It has been reported that Gordon Brown has taken to eating bananas instead of his favourite Kit-Kats in a bid to stay healthy in the run up to the election. This, coupled with his recent taking-up of jogging, hints that he has recognised the need to stay healthy in what must have become an increasingly stressful job.
Of course, the average life of a regular MP, with the regular meetings, long hours and frequent journeys to and from the constituency can also be stressful. And that’s even before the expenses scandal.
So to counter this, during the week come rain or shine (or, more recently, ice), I take a daily swim in the Serpentine in Hyde Park. I would wholeheartedly recommend this to the Prime Minister as an excellent way to start the day, even if my dog, William, doesn’t necessarily agree.
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Debating the Equality Bill
Last Thursday in the Chamber I had the opportunity to question the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, on the subject of the Equality Bill. I asked her that since the Government are not now overturning their defeats on the amendments to the Bill, could we take it that the Government now accepted the principle that the Churches must be allowed to regulate their own clergy according to their own conscience?
This suggestion that the Government were running up the white flag on the issue did not go down too well with Miss Harman. She replied that they had “never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests” and accused me of trying to spread a misapprehension.
This is all very well if it had been the case, but the fact that the Pope, who of course picks his words carefully, felt it necessary to make an unprecedented intervention on the matter demonstrates that this clearly wasn’t the case.
His intervention was in relation to the amendment that would end the right to freedom for churches to discipline clergy who act outside of church ethos. Of course, the Pope’s interest lies in the welfare of his clergy who should be allowed to run their own lives and space in the way they want and he is not trying to impose his ideal on anyone else.
So despite the fact that the government have been unable to accept defeat in this matter it is encouraging that their amendments have not been passed, not least for the Archbishop of York, who, had they gone through, would have been deemed not to have the freedom to carry out his own work according to his own ethos.
This suggestion that the Government were running up the white flag on the issue did not go down too well with Miss Harman. She replied that they had “never sought to, or indeed even unintentionally, propose non-discrimination laws covering bishops, rabbis, archbishops or priests” and accused me of trying to spread a misapprehension.
This is all very well if it had been the case, but the fact that the Pope, who of course picks his words carefully, felt it necessary to make an unprecedented intervention on the matter demonstrates that this clearly wasn’t the case.
His intervention was in relation to the amendment that would end the right to freedom for churches to discipline clergy who act outside of church ethos. Of course, the Pope’s interest lies in the welfare of his clergy who should be allowed to run their own lives and space in the way they want and he is not trying to impose his ideal on anyone else.
So despite the fact that the government have been unable to accept defeat in this matter it is encouraging that their amendments have not been passed, not least for the Archbishop of York, who, had they gone through, would have been deemed not to have the freedom to carry out his own work according to his own ethos.
My Week
Even after 27 years I love my job. I still get a thrill of pride and a sense of history every time I walk into the Chamber of the House of Commons. But it’s also the feeling that you can make a real difference on the issues that matter and that you can help people.
Last Monday I chaired the Public Accounts Committee hearing on Dementia. We were grilling Sir David Nicholson the Chief Executive of the NHS. Our committee has done a lot to bring Cinderella type services like Dementia and Stroke to the forefront of NHS thinking: Today I gave a hard time to Sir David on his promise to me, repeated ten times during the last hearing, that dementia was going to be a national priority. It may still not be one, but it is no longer the hidden disease.
On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the Constitutional Reform Bill. I was the only MP arguing that a fully elected second chamber would only reflect the political classes and be stuffed with ministerial job seekers. The House of Lords is filled with experts. The few remaining hereditary peers do a good job and should be left alone. I predict that whatever the major parties say in public, in practice that are quite happy to leave well alone.
On Wednesday it was back to the PAC. We meet twice as often as any other committee. I am proud that in the eight years of my chairmanship working with the National Audit Office we have made recommendations that, having been accepted, have led to savings of £4 billion for the tax-payer. Today we were interrogating the heads of the Naval, Military and Civilian arms of the Ministry of Defence on the £6 billion black hole in their budget. With the NAO we have proved that either a major programme must be scrapped or commitments scaled back, otherwise the black hole will balloon to £30 billion or more.
