Schools row: Tip of a large political iceberg

Kudos to Gove for apologising. Over and over again. But pretty soon this apology for a government is going to sound insincere whenever they say "sorry", they just seem to be saying it so often.

Gove should learn that maybe a little bureaucracy is not necessarily needless and may in fact stop errors such as this occuring ad infinitum.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The moral of the story?

Keep politicians well away from childrens education.

It really is as simple as that.

The Coalition need to keep repearting that the need for cuts is because of Labours mismanagement of the economy, the country and well just about everything apart from their dvd collection. Balls glee just confirms that Labour knew that the ship was sinking and that they wanted someone else to clear it up and do the hard work so they can try and creep back in.

Balls is about it

We have a Minister that actually has the decency to apologise, which Blair never did for Iraq

Brown never did for anything

People in this country who complain about politicians and their lack of principles and humility should take comfort from Michael Gove

Having someone like Ed Balls trying to take the higher morale ground when he can't distance himself enough from the Gordon Brown years, despite being culpable is distasteful

Michael Gove is well liked and respected, and part of the triumverate with Osborne and Cameron as you well know Nick

If he has been stitched up by a Sir Humphrey type, then he will be found and dealt with

Ed Balls winning the leadership of the labour party would be the best result of all from a Conservative Perspective

I trust Andrew Neil will make mincemeat of Balls next week, as he has done so far with Abbot, Burnham and David Miliband last night

"Both in public and in private, Gove insists that the errors in his list are his responsibility and his alone. Others mutter, though, that the new minister has been stitched up by officials who may have forgotten that they no longer work for Balls."
Spot on and how nobly Mr Gove has behaved. This is to backfire for sure.

It does look shambolic.

Call me old fashioned, but I thought Ministers "lead" and departmental civil servants actually do the detailed work.

If the department actually included on its list of schools NOT to be funded a school that had actually been completed, I suggest a good swift kick up the rump would be in order.

It doesn't say much about the department that Ed Balls left behind! If you still have a list with a spending commitment against it, when the money's already been spent, no wonder the country's finances are in such a mess.

The Coalition folk absolutely need to get on top of the detail. Fast.

Civil Sevants giving their Minister a plank to walk ! Surely not ?

I like Michael Gove - there I've said it - but I wonder if he's a touch lightweight. Especially following in the shoes of a guy (Ed Balls) who, dislike him or loathe him or fear him, is choc a bloc with weighty presence. On the question of which is more important - the walls or what goes on within the walls - well it's clearly the latter. Having said that, it's a mistake to think infrastructure isn't important and doesn't affect teaching standards. A leaking roof and a tawdry level of equipment in the gymnasium might not prevent a bright young spark passing their A levels, but it surely doesn't help. A really important area, this ... our children are the future, aren't they? ... so come on Gove (and Brave & Reforming Coalition generally), get a grip.

I'm not sure I agree with any of this blog.

The error on the lists is just an admin mistake, and not the product of evil labour spies in the civil service.

Now that Gove has apologised (and to his credit, shouldered full blame) the dispute is over; even if the BBC want to keep it in the news.

And finally, someone should remind Ed Balls that he only just left the department, and if it is making needless admin blunders then he should be shouldering more of the blame than Gove.

The civil service is a fine body of the state, but over thirteen years there must be many civil servants who have become, if they were not already, ardent labour supporters.

Meaning that they would be delighted to make errors which show the government in a bad light, so long as the errors are not traced back.

Lots of "LEAKS" so that ministers can be called to account in the "HOUSE". Lady Thatcher would call them "the enemy within".

It will take time to weed the spoilers out, a dirty job, but one that must be done.

Careless, even shamefully careless, to make such a monumental cock-up over such a sensitive area of policy. When it comes to children's education as with the health service we have expectations that government is there to make the right decisions and with fairness.

I am concerned that in their haste to make change the government have really not considered the groundswell of opposition that will result from making cuts that even their supporters cannot stomach.

Whether this was a stitch up or not Michael Gove should have been up to the task, and while I do not think it is a resignation or sacking offence, he needs to up his game quite rapidly.

I generally oppose dogma and I was hoping that a more conciliatory and consultative approach might be forthcoming from the coalition. Making sure that where cuts were made would be effective and not damaging to front line services was the claim wasn't it?

Now some school building projects could do with shelving, some with reducing/modifying and some are worthy of continuation. It would be sensible to check which before making announcements that will only lead to sustained and genuine opposition, even from within your own troops.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

3. At 09:29am on 09 Jul 2010, JohnConstable wrote:
The moral of the story?

Keep politicians well away from childrens education.

It really is as simple as that.
---------------------------
I thought that was the Michael Gove objective. Hand more power back to the schools, away from Westminster and the very amateur politicians in local government. He deserves our support in that objective. Pity he made this blunder which will detract from the real argument.

'Balls replies that the government is cutting spending on local schools to fund an ideologically driven policy of creating "free schools".'
--------------------------------------
Oh and of course Mr Balls is not ideological about anything is he?

Well, well, well. Who would have thought it. We supposedly voted for change and what have we got, the same old politicians who can't get their facts and figures right. As was pointed out, supplying information to Parliament that is misleading is a very serious matter. This Condem Govt will not be happy until there is no decent future to look forward to for the people of this country. Another report says that a single person should be able to manage on £14,440 per year. I would like to see the likes of Gove and his millionaire chums try and survive on that much money per year. Makes me sick. They won't be happy until they have brought the population down to third world living standards while they line their pockets along with their big business cronies. I see lots of unrest looming.

