*
Last night's Newsnight presented one of the most biased reports I've seen in a while.
*
Liz McKean fronted a report that focused on tensions between Nicholas Sarkozy and David Cameron. A clip of Sarko praising the Great Gordo was played before Liz turned her fire where her fire was intended.
*
She talked of Sarko's fury at Cameron's decision to withdraw the Conservative Party from the federalist EPP group in Europe. "To hear how furious I came to Notting Hill, home of the Cameroons. Working at the UK embassy in France, Nick Allan witnessed the very first meeting between the new leader of the opposition and the soon-to-be-leader of France." Nick Allan, labelled as "Former press secretary, British embassy, Paris", spilled the beans. An interesting fact about Mr Allan that Liz didn't let her viewers know is that he is about to become the new head of communications at Guardian News and Media. That suggests, does it not, that he's not quite the disinterested diplomat viewers were led to believe?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/feb/22/nick-allan-gmg
*
A joke by George Osborne about standing on a Sarkozy box did not go down well with the pint-sized French president (I can say that, being pint-sized myself. I need to stand on a chest of drawers even to shake hands with people.) Liz said "the French didn't share his little joke" - and the way she said the words 'little joke' (with a tone of utter disdain) suggest that she didn't share it either. "A serving diplomatic source" 'exclusively' told Newsnight that the French have raised the matter with the British government about the joke, though she added (more quietly) that it wasn't a formal complaint. They were also "very unhappy about a newspaper interview with David Cameron last year in which he appeared to refer to the French president... (dramatic pause from Liz) ... as a dwarf ". (And what a serious look she wore as she said it!). A "scathing" (personal) attack on George Osborne from Le monde was then quoted.
*
Guess who turned up next? Yes, it was Gavin Esler's left-wing pal from Dateline London (and one of the BBC's two preferred expert on all things francais - the other was to come later!), husky-voiced French lovely Agnes Poirier. I have never yet heard her say anything nice about the Conservatives on any of her many appearances on Dateline. She's complimented Gordon Brown though on more than one occasion.
*
Worse was to come.
*
Liz went on to report the latest meeting between M Sarkozy and Mr Cameron, which sounded more cordial - though there remains a bone of contention. Sarko is pressing for Britain to be at the heart of a common European defence policy. Which 'expert' did Liz call on here? Alexandra Pardal of the Labour-aligned Foreign Policy Centre. This think tank was set up by Tony Blair and Robin Cook and its current director is Stephen Twigg MP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Centre. Alexandra herself belongs to the Party of the European Socialists http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/blog/2007/11/june-2009-european-elections-will-be.html. Of course, nothing about the political alignment of either Miss Pardal or the FPC was mentioned by Liz McKean. Every unsuspecting viewer would have been led inevitably just to think that she's another disinterested party and that the FPC is a non-partisan research institute. That's a very strong sign of bias on the part of a reporter.
*
The other French expert beloved by the BBC and friend of Gavin Esler on Dateline , Marc Roche of Le monde, was one of the guests in the following studio discussion with Esler and Conservative MEP Charles Tannock. M Roche was the man who wrote that personal attack on George Osborne. Like Agnes, he always attacks the Tories on Dateline and is openly for Labour. Mr Tannock said that M Roche "would say that" and that Le monde is "the Guardian-equivalent in France" (which it indeed is).
*
Esler did exactly what I expected him to do. He joined Marc Roche in attacking Mr Tannock, interrupting him five times. Mr Tannock only got 2 1/2 minutes to speak (hardly any time to reasonably rebut all the anti-Tory nonsense that had gone before - especially when he was under bombardment for most of the time). The interruption coefficient here was a very high 2.2.
*
So a soon-to-be-top-Guardianista (not labelled as such), a left-wing French journalist (not labelled as such), a socialist from a Labour-aligned think tank (not labelled as such) and, finally, another left-wing French journalist (not labelled as such, until Charles Tannock outed him as such) were all lined up by Newsnight to make mischief for the Conservatives. Moreover, Charles Tannock was not allowed to respond at an appropriate length and, on top of all that, faced bloody Gavin Esler barging in, again and again, and asking questions like this: "But George Osborne's joke about Sarkozy's box and all this kind of niggling stuff, that's just not serious politics is it? I mean, this is somebody who could be running the British economy and he makes silly jokes about the height of the French president". (And what a 'drama queen' performance he made of asking it too!). Mr Tannock replied by saying "Well we all have a sense of humour and..." but got no further before Elser, adopting gestures of incredulity and disapproval, butted in again and asked 'So you think that's a funny joke?!"
