Turn on thread page Beta
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Seriously, it's denser than actual government reports, and they aren't exactly nice reads either
    To say it's denser than actual government reports is an exaggeration.

    A lot of things aren't nice reads, chunky university textbooks you're forced to read for your degree from respected professors and intellectuals in the field you study aren't nice reads, a lot of things in this world aren't nice reads - do you honestly expect it to be a primary school story book with pretty pictures in there or are you just being desperate by criticising things that aren't even slightly related to the policy outlined in this SoI? No need to answer that, it seems to be the latter.

    I honestly wouldn't expect an argument like this from yourself - if you reduce your criticism it means you're lazy simple as.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    To say it's denser than actual government reports is an exaggeration.

    A lot of things aren't nice reads, chunky university textbooks you're forced to read for your degree from respected professors and intellectuals in the field you study aren't nice reads, a lot of the things in this world aren't nice reads - do you honestly expect it to be a primary school story book with pretty pictures in there or are you just trying being desperate by criticising things that aren't even slightly related to the policy outlined in this SoI? No need to answer that, it seems to be the latter.

    I honestly wouldn't expect an argument like this from yourself - if you reduce your criticism it means you're lazy simple as.
    The funny thing about saying I'm lazy is that I'm the one that is doing the criticising, but the simple proof that it is unduly dense is that there are instances a statement made in "look I'm a smarty pants" and then it is immediately reiterated in plain English, although not always in a way that clarifies the meaning
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The funny thing about saying I'm lazy is that I'm the one that is doing the criticising, but the simple proof that it is unduly dense is that there are instances a statement made in "look I'm a smarty pants" and then it is immediately reiterated in plain English, although not always in a way that clarifies the meaning
    If you’re still criticising it, even after complaining about it being hard to read thus “reducing” criticism then well done - you’ve just refuted your own point.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    This CAMHS costing looks off to me. Let us suppose that each reprisenative does 2 hours a day at 4 schools a day, so we need 852 staff, we'll assume that each one is only paid for the 39 weeks (and for now ignore the 19 days of statutory holiday they would accrue) which gives us 639 full time equivalent. Consulting the Royal College of Nurses (the first one that came up when searching for pay bands on Google) we get band 6 being £26,565-35,577 per annum, or a cost of £17m-£22.7m, more than double the cost given in the statement, that's before factoring in statutory rights. On top of that we have the NI contributions, all in all we'd be looking more at £20-25m (sorry, CBA to work it all out precisely factoring in NI and statutory holiday so ball park will have to do).

    Based on personal experience I also believe that the up to £10m for G&T is a waste of up to £10m, especially if arguing from a social mobility standpoint given that at my school it was pretty much solely children from middle class families (despite a significant working class contingent at the school) and there was no real benefit from it, the actual opportunities offered to the best and brightest operated independent of G&T, opportunities such as lecture series and workshops covering ideas beyond the syllabus, or opportunities to complete higher level qualifications, or even stuff as simple as giving up some of their weekend a couple of times a term to give those of us with a true passion and aptitude the ability to look at things that could not normally be covered either because it's too complicated for those of a lesser ability, or simply because it was not on the syllabus. IIRC the best G&T offered was half a GCSE in Greek. The money would be better spent supporting the teachers with a true passion to offer these extra little things for their students, not projects schools only care about because it looks good.

    On the matter of social mobility the tutors register will do little, a register existing makes it easier for parents to find a tutor, but it doesn't change the fact that those who can't afford a private tutor will not be able to use their services.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    If you’re still criticising it, even after complaining about it being hard to read thus “reducing” criticism then well done - you’ve just refuted your own point.
    Not really, the fact that I am still trawling through it does not change that others are not, I have heard several people supporting the hypothesis; people reading it, scratching their heads, and going "oh well". I guess you and your minister are on the lazy side though given even plain English seems to be too much for you.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not really, the fact that I am still trawling through it does not change that others are not, I have heard several people supporting the hypothesis; people reading it, scratching their heads, and going "oh well". I guess you and your minister are on the lazy side though given even plain English seems to be too much for you.
    Yes really.

    It has just been posted a few hours ago and it's longer than the usual bill in an update - I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I think this is a nice little contradicition:

    "That being said, these reforms have undermined all educational entities - placing incalculable strains on all - specifically, staff, budgets and the weakest pupils. "

    If the strains are on all, and all are undermined, then why is there a need to specify who is undermined and strained? Further why is this list not all those involved, why only the weakest pupils, surely ALL pupils are undermined and strained given the first two parts of the sentence?

    I think the minister also doesn't appreciate that even without SATs we would still be looking at box ticking exercises, the teachers and schools are still heavily assessed on other metrics that boil down to "can we put a tick in this box?", for instance when times tables become standard there will be the box to tick "child knows their times tables" and I wouldn't be surprised if there are multiple tiers, all should know up to 12 but that doesn't mean there won't be a minimum in there.

    I would also suggest that the minster checks up on their accounting qualifications, an apprenticeship for ACCA/CIMA would be...interesting, especially if for school leavers, it is also a poor example because you would be looking at AAT or, well, there are proprietary ones? Further the idea of proprietary qualifications is an odd one. Sticking with accounting and looking at a training scheme at the one of the big 4 rather than apprenticeships for the sake of argument, if KPMG had a "proprietary qualification" how would they stop it being recognised by Deloitte? Further such a move would see them having difficulty getting anybody on the scheme because anybody serious about a career in accounting would know they want to do AAT and would have no problem finding an employer that would offer study support for AAT. The apprenticeships and 'T-levels' section as a whole though seems to sit in the category of "we're going to mirror the RL government"
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Yes really.

    It has just been posted a few hours ago and it's longer than the usual bill in an update - I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
    I've been kind, it isn't even 2000 words and broken up section by section and I don't try to make myself look smart with sesquipedalian synonyms, I suggest you try dealing with the criticism rather than going for your abrasive "I hate everybody who dares question me" avoidance.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Skipping over the preamble and you go straight into continuing the trend of this government which is trying to make stupid ideas sound sophisticated through repetition (prohibit and proscribe; wholehearted and unadulterated) and use of unnecessarily complex language that doesn't always make too much sense in the context ( the pecuniary capability, desire, and de facto desideratum).
    In regards to your first criticism, both the PM and myself have made our views clear; however, I will reiterate them. The selective use of language is used to emphatically reinforce our intentions and underlying beliefs concerning the amelioration of the education sector.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The prohibition of expansion of schools that are neither good nor outstanding logically results in one of two things: standards being dropped to get more "good" or "outstanding" schools, or issues with school places requiring new schools or potentially unsustainable expansion of existing schools which can easily lead to more failing schools. The rest of the paragraph seems big on problems and low on solutions, it looks to me to be a "let's throw money at it and hope it goes away" sort of solution which does not consider that some of the worst LAs in the country are already topping the charts for per pupil funding, it does nothing to deal with the problems of good teachers not wanting to work in **** schools.
    Our desire and intention to restrict the expansion of 'inadequate' schools will ensure that the standard of education provided in the United Kingdom is of the highest quality possible. As detailed, we are highly conscious of and acquiesced to the unassailable deficit of school places. That being said, said deficit does not, under any circumstances, constitute an excuse to appreciably abate the quality of teaching, and educational institutions. It is in schools' inherent nature and interests to expand - in terms of capacity and physical real estate. Failing schools must address their systemic flaws and correct 'their educational formula' prior to expanding.

    We shall not be 'throwing money at the issue and hoping that it fixes itself' - to do so would be naive at best; for many schools, the issue is not inherently the quantity of money, but rather the general management and apportionment of all resources - money, staff and time. Ergo, we shall aim to more assiduously work together with 'inadequate schools' to address fiscal disparities, and, in turn, facilitate the amelioration of their quality of teaching.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The second paragraph runs into a similar problem, pairing of schools might be beneficial in circumstances where the lesser school has good enough staff and students but administratively there are issues, it won't solve problems of **** staff or incapable students. Further such partnerships could harm, the better school given staff time is being lost to the lesser, this would particularly be an issue in areas with very few outstanding schools because you either have to force the outstanding schools to help or you will be unable to open new schools. A better solution would be to sort out the "superhead" system given it has a similar goal, the only problem is a lack of good administrators.
    The role of these proposed alliances shall be advisory. A designated representative of the stronger school shall be able offer guidance in regards to resource apportionment and protocols. As detailed, we do not believe that schools should be competing against each other - in the expectant hope that one fails, goes bankrupt or is forced into special measures; rather, schools ought to work together to collectively and macroscopically maintain and advance the standards and quality of education, system-wide.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    This Grammar strategy is also poorly thought through, we either have a percentage set so low as to be ineffective, i.e. rates are already across the board higher, or alternatively you push able students to poorer schools simply to meet quotas, harming their education in the name of social justice, access to grammar schools should be based on ability alone.
    The main criticism of grammar schools is that they only cater to the interests of the wealthy. Ergo, the provisions detailed hope to engender a fairer equilibrium whereby those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds with a genuine talent and ability are able to have said talent and ability harnessed and refined. The set percentage shall be set at such a level as to ensure that the integrity of the selective education sector is not compromised.

