If you were the cynical sort who thought that academies, 'free' schools and general diversity of provision was a cover for replacing national standards with a system which gave some children an education and taught others to make eye contact with customers when greeting them, well congratulations:
Under-16s, meanwhile, must work at least four hours a week for local sponsors unpaid. It is perhaps ironic that a system that is supposed to teach children what it is like to work in the real world does not pay them to do a job.
Given the general commitment of the giovernment to the idea that work doesn't have to pay, it is increasingly less ironic that it does this.
The thought occurs that an enterprising trade union ought to be signing on as a sponsor in order to teach the virtues of collective withdrawal of labour in getting a better wage.
Posted by: Tom | December 07, 2012 at 10:40 AM
The new PUS at BIS (what was Trade and Industry), "Lord" Marland, is on record as being "comfortable with unpaid internships". This contradicts the government's existing policy, but it may be a straw in the wind.
Posted by: chris y | December 07, 2012 at 11:16 AM
The thought occurs that an enterprising trade union ought to be signing on as a sponsor
Not the trade unions per se, but Rochdale's very own wing of TGMOO
Also, education fans, full marks to anyone who can identify the source of the quote below without following the link:
"Defining by a general law the expenditures on the ... schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction, etc., and... supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors, is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school."
Posted by: CMcM | December 08, 2012 at 01:05 PM