Mr / Ms 77, either you are a stinking emancipated woman or you actually went to a horrible school and thus found the proposal a 'brilliant' one. You from UK ?
Whenever people drag in objectives that have nothing to do with the goal of an institution like the employment of people for it's own sake it undermines the purpose of the entire endeavor.
Quite honestly, local government is vastly overrated. Local governments in general lack the necessary qualified personnel, and this lack can hardly ever be properly compensated by well-designed rules.
@@nigelbenn4642 It's an issue that is advanced by many parents and politicians here in the United States (I'm guessing that you're from England, based mostly on your name and the show we both seem to enjoy). The public school system (different terminology from England's I believe) is pretty much a shambles, with Critical Race Theory and outright indoctrination of the children into socialist principles and other such trash. Many parents have opted to home school their children, and others have chosen to place their kids in charter or trade schools instead. It's the classic tug of war between the parents and the state over who gets the final say in how the children are taught. School choice is a big win for parents, and is something that I very much support.
School Choice is advocated by the political Right to reintroduce segregation. Christopher Ruffo invented the panic about Critical Race Theory in American schools to push such an agenda. He said so himself. I’m sorry, you’ve been conned. Please research Christopher Ruffo and consider changing your position.
The idea seems brilliant in principle. Sadly, it assumes that the schools will compete on quality outcomes, which they don't, or at least most of the private schools don't. The public schools are forced to remain ideologically neutral - or at least ideologically silent - leaving the private sector to characterise the public schools' ideologies however they wish (think words like "radical", "leftist" and "woke") while setting themselves up as an "alternative". The can't say "academically superior" or even "educationally superior"; they instead market themselves as "a Christian alternative" or "a traditional alternative" or a "progressive alternative" to whatever they just told you the public schools are. This war of perception and marketing is fought without the public sector having any right to its own defence. Secondly, they compete on cost. Public schools shouldn't cost the parents beyond the taxes they pay, so sending their children to a private school or a public school in a wealthier area with more expensive programs is made to feel superior. After all, if you have the option of getting something for free or paying for it, you automatically assume that the one you pay for is better. This of course ignores that public education is in fact funded, just by all taxpayers instead of only the parents and children using it. Nothing to do with quality; everything to do with perception and marketing. Thirdly, by having the government treat education as a business, they focus on minimising costs instead of maximising student outcomes. As other commenters have pointed out, the children who attend public schools don't vote, but the taxpayers who fund the schools (many of whom don't have children there) do. It wins more votes to cut the cost of education and let education suffer, thus reducing the cost to the taxpayer and making public schools less appealing, than allocating more money to public education and making it competitive on quality alone. I wonder if this has anything to do with how many politicians and bureaucrats attended private schools...
What's wrong with the schools remaining ideologically neutral? all these ideological changes would be based on what the parents want and presumably the usual metrics (test scores etc.) would be held to the same standards as they are now. Your second point doesn't make sense in my opinion, I find it hard to believe parents would go out of their way to spend money on education without just, you know, sending them to a private school. And if they do then so what? schools will have effectively increased their budget at no cost to the taxpayer, everybody wins. And how would this incentivise budget cuts exactly? Its proposing paying schools on a per-student basis, nothing major is changing, the childless taxpayers will get exactly as much of a say in the budget as they always have
@@markkealy4417 It is really quite simple. If the schools follow the ideological leanings of the parents, it will interfere with the leftist's desire to indoctrinate children into communism. Not to mention, under a "school choice" program it is the parents choosing their child's school, not the government. The government might prefer to cut costs rather than maximize outcomes, but I suspect most parents feel otherwise.
@@user-jx2qe1pv7q I'm a little bit confused, this is a discussion on additional choice in a government funded school-system, I don't know how its connected to communism. And why would this incentivise the government to cut costs? they're still sending the same kids to essentially the same schools with the same ciriculum
@@markkealy4417 - I agree with a lot of what you say, but.... In Sweden where I live, there are a lot of private schools financed by tax money. The two main problems with this are: 1/ Private schools mostly establish themselves in well-off neighbourhoods with parents and students who are study-minded. Thus it is the easy type of students that attends these private schools, while the public schools are left with difficult students that acquire more attention and teaching resources = more money. Now that would be fine if the the amount of money that is allocated per student was adjusted to reflect the greater expense, but it is not. The result is that public schools ends up being underfunded, and private schools making loads of money. The same pattern can be seen with Swedish health clinics. Private clinics pops up in affluent neighbourhoods with easy, relative healthy patients, while public health clinics have to take on the the difficult patients - and patients requiring translation service (unless it is the 12 year old child who has to accompany the mother for a doctors visit since the child speaks Swedish and the parent does not). 2/ "presumably the same metrics".. . Well... It is still the teachers and headmasters at the private schools who administers the tests and sets the grades. And what brings in more paying students? Higher average grades. So what we see is an inflation in grades, and teachers afraid of grading the students correctly. They get backslash from the parents, and pressure from the headmasters who has a budget to keep - and look good for the shareholders. For fear of loosing their jobs, many teachers silently give students too generous grades, making the private schools look god, and the public schools look bad. This could be prevented if the Department of Education was effective in cross-checking the grades, but it is not. A school might get a warning, a 2nd, 3rd and 4th warning before any decisive action is taken. And then tree headmaster is replaced, excuses are made, and a new round of musical chairs can begin.
