Those who support or lean towards the Labour Party, why?

[Firehorse]

@Hashterix; It is not compulsory for students to have sex education in the UK as you claim as parents can refuse to let their children take part. You also start to discuss planning permission on a point kardan made about there being an overabundance of schools in particular areas without addressing the actual point. Obviously planning permission is needed on any building in the UK, that's not the point Kardan was making. The point is that the government doesn't choose where they are built meaning you can get free schools being built in areas which don't need them.

I can't be bothered to research the rest of your comments but it's clear you don't really know what you're talking about.

It is defined as a compulsory subject. https://www.gov.uk/national-curricul...lsory-subjects, yes parents can opt out their child of the physical condom demonstration and the showing of diseased genitalia, but not of the scientific study which still teaches the facts about pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and prevention. This is more a debate about parents vs a nanny state dictating what is best for a child. Labour also had 13 years to focus on these issues instead of a war in Iraq.

Local authorities have the power to grant or decline planning permission. As part of the process they consult on the requirements of an area. Whether local authorities get it right or wrong is a different issue, but claiming they have no say in where they are built is unfounded. Firstly the government doesn't deal with schools at that level, it's local authority that manages the planning. There is nothing stopping a local authority from working with a free school, they're not rogue entities like you insinuate. A council can't just open a school anywhere either, it still needs to have a site. There's nothing to stop a council working with a free school to provide a site if it is in the interest of both parties.

You can't be bothered to respond to my whole post because I clearly don't know what I'm talking about? You picked two points that you claim to be incorrect even though they can be backed up, and then use it to attempt to discredit the entire post. Scraping the barrel.

[The Don]

It is defined as a compulsory subject. https://www.gov.uk/national-curricul...lsory-subjects, yes parents can opt out their child of the physical condom demonstration and the showing of diseased genitalia, but not of the scientific study which still teaches the facts about pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and prevention. This is more a debate about parents vs a nanny state dictating what is best for a child. Labour also had 13 years to focus on these issues instead of a war in Iraq.

Some parts are mandatory the rest are not. You cannot claim a subject is compulsory if only a small part of it actually is.

Local authorities have the power to grant or decline planning permission. As part of the process they consult on the requirements of an area. Whether local authorities get it right or wrong is a different issue, but claiming they have no say in where they are built is unfounded. Firstly the government doesn't deal with schools at that level, it's local authority that manages the planning. There is nothing stopping a local authority from working with a free school, they're not rogue entities like you insinuate. A council can't just open a school anywhere either, it still needs to have a site. There's nothing to stop a council working with a free school to provide a site if it is in the interest of both parties.

Nobody said they have "no say" you're literally the first person to say that, stop making things up. There is nothing stopping a local authority from working with a free school, nobody claimed otherwise? Doesn't change the fact that the council doesn't have responsibility for where they are built.

You can't be bothered to respond to my whole post because I clearly don't know what I'm talking about? You picked two points that you claim to be incorrect even though they can be backed up, and then use it to attempt to discredit the entire post. Scraping the barrel.

I can't be bothered to fact check your entire post because you've wrote so much and i'd much rather watch Frasier on Netflix. The small part of your post I did fact check showed that you were wrong which brings into question the validity of the rest of your post.

[Firehorse]

Some parts are mandatory the rest are not. You cannot claim a subject is compulsory if only a small part of it actually is.


Nobody said they have "no say" you're literally the first person to say that, stop making things up. There is nothing stopping a local authority from working with a free school, nobody claimed otherwise? Doesn't change the fact that the council doesn't have responsibility for where they are built.


I can't be bothered to fact check your entire post because you've wrote so much and i'd much rather watch Frasier on Netflix. The small part of your post I did fact check showed that you were wrong which brings into question the validity of the rest of your post.

It is defined as such on the government website. I am not "making claims", I am quoting a valid source.

Claiming a council has no responsibility is the SAME as saying they have no say! I have just explained how this is wrong and that they do in fact hold responsibility for the site of a free school through planning permission.

I am fact checking, your argument is simply futile.

[The Don]

It is defined as such on the government website. I am not "making claims", I am quoting a valid source.

Claiming a council has no responsibility is the SAME as saying they have no say! I have just explained how this is wrong and that they do in fact hold responsibility for the site of a free school through planning permission.

I am fact checking, your argument is simply futile.

It also says on the governments website that parents can remove their children from most of the classes. Kardans comment that labour would make it compulsory is therefore valid as it clearly isn't compulsory at the moment, only part of it is. Partially quoting there hashterix. "The government/council has no responsibility towards where they're built" is not the same as "the government/council has no responsibility". Approving something is not the same thing as planning it. The fact that they have to grant planning permission doesn't remove the fact that they don't choose the location.