    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The lockdown plans strike me as being rather alarmist and I would like to ask the minister when the last time there was an incident at a school for which such measures would have been necessary, and the approximate frequency of such incidents; we do not live in the US with firearms being discharged on or near schools on a weekly basis, whether intentionally and with intent to wound or accidentally. I would also like to ask the minister how they came to the £10m figure, approximately £400 per school.
    Many schools have already developed lockdown plans for both external and internal events - ranging from the risk of a gas explosion, to the presence of an explosive, to a terrorist attack. Put bluntly, every school ought to have a plan of action to deal with events - in the unlikely event that do occur e.g. fire drills - although fires are unlikely, there still exists an underlying risk. Although a cliché, it is better to be safe than sorry.

    As detailed in the SoI, the apportionment of the £10 million would not be automatic. Schools would have to apply to the Department for Education detailing existing security procedures and provisions. If there are major flaws - e.g. compromisable entrance - i.e. lacking working lock - or unrestricted access to internal locations - then the Department would offer financial support. We do not envision that all schools will receive capital.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I've been kind, it isn't even 2000 words and broken up section by section and I don't try to make myself look smart with sesquipedalian synonyms, I suggest you try dealing with the criticism rather than going for your abrasive "I hate everybody who dares question me" avoidance.
    I am dealing with the criticism - and in fact, specifically debunking your very weak, desperate criticism on the style of writing as if to say it's more important than the policy itself...

    I don't hate people who question me - I will happily answer questions given to me.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Skipping over the preamble and you go straight into continuing the trend of this government which is trying to make stupid ideas sound sophisticated through repetition (prohibit and proscribe; wholehearted and unadulterated) and use of unnecessarily complex language that doesn't always make too much sense in the context ( the pecuniary capability, desire, and de facto desideratum).
    I've already mentioned my views on this - to pick out style of writing you have got to be desperate and it's a weak argument against the SoI. You should be focusing on policy. Stupid ideas?

    The prohibition of expansion of schools that are neither good nor outstanding logically results in one of two things: standards being dropped to get more "good" or "outstanding" schools, or issues with school places requiring new schools or potentially unsustainable expansion of existing schools which can easily lead to more failing schools. The rest of the paragraph seems big on problems and low on solutions, it looks to me to be a "let's throw money at it and hope it goes away" sort of solution which does not consider that some of the worst LAs in the country are already topping the charts for per pupil funding, it does nothing to deal with the problems of good teachers not wanting to work in **** schools.
    Well since it "logically" results in one of the two things you've mentioned why didn't you bother explaining why it results into that.

    First it was oppose the style of writing, now it's opposing things that aren't even in the SoI. At least try and make it look like you're not opposing for the sake of it because it sticks out like a sore thumb...

    The second paragraph runs into a similar problem, pairing of schools might be beneficial in circumstances where the lesser school has good enough staff and students but administratively there are issues, it won't solve problems of **** staff or incapable students. Further such partnerships could harm, the better school given staff time is being lost to the lesser, this would particularly be an issue in areas with very few outstanding schools because you either have to force the outstanding schools to help or you will be unable to open new schools. A better solution would be to sort out the "superhead" system given it has a similar goal, the only problem is a lack of good administrators.
    As far as I know it'd be an appointed representative, so stuff you mentioned would not occur - staff time will not be lost to the lesser.

    This Grammar strategy is also poorly thought through, we either have a percentage set so low as to be ineffective, i.e. rates are already across the board higher, or alternatively you push able students to poorer schools simply to meet quotas, harming their education in the name of social justice, access to grammar schools should be based on ability alone.
    No it's not poorly thought out - the aim is to address the issue that Grammars only benefit the wealthy and harm the poor. As well as expanding these schools into poorer areas we need to actually develop a policy that allows social mobility to take place. Social mobility is different to social justice - not sure if you realised but hey you're the expert in English so perhaps they are the same thing...

    The lockdown plans strike me as being rather alarmist and I would like to ask the minister when the last time there was an incident at a school for which such measures would have been necessary, and the approximate frequency of such incidents; we do not live in the US with firearms being discharged on or near schools on a weekly basis, whether intentionally and with intent to wound or accidentally. I would also like to ask the minister how they came to the £10m figure, approximately £400 per school.
    You know that terrorists are looking for new ways to bring chaos... one way of doing that is instead of using guns they use a car to ram people over and once the car is unusable they pull out a little kitchen knife to stab some more people. Another way is targeting schools - schools don't have a lot of security and in fact it has been recognised that such attacks could occur to the point that teachers are currently being trained on how to deal with terrorist attacks.

    If we took the approach of wait for something to happen so we can act on it then we'd be foolish to put lives at risks, we must act before the terrorists do and not take the ridiculous approach your calling for. Hm, I find it quite interesting you use the US as an example despite being a loud voice of gun ownership... a conversation for another time perhaps.

    Further I am not convinced that the content covered could be realistically stretched to one hour a week for one academic year, let alone all the way through secondary education, there is also the question of what is to be pushed aside, or are we going to see extensions to the week or year to compensate?
    It's unfortunate you're not convinced but you haven't made an effort to explain why...

    The teaching of "fake news" is also concerning and another potential source of indoctrination. It is true that Twitter and Facebook themselves are not news sources, but does anybody seriously pretend they are? A lot of the time you're looking at sharing of articles from external sources, established or new, fake or real, or are alternatively assessing the reliability of the person speaking, for instance a tweet on the political rumour mill from Laura Kuensberg of Faisel Islam is unlikely to fall in the fake news category despite it merely being a tweet and especially when you look at it through the lens of leaks and the rumour mill in Westminster. Further the government acts as if the mainstream media (which is ultimately what you mean by "reputable outlets" is not immune to fake news, look at the FT brexit coverage, that is highly misleading at times, the Agent COB stories which also at least verge on fake news, or the reporting of pretty much any mass shooting in America.
    Yes people do pretend they are news sources.

    I don't think we are denying that these reputable outlets can have some biased coverage, over things such as Brexit. Again, as I said to Count, there are already ways people can tell how one-sided coverage is and if it's "fake news".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I see the member is making good use of the thesaurus given to him in the Government's secret Santa. Next Christmas, I recommend the member is given a grammar book to teach him when to use long words in the right context and what a dash is. On the policies, this SoI does not do a lot, the grammar school plan of setting quotas defeats the purpose of their existence, the curriculum changes amount to propaganda, and claiming to review things sounds good but the details of the reviews will not be published.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ns_2)
    In regards to your first criticism, both the PM and myself have made our views clear; however, I will reiterate them. The selective use of language is used to emphatically reinforce our intentions and underlying beliefs concerning the amelioration of the education sector.
    And has the effect of making it difficult to read and understand, particularly given your hyphen obsession. It doesn't reinforce your underlying beliefs, it makes you look pretentious and results in lots of nonsense and contradiction.

    Our desire and intention to restrict the expansion of 'inadequate' schools will ensure that the standard of education provided in the United Kingdom is of the highest quality possible. As detailed, we are highly conscious of and acquiesced to the unassailable deficit of school places. That being said, said deficit does not, under any circumstances, constitute an excuse to appreciably abate the quality of teaching, and educational institutions. It is in schools' inherent nature and interests to expand - in terms of capacity and physical real estate. Failing schools must address their systemic flaws and correct 'their educational formula' prior to expanding.

