# The new proposed Free School - Michaela Community - A Good or bad thing for Lambeth?



## mark dodds (Apr 18, 2011)

*New School for Lambeth; Michaela Community School aims to open September 2012*

ON the new school: http://michaelacommunityschool.co.uk/

There’s going to be an information evening at The Sun and Doves on 5 May at 6pm. If you’re interested please register via the website so we can accommodate numbers:

http://michaelacommunityschool.co.uk/register

It will be a good opportunity for anyone concerned about new schools being set up by people rather than corporations or local authorities to meet the steering group face to face.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

Who is "Michaela" and who is behind this venture?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

None of the above links work.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

Is it one of the new 'Free schools'?

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

They were working earlier but a crashing site is hardly the way to create a good impression!


----------



## Bil (Apr 18, 2011)

Mark, are you in any way connected with the pub referred to?


----------



## Plumdaff (Apr 18, 2011)

If you search on Google and read the wee bit of blurb under the link, this is indeed a free school proposal.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

I'm not sure that this is the best forum for this thread either. I'm shifting it to the London and South East forum (with a redirect). It's where people look for local news, not the Politics & Protest forums


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Apr 18, 2011)

editor said:


> Who is "Michaela" and who is behind this venture?


 
Katharine Birbalsingh is behind it, & according to the article Michaela is a teacher who inspired her.


----------



## Streathamite (Apr 18, 2011)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Katharine Birbalsingh is behind it,


That's the true colours of the project, and it's doom - the tories' fave teacher


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

Hmmm.....


> Luckily, I’m not in the privileged position of wanting to hang on to my popularity because I’m already hated. So I can forge ahead knowing it will make no difference. I have huge respect for those on my steering group: ordinary folk who have decided to give their time and energy to a cause they believe in, whatever the consequences.
> 
> Our school will be called “The Michaela Free School” named after an incredible teacher who embodied everything that we believe in: old-school values with a touch of innovation. As far as I’m concerned, what is needed in any given school should be obvious to anyone who reads my blog regularly. Yet, some readers ask for solutions as if somehow the solutions I talk about constantly on this blog have passed them by: expect more out of the kids, keep standards high, be strict about uniform and behaviour, hold teachers and children to account, ensure one’s exams and standards are kept high, have an academic focus, encourage competition, benchmark the children so that they know where they are. Make them work in lessons… I know it sounds like a radical idea but really, games are games, work is work. A little more work, and maybe they’d learn something. It isn’t rocket science: our top public schools have been doing exactly this for years.
> 
> ...



The confusing world of Katharine Birbalsingh
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/05/katharibne-birbalsingh-tory-teacher-aladin


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 18, 2011)

Am I right in thinking that photo was taken in the Phoenix?


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Am I right in thinking that photo was taken in the Phoenix?


Looks like it. She scores a few points for frequenting that establishment.


----------



## ash (Apr 21, 2011)

Does anyone know the proposed location of this school?


----------



## mrchas (Apr 23, 2011)

In the borough of Lambeth.     Possibly in Kennington.  Flyers are now available as well as the web site.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 9, 2011)

The controversial Katharine Birbalsingh is planning to launch a new free School The Michaela Community School on the site of the old Lilian Baylis School.  With the lack of school placements in the area this would seem to be a good idea but protesters are keen to scupper the plans.


----------



## nagapie (May 9, 2011)

There is not a total lack of school places in Lambeth. There is a shortage of 102 places, but only for boys. There are ways and means to create these places without creating a new school, especially one in the model of the Tory vision for education.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2011)

*threads merged


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2011)

editor said:


> Looks like it. She scores a few points for frequenting that establishment.


 
I saw her in the Lounge on Saturday evening.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2011)

Found an edited version of this article on the school website about the meeting.

http://michaelacommunityschool.co.uk/blog

The full article makes interesting reading. Its frank and probably says what is really behind this "Free" school. It is a conservative right wing ideology.

All the talk of the "community" owning the school etc which sounds like something no one could disagree with hides an agenda that is imo not at all progressive.

See here for full article:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...take-in-the-heart-of-the-progressive-vampire/

A few quotes:

Having just been in America, I know that in the States (Canada too) parents face very similar problems. And it has nothing to do with poor/ethnic kids finding it harder to learn, or with wicked government underfunding, or any of the other weaselly excuses trotted out by the progressives who’ve held the education systems on both sides of the Atlantic hostage for the last three or four decades. The problem has purely to do with entrenched ideology. In short, the liberal-left will do everything it can to hamstring knowledge-based, academically-rigorous, disciplined liberal arts education because it creates achievers not victims.

Or (Birbalsingh was too politic to say this) if they want their kids to learn about Mary Seacole, knifing techniques,  grievance awareness and one-parent-housing-benefit application, they can choose from any number of splendid schools in the area which specialise in just these fields. Yet still there are groups out there so perverse that they wish to destroy Birbalsingh’s wonderful enterprise.

Yes I agree Birbalsingh is to politic to say this. But I reckon this is what she thinks. This is the real agenda behind the Tories "Free Schools"


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2011)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...take-in-the-heart-of-the-progressive-vampire/

The article also says:

The same might be asked of the kind of people who are opposing Birbalsingh’s school. We currently live in a country where seven per cent of the population receives the best education in the world (the British private school system) but where the other 93 per cent receives (unless they’re really lucky) one of the worst. You’d think no one in their right mind could possibly wish to stop someone setting up a State school which aimed to copy exactly the formula that makes private schools so successful, and whose main beneficiaries were going to be those deserving poor and ethnic minorities the liberal-left is supposedly committed to helping. Yet this is what Birbalsingh’s opponents are trying to do. I call this not just misguided. I call this actively evil. There is no excuse for what they are doing. It is plain wrong.

The formula that makes Public Schools so successful is the large amount of money that goes into them that State Education cannot compete with. The Public School ethos is to teach people that they are born to rule. Its an anti democratic divisive ethos. Its not a formula that should be copied. If anything they should be abolished.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2011)

This makes me laugh:
you can be sure that Lambeth’s aggressively Left-wing council and the activist mob who tried to hijacked last night’s meeting will do everything in their power to destroy it. Though the school has already found the perfect site – a disused school next to a stretch of parkland with sports facilities and everything – Lambeth council will throw every obstacle in its way it can.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...take-in-the-heart-of-the-progressive-vampire/

Does anyone know if Lambeth Labour are going to oppose this? I hope they do. Or are they going to sit on there hands?


----------



## Plumdaff (May 9, 2011)

The fact they were happy to publicise that article on their blog says it all.....hideous ultra-right bollocks which will do nothing to alter the education problems of the borough. 

They've put adverts up by our local primary school, will not shed any tears if they go now...


----------



## editor (May 9, 2011)

Wow...





> Not for the first time I was reminded of the parallels between the battle Toby Young and Katharine Birbalsingh are fighting over education, which Nick Cohen, Andrew Gilligan and Douglas Murray are fighting over Islamism, and which some of us are fighting over eco lunacy..


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2011)

lagtbd said:


> The fact they were happy to publicise that article on their blog says it all.....hideous ultra-right bollocks which will do nothing to alter the education problems of the borough.
> 
> They've put adverts up by our local primary school, will not shed any tears if they go now...



Though it was edited down version on website which took out the most inflammatory comments. Most people wouldn't necessarily look up whole article.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2011)

editor said:


> Wow...


 
Yes I noticed that. Its typical right wing agenda of portraying weak kneed liberals as hardline ideological fundamentalists who wish to force there warped view of the world on people . Unlike the Tories reasonable wish to hand power to sensible ordinary people. Its insidious.

It also reminds me of aspects of Labour Coop Council though for some reason.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2011)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8292655.stm

Free School idea seems to come from Swedish Free schools and US Charter Schools. Some of the Swedish Free schools do appear to also have more liberal education education influences like Steiner ideas. I think Gove is using model of Swedish schools but encouraging more "disciplined" educational theories from US Charter Schools. 

From studies of Swedish system it is not correct to say it will lead to better standards. In fact there are potential problems with it.



David Cameron's Conservatives also say the schools will help social mobility.

But the report  (by Skolverket) suggested that children without pushy parents were left behind in the old state schools where standards were not improving.

Helsingborg councillor Thomas Nordstroem, a Social Democrat, says this view reflects local experience.

"One of the problems is more and more segregation, because the experience is that if you have a good education yourself, it's easier for you to choose a school.

"But if you don't or you're unemployed and so on, that kind of people, they don't choose.

"They stay in their neighbourhood school. We want good quality for all schools, that's the problem." 

Christ. Does the word entrepreneur have to be used? Why is it that people who are "entrepreneurial" supposed to be so much better?

This ideal of highly-motivated "school entrepreneurs" is one that Michael Gove, the Tory education spokesman, wants to import to England


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/09/state-schools-gove-policies

This is good article by Fiona Miller:

It is barely a year since the Swedes performed this role, but they have been quietly dropped now. Why? Because too many other people popped up to testify that their system was not working. Now the Swedes have introduced a new law that brings free schools under the same regulatory framework as local municipal schools. Don't expect to hear much more about them in a hurry.

Similar doubts are now seeping out about US charter schools. The Credo study from Stanford University suggests that less than a fifth of charter schools outperform US public (state) schools, most are about the same and two-fifths are worse, often because they are incompetently run. Some are mired in financial scandals.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2011)

mark dodds said:


> ON the new school: http://michaelacommunityschool.co.uk/
> 
> There’s going to be an information evening at The Sun and Doves on 5 May at 6pm. If you’re interested please register via the website so we can accommodate numbers:
> 
> ...





Hi Mark.

So how will the school be managed?
Will it be board of parents?
Will each parent have a vote in how school is run?
What powers will Head have in relation to parents?
What will be relationship with local authority?
Will there be any other sponsors apart from individual parents?
Are u being advised by New Schools Network?
Will the school be solely funded by central Government or will a private provider be used in whole or part?
How will exclusions be used. Will you liase with local authority?
If parents have a problem with school who can they go to as its independant of local authority?


