David Cameron may be happy to think that he is being “brazenly elitist” in demanding that new trainee teachers must have a “good degree from a good university”. In fact he is being brazenly silly.
If Mr Cameron had any idea how schools work he would know that a “good” degree, (even from a “good” university, whatever that is), is no guarantee that the candidate will make a good teacher. The ability to teach is much more a matter of character and personality linked to experience than to the level of academic achievement, and if Mr Cameron doesn’t know that he needs to get out more. It is my guess that many of the best teachers currently practicing in our schools would not meet Mr Cameron’s totally arbitrary standards.
A few months ago the Conservative’s shadow Health Minister announced that the Tories, if elected, would transfer our health records to Google. Until now this was believed to be the silliest policy proclamation from any political party, but Mr Cameron’s pronouncement on teacher recruitment surely runs it a close second. Perhaps Annabel Goldie would care to let us know if the Conservatives are planning to adopt Mr Cameron’s “brazenly elitist” approach to teaching in Scotland.
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Ireland - the Arc of Religiosity?
The SNP never tires (well it has tired recently) of telling us that Scotland should be more like Ireland. We hear less of it now that the Arc of Prosperity has sunk beneath the North Atlantic and the Irish Economic Tiger has had its teeth well and truly pulled.
What we also hear less of is the SNP's reliance on money from religious sources to fund its recent electoral surge. The SNP's most successful election campaign in 2007 with massive donations from two of richest and publicly religious figures in Scotland.
Given this reliance of money from such sources, is it wrong to worry about social policy should Scotland leave the UK and set up as a small new fledgeling state?
A few years ago, before it was the economic "Tiger" of recent myth, Ireland was that small new fledgeling state, with powerful religious institutions to "guide" the politicians in social policy.
We know the results, with politicians subservient to the clergy, the church given power of veto over many areas of society including the law and education, the Magdelene Schools and this sad, sorry, stuff...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8381119.stm
So. Should Scotland be more like Ireland, as the SNP wants? Or not?
What we also hear less of is the SNP's reliance on money from religious sources to fund its recent electoral surge. The SNP's most successful election campaign in 2007 with massive donations from two of richest and publicly religious figures in Scotland.
Given this reliance of money from such sources, is it wrong to worry about social policy should Scotland leave the UK and set up as a small new fledgeling state?
A few years ago, before it was the economic "Tiger" of recent myth, Ireland was that small new fledgeling state, with powerful religious institutions to "guide" the politicians in social policy.
We know the results, with politicians subservient to the clergy, the church given power of veto over many areas of society including the law and education, the Magdelene Schools and this sad, sorry, stuff...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8381119.stm
So. Should Scotland be more like Ireland, as the SNP wants? Or not?
Friday, 9 October 2009
Where's our schools Fiona?
In February 2007, Fiona Hyslop, speaking to The Herald, said:
“Within the first 100 days of an SNP government we'd start replacing PPP with a Scottish Futures Trust. It would be a not-for-profit trust which would serve as an alternative finance scheme - and it would squeeze out the PPP programme.”
Two and a half years later, we have no Scottish Futures Trust and the effect on our (non-existent) school building programme is evident.
SNP politicians say that they have "opened" a number of new schools, but what they do not say is that the SNP has not commissioned one new school in all the time they have been in power.
Last week they announced that there would be part-funding for 14 new secondary schools, but none of these are expected to be complete by the time of the next Scotttish elections.
As for the claims to have "opened" new schools: over the last two years, the only projects that have been completed are either PPP projects left over from the Lab/LibDem administration or delivered and funded by local authorities, without help from Holyrood.
Ministers like Fiona Hyslop have been quick to attend opening ceremonies and take the credit, but they have done nothing to deserve any credit for any schools.
A damning statistic: tThe Scottish Futures Trust will not build and deliver a single school in the lifetime of this parliament.
“Within the first 100 days of an SNP government we'd start replacing PPP with a Scottish Futures Trust. It would be a not-for-profit trust which would serve as an alternative finance scheme - and it would squeeze out the PPP programme.”