[Kardan]

So just like Labour did with making nurses get a degree? Notice how absolutely nothing in the NHS has changed for the better: there are now a shortage of nurses and not only are they on a low wage but also paying off student debt thanks to Labour. One thing is certain about this policy: there will be a loss of jobs and a resulting shortage of teachers. Teaching is NOT a job many people set out to do, schools struggle to get teachers at all let alone qualified ones. This is another case of the Labour party doing something with what seems, to those who don't take a moment to think about it, like good intention, but the outcome will be far from that good intention as has already been proven too many times to count.

Surely an unqualified teacher is better than no teacher at all? Many teachers at the Academy I went to did the job just because they had a degree and therefore it was a job they could get easily if they had been made redundant in their sector or left for other reasons; people like this who teach would not do so if they were required to obtain a PGCE on top of their current qualification. It would mean going back to university to study the PGCE course (and pay the fees to do so, ending up in the debt cycle which is exactly what Labour wants).

You do not have 40 people applying for every teacher position like you do every fast food position. Schools struggle to find teachers. The actual level of education will not be positively affected by this; some people have specialist degrees and can actually teach their specific subject much better than many who are only qualified to deliver the curriculum like a robot.

As I said, I'm sure you would have came up with reasons disregarding each one of my points and you have, so as I said, I'm not going to waste time replying on those points - no matter what I say, you'll find something to counteract it with, and we'll keep going around in circles.

I will take you up on one of the points close to myself and that is teaching. First of all, it's one of those urban myths that there aren't enough teachers to be employed in the country, out of all the teaching posts in the UK it is estimated that less than 1% have been vacant since 2000 (that is since the year 2000, that rate has never gone above 1% - not that only 1% of roles have been empty for 15 years). It is certainly somewhat difficult to hire certain teachers as some are in short supply than others but it is not a widespread problem.

Surely an unqualified teacher is better than no teacher at all? Would it? Let's say I had to have a operation that wasn't life threatening and I had the choice between a unqualified surgeon or waiting for a qualified surgeon - I'd wait. Of course there's situations where this wouldn't be possible. If it were life threatening, I think everyone would choose the unqualified surgeon rather than die - so likewise in education there are bound to be areas where if unqualified teachers weren't hired, the school systems in that area would just collapse.

But if we get to a situation where we can replace every unqualified teacher with a qualified teacher, why wouldn't we want to do that? Why would any parent rather have their kids taught by an unqualified teacher than a qualified one?

Now, going back to the PGCE course point. Your point revolves around students getting into the 'debt cycle that Labour wants', except that a majority of students that go for a PGCE don't end up in the debt cycle at all. Yes, everyone has to pay the £9,000 tuition fees, but the department of education are giving funding to encourage students to get into teaching. For example, as of the next academic year, if you start learning to teach Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Computing or Modern Foreign Languages, the government will give you £25,000 tax free.

Of course I'm sure this will shift your point of attack to 'Students end up in the debt cycle that Labour want' to 'But where does that money come from, the country ends up in a debt cycle that Labour wants'.

You don't have 40 people applying for teaching posts? At the majority of places no, but there certainly has been for some posts. Every job I've even heard of being advertised this year so far has had a minimum of 5 applicants taken through to the interview day. I know the job interview I attended had 6 people on the interview day and I knew of at least 4 more people that applied that didn't get through to the interviews. Once again, it's some sort of urban myth that there are no teachers and schools just hire the first person that contacts them because that's the only person they will get.

And do you realise that students who go on to the PGCE course have to have the specialists degrees you talk about in order to teach that subject? Your specialist degree knowledge doesn't go away after one year. And if after a PGCE qualification you 'teach the curriculum like a robot' it would certainly make work for teachers a hell of a lot easier, but sadly, that's not the case either.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Surely an unqualified teacher is better than no teacher at all? Would it? Let's say I had to have a operation that wasn't life threatening and I had the choice between a unqualified surgeon or waiting for a qualified surgeon - I'd wait. Of course there's situations where this wouldn't be possible. If it were life threatening, I think everyone would choose the unqualified surgeon rather than die - so likewise in education there are bound to be areas where if unqualified teachers weren't hired, the school systems in that area would just collapse.

Surely it is up to the parents whether they view the teacher as being qualified to teach or not? Living in a sorely deprived northern city area, I can tell you that many of our government rubber stamped teachers may have been qualified on paper in that they went to university but they had no knowledge outside of education hence they did not know how to control a class and couldn't teach you other things at the side. I recall having one teacher, young and out of university, who couldn't teach to save her life and I had another teacher who had worked in the private sector in a chemicals company and become a teacher (did not have a degree) and was one of the best teachers in the school.

