Bridget Phillipson tells critics to ‘leave London for a change' to see scale of schools crisis as reform row escalates
A war of words has erupted over Bridget Phillipson's school reforms, with the education secretary urging critics to 'try leaving London for a change'.
Ms Phillipson said she was being attacked by Tory shadow ministers and 'their friends in the commentariat' all based in the capital, with many academies outside London struggling or failing altogether.
She wrote in The Daily Telegraph: 'Opposition shadow ministers and their friends in the commentariat should try leaving London for a change: they'll find plenty of underperforming academies which need new answers to drive up standards in their classrooms.'
It came after former education secretary Michael Gove and ex-Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman rounded on her over planned changes to academy schools and a review of the curriculum.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Mr Gove said Ms Phillipson's plans risked 'blighting the prospects of children and holding our economy back'.
'I am concerned that the emphasis on ambition and rigour in the education system will be diluted,' he said.
Mr Gove added: 'Any attempt to divert and water down the commitment to excellence will be to surrender to the trade union-led war on knowledge at a time when the government at last begins to get it right on defence, welfare and health.'
Labour's Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill aims to ensure all state schools – academies and those run by councils – follow the same pay and conditions framework.
Academies, which are independent of local authorities, currently have the freedom to set their own pay and conditions for staff, and some academies exceed the national pay scales for teachers.
But the new bill would bring all teachers onto the same core pay and conditions framework, whether they work in a local authority-run school or an academy.
It would also see academies forced to teach the national curriculum for the first time, while they would also lose the power to recruit teachers without qualifications.
Ms Phillipson is also expected to publish an interim review of the English school curriculum on Tuesday morning, the Telegraph reported.
Mr Gove said he was particularly concerned about the future of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc), which he introduced as education secretary so pupils would take a wide range of GCSEs including English, mathematics, science, a language and either geography or history.
'Any move away from an ambitious curriculum – particularly moving away from the EBacc – will only blight the prospects of children and hold our economy back,' he added.
It came a day after Ms Spielman launched her own stinging attack on Ms Phillipson, accusing her of caring more about the interests of trade unions than schoolchildren.
A government official hit back, saying Ms Spielman should 'spend less time criticising the reforms this government is bringing and more time reflecting on her failure at Ofsted and on a teaching profession that entirely lost confidence in her as chief inspector'.
But Ms Spielman doubled down, saying: 'That's fascinating in itself because that's a union line.'
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's World at One programme on Monday, Ms Spielman said: 'For over 20 years now we've had a steady policy of giving schools and academy chains quite significant levels of autonomy, balanced by strong accountability, and over that time it's very clear that the performance of the English system relative to others has been very strong.
'Indeed we have many people looking to us and visiting, wanting to learn from what's happened in England, to take into their own systems.
'So at just that point, to see a whole raft of initiatives – these academy provisions in this bill, the curriculum and assessment review, the review of teacher training standards, and several other initiatives – that seem to add up to a very significant reversal, without any analysis of what's been good and what's been less good.'
Asked if the changes would damage children's education, she said: 'I think it's very likely they will add up to something that will – because the common thread running through seems to be they are about changes that are likely to please unions, that essentially put unions and union members ahead of children.'
The National Education Union (NEU) has welcomed Labour's proposals, saying they would 'make a meaningful difference to the lives of staff and children', but has also vowed to push for more investment.
