Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Michael Gove File

The head of service is someone who got to where she is by being a primary school teacher, then diving off into academia, coming out the other end with a PhD and a reputation.

I don't like to come across as anti-academic, because I have leanings that way myself, hem hem hem, but I am somewhat dubious about paper tigers who seem to have spent an awful lot of their careers talking the talk, but seemed to get out of the walking the walk bit a little too sharpish.

The party in question has NEVER consulted with her practitioners or specialists on what they in particular do, or how they do it: when she wants to know something, she either just decides she knows it, or hires in an academic to tell her what is going on. So, in a meeting with senior school management a week or two ago, a counsellor whose name I don't know was drafted in to talk about schools counselling, as opposed to any of the eleven people she's got on her payroll who could have told her infinitely more about the day to day practicalities of what goes on in the schools she's responsible for.

I've seen this kind of thing before: we have a wrecker on our case. She's either out for grandeur and glory, and is going about it in a spectactularly misguided way, but will almost certainly fuck off out of it before the shrapnel hits the ground, or she's been hired in to destroy a system and a service to further someone's agenda. I have no idea which, though the local authority's petulance at the interventions of the Welsh Government's Ministerial Action Team, following the authority's abject failure to meet minimum standards on child protection and safeguarding rather leave the range of possibilities wide open - this could be a misguided attempt at "we'll show YOU" aimed at WG, or some kind of cock-eyed attempt to make things better.

What it's actually achieving is a level of disaffection the like of which I have not seen since I danced the "fuck off" dance on the desk of my born-again-Christian no-social-skills IT manager back in 1994, and there were only THREE of us there. This character is succeeding in royally pissing off an entire counselling team, an entire PRU teaching team, the entire behavioural support teaching team, most - if not all - of the secondary heads and senior management in schools, and heaven knows who else. All in the space of six months.

In some ways, she has my admiration: that takes some serious ability to manage to become so unpopular with so many people quite so quickly.
 
The head of service is someone who got to where she is by being a primary school teacher, then diving off into academia, coming out the other end with a PhD and a reputation.

I don't like to come across as anti-academic, because I have leanings that way myself, hem hem hem, but I am somewhat dubious about paper tigers who seem to have spent an awful lot of their careers talking the talk, but seemed to get out of the walking the walk bit a little too sharpish.

Ah yes, Naked Teflon Bullshit Emperor syndrome. There's a lot of this type around. Funny how defensive they get when you ask them about their professional background, time spent at the coalface, etc.
 
Ah yes, Naked Teflon Bullshit Emperor syndrome. There's a lot of this type around. Funny how defensive they get when you ask them about their professional background, time spent at the coalface, etc.
Chance would be a fine thing. This individual is virtually impossible to get to see or speak to. Another symptom of NTBE syndrome, in my experience! It's "write-only" management. And she is bloody good at it.
 
existentialist this is horrific. It makes me wonder about some of the professional "values" these decision makers hold.

It's horrific, I agree.
It's also a logical conclusion to managerialist practice during "austerity", because "yer actual managerialist" will not look at funding for a specific part of the educational set-up in a holistic manner - a PRU as a (sadly) necessary part of the LEA's armoury of pupil-education methods - they'll look at it purely as a cost that can be eradicated. What is worse is that existentialist's cow-cunt of a boss will probably garner kudos from her peers for the financial saving, with no attention at all paid to the wide and varied social costs of the action.
Expecting managerialists to have values beyond their narrow conception of management, is like expecting pebbles to have an inate faculty for algebra, I'm afraid. :(
 
"Managerialists" - I like it. It's definitely a kind of -ism.

The irony here is that I'm quite a good manager. But I don't have it in me to be a managerialist - I'm too interested in the end product.
 
"Managerialists" - I like it. It's definitely a kind of -ism.

The irony here is that I'm quite a good manager. But I don't have it in me to be a managerialist - I'm too interested in the end product.

Managerialism, among other things, is (VERY loosely) the practice of management through "box-ticking" exercises, "performance indicators" and "metrics", where such measures bear only a passing relation to the actual functioning of whatever/whoever is being assessed, and without having much clue or care about the inputs into and outputs from such measures, except insofar as they can be manipulated to fulfill management policy.
I call it "cuntology" as a kind of short-hand. :)
 
Also worth noting that the devolution of power and money to individual schools / heads / academy chains (and away from LEAs) will further undermine the education provision for those kids outside and/or away from these schools.
What's going on is NOT the devolution of power. It is the complete opposite. Like the "local management of schools" by a previous Tory government it is designed to take power from the local authorities and give it to the Secretary of State. Nobody should be fooled by the " freedom" rhetoric that goes with it.
 
What's going on is NOT the devolution of power. It is the complete opposite. Like the "local management of schools" by a previous Tory government it is designed to take power from the local authorities and give it to the Secretary of State. Nobody should be fooled by the " freedom" rhetoric that goes with it.

its giving plenty of freedom to crackpot egomaniacs who fancy running their own schools
 
Also worth noting that the devolution of power and money to individual schools / heads / academy chains (and away from LEAs) will further undermine the education provision for those kids outside and/or away from these schools.
True, though I think we are currently in a worst of both worlds scenario. My perception is that the LA in my case is resentful of the funding moving directly to schools, and that a possible underlying motive for what is going on IS a wrecking effort - "we won't provide it if you won't pay for it" - despite the fact that the funding settlements on schools in this area are resulting in hefty shortfalls and significant staff reductions.

