Private Education Tax Rebate Again

The petition is entitled make public school fees income tax deductible and the explanatory notes say

"Whilst we support progressive taxation as a guiding principle of our social democracy, public school fees should be income tax deductible because of the tangible reduction to the burden on the public purse which results from sending a child to private school."

The petitioner clearly hasn't thought this through, just as the petitioner I wrote about in Tax Rebate on Private Education hadn't.

I, having no children at all, put no burden on the public purse by requiring them to be educated, but I pay my taxes towards that potential education all the same. I see a dentist privately but pay the taxes that support other people's NHS treatment, none-the-less.

Your taxes, petitioner, are for the education of society's children, not your children.

P.S. Ooh! I forgot to say - interesting that the petitioner only thinks this should apply to public school fees; only, that is, the "leading" private schools.

Education in Crime Prevention

The petition is entitled Make mandatory educational a component of sentencing and the explanatory notes say

"In order to tackle the number of people who become involved in repeat offending due to their poor literacy and numeracy preventing them from finding employment, the government should make attaining B at GCSE Math and English (+ 1 practical subject) a precondition for release from prison for repeat offenders."

I shouldn't mock this perfectly reasonable suggestion, I really shouldn't.

But there's something terribly ironic about someone suggesting poor literacy is a problem and therefore requesting "mandatory educational" and that people study "Math". It's unbelievably cruel of me to mock. But I'm afraid it made me laugh.

People really, really should proof-read ...

Yoga in Schools

The petition is entitled make yoga a national curriculum requirement for all children between the ages of 10 - 16 and the explanatory notes say

"Make yoga compulsory to improve childrens physical and spiritual health and development."

I can't help thinking that the people who'd benefit most from this proposal are yoga teachers. It's safe to assume that most schools don't have a current teacher who can teach yoga, so either they'd have to contract out or they'd have to get their teachers trained pronto.

But mostly I just think that this is barking. In and of itself it's restrictive (I prefer schools to have some flexibility of what they teach, within reason; if they want to teach yoga or aikido or whatever as part of PE, that's great, but let them choose), but most especially the use of the word "spiritual" has my batshit detector going off wildly.

Prove from (double-blind, well-controlled) studies in a few schools that yoga is beneficial and then perhaps you can advocate it for everywhere. :)

Welsh in English Schools

The petition is entitled Offer English schools in England to learn the Welsh language and the explanatory notes say

"Well as we all know Welsh is a growing language in a country right next door to England, and that many English nationals take holidays and come to live in Cymru (Wales) So it would be great if they had knowledge of what to say and to respect the Welsh language. This way, hopefully, we wont lose the beautiful language of Welsh."

My first sarcastic impulse is to suggest to the petitioner that he look at the log in his own eye; his use of English grammar is distinctly ... interesting.

However. A brief examination of the National Curriculum website makes it clear that "Modern Foreign Languages" may be offered by schools in Key Stage 2 (ages seven to eleven) and Key Stage 4 (ages fourteen to sixteen); and must be offered at Key Stage 3 (ages eleven to fourteen). At Key Stage 3, and when a Modern Foreign Language is offered at Key Stage 4, the site says

"Schools must offer one or more of the official languages of the European Union (Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, modern Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish). Schools may, in addition, offer any other modern foreign language. Non-EU languages count as a foundation subject only when offered to pupils alongside the possibility of studying an official language of the EU. A pupil may, therefore, study any modern foreign language that the school offers, but the offer must include an EU language."

The Entitlement Statement for Key Stage 4 adds that

"The importance of other languages including community languages is recognised. Schools are encouraged to offer courses in other languages in addition to EU languages, whether or not these have been offered at key stage 3."

In other words, any English school may already teach Welsh if they so wish. For all I know, they may do so.

So what is the petitioner asking for? Something which is already possible and can clearly be found to be so by quickly looking at the internet. Why one earth bother?

Simplify Education

The petition is entitled Simplify Education within the UK and the explanatory notes say

"In the 21st century we should be ashamed of the number of children leaving school unable to read and write properly. Instead of reducing lessons to 10 mins, the current education system should be simplified. Our childrens education is the foundation of the future of this country and from the extremely low standards being achieved and offered by the current system Britain's future looks extremely bleak and all we are raising is a generation of unenthusiastic, uncompetative under achievers. The system should be simplified and concentrate on the basic skills such as reading, writing and mathematics. From such little acorns oak trees grow."

Talk about someone personifying their petition ... such marvellous spelling and grammar!

