You are reading a single comment by @tbc and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
London school success is largely down to the London Challenge under the last Labour government, but to bring that up now is a risk because:
- It was clearly a very London-centric policy although it was partially rolled out in other areas later
- London has some real advantages in terms of teacher recruitment and retention that the places with the worst quality schools don't have (e.g. post-industrial or former fishing towns)
- London has different demographics (fewer pupils from the lowest-achieving groups)
- It costs money and spending on education is frivolous and wasteful when we need more nuclear weapons and warships
- It was clearly a very London-centric policy although it was partially rolled out in other areas later
tbc
deleted
School success is positively correlated to house prices right? Once an area starts going up in value then a decade later the schools begin improving as Noah and Olivia's parents roll up their sleeves and expose their pointy elbows to the school bosses.
It would be good to get a big load of this data and weight it all for these other sorts of macro factors that are likely more powerful than whether an academy has been created or not.
Not that I'm down on schools, the ones we're looking at now for our eldest are all in the Gypsy Hill Federation and are all good or outstanding. Just think that Labour could land a real blow on education if it was more coherent than me on why academies are not all they appear, why education is so valuable in a technology enabled, service based economy, why making university free for everyone is a drop in the ocean, why Oxbridge is tyrannical, why only a Labour govt can be trusted to deliver educational reform for the good of the average person.