If parents are rejecting your state schools in favour of free schools, then what does that tell you about your state schools?

Yet that pisses you are your party off, doesn't it? That how dare parents have the nerve to want to do the best for their child and avoid your god-awful state comprehensive schools (largely out of control due to their sheer size) in favour of the likes of free schools. So what is your answer? Ban them!

And exactly the same applies to how your party (and the Tories mind) pulled up the ladder on clever working class kids and closed the grammar schools.

[Kardan]

Surely it is up to the parents whether they view the teacher as being qualified to teach or not? Living in a sorely deprived northern city area, I can tell you that many of our government rubber stamped teachers may have been qualified on paper in that they went to university but they had no knowledge outside of education hence they did not know how to control a class and couldn't teach you other things at the side. I recall having one teacher, young and out of university, who couldn't teach to save her life and I had another teacher who had worked in the private sector in a chemicals company and become a teacher (did not have a degree) and was one of the best teachers in the school.

If parents are rejecting your state schools in favour of free schools, then what does that tell you about your state schools?

Yet that pisses you are your party off, doesn't it? That how dare parents have the nerve to want to do the best for their child and avoid your god-awful state comprehensive schools (largely out of control due to their sheer size) in favour of the likes of free schools. So what is your answer? Ban them!

And exactly the same applies to how your party (and the Tories mind) pulled up the ladder on clever working class kids and closed the grammar schools.

I thought the country as a whole was more opposed to free schools?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10...-free-schools/

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought the country as a whole was more opposed to free schools?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/03/10...-free-schools/

??? That doesn't answer my question as to why many parents are choosing the free schools over your state comprehensive schools? If what you and Labour say are true, and free schools are full of unqualified staff who haven't got a clue, then why are parents choosing them over your state comprehensive schools?

Could it actually be the case, do you think, that non-government approved staff are actually doing a better job in free schools then your state schools?

[Kardan]

??? That doesn't answer my question as to why many parents are choosing the free schools over your state comprehensive schools? If what you and Labour say are true, and free schools are full of unqualified staff who haven't got a clue, then why are parents choosing them over your state comprehensive schools?

Could it actually be the case, do you think, that non-government approved staff are actually doing a better job in free schools then your state schools?

There are various reasons why a parent may choose a free school over a state school. More freedom in what they teach, might be in a better location, may have policies they agree with - you would have to ask those parents.

I've not said free schools are full of unqualified staff, I've said that free schools have the ability to employ unqualified staff. In fact, if you read my posts I'm more opposed to free schools based on the fact they can just pop up in places where school places aren't a major issue yet in other places in the UK they are, and we've spent all this extra money on free schools, and what do we have to show for it?

My issue with unqualified teachers is actually more of an issue in state schools - there are about 17,100 unqualified teachers in state schools, and 7,900 in academies and free schools.

I think I read a poll conducted by NUT that only 1% of parents were comfortable about their child's class being taught by someone without a teaching qualification.

And if you're wanting me to say if I think unqualified teachers are better than qualified teachers on the whole, I think everyone already knows my answer to that question.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There are various reasons why a parent may choose a free school over a state school. More freedom in what they teach, might be in a better location, may have policies they agree with - you would have to ask those parents.

So why then do you and your party seemingly wish to ban them?

I've not said free schools are full of unqualified staff, I've said that free schools have the ability to employ unqualified staff. In fact, if you read my posts I'm more opposed to free schools based on the fact they can just pop up in places where school places aren't a major issue yet in other places in the UK they are, and we've spent all this extra money on free schools, and what do we have to show for it?

My issue with unqualified teachers is actually more of an issue in state schools - there are about 17,100 unqualified teachers in state schools, and 7,900 in academies and free schools.

I think I read a poll conducted by NUT that only 1% of parents were comfortable about their child's class being taught by someone without a teaching qualification.

If your issue is unqualified staff teaching and those stats are true, shouldn't you instead be arguing for the closure of state comprehensives too?

And if you're wanting me to say if I think unqualified teachers are better than qualified teachers on the whole, I think everyone already knows my answer to that question.

If you go by what counts as qualified nowadays, then I would beg to differ. I have already given my own example of comparing a university educated teacher with an old school teacher who came from the private sector. He didn't follow the trendy teaching methods that they're told to do now by the government, nor did he have a degree: yet he could keep a class under control, he could teach his subject superb and he could teach things outside of his own subject.

All what the supposed qualified, New Labour educated teacher couldn't do. The very fact that many parents are choosing unqualified aka non-government approved teachers is a damning indictment of government schools, teachers and the national curriculum, is it not?