Is anyone suggesting reducing lessons to ten minutes? This particular part of the petition has me particularly perplexed - what on earth does it mean?

Stop Teaching Evolution

The petition is entitled ban the teaching of so-called evoltionary theory and pseudo science in schools and the
explanatory notes say

"children have a right to know the truth about their origins and should not be taught fiction as fact. No evoltionist has ever been able to prove evolutionary theory - there are no fossil records etc and it is unlikely to have happened. the theory is also no good since is teaches that we come from animals (and therefore justifies behaving like them) and also that there is survial of the fittest (justifying selfishness) and it also implies inequality (some must be more evolved or superior to others) which is why it was used in the past to justify white men above blacks and so forth. Also all religious people should be allowed to teach that they were created by God and therefore not superior, or "more evolved" than others. they should not be called unscientific for doing so (just go do your research and see how many great scientists - including Newton and Descartes were Chrisitan and how mnay Muslims have contributed to our understanding of the world)."

I can only assume that the petitioner doesn't want "theories" about spelling or grammar taught, either.

Frankly, I don't think I can be bothered to refute all this gibberish - the internet is full of explanations of evolutionary theory and why it's a justifiable theory to teach and indeed believe. Why there is something of a fossil record. I'm no biologist or palaeontologist or whatever one needs to be to explain these things properly.

Anyone who believes that knowing we're descended from animals justifies our behaving like them, or that the fact that the fit survive where the unfit do not (in general terms) justifies selfishness, or indeed that there's any legitimacy to using evolution to back up racism, is insane.

As if being religious prevented racism! As if being taught you've been created by God stops people from also teaching that other races, also created by God are inferior!

Go away, silly little petitioner, and either do some research on what science is and what the evolutionary theory is and how it arises, or else go boil your head. Stop trying to interfere with education! Pah!

Student Funding

Three contradictory but interesting petitions on student tuition fees and funding ...

Number One is entitled Stop basing applications for student finance on their parents' incomes, since parents are under no obligation to pay for their childrens' fees and the explanatory notes say

"At present, applications for student finance are based on a student's parents' income. This means that if a students parents' earn more than £40,000 a year the student can receive a maximum loan of £3000 a year, this does not even cover university accommodation fees. Many parents will not pay for their children to attend university as they are under no legal obligation to do so. This prevents not the poor from going to university but the middle class.

Ironically, if a student chooses to marry before university they are considered independent of their parents' income and are eligible for upto a total of £4750 a year in non-repayable grants!

Students are legally adults and their application for finance should be treated as such. It should not be based on their parents' income and all students should be entitled to the same financial help."

Wholehearted agreement from me here. I was fortunate that my mother's income was sufficiently low that she wasn't assessed as being meant to support me to the tune of more than a few quid. (If I remember rightly, in the first year she bought an undergraduate gown and in the second, a couple of pairs of pyjamas. I'm not sure about the third.) While she actually contributed more than that, I didn't feel dependent on her. I didn't need to be dependent on her. I was lucky in that respect. I know at least one current undergraduate who works (in a working-for-money sense) a lot of hours in term and during vac because he dislikes being dependent on his parents, but because their income is relatively high, his support level is relatively low. Not a good situation.

Number Two is entitled Scrap tuition fees for university subjects that mean something and the explanatory notes say

"I heard a rumour that the university tuition fees may soon be re-jigged whereby subjects that require special facilities, such as Chemistry, would be charged at a premium. I think this idea is absolute nonsense! Too many universities are offering pointless degree subjects such as Art and Sociology already, and a steady decline can be seen in the number of universities offering sciences and engineering qualifications.

I therefore suggest that the government re-jig its ideas so that "Mickey Mouse" subjects are charged at a premium to discourage lazy youngsters from taking the easy option, and also so that extra money can be used to offset the cost of sciences and engineering courses to bring our nation's academic ability back up to where it should be."

Wow, this petitioner is even more of an intellectual snob than me! I dislike the petition's opening "I heard a rumour" - a BBC article from 2003 talks about the damage such differential fees would cause, but I can find no more recent information about different fees being charged for different subjects. So I'm not quite sure there's any logical basis for the petition.

In general if differential fees were being charged for different subjects, it's very likely that the sciences would involve a higher fee. After all, charging differential fees implies some kind of consumer market, and the equipment for science degrees inherently costs lots. (I'd have thought there were some other degrees that might have high costs, too, though - I'm thinking of the equipment involved in high level music recording and stuff.) Which I agree could become a problem - though I'd expect to see a commensurate rise in company sponsorships and things. It would worry me, if I thought it was happening.

