The Education Secretary must navigate skilfully to get the proposals safely to port.
The Opposition’s promise to extend the policy is opportunistic, expensive, and unjust. The Conservatives must do what is necessary and right.
Inspectors need more discretion to allow for special circumstances, and parents an avenue to appeal decisions by head teachers.
While it is no surprise that the current party leadership has leapt at his new idea, neither the moral nor the economic arguments stack up.
Yes, Livingstone named him 12 times when interviewed by me this week. Plus: Saudi Arabia uncovered, Michael Howard unmuzzled. And: In memory of Helen Szamuely.
The Education Secretary is grappling with reform of the national funding formula for schools at a time when spending on them is under pressure.
We are keen to gather views from interested parties (such as businesses, industry groups, politicians, academics and others) about what would happen.
You may well hear grumbling from businesses about the levy which will help to fund them – but the effort will be worth it.
Low aspirational parenting and teaching are key problems.
The proposed reform has lost support even among those who spent years calling for the old system to be scrapped.
A third-rate leader like her – who can’t even run her schools properly – wants to make me a foreigner to my other half, and turn my home into “abroad”.
Parents waiting in cars with their engines idling at the end of the school day raise the pollution level significantly.
And there are other policies she could pursue. More nurseries in primary schools. Tougher school discipline. Longer sentences for child abuse.
We may be rowing back to defend one promise. But another more fundamental promise to the future is actually at stake.
During a meeting with other disgruntled Conservative MPs, George Osborne allegedly told the Education Secretary: “Now you see why I didn’t do this.”