We haven't seen anything yet.

[cookiemonster]

Slash and burn policies favoured by yet another, mysteriously funded, think tank.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-burn-ideas-that-could-be-blueprint-for-truss

This paragraph is just off the wall in its insanity -

Other ideas include remote learning so parents can pick the best teachers, amending the Equalities Act so white working-class boys are better protected, and restoring the link between tax and household income so a married woman’s income could be seen as part of her husband’s.

This is not going to end well -

Prof Len Shackleton, an IEA research fellow, wants the government to allow graduates to teach in state schools without teacher training qualifications, as part of a lifting of requirements for entering skilled professions such as law and social work.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Prof Len Shackleton, an IEA research fellow, wants the government to allow graduates to teach in state schools without teacher training qualifications, as part of a lifting of requirements for entering skilled professions such as law and social work.

I think that makes sense. If someone wanted to go into, say law, what is wrong with getting an experienced lawyer to come in and give them lessons about what makes a good lawyer, the basics of the job, what to expect etc? I am pretty sure that already happens. What is the problem with it?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Other ideas include remote learning so parents can pick the best teachers,

This happens as well. It's just at the moment parents do it through the OFSTED report.

amending the Equalities Act so white working-class boys are better protected,

They are an under-represented group on Further Education, and have had their outcomes lessen over the past 30 years, so why not?

restoring the link between tax and household income so a married woman’s income could be seen as part of her husband’s.

The key word there is 'could'. So if it suits the family, and is beneficial for them, then why not make full use of the potential extra cash? It isn't going to become the law it has to happen (and would presumably work the other way round if that was more suitable), just a useful 'loophole'.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Allowing people access to the best teachers/lectures remotely as long as free and available to all, seems a half-decent idea worth considering.
Also, if white working class boys are notably underperforming educashionly (as I suspect is true), there's no reason why they shouldn't get the same support as any other societal group similarly underperforming. Whether the equalities act is the route for this am unsure, but this again seems sensible.

Am I missing something or have I turned Tory overnight? I only went to Choir practice M'lud....

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Slash and burn policies favoured by yet another, mysteriously funded, think tank.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-burn-ideas-that-could-be-blueprint-for-truss

This paragraph is just off the wall in its insanity -

Other ideas include remote learning so parents can pick the best teachers, amending the Equalities Act so white working-class boys are better protected, and restoring the link between tax and household income so a married woman’s income could be seen as part of her husband’s.

This is not going to end well -

Prof Len Shackleton, an IEA research fellow, wants the government to allow graduates to teach in state schools without teacher training qualifications, as part of a lifting of requirements for entering skilled professions such as law and social work.

Well, a post that has me and @Fab Foodie in broad agreement.

You were expecting a deluge of outrage and instead you have got two polarised posters agreeing. That didn't go to plan did it?

 

[cookiemonster]

Well, a post that has me and @Fab Foodie in broad agreement.

You were expecting a deluge of outrage and instead you have got two polarised posters agreeing. That didn't go to plan did it?

The post wasn't to start any outrage.

Just posted an opinion. If you don't like it, fine. Suits me.

Don't know what made you think that I was expecting outrage.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I think that makes sense. If someone wanted to go into, say law, what is wrong with getting an experienced lawyer to come in and give them lessons about what makes a good lawyer, the basics of the job, what to expect etc? I am pretty sure that already happens. What is the problem with it?

That is part of career guidance and has been going on for years.

It is not teaching.

 

[Mr Celine]

Why just teaching, law and social work?

I want to try brain surgery.

 

[stowie]

I think that makes sense. If someone wanted to go into, say law, what is wrong with getting an experienced lawyer to come in and give them lessons about what makes a good lawyer, the basics of the job, what to expect etc? I am pretty sure that already happens. What is the problem with it?

The devil will be in the detail. In principle, it might sound like a reasonable idea to have more "hands-on" training for professions, but this takes time and money which I suspect is not the point of the exercise.

Take teaching. Teacher training (from my understanding) already involves in class portions done under supervision. As much as teaching is derided it is a very tough job, and throwing graduates into classes without preparation sounds like a disaster. It isn't the subject knowledge, but interaction with pupils, behaviour and learning techniques, pupil care and all the other stuff. I can imagine a lot of people walking into a classroom and quitting by the end of the week if they are not trained and supported to deal with it. Interesting that state schools is mentioned, wouldn't want to try it at Eton I guess....

Similar with other professions. I seriously doubt a law firm would give meaningful work to someone with no industry qualifications - most of what they do is important and liable to get sued if it goes wrong. At the least, things like insurance coverage would need to be resolved. I expect it would end up as filing and tea-making.

I did a degree interspersed with on-the-job training. And the on the job training taught me more useful stuff for my career than the degree course. But that was a specialist job training course over a number of years which was carefully planned and cost the company running it significant money in devising, implementing, mentoring etc. If that is what they mean great. If what they really want is to fill jobs on the cheap then it is really going to be a disaster.

 

[stowie]

Why just teaching, law and social work?

I want to try brain surgery.

I have always hankered to fly commercial jets. I believe it is just a matter of pressing the right buttons at the right time in the right order. With a bit of up/down and left/right on the steering wheel thingy.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

I want to try brain surgery.

Heart surgery could be a goer if you only have 6 weeks spare.

I listened to a talk once by a cardiologist who said he could probably teach a reasonably bright and manually competent person how to do heart surgery in around 6 weeks, as it is essentially plumbing and there are relatively few options once you are in there.

Knowing which option to take, and when to switch options was something he said he was still learning after 20 years.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I have always hankered to fly commercial jets. I believe it is just a matter of pressing the right buttons at the right time in the right order. With a bit of up/down and left/right on the steering wheel thingy.

Failed. There are foot pedals you know...and talking on the radio....

 

[Beebo]

The key word there is 'could'. So if it suits the family, and is beneficial for them, then why not make full use of the potential extra cash? It isn't going to become the law it has to happen (and would presumably work the other way round if that was more suitable), just a useful 'loophole'.

What would be the benefit of combining my income with my wife’s? We’d just get taxed more.
I can see a benefit if we also combine our tax allowances and double the rate at which top rate tax kicks in.
As it stands it would be more beneficial for me to give some of my 40% bracket income to my wife as she has headroom in the 20% bracket.

 

[Hitchington]

I wish an undiscovered uxb from ww2 would detonate in Tufton Street on a busy midweek and put an end to this nonsense.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

What would be the benefit of combining my income with my wife’s? We’d just get taxed more.

No-one is suggesting that you combine the incomes in this proposal though are they? So that, at best, is a stupid point to make.