Shorter school holidays and longer school days will mean less time for children to play, discover and experience new things. Stricter inspections and harsher penalties will mean more stress for teachers, more tick-box teaching and more cheating the system so we end up failing our neediest kids.
It is not how long you are in school that matters; it is how that time is spent. So those who seeking a better evidenced starting place, might be advised to begin, not with the example of East Asia, but with the notion that the pattern of teaching should depend on what we want children to learn.
In order to ensure that no one - absolutely no one - is left out, we plan to make it possible for people in the future to work into their 70s and beyond. This doesn't mean that we plan to make old people 'work 'till they drop.' We merely plan to provide the elderly with the same opportunities that we've given to the disabled and enable them to realise their full human potential.
While it is common for people to lament teachers 'knocking off at 3.30' and 'getting six weeks in the summer', the very large number of state school teachers I know have very different lives. They work well after 3.30 each day, often into the early hours, and certainly every evening.
In what has been labelled as a step to encourage those from poorer backgrounds to attempt to attain places at highly ranked universities; it seems to me that the Conservative Government are effectively saying congratulations for achieving something that has been made considerably easier for the wealthy.
Remember those great long six-week school holidays you used to get every summer? Six weeks, of course, is not really very long at all in the grand scheme of things, but it used to feel like an absolute eternity, didn't it? They were fantastic, I loved them. And now, like a lot of things I remember fondly from children, they're about to be thrown to the wolves.
We wrote a letter, which was published this weekend alongside an article in the Sunday Times. It calls on the government to re-instate caring for nature in the primary school curriculum for the benefit of children today and tomorrow. Sir David Attenborough called me up to let me know he would sign our letter.
Michael Oakeshott was an English political philosopher of the conservative tradition. He died in 1990 and was all about small government, individual liberty, political conservatism and economic liberalism. Think Edmund Burke; or the Austrian political economist, Freidrich Hayek without the abstract potentialities.
I am the first person to stand up and bang the drum for Newbury - we're a great market town with a great sense of community. We're above average in almost every respect - most notably in employment and affluence, yet still we seem to be letting our young people down by failing to provide them with the education they so badly deserve.
For decades, the highly political anti-poverty industry has led the debate on the definition of poverty. They narrowly focus on eradicating poverty by increased benefits and expanding social services, where protection of benefits and the recipients' right not to work overshadows the argument that work equals empowerment and they promote the 'victimisation' of those they claim to represent.
Education Secretary Michael Gove has for several years been campaigning for climate change to be removed from the national curriculum for under 14-year-olds in the subject of geography. This has now moved forward and has officially been proposed by Gove's department which has opened a consultation period on the issue.
We've all got to start somewhere, and if Coding for Dummies is where Summly app creator Nick D'Aloisio learnt the basics, I'd suggest Michael Gove gets it on the curriculum quick-smart. Erase that, I'd get Nick himself on the curriculum. With a triple-dip recession on the horizon, Kim Kardashian the woman most little girls want to grow up to be and recent graduates still struggling to find full-time employment, shining the spotlight on the country's brightest start-ups and entrepreneurs seems such an obvious idea. Even the current government might chance upon it.
Superheroes? Maybe not. Superficially alluring to a small subsection of disenchanted Tory voters? Certainly. Able to push a jittery Tory party to the right, despite having few policies and no MPs? Quite possibly.
In 2013, we simply cannot teach sex education like this; it is both an insult and a great disservice to Britain's young people to do so. Comprehensive coverage and frank, open discussions about sex and its role in life should not merely be encouraged, but made as necessary a part of the curriculum as science or maths.
Today we live in an era of hyper-specialisation. We all drill deeper in our silos. How else can you keep up, let alone get ahead in our frenetic, rapidly changing, competitive world? Yet we seem to get stuck, as the same ideas and arguments get recycled, only faster than ever before (thank technology, social media and the blogosphere).
What is it with neoliberal/neoconservative politicians? In their view of human nature and public ownership, privatization would magically improve everything. To them, evidence-based decision making is not necessary; they have an ideologically blind belief in the transformative power of markets.