    We shall not be 'throwing money at the issue and hoping that it fixes itself' - to do so would be naive at best; for many schools, the issue is not inherently the quantity of money, but rather the general management and apportionment of all resources - money, staff and time. Ergo, we shall aim to more assiduously work together with 'inadequate schools' to address fiscal disparities, and, in turn, facilitate the amelioration of their quality of teaching.
    Okay, now can you address the points raised rather than just regurgitating the statement.
    -In a rapidly growing area with few schools that are not failing the prohibition on expansions leads to the need for new schools which is costly and does not deal with the underlying problems which could be as simple as pupil problems, that is unruly children who are unwilling or unable to learn, or a lack of good teachers in the area, something that goes hand in hand with dodgy areas such as those facing rapid expansion
    -You say that throwing money at the problem would be naive at best, you might want to tell that to the PM because it is EXACTLY what they pushed for here, claiming that boosting funding for failing areas (which are already some of the best funded) would sort out the stipulated issues, pretty much the definition of throwing money at a problem and hoping it goes away.
    -See point 1 again, changing the management strategy does not make poor teachers good, or uncooperative students cooperative. If you are going to help failing schools you need to get them good teachers, you can't do a great deal about the students but you can the teachers. This statement does NOTHING to address the issues of the distribution of good teachers.


    The role of these proposed alliances shall be advisory. A designated representative of the stronger school shall be able offer guidance in regards to resource apportionment and protocols. As detailed, we do not believe that schools should be competing against each other - in the expectant hope that one fails, goes bankrupt or is forced into special measures; rather, schools ought to work together to collectively and macroscopically maintain and advance the standards and quality of education, system-wide.
    I will say again, repeating the statement does not constitute much of a rebuttal, it would be generous to call it a repudiation. If it is merely advisory what incentive is there for the outstanding school to use their resources to aid the new school? You can say they ought to work together to as a group and a large scale unit (another one of your sesquipedalian synonyms there) to improve standards, but that doesn't mean they will. You ought to address concerns in an original manner rather than repeating what has already been said, but you don't.



    The main criticism of grammar schools is that they only cater to the interests of the wealthy. Ergo, the provisions detailed hope to engender a fairer equilibrium whereby those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds with a genuine talent and ability are able to have said talent and ability harnessed and refined. The set percentage shall be set at such a level as to ensure that the integrity of the selective education sector is not compromised.
    The main criticism of selective education is not that they only cater to the interests of the wealthy, it's that a disproportionate number of those attending are from wealthy families, they're two different things and what you and the government have not done is look at why? instead choosing to focus on what? I did not go to a grammar, I went to a comp for KS3&4 and then selective non-grammar for Sixth Form, one of the best in the country with people from across the region rather than just the county attending and it was dominated by the middle class. Why? Part of it was that it was good enough that parents withdrew their children from private education to attend, beyond that Cambridge is not a cheap city to live in and that to an extent prices working class families out of the area, I had friends who were forced to move for economic reasons, immediately that reduces the number of people from working class backgrounds. After that you have to consider that those from less affluent background tend to do worse to begin with, they're less likely to make the cut. To my knowledge nobody bought their way in, it's just those from a working class background were less likely to do well enough.

    It also has to be noted that simply having a quota system undermines the point of selective education, the point of it is that the best go, not the best as long as there are enough poor kids that are better than you, you theoretically have a situation where the most able student who gets in because of the quota is weaker than the weakest that didn't get in on the quota, or a more realistic way of putting it would be that those who get in on the quota will disproportionately be at the bottom end of the ability scale. If you want the poor to benefit from a grammar school education open more grammar schools and end the postcode lottery that causes them to be dominated by the middle class. In fact you in your convoluted English said something along these lines in the statement here:

    "Above all, we must first, as a country, stabilise and assimilate the calibre of teaching throughout our country at the highest possible level as to cease the seemingly interminable attainment gap and ‘postcode lottery’ in regards to education whereby those from affluent and prosperous backgrounds have the pecuniary capability, desire, and de facto desideratum to move closer to ‘Outstanding’ schools - something that the majority are unable to do"

    Which for those who can't be bothered to try to understand it could have been written as "Above all we should make the quality of education consistent across the country as the current 'postcode lottery' favours the wealthy who can afford to move to the best
    schools" which you will notice is about a third the length and very easy to understand.

    Many schools have already developed lockdown plans for both external and internal events - ranging from the risk of a gas explosion, to the presence of an explosive, to a terrorist attack. Put bluntly, every school ought to have a plan of action to deal with events - in the unlikely event that do occur e.g. fire drills - although fires are unlikely, there still exists an underlying risk. Although a cliché, it is better to be safe than sorry.

    As detailed in the SoI, the apportionment of the £10 million would not be automatic. Schools would have to apply to the Department for Education detailing existing security procedures and provisions. If there are major flaws - e.g. compromisable entrance - i.e. lacking working lock - or unrestricted access to internal locations - then the Department would offer financial support. We do not envision that all schools will receive capital.
    Comparing to fires isn't the best of comparisons given they are pretty common, there were 199,903 in Fiscal year 2016/17, and about 700 school fires in England annually, they are pretty common whereas gas explosions and terrorist attacks are far rarer.

    Would there be regulations that must be followed, such as for fire evacuation procedures? If not what would stop schools having token procedures? Would they have to be drilled? And given the sorts of flaws we're talking about why limit it to £10m and if applications totalled more than that how would it be decided which has the greatest need for the money and who has to wait until the following year?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Can we please get a translation of this sentence:

    By the same token, whilst we acknowledge that different people take differently to coding, we shall make it obligatory for schools to teach ‘pseudocode’ and an ‘acceptable high-level programming language’, for example Python, C# or VB.net, to a ‘reasonable degree’ at KS3 & KS4 - that is, to say, pupils should be able to create a working, robust and reliable solution to a given problem with ‘minimal external input’ - that is to say, input from teachers, peers or other sources of guidance and information - without the appearance of logic - where the solution compiles and runs to completion correctly but fails to produce the predicted result, runtime - where the solution experiences a catastrophic error preventing complete execution or syntax - where the solution is programmed in such a way that it fails to conform to the innate requirements of the programming language errors in all circumstances regardless of user input.
    I cannot decipher it in a way that makes sense, nor can Jelly, Joe, Jacob, Connor, Cran, JellyMilk, Vitiate was unable to enlighten us. Going through it bit by bit:

    By the same token, whilst we acknowledge that different people take differently to coding, we shall make it obligatory for schools to teach ‘pseudocode’ and an ‘acceptable high-level programming language’, for example Python, C# or VB.net, to a ‘reasonable degree’ at KS3 & KS4 -

    This bit is uncontroversial and understandable, but it's not part of the hyphen obsessed disjointed section

    - that is, to say, pupils should be able to create a working, robust and reliable solution to a given problem with ‘minimal external input’ -

    Reasonable, still easy to follow

    - that is to say, input from teachers, peers or other sources of guidance and information -

    still easy to follow, although the other sources is questionable on a content front, but that's a separate issue

    - without the appearance of logic -

    What does this apply to, is this the code? If so then it's terrible code that is wanted, it doesn't logically apply to anything but the code that is expected

    - where the solution compiles and runs to completion correctly but fails to produce the predicted result, runtime -

    Again, what does this refer to? I can only assume that, once again, it's the code because it doesn't make any sense otherwise; once again this would be bad code. Further the ', runtime' on the end seems totally out of place, there is no reason at all for it to be there.

    - where the solution experiences a catastrophic error preventing complete execution or syntax -

    Yet another clause surrounded by dashes, and another thing that can only logically apply to the code being produced. Once again this is bad code that it appears is being asked for but this is and the previous chunk are not consistent, the last one asked for the code compiling and running but giving the wrong answer, this one is asking for code that does not compile. The logical conclusion now is that this is actually a list of different pieces of code to be assessed, but so far in this heavily hyphenated block you have only listed examples of bad coding, also if it is a list why is it not in list form as the things being added to the curriculum were

    - where the solution is programmed in such a way that it fails to conform to the innate requirements of the programming language errors in all circumstances regardless of user input.

    And now a third way for the code to be bad code, albeit closely related to the first, in fact it is more or less the same thing except it is also sounds like it's asking for syntax errors meaning it wouldn't compile in the first place, so it sounds like an impossible combination of the previous two cases. Either way it is another example of bad code and once again sounds like something the examiner is looking at.