Number Three is entitled increase tuition fees for those who can afford to pay them, and use the money raised to reduce or eliminate fees for those who could not otherwise afford higher education and the explanatory notes say

"I believe that university tuition fees are completely justified. If this country is to have a world-class higher education system, it must be funded properly and, barring massive tax increases, the only way to do this is via tuition fees.

The current maximum of £3000 is ridiculous. Universities should be allowed to set higher maximum fees, but the Government should then subsidise those students who cannot afford to pay. (A sliding scale would be appropriate here.)"

I don't suppose any of you will be surprised to find me saying I don't agree with this. In my considered opinion the world-class higher education system that people like, say, Tony Blair benefited from managed without tuition fees, and this situation is surely therefore repeatable. I do not appreciate the "50% of young people in higher education" target, which I believe devalues both higher education (which in my opinion is only suited to a much smaller proportion of people) and alternative forms of training/education, which many people are far better suited to.

However, it must be said that if you combined Number Three with Number One, I'd have very little objection to Number Three. Of course, since most students have no money of their own it wouldn't fund very much. But it would at least be fair. I think.

University Finalists' Tuition Fees

The petition is entitled Scrap the final year tuition fees for students on degree courses and there are no explanatory notes.

Why? Why only for finalists? The only thing I can think of is that the petitioner's about to go into his final year and wants his tuition fees cancelled.

Time was when a third year's grant (oh, the heady days of the grant!) was less in the final year than in preceding years, because grants covered the summer vacation for non-final years, but naturally cut off as soon as the course finished, before the summer vac of the final year.

Why? Just why? If you want to cancel tuition fees, all well and good. But this is just arbitrary and pointless.

Extra-Curricular Child Activities

The petition is entitled Encourage or require all primary and secondary school aged children to take part in at least two hours of organized extra curricular activities per week such as physical, sport, social or service based activities and the explanatory notes say

"We have all seen in the press recently about the failings of our society on children, largely due to lack of family values or children just not being brought up properly.

By encouraging children from an early age to take part in extra curricular activities (outside of school teaching time) such as school clubs, Youth clubs, Guides, Scouts, Sports, Cadets, Duke of Edinburgh’s Award etc will be one part of helping them to develop good values for life now and later, it will help to keep them off the streets, reducing boredom, street crime and anti social behaviour, also some activities will help with health and fitness, another problem in society."

If we just say "encourage", I agree, though I don't really know what the PM's supposed to do about it. Make a speech saying it's nice?

If we say require ... I used to help at my local Beaver and Cub Scouts. Having sufficient volunteers to run such things is such a big problem that most groups have long waiting lists. I suspect that this applies to other extra-curricular activities, too - "requiring" kids to take part in them will leave not enough people to run them. Which would obviously be a problem.

Then there's the purely semantic argument: if an extra-curricular activity is enforced, how is it extra-curricular? It becomes part of the curriculum ...

Design Technology in Schools

The petition is entitled Return Design Technology to its former status as a must do subject and remove schools ability to opt out from teaching it and the explanatory notes say

"Design Technology is a vital life skill, safe use of woodworking machinery and tools would firstly keep may young DIY enthusiasts out of Accident and Emergency. The use of CNC, Electronics, Robotics, Control System, Laser Cutters, rapid prototyping machines, are part of the model D&T department however these machines are not cheap and most schools are financially motivated to drop Design Technology. If we are to have a future populuos that has engineering skills, we must introduce the subject early, even the greatest scientist at some stage needs an engineering ability if it is only to build his test rig. We can't all work in offices, without production there is no export without export we become a third world nation in debt to the rest of the world."

A quick look at the National Curriculum website shows that "Design and Technology" is still a required subject at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3; that is, from the ages of five to fourteen. It is no longer a requirement at Key Stage 4, the GCSE level.

Now, I'm a bit divided on the subject of the petition; the substance, as it were. On the one hand, I hated what was then called CDT (Craft, Design and Technology) at school. In principle I was interested in both the textile and culinary aspects of CDT: in practice what we were taught felt like management speak bollocks and a lack of basic skills.

