Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
What a cosy gang of chums we have in the edu world...
RSC quits to join minister’s academy chain
A regional schools commissioner (RSC) has been “poached” to join an academy chain set up by a government minister.
Paul Smith, RSC for Lancashire and West Yorkshire, resigned less than a year into the new role, established by the government to oversee its growing academy programme.
His departure was revealed earlier this year during a parliamentary debate into the new education bill during which Mr Smith (pictured) was congratulated for “being poached by another employer for his wonderful talent”.
Schools Week can exclusively reveal that Mr Smith has been recruited to become the new chief executive officer of Future Academies, set up and chaired by Lord Nash, a junior schools minister. The trust runs four schools in Westminster, central London.
Four schools?
Wow, that will need a salary of at least £100k!
Probably more given that Smith was on at least that as an RSC.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
Actually, having read the article a bit further it says...
Mr Smith looks set to boost his salary: he was paid between £110,000 and £114,999 for his government role, while annual accounts show that Dr Saxton earned between £130,000 and £135,000 last year.
For being a bureaucrat overseeing 4 schools each of which would have their own HT.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
RogerOThornhill wrote:What a cosy gang of chums we have in the edu world...
RSC quits to join minister’s academy chain
A regional schools commissioner (RSC) has been “poached” to join an academy chain set up by a government minister.
Paul Smith, RSC for Lancashire and West Yorkshire, resigned less than a year into the new role, established by the government to oversee its growing academy programme.
His departure was revealed earlier this year during a parliamentary debate into the new education bill during which Mr Smith (pictured) was congratulated for “being poached by another employer for his wonderful talent”.
Schools Week can exclusively reveal that Mr Smith has been recruited to become the new chief executive officer of Future Academies, set up and chaired by Lord Nash, a junior schools minister. The trust runs four schools in Westminster, central London.
Four schools?
Wow, that will need a salary of at least £100k!
Probably more given that Smith was on at least that as an RSC.
So Lord Nash represents the public interest by poaching public staff for his own fiefdom?
Every child should study the same curriculum at the same time in schools across the country, claims a former head who was a government adviser.
Dame Sally Coates said that all children aged four to 14 should learn precisely the same things from a uniform curriculum in the same order throughout their schooling.
This would drive up social mobility and allow schools to concentrate on teaching rather than struggling to devise what to teach, she said.
As has been pointed out
Vicky @Llamagretch 1h1 hour ago East, England
@SchoolDuggery so academy chains get freedom of curriculum and then demand universal curriculum. #goingroundincircles
Soarpoints @Soarpoints 1h1 hour ago
@SchoolDuggery bar ranking that's called The National Curriculum approx 1998. Nat Lit Strat etc. Hardly ground-breaking
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
Re ^^^ I can't see what someone has to gain by getting access to (i) someone who is not a minister (ii) not in government and (iii) almost certainly not leader of the opposition.
Level of influence. Zero.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
RogerOThornhill wrote:Re ^^^ I can't see what someone has to gain by getting access to (i) someone who is not a minister (ii) not in government and (iii) almost certainly not leader of the opposition.
Level of influence. Zero.
Exactly. It's just pure let's fling some muck at Burnham territory.
RogerOThornhill wrote:Re ^^^ I can't see what someone has to gain by getting access to (i) someone who is not a minister (ii) not in government and (iii) almost certainly not leader of the opposition.
Level of influence. Zero.
Exactly. It's just pure let's fling some muck at Burnham territory.
Not only that but even a pleb like me has been inundated with invitations to meet Andy these last few weeks - for free no less.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 11m11 minutes ago
Patrick Wintour retweeted Britain Elects
Labour has gained a council seat in Scotland albeit on small turn out and from Greens. Water runs uphill.
Britain Elects
@britainelects
Leith Walk (Edinburgh) result:
SNP HOLD.
Labour GAIN from Green.
Well I can now go to bed a bit happier ... (sorry Tizme - but I am actually being a bit jokily disparaging of our exceedingly modest success in Scotland rather than celebrating a Green loss).
FWIW.
Post Shipman ,two doctors are required to "permit" for want of a far better word burial/cremation to go ahead.The signatory of the death certificate,knew the other one and informed me of their name and told me expect a 'phone call.No communication ever occurred between them and me.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 11m11 minutes ago
Patrick Wintour retweeted Britain Elects
Labour has gained a council seat in Scotland albeit on small turn out and from Greens. Water runs uphill.
Britain Elects
@britainelects
Leith Walk (Edinburgh) result:
SNP HOLD.
Labour GAIN from Green.
Well I can now go to bed a bit happier ... (sorry Tizme - but I am actually being a bit jokily disparaging of our exceedingly modest success in Scotland rather than celebrating a Green loss).
