Angela Rayner skewered by Nick Ferrari

[Smiler.]

Ganglandboss said:

She did sit her GCSEs, but got sh*t grades, because in her words, “School wasn’t about education, but about larking around with my pals”.

Personally, I would welcome an Education Secretary who can see beyond the need to go to university, but I would expect them to have experience / understanding of vocational qualifications, as well as an appreciation of academic options. Rayner is just a thick chavess with neither, and the intellect of a lobster.

This should be repeated back to the gobby sack of flatulence every time she opens her mouth. It explains everything about her perfectly.

Blair had "babes" but Corbyn has cretins.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Roy Lime said:

Perhaps all those people taking the piss out of Angela Rayner this morning should first walk a mile in her shoes.

<cough>

The only advantage of walking a mile in Angela Rayners shoes, is that you would be a mile away from her, and you will have nicked her shoes.

[andy43]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Roy Lime said:

Perhaps all those people taking the piss out of Angela Rayner this morning should first walk a mile in her shoes.

<cough>

The only advantage of walking a mile in Angela Rayners shoes, is that you would be a mile away from her, and you will have nicked her shoes.

[turbobloke]

andy43 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Roy Lime said:

Perhaps all those people taking the piss out of Angela Rayner this morning should first walk a mile in her shoes.

<cough>

The only advantage of walking a mile in Angela Rayners shoes, is that you would be a mile away from her, and you will have nicked her shoes.

[Rovinghawk]

Funky Panda said:

Therefore the cost in salaries alone based on an average starting salary of £20000 and a 25% overheads for pension, NI etc.

It's probably 30% just for pension commitments, never mind the rest.

[poo at Paul's]

Funky Panda said:

After hearing the lack of data presented by the shadow education secretary this morning, my Dad and I thought we would have a go at it on her behalf after dinner.

Here are our findings after about 30 mins:

Number of children in oversize classes in England (Ferrari figure) 520,000

Number of primary school children in England 4443120 Figure from Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jul/26/...

Therefore 11.7% of children are in classes of over 30

If we assume on average a child in an oversize class is in a class of 32 (worst case scenario from this article: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/11/... then 1/16 of the children need a new class.

So therefore 32500 children require a new class. If they are placed in an 'acceptable' class size of 30 we can estimate that 1083 new classes are needed.

Based upon 1.5 teachers per class to cover sickness, absence, maternity leave and other factors this policy would need around 1625 new primary teachers presuming none of the extra classes could be taken by current staff

Therefore the cost in salaries alone based on an average starting salary of £20000 and a 25% overheads for pension, NI etc. would leave a cost of £25000 per teacher in the 1st year excluding training costs.

Total cost of new teachers from education budget = £40.6 million

The total budget for primary education is around £21.7 billion (£4900 per pupil)
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/27/...

An increase of 0.18% in Primary school budget.

However in the 1st year the cost of creating the extra classrooms will mean this is considerable more, I can't find the figures to give an accurate estimate of these.

Good try but I reckon your £40Mil would be nearer £200Mil once the pensions, training and extra infrastructure is put in place to house the new teachers.
And of course, not all the issues of having 32 kids in a class are instantly cured by having 29 in a class!
But B+ for effort!.

[turbobloke]

poo at Paul's said:

Good try but I reckon your £40Mil would be nearer £200Mil once the pensions, training and extra infrastructure is put in place to house the new teachers.

And of course, not all the issues of having 32 kids in a class are instantly cured by having 29 in a class!
.

Indeed, by no means will there be instant achievement for all.

Not forgetting that, to have a class size of 30+ in a Reception class and KS1 (Y1 and Y2) while avoiding repercussions given that class sizes in those age groups are required to be 30 or less per teacher, primary schools may well employ two teachers for those large classes. Which highlights your first point. Clearly two teachers is a costly way of accommodating only two or three extra pupils but it happens. And if there are two teachers, then the class size can be as large as the teaching space allows, up to 60

[Europa1]

Wobbegong said:

Maybe it is a good idea? Education at present is pretty much a choochoo train to university. What about those who are not academic and have no desire/need/the ability to go beyond high school education like Angela Rayner?
I'm no fan of Labour, but perhaps someone who can see beyond the need for everyone to go to uni could be a good option for education secretary and open opportunities for young non-academics.

Based on what the Labour bod interviewed on the Today programme this morning said, for Labour it's still going to be about getting people to university.

[boyse7en]

Eric Mc said:

Instead of actual numbers or figures, all Labour spokespeople have been told they must only use the following less precise terms -

decent chunk
smidgin
loads more
more than enough
a tad
carefully researched
fully costed
I don't do numbers

To be fair, it's not much worse than TM's pledge of reducing immigration to "the tens of thousands" in the vague hope that mouth-breathers will only hear the "10,000" bit and not realise that she actually means just than less than 100,000.