Im also curious about the theory behind the education. From the website:

The Michaela Community School will teach knowledge sequentially so that the entire body of knowledge for a subject will be coherent and meaningful. The History curriculum will follow a chronological sequence of events. The English curriculum will follow a similar chronology of the history of literature, and will also build up knowledge of grammar and the parts of speech. The Geography curriculum will introduce knowledge of countries, cities, and important geographical features. The Maths curriculum will connect areas of learning and promote a deeper overarching understanding of topics. The Science curriculum will be aligned to the Maths curriculum so that pupils will have the maths skills needed to succeed at Science.

An important inspiration for our curriculum is that of the Core Knowledge Curriculum in America. This curriculum, which was meticulously researched and designed by the educator E.D. Hirsch, has been implemented in a variety of American schools. Since it was adopted by the state of Massachusetts, the state regularly tops the American and international league tables. We mean to give our pupils these same opportunities.

What is the meticulous research?

Sounds to me like a very traditional view of teaching history. Is it that u want to go back to traditional forms of teaching?


----------



## editor (May 10, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> What is the meticulous research?


Here's some of it:



> That’s exactly what I did after coming across the following sentences in a book by E. D. Hirsch, Jr.: “It has been shown convincingly that tests and grades strongly contribute to effective teaching” – and again, on the following page: “Research has clearly shown that students learn more when grades are given.”
> 
> An accompanying footnote contained five citations. Given the existence of a considerable body of evidence showing that grades have precisely the opposite effect, I was curious to see what research Hirsch had found – particularly since he had elsewhere made a point of boasting that his views have “strong scientific foundations” in the sort of “consensus mainstream science” that is “published in the most rigorous scientific journals.” (He has also distinguished himself from “the educational community,” which “invokes research very selectively.”)
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2011)

E D Hirsch article:

http://www.edrev.info/reviews/rev558.htm

really dont know about educational theory. Seems in US as part of culture wars Hirsch is a tradtionalist ( even though he is Democrat) and opposed by Gardner. See here

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/foi/read2/hirschgardner.htm

Hirsch argues for standardised curriculum across the Country that provides knowledge of facts and basis for becoming a Citizen equipped with knowledge. Gardner favours taking a topic and using it to show how to analyse and evaluate information. Once this is learnt one can use same skills in other areas. The opposite to rote learning. 

Hirsch wants standardised education curriculum as this is more egalitarian culturally. 

Seems to me it depends on how you use Hirschs ideas.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2011)

u can see how Katharine does here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/k...ma-bin-laden-was-no-worse-than-the-americans/


These teaching materials were essentially presenting evidence to justify terrorism. And the idea, let me remind you, was to teach this in history lessons, in place of teaching children about Churchill or Wellington. In the face of such ludicrously biased teaching material, how can our children possibly have come to a balanced historical conclusion?

The teaching materials were primary sources for the students to study and evaluate. (Gardiner). Teaching about Churchill etc her version of Hirsch. Tinged with right wing sentiments. 

Whether the teaching materials are biased or not. Her view of what should be taught is no less biased. Whilst seeming like commonsense.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2011)

editor said:


> Here's some of it:




thats interesting link. 

Hirsch argues fiercely that he is Democrat who thinks traditionalist education is what really helps those who dont come from privileged backgrounds. Didnt realise it applied to grading and exams as well. Core Curriculum is one thing but this model is clearly opposed to "progressive" teaching as well.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 10, 2011)

nagapie said:


> There is not a total lack of school places in Lambeth. There is a shortage of 102 places, but only for boys. There are ways and means to create these places without creating a new school, especially one in the model of the Tory vision for education.


 
Could I ask where you derived that information of 102 places?  I've seen figures for this year of 561 pupils without a place in Lambeth, many students are having to travel outside the borough (3,950 pupils in 2007) and Lambeth Council suggesting this is going to get worse year on year, with Primary Schools like Hitherfield adding classes for this coming year as they cannot keep up with demand?

Equally, are you against the idea of a Free School simply because it is a Conservative notion or do you have deeper reasons to object?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 10, 2011)

ash said:


> Does anyone know the proposed location of this school?


 Lilian Baylis School - currently not in use as a school.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 10, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Found an edited version of this article on the school website about the meeting.
> 
> The full article makes interesting reading. Its frank and probably says what is really behind this "Free" school. It is a conservative right wing ideology.
> 
> ...


 
Gramsci could you clarify what you mean by progressive in this context?  Equally, could you also explain what you think would be bad about having a school that didn't teach kids "...Mary Seacole, knifing techniques etc...)?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 10, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Hi Mark.
> 
> So how will the school be managed?
> Will it be board of parents?
> ...



Gramsci, I don't know Mark, but as he's not come back to you and these questions have yet to be addressed, I'll raise them when I interview Katharine on the 21st May and get back to you. I attended the meeting at The Dove and it was impossible for anyone to ask legitimate questions as the protesters hijacked the Q&A.  So i've got quite a few questions from the parents who attended there too.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2011)

Perhaps Katherine could come on here?

Ive only put the questions up last night.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Gramsci could you clarify what you mean by progressive in this context?  Equally, could you also explain what you think would be bad about having a school that didn't teach kids "...Mary Seacole, knifing techniques etc...)?


 
Actually an interesting question. As progressive is perhaps one of those words that politicians use but now does not mean anything much. 

Thats why I have started to look at the theory of education they are using. (See my post 31). In the US sense the debate with Hirsch is that he  ( as he says) wants a return to "traditionalist" education. I take that to mean the kind of education that was around in 1950s. I think there was a reality programme on TV where they took these kids back to a 1950s school. 

That was replaced with the theory of education of people like Gardiner. (see above post).

But I have only just started looking at it. 

Answer Question about knives later as ive got to go.


----------



## happyshopper (May 10, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> "... many students are having to travel outside the borough ..."



This is really a non-argument. The borough boundaries of inner south London are based on the agricultural practices of the middle ages, not on natural school catchment areas. Given the long and thin shape of the borough most people in Lambeth live reasonably near a borough boundary. So it is not at all surprising that large numbers of Lambeth children attend schools in a neighbouring borough. It makes no difference to the parents whether they choose a school in Lambeth or outside, so it plays little or no part in making the choice.


----------



## editor (May 10, 2011)

happyshopper said:


> This is really a non-argument. The borough boundaries of inner south London are based on the agricultural practices of the middle ages, not on natural school catchment areas. Given the long and thin shape of the borough most people in Lambeth live reasonably near a borough boundary. So it is not at all surprising that large numbers of Lambeth children attend schools in a neighbouring borough. It makes no difference to the parents whether they choose a school in Lambeth or outside, so it plays little or no part in making the choice.


Nicely explained!


----------



## Ms Ordinary (May 10, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Could I ask where you derived that information of 102 places?  I've seen figures for this year of 561 pupils without a place in Lambeth, many students are having to travel outside the borough (3,950 pupils in 2007) and Lambeth Council suggesting this is going to get worse year on year, with Primary Schools like Hitherfield adding classes for this coming year as they cannot keep up with demand?



The quote about the 561 pupils without a place seems to be from 2005.

The 3950 pupils travelling out of borough is from 2007 - this is also out of date as at least 2 schools have opened since then (ElmGreen & Evelyn Grace), I'm not sure if Lambeth Academy was open then but it's also new.  Norwood School has changed from all girls to mixed which has also had an effect on places for boys.  I think the 3950 may also include primary school pupils?

With the shape & size of London boroughs, there are always going to be children travelling out of borough to secondary school - it doesn't necessarily indicate a problem. Lambeth is an especially narrow borough, and you could easily be living near the edge of it with your nearest or preferred school in another borough.  

It's true that a few years back, lack of places (& the fact that there wasn't a London-wide application form back then) meant children were being forced to travel out of borough to the leftover places in distant, unpopular schools - that was a real problem then but I'm not sure it's so bad now. Anyway, stats from four years ago aren't going to tell you the current story.



PaulAtherton said:


> Equally, are you against the idea of a Free School simply because it is a Conservative notion or do you have deeper reasons to object?



I’m very sceptical about both Free Schools and Katherine Birbalsingh – anything which increases the extent to which schools are in competition with each other is absolutely going to fail the children left behind in unpopular schools.

There are under-subscribed schools in Lambeth – some kind of cohesive borough-wide strategy might help those schools and the children in them, randomly letting people open up vanity projects to test out their educational theories in whatever location happens to be available probably won’t.

I’m not against everything KB says – she seems to be planning a school that won’t stand or fall by how many middle class children it attracts, for instance, and that’s a good thing (but also not as unique as she seems to think – Evelyn Grace isn’t so different in that respect, for instance).  

But I’d really like to know how she feels about the pupils finishing their GCSE’s at St. Michael & All Angels as the school closes down around them, since jump-starting her career seemed to be the death knell for that school.


----------



## nagapie (May 10, 2011)

As Ms Ordinary has said, Paul's statistics are well out of date and 3 secondary schools have been built in the last five years, with Norwood also changing to co-ed to ease shortages. I have a number from the borough this year -102, and only boys. There is a problem with primary places, not sure if it's current or impending, as Lambeth have started to lobby the government for more funding to create primary school places.


----------



## leanderman (May 10, 2011)

Anything endorsed by James Dellingpole has to be a bad thing, especially when it comes to education. 

In one column, he argued that parents should favour boys over girls in terms of schooling, because men can earn more and women can always marry for money


----------



## 8115 (May 10, 2011)

I do kind of feel headteachers, school governors etc ought to keep their politics to themselves and this manifestly doesn't seem to be happening here.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Lilian Baylis School - currently not in use as a school.


 
When u meet Katharine can u ask her how this will fit in with Lambeths plans for the site ( I think in line with the Coop Council idea).

In 2008 we and our partners, including Sport Action Zone, agreed on a vision for the Old Lilian Baylis school site, based on what local people had told us:

    * to create a community hub at the former Lilian Baylis school site that is inter-generational and inclusive with activities based around sports, health, arts and culture, economic activity community activities, education, childcare and the environment from morning to night.