In the evening I hosted a Cornerstone Group reception for 70 MPs and PPCs (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates). We founded this socially conservative Group seven years ago with just twelve MPs and now have over 30 parliamentary members and an active website. It was a great honour to have Margret Thatcher joins us. She is an inspiration to all who believe in core Conservative values.
On Thursday I returned to the Chamber to make interventions on a Private Bill to regulate Peddlers. A small group of us have used, shall we say, long speeches; filibustering is out of order, to ensure concessions to protect this ancient trade which has no powerful trade unions to represent it.
On Friday I had a busy day working in the constituency. I visited some impressive projects of West Lindsey District Council providing real jobs, not just training schemes, in forestry. We had surgeries in Gainsborough and Market Rasen. I think it is through these surgeries that MPs really can help people with their tax, housing and planning problems and I met with the headmaster of the Grammar school to promise to help his campaign to refurbish his wonderful school.
Do MPs provide value for money? That’s for you to decide. But there are only 646 of us overseeing one of the largest budgets in the world, £600 billion and half a million workers in the public sector would. Would things be any better if the bureaucrats had no scrutiny? I don’t think so.
Last Monday I chaired the Public Accounts Committee hearing on Dementia. We were grilling Sir David Nicholson the Chief Executive of the NHS. Our committee has done a lot to bring Cinderella type services like Dementia and Stroke to the forefront of NHS thinking: Today I gave a hard time to Sir David on his promise to me, repeated ten times during the last hearing, that dementia was going to be a national priority. It may still not be one, but it is no longer the hidden disease.
On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the Constitutional Reform Bill. I was the only MP arguing that a fully elected second chamber would only reflect the political classes and be stuffed with ministerial job seekers. The House of Lords is filled with experts. The few remaining hereditary peers do a good job and should be left alone. I predict that whatever the major parties say in public, in practice that are quite happy to leave well alone.
On Wednesday it was back to the PAC. We meet twice as often as any other committee. I am proud that in the eight years of my chairmanship working with the National Audit Office we have made recommendations that, having been accepted, have led to savings of £4 billion for the tax-payer. Today we were interrogating the heads of the Naval, Military and Civilian arms of the Ministry of Defence on the £6 billion black hole in their budget. With the NAO we have proved that either a major programme must be scrapped or commitments scaled back, otherwise the black hole will balloon to £30 billion or more.
In the evening I hosted a Cornerstone Group reception for 70 MPs and PPCs (Prospective Parliamentary Candidates). We founded this socially conservative Group seven years ago with just twelve MPs and now have over 30 parliamentary members and an active website. It was a great honour to have Margret Thatcher joins us. She is an inspiration to all who believe in core Conservative values.
On Thursday I returned to the Chamber to make interventions on a Private Bill to regulate Peddlers. A small group of us have used, shall we say, long speeches; filibustering is out of order, to ensure concessions to protect this ancient trade which has no powerful trade unions to represent it.
On Friday I had a busy day working in the constituency. I visited some impressive projects of West Lindsey District Council providing real jobs, not just training schemes, in forestry. We had surgeries in Gainsborough and Market Rasen. I think it is through these surgeries that MPs really can help people with their tax, housing and planning problems and I met with the headmaster of the Grammar school to promise to help his campaign to refurbish his wonderful school.
Do MPs provide value for money? That’s for you to decide. But there are only 646 of us overseeing one of the largest budgets in the world, £600 billion and half a million workers in the public sector would. Would things be any better if the bureaucrats had no scrutiny? I don’t think so.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Liaison Committee - 2nd Febuary 2010
Yesterday I had the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on the subject of Defence, with particular reference to the MOD budget and the situation in Afghanistan, during the twice-annual Liaison Committee hearing.
Firstly, I asked Gordon Brown whether during his time as Chancellor he had put heavy pressure on the Defence budget which had led to not only a fatal delay in providing the money necessary for the procurement of helicopters, but the real possibility of resignations from senior officers. This question was with reference to the evidence submitted by Lord Walker (Chief of Defence Staff 2003-2006) and Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence 1999-2005) at the ongoing Chilcot inquiry.
To this he replied that the MOD where given an overall budget and it was up to the senior officers to use it as they saw fit. This answer was in contrast to Lord Walker’s claims that the MOD had been given line by line instructions on procurement from the Treasury.