A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'Our landmark Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill – alongside our new regional improvement teams and Ofsted reforms – delivers on our mission for every child to have a good, local school, will get high-quality teachers into every classroom, and [will] ensure that all schools can innovate to attract and retain the best talent.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
It Would Be So Funny If Trump Nationalized Elon Musk's Companies
As one of the century's stupidest, most high-profile feuds escalated yesterday, President Donald Trump at one point threatened to cancel the U.S. government's expansive contracts with SpaceX and Tesla, companies that are both at least nominally headed by ketamine enthusiast and Grimes-ex Elon Musk. In response, Musk threatened to 'immediately' decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, currently America's only means of shuttling astronauts to and from the International Space Station. An X user with fewer than 200 followers then appeared to negotiate some kind of détente on the matter, prompting Musk to back down. The bizarre, petulant, helplessly transfixing back-and-forth was a reminder that, while Musk's time as a 'special government employee' may be over, he's still very much a part of the U.S. government. His business empire has been built on government largesse, whether through SpaceX's expansive contracts with NASA, Starlink satellites, or the clean car rule compliance credits that have accounted for 34 percent of Tesla's profits since 2012. As The Washington Post reported in February, Musk's businesses have over the years received $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. In many ways, Musk owes his fortune to the U.S. government. A truce between Trump and Musk may be imminent, but, if he wishes to use it, Trump has a powerful wild card for sticking it to Musk: nationalize his companies. A similar idea was floated online yesterday by Steve Bannon, the odious former film producer and Trump confidant, who suggested using the Defense Production Act to 'seize' SpaceX. The wide-ranging Korean War–era policy outlines several steps by which the White House can bypass Congress to intervene in the demand and supply sides of particular industries. Those powers can include directing private companies to prioritize orders from the federal government, issuing loans and loan guarantees, and allocating 'materials, services, and facilities' from corporations. Just this week, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to boost production of so-called critical minerals and weapons. A waiver published to the Federal Register on Wednesday claims that shortfalls of either would 'severely impair national defense capability.' The Biden administration similarly leveraged the Defense Production Act to spur on the domestic production of graphite, a key component of the lithium-ion batteries used in military energy systems and electric vehicles. Both presidents turned to the law during the Covid-19 pandemic to address medical supply chain shortages and accelerate vaccine production. As the Roosevelt Institute's Todd Tucker has pointed out, the Defense Production Act has been continually updated to give the White House broader authority over energy, in particular. Its 2009 reauthorization specifically excised language in previous versions that restricted the government's ability to directly engage in energy production. After 9/11, the Defense Production Act's definition of 'national defense' was updated to include the protection and restoration of 'critical infrastructure,' a legal designation of 16 sectors deemed essential to the functioning of the economy, including telecoms, information technology, and transportation. In theory, that is, the Defense Production Act offers Donald Trump a massive toolbox with which to intervene in Musk's business. He could stick it to the richest man on earth by ordering Tesla to stop making Cybertrucks and start making electric buses, or forcing Starlink to provide free internet service to everyone in the country. As Bannon hinted, the law also opens up the possibility of requiring recipients of government funding—including those who have received loans and contracts—to give the government equity stakes in exchange. The first Trump administration did just that in 2020, when the Treasury Department sought equity stakes in publicly traded national security contractors, including defense firms, looking to receive the $17 billion set aside for them in coronavirus relief funds. Tying federal funding to public equity stakes is a common practice in other countries that's somewhat rare in the U.S. The most prominent example in recent memory was when the federal government spent $50 billion on a 61 percent equity stake in General Motors, bailing out the automaker after its bankruptcy in 2009. While this move theoretically empowered the White House to enact wide-ranging reforms—correcting for the kinds of mistakes that had plunged GM into financial ruin in the first place—presidential advisers, including Larry Summers, then the head of the National Economic Council, pushed the Obama administration to instead act as a 'reluctant equity owner' and 'not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations.' The concept of the government seeking a 'golden share' in certain companies has already come up during Trump 2.0. Trump obliquely floated the possibility of the U.S. receiving an equity stake as part of Nippon Steel's controversial takeover of U.S. Steel, entitling the government to an advisory role that