    This is a prime example of the poor writing in an attempt to look smart, in this case though em/en dashes although their improper use has lead to the sentence making no sense what so ever. This sentence is also WAY too long, a whopping 153 words that should have been broken into at least two sentences, the dash after "KS4" should have been a full-stop and then a separate sentence explaining what is expected, one that is properly structured and not dash heavy. The sentence makes no God-damned sense.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Can we please get a translation of this sentence:



    I cannot decipher it in a way that makes sense, nor can Jelly, Joe, Jacob, Connor, Cran, JellyMilk, Vitiate was unable to enlighten us. Going through it bit by bit:

    By the same token, whilst we acknowledge that different people take differently to coding, we shall make it obligatory for schools to teach ‘pseudocode’ and an ‘acceptable high-level programming language’, for example Python, C# or VB.net, to a ‘reasonable degree’ at KS3 & KS4 -

    This bit is uncontroversial and understandable, but it's not part of the hyphen obsessed disjointed section

    - that is, to say, pupils should be able to create a working, robust and reliable solution to a given problem with ‘minimal external input’ -

    Reasonable, still easy to follow

    - that is to say, input from teachers, peers or other sources of guidance and information -

    still easy to follow, although the other sources is questionable on a content front, but that's a separate issue

    - without the appearance of logic -

    What does this apply to, is this the code? If so then it's terrible code that is wanted, it doesn't logically apply to anything but the code that is expected

    - where the solution compiles and runs to completion correctly but fails to produce the predicted result, runtime -

    Again, what does this refer to? I can only assume that, once again, it's the code because it doesn't make any sense otherwise; once again this would be bad code. Further the ', runtime' on the end seems totally out of place, there is no reason at all for it to be there.

    - where the solution experiences a catastrophic error preventing complete execution or syntax -

    Yet another clause surrounded by dashes, and another thing that can only logically apply to the code being produced. Once again this is bad code that it appears is being asked for but this is and the previous chunk are not consistent, the last one asked for the code compiling and running but giving the wrong answer, this one is asking for code that does not compile. The logical conclusion now is that this is actually a list of different pieces of code to be assessed, but so far in this heavily hyphenated block you have only listed examples of bad coding, also if it is a list why is it not in list form as the things being added to the curriculum were

    - where the solution is programmed in such a way that it fails to conform to the innate requirements of the programming language errors in all circumstances regardless of user input.

    And now a third way for the code to be bad code, albeit closely related to the first, in fact it is more or less the same thing except it is also sounds like it's asking for syntax errors meaning it wouldn't compile in the first place, so it sounds like an impossible combination of the previous two cases. Either way it is another example of bad code and once again sounds like something the examiner is looking at.

    This is a prime example of the poor writing in an attempt to look smart, in this case though em/en dashes although their improper use has lead to the sentence making no sense what so ever. This sentence is also WAY too long, a whopping 153 words that should have been broken into at least two sentences, the dash after "KS4" should have been a full-stop and then a separate sentence explaining what is expected, one that is properly structured and not dash heavy. The sentence makes no God-damned sense.
    'Logic', 'runtime' and 'syntax' are types of errors taught in the GCSE specification of Computer Science; they are then defined, in accordance with said specification.

    Put bluntly, a logic error will run normally, but produce an unexpected output. A syntax error will not run at all. A runtime error will crash midway through execution.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ns_2)
    'Logic', 'runtime' and 'syntax' are types of errors taught in the GCSE specification of Computer Science; they are then defined, in accordance with said specification.

    Put bluntly, a logic error will run normally, but produce an unexpected output. A syntax error will not run at all. A runtime error will crash midway through execution.
    NOT MY OFFICIAL RESPONSE

    That is not what you wrote, though. You did not say 'without syntax errors'. You said 'without syntax' and then wrote a confusing definition of syntax. To write something without syntax is to write something without words.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ns_2)
    'Logic', 'runtime' and 'syntax' are types of errors taught in the GCSE specification of Computer Science; they are then defined, in accordance with said specification.

    Put bluntly, a logic error will run normally, but produce an unexpected output. A syntax error will not run at all. A runtime error will crash midway through execution.
    Again, not dealing with what is said, the errors are not the issue rather it's the way it was written, and as well as you saying "without syntax" rather than without "without syntax errors" you simply said "runtime" nothing about errors there either.

    I think I have finally figures out what you mean, some of the clauses between dashes are statements and others are explaining them and it's all stuff that shouldn't be in there, but without the correct grammar or even a word negating it all. If this is correct then your choice of using 6 dashes to look smart has backfired because it should have been a colon following the negating word and then semicolons separating the various things to be avoided.

    We should not now, nearly 18 hours later, still be trying to decipher what you mean because the language and grammar you used is so poor and to lose meaning. I look forwards to JellyMilk putting forwards his plain English translation, I hear the length is roughly halved and it might make the statement more accessible to those who can't be bothered to sit and try to work out the meaning of nonsense sentences.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JellyMilk)
    NOT MY OFFICIAL RESPONSE

    That is not what you wrote, though. You did not say 'without syntax errors'. You said 'without syntax' and then wrote a confusing definition of syntax. To write something without syntax is to write something without words.
    The confusing definitions aren't needed either because there are already established definitions of these terms, but this is the government that instead of looking in their copy of the OED, which surely a man as learned as the minister is trying to appear should own, instead choosing to write their own which completely changed the definition in an attempt to look smart.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    "Quality, not quantity, is my measure." -Douglas William Jerrold.

    Members of this house, I am here today to provide a response representative of the opposition. This is a political meringue - lots of air, little substance. I have taken it on myself to provide a translation of this statement of intent, paragraph by paragraph, along with a response to of each section. The translation is as much to my assistance as it is to members of the house - it is very hard to analyse a text that is difficult to understand.

    Firstly, however, I must commend the Right Honourable Secretary of State @ns_2 for the clear amount of time and effort he has spent on this... novella. However, I wish to offer a small piece of advice; one that has been echoed by other members of this house. You, in an attempt to be seen as intelligent, have filled what could've been a clear, easily-understandable statement, with meaningless text. In the future, if you will, please be considerate of the other members of this house, as we are the ones who must read and decipher it.

    I'd much prefer to spend my translation skills on French, rather than plain English.

    Without further ado, I present my response. All quotes are taken from the original text, and not the translation.




    Preamble

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Our education system is far from the best in the world; it is convoluted, inefficient and lacks the befitting and necessary mechanism of self-sustenance - all of which has caused it to lag behind our strategic partners on the continent and beyond. Today, hundreds of skilled and talented teachers are departing from the profession with the effect of perpetuating ingrained and systemic shortages in qualified and, more importantly, passion-driven teaching staff. By the same token, pupils, able to see the obvious distress and asperity - emotional or otherwise - that the teaching profession mercilessly inflicts, are no longer wishing to pursue teaching as a career - as a way of life; as a passion - to the same extent as before. This department - this government - shall, pragmatically, address these, and many other innate, issues in a multi-point and interdisciplinary plan - addressing each dedicated educational entity individually - as to preserve the integrity of our education system and to remove any barriers to ambition and progress, for evermore.





    Translation
    Our education system is not the greatest. It is convoluted, inefficient, and cannot sustain itself for long, which will lead to weakness when competing with our global partners. Hundreds of skilled teachers are leaving their jobs, leading to shortages in those trained to handle the profession in a passionate and high-quality manner. Pupils, having seen the difficulty teachers experience, are not willing to train to replace them. This Government will address these issues via a detailed plan, which looks at each department in this area separately, in order to preserve the integrity of our education system, and to remove barriers to ambition and progress, forever.

    Response

    This paragraph completely contradicts itself. You spend the first several sentences criticising the current system, describing it as 'convoluted' and 'inefficient'. This is true - our education system is inherently flawed and struggles with many problems. However, you then finish the paragraph by stating that you wish to 'preserve the integrity' of the system, which doesn't make sense - why would you want to keep a broken system in place?

    Ignoring the oxymoron, however, I agree with you in this section.




    Schools

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    It shall be this government’s wholehearted and unadulterated intention to introduce primary legislation as to prohibit and proscribe schools rated anything other than ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills from undergoing expansion - in consideration to pupil numbers. Whilst this Department is conscious of and acquiesced to the unassailable deficit of school places present throughout this country, this does not constitute an excuse to substantially and appreciably abate the fundamental quality of teaching and of educational institutions. Above all, we must first, as a country, stabilise and assimilate the calibre of teaching throughout our country at the highest possible level as to cease the seemingly interminable attainment gap and ‘postcode lottery’ in regards to education whereby those from affluent and prosperous backgrounds have the pecuniary capability, desire, and de facto desideratum to move closer to ‘Outstanding’ schools - something that the majority are unable to do. In order to achieve this, this Department must, as a matter of course, intervene in ‘poorer’ schools, analysing any fiscal disparities as well as highlighting and addressing any and all considerable flaws and insufficiencies in terms of administration, resource apportionment and application as well as general staff training and adherence to protocol.





    Translation
    This government intends to introduce legislation that will prevent schools rated below 'Good' by Ofsted from expanding, depending on the number of pupils in proportion to the size of the school. While this Department is aware that schools are running low on free places for pupils, this does not make it acceptable to lower the quality of both teaching and the institution in question. As a country, we must first raise the quality of teaching to it's highest possible level to end the attainment gap and 'postcode lottery' in areas where richer pupils are able to move closer to schools rated 'Outstanding' {A/N: This line was very hard to understand.} - something that most students can't do. To achieve this, the Department of Education must intervene in poorer schools, in order to investigatae fiscal discrepancies and to address administrative and staff issues.