Michael Gove has demonstrated that he clearly lacks a key aspect of any "senior manager" ie. attention to detail. This is a major blunder and he's only been in the job 8 weeks!!! Also if this is an example of how he works, the schools are in for a rough and unfair time under the Tories.....what a thought.
Rgds, Gordon Hutchison

Balls should be careful what he crows about as the turkeys will be coming home to roost and the roosting will be firmly at his door

"Labour's Ed Balls can scarcely conceal his glee... "

A truly awful man. If he had had any concern for children and their education he would have worked from a shed and had his own plush offices built last.

A far better idea would be to let children decide. They are infinitely more concerned about others than any political idealogue.

What a load of nonsense. The issue is not whether a building project that had been loosely budgeted for will go ahead or not, but whether given the lack of funds is this the right time to build. Many of these projects where probably not going to be started within the next five years in any event, and may have had to be put on the back burner by labour if they had won the election. All the huffing and puffing is good entertainment, doesn't appear to be embarrssing Gove much, and will be forgotten about by Monday.

"A leaking roof and a tawdry level of equipment in the gymnasium might not prevent a bright young spark passing their A levels, but it surely doesn't help."

Quite true. But just how many leaking roofs are there in schools? And if the roof IS leaking, shouldn't we have just fixed the leak rather than building a whole new school?

Besides, no-one has yet explained why we were so high up in international educational tables 20 years ago when we supposedly sat under running rainwater sharing a text book between 5 pupils and yet now we have had all this investment and are much much lower in the tables.

#11 silvergoldfox
Simply issue every member of BfS with a P45

Collective responsibility for a monumentally incompetent Quango, set up, funded, and supervised by one Ed Balls (would-be PM)

The Civil Servants should be reminded that they are working for HMG NOT
the labour party, but it does show you how politisised labour made the
civil services

Both in public and in private, Gove insists that the errors in his list are his responsibility and his alone. Others mutter, though, that the new minister has been stitched up by officials who may have forgotten that they no longer work for Balls.

Balls will hope that he has holed the coalition below the water line. Gove must prove that having carelessly struck the iceberg he can now get back to port; patch up the hole and set sail again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know what Nick, and I dont say this often, if at all, I think this is the most accurate summation I've seen you come up with.

It makes a change for a Minister of State to put his hands up and say I goofed, I got it wrong and take responsibility for it, as he/she should. Certainly never got that from the last lot, it was like pulling teeth to get them to show any kind of contrition whatsoever, even when they had broken laws that they themselves had helped push through the system and actually been guilty of committing an offence.

However, knowing the way some civil servants function, the stitched up element doesnt surprise me in the least. Theres also the distinct possibility of incompetence, on both the part of Gove and also on the civil servants/PUS etc around him.

I mean how many government departments were there under the last administration that were described as not being fit for purpose, even by their own cabinet ministers? Why should Education be any different?

Should Gove go? In truth, I would say that is a personal decision. Lets not forget that this so far has been an administrative issue so far, no-one has lost their lives, no-one has been laid off, no-one has been sued. Lets get it in perspective. The PM of the day though, regardless of political colour must reach the end of his tether sooner or later though and Gove, if he is to remain in post has to get his act in order and get a grip on his department.

Blinky will make a lot of noise about this, of course he will. He wants to be Leader; another Brown which we could well do without. The last one did plenty enough damage as it was.

Interesting isnt it though, that neither you or any of your colleagues have questioned him about where he would have found the 2bn of cuts to his old department that he said he could find back in September last year when Gordon rattled his cage...

Soon another apology will be needed: this time to General Practitioners.
You may remember that GPs were supposed to be the key players in NHS commissioning during the last Conservative Government - [the one that gave us stagnation and mass unemployment for 18 years].
The NHS reform then was to be led by 'GP Commissioning' that most GPs didn't want to take responsibility for. "Haven't we enough to do without learning the skills of negotiation and contract management?" they asked.
Without those specialist business skills, they made a mess of things. So it had to be stopped.
Now the London School of Economics research unit has published (June 2010:Paper 988) an analysis that shows the in-place system of centralised control of the price-of-treatments is showing healthy signs of working as intended by reducing time-costs wasted by poor hospital admin. Just as the NHS IT systems begin to support better allocations too.
It would be A LOT BETTER if our new coalition could become a little less arrogant and didn't make silly changes for change's sake. And optimised systems already in place.

Part of the problem is that Michael Gove looks like a disobedient puppy that has just messed on the axminster.

I actually do not see why Michael Gove has to take the flack for a civil servant's blunder - we should fire more Permanent Secretaries. We expect far too must of the amateur politicians we put in charge of departments. We need to recognise that the permanent government is the creator of the vast majority of the horrifying administrative disaster.

Looking at Michael Gove's CV it is hard to find any evidence that he has actually run anything since leaving Oxford in 1988. He has only ever argued the toss as a journalist. Say what you like about journalists they just criticise and, in Gove's case, never run anything. I am sure that he is sincere when he apologises for the administrative cock up - but as he would not recognise a well run administrative system from a disaster waiting to happen - we are the fools who let him be in charge.

His CV demonstrates only journalistic experience not administrative so I am led to wonder if he wasn't a disaster waiting to happen. In which case blame to coalition who appointed him. It is just a pity he will blight the lives of so many people (I hope my last conclusion will not be true for the whole government - but it is, I think, a vain hope.)

