He looks like a girl.
His whole notion of what it means to educate our
young people is based on an antiquated notion of knowing as many facts as
possible on past battles of history; as if knowing having the ability to
memorise Plantagenet’s is all you need in today’s“globalised economy”.
He talks at you rather than to you.
His abolition of the EMA, a cost effective
benefit to help ease the financial burdens of attending college, at an age
where students are expected to contribute to a household income, is a smart
move if social mobility is something you don’t care about, and your aim is to
make it an uneven playing field in favour of the better off in society.
He’s looks like he would be the head boy at the worst
kind of school...
He speaks passionately and you can tell when you
hear him that reforming our education system is something that he cares passionately
about. His forthrightness almost belongs to a bygone era when men were men and politicians
were noble. Parliament could do with more of his sort. Shame then that his
principles are utterly wrong.
He decided that 16 year olds didn’t have enough
criteria to fill, so they needed yet another qualification, the English Baccalaureate.
A qualification that is instantly set against poorer students who are more
likely to take up vocational subjects; thereby
insuring that another generation of young people who may not feel inferior at
the moment will do by the time he is finished with them.
He thinks he’s better than you.
His brand of paternalist conservatism which
calls itself deigns progressive is the worst kind of conservatism; difficult to
attack as it appears rational, yet robustly right wing, as we are all finding
out at the moment.
Thank you, I can go to sleep now as you have already posted quite of a few of the reasons why this man is despicable. I just read his interview on teaching languages to 5 year olds, and think it's a cynical cover story to start his "discussion" about why teacher should work longer/harder.
ReplyDelete