*
This programme was a joke, and certainly not a funny one.
*
Before it we had Michael Crick and what the ubiquitous Chris Huhne rightly called a "non story" about the Lib Dems. After it we had some fluff, with Esler talking about Samantha Cameron with Matthew D'Ancona of the Sunday Telegraph and Rachel (sister of Boris) Johnson, editor of The Lady. At the beginning of the programme, Esler had played a clip from her interview with Sir Trevor McDonald and sarcastically described her comments as "profundities".
Showing posts with label Liz MacKean. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liz MacKean. Show all posts
Saturday, 13 March 2010
Saturday, 13 February 2010
LIZ IS TOO MACKEEN TO ATTACK THE TORIES
*
On the same edition of Newsnight, the Swedish model for independent schools, and their supporter here, the British Conservative Party, came under attack from Liz MacKean on Newsnight.
*
The report did make some efforts at fairness, featuring Bo Nyberg, headmaster of one of the new schools, children and parents who go to the new schools and Anders Hultin, former advisor to the Swewish School Ministry, who helped establish the system. Mr Hulton criticised the Tories for not allowing the profit motive into the scheme. This, he argued (doubtless correctly) might mean that the scheme won't take off as it should.
*
The overall tenor of the report, however, was critical and hostile. Though we heard early on from Lena Jendi, headmistress of an old state school who is unhappy with the new schools , the report's onslaught against the Conservatives really kicked in at 33.50 on the BBC i-Player. Of the Conservatives' argument that standards have risen in Sweden, Lizzie was emphatic: "That's not what we've been told." She went on, "A few years ago it was notice that in fact standards across all schools in Sweden were slipping. International comparative studies, as well as national research, confirmed the decline. It's not known why (but that didn't stop Liz from speculating...) that the slide began at about the time the schools were introduced." (Aha! Cause and effect, or pure coincidence? No smoke without fire?) Her star witness in 'confirming' this decline was bureaucrat Per Thulberg, Director General of the Swedish National Agency for Education. "So overall results are down," she continued, "and there are strong indications of increased social segregation inside the school system." "It won't be what the Conservatives want to hear", she gloated. "They even told me that their view that competition improves all schools was based on a hunch. So what does the Swedish experience really tell us?" For her answer (which the Conservatives also wouldn't want to hear) it as straight back to the leftie bureaucrat.
*
"Swedish politicians are now having a re-think," we were then told, before Liz reached her conclusions: "The new schools remain popular but they're likely to face more inspections and more rigorous testing. After a period of freedom, it's time to introduce more ground rules."
*
Much of this is strongly disputed, from the statement that Swedish politicians are having a re-think to the whole idea that standards really have declined. Michael Gove certainly disputed it, saying "I enjoyed Liz's report but there were no facts in there". Emily Maitlis, who conducted this interview, was not too happy with this and later interrupted (as he was in the middle of making an interesting point to counter the 'increasing segregation' argument) to say "Let me just give you a hard fact because you wanted one." Guess what the source of the 'hard fact' was? "The Treasury is estimating that the running costs of 250,000 extra places - which is what you want - would be £1.8 billion. From where?". She soon butted in again to repeat this 'hard fact' from the oh-so-very-honest Treasury: "These are extra places. £1.8 billion pounds for those extra places to create the choice...". Well might Mr Gove have commented, "Those are figures that have been produced by the Treasury. What they do in that report is they deliberately misunderstand our policy". Who'd have thought that of this government!!" He added "It's a Labour Party document" as Emily pressed him further. 'Hard fact' indeed!
*
Here's the whole of a post on ConservativeHome from Harry Phibbs:
Swedish school choice is working
There is a consensus in Sweden that their policy of school choice, introduced in 1992, has driven up standards. This has been the result of the expansion of independent schools from covering 1% to 10% of pupils. It is not just that the new schools have achieved good results but they have pulled up the results of the state schools competing with them.
However there is not unanimity in Sweden. Newsnight are pleased with themselves as they have got the top education bureaucrat in Sweden, a man called Per Thulberg, to tell them that the whole thing is a failure. But reading his paper, What influences education achievement in Swedish schools, upon which Newsnight based their report, one finds plenty of left wing assertions but not much in the way of solid evidence. There are general references to "research" showing this and that but no solid data. For instance the report says streaming in schools is a mistake because it has " a stigmatising effect."