Two and a half years later, we have no Scottish Futures Trust and the effect on our (non-existent) school building programme is evident.
SNP politicians say that they have "opened" a number of new schools, but what they do not say is that the SNP has not commissioned one new school in all the time they have been in power.
Last week they announced that there would be part-funding for 14 new secondary schools, but none of these are expected to be complete by the time of the next Scotttish elections.
As for the claims to have "opened" new schools: over the last two years, the only projects that have been completed are either PPP projects left over from the Lab/LibDem administration or delivered and funded by local authorities, without help from Holyrood.
Ministers like Fiona Hyslop have been quick to attend opening ceremonies and take the credit, but they have done nothing to deserve any credit for any schools.
A damning statistic: tThe Scottish Futures Trust will not build and deliver a single school in the lifetime of this parliament.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
What Exactly is The Scottish Futures Trust? ..and can we trust it to build our schools...??
The Education secretary has announced 14 new Secondary Schools* across Scotland. These schools are to be financed by traditional methods of borrowing.
So what, I hear you say, of the SNP's flagship "Scottish Futures Trust", the all singing all dancing replacement for PPP, the magical money making machine that was to do away with the hated PFI and provide enough money to match the previous, Labour-led, administraton's school-building programme "brick for brick"? Whatever happened to the SFT?
The SNP says that these schools will use the SFT. But they will not be financed by the SFT. How can that be?
Well. It seems that the "Scottish Futures Trust" has been transformed (without actually telling anyone) from
...."an all singing all dancing financing mechanism that will help match the previous school-building programm brick-for-brick",
into ...
..."a wee office in Glasgow where 5 civil servants will use Project Management Software to report on the progress of a few new schools that are actually financed in the same old way as before..."!!!
Right. So no Scottish Futures Trust and just 14 schools and none of them likely to be completed by the end of this Parliament.
That's why we voted SNP, is it?
As I said elsewhere: the SNP lack of vision and ambition for the people of Scotland is so disappointing. Disgraceful actually.
*Any new school building is good news, but to put this figure in context: there were 3 Secondary and 3 Primary Schools built in my own council area by the last administration. So only 14 in all of Scotland, and not likely to be completed any time soon, is pretty mean, is it not?
a little p.s. 6th Oct. 2009.
There is to be a debate at Holyrood on Thursday on the provision of schools. Apparently Fiona Hyslop ducked the last big Education debate (on teacher numbers). Will she hide away again?
So what, I hear you say, of the SNP's flagship "Scottish Futures Trust", the all singing all dancing replacement for PPP, the magical money making machine that was to do away with the hated PFI and provide enough money to match the previous, Labour-led, administraton's school-building programme "brick for brick"? Whatever happened to the SFT?
The SNP says that these schools will use the SFT. But they will not be financed by the SFT. How can that be?
Well. It seems that the "Scottish Futures Trust" has been transformed (without actually telling anyone) from
...."an all singing all dancing financing mechanism that will help match the previous school-building programm brick-for-brick",
into ...
..."a wee office in Glasgow where 5 civil servants will use Project Management Software to report on the progress of a few new schools that are actually financed in the same old way as before..."!!!
Right. So no Scottish Futures Trust and just 14 schools and none of them likely to be completed by the end of this Parliament.
That's why we voted SNP, is it?
As I said elsewhere: the SNP lack of vision and ambition for the people of Scotland is so disappointing. Disgraceful actually.
*Any new school building is good news, but to put this figure in context: there were 3 Secondary and 3 Primary Schools built in my own council area by the last administration. So only 14 in all of Scotland, and not likely to be completed any time soon, is pretty mean, is it not?
a little p.s. 6th Oct. 2009.
There is to be a debate at Holyrood on Thursday on the provision of schools. Apparently Fiona Hyslop ducked the last big Education debate (on teacher numbers). Will she hide away again?
Saturday, 2 May 2009
First Ministers' Forum
According to the Herald today, three First Ministers think Holyrood needs changing.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2505604.0.Former_first_ministers_say_Holyrood_should_change.php
The story has the air of a holiday weekend filler with not much detail of where, when and under what prompting the various quotes were gathered, but it is on the front page, so the Herald might actually be taking it seriously.