Hacker is right, it is impossible to evaluate the performance of a teacher, and whatever workbench measure one adopts to evaluate the performance, the behaviour of the teacher will be skewed to maximize that measure. It's a common problem in all the public sector. In the Education sector there is another problem, if you want the students, or the parents, to evaluate the teachers, you have to separate teaching from students' evaluation, lest teachers will increase votes in order to "buy" students', or parents', consent.
@ETericET lol, thanks, but I was actual talking about the privatisation of the education system - a friend of mine linked me here when we were arguing about it. I've changed mine tune a little bit since then though. I actually live in Australia, so I knew what a seat was, I just didn't bother responding to the other guy because it seemed a bit pointless ;) I appreciate your consideration though!
@@NewhamMatt Funny, given that school choice has been fully implemented in Sweden and has proven an unmitigated success. On the other hand, school choice has never been implemented in the United States on any significant basis, so I find it quite strange you would claim it to be an "unmitigated disaster". I'd be interested in what reliable sources you base this claim on. And no, a RUclipsr does not constitute a reliable source.
@@NewhamMatt However, if you wish to speak of unmitigated disasters, there has been no greater unmitigated disaster than the state-run comprehensive school system. Since its implementation, educational standards have fallen precipitately, while administrative costs have risen uncontrollably. The state-run comprehensive school system has failed even on its own terms.
@@JohnDoe-mv6go School choice in Sweden is based on the understanding that it is illegal to charge for an education. In the US, there is nothing to keep poorer schools undersubscribed and/or underresourced. School Choice Vouchers are just a way of taking public money and putting it into private schools. Knowing Better has covered this on his RUclips video on education, and yes, I read your whole comment. All his sources are cited in the comments, including his rebuttal of the sources PragerU cited as supporting school choice...using those exact same sources.
It's not as great as it sounds. Schools in America are already paid per student, but the schools are only really concerned with test scores and attendance records because those determine their funding.
@saidthedog In the UK or here in Canada for that matter we have a Parliament system. So instead of districts we have seats here. You vote for the person in your seat that you like and the party that has the most seats wins. I know this relpy is very late .. but I decided to do it because of the one relpy you did get 11 months ago that wasn't too helpfull.
They're advocating for a national school board, if they were pushing Tory lines they'd be advocating for privatizing the lot...particularly during Thatcher's day.
The show's creators were on opposite sides of the politics line; they actually tried to really hard to make the show a nonpartisan satire, that no matter the party, the gov't/civil service dynamic would ensure little actual progress gets done. In this case, for example, the plan put forth here mixes elements of both sides: left-wing centralization of education above city-level control, right-wing emphasis on personal choice of parents and rejection of location-based comprehensive school system. And either way, Humphrey and his colleagues will try and undermine it because it shakes tings up too much, and they send their kids to "public" academies, anyways.
Part of the show's aim was to present some of the political issues of the day in a simple humorous form. The Thatcher administration did actually propose education reform to bring in more parental choice in the form of a school voucher system. The idea being parents would be given a basic education voucher that could be redeemed at the school of their choice and they could enhance it by paying extra if they wanted to go to a more expensive private or specialist school. As the sketch indicated it didn't get very far due to the opposition from within the Civil Service and the teaching profession. Children don't have the vote and parents only vote on education matters whilst they have children of school age whereas teachers and civil servants always vote every election so it isn't difficult to work out what they favoured. The status quo.
He didn't. The college he visited in this clip were using stolen art materials, nicked by the students. To ensure the story didn't leak, the Department of Education agreed to hush it up, as long as Hacker agreed not to abolish their department. Another win for Sir Humphrey.
