Child Poverty Act

Repeal/Review The Child Poverty Act 2010.

I believe this act was set up by the Labour government to force the government to meet set targets to reduce child poverty.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal/Review The Child Poverty Act 2010.

I believe this act was set up by the Labour government to force the government to meet set targets to reduce child poverty.

FE Colleges – funding dependent on ‘success’

Qualifications are being gifted to students as college funding is dependent on hitting national targets for 'success'. 

This has lead to a situation where no one who starts a course can fail it – the worst behaved/non-attenders/plain lazy are being awarded certificates and diplomas having achieved nothing.

Many students are aware they cannot be marked as failures and are not even attempting to do any work. Meanwhile, colleges all over the country proudly announce, '100% success rate' on their websites….

Lecturers must be allowed to use their professional judgement as to who is and who is not  performing satisfactorily. This will inevitably lead to some students failing but it will restore discipline and credibility to the system.

Why is this idea important?

Qualifications are being gifted to students as college funding is dependent on hitting national targets for 'success'. 

This has lead to a situation where no one who starts a course can fail it – the worst behaved/non-attenders/plain lazy are being awarded certificates and diplomas having achieved nothing.

Many students are aware they cannot be marked as failures and are not even attempting to do any work. Meanwhile, colleges all over the country proudly announce, '100% success rate' on their websites….

Lecturers must be allowed to use their professional judgement as to who is and who is not  performing satisfactorily. This will inevitably lead to some students failing but it will restore discipline and credibility to the system.

16 month rule for supply teaching

I would like to see the abolishment of the 16 month limit for non-inductible supply teaching. The current rule means that newly qualified teachers may only work for 16 months as a supply teacher before they must take up an induction post of at least 1 school term.

Unfortunately there are not enough jobs for the number of teachers looking to secure an induction post. Many teachers who have gained lots of invaluable experience as supply teachers following their qualification are forced to leave the profession because of this ridiculous ruling. Many of these teachers have received grants in order to complete the training and some will have received additional funding to help with living expenses. What a waste of taxpayers' money if they have to give up their dream!

There is no justification for this 16 month ruling particularly as teachers can complete their training, go and do a completely different job for several years and still be allowed to teach. Where is the logic in that?

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the abolishment of the 16 month limit for non-inductible supply teaching. The current rule means that newly qualified teachers may only work for 16 months as a supply teacher before they must take up an induction post of at least 1 school term.

Unfortunately there are not enough jobs for the number of teachers looking to secure an induction post. Many teachers who have gained lots of invaluable experience as supply teachers following their qualification are forced to leave the profession because of this ridiculous ruling. Many of these teachers have received grants in order to complete the training and some will have received additional funding to help with living expenses. What a waste of taxpayers' money if they have to give up their dream!

There is no justification for this 16 month ruling particularly as teachers can complete their training, go and do a completely different job for several years and still be allowed to teach. Where is the logic in that?