Pupils, parents and teachers left ‘bewildered and floundering’ by government’s handling of education during pandemic

Published

4 years ago

August 3, 2021

admin

Pupils, parents and teachers have been left “bewildered and floundering” by the government’s handling of education during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a critical new report.

The Institute for Government said that lessons were not learnt from the first COVID-19 lockdown, leading to a case of “pause, rewind, repeat” when it came to school closures and exams.

It said there were “dreadful communications” from the government, with “repeated declarations that schools would open or close, or that exams would be held – despite the evident uncertainties – until reality struck”.

“The result was U-turn after U-turn, with pupils, parents and teachers left bewildered and floundering time and again,” it said.

A Department for Education spokesperson said it had “acted swiftly at every turn to minimise the impact on children’s education and wellbeing and help keep pupils in face-to-face education as much as possible” during the pandemic.

“We provided 1.3 million laptops and tablets to disadvantaged students, funded Oak National Academy to provide video lessons and made sure students could receive exam grades that helped them progress to the next stage of education or work,” they added.

“Through the tutoring revolution that will see pupils receive up to 100 million hours of free tuition, summer schools and our investment in the teaching profession we are working with schools to deliver ambitious catch-up plans so the children and young people who have been most disadvantaged during the pandemic have the support they need to catch up on their lost learning.”

The IfG report, entitled Schools And Coronavirus: The Government’s Handling Of Education During The Pandemic, comes ahead of the release of this year’s A-level and GCSE results later this month.

It labels the period following the closure of schools in England in March 2020 “easily the most disruptive period in children’s education since at least the start of the Second World War”.

The report said: “Its most important conclusion is that the most unforgivable aspect of what happened is not just the failure to make contingency plans in the summer of 2020 but the refusal to do so – when it was already obvious that fresh school closures might well be needed, and that exams might have to be cancelled again.

“Lessons were not learnt from the first lockdown, with the result that, for both school closures and exams, the story from July 2020 to January 2021 was a case of ‘pause, rewind, repeat’.”

It added: “Well into March 2021, and indeed beyond, pupils taking GCSEs, A-levels and BTecs remained unclear about precisely how they were to be assessed. At times it felt as though the school system was in chaos.”

But the DfE disputed this, with a spokesperson saying: “Contrary to the claims in this report, contingency plans for restrictions on schools opening in the 21/22 academic year were first published in August 2020, and contingency plans for qualifications in 2021 were first discussed with Ofqual in October 2020.”

The report did praise what it said was the “commendably swift decision” on the definition of key workers and, therefore, which children could still come to school.

But it added that the “supply of laptops for remote learning was, perhaps unavoidably, slower than anyone would have liked”.

And there were concerns expressed about the government’s “highly centralised approach” to dealing with 24,000 schools and “tensions between No 10 and DfE” [the Department for Education].

The IfG report also criticised what it said was a “refusal to trust local authorities and a failure to engage effectively with them, and their directors of public health, in ways that might have allowed a more nuanced and better response”.

It claimed that Education Secretary Gavin Williamson “appears not to have been directly involved in any of the key meetings ahead of the original decision to close schools in March 2020”.

The report included comments from a Number 10 source over how Boris Johnson approached contingency planning during the pandemic.

It noted: “A No 10 source says that ‘the clear steer’ that officials received from the prime minister was not to make contingency plans. Schools were going to reopen. Exams would be held.

“The view was that ‘if you prepare for these things not happening, then the outcome is that they are far more likely not to happen… people will look for the easy way out and take it’.

“According to this insider, the prime minister’s default is to bluff. To talk up things to such an extent that they will happen through the force of his own personality. Which is a very powerful tool. But the virus doesn’t listen to those messages.”

IfG senior fellow and report author Nicholas Timmins said: “Some early decisions in England were taken well. Some, which took longer than anyone would have wanted to implement, will have some lasting benefit.

“But the failure – indeed, the refusal – to make contingency plans over the summer and autumn of 2020 left pupils, parents and teachers facing a case of ‘pause, rewind, repeat’, not least over exams.”

Politics

US CLARITY bill could allow Tesla and Meta to evade SEC rules — Senator Warren

Published

1 hour ago

July 9, 2025

admin

US CLARITY bill could allow Tesla and Meta to evade SEC rules — Senator Warren

The legislation to establish crypto market structure is one of three bills the US House of Representatives is expected to consider starting next week.

Politics

What is a wealth tax, how would it work in the UK and where else has one?

Published

3 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

What is a wealth tax, how would it work in the UK and where else has one?

The idea of a wealth tax has raised its head – yet again – as the government attempts to balance its books.

Downing Street refused to rule out a wealth tax after former Labour leader Lord Kinnock told Sky News he thinks the government should introduce one.

Sir Keir Starmer’s spokesman said: “The prime minister has repeatedly said those with the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.”

While there has never been a wealth tax in the UK, the notion was raised under Rishi Sunak after the COVID years – and rejected – and both Harold Wilson’s and James Callaghan’s Labour governments in the 1970s seriously considered implementing one.

Sky News looks at what a wealth tax is, how it could work in the UK, and which countries already have one.

What is a wealth tax?