Having done an engineering MSc I now realise what people were trying to teach us about planning and technical drawing and so on. But there were two flaws with it: the one I was aware of at the time was the lack of basic skills being taught as well: we weren't taught to boil an egg, to follow a pattern, to sew on a button, to interpret basic technical diagrams, nothing like that. So we were floundering around trying to do the technical drawing and planning and so on without the least basis for anything. (And our parents, who learnt the basic skills at school, were tearing their hair out at the apparent nonsense we were being taught. Well, my mother was, anyway.) The other problem is that I really didn't realise the uses and purposes what we were meant to be learning could be put to. Individually I understood that if we were taught cookery properly we'd be able to cook, if we were taught textiles and sewing properly we'd be able to sew, and if we were taught the woodwork bit properly we'd be able to do woodwork (I was a clumsy child and the workshop bits of the subject were murder and I never understood at all, really). I did not understand that they were trying to teach us useful skills that lead to Engineering, among other things. It's quite possible I wouldn't have paid attention if I had realised; I was singularly obtuse about my own abilities and inclinations.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that with the basic skills taught as well as the higher-level planning aspects it's a very valuable subject. I'm not at all sure I approve of schools being able to not offer it as an option at GCSE. (However, I do agree with making it only an option - doing it benefited me not a whit, and frankly the students who might have enjoyed it and benefited would probably have done so more without people like me in the class).

On the other hand, the petitioner is either wrong or has phrased things badly: it's only been dropped from being compulsory at KS4. Up to the end of Year 9 it's still compulsory.

"Professor" Reggie von Zurbach

This morning, while examining the latest lists of mad petitions, I found "Limit postal/proxy votes to valid absence", which I thought about blogging on. Then I noticed that the submitter, Prof Reggie von Zugbach, had a rather nutty name which I thought I remembered seeing before. So I Googled.

The first two hits are PM petitions (the proxy votes one I mention above and one asking the PM to "Ignore Third World Hype" on the grounds that no one in the UK cares).

The third link takes us to a post about a petition about a possible cancer treatment at the very wonderful Quackometer site which comments on quacky news stories.

Then we get a page in Hansard (effectively the minutes from the Houses of Parliament) where an MP talked, in 1996, about a stalking case involving Mrs von Zugbach. The MP tells us that Prof von Zugbach "is an author, a former Army major and a lecturer in management studies at Paisley university".

By this point my "just how real is this" detector was pinging madly. Somehow these don't seem like the normal sort of Google hits a professor in this day and age might expect. So I tested with the names - common and unusual - of assorted Professors of my acquaintance. (Go is a marvellous hobby. You meet the most eccentric academics.) And, indeed, the first hits tend to be their professional websites, then perhaps their Go rating, then references to alarming academic papers.

So I went to the University of Paisley website. Where no amount of searching results in Prof vonZugbach's name. A Google search on the Paisley domain gave me two PDFs about research at Paisley in 1999-2000 (where von Zugbach is listed, without titles or qualifications, in a list that may be that of academic staff in the Business School, but doesn't actually say what it's a list of, and also cited as a co-author on various academic papers published in, variously, "Department of Management & Marketing Working Papers Vol 2", "Frank Cass", "STUC Research Conference" and "Defense Analysis") and in 2000-2001 (where von Zugbach is definitely not listed as a member of staff of the Business School, but is cited as a co-author on a paper published in "Defense Analysis"). A re-examination of the University of Paisley Business School shows that von Zugbach is certainly not there now.

Sliding further down the page of Google results we finally find what look like some academic credentials: Professor von Zugbach is a Senior Faculty Member at Knightsbridge University. That's, erm - Knightsbridge University, the "free, autonomous and self-validating organisation". Where he is a "Senior Academic Advisor & Visiting Professor".

Call me an intellectual snob and you'll be right. But this is not the calibre of Professor I am inclined to take seriously at the best of times; his insistence on using the title Professor when signing petitions completely unrelated to his field of study leave me singularly unimpressed.

OK, it's not quite as bad as definitely-not-Dr Gillian McKeith, but it's dubious at best. A singularly inappropriate devaluation of the title "Professor".

And a complete and utter crackpot, to judge by the petitions he's created (the one about proxy votes mentioned above, a request for an English/Welsh language test before permitting UK voting (go, go the Jim Crow laws - probably this would be illegal under EU legislation anyway, wouldn't it?) and a request that it be permitted to ban "sectarian (eg head scarves) clothing in the work place", possibly among others) and several of the ones he's signed (most of the ones I've looked at seem to be of the Isolationist type - stopping people from voting unless they're Pure, sort of thing).

On the plus side, while all of this has left a nasty taste in my mouth, I have discovered the Quackometer. That may make it all worthwhile.