This is why support reducing the voting age if you want better education systems let the people who directly use them have a say in the matter because for most politicians it's just a baby sitting service they provide to the parents. They have to listen to the teachers but if they make up a small portion of the population they don't need to listen to them as thoroughly but give the teachers allies who benefit from them having better salaries and equipment like the students and politicians will be forced to listen to them.
Actually, far from that. You must have missed the 'give it to Local Authorities' bit. Hacker is being decentralist and Academies are funded directly from central government.
@@dolvaran one school taking over another... That specifically describes an Academy trust to me. And Academies are still funded by the Local Authority. They act like they aren't and set up their own rules and don't answer when their asked to do something but once there's a check for grabs their first in the queue claiming that as the front line success schools they need government support
this whole dilemma with being fair to bad teachers is only a thing because we live in a society that forces you to either work a job or starve so you can't remove anyone doing a bad job without basically condemning them too starve
@@JanBruunAndersen basically none because i live in a country with basic welfare. edit: i actually looked it up and 15% of the population experienced "food insecurity" in 2018.
@@duskpede5146 "experienced "food insecurity"" doesn't mean they starved to death.. And "basically none because i live in a country with basic welfare." just contradicts your entire first comment.
@@yourmum69_420 i was wrong about the basic welfare comment because i decided to actually look it up :) but welfare good. besides "experiencing food insecurity" is a really sanitized term for the reality of going hungry for days on end without knowing how you are gonna get fed next, as well as going several months with just barely eating enough to survive. it turns out its pretty hard to actually starve someone to death. my point is this problem is completely avoidable because we have more than enough food to feed everyone but capitalism is built on profit and if you aren't able to sell yourself to the machine it has nothing to gain from feeding you
@@michaelgoldsmith9359 At least he is a honest person who admits he laughs because everyone else laughs. The weird bit is that he enjoys it, i guess ignorance really is bliss, you are left with your imagination and the constant sense of anticipation while being safe from anyone's judgment because of your innocent blatant honesty.
This is horrifying. I laughed at this at the time but this immediately became actual govt policy. Ofsted was invented to disrupt normal school running and force lots of bureaucracy on schools. Money followed pupils, creating automatic sink schools and thus political footballs. Baker and Thatcher, moreover, fully admitted later that they knew full well how intensely damaging the changes would be to state schooling but as they were Tories, such crippling was fully their intention. Screw education, it sounded good and won votes. And it's all still with us, over thirty years later. Fixing it was impossible for the Labour administration who simply made it worse by handing over schools to private companies, which even the Tories had not dared to do. The whole school landscape is still a blasted heath, fragmentary, limping along like a bunch of war veterans. All the experienced teachers left long ago and most teachers have been those young ones we always hated to get stuck with when kids, since the early 90s. That favourite teacher in their 60s is rare nowadays. Because they cost more. Heads are so strapped for cash, that only the cheapest, fresh out of teacher training, will do. And unlike before, they themselves have to do all the school administration, instead of the local authority dealing with it. Utter waste of time of a highly skilled person. And it's here, in one talk in one episode. I almost vomited.
Is this like privatization of healthcare that kept the profitable healthy while squeezing out the unprofitable sick and crippled who needed help the most? Don't tell me it didn't happen, I saw it happen.
Why is this such an absurd idea? Good schools get the students and the best resources, and the worst fold. Oh I forgot. Unions; they don't only care about their members.
No the maximum any teacher had to deal with when I was at school was 30 unless it was a gym class. Then they chucked us a football and went for a smoke.
Stephen Norbury i mean I support the market but if funding only goes to the good schools, and inner city school will have poor resources and poor people there will lose social mobility. I think open enrollment is a way to deal with the issue, chartered schools is a good idea as well(well supervised ones)
As much as I hate to defend inefficiency - there's a reason why you don't want this kind of system. You would effectively segregate children by intelligence, meaning that the children who present or test better would have the cream of the schooling, while those who test worse, or are just less intelligent, are further compounded in their educational challenges by being relegated to being taught by worse teachers. You'd exacerbate elitism and delinquency, while lessening the exposure of both groups to the other. In principle I'd love that kind of system - the smart diligent pupils are rewarded, the unwashed masses get their just desserts, but practically it'd end in riots and as breakdown in social cohesion..
Bringing radical changes in a jiffy is always a bad idea for many reasons. The no. Of ppl involved. The scale of geography involved. The money required just to replace the old system is huge. What looks perfectly good in a drawing room discussion tends to fall flat in d real world. Eliminating inefficiency in the current system, bringing in pilot projects and gradual changes are much more likely to work better. A real life example of radical changes falling flat is the Demonitisation debacle in india in 2016. Big currency notes were scrapped overnight. Replacement notes weren't available in d required numbers . The economy went in a tailspin. The motive was to eliminate black money. Well 99% of the currency came back in circulation within a year. Classic contemporary case of a drawing room concept falling flat. And u know what, the PM got re elected with even a bigger majority.