A wealth tax is aimed at reducing economic inequality to redistribute wealth and to raise revenue.

It is a direct levy on all, or most of, an individual’s, household’s or business’s total net wealth, rather than their income.

The tax typically includes the total market value of assets, including savings, investments, property and other forms of wealth – minus a person’s debts.

Unlike capital gains tax, which is paid when an asset is sold at a profit, a wealth tax is normally an annual charge based on the value of assets owned, even if they are not sold.

A one-off wealth tax, often used after major crises, could also be an option to raise a substantial amount of revenue in one go.

How could it work in the UK?

Advocates of a UK wealth tax, including Lord Kinnock, have proposed an annual 2% tax on wealth above £10m.

Wealth tax campaign group Tax Justice UK has calculated this would affect about 20,000 people – fewer than 0.04% of the population – and raise £24bn a year.

Because of how few people would pay it, Tax Justice says that would make it easy for HMRC to collect the tax.

The group proposes people self-declare asset values, backed up by a compliance team at HMRC who could have a register of assets.

Which countries have or have had a wealth tax?

In 1990, 12 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries had a net wealth tax, but just four have one now: Colombia, Norway, Spain and Switzerland.

France and Italy levy wealth taxes on selected assets.

Colombia

Since 2023, residents in the South American country are subject to tax on their worldwide wealth, but can exclude the value of their household up to 509m pesos (£92,500).

The tax is progressive, ranging from a 0.5% rate to 1.5% for the most wealthy until next year, then 1% for the wealthiest from 2027.

Norway

There is a 0.525% municipal wealth tax for individuals with net wealth exceeding 1.7m kroner (about £125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses.

Norway also has a state wealth tax of 0.475% based on assets exceeding a net capital tax basis of 1.7m kroner (£125,000) or 3.52m kroner (£256,000) for spouses, and 0.575% for net wealth in excess of 20.7m kroner (£1.5m).

The maximum combined wealth tax rate is 1.1%.

The Norwegian Labour coalition government also increased dividend tax to 20% in 2023, and with the wealth tax, it prompted about 80 affluent business owners, with an estimated net worth of £40bn, to leave Norway.

Spain

Residents in Spain have to pay a progressive wealth tax on worldwide assets, with a €700,000 (£600,000) tax free allowance per person in most areas and homes up to €300,000 (£250,000) tax exempt.

The progressive rate goes from 0.2% for taxable income for assets of €167,129 (£144,000) up to 3.5% for taxable income of €10.6m (£9.146m) and above.

It has been reported that more than 12,000 multimillionaires have left Spain since the government introduced the higher levy at the end of 2022.

Switzerland

All of the country’s cantons (districts) have a net wealth tax based on a person’s taxable net worth – different to total net worth.

It takes into account the balance of an individual’s worldwide gross assets, including bank account balances, bonds, shares, life insurances, cars, boats, properties, paintings, jewellery – minus debts.

Switzerland also works on a progressive rate, ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%, with a relatively low starting point at which people are taxed on their wealth, such as 50,000 CHF (£46,200) in several cantons.

Politics

Jingye and Whitehall officials hold talks over British Steel future

Published

6 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Jingye and Whitehall officials hold talks over British Steel future

The Chinese owner of British Steel has held fresh talks with government officials in a bid to break the impasse over ministers’ determination not to compensate it for seizing control of the company.

Sky News has learnt that executives from Jingye Group met senior civil servants from the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) late last week to discuss ways to resolve the standoff.

Whitehall sources said the talks had been cordial, but that no meaningful progress had been made towards a resolution.

Money blog: €1 home goes on sale – but there are T&Cs

Jingye wants the government to agree to pay it hundreds of millions of pounds for taking control of British Steel in April – a move triggered by the Chinese group’s preparations for the permanent closure of its blast furnaces in Scunthorpe.

Such a move would have cost thousands of jobs and ended Britain’s centuries-old ability to produce virgin steel.

Jingye had been in talks for months to seek £1bn in state aid to facilitate the Scunthorpe plant’s transition to greener steelmaking, but was offered just half that sum by ministers.

British Steel has not yet been formally nationalised, although that remains a probable outcome.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has previously dismissed the idea of compensating Jingye, saying British Steel’s equity was essentially worthless.

Last month, he met his Chinese counterpart, where the issue of British Steel was discussed between the two governments in person for the first time.

Jingye has hired the leading City law firm Linklaters to explore the recovery of hundreds of millions of pounds it invested in the Scunthorpe-based company before the government seized control of it.

News of last week’s meeting comes as British steelmakers face an anxious wait to learn whether their exports to the US face swingeing tariffs as part of US President Donald Trump’s trade war.

Sky News’s economics and data editor, Ed Conway, revealed this week that the UK would miss a White House-imposed deadline to agree a trade deal on steel and aluminium this week.

Jingye declined to comment, while a spokesman for the Department for Business and Trade said: “We acted quickly to ensure the continued operations of the blast furnaces but recognise that securing British Steel’s long-term future requires private sector investment.

“We have not nationalised British Steel and are working closely with Jingye on options for the future, and we will continue work on determining the best long-term sustainable future for the site.”