On Monday 22 November our Cabinet approved a number of recommendations that could see a significant part of the site transfered to a community trust to run a community hub.

A further report will be taken to the our Cabinet's on Monday 7 February. This will recommend that, subject to a number of conditions, a part of the site is transferred to the newly established Black Prince Trust.

from:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/Environment/Regeneration/FutureLambeth/FutureKennington.htm

And also see minutes here:

(1)   To agree the asset transfer of part of the Old Lilian Baylis site as shown in appendix 2 to the Black Prince Trust in line with the draft Heads of Terms of lease and a draft Community Service Agreement appended to this report and detailed in paras. 2.19 to 2.25 of this report, conditional on final clearance of the following matters:

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=225&MId=7255

Is the proposed Free School in competition with Black Prince Trust or part of the proposed use? Is the proposed school to be on part of the site not as yet transferred? Is Katharine in contact with Lambeth and the Black Prince Trust?


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2011)

8115 said:


> I do kind of feel headteachers, school governors etc ought to keep their politics to themselves and this manifestly doesn't seem to be happening here.


 
Im all for it. Education is political. 

I find some of the opposition to Academys and Free Schools is that the old system works so dont change it.As Fiona Miller says. She says some schools are better than others. So some schools need improvement. Its a management issue. The argument then is about directing funds to supply enough school places and making sure Heads are competent managers.

This is either apolitical or something all local Cllrs can agree on whatever party they belong to. How tedious.

No I think its fair enough for people like Katharine to state what she thinks education should be. Im glad that on the Michaela website they put info that shows ideological position on education. 

It raises a lot of interesting questions.

Whats the point of being a Governor if u have no views on politics of education. U might as well get a firm of accountants in to be governors


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2011)

Ms Ordinary said:


> I’m very sceptical about both Free Schools and Katherine Birbalsingh – anything which increases the extent to which schools are in competition with each other is absolutely going to fail the children left behind in unpopular schools.
> 
> There are under-subscribed schools in Lambeth – some kind of cohesive borough-wide strategy might help those schools and the children in them, randomly letting people open up vanity projects to test out their educational theories in whatever location happens to be available probably won’t.
> 
> ...



When u say ur not against everything she says what else do u agree with?

What is the difference between a NewLabour Academy like Evelyne Grace and this proposed Free School? As u seem know about education and Im not up on this.

Also this is not a vanity project. I dont think KB would be pursuing it without some support in Government circles. Seems to me possible that this is more of a pilot project than vanity project. 

Also I dont think its an accident that its happening in Steve Reeds "Cooperative Council". This Free School idea is Tory Big Society. Its in competition with Coop Council imo.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Gramsci could you clarify what you mean by progressive in this context?  Equally, could you also explain what you think would be bad about having a school that didn't teach kids "...Mary Seacole, knifing techniques etc...)?


 
Reminded of Jean Luc Godard documentary he made in US in 60s. Here he instigates performance in a class to encourage the schoolkids into violent overthrow of Capitalism. Thats progressive


----------



## Ms Ordinary (May 11, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> When u say ur not against everything she says what else do u agree with?



Can't find it on her blog - perhaps it was in an interview somewhere else - but she was interviewed by an ex-pupil from a school she'd taught at.  He said (roughly) that he'd done pretty well so perhaps the school wasn't as 'failing' as she'd implied. She was making the point to him that just because white middle class pupils (like him) could do well in a challenging inner city school, it didn't mean the same school wasn't failing many of its other pupils.  

She sounds genuine about wanting to do the best for pupils who don't have middle-class support - I just don't think she's unique in that.

I would still worry that if it all went horribly wrong the children at her school would end up as 8-foot high images on a projector screen to illustrate how it could never have worked.



Gramsci said:


> What is the difference between a NewLabour Academy like Evelyne Grace and this proposed Free School? As u seem know about education and Im not up on this.



The main difference I can see is that Evelyn Grace has the juggernaut of ARK behind it - it's an ARK branded school. There are half a dozen or so ARK schools and they seem to be expanding, and they all seem very similar.  The Free School is supposedly more of an individual, partly parent-led setup - whether or not that's really the case.

I really don't know about education - I've just been trying to pick things up since I had to do a secondary school application last year...


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 11, 2011)

If you can catch it BBC London News did a piece about the Community School yesterday (Tuesday 10th May 2011) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj67 it starts at 13:42.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 11, 2011)

> And what a wonderful school it’s going to be. Seven speakers from the foundation committee stood up in turn to talk about the school. If this were South Park you could satirise it as “people of all colours and creeds holding hands under a rainbow” but this is Brixton and it was a joy to see: a snappy Asian private equity man who’s taking care of the financial side; a white publican in tears at the misery the progressive system had inflicted on his kids; a young white schoolteacher outlining a curriculum brimming with rigour and Oxbridge aspiration; Tony Sewell, built like a black heavyweight boxer, talking unapologetically about elitism; the white, fiery Oxbridge-educated head of maths talking about the extra, private-school-style late afternoon classes which over five years will add up to a whole extra years’ worth of education; then Katharine Birbalsingh herself in her lovely lilting Guyanan accent enthusing about the school in a way you just know is going to make her one of the best headteachers in the country and politely but firmly putting down hecklers as only a battle-hardened veteran of state education is able.


James Delingpole,   cringeworthy


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 11, 2011)

Seems Lambeth Council are hoping "Free Schools" are going to fill the gaps for Primary Schools - "We are running out of space - will your child have a school place by 2015?" Lambeth Council Website.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 11, 2011)

nagapie said:


> As Ms Ordinary has said, Paul's statistics are well out of date and 3 secondary schools have been built in the last five years, with Norwood also changing to co-ed to ease shortages. I have a number from the borough this year -102, and only boys. There is a problem with primary places, not sure if it's current or impending, as Lambeth have started to lobby the government for more funding to create primary school places.


 It would be really helpful if you could cite your source for that number.  Not disputing it, just be good to know where to get the most up to date figures?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 11, 2011)

happyshopper said:


> This is really a non-argument. The borough boundaries of inner south London are based on the agricultural practices of the middle ages, not on natural school catchment areas. Given the long and thin shape of the borough most people in Lambeth live reasonably near a borough boundary. So it is not at all surprising that large numbers of Lambeth children attend schools in a neighbouring borough. It makes no difference to the parents whether they choose a school in Lambeth or outside, so it plays little or no part in making the choice.


 This isn't born out by the Parents I've spoken to so far.  Most feel forced to take their children outside the borough (usually to Westminster). However, this is a very small sample.  Do you happen to know if any research has been done on this?


----------



## 8115 (May 11, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Im all for it. Education is political.
> 
> I find some of the opposition to Academys and Free Schools is that the old system works so dont change it.As Fiona Miller says. She says some schools are better than others. So some schools need improvement. Its a management issue. The argument then is about directing funds to supply enough school places and making sure Heads are competent managers.
> 
> ...


 
I don't have a problem with schools having an ethos, which is a form of politics, if you like.  But so nakedly party political is what I don't agree with.


----------



## nagapie (May 11, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> It would be really helpful if you could cite your source for that number.  Not disputing it, just be good to know where to get the most up to date figures?



I can't really cite my source only to say that it wasn't given in the context of pushing any agenda, unlike your numbers. There were also a 100 places short last year, only boys - I'm sure the council could tell you that, so what would the drastic change be now. Once again the shortage of primary places has not yet filtered through to secondary or is not an issue as there are so many new schools. As you're part of this free school thing, I'm failing to see how you could not know this. Of course you could be being totally disingenuous as I suspect.


----------



## nagapie (May 11, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> What is the difference between a NewLabour Academy like Evelyne Grace and this proposed Free School? As u seem know about education and Im not up on this.
> 
> Also I dont think its an accident that its happening in Steve Reeds "Cooperative Council". This Free School idea is Tory Big Society. Its in competition with Coop Council imo.



Interesting points. 

I'm not 100% sure what the difference between a free school and an academy is. Both are free from local authority control, both seem to be primarily being set up by religious or conservative groups or people, both are free from national teachers work and conditions and therefore bound to lead to an erosion of these and both no doubt, as academies have already proved, will be most detrimental to the students who are most deprived. Neither will drive up standards as this is impossible in a segregated school system. On the odd occasion standards do improve, it's likely to be down to an individual head rather than the fact that the school became an academy or free school. Ark is a good example of what happens when schools are not managed by the local authority and national guidelines. They have appalling work practices, high turnover of staff and have not shown to significantly improve educational provision. I'm not against improving secondary schools, I just think academies and free schools won't do this. 

As for the co-operative council and the big society, excuse my ignorance but I thought they were the same thing.


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2011)

Ark runs the Evelyne Grace Academy near me. Used to be next to me before they got there Hadid building around the corner. Used to sound like Bootcamp to me. Ironic its in an ultra modernist building now.

So perhaps another question to KB when Paul meets her. Will staff and teachers have same rights to unionise and pay/ conditions as staff in the "State" sector?

Will the school employ Dave Spart?


nagapie- most people think the Coop Council and BS will in practise be the same thing in practise. I have followed it ( see other thread) and Im afraid there is more similarity than either side would like to think.


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2011)

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org....schools-will-save-money-or-improve-standards/

From Local Schools Network

"Our analysis challenges the idea that free schools will save money or improve standards"

Found that link in Swappies article:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24130


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2011)

Ms Ordinary said:


> But I’d really like to know how she feels about the pupils finishing their GCSE’s at St. Michael & All Angels as the school closes down around them, since jump-starting her career seemed to be the death knell for that school.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/feb/03/katharine-birbalsingh-school-chaos

I was curious about what u said. Looked it up. What a mess. Hardly a great advert for the superiority of Academy/ Free schools. And there superiority to State schools. 

Funny that Police were involved in serious incidents as well. Reminds me of Delingpoles piece where he suggest State schools are dens of iniquity.