    Response

    I question your reasoning. The government should always attain to keep teaching and school quality as high as possible, regardless of the attainment gap or postcode lottery. In fact, I don't believe the attainment gap is even relevant here - the issue is more to do with pupils and teachers not being engaged during school hours, and less to do with richer students moving closer to better schools. The sentiment is good, but the reasoning is not.

    The issue of lower attainment in poorer schools is much more closely linked with the students themselves. A study by Oxford University shows that poverty is to blame in the grade difference between rich and poor pupils, rather than the schools they attend. This gap appears in all schools, and the way to correct the issue is not to intervene - it is to better support the families of these disadvantaged students.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    By the same way of thought, we shall necessitate that all new schools institute and/or become members of alliances with existing ‘Outstanding’ schools - with each school having a direct and unequivocal association and connection with one another as to act as a ‘day-to-day’ guide and adviser for, as delineated above, it is our belief that schools should work together to collectively and macroscopically maintain and subsequently ameliorate system-wide standards and quality of education. Schools should not be competing against each other - in the expectant hope that one fails, goes bankrupt or is forced into special measures. Nonetheless, these alliances shall not, in any circumstance be financial - nor shall they supersede or uncut academy trusts; whether or not an unilateral alliance representative is appointed to each governing body shall be dependent primarily on the alliance agreement however we shall assiduously encourage the appointment of such an alliance representative for the new school especially. We intend the implementation of this policy to have no tangible cost.





    Translation
    We shall make it a requirement for all new schools become members of alliances with current 'Outstanding' school, with each school having a direct connection with one another to act as an adviser. This is due to our belief that schools should work together to maintain high standards of education. Schools should not compete, nor should they hope another goes bankrupt, or is forced to take special measures. These alliances shall not be financial, and nor shall they replace academy trusts - the decision to appoint a representative shall be left to the schools in the alliance, although we will encourage it. We do not think this policy will cost anything tangible.

    Response

    We are in agreement that schools should work together, rather than compete. However, this is not an issue based on schools lacking alliances. This is an issue based on schools and parents placing average test scores above all else when it comes to selecting an institute of education.

    I take issue with the idea of forcing schools into alliances. My reasoning is that schools advocate towards different types of pupils. It is not beneficial to have these specialised schools connected with schools that bear no resemblance towards the same focus groups. Moreover, if the alliances have no financial benefits, there is really no reason for them whatsoever.

    You think the policy will not cost anything tangible, but this proposal would require moderate administrative fees. It is always good to cost everything.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    This Department also acknowledges that each and every pupil is unique - with his or her own talents, weaknesses and passions - ergo, we cannot possibly expect all pupils to conform to and unequivocally accept the same education. The talented, whether by their own accord or not, should be given the innate chance; the innate capability to experience education of a substantially elevated standard; an education of a substantially elevated standard at a grammar or selective schools - schools innately designed to be vehicle for social mobility where the gifted and talented from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are given the opportunity to be educated in establishments in order to receive a substantially ameliorated education - an education that would otherwise only be attainable in private institutions; an education they, ultimately, deserve. Ergo, we shall seek to support their actions and shall be instituting plans for the expansion of grammar and selective schools with set defined criteria as to ensure an substantive amelioration of social mobility - including but not limited to the requirement that a set percentage of those admitted must fall into at least two of the following categories:
    • Be in receipt of, or eligible for, free school meals and/or pupil premium;
    • Be living in an area of low progression to higher education, as defined by the POLAR3 quintile 1;
    • Have parents with no experience of higher education
    • Be in receipt of, either in their own right or otherwise, means-tested benefit

    Translation
    We also acknowledge that every pupil is unique, with his or her own talents and weaknesses. It is impossible to expect all pupils to accept the same education. The talented, whether by their own means or not, should be given the chance to experience education of an substantially higher standard at grammar or selective schools - an education that is normally only available at private schools. Because of this, we plan to expand these schools with a set of criteria, to allow for maximum social mobility. To ensure this, a percentage of those admitted must fall into at least two of the following categories:
    • Be currently receiving, or are able to receive, free school meals and/or pupil premium;
    • Be living in an area of low progression to higher education, as defined by the POLAR3 quintile 1;
    • Have parents with no experience of higher education;
    • Be currently receiving, either in their own right or otherwise, means-tested benefit.


    Response

    This is a very confusing section.

    You state that talented pupils of all backgrounds should be given the chance to get a better standard of education, and yet you've just said two paragraphs ago that all pupils should receive the best possible quality of learning. Which is it?

    You further state that you do not expect all students to accept the same education as each other, which is true, but I am firmly of the opinion that extending grammar and selective schools is not the way to go about this issue, especially in the way you've described. You have attempted to limit the amount of selection those school can have, but you have not given an example of this percentage of poorer students, nor have you realised that those schools will always discriminate on income in some way. Once that percentage is fulfilled, the anti-discrimination policy is rendered void.

    You have not specified what is classed as a 'low' participation level in higher education. Is it level 2 and below? Level 3? POLAR3 values are also outdated - it is better to use those of POLAR4.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    This Department is also cognisant of the heightened national security threat to all - including schools. Our very civil liberties are under undue threat on a near daily basis. That being said, there currently exists no legal stipulation - that is to say, it is not a defined statutory policy - to have lockdown policies or protocols. Consequently, we shall legally obligate all schools to have ‘exceptionally ameliorated security’ in the form of established emergency plans and dedicated ‘lockdown protocols’ for both internal - originating from within the school - and external - originating from the vicinity of the school - threats. We acknowledge that, in fulfilling the aforementioned legal obligation, schools make incur ‘increased budgetary disbursement’ - ergo, this Department shall on a case-by-case basis apportion funds for the establishment and/or amelioration of security in schools; this Department expects no more than £10 million to be apportioned or allocated.





    Translation
    We are also aware of an increased national security threat to our schools. Currently, there is no legal requirement for schools to have a set lockdown policy in place. We intend to make this a law, in order to protect from both internal and external threats. We realise that schools will require additional funding for this. Therefore, we expect £10 million to be allocated to this cause.

    Response

    Nothing wrong here, although I question how this costs £10m and the alliance policy cost would be negligible.




    The National Curriculum

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Our National Curriculum, in a 21st century world, is obsolete and superannuated. Once an industrial and civil pioneer - instituting the universal standards for work and education - we now ‘lag behind’ many other countries - countries with far more progressive, inclusive and tailored curricula. Our curriculum lacks the requisite provisions in regards to financial education, among other significant and critical aspects of life, that have been ‘manhandled’ together into the defunct, antiquated and unfit-for-purpose ‘personal, social, health and economic education’ scheme we must tolerate even today. Ergo, heeding and employing the capacity as bestowed via Chapter 4 Sections 34 and 35 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 upon the Secretary of State for Education, we shall embark in advancing comprehensive, pragmatic and unrelenting reform in regards to ‘personal, social, health and economic education’ - reforms that go above and beyond the meagre, substandard and inherently flawed attempts at reform by prior governments - both in real life, and in regards to the TSR MHoC - as to more extensively prepare the next generation for life beyond education.







    Translation
    Our National Curriculum is outdated. We were once pioneers of education, as we set the standard for the globe. However, we now lag behind countries with a much stronger curriculum. Our's currently lacks adequate education for subjects grouped into the unfit-for-purpose PSHE (Personal Social Health Economic Education) scheme. Therefore, we intend to make dramatic reforms to PSHE - reforms that go further than any previous government - in order to better prepare the next generation.