Jack McConnel says that the financial powers should be revisited and, he implies, increased. Henry McLeish says we should look at a "federal" system. Alex Salmond looks forward to independence.
The first and last are no surprise. Tax raising powers that never get used have always been a conundrum that needs to be addressed. Which is not to say that there is an easy and obvious solution. And Alex Salmond promoting independence, well that's always been his public position.
But Henry McLeish goes further, expressing a view in favour of federalism. He says..
"We have to have an alternative narrative to independence, and I believe federalism addresses the question of what to do about an England that looks increasingly out of kilter with the rest of the UK. ....Why should sovereignty rest solely at Westminster? Why should diversity be a problem? Why should different self-identities be a problem?"
I have to say I don't agree with his premise that "We need an alternative narrative to independence". We have an alternative narrative. It's called Devolution, and Henry McLeish was a great supporter of it when he was FM.
As for his staement that"...England .... looks increasingly out of kilter with the rest of the UK". Where is the evidence for that?
When you anlayse the statement further, you see that it's full of weasel words. For example: "looks", well is it or is it not? "increasingly", increasingly over what? "out of kilter", what exactly does "out of kilter" mean? And who says "diversity" is a problem? Or "different identities", whatever that means? You would have to be fairly foolish to opt for any major change on the basis of that analysis.
Federalism has been a Lib Dem aim for some time, and they and Henry would have to explain what exactly is meant by "federalism" in this context, but it will take stronger arguments than that to be convince anyone that a federal solution would be any better than the current set up.
E.g. under a federal set-up, would the UK have bailed out RBS and HBOS, as they have just done? Or would a federal UK leave these matters to a federal Scotland? Under a federal system would we co-operate more closely or less closely on health matters such as the swine flu pandemic?
It's not clear who is flying a kite here, the Herald or Henry McLeish, but somebody is.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2505604.0.Former_first_ministers_say_Holyrood_should_change.php
The story has the air of a holiday weekend filler with not much detail of where, when and under what prompting the various quotes were gathered, but it is on the front page, so the Herald might actually be taking it seriously.
Jack McConnel says that the financial powers should be revisited and, he implies, increased. Henry McLeish says we should look at a "federal" system. Alex Salmond looks forward to independence.
The first and last are no surprise. Tax raising powers that never get used have always been a conundrum that needs to be addressed. Which is not to say that there is an easy and obvious solution. And Alex Salmond promoting independence, well that's always been his public position.
But Henry McLeish goes further, expressing a view in favour of federalism. He says..
"We have to have an alternative narrative to independence, and I believe federalism addresses the question of what to do about an England that looks increasingly out of kilter with the rest of the UK. ....Why should sovereignty rest solely at Westminster? Why should diversity be a problem? Why should different self-identities be a problem?"
I have to say I don't agree with his premise that "We need an alternative narrative to independence". We have an alternative narrative. It's called Devolution, and Henry McLeish was a great supporter of it when he was FM.
As for his staement that"...England .... looks increasingly out of kilter with the rest of the UK". Where is the evidence for that?
When you anlayse the statement further, you see that it's full of weasel words. For example: "looks", well is it or is it not? "increasingly", increasingly over what? "out of kilter", what exactly does "out of kilter" mean? And who says "diversity" is a problem? Or "different identities", whatever that means? You would have to be fairly foolish to opt for any major change on the basis of that analysis.
Federalism has been a Lib Dem aim for some time, and they and Henry would have to explain what exactly is meant by "federalism" in this context, but it will take stronger arguments than that to be convince anyone that a federal solution would be any better than the current set up.
E.g. under a federal set-up, would the UK have bailed out RBS and HBOS, as they have just done? Or would a federal UK leave these matters to a federal Scotland? Under a federal system would we co-operate more closely or less closely on health matters such as the swine flu pandemic?
It's not clear who is flying a kite here, the Herald or Henry McLeish, but somebody is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