Good question Ms Ordinary. Perhaps Paul , when he meets KB ,  can ask her how she feels about the school closing and it jump starting her new career.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 12, 2011)

nagapie said:


> I can't really cite my source only to say that it wasn't given in the context of pushing any agenda, unlike your numbers. There were also a 100 places short last year, only boys - I'm sure the council could tell you that, so what would the drastic change be now. Once again the shortage of primary places has not yet filtered through to secondary or is not an issue as there are so many new schools. As you're part of this free school thing, I'm failing to see how you could not know this. Of course you could be being totally disingenuous as I suspect.


 I'm not part of this Free School Thing, I've just got involved as a documentarist and am on the quest for information.  Lambeth Council, as I'm sure you know, are appalling at providing any information about anything and when it's published it's always so politically biased it becomes useless. The figures I cited earlier was the only information that seemed available on the web and Lambeth Council, as you will have seen are pushing the agenda that primary schools are fit to burst. So where are you getting your numbers from about places and gender demographics, is it a source inside the council (I appreciate you can't name them)?


----------



## nagapie (May 12, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I'm not part of this Free School Thing, I've just got involved as a documentarist and am on the quest for information.  Lambeth Council, as I'm sure you know, are appalling at providing any information about anything and when it's published it's always so politically biased it becomes useless. The figures I cited earlier was the only information that seemed available on the web and Lambeth Council, as you will have seen are pushing the agenda that primary schools are fit to burst. So where are you getting your numbers from about places and gender demographics, is it a source inside the council (I appreciate you can't name them)?



My numbers come third hand from inside the council. I've no reason to doubt them. And the same about last year's numbers, which I was told last year by different people in or connected to the council. If you are actually responsible for documenting this without an agenda, you really need to do some better research and not post really out of date stats.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> My numbers come third hand from inside the council. I've no reason to doubt them. And the same about last year's numbers, which I was told last year by different people in or connected to the council. If you are actually responsible for documenting this without an agenda, you really need to do some better research and not post really out of date stats.


 As I'd listed the date on one citation, the other was completely up to date and the third I accept I had misread (a news site that had listed the article as being published in February 2011 when it was entitled, as you rightly pointed out, as being 2005) and was merely highlighting that as the most recent information available on the web.  But 4 years is hardly out of date figures in education terms anyway (just in the way figures are collated means that 2009/2010 figures will not be available until 2011) they highlight trends, but more importantly they are seemingly the latest published figures?  You brought to my attention that new schools had been built since 2007 (you didn't however mention any schools that had closed during that period). As far as I can see there are 14 Secondary schools in Lambeth (which encompasses, 4 all Girl Schools, 5 Church Schools, 1 Special Education Needs School and 1 Academy) . The average yearly intake is approximately a 100 students per school, making approximately 1,400 placements every year.  The standards of the schools varies immensely with some placements being sought after at a ratio of 7:1 while others are not oversubscribed at all. If you know of any more up to date PUBLISHED sources, especially about the numbers of students leaving the borough to attend schools, please do let me know? Independent verifiable figures seem to be in short supply.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/feb/03/katharine-birbalsingh-school-chaos
> 
> I was curious about what u said. Looked it up. What a mess. Hardly a great advert for the superiority of Academy/ Free schools. And there superiority to State schools.
> 
> ...



The facts here are a little hard to find, but this was a poor performing state school, turned into an academy to try and raise standards that failed and the school closed.

As you know KB was only there for a few weeks - I'm interested why she chose the school knowing it's reputation.  But I do know KB was saddened by it's demise although of course a new school is going to replace it and she hopes that will provide a better educational environment for the children.

I was involved in Bexley Business Academy (I taught some of the staff how to teach television production, as they had their own TV Studio but nobody knew what to do with it) and the investment turned the school around for a short time but it is still struggling as before.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (May 13, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> As far as I can see there are 14 Secondary schools in Lambeth (which encompasses, 4 all Girl Schools, 5 Church Schools, 1 Special Education Needs School and 1 Academy)  .



There's definitely more than one Academy: Evelyn Grace, Lambeth Academy & AFAIK Stockwell Park is to be a 'new style' Academy (ie an outstanding school which has taken the option of moving to Academy status).

There may be others - schools moving to academy status is an ongoing thing.

I can't think of any secondary schools that have closed since 2007 (in Southwark quite a few schools closed & re-opened as Harris or ARK academies but that doesn't seem to have happened in Lambeth).

Can't help you much with proper sources, my info is just from other parents / googling individual schools.


----------



## d'jANGO (May 13, 2011)

I think the difference between Academies and Free Schools is that Academies are effectively PPIs (jointly funded by the public and private sector, and generally run by corporations) while Free Schools are publicly funded and generally run by 'community groups' (parents, churches... apparently journalists).  

While the term wasn't being used at the time it was built, I think The Elmgreen School qualifies as a Free School, having been set up by a group of parents concerned at the lack of Secondary options in the south of the borough (which is why the proposed location of the MC school is confusing - there are already 2 Secondaries within a 10 min walk of Kenn Park).

There are issues with taking these schools out of LA control (Durand - the country's first Primary Academy, in Oval - exhibits a number of these), but that same lack of control also has genuine benefits.  If the person / people in charge are as driven as you'd need to be to set up one of these schools, the freedom to create a dynamic and innovative ed environment can yield fantastic results.

Having worked with Elmgreen in the past, I actually do believe they have an 'ethos' and sense of 'community' that you'd find in few other schools in Lambeth.  A lot of what has been said on this board so far has been fairly ideological ("it can't work because it's a right-wing initiative") but if the 'tough love' practices yield results, who cares where the idea came from? I know I'd rather have parents / teachers running my local school than Tescos...


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> As far as I can see there are 14 Secondary schools in Lambeth (which encompasses, 4 all Girl Schools, 5 Church Schools, 1 Special Education Needs School and 1 Academy) . The average yearly intake is approximately a 100 students per school, making approximately 1,400 placements every year.



Figures from January last year....

Archbishop Tenison's School 	   ​94 
Bishop Thomas Grant School 	  ​182 
Charles Edward Brooke School 63 
Dunraven School 	                        211 
Elmgreen School 	                        182 
Evelyn Grace School 	                172 
La Retraite Catholic Girls' School 	152 
Lambeth Academy 	                170 
Lilian Baylis School 	                125 
London Nautical School 	                119 
Norwood School 	                        146 
St Martin-In-The-Fields School 	155 
Stockwell Park School 	                208

Total 	                                             1979

The figures are from Lambeth School Roll Trends and Projections: Implications for Resourcing and Policy, which says we need more schools everywhere, but especially in the south of the Borough.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> As I'd listed the date on one citation, the other was completely up to date and the third I accept I had misread (a news site that had listed the article as being published in February 2011 when it was entitled, as you rightly pointed out, as being 2005) and was merely highlighting that as the most recent information available on the web.  But 4 years is hardly out of date figures in education terms anyway (just in the way figures are collated means that 2009/2010 figures will not be available until 2011) they highlight trends, but more importantly they are seemingly the latest published figures?  You brought to my attention that new schools had been built since 2007 (you didn't however mention any schools that had closed during that period). As far as I can see there are 14 Secondary schools in Lambeth (which encompasses, 4 all Girl Schools, 5 Church Schools, 1 Special Education Needs School and 1 Academy) . The average yearly intake is approximately a 100 students per school, making approximately 1,400 placements every year.  The standards of the schools varies immensely with some placements being sought after at a ratio of 7:1 while others are not oversubscribed at all. If you know of any more up to date PUBLISHED sources, especially about the numbers of students leaving the borough to attend schools, please do let me know? Independent verifiable figures seem to be in short supply.



You definitely need to go over your figures as there are 2 academies that I know of in Lambeth. And I think one of those girl schools is now co-ed. I can't think of a single school that's closed in the last few years aside from those that will close this August - St Michaels (which will re-open Sept. 2013) and the Olive which is a special school. I really don't understand how you can be collecting such basic facts incorrectly if you are a documentarian.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

d'jANGO said:


> Having worked with Elmgreen in the past, I actually do believe they have an 'ethos' and sense of 'community' that you'd find in few other schools in Lambeth.  A lot of what has been said on this board so far has been fairly ideological ("it can't work because it's a right-wing initiative") but if the 'tough love' practices yield results, who cares where the idea came from? I know I'd rather have parents / teachers running my local school than Tescos...



Elmgreen may sort of qualify as free school but it was set up long before this Tory ideal and I believe follows national guidelines for teachers pay and conditions. I'm not sure what the LA involvement is. Nevertheless Elmgreen is finding a lot of the same problems that other schools are having in the borough. This is because it is not only about school, it's about the society we live in and you cannot set up schools in inner cities and think that they can function as isolated units immune to the problems of the surrounding environment. I hope they sort these out as I know a lot of parents who were so hopeful when it opened. 

The problem with these free schools proposed by the Tories which are apparently run by teachers and parents is that they are pretty much always backed by a group that has an ideological agenda. Do you think that Katherine B had enough money on her own to start a new school? I would not be at all surprised if you started seeing free schools set up  by Tescos.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

dp


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

From DfE website. 


 Can an existing fee-paying independent school (that is a public school) become a Free School?

    Yes. Details of additional requirements for independent schools wanting to become a Free School can be found in the frequently asked questions on the application process.

 Can an existing maintained school become a Free School?

    No. Free Schools will normally be either brand-new schools set up in areas where there is a demand locally or existing independent schools. Existing maintained schools should consider applying for Academy status instead. You can find out more about this option on the Academies section of our website.

Also here from Local Schools Network.

A series of questions to DfE about Fress Schools. The Government has decided not to allow private companies to run schools:

Why did the government not go for the “for-profit” model whereby Free Schools raise their own capital funds and can make a profit? Wouldn’t this have been cheaper for the taxpayer? At the moment, the taxpayer has all the liability if the Free School fails?

We have no plans to allow Free Schools to make a profit.  The trust will remain accountable for the performance of the school and for the effective and proper use of public funding.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/members/francisgilbert/

So the difference between Academy schools and Free Schools is that FS are new or public schools transferring to Government funded schools but retaining there independance. So they Government are not going for the Tescos private model. Looks to me like the Government want to have a (small) number of schools that are run by Trusts of parents/ Teachers but are fully Government funded and outside LA control.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

Ok, so Tescos won't be running a free school. It seems it's just another way for the taxpayer to have to fund private education. What does confuse me though is where these schools get their money from. I think that's when the shadowy benefactor thing comes into play. 

