it. People look for conspiracies like “she deliberately provoked them to heckle so she can use the footage of confronting teachers to win Tory Party leadership votes”.

    I disagree with the assertion that Morgan is thick - she's a politician. All acts, interviews and speeches are carefully calculated to further her career. The NASUWT appearance was to boost her profile during a quiet news period and flex her muscles for her colleagues. There'll be a big reshuffle after the June EU referendum and Morgan is positioning herself for a move upwards and into a department with real power. As I have predicted on other threads she will be moved to chief secretary to the treasury.
     

Share This Page