[Malcolm Armsteen]

ARK 'one of the better ones'?

(laughs hollowly...)

[Tubby Isaacs]

I wouldn't like to work there, but think it's hard to argue now that some chains haven't performed well over a period of time, ARK has a decent number of schools (not just in London), and don't spend all their time pissing about in the media, unlike eg Birbalsingh. But it's of course a daft system overall, and academies have unfair advantages.

Corbyn said he'd end academisation, but in practice he'd have had to concentrate on sorting out the ones that have been underperforming- there are loads of these, particularly at Primary level. Even that's not quick, because the LAs don't have the capacity to take them on. I never really saw ARK etc being taken back in house for a long time.

[Tubby Isaacs]

While flipping on youtube, a GB News video popped up.

"Great news! Michaela School found not to be disciminatory..."

But Channel 4 News blah blah

[Malcolm Armsteen]

ARK are in it for the cash, pure and simple. Not education, about which they have very outdated and limited ideas.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Lots of academy chains fancy themselves as doing old fashioned education and overpay executives, but at least ARK performs with poorer kids. Or at least it used to- can't find a more up to date report.

The number of underperforming chains on page 25 there is pretty terrifying. You've got a lot to sort out before you get to ARK.

https://www.suttontrust.com/our-researc ... my-chains/

[satnav]

None of the big chains seem to be in any rush to expand anytime soon. Outwood the chain I work for have only taken on one new secondary school in the last three years. They seem to be consolidating their position rather than rushing for growth.

There are a couple of small secondary schools in the area that have been failing for a while but none of the Academy chains want to touch them because they are so small that they would require a lot of time and resources put into them with no easy gain.

I think most academies have now worked out that in the average secondary school students in the top two sets are assured of getting 5 good GCSE's if they attend on a regular basis and attend regular revision session. At the bottom end there are probably 20% of students who are very unlikely to get 5 GCSE's regardless of how hard they work and how many resources schools throw at them.
So all the gains that are to be made are in set 3. At the school where I work SLT have really targeted set 3 classes. Earlier this year I worked in a Year 11 Set 3 Maths group where I was working with the head of Maths and a one to one tutor so we had 3 adults in a class of 20 students which meant that all the students in the class got plenty of attention and their marks have steadily gone up. The flip side of targeting set 3 is that the bottom set groups have been given less support. I suspect similar measures are being use in other academy chains up and down the country because it helps schools improve their outcome figures without pushing up costs.

[Bones McCoy]

Andrew Neil reflects on his creation

(I think the link will play a video)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1782777525002731843

[RedSparrows]

Andrew Neil reflects on his creation

(I think the link will play a video)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1782777525002731843

leopard face eating party etc etc

[Youngian]

I don't recall shameless Mr Neil as the sensible centre right counterbalance to Wootton and Neil Oliver in the build up to GBNews's launch. He was fully signed up to conspiracism about wokes and related bollocks. After a few years rebuilding his reputation at the BBC, it was puzzling why he was so quick to flush it down the toilet. Well not really, a large paycheque of course.

[Bones McCoy]

I don't recall shameless Mr Neil as the sensible centre right counterbalance to Wootton and Neil Oliver in the build up to GBNews's launch. He was fully signed up to conspiracism about wokes and related bollocks. After a few years rebuilding his reputation at the BBC, it was puzzling why he was so quick to flush it down the toilet. Well not really, a large paycheque of course.

Poor old Ardronil.
Claims he didn't start the fire.
Seen leaving building with empty petrol can and half used box of matches.

Cunts are like uranium.
Too much in one location and you'll have a shitshow.

[Andy McDandy]

He was there to give it gravitas, and a stamp of authority. Otherwise you'd be left with systems analysts (Michelle Dewberry) and archaeologists pontificating over current affairs, and while I acknowledge their expertise in those fields, you'd get much the same result from livestreaming a shit pub.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't recall shameless Mr Neil as the sensible centre right counterbalance to Wootton and Neil Oliver in the build up to GBNews's launch. He was fully signed up to conspiracism about wokes and related bollocks. After a few years rebuilding his reputation at the BBC, it was puzzling why he was so quick to flush it down the toilet. Well not really, a large paycheque of course.

Neil the executive was certainly pitching that way. But equally his interviews were pushed fairly heavily, and I think he saw himself, as a presenter, as being slightly detatched, doing higher quality stuff with a higher budget whenever he felt like it. Not surprising that other executives objected to that.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

He was there to give it gravitas, and a stamp of authority. Otherwise you'd be left with systems analysts (Michelle Dewberry) and archaeologists pontificating over current affairs, and while I acknowledge their expertise in those fields, you'd get much the same result from livestreaming a shit pub.

He is/was not an archaeologist!

[Youngian]

R4’s Media Show interview a prickly head of Ofcom at pains to tell us how tough they are in implementing the rules. Apparently, even Andrew Neil told her to get a back bone with regards to dealing with GBeebies blatant use of politicians. The tough regulator boss also mentioned surveys have shown people like a range of views. Demonstrating she doesn’t quite understand what news is.

[davidjay]

R4’s Media Show interview a prickly head of Ofcom at pains to tell us how tough they are in implementing the rules. Apparently, even Andrew Neil told her to get a back bone with regards to dealing with GBeebies blatant use of politicians. The tough regulator boss also mentioned surveys have shown people like a range of views. Demonstrating she doesn’t quite understand what news is.

Saying GBNews has a range of views is like the barmaid in the Blues Brothers who says, "We have two types of music - country AND western."

[Youngian]

She wasn’t arguing that GBNews contains a range of views but a range of channels spouting rival opinions would be a good thing. But there isn’t and even if there was, the main purpose of a news channel isn’t to provide opinion disguised as a news format.

[Bones McCoy]

I wonder whether the master plan's really working.

[Dalem Lake]

The Tories won't look at the Labour numbers, they'll be looking at the Reform ones and will double down on benefit claimants and asylum seekers. They're that tone deaf.

[Bones McCoy]

Trouble in paradise as slaphead grifter says bad word about client journalist on haunted pencil's telly prog.

[Abernathy]

Hang on a minute. I thought Laura K. was meant to be a blatant Tory shill ?