I cant understand why the department of education still exists. Sure the curriculum changes every few years but its like college textbooks they just rearrange the same nonsense with a new catchy title and waste everyone's money. The school board and principals too, what do they do that teachers couldn't do for themselves? What we need is one guy, he sets a universal set of school rules, holidays and trips out with a modification range of a few days if teachers ask for it. You tie wages to inflation and use the money saved by cutting all that fat to get some decent food, equipment and opportunity for these kids
The British Department for Education doesn't just deal with the school curriculum, it is responsible for the administration and oversight of the entire education sector; primary, secondary, tertiary (including both further and higher) and employment-based learning and skills. It's far more complex than just who learns what and when.
2:48 This has been tried here in Sweden. Don't do it. It's terrible policy. Grade inflation skyrocketed because of schools trying to raise their grade averages to attract pupils. Also, "white flight" became a thing in the immigrant-heavy suburbs and now we're the most segregated country in Europe according to RFE.
Except the government says that "diversity" is always a good thing and the schools with more migrants are better. Either you are a fascist, or the government is telling lies....
@@CalvinsWorldNews 1. Diversity means people from all background are represented. If only immigrant's children are represented there is no diversity. That's just as bad as if the immigrants were kept away 2. Which government said this? The Swedish or the British? When did they say this? 3. What is fascism in this context? Source?
I assume you don't understand how GPs are paid in the UK? Their practices are remunerated based on the numbers of patients registered. The practice is usually multiple GPs, rather than a single GP, but in essence they are paid per patient and are not salaried. This system was introduced with the NHS, under Attlee's government (Labour). It's not a bad system, but does suffer a bit from the need to stay profitable.
draconianTL I was drawing attention to the fact she assumed the doctor was male when she said "and he gets payed per patient" and anyway I was saying it was a conservative episode as schools competing for money is also a conservative policy.
You can't seriously drag modern identity politics into an 80s show. It doesn't matter either way, she said what she wanted to say, why look for bad intent.
@@TheOne2641997 I'm just saying the callous lack of care there is thematic to the whole episode, it is worng to assume a doctor is male no matter when it's from.
@@euanwalsh7604 that's like complaining about the lack of gluten-free options in the Middle Ages... Everything has its time and place, and assuming people's genders certainly doesn't belong here. Besides, it's reasonable to assume a doctor is male before modern times, just as how it's reasonable today to assume a woman is the victim when you hear about a rape crime in the news. It's just probability.
That joke about not losing a seat... that's just too funny.
"What does it DO?"
As one who used to work as a teacher, I applaud.
"No Prime Minister ever lost a seat if he could help it."
😆😆😆
That last line is brilliance.
"Fine, get rid of them." Simply *brilliant,* brilliantly simple.
The greatest political show on earth
Mr / Ms 77, either you are a stinking emancipated woman or you actually went to a horrible school and thus found the proposal a 'brilliant' one.
You from UK ?
@@rishirajkumar5050 What on earth are you going on about?
Is it not obvious ?
@@rishirajkumar5050 If it were, I wouldn't have asked.
Whenever people drag in objectives that have nothing to do with the goal of an institution like the employment of people for it's own sake it undermines the purpose of the entire endeavor.
Quite honestly, local government is vastly overrated. Local governments in general lack the necessary qualified personnel, and this lack can hardly ever be properly compensated by well-designed rules.
Infighting leads to the higher ups taking over anyways.
What happens when the right people don't have the power? The wrong people have it!
For one, local governments usually are tasked with IMPLEMENTATION of policy, with little to no leeway in adjusting it and severe lack of resources.
School choice. What an enlightened idea!
How?
@@nigelbenn4642 It's an issue that is advanced by many parents and politicians here in the United States (I'm guessing that you're from England, based mostly on your name and the show we both seem to enjoy). The public school system (different terminology from England's I believe) is pretty much a shambles, with Critical Race Theory and outright indoctrination of the children into socialist principles and other such trash. Many parents have opted to home school their children, and others have chosen to place their kids in charter or trade schools instead. It's the classic tug of war between the parents and the state over who gets the final say in how the children are taught. School choice is a big win for parents, and is something that I very much support.