Anyway the Burning out Money blog has done a very good rebuttal although I thought he was a bit unfair saying Michael Gove was "back-footed" by the BC attack. I thought old Govey did pretty well. If he had tried to quote the facts then Emily Maitlis would have thought he was very boring and shut him up.
BOM points out that the Swedish free schools get a Grade Point Average that is 20 points higher than the state schools.
What of the evidence of standards being driven up elsewhere?
A study by Anders Bohlmark and Mikael Lindahl of Stokholm University found that an increase in the percentage of free schools in an area increased pupil performance across all schools. Most of this increase was due to competition in the school sector, forcing all schools to improve their quality. Åsa Ahlin of Uppsala University found that a ten per cent increase in the number of children attending free schools led to a five per cent increase in Mathematics performance across the area.
See also this Bergstrom and Sandstrom study.
UPDATE.
Maria Rankka of the Swedish think tank Timbro emails to say:
"Per Thulberg is wrong. There have been academic evaluations of the school voucher reform and the fact is that schools in geographical areas where competition exists are performing better than schools in areas where there still is no competition."
The Swedish Association of Independent Schools have more details on their website. What helps comparisons is that not everywhere in Sweden has the free schools system:
The proportion of students in independent schools has grown considerably since the beginning of the 90s, although the sector is still very small. In school year 1990-91, about 0.9 per cent of all
Swedish pupils in compulsory education (ages 6-15, approximately) were enrolled in independent schools, whereas in 2007-08 the figure had grown to about 9 per cent. The same trend may be observed in secondary education (ages 16-18, approximately), where the share has grown from 1.5 per cent to 17 per cent during the same period.
In about 210 of the 290 local councils in Sweden, independent schools “compete” with public schools run by locally elected school boards; as yet there are no independent schools in the other local councils. The urbanized areas of south and middle Sweden, in particular in the Greater Stockholm area, have the highest concentration of independent schools.
That makes it possible to judge the impact the free schools have on standards in the state schools.
Critics said that it is highly motivated parents who opt to take their children out of local council schools, thus leaving those schools with disadvantaged children, or that independent schools impose financial burdens on the school boards by disrupting their planning.
Where comparisons have been possible, independent schools have performed better in terms of knowledge and skills than local council schools, and have achieved this at a lower cost. This has inspired some local community schools to improve their organisation and teaching in order to improve results.
More can be found here at Burning Our Money:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/02/does-swedish-model-actually-work.html
On the same edition of Newsnight, the Swedish model for independent schools, and their supporter here, the British Conservative Party, came under attack from Liz MacKean on Newsnight.
*
The report did make some efforts at fairness, featuring Bo Nyberg, headmaster of one of the new schools, children and parents who go to the new schools and Anders Hultin, former advisor to the Swewish School Ministry, who helped establish the system. Mr Hulton criticised the Tories for not allowing the profit motive into the scheme. This, he argued (doubtless correctly) might mean that the scheme won't take off as it should.
*
The overall tenor of the report, however, was critical and hostile. Though we heard early on from Lena Jendi, headmistress of an old state school who is unhappy with the new schools , the report's onslaught against the Conservatives really kicked in at 33.50 on the BBC i-Player. Of the Conservatives' argument that standards have risen in Sweden, Lizzie was emphatic: "That's not what we've been told." She went on, "A few years ago it was notice that in fact standards across all schools in Sweden were slipping. International comparative studies, as well as national research, confirmed the decline. It's not known why (but that didn't stop Liz from speculating...) that the slide began at about the time the schools were introduced." (Aha! Cause and effect, or pure coincidence? No smoke without fire?) Her star witness in 'confirming' this decline was bureaucrat Per Thulberg, Director General of the Swedish National Agency for Education. "So overall results are down," she continued, "and there are strong indications of increased social segregation inside the school system." "It won't be what the Conservatives want to hear", she gloated. "They even told me that their view that competition improves all schools was based on a hunch. So what does the Swedish experience really tell us?" For her answer (which the Conservatives also wouldn't want to hear) it as straight back to the leftie bureaucrat.
