Anthony Butcher

It is the same Chris Woodhead who was Chief Inspector, yes.

Clippo

Thanks BB for supplying the list of names. I note that they are 'acknowledgements' though & this raises more questions:-

Is Chris Woodhead a UKIP member, or supporter?
Is the Campaign for Real Education actively allied to UKIP?
Are all the other Acknowledged connected to UKIP - obviously some are.

This smells to me of a small group in UKIP higher echelons, trawling through various documents related to Education ideas that are currently in vogue, especially as you put it the Tory party manifesto & cherry picking to suit the small group pre-conceptions.

Have they talked to employers about deficiencies in the end products (students) which need addressing? Have they talked to parents, what other groups have they talked to.

To me, since the 1950's & 1960's there has been a steady drip drip of small changes in the education system but which now sum up to a massive & detrimental change nationally.

I feel that UKIP are missing a glorious chance here of offering to reform the Education system to suit modern needs.

C_steam

Bear in mind that there are two members of the NEC, Rachael Oxley and John Whittaker, and one MEP, Derek Clarke, who have been or are involved in the education system at various levels and who collectively have good experience and, I daresay, many useful contacts.

eublues

Broadly this is a useful effort but before going public it needed more polishing to remove minor errors/misconceptions and to ensure important issues are not left out.

For example, what about further education, what about funding for research, what about the funding of universities, what about nursery education? Is it really implying the return of corporal punishment (if so say so and explain - if not, make that absolutely clear).

The stuff about the exam system and the nonsense of coursework is sound.

BASILDON BOY

...and what do we plan do with excluded pupils? Chuck em on the scrap heap?

Any document like this should go before a panel of members to contructively pull apart so a more detailed policy document can be provided to MEPs, Branches and would be councillors/MPs so we can defend the policies we are proposing.

eublues

There are also some very specific claims that should have been reined in.

For example, why is it necessarily better that every child doing a minimum of one science subject at GCSE/GCE has to study either physics or chemistry or biology rather than study combined science? Surely combined science is not in principle and for all time an inappropriate school subject?

etc.

Anthony Butcher

I made this very point to the NEC - that we should publish a draft version for constructive criticism in the public domain. I was however out-voted unfortunately.

The paper was supposed to come before the NEC before being released, and this was specifically stated as a requirement by us. Yet again the NEC decision has been ignored.

Whose decision was this and whose name appeared on the release? Is it timed to appear with the ballot papers arriving again? Quelle surprise.

Wouldn't a paper like this have been far better launched with a new leader in place to give him a boost and a sense of immediate action? Launching it now is a total waste.

As for the question of who did it, it was compiled by one of the Brussels researchers. I think that he has done a decent job, but as with all such things, it could have done with wider scrutiny and revision first.

eublues

On the face of it this does not reflect well on the Chairman's grip on things.

BASILDON BOY

I would have launched it when one of the teaching unions was holding their annual conferences - organise a fringe meeting - invite the press!

John Page

Good point

A good idea for any policy document. I raised some initial questions and issues on page 1 of this thread, for instance.

Anthony's news about the NEC being ignored is of course scandalous and undemocratic, but after the Spectator ad sadly not surprising.

Who has the leadership controls the party, it seems.