It's little surprise that our state-education is churning out innumerates when our Children's Secretary (i.e. Education Minister) Ed Balls comes out with rubbish like this:
... Children's Secretary Ed Balls warned many parents would be left disappointed by the Tory promises [to allow parents to set up their own schools and get government funding] as they would struggle to find funding for the reforms without making swingeing cuts elsewhere in the education budget. He said: "The Tories need to come clean with parents about what their plans really mean. Michael Gove can only pay for his Swedish schools experiment by cutting billions from the budgets of existing schools and slashing our school rebuilding programme."
Assuming the new schools are funded by some sort of voucher-scheme, however heavily disguised, then for a fixed education budget, you could easily engineer an increase in funding per pupil who remains in a state school by setting the value of the vouchers at less than the cost of a place in a state-school.
We don't need no stinkin' objectivity
2 hours ago
5 comments:
an increase in funding per pupil who remains in a state school by setting the value of the vouchers at less than the cost of a place in a state-school
But wouldn't that be dishonest?
JH why is it dishonest? If they offered us vouchers of £1,000, we'd gladly take them. If they set the value correctly (by trial and error) it should be possible to cut overall schools budget, increase funding per state pupil AND improve standards enormously. What's not to like?
"The Tories need to come clean with parents about what their plans really mean. Michael Gove can only pay for his Swedish schools experiment by cutting billions from the budgets of existing schools and slashing our school rebuilding programme."
Personally I thought that is exactly what Gove is proposing: we will slash existing budgets, give y'all vouchers and education will sort itself out.
Upside: bad teachers rise up and are Coventreyed. Downside:?
What the Tories needed then('97) and need now is an ex-alcoholic, pornographer who thinks in evil ways that they will listen to. Or just to listen to someone who does not think that lowering themselves to socialist garbage talk and exceeding it loses them elections.
Remember the evil eyes poster? They should have followed through and every time Blair contradicted himself or came out with his patronising guff referred back.
Is there anyone in the conservative party with the wherewithal and balls to follow that through?
There was not in '96/97 and there is not now.
I did not have the internet then but had I had I would have been shouting from the binary speakers 'This guy is a con man'. And, and...
Until such times as they find themselves able to oppose I despair. How difficult would it have been for Major to reply 'I do not lead riff-raff?'.
How difficult would it have been to state 'That's not just John being John, that's what Labour does?.'
How effective would it have been to say to Blair and(eventually to Brown) 'but you sold the gold?'.
Is there anyone in the tory heirarchy that understands a meme?
Is there anyone who understands that you do not go on the defensive when asked about your policies but attack and attack the govt.?'
'They come from the playing fields of eton!'.
'We are better educated than you'.
Or, 'I admire that you admit your education policies are ridiculous and look forward to you renouncing them'.
I am not asking for policy lists all I am asking is that they actually oppose and do it consistently. Brown stands up and states the latest Mandelshon/Balls/Milliband bollocks and you say we heard that 4/5 years ago, why are you still coming out with the same old?
When they do the trite:the Tory Party will disembowel your children and sell off the second born you say 'the prime minister has once again lost it'.
And sit down.
What's that old phrase? It's not lettuce science?
Grow a pair.
STB.
What this reveals actually is Ed Balls' unspoken assumption that the voucher-funded schools would run alongside the existing bloated LEA bureacracy, so their funding would be additional to those currently-fixed costs.
Which may very well happen, if the government of the day does not show a steely resolve (Steely Resolve, Dave Cameron, hmm, hmm, think think).
Whereas what should happen is that the voucher-funded schools go hand-in-hand with a slash-and-burn removal of the bloated LEA etc etc, leading actually to a decrease in total cost.
Looking in my crystal ball I see an incoming Tory government instituting a half-hearted toe-in-the-water approach to vouchers, hedged about with all sorts of terms, conditions, and restrictions, and with the LEA's still firmly in place and exerting their dead hands over everything.
So we will probably end up with the worst of all worlds: no improvements, increased costs, and a reason for the Left so say "See, vouchers were tried and didn't work".
Trchnically Balls is correct in that if the number of pupils in the sate sector declined by 50% the budget for these schools would reduce, other things being equal, by 50%.
Of course the money per pupil is not reduced but the money for bureaucracy, placating unions & ministerial empire building is reduced & if real purpose of government spending is paying government employees & friends then a voucher scheme would hurt them.
The fact that Balls phrased his remark correctly, even though on the face of it it is wrong, strongly suggests he does indeed know that is the purpose.
Post a Comment