*
"Swedish politicians are now having a re-think," we were then told, before Liz reached her conclusions: "The new schools remain popular but they're likely to face more inspections and more rigorous testing. After a period of freedom, it's time to introduce more ground rules."
*
Much of this is strongly disputed, from the statement that Swedish politicians are having a re-think to the whole idea that standards really have declined. Michael Gove certainly disputed it, saying "I enjoyed Liz's report but there were no facts in there". Emily Maitlis, who conducted this interview, was not too happy with this and later interrupted (as he was in the middle of making an interesting point to counter the 'increasing segregation' argument) to say "Let me just give you a hard fact because you wanted one." Guess what the source of the 'hard fact' was? "The Treasury is estimating that the running costs of 250,000 extra places - which is what you want - would be £1.8 billion. From where?". She soon butted in again to repeat this 'hard fact' from the oh-so-very-honest Treasury: "These are extra places. £1.8 billion pounds for those extra places to create the choice...". Well might Mr Gove have commented, "Those are figures that have been produced by the Treasury. What they do in that report is they deliberately misunderstand our policy". Who'd have thought that of this government!!" He added "It's a Labour Party document" as Emily pressed him further. 'Hard fact' indeed!
*
Here's the whole of a post on ConservativeHome from Harry Phibbs:
Swedish school choice is working
There is a consensus in Sweden that their policy of school choice, introduced in 1992, has driven up standards. This has been the result of the expansion of independent schools from covering 1% to 10% of pupils. It is not just that the new schools have achieved good results but they have pulled up the results of the state schools competing with them.
However there is not unanimity in Sweden. Newsnight are pleased with themselves as they have got the top education bureaucrat in Sweden, a man called Per Thulberg, to tell them that the whole thing is a failure. But reading his paper, What influences education achievement in Swedish schools, upon which Newsnight based their report, one finds plenty of left wing assertions but not much in the way of solid evidence. There are general references to "research" showing this and that but no solid data. For instance the report says streaming in schools is a mistake because it has " a stigmatising effect."
Anyway the Burning out Money blog has done a very good rebuttal although I thought he was a bit unfair saying Michael Gove was "back-footed" by the BC attack. I thought old Govey did pretty well. If he had tried to quote the facts then Emily Maitlis would have thought he was very boring and shut him up.
BOM points out that the Swedish free schools get a Grade Point Average that is 20 points higher than the state schools.
What of the evidence of standards being driven up elsewhere?
A study by Anders Bohlmark and Mikael Lindahl of Stokholm University found that an increase in the percentage of free schools in an area increased pupil performance across all schools. Most of this increase was due to competition in the school sector, forcing all schools to improve their quality. Åsa Ahlin of Uppsala University found that a ten per cent increase in the number of children attending free schools led to a five per cent increase in Mathematics performance across the area.
See also this Bergstrom and Sandstrom study.
UPDATE.
Maria Rankka of the Swedish think tank Timbro emails to say:
"Per Thulberg is wrong. There have been academic evaluations of the school voucher reform and the fact is that schools in geographical areas where competition exists are performing better than schools in areas where there still is no competition."
The Swedish Association of Independent Schools have more details on their website. What helps comparisons is that not everywhere in Sweden has the free schools system:
The proportion of students in independent schools has grown considerably since the beginning of the 90s, although the sector is still very small. In school year 1990-91, about 0.9 per cent of all
Swedish pupils in compulsory education (ages 6-15, approximately) were enrolled in independent schools, whereas in 2007-08 the figure had grown to about 9 per cent. The same trend may be observed in secondary education (ages 16-18, approximately), where the share has grown from 1.5 per cent to 17 per cent during the same period.
In about 210 of the 290 local councils in Sweden, independent schools “compete” with public schools run by locally elected school boards; as yet there are no independent schools in the other local councils. The urbanized areas of south and middle Sweden, in particular in the Greater Stockholm area, have the highest concentration of independent schools.
That makes it possible to judge the impact the free schools have on standards in the state schools.
Critics said that it is highly motivated parents who opt to take their children out of local council schools, thus leaving those schools with disadvantaged children, or that independent schools impose financial burdens on the school boards by disrupting their planning.
Where comparisons have been possible, independent schools have performed better in terms of knowledge and skills than local council schools, and have achieved this at a lower cost. This has inspired some local community schools to improve their organisation and teaching in order to improve results.
More can be found here at Burning Our Money:
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/02/does-swedish-model-actually-work.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