School Choice is advocated by the political Right to reintroduce segregation. Christopher Ruffo invented the panic about Critical Race Theory in American schools to push such an agenda. He said so himself. I’m sorry, you’ve been conned. Please research Christopher Ruffo and consider changing your position.
@@amkaen And this is why we don't generally let people choose their schools - most of the are morons.
When Daleks visit the Earth they will know where to start first.
"Exterminate...Exterminate...Exterminate" - Dorothy the Dalek
Dorothy was brilliant!!
The idea seems brilliant in principle.
Sadly, it assumes that the schools will compete on quality outcomes, which they don't, or at least most of the private schools don't. The public schools are forced to remain ideologically neutral - or at least ideologically silent - leaving the private sector to characterise the public schools' ideologies however they wish (think words like "radical", "leftist" and "woke") while setting themselves up as an "alternative". The can't say "academically superior" or even "educationally superior"; they instead market themselves as "a Christian alternative" or "a traditional alternative" or a "progressive alternative" to whatever they just told you the public schools are. This war of perception and marketing is fought without the public sector having any right to its own defence.
Secondly, they compete on cost. Public schools shouldn't cost the parents beyond the taxes they pay, so sending their children to a private school or a public school in a wealthier area with more expensive programs is made to feel superior. After all, if you have the option of getting something for free or paying for it, you automatically assume that the one you pay for is better. This of course ignores that public education is in fact funded, just by all taxpayers instead of only the parents and children using it. Nothing to do with quality; everything to do with perception and marketing.
Thirdly, by having the government treat education as a business, they focus on minimising costs instead of maximising student outcomes. As other commenters have pointed out, the children who attend public schools don't vote, but the taxpayers who fund the schools (many of whom don't have children there) do. It wins more votes to cut the cost of education and let education suffer, thus reducing the cost to the taxpayer and making public schools less appealing, than allocating more money to public education and making it competitive on quality alone.
I wonder if this has anything to do with how many politicians and bureaucrats attended private schools...
I think this is they revenge because they got bullied in kindergarten
What's wrong with the schools remaining ideologically neutral? all these ideological changes would be based on what the parents want and presumably the usual metrics (test scores etc.) would be held to the same standards as they are now.
Your second point doesn't make sense in my opinion, I find it hard to believe parents would go out of their way to spend money on education without just, you know, sending them to a private school. And if they do then so what? schools will have effectively increased their budget at no cost to the taxpayer, everybody wins.
And how would this incentivise budget cuts exactly? Its proposing paying schools on a per-student basis, nothing major is changing, the childless taxpayers will get exactly as much of a say in the budget as they always have
@@markkealy4417 It is really quite simple. If the schools follow the ideological leanings of the parents, it will interfere with the leftist's desire to indoctrinate children into communism.
Not to mention, under a "school choice" program it is the parents choosing their child's school, not the government. The government might prefer to cut costs rather than maximize outcomes, but I suspect most parents feel otherwise.
@@user-jx2qe1pv7q I'm a little bit confused, this is a discussion on additional choice in a government funded school-system, I don't know how its connected to communism.
And why would this incentivise the government to cut costs? they're still sending the same kids to essentially the same schools with the same ciriculum
@@markkealy4417 - I agree with a lot of what you say, but.... In Sweden where I live, there are a lot of private schools financed by tax money. The two main problems with this are:
1/ Private schools mostly establish themselves in well-off neighbourhoods with parents and students who are study-minded. Thus it is the easy type of students that attends these private schools, while the public schools are left with difficult students that acquire more attention and teaching resources = more money.
Now that would be fine if the the amount of money that is allocated per student was adjusted to reflect the greater expense, but it is not. The result is that public schools ends up being underfunded, and private schools making loads of money.
The same pattern can be seen with Swedish health clinics. Private clinics pops up in affluent neighbourhoods with easy, relative healthy patients, while public health clinics have to take on the the difficult patients - and patients requiring translation service (unless it is the 12 year old child who has to accompany the mother for a doctors visit since the child speaks Swedish and the parent does not).
2/ "presumably the same metrics".. . Well... It is still the teachers and headmasters at the private schools who administers the tests and sets the grades. And what brings in more paying students? Higher average grades. So what we see is an inflation in grades, and teachers afraid of grading the students correctly. They get backslash from the parents, and pressure from the headmasters who has a budget to keep - and look good for the shareholders. For fear of loosing their jobs, many teachers silently give students too generous grades, making the private schools look god, and the public schools look bad.