Mick @ 14

Yes, that is precisely the point - getting the politicians as far away from children and their education as possible.

Where Government could have been useful, but signally failed, was to ensure that the overarching themes (1944 Butler Education Act) of developing the three broad educational streams (Secondary, Technical Secondary and Grammar) actually happened.

It did not - the technical stream was not developed at all and everybody knows what happened to Grammars.

So, today we find that 25% of engineering vacancies were not filled in the last year - simply because politicians utterly failed to ensure the development of the technical education stream over the past few decades.

Our England has been immensely damaged by these politicians and their failed educational policies.

#16 fedupwithgovt
I manage on much less than half that sum.
Lovely cottage, reliable car, faithful dog.

Gove is part of the government that has decided to implement cuts to the school building programme, and it's no use Tory supporters claiming that Labour would have made the same cuts. They would have cut but it's sure to have had a different emphsisis, THEREFORE this was Gove's list, and he got it wrong.

It's nothing more than embarrassing........at this stage.

I recall Lefty10 banging on about 'The Spirit Level' as 'proof' that income inequality causes social problems.

Seems it was all baloney.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

of 20 indicators of social problems cited as 'proof' of the claims in The Spirit Level, it turns out only 1 of the 20 indicators is actually statistically correct. Indeed there are factors (suicide rates, charitable donations, divorce rates) where income unequal societies score BETTER.

I'd always wondered at a work that cited Japan as an example of anything socially as they seem to me to have a society unlike anywhere else but of course I'd never had the time to do any serious work on it. Glad someone has and that the myth has been debunked.

Iceberg or not, there is an elephant in the room which is the Private Finace Initiative.

The PFI was a Tory scheme, enthusiastically adopted by Labour to keep public debt "off balance sheet" and reward their respective supporters in business.

It has proved to be expensive, inefficient and ultimately unaffordable. (see current and past Private Eyes).

Any future capital projects should be funded on an open and honest basis.

Here's just one of many articles about the PFI - don't dismiss it because of the source and the political slant - the fundamentals are correct. It's also a demonstration of how blurred the line between public and private has become.

https://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16034

BBC Breakfast filmed a school in the West Midlands built in the 1960's (God the architecture of that era was so dismal and uninspiring) and meant to last only 25 years. Eh? The Victorians built schools and libraries that are still in use 150 years or so and still usable for many decades to come. The short sightedness that exists in the public sector is just plain waste.

Great for the building companies or council workers if the build is done in house but a lousy deal for the tax payer. The school in question is decrepit but should never have been built with materials used in the first place. Bricks and mortar every time over external wood panelling. in my view all government should get into the habit of suing for mal practice or not doing the job properly or contractors ripping off the state.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

While on the face of it the free schools policy may appear untried, untested and frankly barmy (it was difficult to sell during the election) I can understand what Gove is trying to do.

One crucial advantage private schools have over state schools, and why their grades are generally better, is that they have the full support of the parents. The parents pay money to educate their kids, care about their education and work with the school, supporting the teachers in maintaining discipline etc. Because a free school will be set up by parents, it is feasible that these schools will also have this support, be attractive to tecahers, secure independent investment and will be successful.

The problem is that these projects only tend to work in affluent areas where people have the money / time / resources etc to do this. While I do not believe Gove is purposefully channelling money away from other schools (merely trying to cut the deficit) a two tier system is somewhat inevitable in the long term, as these free schools will effectively become grammar schools and the old comprehensives will turn into the new run-down secondary moderns.

When you see pictures of the shocking state of some of our schools it is very evident that money is needed to be spent on our educational buildings. I laugh at these right wing comments in this thread (hypocites all) that support these cuts. My feeling is they would not be to happy if they were the ones affected by this fiasco. This Alliance is dubious at best and I sincerely hope their reactionary policies will start affecting some of these people who voted for these incompetent and shady public school operators. Don't believe the hype.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"The Spirit Level has little claim to validity. Most of the correlations on which the argument is based do not stand up, and other relevant research does not support it.
Income distribution is a legitimate issue for political debate. But
the debate should not be contaminated by wonky statistics and
spurious correlations."

The conclusion from "Beware false Prophets", a thorough debunking of The Spirit Level. It's a good read, lefty10, you should read it.

I expect a change of government to bring about a fundemental change of philosphy, that's the whole point of kicking one bunch out and letting t'other lot have a go.

A cornerstone of Conservative philosophy for a long time has been 'small government' and letting folks do as much as they can for themselves; while Labour's philosophy has been 'tax and spend on your behalf.' The problem is that the Conservatives' hand is still in my pocket. If they want my money, I expect responsible stewardship and it to be spent for the good of the citizens of the nation: what I won't accept is their hands in my pocket and cutbacks in provision. OK, the country is broke - here's news, so am I. I haven't got money to give you, dear government, especially when I see no return in the shape of public spending.

Moreover, I'm sick and tired of political dogma interfering in the provision of education. We have professional educators to attend to that.

Not to mention, if a programme has too much needless bureaucracy what you do is trim the bureaucracy, not simply cancel the programme.

16#

"This Condem Govt will not be happy until there is no decent future to look forward to for the people of this country."

Patently ridiculous.

"Another report says that a single person should be able to manage on £14,440 per year. I would like to see the likes of Gove and his millionaire chums try and survive on that much money per year. Makes me sick."

More chips on shoulders. Great. Havent got enough of them around here...

"They won't be happy until they have brought the population down to third world living standards while they line their pockets along with their big business cronies. I see lots of unrest looming."

