Times Tables failure = forced academy.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 chris123  hove actually 10 Mar 15 9.23pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 10 Mar 2015 9.09pm
Quote NickinOX at 10 Mar 2015 1.06pm
Quote nickgusset at 10 Mar 2015 12.49pm
Quote Stuk at 10 Mar 2015 12.39pm
Quote nickgusset at 10 Mar 2015 12.35pm
This details transference of property and the money academy chains are making through selling off 'excess' land for profit.
But even the link says August 2012, so it's steam rolling ahead clearly.... Which of the facts in the article are wrong? Are any articles unbiased? Using that logic this must be just as valid. It even uses evidence rather than mostly citing other blog posts written by the same person. I would like to see how free schools do in comparison to non-free schools when the next set of results come out (later this year I think); whether they have a demographic advantage (currently the evidence seems to says no, but there is only a limited sample size); and whether they have been set up in areas of need (again the evidence is too limited to draw full conclusions, but suggests they have been). Once more data is available I think it will be reasonable to judge. On the other side, I would like to see actual evidence that having a teacher training certificate makes someone a better teacher, and whether comprehensive schools actually did better for their pupils' education than the old system of grammar and technical schooling. Which at least let students excel in an area of aptitude rather than trying to pretend they were all essentially the same. Something that is patently silly. According to this [Link] the policy exchange (Tory funded, founded by Gove) research on free schools is seriously flawed. Edited by nickgusset (10 Mar 2015 9.14pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 10 Mar 15 9.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote chris123 at 10 Mar 2015 9.23pm
Although a registered charity, it does not release the names of its funders. Moreover, although its financial statement describes most of its spending as ‘research’, much of this appears to be devising and advocating Conservative Party policy. Indeed, its 2012-13 accounts boast of its influence on government policy including increasing chain-sponsored academies, the mandatory work scheme for unemployed people, and Prevent. (This report on free schools was funded particularly by Krishna Rao and Jeremy Isaacs of Goldmann Sachs, who also funded an earlier report on teachers’ performance pay.)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
NickinOX  Sailing country. 10 Mar 15 9.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 10 Mar 2015 9.09pm
Quote NickinOX at 10 Mar 2015 1.06pm
Quote nickgusset at 10 Mar 2015 12.49pm
Quote Stuk at 10 Mar 2015 12.39pm
Quote nickgusset at 10 Mar 2015 12.35pm
This details transference of property and the money academy chains are making through selling off 'excess' land for profit.
But even the link says August 2012, so it's steam rolling ahead clearly.... Which of the facts in the article are wrong? Are any articles unbiased? Using that logic this must be just as valid. It even uses evidence rather than mostly citing other blog posts written by the same person. I would like to see how free schools do in comparison to non-free schools when the next set of results come out (later this year I think); whether they have a demographic advantage (currently the evidence seems to says no, but there is only a limited sample size); and whether they have been set up in areas of need (again the evidence is too limited to draw full conclusions, but suggests they have been). Once more data is available I think it will be reasonable to judge. On the other side, I would like to see actual evidence that having a teacher training certificate makes someone a better teacher, and whether comprehensive schools actually did better for their pupils' education than the old system of grammar and technical schooling. Which at least let students excel in an area of aptitude rather than trying to pretend they were all essentially the same. Something that is patently silly. According to this [Link] the policy exchange (Tory funded, founded by Gove) research on free schools is seriously flawed. Edited by nickgusset (10 Mar 2015 9.14pm) This criticism is coming from someone who cited a blogger citing his own blogs as evidence. You've now linked another blog site. Come on Nick, that is fallacious on multiple levels. So what that the website I posted is run by a right of center policy think tank. That does not automatically make what they say wrong, or right. Their research is published and can be properly fact checked. Whether they are correct or not, I have no idea. However, and whether I agree with their argument or not, that they conducted research which is available for review tells me they at least make a legitimate case. If you are going to claim something is wrong, explain why your argument holds water and provide some evidence to support it. If all you are going to offer are ad hominem attacks from blog sites, you clearly have no real argument.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NickinOX Sailing country. 10 Mar 15 9.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 10 Mar 2015 9.29pm
Quote chris123 at 10 Mar 2015 9.23pm
Although a registered charity, it does not release the names of its funders. Moreover, although its financial statement describes most of its spending as ‘research’, much of this appears to be devising and advocating Conservative Party policy. Indeed, its 2012-13 accounts boast of its influence on government policy including increasing chain-sponsored academies, the mandatory work scheme for unemployed people, and Prevent. (This report on free schools was funded particularly by Krishna Rao and Jeremy Isaacs of Goldmann Sachs, who also funded an earlier report on teachers’ performance pay.) This is all ad hominem.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 10 Mar 15 9.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Policy Exchange: A "non partisan" charity it may be,but in general terms it appears on the face of it hardly the most open minded people with no particular political sympathies around
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NickinOX Sailing country. 10 Mar 15 9.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 10 Mar 2015 9.41pm
Policy Exchange: A "non partisan" charity it may be,but in general terms it appears on the face of it hardly the most open minded people with no particular political sympathies around Again, so what? What is wrong with their actual argument. Where is their research flawed?
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TUX redhill 10 Mar 15 9.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
We are now 'a dumb' country producing 'dumb kids' but telling them they are bright!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 10 Mar 15 9.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
. Edited by legaleagle (10 Mar 2015 9.46pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NickinOX Sailing country. 10 Mar 15 9.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 10 Mar 2015 9.41pm
Policy Exchange: A "non partisan" charity it may be,but in general terms it appears on the face of it hardly the most open minded people with no particular political sympathies around Don't get me wrong, It is reasonable to ask the question, but surely it is relevant only if the evidence appears to be biased or the research is flawed.
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 10 Mar 15 9.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote NickinOX at 10 Mar 2015 9.42pm
Quote legaleagle at 10 Mar 2015 9.41pm
Policy Exchange: A "non partisan" charity it may be,but in general terms it appears on the face of it hardly the most open minded people with no particular political sympathies around Again, so what? What is wrong with their actual argument. Where is their research flawed?
Edited by legaleagle (10 Mar 2015 9.52pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 10 Mar 15 9.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 10 Mar 2015 9.29pm
Quote chris123 at 10 Mar 2015 9.23pm
Although a registered charity, it does not release the names of its funders. Moreover, although its financial statement describes most of its spending as ‘research’, much of this appears to be devising and advocating Conservative Party policy. Indeed, its 2012-13 accounts boast of its influence on government policy including increasing chain-sponsored academies, the mandatory work scheme for unemployed people, and Prevent. (This report on free schools was funded particularly by Krishna Rao and Jeremy Isaacs of Goldmann Sachs, who also funded an earlier report on teachers’ performance pay.)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Mar 15 10.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TUX at 10 Mar 2015 9.45pm
We are now 'a dumb' country producing 'dumb kids' but telling them they are bright!
Probably because previous generations have a very misguided sense of their own generations intelligence. Plenty of thick c**ts around in every generation.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.