This could be prevented if the Department of Education was effective in cross-checking the grades, but it is not. A school might get a warning, a 2nd, 3rd and 4th warning before any decisive action is taken. And then tree headmaster is replaced, excuses are made, and a new round of musical chairs can begin.
Brilliant, simply brilliant.
I did fancy Hackers missus, quite a yummy mummy 😍
Hacker is right, it is impossible to evaluate the performance of a teacher, and whatever workbench measure one adopts to evaluate the performance, the behaviour of the teacher will be skewed to maximize that measure. It's a common problem in all the public sector. In the Education sector there is another problem, if you want the students, or the parents, to evaluate the teachers, you have to separate teaching from students' evaluation, lest teachers will increase votes in order to "buy" students', or parents', consent.
@ETericET lol, thanks, but I was actual talking about the privatisation of the education system - a friend of mine linked me here when we were arguing about it. I've changed mine tune a little bit since then though. I actually live in Australia, so I knew what a seat was, I just didn't bother responding to the other guy because it seemed a bit pointless ;) I appreciate your consideration though!
school choice 101
Yep. They've attempted this in America, and it's been an unmitigated disaster.
@stultus Es Rubbish. They outperform state schools about one time out of six.
ruclips.net/video/3HF8iR_GB8A/видео.html
@@NewhamMatt Funny, given that school choice has been fully implemented in Sweden and has proven an unmitigated success. On the other hand, school choice has never been implemented in the United States on any significant basis, so I find it quite strange you would claim it to be an "unmitigated disaster". I'd be interested in what reliable sources you base this claim on. And no, a RUclipsr does not constitute a reliable source.
@@NewhamMatt However, if you wish to speak of unmitigated disasters, there has been no greater unmitigated disaster than the state-run comprehensive school system. Since its implementation, educational standards have fallen precipitately, while administrative costs have risen uncontrollably. The state-run comprehensive school system has failed even on its own terms.
@@JohnDoe-mv6go School choice in Sweden is based on the understanding that it is illegal to charge for an education. In the US, there is nothing to keep poorer schools undersubscribed and/or underresourced. School Choice Vouchers are just a way of taking public money and putting it into private schools.
Knowing Better has covered this on his RUclips video on education, and yes, I read your whole comment. All his sources are cited in the comments, including his rebuttal of the sources PragerU cited as supporting school choice...using those exact same sources.
Please turn the sound up. It was virtually inaudible, even with the volume at maximum.
Genius
Diana Hoddinot was stunning
I would say “pleasantly cute.” But taste is subjective.
"I couldn't do that"
One second later
"I could do that" 😂
It's not as great as it sounds. Schools in America are already paid per student, but the schools are only really concerned with test scores and attendance records because those determine their funding.
You get what you measure.
@saidthedog In the UK or here in Canada for that matter we have a Parliament system. So instead of districts we have seats here. You vote for the person in your seat that you like and the party that has the most seats wins. I know this relpy is very late .. but I decided to do it because of the one relpy you did get 11 months ago that wasn't too helpfull.
The conservative line in Yes Minister is particularly evident here.
They're advocating for a national school board, if they were pushing Tory lines they'd be advocating for privatizing the lot...particularly during Thatcher's day.
The show's creators were on opposite sides of the politics line; they actually tried to really hard to make the show a nonpartisan satire, that no matter the party, the gov't/civil service dynamic would ensure little actual progress gets done.
In this case, for example, the plan put forth here mixes elements of both sides: left-wing centralization of education above city-level control, right-wing emphasis on personal choice of parents and rejection of location-based comprehensive school system. And either way, Humphrey and his colleagues will try and undermine it because it shakes tings up too much, and they send their kids to "public" academies, anyways.
what part of this is conservative?
@@markkealy4417 The compromise (as described above) is. Leftists love to talk about compromise, but hate actually doing it.
Part of the show's aim was to present some of the political issues of the day in a simple humorous form. The Thatcher administration did actually propose education reform to bring in more parental choice in the form of a school voucher system. The idea being parents would be given a basic education voucher that could be redeemed at the school of their choice and they could enhance it by paying extra if they wanted to go to a more expensive private or specialist school. As the sketch indicated it didn't get very far due to the opposition from within the Civil Service and the teaching profession. Children don't have the vote and parents only vote on education matters whilst they have children of school age whereas teachers and civil servants always vote every election so it isn't difficult to work out what they favoured. The status quo.
How Jim finally got it "get rid of it?"
He didn't. The college he visited in this clip were using stolen art materials, nicked by the students. To ensure the story didn't leak, the Department of Education agreed to hush it up, as long as Hacker agreed not to abolish their department. Another win for Sir Humphrey.