Dont be so melodramatic. People cant even be bothered to get off their sofas from watching Jeremy Kyle, let alone riot. You've been out in the sun too long mate. I'd be surprised if you can see the end of your duodenum from where your head is at.

So, someone made an administrative mistake. It's very embarrassing for Gove and the govt, but these things happen. Gove has apologised and taken responsibility. Let's move on.
If, in two or three years' time, we're seeing major problems with our education system, the NHS, unemployment, poverty and so on, then we'll have good reason to complain. At the moment we have a new coalition govt trying to get on with the job of running the country. They have yet to prove themselves, so why all the negativity and bellyaching. Give them a chance. I didn't realise how much political speculation, gossip, and sniping went on these days. I thought that the public didn't much like 'yah-boo' politics. Online newspaper comments sections suggest otherwise. So there -- and my dad's bigger than your dad!!!! :-)

30 - Not sure why the link was deemed unsuitable but for those looking to read a thorough analysis of why The Spirit level is utter tosh, try entering 'policy exchange think tank' in your search engine. 'Beware false Prophets" is there on the home page.

You don't even have to buy the 125 page demolition of the spurious claims made in the Spirit Level as it's available as a downloadable pdf.

andy @ 21

"just how many leaking roofs are there in schools?"

Well there were (famously) an awful lot of them under the tories ... was more a question of which ones weren't leaking back then ... but there are far fewer now. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

"Looking at Michael Gove's CV it is hard to find any evidence that he has actually run anything since leaving Oxford in 1988. He has only ever argued the toss as a journalist. Say what you like about journalists they just criticise and, in Gove's case, never run anything."

He's not alone unfortunately, as given the sheeples propensity for electing professional politicians from the tribal ranks. Oh well...

The school in my village is well over 100 years old. It's fine. In fact every time the council comes along and says its going to build a new one they get sent away with a flea in their ear.

Gove was right to apologise, and to take responsibility in the face of the public.

However I hope he is now finding out who the inept Civil Servants were that allowed these errors to happen and will be putting them on an official warning. If cuts are to be made, and they can be made by getting rid of inept staff at no cost, that will benefit the public immensely.

A real facepalm moment, but Gove has apologised - and has not tried to wriggle out of it or pin it on his juniors! To me, this is sufficiently refreshing, after years of slippery New Labour, that I would forgive him several times over.

To others who support the coalition, let's nonetheless hold them to account. Let's constructively criticise to keep them sharp and effective, and avoid slipping into the croneyism of the other lot.

As for Ed Balls, I hope he is enjoying his safari in the political wilderness.

Even if civil servants screwed up in compiling the lists it's up to Gove or a personally delegated, trustworthy senior appointee to check the lists before publication.

This episode also serves to highlight, as do a couple of neglected schools in my area, the hit-and-miss education policies of the last government.

· 39. At 10:51am on 09 Jul 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
16#

"This Condem Govt will not be happy until there is no decent future to look forward to for the people of this country."

Patently ridiculous.

"Another report says that a single person should be able to manage on £14,440 per year. I would like to see the likes of Gove and his millionaire chums try and survive on that much money per year. Makes me sick."

More chips on shoulders. Great. Havent got enough of them around here...

"They won't be happy until they have brought the population down to third world living standards while they line their pockets along with their big business cronies. I see lots of unrest looming."

Dont be so melodramatic. People cant even be bothered to get off their sofas from watching Jeremy Kyle, let alone riot. You've been out in the sun too long mate. I'd be surprised if you can see the end of your duodenum from where your head is at.

###################################

If you could give a reason for your opinion it might have some credence, statements like


“More chips on shoulders. Great. Haven’t got enough of them around here” and “Patently ridiculous.”

Don’t mean a lot

Is seems the BBC is quite prepared to run stories about tory issues BUT
when they are reminded about ED balls part played as the minister for children and issues like Baby-P

we could also talk about Alan Johnson and the maidstone care trust chief exec whom was made a scapegoat for political reasons and that was a judges summary

38#

The fact you and the country are both skint Megan, might just be to do with the fact that Gordon spent it all. You might have to get used to getting less for more for quite some time thanks to him.

· 43. At 11:12am on 09 Jul 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
"Looking at Michael Gove's CV it is hard to find any evidence that he has actually run anything since leaving Oxford in 1988. He has only ever argued the toss as a journalist. Say what you like about journalists they just criticise and, in Gove's case, never run anything."

He's not alone unfortunately, as given the sheeples propensity for electing professional politicians from the tribal ranks. Oh well...


####################

As you say, like me and you, just criticise

"Both in public and in private, Gove insists that the errors in his list are his responsibility and his alone. Others mutter, though, that the new minister has been stitched up by officials who may have forgotten that they no longer work for Balls."

Oh dear it sounds like the paranoia has started to kick in already...Its only been two months...

30/37#

Good spot Andy. Wonder what he'll have to say to that, apart from accusing you of being an tax dodging Ashcroft Vichy stooge chum of the bankers who are joining their Tory mates in indulging in a Live working class baby eating Degustation menu at Petrus along with their industry mates.....







ps: Mods, this is what is known in the trade as "banter".

Nothing defamatory about it, OK?

If people are muttering that Gove has been "stitched up by his officials", they should come out openly and say so. If officials are doing something so unprofessional, they should be identified, disciplined or sacked. If not, the issue would be clearly brought into the open & could be resolved - without a lingering smear on the professionalism of those involved. The Government appears keen to open up its workings so that things are more transparent & people made more accountable. This seems an obvious opportunity to pursue this approach.

