Proof of the Educational Pudding in Portland

I have always been against academy schools, & indeed must delcare myself an opponent of oversized secondaries as a whole - young people are alienated enough from meaningful participation in our culture without being alienated from each other & their teachers in huge & intimidating factory-learning environments.

This is why I have supported the calls in Swanage for a Swanage Secondary: whatever the subject, young people perform best among teachers & peers with whom they have a 'team' relationship. A school is essential to its community in all sorts of ways, whether from professionals identifying problems & being able to liaise closely with parents or teachers being able to watch their charges grow & mature over the years ( one of the keenest pleasures of working in education) to links with the community that enable a whole range of local , retired, or just enthusiastic experts to engage with them in a 'living' education.

The academy model is the anthesis of the kind of vision parents in Swanage want to make a reality & the argument for a giant secondary in Purbeck, with access to the full range of diplomas has, I feel, disadvantages as well as strengths. It is with relief therefore that I see that the Government's academies programme has decided to prevent ULT, the largest sponsor of academies, from taking on new schools until it dramatically improves the ones it already runs. This will affect the proposed 4 - 19 all through academy in Portland.

In my opinion the idea of an all -through mechanism like this seems completely counter-intuitive to the needs & developmental stages experienced by children of various ages - although on a large enough campus with clear separation between the schools & excellent leadership, it could be made to work.

My big concern however has always been linked to the 'creationist' controversy - & the motivations of bodies wishing to run schools for purposes that are clearly wider than that of education alone. This is something that a future Tory administration would have to address closely, were , under their tutelage ,the Swedish schools model to come into effect.

The United Learning Trust's Sheffield academies, plagued with behavioural problems & low results, have failed spectacularly. It appears that it is not enough simply to throw money & new buildings at a deprived area & that spritual guidance is not an adequate replacement to skilled & professional teaching ! The poor management of the schools has worsened their performance, leading to both being put into special measures.

Of ULT's 13 academies, one was judged outstanding, three good, but seven were only satisfactory & two inadequate. That is why the Government has required them to turn their attention to their existing establishments, stalling plans for new developemnts.

I must admit that separating off state schools & attempting to turn them essentially into private schools with public funding, had always seemed a suspect performance to me - not that different from the Conservative's schools of the Grant Maintained variety. It's a piecemeal rehash when in fact, what we may be said to need is an entirely new debate about how education is organised in the UK.

Government after government has tampered with a succession of schools turning our children ( & teachers !) into experiments in ideology & social engineering.

Schools are most successful when they are adequately resourced to attract skilled & motivated staff who are left to do what those skilled & motivated staff do best. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to offer resources to schools only when they jump through the hoop of the latest social experiment. There are huge problems with how we educate in this country - but they have not been solved by the academies: I am relieved that Portland will not be part of the same experiment in the near future.

Is Tory Foriegn Policy Insane ?

Cameron's experience abroad is described by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in yesterday's Guardian as "a series of missteps & own goals, culminating in the gruesome embarrassment of his volte face on a referendum".

He continues "...this raises the question of whether the Tories actually have a sane foreign policy - for Europe & beyond- that they can conduct in office."

This is more pertinent question than it may at first seem.

Cameron's careful avoidance of detailed policy planning on the domestic scene, which on the doorstep I find is leading so many ordinary voters to question his reliability, & which seems to be designed to avoid critical examination at the same time as inviting approval for twisting every which way the wind blows (where is the emphasis on green issues now we are in a recession ??), is put into sharp profile by his simplistic & partisan approach to diplomacy, international conflict & European affairs. It is here that perhaps we see the real Cameron - a man who whilst adroit at domestic manouverings is clearly quite scarily out of his depth in the international arena.

Most European countries, notably Germany & France, are governed by centre right administrations -in recent months Cameron has alienated both: - a Conservative administration would see us once again in the second tier in Europe.

The alternative to the European idea promulgated by neo-cons & eurosceptics, the opinions of which are so unfortunately shared by the Conservative candidate in South Dorset, is a relationship with the United States so "special" that only the English appear to know it exists & which over recent years has clarified the extent to which the UK is clearly a very junior partner - after the way Blair prostated himself before Bush & got nothing in return.

For the clearest & most worrying sign of Cameron's inadequacy in foriegn affairs however, we need to turn back to last year's conflict in Georgia, where he gave his fervent backing to the Tbilisi government , unilaterally declaring, in a literally 'flying' visit, that Georgia should be admitted to Nato forthwith.

A suggestion which, if taken seriously, might have precipitated full scale international war !

As put succinctly by Sir Malcolm Rifkind "Britain, France & Germany are not going to go to war with Russia over South Ossetia"..... but under a Cameron administration, what might have happened ?

Not only does the Shadow Cabinet lack experience of the real world, & the Shadow Chancellor reveal his clear misunderstandings of economic instability by advocating Thatcherite economic retrenchment, against the advicce & practice of the countries that are now officially out of recession, but the forays into foreign affairs of the party leader & Shadow Foreign Secretary are based on prejudice & show they are not fit for purpose as national leaders in the modern world.

In the 1980s the Specials sang about the lunatics taking over the asylum - let's only hope the British people have more sense than to elect this bunch of amatuers.