could allow it to outvote other shareholders on major issues like mergers and asset sales. Given the sheer scale of Musk's dealings with the federal government—business he seemed eager to expand during his disastrous time in Washington—there are any number of options for Trump to bolster government oversight of SpaceX and Tesla, including, potentially, buying up shares. Republican attacks on both electric vehicle incentives and California's clean car rules, moreover, may end up costing Tesla billions of dollars, JP Morgan Chase analysts have found. Tesla is already struggling amid flagging sales in the U.S. and abroad; earlier this year at the White House, Trump even hosted a bizarre infomercial for Tesla, seemingly aimed at boosting the company's fortunes. It's not impossible to imagine that Tesla might at some point come begging for another handout, offering Trump the opportunity to do what Barack Obama couldn't: play an active role in the day-to-day operations of a U.S. automaker. To state the obvious, it is vanishingly unlikely that Donald Trump will use either public equity stakes or the Defense Production Act toward progressive ends. In March, his administration removed solar panels, heat pumps, and other green technologies from the Defense Production Act's purview by rescinding several Biden-era executive orders. Doing so, though, would make Elon Musk really, really mad. If Trump is too afraid to exert that kind of power over Musk—who has demonstrated time and again his alarming sway over the federal government—whichever Democrat makes it to the White House next shouldn't be.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Thousands gather for anti-austerity demonstration in London
Thousands of people have gathered to 'send a message' to the Government with a demonstration over spending cuts and welfare reform. Campaign group The People's Assembly said it expected trade unionists, campaigners and activists to attend the event in central London on Saturday. MPs Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott are among those expected to give speeches at a rally in Whitehall. The organisers accused the Government of making spending cuts that target the poorest in society. Representatives from the National Education Union, Revolutionary Communist Party, Green Party and the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union could all be seen at the march's start point in Portland Place. The large crowd then set off towards Whitehall shortly before 1pm. Many of the protesters were holding placards that read 'Tax the rich, stop the cuts – welfare not warfare'. Other signs being held aloft said 'Nurses not nukes' and 'Cut war, not welfare'. A People's Assembly spokesperson said: 'The adherence to 'fiscal rules' traps us in a public service funding crisis, increasing poverty, worsening mental health and freezing public sector pay. 'Scrapping winter fuel payments, keeping the Tory two-child benefit cap, abandoning Waspi women, cutting £5 billion of welfare by limiting Pip and universal credit eligibility, and slashing UK foreign aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP, while increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, are presented as 'tough choices'. 'Real tough choices would be for a Labour government to tax the rich and their hidden wealth, to fund public services, fair pay, investment in communities and the NHS.' The People's Assembly said it is bringing together trade unionists, health, disability, housing, and welfare campaigners with community organisations under the slogan: No to Austerity2.0. There will be also be speeches from trade union leaders, disability rights activists, anti-poverty campaigners and groups calling for more investment in the NHS and other public services. The spokesperson added: 'We face a growing threat from the far right, fuelled by racism, division and failed politics. We need to see people's lives improve, we need to see the vulnerable cared for and an end to child poverty. 'On June 7, we march for education, for our NHS, for welfare, for refugees, against hate, and for a society in which our children can flourish.'
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
The Bulletin June 3, 2025
The rundown: The Chinese foreign ministry spelled out what it said were the three violations of the tariff-slashing China-U.S. agreement reached in Geneva, and accused Washington of taking "extreme measures" based on "defamatory accusations". Get more details. Why it matters: Lin Jian, spokesman for the ministry, listed "controls on chip exports to China, halting the sales of chip design software to China, and announcing revocations of Chinese student visas" as having "severely violated the common understandings reached in Geneva". "China firmly opposed this and made strong protests," Lin said at a press briefing on Tuesday morning. "Let me stress once again that this pressuring and coercion is not the right way to engage with China. We urge the U.S. to respect the facts, stop peddling misinformation, correct relevant wrongdoings, and take concrete moves to uphold the common understandings reached by the two sides." Read more in-depth coverage: Ex-Trump Official Lays Out Why China Might Be 'Worried' To Cut Tariff Deal TL/DR: "Let me stress once again that this pressuring and coercion is not the right way to engage with China.' What happens now? President Trump had earlier accused China of having violated the agreement, and that he would soon speak to Chinese President Xi Jinping to try to resolve the issues that have arisen. Deeper reading China Says US Violated Trade Truce With Three Moves