5. Kevinb wrote:

We have a Minister that actually has the decency to apologise,
People in this country who complain about politicians and their lack of principles and humility should take comfort from Michael Gove
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Blair apologised for the dome but not the war.

Do not expect anymore apologies.

TV programs like 'yes minister' and 'the thick of it' seem to be true to life.

All I know is that if I were starting out as a cabinet minister I would get two departments to draw up the same batch of figures, if they were both right I would publish them, one or both wrong and the civil servants would be out!

I think the thing Gove is apologising about is his own naivety.

And we wonder why politicians are unable to give a straight answer to any question!

Andy @ 30

May I draw your attention to The Spirit Level authors' response to the Policy Exchange pamphlet - it explains why Peter Saunders' methodology is seriously flawed. It's published on The Equality Trust website.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/saunders-response

It also provides evidence that The Spirit Level's conclusions are supported by many peer reviewed analyses of relationships with inequality carried out by other researchers.

Andy:

"This report shows that The Spirit Level has little claim to validity. Its evidence is weak, the analysis is superficial and the theory is unsupported."

"The book’s growing influence threatens to contaminate an
important area of political debate with wonky statistics and spurious
correlations."

Hah! GET IN!! And thats from another Sociology Emeritus Professor as well, not some two-bit self-loathing-middle-class champagne socialist journo!

Stitch THAT, lefty10!!!

I do giggle when i see socialists getting in a tizzy over an administration error.

Credit to Gove for apologising and for talking directly to the schools concerned. My how have things have changed since Labour's 'what mistake?' policies.

Even now I can hear Brown giving some credence to the 'change in the er decision making process, that required us to er alter our lists'

My annoyance with this issue is that nobody has commented in the slightest the impact this travesty of a decision will have on the Construction Industry. I am fully aware of the need to "tighten ones' belt" and "cut ones' cloth", however the decision to cut so many small jobs is massively detrimental to the economy and the UK Construction Industry.

The market place at present is stagnated and the decision to save £1billion a year over the next 5 years I fear will cost the UK economy much more. Firstly there is the massive cancellation costs, no true figure has been placed on this - but I would assume that the BSF bidding process for the lets say 50 that were let, cost in the region of £4million - £15million to bid - the cancellation costs I would assume would be at a minimum £200million. There are then the savings that the schools would have offered in terms of running costs (as each school is designed and built with energy efficiency targets).

The other major cost is the jobseekers allowance that will need to be paid to the massive numbers of people within the industry - simply because the private sector work is not there to pick up the slack.

I feel this decision was made with free schools and acadmies driving the decision, rather than what is best for the economy - and that is not what this austerity programme is being branded, OR should be about.

Gove dropped,dare i say it,the ball on this he only had to check a list for the love of god if santa claus can do it before he comes to town then surely a well paid minister can as well.

It doesnt bode well this for him,you have the free school idea that appeals to very few in real terms and this lets stop building new schools so i can pay for free schools idea (at least thats the way it'll come over as time moves on) he just seems to be another bumbling minister,so much for new politics.

42. At 11:08am on 09 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 21

"just how many leaking roofs are there in schools?"

Well there were (famously) an awful lot of them under the tories ... was more a question of which ones weren't leaking back then"

Well (famously) we were really high up in international educational league tables under the tories but have fallen badly under Labour. I've heard defence of this from some aying that it's other countries 'cathcing up' but the UK was the ONLY country to fall out of the top 10 in reading and maths when comparing 2000 with 2007.

"In 2000, the UK was placed eighth in maths and seventh in reading in secondary schools - the UK in the latest table is in 24th place for maths and 17th for literacy."

Where did all that money go? Clearly it did not result in increasing or even maintaining the terrific educational standards Labour inherited.

Oh come now, BSF was a complete shambles and it's been documented by Private Eye, as well as by government reports for years now ( https://bit.ly/bHnUkW for some of them)

When you look as the actual figures as well, the capital budget it remaining intact, getting rid of the mess that was BSF may well mean more schools are refurbished and built.

There's also some evidence to suggest Gove was stitched up by PfS.

Post #40 is right on the button.

Balls on the moral high ground brings thoughts of 'how do you stack it that high?'

Shame is it still won't be enough to get him the leadership. He and the Labour party so richly deserve each other.

On a more positive note, a good opportunity for some staff assessments.

41. At 11:01am on 09 Jul 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
30 - Not sure why the link was deemed unsuitable but for those looking to read a thorough analysis of why The Spirit level is utter tosh, try entering 'policy exchange think tank' in your search engine. 'Beware false Prophets" is there on the home page.

You don't even have to buy the 125 page demolition of the spurious claims made in the Spirit Level as it's available as a downloadable pdf.