I know it's different, but can those who know more about Elmgreen tell me how they are funded?


----------



## d'jANGO (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> Do you think that Katherine B had enough money on her own to start a new school? I would not be at all surprised if you started seeing free schools set up  by Tescos.


As I say, my understanding is that Free Schools - unlike Academies - are to be entirely publicly-funded. So KB wouldn't need a backer like Tescos to set one up.

Elmgreen students may well have a lot of the same issues as students of other schools, but surely it's about how they respond to those issues?  Schools can't be expected to solve all of society's ills, but if a freedom to innovate and a 'tough love' approach helps improve student performance, that can only be a good thing can't it? 


_Full list of Lambeth secondaries is below by the way..._

Archbishop Tenison's School (Boys, CoE) 538 students
Bishop Thomas Grant School (Mixed, Catholic) 1100 students
Charles Edward Brooke School (Girls) 503 students
Dunraven School (Mixed) 1200 students
Evelyn Grace Academy (Mixed) 540 students
Elm Court (Special) NA
Elmgreen School (Mixed) 720 students
La Retraite RC School (Girls, Catholic) 914 students
Lambeth Academy (Mixed) 1008 students
Lansdowne (Special) NA
Lilian Baylis Technology School (Mixed) 640 students
London Nautical School (Boys) 704 students 
Michael Tippett (Special) NA
Norwood School (Mixed) 740 students
Park Campus (PRU) 105 students
St Martin in the Fields School (Girls, CoE) 929 students
Streatham and Clapham High School (Girls, Private) 388 students
Stockwell Park High (Mixed) NA
Turney School (Special) 124 students
Five Bridges (PRU, of a kind) NA
Olive School (PRU / students without places) 100 students

_*Total student numbers as of December 2010_


----------



## d'jANGO (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> It seems it's just another way for the taxpayer to have to fund private education.


If the tax-payer is funding it, it's not private education is it?


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

The Headmistress on her educational theory.

Bring back discipline into the classroom



She says that she is politically progressive but educationally conservative. She says that education reforms have not been good for working class children. Middle class children have the benefit of support at home. 

Children need to be taught self discipline and attention at lesson. The need to be taught basic "bag of goodies" through rote learning and knowledge learning. Reformers have abandoned this. These reforms are ok for middle class kids as they have this "bag of goodies" from home. 

So what is needed is kids i rows sitting at desks whilst  Kate stands at the front of the class enforcing strict discipline.

The you tube piece was from conference on education and technology so thats why she is also talking about its use. She is good speaker didn't use notes and didn't stumble.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

d'jANGO said:


> Elmgreen students may well have a lot of the same issues as students of other schools, but surely it's about how they respond to those issues?  Schools can't be expected to solve all of society's ills, but if a freedom to innovate and a 'tough love' approach helps improve student performance, that can only be a good thing can't it?



I'm not against Elmgreen, I'm sure they're doing their best and I hope they can get it right. I don't expect school to be able to solve society's ills, that was my point. So saying that it will by having tough love is a nonsense. 

That said I believe that schools should be incredibly well-structured. And that discipline should be fair, transparent and consistent. I just think it's quite patronising to throw this idea around that state schools don't try to do this. A lot of the problems in state schools are caused by lack of funding, schools that have a disproportionate amount of needy children and poor management. I don't think free schools or academies are helping solve these problems, in fact they are adding to them.


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

That nagapie is exactly what KB disagrees with. She says in her YTube piece that "reformers" use this as defence. Its not the kind of education but what is needed is more resources etc.


----------



## d'jANGO (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> A lot of the problems in state schools are caused by lack of funding, schools that have a disproportionate amount of needy children and poor management. I don't think free schools or academies are helping solve these problems, in fact they are adding to them.


How so?


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

d'jANGO said:


> If the tax-payer is funding it, it's not private education is it?



I believe that a lot of church schools are government funded yet my child can't go to them. Hence there is some sort of private elitist structure but I'm still paying for it and it's taking money from secular state schools. I've also heard, need to do my research on this, that many private schools have access to public funds via charity status. Yet my child would have to pay thousands of pounds a term to go to these.


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

d'jANGO said:


> A lot of what has been said on this board so far has been fairly ideological ("it can't work because it's a right-wing initiative") but if the 'tough love' practices yield results, who cares where the idea came from? I know I'd rather have parents / teachers running my local school than Tescos...



I really dont understand this. This thread has meant that ive started to look at education. If ideas of education are not important then why is so much time spent training teachers? Teaching has changed over the last 100 years. Something KB seems to not like. 

KB is ideological.

The Tories are ideological about education.

So was New Labour. But they tried to make out they werent. A lot of there ideas on Academies are the same as the Tories. In Newham there is proposed Free School supported by former advisor to Blair.


----------



## d'jANGO (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> I believe that a lot of church schools are government funded yet my child can't go to them. Hence there is some sort of private elitist structure but I'm still paying for it and it's taking money from secular state schools. I've also heard, need to do my research on this, that many private schools have access to public funds via charity status. Yet my child would have to pay thousands of pounds a term to go to these.


Church schools are selective, but that doesn't make them 'private'.  I certainly agree that there is a debate to be had about whether the State should be funding religious education though.  The charitable status that private schools receive doesn't mean they get Government money I don't think - just tax breaks.  In exchange for that they are obliged to perform some sort of 'charitable' role, such as opening up their resources / premesis for wider community use (Eton do this by providing a free summer school for State secondary students from Brent).


----------



## Ms Ordinary (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> That said I believe that schools should be incredibly well-structured. And that discipline should be fair, transparent and consistent. *I just think it's quite patronising to throw this idea around that state schools don't try to do this*. A lot of the problems in state schools are caused by lack of funding, schools that have a disproportionate amount of needy children and poor management. I don't think free schools or academies are helping solve these problems, in fact they are adding to them.



I'm with you there - it annoys me in exactly the same way as when faith schools claim their success is based on their "ethos" (implying other schools lack this).

There might end up being some amazing Free Schools & Academies, that doesn't mean that breaking up the education system will be a good thing for pupils on the whole.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

d'jANGO said:


> How so?



Catchment areas and back door selection mean middle class and clever children get into the oversubscribed schools. The rest have to pick up what's left, often disproportionately children with needs whether they be EAL or SEN. More kids with needs in a school stretches resources. 
Poor management totally limits the achievement of schools. There is a shortage of well-trained and experienced headteachers. 
Academies haven't really changed the landscape of education. Many that have turned schools around have exclusive criteria to get in and so have become middle class havens. Many academies are struggling as the schools they were before. 
I think you must know this stuff as you seem to know something about education. What do you really want to say?


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

d'jANGO said:


> Church schools are selective, but that doesn't make them 'private'.  I certainly agree that there is a debate to be had about whether the State should be funding religious education though.  The charitable status that private schools receive doesn't mean they get Government money I don't think - just tax breaks.  In exchange for that they are obliged to perform some sort of 'charitable' role, such as opening up their resources / premesis for wider community use (Eton do this by providing a free summer school for State secondary students from Brent).



How lucky for the students from Brent. Tax breaks is from the taxpayers purse. A school like Eton shouldn't get any preferential anything as only a tiny elite can go there. 

Maybe you're focusing on my use of the word private. Church schools get taxpayer money yet are exclusive. That's all that needs to be said.


----------



## d'jANGO (May 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> KB is ideological.


Agreed


> The Tories are ideological about education.


Agreed


> So was New Labour.


Not sure I agree with this. With NuLab the mantra seemed to be 'what matters is what works'. The Academies scheme was just set up as a cost-effective way of creating new, high-quality (read: exciting-looking?) school buildings (and giving Headteachers more freedom, which I guess does count as ideological). But the overall focus was on the outcomes I think, rather than the means of getting there. If anything, I'd say the Left are more ideological about education than NuLab.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I really dont understand this. This thread has meant that ive started to look at education. If ideas of education are not important then why is so much time spent training teachers? Teaching has changed over the last 100 years. Something KB seems to not like.



Don't worry. The Tories are busy passing a bill that will make it possible to have teachers who are not qualified. In fact, that's already happening in schools to some degree. Government doesn't care, their children will go to Eton and lend their facilities to poor kids for the summer.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (May 13, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> From DfE website.
> 
> 
> Can an existing maintained school become a Free School?
> ...



So we will end up with:

-Newly set up Free Schools
-Free Schools that used to be private schools (possibly)
-old-style Academies set up with PPI
-new-style Academies that used to be outstanding state schools
-leftover state schools that aren't good enough to be given Academy status.

I wonder what will happen to the 'leftover' schools when there isn't enough of a local authority education department left to fund or run them properly?

I know that with a Southwark school which has recently taken academy status, the over-riding factor was not that they wanted academy kudos or more independence, but simply that if they were left as the only state-run school in the borough it wouldn't even be financially feasible.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

As you point out, Ms Ordinary, soon all schools will have to become a free school or an academy otherwise they'll get no money. LA schools are already losing out to academies in the funding stakes. I'm sure that there won't be a single LA school around in 10 years and that it won't have solved any of the current issues in education.


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

Ms Ordinary. There are a couple of private schools that have been approved by DfE to go for Free School status. Including the TM school:

On the surface, you might think that the most far-out alternative education would be found at the Maharishi School, in Lathom, Lancashire, which will become a state school in September. Based on the philosophy of the Maharishi Yogi, the Indian guru connected with the Beatles, it teaches all its pupils transcendental meditation.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/tag/yoga/


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> As you point out, Ms Ordinary, soon all schools will have to become a free school or an academy otherwise they'll get no money. LA schools are already losing out to academies in the funding stakes. I'm sure that there won't be a single LA school around in 10 years and that it won't have solved any of the current issues in education.