    Response

    I wouldn't say that PSHE is unfit for purpose, but I agree that reforms are needed. Most of my party seem to agree.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Schools who make provisions for secondary education, irrespective of status that is to say said reforms are to pertain to academies and other educational establishments that do not follow the National Curriculum, shall be obliged to offer, no less than, one hour of ‘life education’ each week. Said schools and educational establishments shall be forbidden from accumulating/amalgamating hours into one or two ‘drop-down days’ per term - days that fail to be educational in nature rather becoming merely ‘box-ticking exercises’. At a secondary level, topics are to include, at an absolute minimum:
    • The Economic Trade Cycle - the implications and ramifications of each distinct stage of the economic trade cycle, the fundamental responsibilities and roles of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee and the insurmountable links between inflation, unemployment, interest rates, exchange rates and consumer confidence;
    • Credit and finance - the crucial differences between cash cards, debit cards and credit cards, the role of credit reports in acquiring finance and credit, the concept of collateral and security, and the significance and gravitas of CIFAS markers;
    • Banking - the prevalence of and methods to avoid becoming an innate victim of fraud, online security, consumer-side and institution-side measures and protections e.g. multi-factor authentication - typically, two factor (2FA) - the notion of overdrafts, circumstances where they can and ought to be used/not used, consequences of their usage, ‘scandals and mis-sellings’ e.g. payment protection insurance and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and the protection offered in said scheme;
    • Personal taxation - the process of Pay As You Earn (PAYE), the protocols in regards to the payment of and the thresholds of Income Tax, the role of National Insurance Contributions and the Personal Allowance;
    • Pensions - the concept of automatic enrollment in ‘workplace pensions’, the diminishing raw value and uncertainty apropos of the future of State Pension and the implicit need for private pensions;
    • Mortgages - the major dissimilarities and distinctions between fixed and variable mortgages, the ramifications of varying loan-to-value (LTV) ratios and deposits;
    • Savings - the taxation implications of Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs), specific rules in regards to the usage of capital held in Help to Buy ISAs, Lifetime ISAs and the Personal Saving Allowance;
    • Employability - the process of obtaining employment - the process of compiling resumés/curricula vitae and cover letters, acknowledgement of the significance of and techniques to ameliorate ‘transferable skills’ including but not limited to: leadership, motivation, time management, prioritisation, delegation, listening, communication, analytics, research;
    • Sexual education - different types of protections and the pros and cons for each, the transmission of and testing procedure for infections, the inherent need for ‘family planning’ and relationships;
    • Inclusion - the need for racial, disability and socioeconomic inclusion in all aspects of life as well as increased inclusion and tolerance of the greater LGBT community;
    • Rights - explicit study of the implications and protections offered within the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as well as one other rights-based Act;
    • Responsibilities - the exploration of the responsibilities in being citizens or residents of the United Kingdom that is to say adherence to laws, general taxation liabilities as well as moral responsibilities;
    • Health and lifestyle - the importance of consumption in moderation, risks of superfluous and excessive consumption of alcohol, sugars and salt, and generally, the importance of eating healthily.
    • Politics - the fundamental political ideas of capitalism and communism, the core socio-political ideologies and differences of monarchies and republics, the roles, advantages and disadvantages of supranational or intergovernmental organisations and unions, the central beliefs of the political parties of the United Kingdom, the process of voting, the significance of voting, voting systems e.g. FPTP and AV - and their successes and flaws.

    Translation
    All secondary schools, regardless of whether they follow the National Curriculum, will be required to offer at least one hour of 'life education' a week. These must be regular lessons, and not workshops or 'drop-down days'. Topics taught must include:
    • Economics and Finance - The stages of the trade cycle; the role of the Bank of England's MPC; the links between inflation, unemployment, interest rates, exchange rates, and consumer confidence; the difference between types of current account; the role of credit reports; the concept of collateral and security; the role of CIFAS markers; fraud protection, including examples like two-factor authentication; overdrafts; the FSC Scheme; the process of Pay As You Earn; the thresholds and role of taxation, including Income Tax, National Insurance, and Personal Allowance; types of pensions and the promotion of private pensions over those of the state; mortgages; and savings, including ISAs.
    • Employability - The process behind getting a job; and the teaching of transferable skills, such as leadership, time management, and communication.
    • Sexual Education - Types of contraception; the need for family planning; STIs; and types of relationship.
    • Diversity and Mindfulness - The idea of social equality between different genders, races, sexual preferences, and those in difficult economic positions; and increased awareness surrounding the LGBT+ community.
    • Rights and Responsibilities - the implications and protections offered by the 2010 Equality Act, the 1998 Human Rights Act, the 1998 Data Protection Act, the 2015 Consumer Rights Act, and another, unspecified rights-based act; and the responsibilities citizens of the UK have in regards to law, tax, and morality.
    • Health and Lifestyle - The importance of moderated consumption, in regards to alcohol, sugars, and salts; and the importance of eating healthily.
    • Politics - The fundamentals of capitalism and communism; the ideologies of and differences between monarchies and republics; the roles and implications of unions between foreign governments, the central beliefs of the political parties in the UK; the process and significance of voting; and the different types of voting system.


    Response

    Firstly, I agree with PSHE as a legal requirement. That's something that I would push for, should I be in your position. My issue is with the reform proposals.

    For one, you claimed that these reforms would be 'unrelenting', when they do not change much of the current system, at all. Most schools that offer PSHE have much of the subjects you have chosen as part of the syllabus already. This is hardly dramatic, and you are vastly overstating what you have actually proposed.

    I am legitimately shocked at one of your proposals, however. You have made it very clear that you believe in an unbiased education. However, you wish to make it a legal requirement to teach 'the implicit need for private pensions' which is implicitly a conservative belief. How can you possibly claim to want a non-partisan education and then force partisan beliefs into it?

    I don't know why you've called the already established 'Diversity and Mindfulness' topic 'Inclusion'. You can also combine the first seven proposals into one, which I have done so in the translation. Please refrain from making your work look bigger.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Schools with provisions for primary education shall be obliged to make sufficient, judicious and apt references to ‘life education’ - that is to say, they shall be obligated to more comprehensively link content in Mathematics with savings et cetera - however, there will be no defined stipulation at a primary level - that is to say, it shall be up to the management and governing body of the school as to ascertain and establish ‘sufficient, judicious and apt references to life education’. This is pertaining to the fact that we appreciate that, at a primary level, it may not be in the best interests of the pupils and the staff to advance and introduce new concepts and topics that may be not fully appropriate given the maturity, discernment and comprehension of said pupils. Homogeneously, we are conscious that, in order to engender more substantive development during primary education, we require a liberalised curriculum with minimal central intervention - rather it should be up to teachers to tailor the curriculum and, in turn, subject content and lessons based upon fundamental principles to the needs of their class.





    Translation
    Primary schools are encouraged to link the current syllabus with the new life education scheme, such as teaching the basis of savings in Mathematics, but how this is done will be left up to the school. This is because primary students may struggle to learn these complex concepts. We also believe that primary education should be left up to the teachers, and that the government should have a minimal role. here.

    Response

    An incredibly flowery paragraph, when in fact you're saying very little in the way of proposals.

    It is conflicting that you are much more centralised on secondary school than primary schools. If the curriculum is so awful, like you say, then it should be changed everywhere.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Across all levels, the English programmes of study of the National Curriculum, prior to Key Stage 4, are to be revised as to address concerns in regards to the legitimacy of sources - as to address rising tensions, chiefly in the United States, of ‘fake news’ - that is to say, false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of legitimate news reporting which has become a distributing problem in our society - pupils must be taught methods, techniques and procedures in which they may more reliably be able to differentiate, discern and distinguish fact from fiction - i.e. legitimate news reporting from credible and reputable outlets notably organisations like the Financial Times, the Guardian and the Telegraph from false and sensationalist ‘fake news’ - and be taught that ‘Twitter’ and ‘Facebook’ are not sources of news and as a consequence should not be considered and treated as such - rather they are social platforms.





    Translation
    All lessons involving the study of English are to be revised, as we must now question the authenticity of sources. Pupils must be taught to differentiate between 'fake news' and real, reliable information outlets. It should be made clear that social media is just that - social media - and should not be treated as a news site.

    Response

    Really? This is not an issue in the slightest, because English is taught with literature - that is to say, books - which has not changed in many years. No part of the current English course requires you to use real-time news. A pointless paragraph, and a waste of time for the Department.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Similarly, our National Curriculum makes only the most basic advancements in regards to ameliorating technological skills and ability. We are living in a technological revolution where more and more activities are conducted over the internet. Hence, we propose significant reform to the Curriculum in regards to Computing. The Curriculum is to focus on the effective, judicious and responsible use of technology. By the same token, whilst we acknowledge that different people take differently to coding, we shall make it obligatory for schools to teach ‘pseudocode’ and an ‘acceptable high-level programming language’, for example Python, C# or VB.net, to a ‘reasonable degree’ at KS3 & KS4 - that is, to say, pupils should be able to create a working, robust and reliable solution to a given problem with ‘minimal external input’ - that is to say, input from teachers, peers or other sources of guidance and information - without the appearance of logic - where the solution compiles and runs to completion correctly but fails to produce the predicted result, runtime - where the solution experiences a catastrophic error preventing complete execution or syntax - where the solution is programmed in such a way that it fails to conform to the innate requirements of the programming language errors in all circumstances regardless of user input. As to address issues as identified by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation in regards to the centralised establishment and monitoring of ‘non-exam assessment’ tasks, and until viable alternatives have been put forward by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation and accepted by the Department for Education, the ‘given problem’ to be solved by pupils shall not be directly set by exam boards and shall not form part of any qualification or award. When the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation have put forward the findings of their consultation and investigation, this department shall review policy in regards to the centralised establishment and monitoring of ‘non-exam assessment’ tasks.





