Whats amused you (in the news) today ?

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/minister-neil-obrien-speech-on-achieving-smokefree-2030-cutting-smoking-and-stopping-kids-vaping

I wonder if our new Government plan to “take actions” against smokers are more aggressive than the previous government.

I thought some counties plan to be smoke free 5 years earlier than 2030, is it just a gimmick the new government get things done quicker?

The Telegraph:-
www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/private-schools-tax-raid-could-cost-taxpayers-1-8bn-study-reveals/ar-AA1pLSNA?ocid=BingNewsSerp

OK let's hear the argument..


"But those who can no longer afford to go private as a result of the tax raid will experience big wealth gains. And related research suggests that this will make people reconsider how much they need to work.
At least some of the parents unable to afford the higher costs are likely to work less, retire early or even quit working immediately, according to analysis by the Adam Smith Institute (ASI).
The free market think tank looked at what would happen if two-fifths of money these parents earn or the hours they work specifically to cover school fees was instead taken as leisure.

Boom! That's where the Telegraph gets its headline from. Good work!

There's more!

www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/private-school-tax-raid-will-cost-young-athletes-their-olympic-careers-warns-headmaster/ar-AA1poLYP?ocid=BingNewsSerp

I was comforting the dog through a thunderstorm earlier today, and I put the telly on loud to drown out the noise. There were quiz programmes on, Celebrity The Weakest Link followed by Celebrity Pointless. It was astonishing. Not only did I recognise no one, but they were all so screamingly ignorant of basic facts that both should have made news headlines about a massive failure of the education system.

The only thing anyone knew about was fashion and soap operas. I don't think any of them would be able to tie their own shoe laces. No wonder banal election slogans are taken as containing deep truth and conspiracy theories take off, you could tell these people anything and they are not critically equipped to challenge it. W T F has been happening in British schools? Heads should roll.



Ok look, one of them was Bez from the Happy Mondays and I wasn't expecting much there. But another was Janet Street Porter who was either hamming it up and pretending to be thick or was genuinely unable to identify the county that contains Braintree, Basildon and Southend, and couldn't subtract 18 from 35. 12? Janet.

Well, the new PM posted “Well done” to all GCSE students for “whatever results” they got on results day.



They all have choices, that’s wonderful. It’s as easy as learning “ABC”

Fortunately, according to Intelligence Capital Index, US is ranked no 1 and followed by UK No 2. Despite average skill average skill is ranked no 8, higher than US ranking no 35, the elite skill is ranked no 3 compared to US ranking no 24.

So congrats to all the elites in the UK, unless you move to Australia or Singapore, you won’t have much competition.

www.kailchan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/KC_Intelligence-Capital-Index-full-results-and-methodology_Apr-2017_v2.pdf

🤔

Agreed. Ofsted doesn’t focus just focus on student academic standards. Some headteachers only focus on themselves nowadays, how to get bigger pay. Like school mergers, improving attendance, safeguarding, fancy toilets for open days. Easy points to have their boxes ticked. Competition doesn’t not win headteachers anything.

More faithful students get their 100% attendance awards than getting recognised for academic achievement. 🤣

Some schools are run by trust now. So instead of having one headteacher, now you have

CEO, deputy CEO, COO, CFO, a few regional directors, N number of executive headteachers, (2 to 3 ) N number of deputy executive headteachers, Nx number of associate headteachers. W T F

Exactly, so many head could roll without improving academic standards.

It's silly.

Yes, there's a one-word overall judgement. It's going.
It's the lowest of the five one-word section judgements. They're staying.
The full OFSTED report goes into each in detail. It's not changing.

That full report is really not hard to find, and anybody with even the vaguest interest really should be reading further than one word, especially where that one word is not glowing.

This is the report for the primary where the head topped herself in fear, precipitating all this hand-wringing: files.ofsted.gov.uk/v1/file/50211729
Four of the five sections were "good".
The last - safeguarding - was "inadequate".
"Safeguarding
The arrangements for safeguarding are not effective.
Leaders have a weak understanding of safeguarding requirements and procedures. They have not exercised sufficient leadership or oversight of this important work. As a result,records of safeguarding concerns and the tracking of subsequent actions are poor. Leaders have not ensured that all required employment checks are complete for some staff employed at the school. These weaknesses pose potential risks to pupils.
Some staff have not had the necessary training to be able to record concerns accurately using the school’s online system. However, staff know how to identify concerns about pupils and to report these to the appropriate leader. The pastoral support provided for pupils is a strength and they appreciate this level of care.

What does the school need to do to improve?
(Information for the school and appropriate authority)
* Leaders do not fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities effectively. They have not exercised sufficient oversight and rigorous monitoring of safeguarding processes. Leaders need to improve their own safeguarding expertise and ensure that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood by all staff at the school.
* Leaders, including governors, have not maintained effective oversight of safeguarding. They do not have strong systems in place to ensure that record-keeping and subsequent follow-up work are effective. Leaders and governors must ensure that robust systems are implemented so that they are assured actions taken are prompt and proper.
* Leaders have not ensured that there is always appropriate supervision during breaktimes. This means that pupils are potentially at risk of harm. Leaders need to urgently address these significant weaknesses in safeguarding arrangements.
* Leaders and governors’ oversight of attendance is not as strong as it needs to be. They do not have an appropriate policy or systems in place to identify patterns and trends quickly enough or connect these with vulnerable groups of pupils. Leaders must address this swiftly.
* Staff expectations of pupils with SEND are not always as high as they could be. As a result, some pupils with SEND are not achieving as well as they could. School leaders need to ensure that the curriculum is consistently implemented and that expectations of pupils with SEND are consistently high"

A report that didn't flag that sort of failure where it exists would be a pointless report.

Is a school that's good in four of five areas, but inadequate in the fifth, "adequate" overall? I'd say not. Seems to me that the one-word overview was actually perfectly appropriate.

I don't see a lot of difference to the legally-required "scores on the doors" food hygiene star stickers. Apart from everybody would be horrified if their local restaurant was only inspected once in thirteen years...