 
This imo is increasingly reminding me of Lansleys reforms to NHS. I start to think that this is there first push towards full privatisation and break up of state system. Perhaps if Tories get in next time we will see Tescos running schools. "Not for Profit" of course.


----------



## leanderman (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> As you point out, Ms Ordinary, soon all schools will have to become a free school or an academy otherwise they'll get no money. LA schools are already losing out to academies in the funding stakes. I'm sure that there won't be a single LA school around in 10 years and that it won't have solved any of the current issues in education.



The academy explosion is rather like the rebranding of polytechnics as universities. And probably as pointless.

As for church schools, it amazes me they are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion.

Imagine applying that principle in job interviews or A&E waiting rooms.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

leanderman said:


> As for church schools, it amazes me they are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion.
> 
> Imagine applying that principle in job interviews or A&E waiting rooms.



It's about respect for people's religion and celebrating diversity. For instance The Orchard School and the Iqra School teach their pupils to recite the Koran and read Arabic. The parents who send their children there appreciate the distinctive nature of the schools. They know that their children will be brought up to know their faith. The children at those schools will grow up to know that the state values Islam. The parents and the children can relax knowing that their religion isn't being threatened.

Banning religion from schools just turns perfectly normal people into nutters. Just look at the United States.


----------



## editor (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It's about respect for people's religion and celebrating diversity. For instance The Orchard School and the Iqra School teach their pupils to recite the Koran and read Arabic. The parents who send their children there appreciate the distinctive nature of the schools. They know that their children will be brought up to know their faith. The children at those schools will grow up to know that the state values Islam. The parents and the children can relax knowing that their religion isn't being threatened.
> 
> Banning religion from schools just turns perfectly normal people into nutters. Just look at the United States.


The US hasn't banned religion from schools. France has.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

Hmmm. I'm all for teaching religion as part of cultural history more broadly, but explicitly evangelising schools should not be allowed any state support. I'm a bit conflicted whether or not they should be allowed at all, tbh.


----------



## editor (May 13, 2011)

Kids should be taught together. That is all.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

Haha, way to dismiss any debate. As it happens I can't be arsed - it's Friday and I'm gonna fuck off outta the office.


----------



## editor (May 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Haha, way to dismiss any debate. As it happens I can't be arsed - it's Friday and I'm gonna fuck off outta the office.


No, I really do think that there shouldn't be separate schools for kids based on their (parents') faith. That said, I think kids should be taught about all faiths, but that they should go to school together.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

Gotcha.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

editor said:


> The US hasn't banned religion from schools. France has.


 
The US has had a separation of Church and State since Thomas Jefferson was President. It's in the first amendment to the constitution. France massively subsidises private religious schools so that they're available to almost everyone.


----------



## d'jANGO (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The US has had a separation of Church and State since Thomas Jefferson was President.


I guess that must be why they print 'In God We Trust' on all their banknotes then eh?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 13, 2011)

They may have separation of church and state, but not of school buildings for two different schools....This is bizzare...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13393289


----------



## toggle (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Banning religion from schools just turns perfectly normal people into nutters. Just look at the United States.



I think you need to go teach yourself about the difference between correlation and causation. this statement shows you clearly don't understand it.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

editor said:


> Kids should be taught together.



That is really what it boils down to.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> That is really what it boils down to.


 
How far do you take it tho? All kids in the same school independent of needs? Blind, deaf, disabled alongside the "normal" kids?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> That is really what it boils down to.


 
So do the Christian kids have to sit around while the muslim kids pray, or do we ban the Muslim kids from praying in school?


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

What do you think?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What do you think?


 
I think we should allow them to go to separate schools.

Or was that a rhetorical question?


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

No, it wasn't.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> How far do you take it tho? All kids in the same school independent of needs? Blind, deaf, disabled alongside the "normal" kids?



The most successfully inclusive schools I've known are those that take all sorts of students but have special provision for their needs. 

I'm not saying there aren't cases when a child really needs to be educated out of the mainstream but religion or wealth are certainly not good reasons.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> How far do you take it tho? All kids in the same school independent of needs? Blind, deaf, disabled alongside the "normal" kids?


 
Where have you been? This already happens.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Where have you been? This already happens.


 
Everywhere, or just in select schools? I don't have kids and I'm not paying attention to school policies.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Everywhere, or just in select schools? I don't have kids and I'm not paying attention to school policies.


 
Yes everywhere. 'Special Needs' children get priority. They are top of the list in any school they like.

Almost every class now has a 'Special Needs' child. Sometimes there's a cute Down's syndrome child who gives everyone lovely cuddles, sometimes it's a blind or deaf kid who gets along with help, often it's a child who is really really dim, but often it's a child with cerebral palsy or autism who roles around on the floor and tells the teachers to fuck off. Think Dennis the Menace in the body of Joey Deacon.


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> The most successfully inclusive schools I've known are those that take all sorts of students but have special provision for their needs.
> 
> I'm not saying there aren't cases when a child really needs to be educated out of the mainstream but religion or wealth are certainly not good reasons.


 
I think I agree with that latter part. I know that certain deaf parents want their kids to be brought up and schooled in majority-deaf groups though. I honestly don't know whether that's better for the children in terms of development, but I'm loath to dismiss it out of hand. Of course one could have physically, but not socially integrated schools....


----------



## TruXta (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Yes everywhere. 'Special Needs' children get priority. They are top of the list in any school they like.
> 
> Almost every class now has a 'Special Needs' child. Sometimes there's a cute Down's syndrome child who gives everyone lovely cuddles, sometimes it's a blind or deaf kid who gets along with help, often it's a child who is really really dim, but often it's an autistic child who roles around on the floor and tells the teachers to Fuck Off. Think Dennis the Menace in the body of Joey Deacon.


 
Now you're just coming across as a bit of a twat.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Now you're just coming across as a bit of a twat.


 
Because I don't believe the inclusion experiment has worked?


----------



## Winot (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> So do the Christian kids have to sit around while the muslim kids pray, or do we ban the Muslim kids from praying in school?


 
Doesn't seem beyond the wit of man(kind) to have 15 mins a day (or whatever) for kids to pray in separate rooms to God, Allah, Satan or Richard Dawkins if they want. Can't see why they need to be in separate institutions for the rest of the day.


----------



## boohoo (May 13, 2011)

editor said:


> Kids should be taught together. That is all.


 
I went to two different church secondary school - although the over riding songs and the prayers were christian - we were taught about all faiths and there were kids from other religions there. In sixth form we had a debate about whether it was right that there was a fatwa on Salman Rushdie - the local bloke from the mosque came down. No christian versus muslim thing -just a discussion set up by one of the Islamic girls in the school. 

Seriously no-one is converted to Christianity by singing all things bright and beautiful in assembly and going to the occasional soulless service.  (though we did have some fit blokes come and talk about god to us!!)


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

boohoo said:


> I went to two different church secondary school - although the over riding songs and the prayers were christian - we were taught about all faiths and there were kids from other religions there. In sixth form we had a debate about whether it was right that there was a fatwa on Salman Rushdie - the local bloke from the mosque came down. No christian versus muslim thing -just a discussion set up by one of the Islamic girls in the school.
> 
> Seriously no-one is converted to Christianity by singing all things bright and beautiful in assembly and going to the occasional soulless service.  (though we did have some fit blokes come and talk about god to us!!)



We're not really discussing the actual ethos of the school, but rather how they exclude children based on religion.


----------



## nagapie (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Almost every class now has a 'Special Needs' child. Sometimes there's a cute Down's syndrome child who gives everyone lovely cuddles, sometimes it's a blind or deaf kid who gets along with help, often it's a child who is really really dim, but often it's a child with cerebral palsy or autism who roles around on the floor and tells the teachers to fuck off. Think Dennis the Menace in the body of Joey Deacon.



This is a complete load of nonsense.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

Winot said:


> Doesn't seem beyond the wit of man(kind) to have 15 mins a day (or whatever) for kids to pray in separate rooms to God, Allah, Satan or Richard Dawkins if they want. Can't see why they need to be in separate institutions for the rest of the day.


 
And what about Arabic lessons? And what about literacy lessons where the teacher wants to relate the lesson to the Koran or the bible? Or lining up in the playground when the muslim children want to line up in single gender lines, but the non-muslims want to mix? What about before meals when all of the children say grace? 

Everyday school-life is full of cultural and religious choices. These choices either confim to a child that their religion is valuable and important, or it tells them that it's not. There's no middle ground. Being forced to attend a school which denies or contradicts a child's cultural or religious values is tough for them. Religion isn't something that should be limited to fifteen minutes in the day. It's a shared understanding of how the world is. It should feature throughout the school day. The only way for that to happen is in separate schools.

Nobody tries to force the integrationalist argument with other aspects of school life. Some schools have homework, some don't. Some insist on a uniform, some don't. Some have spelling tests, some don't. Some have residential weeks away, some don't. Parents are free to choose whichever school they think best suits their child. It's not an issue for other aspects of the school, why should it be for religion?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 13, 2011)

nagapie said:


> This is a complete load of nonsense.


 
If only it were.


----------



## gaijingirl (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> If only it were.



no - it really is...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> If only it were.


 
It's patently complete and utter fiction.


----------



## 8115 (May 13, 2011)

There's certainly been a shift towards inclusive education, so that it's not unusual to have a child in a class with a disability (not quite sure what terminology to use, hope that's not offensive).  I think 20 years ago it was much more unusual.

There are arguments for faith schools like the ones outlined above, ie cultural values going through the day etc, but I think multiculturalism is the way we need to move forward and I think that faith schools so inhibit this that I think they do more harm than good.  Personally.


----------



## 8115 (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Yes everywhere. 'Special Needs' children get priority. They are top of the list in any school they like.
> 
> Almost every class now has a 'Special Needs' child. Sometimes there's a cute Down's syndrome child who gives everyone lovely cuddles, sometimes it's a blind or deaf kid who gets along with help, often it's a child who is really really dim, but often it's a child with cerebral palsy or autism who roles around on the floor and tells the teachers to fuck off. Think Dennis the Menace in the body of Joey Deacon.


 
That's really offensive by the way.