    Translation (This was a fun one)
    Our National Curriculum has not advanced in the topic of information technology. We intend to reform the Computing syllabus. This will focus on the effective use of the new technology. Although different people take differently to coding, we shall make it a requirement for schools to teach pseudocode and an acceptable high-level programming language, such as Python, C#, or VB.net, to a reasonable degree at KS3 and KS4. That is to say, pupils should be able to solve a programming problem with little to no external input from teachers, peers, or other sources of information, without the appearence of logic, runtime, or syntax errors. Non-exam assessment tasks will not be required by the examination board due to the issues highlighted in the recent consultation.

    Response

    Okay, for one, if you're going to use complex language, use it correctly. This was incredibly hard to decode. I'd need to rebuild Colossus to do it, although I suppose, going by the content of this section, you have no idea what that is.

    I agree with the issue of the NEA, and I wholeheartedly support you goal to teach all students a good programming language, in order to make sure we stay progressive as a society. However, this is not a reform - it was set in place a couple of years ago. Glad that you're supporting it, though.




    Teachers

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    It shall be the policy of this government to do everything in its remit to encourage the brightest and most able to enter the teaching profession. Presently, our education system is enduring untenable depletions in staff numbers; notably among the best and most talented teaching staff. Teachers, in the current climate, feel unmotivated, overworked and, put bluntly, ignored - facing unparalleled and unsurpassable workloads and, in turn, unprecedented levels of stress. This government - this department - shall remain in full unremitting and indefatigable support and seek the fortification and consolidation of educational bursaries. Similarly, this department shall aim to abrogate all gratuitous and superfluous bureaucracy in reference to teaching thereby reducing workloads systematically and in turn alleviating stress. By way of illustration, this department shall appraise guidance in regards to the risk assessment of activities and suspend the obligation and duty to intimately risk assess every activity undertaken by staff and/or pupils. In saying this, we shall never - regardless of circumstances - compromise on and thereby undermine the safety or security of pupils - staff shall remain obligated to conduct the most basic elements of risk assessment in all circumstances. It shall be only when the aforementioned basic elements of risk assessment highlight and warrant the need for further assessment that a comprehensive and ‘traditional’ risk assessment be required.





    Translation
    It is the goal of this government to encourage students to join the teaching profession. The current state of the system is marred by a lack of high-quality staff, die to constant feelings of low motivation and overwork. We shall continue to offer support to these invaluable workers. We also aim to cut bureaucracy in education to lower workloads and alleviate stress. This department plans to end the intimate risk assessments teachers are forced to undergo, and instead make the system more basic and simpler. It is only when a staff member is suspicious of abusing this power that an in-depth risk assessment shall be carried out.

    Response

    The first half of this section is completely pointless. You want to offer incentives to new teachers, and your way about this is to continue to offer 'indefatigable support'. You do not seem to realise that the issue is caused by a lack of this support in the first place. If your department was really capable of offering this support, you would not be facing such a crisis. You also wish to cut bureaucracy, but you haven't told us how. It's not as easy and closing a few sub-departments and saying "Abracadabra". Intimate risk assessments exist to ensure the safety of pupils. If you wish for all schools to introduce a lockdown procedure, they are required to make sure that pupils are indeed safe.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    As to assuage certain distinct concerns and noting the findings of the 27th Report as assembled by the School Teachers’ Review Body, where the STRB promulgated that they “consider it likely that further uplifts of more than 1% will be required to elements of the pay framework in the coming years to continue to enhance the status of the teaching profession and make pay more competitive for teachers at all stages of their careers”, we shall, once again, through the Office of Manpower Economics, request that the School Teachers’ Review Body once again produce an assessment of what adjustments should be made to the salary and allowance ranges for classroom teachers, unqualified teachers and school leaders to promote recruitment, retention and reward. The recommendations in said report shall then be pragmatically assessed and evaluated in collaboration with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Her Majesty’s Treasury - where any augmentations in remunerations shall be agreed upon.





    Translation
    To lesson the concerns of the 27th report by the STRB, we shall conduct another report to assess the changes that should be made to the salary of teachers'. We shall then work with the HM Treasury and come to an agreement.

    Response

    "We didn't like the yearly report that came out less than a year ago, so we'll have another one this year."

    It's an annual report. It comes out every year.

    Think about this for a minute, and get back to me.




    Pupils

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Pupils, today, are enduring immeasurable levels of stress and psychological anguish pertaining to ever augmenting workloads and pressures from all aspects of life - yet, our current educational system fails to make palpable and substantive advancements in regards to addressing, at least in part, the aforementioned issue. Ergo, we shall bring in primary legislation as to necessitate that all state secondary schools have a dedicated specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), or equivalent, representative on-site - referrals to whom will be accepted unconditionally by any member of teaching staff or pupils, themselves, where self-referral is apposite - that is to say, where the pupil, under discussion, transcends the age of 16 or where the security and safety of the pupil, his/her peers, teachers and/or the general public are under immediate and significant threat. Nonetheless, each and every one of the 3408 state-funded secondary schools (including community schools, foundation schools, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled, academies and free schools) shall have a dedicated mental health representative (counsellor or physiologist) on-site for at least 10 hours a week.





    Translation
    Pupils today are subject to high levels of stress due to increasing workloads and pressures from other aspects of life. Sadly, our current system does not address this problem. Therefore, we shall introduce policies to make sure that all secondary school have a full-time Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) representative. If a pupil or teacher is referred to them, the referee in question cannot refuse as long as they are posing a significant request to their colleagues or the general public {A/N: This is nigh impossible to understand}. All state-funded secondary schools must have one of these representatives on-site for at least 10 hours a week.

    Response

    This is extremely hard to understand. How you attempt to pay for a dedicated psychiatrist remains to be seen, although the Right Honourable Jammy Duel has offered a very conservative costing for you.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    To supplement this, we shall review and appraise the Children and Families Act 2014, and associated regulations - with enhanced scrutiny to Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 as to stipulate that all chief SENCo (Special Educational Need Coordinators) have permanent and immutable positions on the governing body, and senior management teams of educational establishments, among other amendments - to indubitably allow them to assiduously shed light on major systemic flaws in their own provisions and thereby institute alterations and, by definition, ameliorations with as little bureaucracy and impediment as possible.





    Translation
    In addition, we will review the Children and Families Act 2014 in order to make it a requirement for all chief SENCos to have permanent positions on the governing body of education institutions, in order to limit bureaucracy as much as possible.

    Response

    This isn't needed. SENCos already have the power to request from the governing, and they are teachers, first and foremost.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    By the same token, this Department shall promulgate, via the National College for Teaching and Leadership, that all new teachers shall be obliged to undertake and graduate from a basic mental health awareness course, as part of their PGCE qualification and as part of obtaining ‘qualified teacher status’ (QTS) - citing Section 132 of the Education Act 2002, a ‘qualified teacher’ is one who satisfies requirements as specified in regulations; a requirement of regulations under Section 132 of the Education Act 2002 may relate to the possession of a specified qualification or experience of a specified kind, participation in or completion of a specified programme or course of training, compliance with a specified condition or an exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State. This Department shall effectuate and enforce the aforementioned requirement retroactively for existing teachers - that is to say, those that have obtained ‘qualified teacher status (QTS); existing teachers shall, however, be granted a ‘grace period’ of up to 2 years to begin to comply with said requirement - that is to say, to procure a training provider and enrol with said training provider - and up to 5 years to comply unconditionally - that is to say, to complete, in its entirety, the awareness course and pass all pertinent tests. Teachers may impetrate an extension in compliance on a case by case basis, whereby the discretion of the Secretary of State shall be exercised.





    Translation
    The Department plans to make it so that all teachers must graduate from a basic mental health awareness course, as part of their qualification. This shall also be enforced upon those who have already completed their qualification, who shall have 2 years time to enrol and 5 years time to complete the course. Teachers may request an extension from the Department of Education on a case-by-case basis.