---------------------------------------------

Yeah, read it. Wilkinson and Pickett's rebuttal of Saunders, though, is worth reading. It's at:

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/saunders-response

If you are in the private sector leading a department, as I have in the past, then the buck stops with you. I've been in a similar situation where colleagues have made mistakes, as we all do. I took the blame for it, apologised, and made sure it didn't happen again. I accepted that I had been less than diligent as MG has done.
MG did have to apologise to MPs for not following the correct process for giving a statement and that error is all down to him -nothing to do with officials.
I think it will take time for Ministers to make the transition from opposition to Govt. In opposition they could say all sorts of stuff and it didn't really matter. It's not the same now. Tory oppositions are historically bad at holding the Government to account and I guess need to find a new way of working now they are in Government.
The interesting thing for me is not the mistake but the number of Conservative backbenches who are fighting the cuts. This will get worse come October when the CSR is announced. Then the cuts will turn from the abstract of percentages to things that really affect voters. Then the discussion on the pace of the cuts will really hot up. I predict a huge case of MP Nimby-ism breaking out at Westminster. I think they are over egging the pudding blaming Labour for this as much as they are. No doubt there are things labour did wrong but being so bullish will give the opposition a stick to beat the Government with when things do not go according to plan -in about a couple of years or so would be my prediction. The 2.5 million jobs to be created in the private sector are more an aspiration than a serious figure in my view, given the state of our export markets and the 1.3. million job losses forecast for the UK. Osbourne will 'do a Lawson' I'm fairly sure of it and put a fiscal stimulus in place before the next election. Politicians are politicians at the end of the day being re-elected comes before anything else. I suspect a lot of tory supporting people writing now will be really disappointed but at least you can enjoy the fun whilst it lasts.

So much rubbish is talked on these bloggs:

example:

"BBC Breakfast filmed a school in the West Midlands built in the 1960's (God the architecture of that era was so dismal and uninspiring) and meant to last only 25 years. Eh? The Victorians built schools and libraries that are still in use 150 years or so and still usable for many decades to come. The short sightedness that exists in the public sector is just plain waste.."

Since most Victorian schools were built by local authorities then statements like "The short sightedness that exists in the public sector is just plain waste" is almost nonsensical.


What should be of concern to all is how this government is so ideologically driven that it is, at this moment, using the same procedure that is used to fast track urgent legislation (for example…..anti terrorist laws with public safety implications) to ensure it’s academies bill becomes law before September.

This procedure has never been used except where there has been urgent risk to public safety. This is the true nature of our Mr Gove and his fellow ministers.

48#

Well, if you cant see the obvious prejudicial flaws in the original statement for yourself, you're hardly going to listen to my observations are you?

Give me a good reason why I should waste my breath explaining?

sagamix
"A leaking roof and a tawdry level of equipment in the gymnasium.."

What about

this sort of thing?

If it wasn't for Thatcher's underspending 18 years of government. If more new schools had have been built during that 18 years of Thatcher/Major governments, there wouldn't have been the rush to build them during Labour's 13 years. Too busy treating the governments budget like a family budget. A mistake this Conservative government with its Lib Dem yes men(I'm sorry to say) are about to make again. Followed by more rushed spending from the next Labour government.

· 50. At 11:37am on 09 Jul 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
38#

The fact you and the country are both skint Megan, might just be to do with the fact that Gordon spent it all. You might have to get used to getting less for more for quite some time thanks to him.


##########################


Hardly address the original comment

"41. At 11:01am on 09 Jul 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
30 - Not sure why the link was deemed unsuitable but for those looking to read a thorough analysis of why The Spirit level is utter tosh, try entering 'policy exchange think tank' in your search engine. 'Beware false Prophets" is there on the home page.

You don't even have to buy the 125 page demolition of the spurious claims made in the Spirit Level as it's available as a downloadable pdf."

I've read neither Andy, but in the spirit of fairness, and since it's the statistical methodology that appears to be important I think it's only right that we examine the credentials of the authors.

The spirit Level:
Richard Wilkinson, is the Professor of Medical Epidemiology at Nottingham University.
Kate Pickett is a Lecturer in Epidemiology at the University of York.

Beware false Prophets:
Peter Saunders was until 1999, Professor of Sociology at the
University of Sussex, where he is still Professor Emeritus. Since
then he has been Research Manager at the Australian Institute of
Family Studies in Melbourne, and Social Research Director at the
Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney.

I'd suggest that Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett are more competent statisticians than Peter Saunders.

The authors of the spirit level have published a response to beware false prophets.

https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/saunders-response

Andy @ 21 wrote:

Besides, no-one has yet explained why we were so high up in international educational tables 20 years ago when we supposedly sat under running rainwater sharing a text book between 5 pupils and yet now we have had all this investment and are much much lower in the tables.

>>

Being something of an expert (!) in this field, I can answer this query: education in other countries has improved a lot. And because high-quality state education is still a relative novelty in many of these places, students are motivated to make the most of their opportunities.

Old World Courtesy?

Maybe it is entirely my perception but I detect a barbed tone beneath the politesse - it could be that I am misreading the way he comes across in the media and I am quite prepared to accept that.

Yet looking closely at his mannered and overly rhetorical responses to other members, it does "seem" to me that his use of irony and deadpan response suggests something other than a courteous demeanour.

Listen very carefully to his apologies and the subordinate clauses contained therein.

"44. At 11:17am on 09 Jul 2010, Wee-Scamp wrote:
The school in my village is well over 100 years old. It's fine. In fact every time the council comes along and says its going to build a new one they get sent away with a flea in their ear."

The primary school I attended was Victorian era. It's still there. I can't recall a single leaky roof, although there was a perfectly round cricket ball sized hole in one of the windows. Rather than knocking down the whole school and rebuilding it, the school caretaker taped a piece of plastic sheeting over the hole. Seemed to do the job and as far as I can tell it had no impact on the children taught in that classroom.

The grammar school I attended had been built in the 17th century. Parts of it were ill served by poor central heating so e kept our coats on in the winter if we were in those bits of the school. Somehow, it didn't stop my year from gaining a record number of scholarships to Oxford & Cambridge.