Music Lessons

The petition is entitled ensure that our children are offered 'music' as a means of expressing themselves within the education system, even if it means that such absolutely stupid activities such as 'Religious Education' and 'Citizenship' are abandoned in its favour and the explanatory notes say

"The current (grossly misguided) UK system of education includes some really obtuse matter relating to how our young folk should (should?) relate to 'life' (dumbing-down of personal development skills, such as the outragious 'Citizenship' lessons that our children must endure, for half a GCSE).

Our young folk should have the opportunity to express themselves through music, an undeniable right that is constantly denied by most state schools. Without a source of well-trained musicians, our orchestras will become totally populated by foreign players (who continue to receive excellent musical tuition).

The sad thing is, that whilst the UK has the very best violin making school in the world (Newark, Nottinghamshire), there are not so many players in the UK that could benefit from owning a violin made by a Newark graduate! Such is the standard of musical education in the UK!

I don't know that I disagree with the basic principle that music lessons are at least as valuable as "Citizenship" and "Personal and Social Education" and the like.

However, the frothy madness with which this petition is expressed gives me the screaming ab-dabs. And I particularly take exception to the petitioner's objecting to pupils being taught how "to relate to life" while yet thinking that music lessons are necessary for pupils to learn to "express themselves".

Both these phrases push my mumbo-jumbo-speak buttons. Personal and Social Education, as I was taught it in school, involved a wide assortment of things including sex education, morality, environmental issues, all sorts of, well, useful and useless things that didn't fit into other places in the curriculum and yet have a certain value. And my understanding is that subjects like "Citizenship" are on a similar basis: seems quite logical for them to be taught.

I do think that Religious Education as it was taught to me had both too large a part in the curriculum and too much emphasis on Christian history, but at the same time, there's clearly both a place in History teaching for an examination of religion and also, to my way of thinking, a discussion of comparative relition and religion in today's society should logically be included in PSE, PSHE, Sociology, Citizenship or some other catch-all subject.

A basic study of music is a good idea, partly in its own right and partly in order to identify talented pupils so that they can be encouraged to study further. The same goes for art. I object, however, to the implication that all children should be expected to express themselves through music; it has the obvious extrapolation that all children should be expected to express themselves through art, too, and since I have never had any inclination towards or interest in doing any such thing, I object to all children being forced to.

But mostly this petition makes me think that the author is a frothing maniac on his own particular subject (music) to the complete exclusion of assigning any importance to anything else at all.

SATS

The petition is entitled Cancel SATS for both primary and secondary schools and there are no explanatory notes.

One wonders whether this is someone who objects to SATS on political grounds or whether, like the "Homework" petition I mentioned in the "Mild Madness Backlog", this is a grumbling school-child's petition.

Assuming the latter, it's making me smile.

Comprehensive Education

The petition is entitled accept that comprehensive education is dead in the water, is a major obstacle to social mobility in this country and that the only way to improve educational opportunities in this country is to return to some form of selective education and there are no explanatory notes.

I don't particularly agree with the petitioner, but what I'm actually taking exception to is the complete absence of any kind of effort to provide explanations or evidence for his contentions.

Tax Rebate on Private Education

The petition is entitled Offer tax relief for people who opt to send their children to private/independant schools and the explanatory notes say

"We would like to ask that some recognition be given by means of tax relief is given to those people who opt to send their children to private or independant schools. these parents help the government by easing the burden on states schools and their resources, and some recognition should be shown for this to help pay for their education. after all they pay all their taxes to the government and get less back in services."

I don't have children, so I'm not getting the benefit of my taxes in the form of education for them - should I also have a rebate? I go to a private dentist so I'm not benefitting from my taxes in terms of NHS dentistry - I need a rebate for that, too, obviously.

No. No, and no, and a thousand times no. Your taxes aren't paying for your children to be educated, they are paying for the education of all the children in your society. It's your contribution to your community.

Incidentally, I do hope that the petitioner's parents didn't spend excessive amounts on getting him educated - his grammar is shocking.

OBE for My Wife!

The petition is entitled nominate Mrs Margaret Angela Owen for the OBE and the explanatory notes say

"My wife, Margaret Angela Owen, retired last year after having served Manchester Education Committee for more than 40 years as a classroom teacher. Her most recent headteacher (at King David Junior School, Manchester) would confirm that Margaret was a very able teacher and her students would agree also, I'm sure. Personally, although I might be slightly biased, I believe her to be patently outstanding and highly intelligent and always gave of her not inconsiderable best to the children. This great career, undisturbed by any desire to become a school head, deserves more than just a "Thank You" and I would urge you to grant this petition - honour her, please!"