No worries RR2. Have you ever heard the saying "Women have to be twice as good as men to be thought half as well of. Fortunately this is not difficult"? Same applies to Greens.
Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
This assisted dying bill is unsafe and unworkable – parliament must reject it
Tanni Grey-Thompson
"Those closest to dying people, professionals in palliative medicine and others involved in end-of-life care, are among the strongest opponents of this legislation. They have firsthand experience every day of the vulnerability of dying people, and they have no wish to become involved in intentional killing. They know that giving everyone fair access to excellent end-of-life care can make all the difference to our experience of death."
Fight for care,observe that care,ensure that care.
Tizme1 wrote:... No worries RR2. Have you ever heard the saying "Women have to be twice as good as men to be thought half as well of. Fortunately this is not difficult"? ...
Tut, tut, excuse me, Tiz... and no I'm not calling tortoise or being disparaging or patronising either. Please don't blame us for your being all weak at the knees or swooning at our feet. We have our feelings too, you know.
Oops, now why have I gone and had the last word again? Help me out somebody.
Chemical weapons; don't you just hate them? Mind you I think exactly the same of nuclear ones. It's not science or technology to blame, but the acts that people do.
'And one final thought for this thread at least. I may be no economist but there is something wrong when the money supply is issued as the burden of debt and not as a done deal. It is only a token after all and should remain so, i.e. not a motivation in and of itself. Such power however would need to be wrested from the favoured few and then be managed accordingly (by the benevolent or democratic state?).
Of course the markets shall no longer be all powerful and what constitutes value shall require radical reassessment with a new model of taxation. Value must equally be applied to endeavour and meeting need plus a premium applied for ecological considerations.
I do have further idle thoughts on this matter but don't ask me, I don't have all the answers. Then why did you open your mouth, utopian?
Okay one more; right to die. In my late wife's and my experience we were not advised to expect death anyway so what's all this argument over life expectancy rather than existential condition. I am still against, not in principle but because I feel that safeguards for the vulnerable may be insufficient. 'Tis a dangerous path to tread. As someone on Breakfast Today said, with motor neuron disease I think, the law is to protect the many and not to enable the few.
In my own case should I have technically murdered my paralysed wife at her request then I should have no option other than throwing myself at the mercy of the courts. It is not an act to be taken lightly or to be coerced upon others. Of course I would appreciate the benefit of defence witnesses, not necessarily the act itself, and doctors would perhaps seem favoured from an authoritative or judgmental pov.
... Oh yeah there was a final one but got lost with loss of the internet and rebooting router (Back-paging is only effective so far - until you go past a branch that is).
Travel to and from work. It rather depends on the frequency and distances but the OU used to pay tutors a nominal rate for over an hour's journey time each way for tutorials over and above expenses incurred. Just saying; I don't see why it cannot apply elsewhere. Are employees not valued? Who else shall do the work?
Postscript: of course travel time and distance, not just the principle, should be dependent on the locations and nature of the work.
Another idle thought that came to me whilst doing other stuff and pondering matters as you do, possibly another for ephe and her catalogue of the anomalies of social security under IDS, Osborne and Cameron. Forgive me for repeating myself yet again but this government do not do Impact Assessments in any normal understanding of the term; impacts are classified as N/A no matter what they be. Belief in 'doing the right thing' trumps all regardless of the consequence.
Imagine if you shall a young worker or possibly unemployed living at home with parent(s) in social housing who also receive housing benefit because of their own status, possibly disabled, you know people unaffected by the Under Occupancy Penalty, but nevertheless affected they be. Not an unlikely scenario you may think.
Said youngster is either flying the nest for work or partner and may even be having a child. They cannot claim an allowance because, albeit adult they're considered too young so presumably they are already in or just starting work. Mum and Dad meanwhile are subjected to penalty because a bedroom is no longer in use. No matter you hear IDS say, they didn't receive full HB because of the non-dependant living there so what's the difference? Well I shall tell you, IDS, nobody else is now contributing toward the housing cost, get it?
Meanwhile said youngster(s) work had been terminated, they are no longer required but cannot claim any allowances. They cannot eat, they cannot pay their rent. What to do? Better go back to Mum and Dads. What they haven't a spare room any more they've moved because they couldn't afford it. Wtf!
Of course this is just an imaginary scenario that has no bearing on Tory reality, that intangible concept we're told of most days. 'And even where it is real it's only anecdotal so not worth considering hence the N/A under social impact. I understand now, IDS et al, you really do not give a shit what hardships you may inflict on others. Of course you shall collect no data whatsoever that may possibly indicate any such scale. Numbers are merely what you say they are.