“Exterminate it!”
This is why support reducing the voting age if you want better education systems let the people who directly use them have a say in the matter because for most politicians it's just a baby sitting service they provide to the parents. They have to listen to the teachers but if they make up a small portion of the population they don't need to listen to them as thoroughly but give the teachers allies who benefit from them having better salaries and equipment like the students and politicians will be forced to listen to them.
The Academy system in a nutshell
Actually, far from that. You must have missed the 'give it to Local Authorities' bit. Hacker is being decentralist and Academies are funded directly from central government.
@@dolvaran one school taking over another... That specifically describes an Academy trust to me. And Academies are still funded by the Local Authority. They act like they aren't and set up their own rules and don't answer when their asked to do something but once there's a check for grabs their first in the queue claiming that as the front line success schools they need government support
know I know about middle glass life to a primer minister.
hah, what a lady, only remove the redistribution and it's like any other service, with charities funding the poor kids.
this whole dilemma with being fair to bad teachers is only a thing because we live in a society that forces you to either work a job or starve so you can't remove anyone doing a bad job without basically condemning them too starve
How many people starve to death in your country on a yearly basis?
@@JanBruunAndersen basically none because i live in a country with basic welfare.
edit: i actually looked it up and 15% of the population experienced "food insecurity" in 2018.
@@duskpede5146 "experienced "food insecurity"" doesn't mean they starved to death..
And "basically none because i live in a country with basic welfare." just contradicts your entire first comment.
@@yourmum69_420 i was wrong about the basic welfare comment because i decided to actually look it up :) but welfare good.
besides "experiencing food insecurity" is a really sanitized term for the reality of going hungry for days on end without knowing how you are gonna get fed next, as well as going several months with just barely eating enough to survive. it turns out its pretty hard to actually starve someone to death.
my point is this problem is completely avoidable because we have more than enough food to feed everyone but capitalism is built on profit and if you aren't able to sell yourself to the machine it has nothing to gain from feeding you
So every human society? What's your point?
Get rid of it?🤨 😆
how can you like a joke you dont get? that makes absolutely no sense..
i liked the seat joke but i dont get it
He was literally gifted a wooden seat by the students. He said he'd hold onto it because no PM likes losing his seat (meaning his parliamentary seat).
I love that you like the joke but don’t see why it’s funny
Your like this is a great collection of words
@@michaelgoldsmith9359 At least he is a honest person who admits he laughs because everyone else laughs. The weird bit is that he enjoys it, i guess ignorance really is bliss, you are left with your imagination and the constant sense of anticipation while being safe from anyone's judgment because of your innocent blatant honesty.
This is horrifying. I laughed at this at the time but this immediately became actual govt policy. Ofsted was invented to disrupt normal school running and force lots of bureaucracy on schools. Money followed pupils, creating automatic sink schools and thus political footballs. Baker and Thatcher, moreover, fully admitted later that they knew full well how intensely damaging the changes would be to state schooling but as they were Tories, such crippling was fully their intention. Screw education, it sounded good and won votes. And it's all still with us, over thirty years later. Fixing it was impossible for the Labour administration who simply made it worse by handing over schools to private companies, which even the Tories had not dared to do. The whole school landscape is still a blasted heath, fragmentary, limping along like a bunch of war veterans. All the experienced teachers left long ago and most teachers have been those young ones we always hated to get stuck with when kids, since the early 90s. That favourite teacher in their 60s is rare nowadays. Because they cost more. Heads are so strapped for cash, that only the cheapest, fresh out of teacher training, will do. And unlike before, they themselves have to do all the school administration, instead of the local authority dealing with it. Utter waste of time of a highly skilled person. And it's here, in one talk in one episode. I almost vomited.
they didn't abolish the department of education though. Hacker's idea was meant to reduce bureaucracy, not increase it
the free market will provide
Is this like privatization of healthcare that kept the profitable healthy while squeezing out the unprofitable sick and crippled who needed help the most? Don't tell me it didn't happen, I saw it happen.
@@MichaelSHartman Not only did that not happen, but privatization didn't happen either, anywhere in the world.
@@spring-heeledjack3340 Once the government gets its hands on an industry, it is "till death do they part".
Why is this such an absurd idea? Good schools get the students and the best resources, and the worst fold. Oh I forgot. Unions; they don't only care about their members.
No the maximum any teacher had to deal with when I was at school was 30 unless it was a gym class. Then they chucked us a football and went for a smoke.
