So when an LA school does well, it's nothing to do with the LA and everything to do with the headteacher, but presumably when an LA school does badly, that's all down to the LA.RogerOThornhill wrote:Q 48 Bill Esterson: Sir Daniel, do you agree that local authorities should be able to take over if they are high performing?
Sir Daniel Moynihan: I don’t, actually. No.
Q 49 Bill Esterson: Okay. So we are not interested in high quality.
Sir Daniel Moynihan: It depends. How do you define local authorities as high performing? They are not directly responsible for the management of their schools, so what does that mean? If the schools in a local authority are doing well, does that mean the local authority is high performing? I think the headteachers of those schools would have something to say about that; their view would be that they have delivered.
Wait...
Oh, so the line we;ve had for five years about "local authority-run schools" from Give and his pals is utter nonsense then?Sir Daniel Moynihan: It depends. How do you define local authorities as high performing? They are not directly responsible for the management of their schools, so what does that mean? If the schools in a local authority are doing well, does that mean the local authority is high performing?
Thanks for clearing that up...
Meanwhile, when an academy school does well, it's because of the academy, not the head, but of course if an academy school does badly it's nothing to do with the academy, it's all the fault of the head and the clever academy is so much better than an LA as it cleverly simply sacks the rubbish head and brings in another one......and another one.....and another one......
Why don't the Tories just say they're going to privatise education because they feel like it and be done with it? All this trying to pretend it's a genuine improvement is making them look like prize idiots.