Be notified by email of each new post.
In the end some sort of middle tier will have to be reinvented . Even Gove now admits that. The middle tier will almost certainly retain some funds, rather like the academy chains do, to provide central services. If you sit tight, everything comes round again in the end!
You are basically describing your own method of arguing Janet. I can't believe you haven't noticed this.
Educational "reform" in England begins with ideology not with evidence. Mr Gove and his supporters fish round for "evidence" to support their ideology while ignoring any evidence that disputes it. Evidence from reputable sources (OECD, IFS, EEF, TIMSS, and so on) which contradicts Mr Gove's ideology is presented on this site with links so readers can make up their own minds. Strangely, those who attack the evidence on this site rarely present opposing evidence - often making vague comments about "cherry picking" without showing the cherries that haven't been picked.
You are describing your own method of arguing again and you don't have to present opposing evidence when the evidence presented is poor evidence. For pity sake Janet you've even presented evidence before that disproves what you are saying.
Every link of yours that I've looked into links to publications that lack a detailed methodology and you can't or won't explain how their conclusions were formed. This is poor evidence.
Hopeless attempt at discrediting without providing any credible evidence or argument of your own. Why don't you take the time to source original reports and interpretations - which Janet has so obviously done - , read and digest them and provide some rigorous evidence? Much of this is to be readily found on the internet
Why should someone have to provide evidence to disprove claims that are not supported by rigourous evidence.
For pity sake one can cast doubt on a conclusion if that conclusion is based on weak evidence without offering a different conclusion. Do you understand this?
An ad hominem is attacking a person rather than their argument. Perhaps you can explain why my desire for proper evidence is an ad hominem?
Critcising someones method of argument is not an ad hominem. If you think it is perhaps you should take issue with Janet because she is making the same criticism of Micheal Gove that I am making of her.
Trying to drag someone into a circular argument about what constitutes an ad nauseum ad hominem isn't showing you have evidence that might challenge Janet's arguments and says nothing about why you think Academy conversion is slowing down, despite the coalition's trumpeting of the scale of the "reform". You're digging yourself down deeper Jimbo. I really am very concerned about you.
Allan, Rebecca falsely accused me of ad hominem arguing. It is unreasonable of you to expect people to ignore false accusations and even more unreasonable to complain that questioning foul play is changing the subject. Now, my criticism of Janet is about her style and general quality of some of her sources - why do I need to provide evidence about academy conversions to critique these things? Do you understand that it is possible to dismiss a conclusion if that conclusion is based on invalid evidence?
Rebecca - thanks for the link about Cyberrhetoric. I like the idea that threads and posts are part of an ongoing conversation in which views are developed, challenged and refined. I also agree that it's necessary to provide links to evidence and if someone wishes to challenge the evidence then it's important to provide contradictory evidence. It's insufficient just to dismiss the former as being "poor" especially when the former is provided by reputable, respected organisations. If the methodology used by these organisations is found to be flawed then evidence which shows this is essential.
Janet the problem is that some of the sources that you link to do not have a methodology. If one is going to challenge the validity of a piece of evidence on the grounds that it doesn't have a methodology what sort of evidence are you expecting one to provide?
moderate - not moderated sorry!
Perhaps big and successful would have been more accurate than massive.
Now that's a very interesting comment! I wonder if that's where Gove and his team have been doing their research? That would explain a lot. Which particular sections of the TES forum do you read which have led you to this conclusions Jim?
It looks like you need to go to the 'contact us' button on the menu bar and write about your concerns Jim.
I have already done so but thanks for the advice.
No problem. If you want to chat to me about forum moderation in general do feel free to get in touch - I'm really easy to find on linkedin.com and so on. Sorry I can't help more specifically about this forum.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Although I agree with him on a couple of points (not free schools or academies) I am not a supporter of Micheal Gove or the Conservatives.
Any thoughts on the article above Guest?
More information about text formats