I then questioned the Prime Minister on the briefings from his office to the press regarding Defence spending. Despite a recent National Audit Office report highlighting a black hole of £6bn in the MOD budget over the next 10 years (even if there is an increase in spending of 2.7%!) No. 10 had still put out that they would maintain both the spending commitments to Afghanistan and the delivery of aircraft carriers. So I put it to Mr Brown, did he accept that this black hole was there, and that, if so, he simply couldn’t go briefing the press on maintaining spending commitments if the money wasn’t there.
He answered that the Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) fund, taken from the Treasury reserve, would meet the needs in Afghanistan.
However, he neglected to mention the MOD black hole, so I put it to him that if he planned to ring fence Health, Education and International Development (as he had stated earlier, under questioning from Peter Luff) what was going to be done about the £6bn shortfall.
He once again reiterated that Afghanistan would be covered by the UOR and that regarding the Defence budget, there would be a Strategic Defence Review in due course, a white paper and a debate about future defence commitments.
Finally, I pushed him on whether he was still fully committed to the procurement of the aircraft carriers. This he did confirm, but emphasised that the priority was to make sure that the mission in Afghanistan was properly financed.
Although perhaps not having always been the case, it was encouraging to hear the Prime Minister emphasising the commitment to Afghanistan as his number one priority. However, his acceptance that there would be a Strategic Review in due course demonstrated that his briefing of the press about maintaining defence commitments across the board was more about scoring political points. After all, one could promise a whole raft of spending prior to the election if one knows that there will be a Strategic Spending Review soon after the election.
Firstly, I asked Gordon Brown whether during his time as Chancellor he had put heavy pressure on the Defence budget which had led to not only a fatal delay in providing the money necessary for the procurement of helicopters, but the real possibility of resignations from senior officers. This question was with reference to the evidence submitted by Lord Walker (Chief of Defence Staff 2003-2006) and Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence 1999-2005) at the ongoing Chilcot inquiry.
To this he replied that the MOD where given an overall budget and it was up to the senior officers to use it as they saw fit. This answer was in contrast to Lord Walker’s claims that the MOD had been given line by line instructions on procurement from the Treasury.
I then questioned the Prime Minister on the briefings from his office to the press regarding Defence spending. Despite a recent National Audit Office report highlighting a black hole of £6bn in the MOD budget over the next 10 years (even if there is an increase in spending of 2.7%!) No. 10 had still put out that they would maintain both the spending commitments to Afghanistan and the delivery of aircraft carriers. So I put it to Mr Brown, did he accept that this black hole was there, and that, if so, he simply couldn’t go briefing the press on maintaining spending commitments if the money wasn’t there.
He answered that the Urgent Operational Requirements (UOR) fund, taken from the Treasury reserve, would meet the needs in Afghanistan.
However, he neglected to mention the MOD black hole, so I put it to him that if he planned to ring fence Health, Education and International Development (as he had stated earlier, under questioning from Peter Luff) what was going to be done about the £6bn shortfall.
He once again reiterated that Afghanistan would be covered by the UOR and that regarding the Defence budget, there would be a Strategic Defence Review in due course, a white paper and a debate about future defence commitments.
Finally, I pushed him on whether he was still fully committed to the procurement of the aircraft carriers. This he did confirm, but emphasised that the priority was to make sure that the mission in Afghanistan was properly financed.
Although perhaps not having always been the case, it was encouraging to hear the Prime Minister emphasising the commitment to Afghanistan as his number one priority. However, his acceptance that there would be a Strategic Review in due course demonstrated that his briefing of the press about maintaining defence commitments across the board was more about scoring political points. After all, one could promise a whole raft of spending prior to the election if one knows that there will be a Strategic Spending Review soon after the election.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Debate in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
On Tuesday I spoke in the Chamber on the debate on The Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. The crux of the Bill, introduced by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, revolves around measures designed to phase out, through a variety of different means, hereditary peers from the House of Lords. It also includes proposals for scrapping by-elections for hereditary peers.
As one would expect from the Chairman of the Cornerstone Group I am strongly opposed to the Bill. The logic of a democratic country states that we should have a democratically elected second chamber in tandem with the elected Commons, but if we put everything down to logic then the rich traditions and history of our country would be swept away. For example, the Royal family makes no logical sense, but they are part of what makes Britain great. As my Hon. Friend Gerald Howarth put it in the debate, “If they (hereditary peers) went, it would expose the monarchy as the only hereditary institution in the land. [Do I] believe that that would endanger the monarchy? I certainly do.”