I'm choking with laughter over this but can find very little to actually say about it. I have no reason, of course, to think that Mrs Owen was not a very able teacher and much appreciated by her pupils, but the same is true of many teachers who aren't awarded the OBE. And particularly without their spouses feeling the need to petition the PM to honour them!

GCSE Standards

The petition is entitled Bring back standards in education and discard GCSE and replace with O level and CSE standards and the explanatory notes say

"It is about time that education was reverted to the way it was, make the teachers confirm that the pupils understand the elements being taught and remove the coursework part for core subjects, after all how hard is it for a pupil to sit on the internet and do their work, make it fair for all and bring back the final tests after two years studying."

This sounds like a bandwagon-leaper; someone who has read a little bit about how GCSEs work and so thinks they know it all, and thinks it sounds easy.

There are certainly things to criticise about GCSEs. The one that I always think of first is a mini-rant one of my favourite teachers used to have: he said the main reason he understood GCSEs to be replacing O Levels and CSEs was so that you didn't accidentally stream someone bright into a CSE theme and make them miss out on an O Level, or a less-bright pupil into the O Level stream and land them with a fail where they could have had a CSE. Only then, he said, he was now expected to assign students to one of three streams: one that could get grades from A*-C or a fail, one that could get grades B-E or a fail, and one that could get grades D-G or a fail. This, he said, was clearly ridiculous, and he was right. A quick examination of Wikipedia shows that to an extent this idiocy has been reversed - there are now a maximum of two tiers. But you can still enter a student for the wrong tier and do them out of a good grade or cause them to get a fail where they could have had a pass, just as you could for O Levels/CSEs.

But in any case, this is not a criticism the petitioner is making. He contends that teachers are not making sure that pupils know their subjects (on what grounds does he contend this? None are given) and that coursework leads to plagiarism. He complains of a lack of fairness (no examples or explanation given) and appears to think there are no longer final exams. (Final exams for subjects with a heavy coursework component, like music or art, may be worth as little as 40% of the final grade. If this wasn't the case with O Levels, I'm damned if I can see how that was justified - you can't test something like art or music solely with a final exam!)

School Holidays (again)

The petition is entitled Abolish School terms and allow children 4 weeks holiday plus Bank Holidays and the explanatory notes say

"I would like to see schools run for 52 weeks of the year. Then working parents can take holidays when they would like, without the need to arrange child care during enforced holidays. There would be restrictions for certain age groups when important examinations are due. This would improve work access for single parents, reduce holiday costs at certain times of the year, and be more flexible"

A slightly more informative version of the last time I set the title to "School Holidays".

Still no explanation of how teachers are going to get any holiday. And no explanation at all of how you're going to deal with the lessons the kids miss.

When I think how nostalgically most people remember the long, long summer holidays of their youth, I can't help thinking it's a bit cruel of them to suggest taking it away from the kids - however much it would "make life easier" for parents.

Teachers' Pay

The petition is entitled stop giving teachers pay rises above the rate of inflation and the explanatory notes say

"The Government needs to stop giving pay rises to teachers, with more poor teachers in the profession just for the money and government gifts such as housing assitance. the government should instead be assisting the poorly paid which work much harder than a teacher ever will."

Wow. Vitriol city! From someone who's clearly never, say, shared a house with a teacher, to give them an understanding of how hard teachers tend to work, or the difficulties involved in the profession.

I like kids and deal with them quite well, but I think you'd have to be paying me meeeellions of money before I'd put up with the indignities of teaching just for the pay.

Let Kids Play

The petition is entitled present an Act to protect organisations from litigation claims arisng from "letting children play" and the explanatory notes say

"More and more organisations and authorities are imposing draconian and nanny state measures to prevent children from being children and playing, eg the banning of "tag" chase in school playgrounds. This can only be due to fear of litigation from some parents who blame others for the natural occurrence of accidents. Of course any Act does not excuse wilful negligence to make environments and supervision safe as is practicable."

This sounds quite reasonable and sensible and so on, until you realise the consequences of it. Organisations will still be held responsible for negligence. OK. So you have to determine when negligence has occurred and when it is merely an accident. Which you do how? Parents have to be able to sue in cases of negligence, and someone has to determine whether the parent is suing justificably or not, and how, short of a court case, can you determine that?

In other words: you can't ban parents from suing without potentially letting negligent organisations off. So how do you prevent organisations, non-negligent ones, from deciding the safest path is to prevent people from suing by preventing accidents at all? I don't see how this can work.