And they seem blithely unconcerned about the legal implications - I cannot see how the LA is going to be able to square its responsibilities under the law with closing out-of-school provision for excluded kids: there have been some experiments with third sector provision for some of the kids, but in most cases the provider has ended up returning them to the PRU because the situation became unmanageable. Similarly, they started moving Key Stage 4 PRU kids into youth centres, but that has only worked because PRU staff went with them - when their contracts are terminated, they won't be there, and the youth service has already been gutted over the last few years.

Similarly with school counselling: LAs are legally obliged under WG rules to provide schools counselling. The standard and level of provision is not well specified, and it may be (har) that they are aiming towards some kind of baseline provision. But, with the way they are treating their current counselling practitioners, the best they can hope for is a dwindling bunch of miserable, disaffected therapists doing a horrible job of triaging only the worst cases and treating them, because they can't get any other jobs. Although it is not an aspect I share particularly with my team - for obvious reasons - the dwindling bunch will consist mostly of therapists who, for one reason or another, have not been able to find work elsewhere. While that doesn't mean that they are necessarily the least able, the tendency will be for the high fliers, or those with other marketable skills (*cough*), or the motivation to do something else, to depart first. So not only will the remainder be quite likely disaffected AND having to see the most difficult clients, but they may well be the ones most at risk of working beyond their competence. It's not a pretty picture - for the kids, for the schools, or for the therapists themselves.

I suspect that the service is probably being set up to fail, so that it can be scrapped and replaced with some kind of third sector provision, the intention being to get something cheaper - almost certainly, given that they couldn't get qualified, trained therapists much cheaper than they have right now, trainees and volunteers. I leave the likely implications of that on the quality of the service as an exercise for the reader.
 
I've seen this kind of thing before: we have a wrecker on our case. She's either out for grandeur and glory, and is going about it in a spectactularly misguided way, but will almost certainly fuck off out of it before the shrapnel hits the ground,

In my school we have had a series of people like this over a number of years - who my colleague described so aptly - were "parachuted in ... then airlifted out again". :D

Then they turned us into an academy...:(
 
Just spotted:
Capital’s sixth-form colleges close ranks against free school
Every one of London’s sixth-form principals has signed a letter urging Michael Gove to rethink plans to spend £45 million on a new free school
...
The 12 principals expressed their ‘dismay and frustration’ over the decision to open the new selective school for A-level students: “It does not make educational or economic sense to divert scarce resources away from the 20,000 16 to 18 year-olds currently studying at a sixth-form college in London to benefit 500 people at a highly selective institution in a very expensive part of the city,” they wrote. “We urge the Secretary of State to rethink his decision to spend £45 million on this new institution and ask that he redirect the investment to address the growing crisis in sixth-form college funding.”
Gove, with his cabinet colleagues, are leading waves of destruction, despair and division through the whole of society.

The only "maths" skills this cunt can demonstrate are divide and rule. :mad:
 
Last edited:
Also worth noting that the devolution of power and money to individual schools / heads / academy chains (and away from LEAs) will further undermine the education provision for those kids outside and/or away from these schools.

Pseudo-devolution that's effectively centralisation under the Ministry, allowing top-down diktat to be embedded where LEAs might occasionally have enough scruples to avoid enacting diktat due to it being unworkable.
Of course, given that the diktat will be made primarily to bodies that are already "creatures" of the Ministry, with other educational establishments being carried along in the wake, to sink or swim, neither the Ministry or the schools that are a part of the Ministry's plans will be bothered by this, and those that are affected can go hang for all the Ministry cares.
 

:hmm:

I am really not sure I event want to contemplate Michael Gove and "hot sex" in the same sentence...

puke.gif
 
Heh, chickens coming home to roost indeed

Michael Gove's 'lunatic' £400m raid to rescue his free schools vision

The coalition government has descended into open war on education as senior Liberal Democrats said Michael Gove had raided £400m from a fund that guarantees school places for pupils in order to plug a massive financial "black hole" in his free schools programme.

In a dramatic escalation of tensions, the Lib Dems confirmed highly damaging leaked information from a senior government source, who said that Gove had secretly taken the money from the Basic Need fund for local authorities last December, in the face of stiff opposition from the Lib Dem schools minister David Laws....

chris-riddell-11052014-010.jpg
 
Interestingly the beeb has this as 'funds re-directed' which is subtly different from saying 'out and out jacked by a pob faced cunt'
 
Obviously, all of a piece with the laughable LD 'policy' of faux disengagement with the nasty impacts of coalition decisions. Also quite possible that Clegg has sent his man into do damage to Gove's leadership campaign.

Quite possibly. But 400 million? If this wasn't the U.K. in 2014 where corruption and dodgy deals have become so commonplace and scum like G4s can quietly be rehabilitated this would perhaps be resignation time.
 
Back
Top Bottom