The history of the Lords demonstrates that what we have ended up with is an example of a great British compromise. As so often happens with the law of unintended consequences in our historical development, we have ended up with a pretty good system. We have found ourselves in the enviable position of having members with vast amounts of expertise, who have worked all their lives in the professions or in business and who are not politicians. They speak only when they have to speak and vote only when they feel strongly. In short, they do a good job. And we mustn’t forget that there are only 92 hereditary peers, a mere 13% of their total number.
If one looks for a precedent for an appointed second chamber one need look no further than Canada. Do we really want to follow their lead and model our second chamber on the least effective second chamber in the Western world? I think not.
I worry that if we did get to the stage where there was a fully elected Lords then it would be stuffed with inferior Members looking for ministerial office. After all, Parliament is already stuffed with people looking for ministerial office, so why would the elected second chamber be any different?
What this debate boils down to is the agenda of some to push for reform for reform’s sake. The House of Lord’s is an institution which provides an important balance for legislative process of Parliament. It does, and will continue to do, an excellent job and any reform of its entry procedure would not result in better legislation. The phrase, “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” comes to mind.
As one would expect from the Chairman of the Cornerstone Group I am strongly opposed to the Bill. The logic of a democratic country states that we should have a democratically elected second chamber in tandem with the elected Commons, but if we put everything down to logic then the rich traditions and history of our country would be swept away. For example, the Royal family makes no logical sense, but they are part of what makes Britain great. As my Hon. Friend Gerald Howarth put it in the debate, “If they (hereditary peers) went, it would expose the monarchy as the only hereditary institution in the land. [Do I] believe that that would endanger the monarchy? I certainly do.”
The history of the Lords demonstrates that what we have ended up with is an example of a great British compromise. As so often happens with the law of unintended consequences in our historical development, we have ended up with a pretty good system. We have found ourselves in the enviable position of having members with vast amounts of expertise, who have worked all their lives in the professions or in business and who are not politicians. They speak only when they have to speak and vote only when they feel strongly. In short, they do a good job. And we mustn’t forget that there are only 92 hereditary peers, a mere 13% of their total number.
If one looks for a precedent for an appointed second chamber one need look no further than Canada. Do we really want to follow their lead and model our second chamber on the least effective second chamber in the Western world? I think not.
I worry that if we did get to the stage where there was a fully elected Lords then it would be stuffed with inferior Members looking for ministerial office. After all, Parliament is already stuffed with people looking for ministerial office, so why would the elected second chamber be any different?
What this debate boils down to is the agenda of some to push for reform for reform’s sake. The House of Lord’s is an institution which provides an important balance for legislative process of Parliament. It does, and will continue to do, an excellent job and any reform of its entry procedure would not result in better legislation. The phrase, “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” comes to mind.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
"Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death"
I have a tendency to read two or three books at once and have once again fallen into this bad habit. I am reading George Orwell’s 1984 once again and Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall (about the life of Thomas Cromwell) for the first time. The later is a study of the past, whilst the former was written as a study of the future that has now become the past.
Wolf Hall highlights the degree to which government, both Protestant and Catholic, peered into men’s souls in Tudor times, which was frightening.
1984 is not just a satire on Totalitarianism; it is satire on all dominant political thought processes. Nowadays, ours is a kind of vapid centralist social democracy which is utterly dominant in both the so called right and left parties all over Europe.
In 1984 when O’Brien is torturing Winston Smith he says:
“We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury, a long life or happiness, only power, pure power.”
It seems to me that today many of the world’s leading politicians are less and less interested in ideology, in moving the world in the direction of their own choice. They are focused on power, but not power to do something, just to be.
To obtain an office, to be on the top table with the President of the United States, to have their name inscribed in the lists of Prime Minister, to be someone, not to do anything.
They are empty shells.
As O’Brien says:
“The object of power is power.”
Newspeak is famously the corruption of language to eradicate free thought. Political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak.
Modern leaders for instance unashamedly draw back from talking about immigration because is leads inevitably into a language which confronts political correctness.
Thus when the Right seeks to speak out on its favourite theme it is quickly deemed guilty of “thought crime”.