[Europa1]

Eric Mc said:

Instead of actual numbers or figures, all Labour spokespeople have been told they must only use the following less precise terms -

decent chunk
smidgin
loads more
more than enough
a tad
carefully researched
fully costed
I don't do numbers

They do seem to be very careful about saying "fully costed" as opposed to "fully funded".

[Rovinghawk]

turbobloke said:

Indeed, by no means will there be instant achievement for all.

No problem provided there are prizes for all.

[Trax]

poo at Paul's said:

Good try but I reckon your £40Mil would be nearer £200Mil once the pensions, training and extra infrastructure is put in place to house the new teachers.
And of course, not all the issues of having 32 kids in a class are instantly cured by having 29 in a class!
But B+ for effort!.

I would have gone for a A-, but the newest dictat from Labour HQ, says the having a negative after the A, has lasting negative affects on a child's feelings.

So B++, just to make you feel better.

[SpeckledJim]

fblm said:

Wobbegong said:

...perhaps someone who can see beyond the need for everyone to go to uni could be a good option for education secretary and open opportunities for young non-academics.

Quite right but surely there are enough completely uneducated, innumerate, semi-literate fvckwits around without putting one of them in charge of the entire education system? There wasn't a single better person in the PLP? She didn't choose not to do 6th form or Uni, a perfectly reasonable choice; she chose not to do GCSE's!

There were loads, but the awkward thing is that every Labour MP clever enough to be Shadow Education Secretary, is clever enough to refuse to be Shadow Education Secretary.

Rayner is the first one they asked who said yes. (so approx. the 50th one they asked.)

[Funky Panda]

Cheers for the comments guys. I was not trying to give an exact costing more an idea of the clear lack of preparation before going on a show where a colleague has been caught out by figures days earlier.

All the information is easily available online.

I'll take a B- never that good at school.

[anonymous-user]

poo at Paul's said:

Good try but I reckon your £40Mil would be nearer £200Mil...

Not even close. Unless schools are next to each other and can 'share' the extra class room, almost every school with a class over 30 will need an extra class, class room and teacher(s). An extra class at one school that in theory soaks up 30 kids from all the oversized classes in surrounding areas is not a practical solution unless you want kids commuting from different catchment areas. The cost would be 10 times that (assuming the average class is oversized by 2), assuming you didn't have to build new classrooms, which seems unlikely.

[anonymous-user]

Not sure what all the fuss is about class sizes.

When I was at Grammar School in the 60s, most classes had 30 or 31 in them. Same at primary even longer ago.

Class sizes are one of the lesser issues with education today, if they're an issue at all. I would bet that reducing them will have little or no effect on outcomes.

[fido]

REALIST123 said:

Not sure what all the fuss is about class sizes.

When I was at Grammar School in the 60s, most classes had 30 or 31 in them. Same at primary even longer ago.

Class sizes are one of the lesser issues with education today, if they're an issue at all. I would bet that reducing them will have little or no effect on outcomes.

Ditto at my school - but most of our teachers were ex-military, you shut up after being told once. I wouldn't want to be a teacher in a modern school with more than 20 pupils. I know some of them are exemplary but that's generally not what I hear from my teacher friends. Also with 'streaming' (do they do this any more?) you will tend to get the losers together in the bottom streams - sure it won't be fun for the other kids in that class but at least it keeps them away from the boffins.

[anonymous-user]

How can these people not know their own business?

It's embarrassing.

"You give it me"... Have they just pulled someone off the street?

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

Not sure what all the fuss is about class sizes.

When I was at Grammar School in the 60s, most classes had 30 or 31 in them. Same at primary even longer ago.

Class sizes are one of the lesser issues with education today, if they're an issue at all. I would bet that reducing them will have little or no effect on outcomes.

Well Rayner said in classes over 30 'those with behavioral problems will not get the support that they need'. Which brings up a whole other issue.

[turbobloke]

fido said:

REALIST123 said:

Not sure what all the fuss is about class sizes.

When I was at Grammar School in the 60s, most classes had 30 or 31 in them. Same at primary even longer ago.

Class sizes are one of the lesser issues with education today, if they're an issue at all. I would bet that reducing them will have little or no effect on outcomes.

Ditto at my school - but most of our teachers were ex-military, you shut up after being told once. I wouldn't want to be a teacher in a modern school with more than 20 pupils. I know some of them are exemplary but that's generally not what I hear from my teacher friends. Also with 'streaming' (do they do this any more?) you will tend to get the losers together in the bottom streams - sure it won't be fun for the other kids in that class but at least it keeps them away from the boffins.

Concerns raised over class size almost always refer to ages 4-6 in Reception, Y1 and Y2 classes where state schools "cannot" have taught groups over 30 if only one teacher is taking the class.

Secondary comprehensive schools have for some time had large top sets over 30 and sink groups containing around 20 headbangers, though the fashion these days is to spread the mafia around so every class is stuffed rather than one ...but then who'd be desperate to teach that sink class.