It's an easy if somewhat fallacious argument peddled by the left that we 'must' increase spending on education. If it's targetted and results in improvements, fine, but Labour took it to extremes and wasted huge amounts.

42. At 11:08am on 09 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 21

"just how many leaking roofs are there in schools?"

Well there were (famously) an awful lot of them under the tories ... was more a question of which ones weren't leaking back then ... but there are far fewer now. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

=========

Come now Saga, I know we haven't sorted the facts issue yet (I plan to start this weekend - laptop in the sun and all that while the family are away) but you did post the following only recently:

"Key to debate is D - opinions - and the big distinction there is whether they are reasoned and logical or not. Mine almost always are (unless I'm messing around) and if you doubt that, please track from now on and pull me up where you think I've fallen short of my own high standards. Bet you have very little cause to."

So are we messing around or can you provide the reasoned and logical background to your statements re leaking schools?

Up2snuff @ 312 (previous thread) wrote:
There is only one Snuffy!

(?time for football chant?)

>>

Reminds me of that one, in poor taste I have to say, that Hearts fans sang to the Rangers keeper after he'd confessed to mild psychiatric problems: "Two Andy Gorams, there's only two Andy Gorams …"

Which all goes to show that honesty is not always the best policy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Michael Gove has apologised very publicly and that's it for the moment.

Ed Balls suffers from the same fantasy that has afflicted other former front-benchers. He can't tell us how Labour would have managed down expenditure to deal with the budget deficit.

Liam Byrne's handover certificate to David Laws said it all. We're not as stupid as Ed Balls believes.

56#

So, we have two Emeritus professors each saying the other is talking crap.

Who are we meant to believe then? Having read The Spirit Level from cover to cover, there is a case to answer.

Nobody is saying that equality is a bad thing. The issue has been how the data has been presented and how the conclusions have been reached, and so far as the political left is concerned, how the goal of greater equality is best reached.

Funny that not long after the publishing of such a demolition job on The Spirit Level that someone should be able to leap into place with a similar rebuttal document.

What a strange way our think-tanks work in. Makes you wonder almost sometimes whether they really do think for themselves or whether they're just having their strings pulled from behind the scenes, doesnt it?

Michael Gove has apologised, and well done

Can't remember the last time a minister apologised in the House of Commons so properly

Anyone know

56 - Simply saying on 1 webpage that the rebuttal is flawed is not quite the same as demonstrating (as Peter Saunders does over 125 pages) that the conclusions drawn in The Spirt Level are at best inconclusive and at worst just plain wrong.

To cite a concrete example, in the income equal Japanese society, women score very poorly on status and equality. Why is that? I'd say it was cultural not a direct effect of income equality. Yet other indicators that may just as well be caused by cultural backgrounds (in Japan and Scandanavia) are seized upon in The Sprit level as 'proof' that the income equality has caused the beneficial effects.

Nor does the supposed rebuttal of Saunders even attempt to deal withthe multitude of indicators that show either no correlation with income equality or where they point in the opposite direction to that put forward by The Spirit level. There is NO correlation between racial tollerance and income equality and a marked increase in personal charitable donations in income unequal countries.

No, The Spirit Level has been seriously holed below the waterline and is sinking. Cultural backgrounds, regardles of income equality are of at least the same importance as income equality and is again influenced by overall GDP.

At best, the authors of The Spirit Level saw what they wanted to see.

It's a list of projects for goodness sake, it shouldn't have been complicated to get this right. The first bit of 'attention to detail' Gove has to undertake and he made a complete mess of it. I wouldn't trust this man to run for a bus, let alone run our education system.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

@59

offtopic but

Its not only the construction industry that needs to worry. Cutting the spending power of the population by sacking 25% of public sector workers means much less spending power in the pockets of those people and much less money spent in a lot of area's.

My fundamental problem with the condems is they only seem to plan for the butchers shop chops they want and that they have nothing constructive to deal with the bloodbath they will create beyond a blind belief or hope that the priate sector will step in and pick up the pieces.

#36,#49 It would seem that the BBC is blocking any scritism of Mr E.BALLS wonderwhy are they still in the pay of the labour party

Don't worry if you haven't read, 'Animal Farm', 'cos you're living it now!

andy @ 37

Having just complimented you - prior thread - regarding your literary nous (the brilliant and very funny demolition of laissez faire capitalism that is Brett EE's American Psycho), I now find myself wondering. The Spirit Level is a book which makes a very strong case that a more equal society is a better society (every time I read it it seems to make this case just as well as it did the last time), but yes of course, the conclusions can be debated. Causes and effects in something as complex as our modern mixed economy can never attain the status of hard physical science. However a question for you (and for you too, Fubar Saunders): if ... if ... one accepts that a more equal Britain would indeed be a better Britain, would you then put your coat on and get out and about fighting for a more equal Britain? And if not, why not?

#42 I was educated under a leaky roof, it did me no harm BUT

I was taught by teachers that new how to teach and to pass examinations that had a purpose , which was to define your educational abiltiy NOT just getting 50% a degree.

So I would rather have the schools with a leaky roof and a descent system that is there to produce people that are employable for the jobs that are going

· 61. At 12:00pm on 09 Jul 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
42. At 11:08am on 09 Jul 2010, sagamix wrote:
andy @ 21

"just how many leaking roofs are there in schools?"

Well there were (famously) an awful lot of them under the tories ... was more a question of which ones weren't leaking back then"

Well (famously) we were really high up in international educational league tables under the tories but have fallen badly under Labour. I've heard defence of this from some aying that it's other countries 'cathcing up' but the UK was the ONLY country to fall out of the top 10 in reading and maths when comparing 2000 with 2007.