In 1984 any lie can become truth. Two and two can be made to be five.
Now in the modern consensus all conservative heresies are gradually consigned to the dustbin because an opinion pool from some focus group has deemed that any citizen that confronts the notion of social democracy is dangerous or idiosyncratic. In other words the only yardstick to live by is that society knows what is good for me, rather than living by my instincts of what is good for me and my family.
The main component seems to be that people have to believe in something because it is deemed to be good by the dominant politics speak for society and not for them and their families. For instance, when David Cameron bravely speaks out for marriage, a bucketful of invective is poured over his head which argues that because not all marriages are good, we can’t support marriage. He must have the courage to carry out his convictions.
Most people know that the modern state is fantastically wasteful and incompetent but it is somehow bad manners to rise up in intellectual rebellion and demand a bonfire of rules and regulations, a dramatic cut in spending and the return of our own money in tax cuts.
I think that many people would in truth, like to send their children to a privately run school. They cannot afford it because they would have to pay for education out of their highly taxed salaries. They are brain washed into believing that state schools, many of which provide a very mediocre education, are actually best for them and their families. This may be right, but not in all cases.
Many people would like to top up their NHS prescriptions or spend their last days in a private home or a private hospital. However, they think they should want to end their days in a mixed NHS ward.
Many people think that much of the money which they give to charity is wasted in incompetence and corruption and that actually this has been a great cause of the corruption of the ruling classes which has led to the ruination of Africa. But they dare not say so.
Most people like the thought of living in their own country, with their own culture and their own religion in the broadest sense, but they are brainwashed into thinking it is good to live in society where their traditional identities are gradually being forgotten.
Most people would like to believe in marriage and in God, but because they are told that God’s existence cannot be proved and that belief in Him can lead to intolerance and extremism they substitute religious obedience for some vague subservience to the good of society and liberalisation.
This attitude informs the debate on “global warming”. People are told that they should want to live next to a huge, ugly wind turbine. That they must give up their comfortable car because this too adds to global warming. Unfortunately global warming has become a constant crusade by the Left to impose a new, thoroughly painful ideology on us, when their old ones have been demolished.
Is it any wonder that if you look around Europe the Prime Ministers, whether left or right, are generally instantly forgettable suits.
Is it any wonder that there has never been a time when politicians and political parties in Europe were more moribund, and there are increasing calls for state funding to fill the vacuum?
Wolf Hall highlights the degree to which government, both Protestant and Catholic, peered into men’s souls in Tudor times, which was frightening.
1984 is not just a satire on Totalitarianism; it is satire on all dominant political thought processes. Nowadays, ours is a kind of vapid centralist social democracy which is utterly dominant in both the so called right and left parties all over Europe.
In 1984 when O’Brien is torturing Winston Smith he says:
“We are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury, a long life or happiness, only power, pure power.”
It seems to me that today many of the world’s leading politicians are less and less interested in ideology, in moving the world in the direction of their own choice. They are focused on power, but not power to do something, just to be.
To obtain an office, to be on the top table with the President of the United States, to have their name inscribed in the lists of Prime Minister, to be someone, not to do anything.
They are empty shells.
As O’Brien says:
“The object of power is power.”
Newspeak is famously the corruption of language to eradicate free thought. Political correctness is the modern equivalent of newspeak.
Modern leaders for instance unashamedly draw back from talking about immigration because is leads inevitably into a language which confronts political correctness.
Thus when the Right seeks to speak out on its favourite theme it is quickly deemed guilty of “thought crime”.
In 1984 any lie can become truth. Two and two can be made to be five.
Now in the modern consensus all conservative heresies are gradually consigned to the dustbin because an opinion pool from some focus group has deemed that any citizen that confronts the notion of social democracy is dangerous or idiosyncratic. In other words the only yardstick to live by is that society knows what is good for me, rather than living by my instincts of what is good for me and my family.
The main component seems to be that people have to believe in something because it is deemed to be good by the dominant politics speak for society and not for them and their families. For instance, when David Cameron bravely speaks out for marriage, a bucketful of invective is poured over his head which argues that because not all marriages are good, we can’t support marriage. He must have the courage to carry out his convictions.