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It's about respect for people's religion and celebrating diversity. For instance The Orchard School and the Iqra School teach their pupils to recite the Koran and read Arabic. The parents who send their children there appreciate the distinctive nature of the schools. They know that their children will be brought up to know their faith. The children at those schools will grow up to know that the state values Islam. The parents and the children can relax knowing that their religion isn't being threatened.
> 
> Banning religion from schools just turns perfectly normal people into nutters. Just look at the United States.




It was homegrown Muslim nutters who bombed the underground in this country. Somewhat undermines your argument. 

In fact the enlightenment revolution that led to the USA give religious freedom to its citizens. Education and the state were separated. And a good thing to. 

"Instead, Virginia approved Thomas Jefferson's bill "for Establishing Religious Freedom," which outlawed government aid to religion generally and protected freedom of worship for all religious groups in the state, not just for Christians.

In 1791 the first amendment to the new federal constitution opened with sixteen now-famous words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress spoke about religion generally, not just of churches."

http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/religion.html

Secular schooling does not oppose religion. 

If anything in the USA its the religious right who grew to power more recently who are the real nutters. Several homegrown terrorist acts have been done by far right nutters who are not Muslims

The 9/11 bombing was done by Saudi Arabians. From a nasty religious state with a form of Islam that ultra conservative. As was Bin Loony.


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> They may have separation of church and state, but not of school buildings for two different schools....This is bizzare...
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13393289



Thanks for this informative link. I had no idea that they were thinking of this. 

 Education Secretary Michael Gove is bullish. He argues that free schools will drive up standards, and that additional money given to a struggling school is not likely to be used effectively.

"Sometimes you need to say 'thank you and goodnight'," he says.

And he thinks co-siting could be an effective use of the existing school stock.


----------



## Gramsci (May 13, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> The US has had a separation of Church and State since Thomas Jefferson was President. It's in the first amendment to the constitution. France massively subsidises private religious schools so that they're available to almost everyone.



But in the link on French schools it says:

The French government highly subsidises private elementary and secondary schools, even those affiliated with religious organizations, as long as they apply the same curriculum as the public schools, with the same academic standards, and that do not discriminate on grounds of religious affiliation nor make religious education compulsory.

Thats not what you are arguing for in your first post on the matter:

"It's about respect for people's religion and celebrating diversity. For instance The Orchard School and the Iqra School teach their pupils to recite the Koran and read Arabic. The parents who send their children there appreciate the distinctive nature of the schools. They know that their children will be brought up to know their faith. The children at those schools will grow up to know that the state values Islam. The parents and the children can relax knowing that their religion isn't being threatened."


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

Anyway KBs Free School is not going to be a religious school. 

What this argument about religion shows is that education is not just about learning to read and write. It all the things that are "ideological" be it religion, morals or whatever that a school can inculcate into someone that is a lot of the bone of contention.

And often these things are considered commonsense to people. Even though people strongly disagree over them.

One things Laughing Toad underestimates is kids ability to be affected by outside influences. However much the Melanie Phillips of the world deplore the lowering of social standards this country has gradually liberalised. Sending kids to religious schools does not necessarily work.

I went to a Church of England primary school and I can tell you it put me off religion for life.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

t


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

mark dodds said:


> ON the new school: http://michaelacommunityschool.co.uk/
> 
> There’s going to be an information evening at The Sun and Doves on 5 May at 6pm. If you’re interested please register via the website so we can accommodate numbers:
> 
> ...



Hi Mark Dodds.

Where ru?

Be good to have feedback on some of the points raised on this thread. Since I assume ur a supporter of the Free School.


----------



## TruXta (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Because I don't believe the inclusion experiment has worked?


 
No, because you're using cheap stereotypes.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

d'jANGO said:


> Agreed
> 
> Agreed
> 
> Not sure I agree with this. With NuLab the mantra seemed to be 'what matters is what works'. The Academies scheme was just set up as a cost-effective way of creating new, high-quality (read: exciting-looking?) school buildings (and giving Headteachers more freedom, which I guess does count as ideological). But the overall focus was on the outcomes I think, rather than the means of getting there. If anything, I'd say the Left are more ideological about education than NuLab.



Thanks for the posts Django. 

I do however think NuLabour were ideological. They are (were) a funny lot. Some of them were true believers. Some in , in my experience, did believe in a lot of "old labour" ideas but felt they were vote losers. So tried to deal with issues like inequality by stealth. ie the large input of funds to NHS. They were often "Brownites" rather then Blairites. 

Academies cost effective? How? They ended up being funded mainly by central government. With a token amount from the sponsors. So hardly any difference to funding. 

The supposed "cost effective" funding was PFI of Building Schools for the Future. As is well documented this might have taken funding off the PSBR but has been a disaster.

Good article by that defender of Comprehensive education here by Fiona Miller that outlines Blairites hostility to Comprehensive education. The Blairite education reforms were watered down by back benchers. It seems to me that privately in the Labour party there was/is a lot of disquiet at the "what works" mantra.

http://www.chartist.org.uk/articles/econsoc/jul07_millar.htm


Successive governments, while pledging no more selection, have ushered in a succession of subtle and devious ways for schools to manage their own admissions and select pupils both overtly and covertly under the superficially seductive title of ‘diversity and choice'.

In many cities we now have what the London schools commissioner Tim Brighouse calls a dizzyingly steep hierarchy of schools in to which children are sorted according to a variety of different means; faith, cheque book, postcode, aptitude or a combination of all four. 

The simplest and yet most profound way to understand any society is through its education system. A school system is not just about standards and exam results but about values – what sort of people we want our children to be and what sort of society we want them to grow up in.

A truly comprehensive community school, educating children of all social and ethnic backgrounds together is a clear statement of opportunity for all. 

Comprehensive education is regularly caricatured as an antedeluvian form of social engineering which should have gone out with the ark. This conveniently ignores the fact that all education systems are a form of social engineering. None more so maybe than independent schools which allow parents who can afford it to effectively buy their children competitive advantage later on in life

They sadly also get a terrible press from many of our politicians, including some of those supposedly on the left, who confuse educational failure, of which there is still too much, with the comprehensive principle which is simply that children are of equal worth and that society will be a better place if children from all abilities backgrounds races and faiths are educated together. 

What I find curious about KB is that seeing her in the Youtube piece I thought she is exactly the sort of person who the Blairites should have got support from. How did it all go so wrong for New Labour?They fell over themselves with there Academy programme and rhetoric on education to satisfy the middle ground and Daily Mail. It didnt work in the end. Cameron managed to convince everyone he was taking over T Blairs mantle.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

8115 said:


> That's really offensive by the way.


 
 Im sure in real life Laughing Toad is a really nice bloke. He is however the Christpher Hitchens of the Brixton Boards.

Oh just remembered CH is all out militant secularist.

Well I mean LT likes being a contrarian.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Everyday school-life is full of cultural and religious choices. These choices either confim to a child that their religion is valuable and important, or it tells them that it's not. There's no middle ground.



To take what you say seriously LT I would agree with you here. Making all schools secular so that a religion is not a part of the school ( whether CofE . Catholic or Islam) does devalue its social importance. And there is no middle ground on this. Catholic and CofE churches value there state maintained schools as it gives them a stake in society they otherwise would not have.

Your argument should be that its unfair that Catholic and CofE churches can have state maintained schools and other faiths , for historical reasons, have not had this oppurtunity.

Secular schools do not mean banning headscarves or wearing crosses. It means that that a particular religion is not part of a schools ethos. Religion is practised outside school. It can be taught as part of the worlds historical culture and thats it.


----------



## LiamO (May 14, 2011)

Does anyone know where I can access this harridan's tory conference speech on video. You tube has taken it down.

She was on radio in Dublin recently. Apparently she claimed she was 'set up' by the tories and that she was appalled at their laughter at her 'innocent' speech (laughter that she fuckin milked like an old pro). I would like to contact the radio show and show them what a bare-faced duplicitous bastard she is.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

its still there:


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 14, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> It was homegrown Muslim nutters who bombed the underground in this country. Somewhat undermines your argument.


 
No, they didn't go to state-funded Muslim schools Gramsci. I'm saying state-funded Muslims schools make muslims less radical.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 14, 2011)

8115 said:


> That's really offensive by the way.


 
What's really offensive is that the most vulnerable children in the country have been abandoned in mainstream schools, to be looked after by a minimum-wage teaching assistant who's only qualification for the task is to have been sent on a three hour course last year.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 14, 2011)

nagapie said:


> You definitely need to go over your figures as there are 2 academies that I know of in Lambeth. And I think one of those girl schools is now co-ed. I can't think of a single school that's closed in the last few years aside from those that will close this August - St Michaels (which will re-open Sept. 2013) and the Olive which is a special school. I really don't understand how you can be collecting such basic facts incorrectly if you are a documentarian.


 This is a process.  In 6 months time you can by all means criticise my facts if I get them wrong.  But right now I'm on a fact finding mission. I search for information (usually on Lambeth Council's Website - where there is a list of 14 secondary schools - it lists 2 Academy's but one has just started and it was unclear where it is in it's status)  My facts don't need to be accurate at this juncture, just what I'm finding.  From this thread alone I'm getting lots of useful reports and local people who know far more about the area (my 11 year old Son lives in Cardiff - and thus my need to know about schools in the area started here).  It's a lot quicker and more sensible to ask people who work in the education system and who will likely to have assessed children's opportunities in the borough. Than to take it from a single source.  That's good fact finding.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 14, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> But in the link on French schools it says:
> 
> The French government highly subsidises private elementary and secondary schools, even those affiliated with religious organizations, as long as they apply the same curriculum as the public schools, with the same academic standards, and that do not discriminate on grounds of religious affiliation nor make religious education compulsory.
> 
> ...



Neither Muslim school in Lambeth discriminates against non-muslims. 

All religious education is optional in all UK state schools. Jehovah's Witnesses usually take advantage of this option. The French system and the British system are very similar in that respect.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Figures from January last year....
> 
> The figures are from Lambeth School Roll Trends and Projections: Implications for Resourcing and Policy, which says we need more schools everywhere, but especially in the south of the Borough.



