Comments on: City Acadamies

By: La Reyne le veult

La Reyne le veult — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:42:39 +0000

I can’t see how the number of academies proposed can prevent the problem posed by the second questioner — although given the lack of progress recorded by Ofsted so far, and the distinctly lacklustre PriceWaterhouseCoopers evaluation, I don’t think wealthy parents will be that eager to take academies over.

It’s only a small thing, but wouldn’t it be reassuring if they’d noticed by now that they’d spelled the word wrong in their heading? Or is it a Freudian admission that the programme is worth dam all?

By: roger

roger — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:21:38 +0000

Hmm - methinks another case of spin. Way back in the mists of time we used to have places like this - Grammar Schools. So now we call them something else make it for cities only (all the country kids are idiots and besides their parents need to be taught a lesson - VOTE LABOUR, or else!) - which is really fair and equitable.
However, without discipline (Tone, babes, just for you - that iS also FAIR and EQUITABLE discipline), beginning in the home and continuing through the school and into the courts Tone and his playmates are, once again, WASTING OUR MONEY.
And I see Tone’s very own plan wants to waste even more of it?

By: Roger Huffadine

Roger Huffadine — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:04:52 +0000

Silly me - I thought that it was the qualities of teachers, enforcement of discipline and instilling an enthusiasm for learning that made schools a success.

I would really like to know how putting people in a different building better equips students for modern life.

If this new ‘theory of modern social engineering’ actually works - then can we please pull down the Palace of Westminster and build a crappy tacky glass and steel Houses of Parliament?

Imagine the sensible well reasoned policies that would enhance our lives once the politicians were in the new building.