    Response

    Good idea, as long as you intend to fund it as well.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    We must make appreciable headway in tackling the attainment gap at all levels of education - education must be a competent, operational and effective vehicle for social mobility, whereby the weak in society are afforded ample opportunity to fortify their socioeconomic position as to unambiguously inaugurate a resolute and meritocratic society. That being said, education as a whole must not only ‘equalise’ knowledge to a set ‘mean’ standard but rather advance passion, enthusiasm and excellence in all - hence, this Department shall reinstitute greater centralised support for the Gifted and Talented - those achieving, or who have the innate capacity to achieve, a level markedly above the rest of their peer group inside their particular school; those that could form the basis of the next generation of adroit teachers - in the form of an annual ring-fenced capital injection of no more than £10 million. By the same token, we shall institute plans as to fortify the legal position and long-term security of ‘free-school meals’ (FSM) and ‘Pupil Premium’ as to further support the notion of social mobility,





    Translation
    We must attempt to close the attainment gap over all levels of education. This Department must not only equalise the knowledge learned by students, but also advance it. Therefore, we intend to annually inject £10 million into the development of Gifted and Talented programs. We will also fortify the position of free-school meals and pupil premium.

    Response

    This is very vague. Where will that £10 million go? Gifted and Talented programs are important, but I fail to see how the scheme needs an extra £10 million investment. I am beginning to see a trend with costing issues.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    To complement this, we shall ensure that the accessibility of private tutors is considerably ameliorated for all - this Department shall inaugurate a public and accessible ‘private tutor register’ where tutors shall be free to openly register and unreservedly advertise services. At the point of registration, the pedagogic and professional credentials (including a full Disclosure and Barring Service check) of the tutor shall be assessed and evaluated, with reviews occuring on an established regular basis - the aforementioned pedagogic and professional credentials shall be made publicly obtainable and accessible as to instill confidence in parents. The Department shall apportion up to £1 million in capital in the establishing of said register and the implementation of comprehensive and indispensable review mechanisms.





    Translation
    To complement this, we shall create a public private tutor register, where qualified individuals can freely register and advertise. Their credentials will be assessed and evaluated regularly. These reviews will be made freely accessible to the general public. This will cost roughly £1 million.

    Response

    In no way is £1 million enough for regular checks, assessments, and creation of this register. I agree with the sentiment, but online services already exist, and I don't see a need for a government-created register anyway. This seems like padding, and a waste of money.




    Examinations

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    This Department - this Government - no longer sees any transient value and merit in ‘National Curriculum statutory assessment tests’ - idiomatically referred to as SATs. SATs, by definition, restrict the Curriculum and ‘natural progression of education’ from a very early age. Teachers feel obligated not to adapt and tailor their lessons to their pupils and their innate requirements but rather to ‘box-ticking exercises’ in reference to examinations. Hence, it shall be this Department’s determination to phase out, in its entirety, all National Curriculum statutory assessment tests for all Key Stages. In doing so, the Standards and Testing Agency shall become largely supernumerary and, ergo, shall also be disbanded in its entirety - any obligations, roles and covenants besides the administration and co-ordination of statutory assessment tests previously held by the Standards and Testing Agency shall, pending review, be ceded to the Department for Education and its executive agencies - notably, the National College for Teaching and Leadership. With this in mind, we shall be actively encouraging primary schools to more assiduously ‘tailor their education to the needs of their pupils’ and using the spare time in order to more auspiciously further the development of key skills in Numeracy and Literacy and more appropriately smoothen the transition between primary and secondary education.





    Translation
    The government sees no merit in SATs, and believes that they restrict the curriculum and the natural progression of education from an early age. Teachers adapt lessons to test scores rather than individual requirements. Therefore, we intend to phase SATs out in their entirety, as well as to disband the Standards and Testing Agency completely. Any sub-departments, especially the National College for Teaching and Leadership, shall be ceded to the Department of Education. This will allow us to encourage primary schools to develop key skills that they will need for secondary school.

    Response

    I'm all for changing the system, but you have not promised a dramatic enough change for this to be a good usage of resources and time. If you want to remove SATs, the new focus on life should be respected by changing the way GCSEs and Apprenticeships work.

    Original test:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    Homogeneously, we recognise that alterations to General Certifications of Secondary Education and their content have ‘broadened the curriculum’ offering a more meticulous and methodical education in many subjects, empowering the brightest to flourish. That being said, these reforms have undermined all educational entities - placing incalculable strains on all - specifically, staff, budgets and the weakest pupils. This department shall appraise the viability and innate nature of current examinations, at the secondary level especially, at the nearest possible convenience with the staged realisation of any ameliorations as to not embroil matters further. Where any ameliorations are set to be implemented, teachers, pupils and educational institutions shall be apprised well ahead of time to any alterations or amendments to the status quo and will be afforded exhaustive guidance as to any mandatory courses of action in reference to their modi operandi. First and foremost, examinations are to instinctually gravitate towards the meticulous anatomisation of comprehension and application of knowledge and proficiency, rather than unpretentious fact recall, and, in turn, the autonomous regurgitation of information as to proselytise engagement, involvement and innate association with the content and subject - thereby facilitating the development and accentuation of a passion.





    Translation
    We are aware that the curriculum has expanded in a multitude of secondary school subjects. However, these reforms have placed a strain on staff, budgets, and weaker pupils. We will assess the current examinations at the earliest possible time and decide where changes need to be made. The public will be told well before the changes are put in place, and will be guided to the correct courses that need to be remedied. Exams cannot be simply the recollection of facts, and require reform.

    Response

    This doesn't say much. Changing the exams again would place even more strain on the public, because they are the ones who now need to catch up.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    This Department, also, acknowledges the significance of both the English Baccalaureate and ‘Progress 8’ - however, given their positions as ‘performance indicators’, they should not have such a tangible influence on schools and corresponding curricula as they are, presently, having. Hence, we shall seek to phase out their usage in their entirety.





    Translation
    We will attempt to phase out the EBacc and Progress 8, because they now have too much influence on schools.

    Response

    Why not just make it clear that these qualifications are indicators? No real need to abolish them; they're valuable for employers.




    Apprenticeships and 'T-levels'

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show






    As a Department, we recognise that different people prefer different ‘schools of thought’ - desiring a more ‘hands-on’ practical and empirical education rather than a conceptual, abstract and hypothetical paper-based one. For too long, this country has failed to afford opportunities to both sets of equally talented people. This government, this department shall fix this. This Department, through the Education & Skills Funding Agency, shall continue to underwrite both the National Careers Service and National Apprenticeships Service as to promote the several distinctive advantages of an apprenticeship in comparison to university, and vice versa. Likewise, companies and organisations that offer ‘apprenticeships’, at any level, shall be legally obligated to unequivocally provide defined transferable qualifications; said qualifications cannot, under any circumstance, be company specific, nor directly role specific as to increase the innate flexibility of apprenticeships and ensure that they provide a true and solid basis for continuing professional development . For example, an accounting apprenticeship must go some way to offering an ACCA or equivalent qualification - they cannot deliver, or conspire to deliver, a proprietary qualification.





    Translation
    We recognise that many people prefer a more practical approach to education, and this country has failed to afford equal opportunity to both sets of people. This department shall continue to promote several advantages of an apprenticeship, and companies that provide them must provide transferable qualifications, that cannot be company specific.

    Response

    What is the point for this addition? It's how most, if not all, apprenticeships work nowadays anyway. Seems like more padding.

    Original text:
    Spoiler:
    Show





    By the same token, we shall enter in discussions with industry leaders, professionals and employers in the realm of agriculture, business administration, catering, hospitality, engineering, legal, finance, sales, marketing, social care, transport and logistics as to form industry bodies to form industry-specific task forces who will be tasked with developing and reviewing the content of T-levels, technical study programmes to work in unison and alongside the existing apprenticeship system, and increase the usage of apprenticeships systemwide in each of their respective industry areas.





    Translation
    We shall also discuss the formation of industry-specific task forces with employers in multiple areas. They will review the content of T-levels to allow them to work in tandem with the current apprenticeship system.

    Response

    This is an interesting proposal, although it should be costed before you stick it as padding in your statement of intent.




    To close, I wish to make the house aware of the absolute emptiness this statement holds. The original text had an average word length of just under 5.6 characters, and was 4,318 words long. My translation average word length was 5.2 characters, and just 1,972 words long.

    I thank the house for taking the time to read my response, and I hope my translation is able to help a few of you out.

    The Honourable JellyMilk MP
    Shadow Secretary of State for Education, Culture, and Young People
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    What's that, writing the statement in pretentious **** more than doubled the length?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 1, 2018
The home of Results and Clearing

2,523

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.