Stephen Norbury i mean I support the market but if funding only goes to the good schools, and inner city school will have poor resources and poor people there will lose social mobility. I think open enrollment is a way to deal with the issue, chartered schools is a good idea as well(well supervised ones)
This is how it works in Sweden, every school gets a fixed amount of money per student and students freely choose which one to go to.
Fuck off with your neoliberal bullsh*t
As much as I hate to defend inefficiency - there's a reason why you don't want this kind of system. You would effectively segregate children by intelligence, meaning that the children who present or test better would have the cream of the schooling, while those who test worse, or are just less intelligent, are further compounded in their educational challenges by being relegated to being taught by worse teachers.
You'd exacerbate elitism and delinquency, while lessening the exposure of both groups to the other.
In principle I'd love that kind of system - the smart diligent pupils are rewarded, the unwashed masses get their just desserts, but practically it'd end in riots and as breakdown in social cohesion..
Bringing radical changes in a jiffy is always a bad idea for many reasons.
The no. Of ppl involved.
The scale of geography involved.
The money required just to replace the old system is huge.
What looks perfectly good in a drawing room discussion tends to fall flat in d real world.
Eliminating inefficiency in the current system, bringing in pilot projects and gradual changes are much more likely to work better.
A real life example of radical changes falling flat is the Demonitisation debacle in india in 2016.
Big currency notes were scrapped overnight. Replacement notes weren't available in d required numbers . The economy went in a tailspin. The motive was to eliminate black money. Well 99% of the currency came back in circulation within a year. Classic contemporary case of a drawing room concept falling flat. And u know what, the PM got re elected with even a bigger majority.
That's an example of poor education, not an argument to never do anything.
I cant understand why the department of education still exists. Sure the curriculum changes every few years but its like college textbooks they just rearrange the same nonsense with a new catchy title and waste everyone's money. The school board and principals too, what do they do that teachers couldn't do for themselves? What we need is one guy, he sets a universal set of school rules, holidays and trips out with a modification range of a few days if teachers ask for it. You tie wages to inflation and use the money saved by cutting all that fat to get some decent food, equipment and opportunity for these kids
The British Department for Education doesn't just deal with the school curriculum, it is responsible for the administration and oversight of the entire education sector; primary, secondary, tertiary (including both further and higher) and employment-based learning and skills. It's far more complex than just who learns what and when.
2:48 This has been tried here in Sweden.
Don't do it. It's terrible policy.
Grade inflation skyrocketed because of schools trying to raise their grade averages to attract pupils.
Also, "white flight" became a thing in the immigrant-heavy suburbs and now we're the most segregated country in Europe according to RFE.
Except the government says that "diversity" is always a good thing and the schools with more migrants are better. Either you are a fascist, or the government is telling lies....
@@CalvinsWorldNews
1. Diversity means people from all background are represented. If only immigrant's children are represented there is no diversity. That's just as bad as if the immigrants were kept away
2. Which government said this? The Swedish or the British? When did they say this?
3. What is fascism in this context? Source?
And HE gets payed per patient???? A very conservative episode if you ask me 2:45
I assume you don't understand how GPs are paid in the UK? Their practices are remunerated based on the numbers of patients registered. The practice is usually multiple GPs, rather than a single GP, but in essence they are paid per patient and are not salaried. This system was introduced with the NHS, under Attlee's government (Labour).
It's not a bad system, but does suffer a bit from the need to stay profitable.
draconianTL I was drawing attention to the fact she assumed the doctor was male when she said "and he gets payed per patient" and anyway I was saying it was a conservative episode as schools competing for money is also a conservative policy.
You can't seriously drag modern identity politics into an 80s show. It doesn't matter either way, she said what she wanted to say, why look for bad intent.
@@TheOne2641997 I'm just saying the callous lack of care there is thematic to the whole episode, it is worng to assume a doctor is male no matter when it's from.
@@euanwalsh7604 that's like complaining about the lack of gluten-free options in the Middle Ages... Everything has its time and place, and assuming people's genders certainly doesn't belong here. Besides, it's reasonable to assume a doctor is male before modern times, just as how it's reasonable today to assume a woman is the victim when you hear about a rape crime in the news. It's just probability.
The madly berry resultspreviously load because crab unpredictably hope between a regular vermicelli. mundane, merciful belief
Could have done without the blonde. She served no purpose in my opinion.
Completely taken out of context and sexist
NZSooz
Sexiest
@@q.m9094 Oops, LOL
Spc. Prime Ministers have political advisers. That is what Dorothy Wainwright was. Don't forget that the writers were in.the know.
Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has one and yours sadly expresses more shit than most.