Most people know that the modern state is fantastically wasteful and incompetent but it is somehow bad manners to rise up in intellectual rebellion and demand a bonfire of rules and regulations, a dramatic cut in spending and the return of our own money in tax cuts.
I think that many people would in truth, like to send their children to a privately run school. They cannot afford it because they would have to pay for education out of their highly taxed salaries. They are brain washed into believing that state schools, many of which provide a very mediocre education, are actually best for them and their families. This may be right, but not in all cases.
Many people would like to top up their NHS prescriptions or spend their last days in a private home or a private hospital. However, they think they should want to end their days in a mixed NHS ward.
Many people think that much of the money which they give to charity is wasted in incompetence and corruption and that actually this has been a great cause of the corruption of the ruling classes which has led to the ruination of Africa. But they dare not say so.
Most people like the thought of living in their own country, with their own culture and their own religion in the broadest sense, but they are brainwashed into thinking it is good to live in society where their traditional identities are gradually being forgotten.
Most people would like to believe in marriage and in God, but because they are told that God’s existence cannot be proved and that belief in Him can lead to intolerance and extremism they substitute religious obedience for some vague subservience to the good of society and liberalisation.
This attitude informs the debate on “global warming”. People are told that they should want to live next to a huge, ugly wind turbine. That they must give up their comfortable car because this too adds to global warming. Unfortunately global warming has become a constant crusade by the Left to impose a new, thoroughly painful ideology on us, when their old ones have been demolished.
Is it any wonder that if you look around Europe the Prime Ministers, whether left or right, are generally instantly forgettable suits.
Is it any wonder that there has never been a time when politicians and political parties in Europe were more moribund, and there are increasing calls for state funding to fill the vacuum?
Monday, 18 January 2010
I Believe
Education
As the father of six children I am very interested in education. My wife and I have tried a mix of all types of education for our children; state and private, English and French, day and boarding, faith and secular.
I am not an educational theorist, I am only a parent. I believe that at the end of all this, no type of education is consistently superior to any other.
I do believe in the maximum variety of provision to suit all needs, skills and ambitions.
So my conclusion is clear. Head teachers, both in the private and state sectors must be free to run their schools with the greatest possible freedom.
They should be free to hire and fire staff in order to get the best.
They should be free to set wage rates to get the best staff, particularly where teachers are scarce, such as in the teaching of maths.
Head teachers should set their own curriculum and not be bound by a rigid national curriculum.
We should move gradually to a situation where they are able to decide on which pupils join the school and on the criteria upon which this is based. In fact, the overwhelming majority of schools should always be broad based in their ability range.
Eventually I would like to see a time when the money for a pupil’s education follows the pupil. Any pupil at any school should attract the same basic support from the state, with additional support for special needs according to a statement. This would have to be brought in gradually, starting in year R and building up steadily starting in deprived post codes. Naturally traditional HMI inspections would continue to weed out any incompetence.
I believe that if we break down the divisions between the independent and state sectors, if we set our schools free and if head teachers had to respond to parents, not government targets, then we really could have the best education in the world.
As the father of six children I am very interested in education. My wife and I have tried a mix of all types of education for our children; state and private, English and French, day and boarding, faith and secular.
I am not an educational theorist, I am only a parent. I believe that at the end of all this, no type of education is consistently superior to any other.
I do believe in the maximum variety of provision to suit all needs, skills and ambitions.
So my conclusion is clear. Head teachers, both in the private and state sectors must be free to run their schools with the greatest possible freedom.
They should be free to hire and fire staff in order to get the best.
They should be free to set wage rates to get the best staff, particularly where teachers are scarce, such as in the teaching of maths.
Head teachers should set their own curriculum and not be bound by a rigid national curriculum.
We should move gradually to a situation where they are able to decide on which pupils join the school and on the criteria upon which this is based. In fact, the overwhelming majority of schools should always be broad based in their ability range.
Eventually I would like to see a time when the money for a pupil’s education follows the pupil. Any pupil at any school should attract the same basic support from the state, with additional support for special needs according to a statement. This would have to be brought in gradually, starting in year R and building up steadily starting in deprived post codes. Naturally traditional HMI inspections would continue to weed out any incompetence.
I believe that if we break down the divisions between the independent and state sectors, if we set our schools free and if head teachers had to respond to parents, not government targets, then we really could have the best education in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)