"In 2000, the UK was placed eighth in maths and seventh in reading in secondary schools - the UK in the latest table is in 24th place for maths and 17th for literacy."

Where did all that money go? Clearly it did not result in increasing or even maintaining the terrific educational standards Labour inherited.


#########################################

I thought that the question was about “leaking roofs” not league tables

12. At 09:51am on 09 Jul 2010, Mick wrote:
"Careless, even shamefully careless, to make such a monumental cock-up over such a sensitive area of policy. When it comes to children's education as with the health service we have expectations that government is there to make the right decisions and with fairness.
I am concerned that in their haste to make change the government have really not considered the groundswell of opposition that will result from making cuts that even their supporters cannot stomach.
Whether this was a stitch up or not Michael Gove should have been up to the task, and while I do not think it is a resignation or sacking offence, he needs to up his game quite rapidly...."

Mick,
I can't disagree with that.

What does astonish me is that Gove was given information (not sure whether directly through the Department or from the BSF sources).

Wherever the data came from, it was badly flawed. That suggests a lack of concern about genuine management and updating of systems to show what had actually BEEN done vs the plan and what was still on-going.

It can't be that hard to produce a list from the details that ED Balls himself must have been aware of to categorise
(1) Projects completed
(2) Currently on-going projecs
(3) Fiancially approved and planned projects, and
(4) Projects in planning but with no financial commitment

If Balls didn't have something like that in place, than how was his department running?

If the structure Balls set up - and Gove will need to sort out PDQ - couldn't say what the spent, on-going and FUTURE spending requirements actually were, than how could Balls possibly have projected a departmental budget?

That's not about party politics. It's a cry of despair at how the UK's finances seem to be managed...

56#

Additionally: Have the Equality Trust also been as quick to either rebut Christopher Snowdons book or indeed go any way towards answering the twenty questions that he poses of Professor Wilkinson and Kate Pickett?


Andy, you might find this interesting as well. Its referenced in the PDF published today, which has been itself "rebutted"...

https://spiritleveldelusion.blogspot.com/

#59 the current education policy is a rank mess , that needs root and branch reform to produce good quality citizens that ca ntake there
part in society and the economy

Gove is a bit wet behind the ears but I think he is generally well meaning.

What is appalling is that the schools were allowed to degenerate to this state in the first place.

I know people will argue it is not their place but when I looked at the pictures of one of the schools in Wednesbury, I did wonder whether a parents group could not have galvanised themselves into action - surely from the 600+ parents with kids attending the school in an industrial area, some parents would have the skills to take on some of the works on a voluntary basis.

Is this not exactly the sort of community action Cameron was advocating pre-election?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

66 - "What should be of concern to all is how this government is so ideologically driven"

Bit behind the times aren't you? There was an election in May and we got rid of labour.

59#

Not mentioning the cartel that allegedly existed for building public buildings... not mentioning that most of the construction workers will more than likely just return to Eastern Europe rather than end up on Jobseekers... and as I mentioned before, last September, Balls said he could find 2bn worth of cuts in his department - or more accurately, that they could get by with 2bn less.

So either BSF was not that high on his priorities or his department was haemorraghing money somewhere, that could and maybe should have gone to BSF if it was that important.

Odd how not many people who are slagging off the coalition and predicting angry villagers with pitchforks are choosing to remember this.



Cant possibly imagine why....

Who'd have thought it, a Labour scheme full of "massive overspends... and needless bureaucracy".

The fact is there is no money left for capital spend projects. Why does every school need to be a shiny new byuilding anyway? Mine wasn't and it didin't stop me getting a good education. It's maintenance that is required not dodgy PFI deals to build more buildings that will only last about 20 years.

Excellent piece Nick R. The iceberg image is particularly good.
Up until recently the coalition have focussed on the part that can be seen and gained a reasonable amount of support. People are now beginning to sense that the much larger, unseen part is not such good news. They were happy while the usual suspects, aka scapegoats, were the focus of attention. Now like sheep in the slaughterhouse yard a sense of growing unease infects them as they realise that they too might be for the chop. While others pay the price (whoever got it wrong) they can turn a blind eye. Make it too obvious that the majority, including themselves, are in the gunsights and the coalition may be headed for trouble.
The Honeymoon is over. Is it only a matter of time before Divorce papers are served? QT provided a pointer. True it was in Scotland, but to hear an audience openly laughing in derision as the LibDem tried to defend his position does not bode well - for him, his Party or us.

68 -

So what you're saying is that a report published in February 2010 (after Labour had been in power for 13 years) about a building material used extensively for around 40 years starting in the late 1940's is proof that Mrs Thatcher is to blame for the current problems of asbestos in schools?

Well, no jumping to conclusions and seeing what you want to see there then. Ever thought about writing a report on how income inequality causes all society's problems?

dh @ 68

Yes, tory neglect then Labour "quick, spend while we can!" then tory neglect, then ...

The famine feast famine approach to public services.

We'll learn one day.

64#

Not quite so easily digestible is it? It refers to data that you have to go and find for yourself and still effectively says "we're right, he's wrong, yah-boo sucks".

Whereas at least in the original article the notes and references are more self-explanatory and easily digested by someone who isnt an Emeritus professor - kind of helps when you're trying to sell such a quantum shift in policy to those of the masses who arent either socialist politicians, left wing "intellectuals" or sociology graduates.