Thanks.  Exactly what I was looking for. Cheers.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 14, 2011)

nagapie said:


> The most successfully inclusive schools I've known are those that take all sorts of students but have special provision for their needs.
> 
> I'm not saying there aren't cases when a child really needs to be educated out of the mainstream but religion or wealth are certainly not good reasons.


 Could I ask what you mean by the term successful in this instance.  Is this in terms of academic achievement or social integration or both? And are these your first hand experiences or based on research?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> What's really offensive is that the most vulnerable children in the country have been abandoned in mainstream schools, to be looked after by a minimum-wage teaching assistant who's only qualification for the task is to have been sent on a three hour course last year.


I'm a teaching assistant. The money isn't great but it's higher than minimum wage and about half the TAs I work with have degrees. Are you just making all this up as you go along?


----------



## stethoscope (May 14, 2011)

TA's I know all work really fucking hard and for not much recognition.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 14, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'm a teaching assistant. The money isn't great but it's higher than minimum wage


 
Many teaching assistants work extra at the start and end of the day, and work through their lunch half-hour. Divide their actual hours worked with their pay and it comes to less than minimum wage.  



Mrs Magpie said:


> and about half the TAs I work with have degrees. Are you just making all this up as you go along?



I don't believe you. If they did then they should get a job as a teacher, and more than double their pay.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2011)

I don't care whether you believe me, I know what the truth is and that what you say is mendacious.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

Some people might be surprised at the number of people with degrees doing low paid but necessary jobs. I meet people all the time doing them.

What do Teaching Assistants actually do?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> TA's I know all work really fucking hard and for not much recognition.


 
Unfortunatly it's about skill and not hard work. The only substantial report on the subject, by a Professor of Education from the most prestigious University Education Department in the world, who researched hundreds of schools says that Teaching Assistants do more harm than good. (Abstract here, I couldn't find the original report).


----------



## toggle (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'm saying state-funded Muslims schools make muslims less radical.



I suppose you have evidence to back up that statement?


----------



## stethoscope (May 14, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> What do Teaching Assistants actually do?


 
One of my close friends is a TA, and it sounds like she does as much as the main teaching staff, but with less recognition/remuneration for it - she seems to end up covering quite a lot of lessons, does a lot of interaction with parents of pupils on various matters which I was surprised she'd be expected to get exposed to, and seems to do a lot of planning and organisation for the main teaching staff.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Neither Muslim school in Lambeth discriminates against non-muslims.
> 
> All religious education is optional in all UK state schools. Jehovah's Witnesses usually take advantage of this option. The French system and the British system are very similar in that respect.



Its not about obvious discrimination. 

The Orchard School whilst getting a good Ofsted report was told that:

Staff need to give you more opportunities to improve your understanding about different communities, both in the United Kingdom and abroad

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/126191

Also it appear the school ,when it was first set up in conjunction with Lambeth Council , was allowed to have its own admission policy:

The Orchard School will be funded by Lambeth council but decide its own admissions policy. Phyllis Dunipace, the council’s executive director for children and young people’s services,said:

“The Orchard School will ensure we are are serving the needs of the Muslim community and are committed to embracing the great diversity of Lambeth.”

Councillor Sally Prentice, cabinet member for education, said: “There is a clear demand for a Muslim faith school in Lambeth.” 

http://www.islamictimes.co.uk/content/view/449/39/

Though according to Lambeth website its mixed faith school. So thats all really clear then.

http://www.younglambeth.org/Homepage/Search-Results/Service-Directory.aspx?o=4317

nope Im not convinced at all by Faith schools being way forward.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 14, 2011)

toggle said:


> I suppose you have evidence to back up that statement?


 
It's an opinion, hence my beginning the sentence with "_I'm saying . . _". If I had evidence then I would have begun the sentence with "_There is evidence that . . _"

If you have any research that contradicts my opinion then post a link. You never know. I might be persuaded.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> One of my close friends is a TA, and it sounds like she does as much as the main teaching staff, but with less recognition/remuneration for it - she seems to end up covering quite a lot of lessons, does a lot of interaction with parents of pupils on various matters which I was surprised she'd be expected to get exposed to, and seems to do a lot of planning and organisation for the main teaching staff.


 
Sounds like a lot of these jobs where you actually have a lot of responsibility but don't get paid much. I have friend who is care assistant. Same picture to me as TAs.


----------



## toggle (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> If you have any research that contradicts my opinion then post a link. You never know. I might be persuaded.


 
 you are the one that has made this assertion, it is your responsibility to prove it. 

otherwise it stands as another example of you bullshitting.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 14, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Though according to Lambeth website its mixed faith school. So thats all really clear then.



A '_mixed faith_' school is one with mixed sexes (both boys and girls), and it's a faith school. In this instance the Muslim faith.


----------



## stethoscope (May 14, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Sounds like a lot of these jobs where you actually have a lot of responsibility but don't get paid much. I have friend who is care assistant. Same picture to me as TAs.


 
I get the feeling they're sometimes/often? utilised in order to get teaching without having to pay what they should for qualified teaching staff  - I was under the impression that TA's are not supposed to/expected to cover lessons heavily/primarily as they are intended to be an assistant after all to the main teaching staff, but it sounds like the reality (certainly the school where my friend is anyway) that they actually do a lot more/end up with more responsibility than TAs are intended to do. Be interested if this is Mrs M's experience too.


----------



## 8115 (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> What's really offensive is that the most vulnerable children in the country have been abandoned in mainstream schools, to be looked after by a minimum-wage teaching assistant who's only qualification for the task is to have been sent on a three hour course last year.


 
I happen to think that there are good arguments on both sides as far as inclusion goes.  I was just pointing out how offensive what you said was.


----------



## 8115 (May 14, 2011)

stephj said:


> I think they're utilised in order to get teaching for less cost - I was under the impression that TA's are not supposed to/expected to cover lessons heavily/primarily as they are intended to be an assistant after all to the main teaching staff, but it sounds like the reality (certainly the school where my friend is anyway) that they actually do a lot more/end up with more responsibility than TAs are intended to do. Be interested if this is Mrs M's experience too.


 
To be fair, teaching assistants don't carry anywhere near the level of responsibility that teachers do even if they are teaching some classes.  I don't think (I could be wrong) that a teaching assistant should be teaching classes unless they are an HLTA, which is starting to be decent pay and training.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 14, 2011)

toggle said:


> you are the one that has made this assertion, it is your responsibility to prove it.
> 
> otherwise it stands as another example of you bullshitting.


 
I'm on a discussion board discussing my views. You can even add to the discussion if you want.


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> A '_mixed faith_' school is one with mixed sexes (both boys and girls), and it's a faith school. In this instance the Muslim faith.


 
ok. i just assumed it means different faiths all together.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> What do Teaching Assistants actually do?


It varies enormously from day to day. I start work at 8:30 and until the first lesson starts at 9am I may do one-to-one with a student on a planned programme for dyslexia (not devised by me, I just follow the procedure which I have had training to implement). First and second lesson taking notes for a A level student with mobility impairment who can't physically write quickly. Then I have a break and a cup of tea and a ciggie. Third lesson supporting a Year 7 pupil who can't speak English well and explaining what the teacher is saying (it's no good if the lesson is pitched solely to that pupil using simplified language, that wouldn't be right for the rest of the class).  Fourth  lesson may be resource preparation involve photocopying 30 past maths GCSE papers, and updating my paperwork showing general progress and meeting of measurable targets by a student. Lunchtime may involve taking a learning disabled student to the hall for lunch and helping them choose their food and reinforcing healthy choices (They may want two puddings and no main course). Sometimes I will eat my lunch with them and then take them to a lunch club that promotes inclusion and establishing friendship groups. If I spend my entire lunchtime with a student I will have a lunch break during lesson five. Lesson six might have usually involved assisting in an art lesson but a child has had a seizure and badly bitten their tongue and I go in the ambulance with them to A&E and stay with them till their Mum turns up.


The next day I might be accompanying a year group along with other TAs and teachers on a trip to the Globe where they get a tour and see MacBeth.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2011)

Oh, and I get to do really interesting stuff based on my personal skills.  I did a huge display board once on the life cycle of Stag Beetles. I also run a club where I've taught kids to recognise birdsong, gone on invertebrate hunts, teaching them how to use field guides to identify them, that sort of thing. Another colleague knits and crochets expertly and runs a club which has taught loads of pupils these skills and is also a very sociable activity. Another is a good amateur photographer and does a photography club.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 14, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'm a teaching assistant. The money isn't great but it's higher than minimum wage and about half the TAs I work with have degrees. Are you just making all this up as you go along?


 Mrs. Magpie, I'd be interested to know why the TA's you know who have degrees are not qualified teachers, do you happen to know?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2011)

Because if you teach the pressure is enormous and the hours are very long. People assume the hours are 8:30 to 3:30 Monday to Friday and there are very long holidays and that it's cushy. Marking, 'outcomes', lesson planning, tracking, CPD etc etc etc. mean 10 hour days (or even longer) and often being in work Saturdays and holiday times.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2011)

The reason I love being a TA is the variety (every subject and every ability from Year 7s to A level) and having a life outside work. I also really love learning for its own sake and really like teenagers. I like the people I work with and get the opportunity to do things I wouldn't otherwise do from tracking satellites from the roof, weekends away on school trips and field trips but only if I want to (not so for teachers, that's part of their job) and best of all, seeing students do the very best they can, and how happy that makes them. That doesn't necessarily mean getting As or getting into university, it might mean 5 C grade GCSEs or even learning to tell the time and handle money.
It's true that a TAs money is pretty rubbish but I'd rather earn less and adore my job than earn more and find every day at work a wretched chore.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 14, 2011)

Oh, something else. Sometimes TAs with degrees are thinking of getting a PGCE but aren't sure whether teaching is for them and being a TA gives a really good idea of what the job actually entails so they sign up with an agency and work in different schools (this also applies to deciding between primary & secondary). All the agency workers I know have degrees. 

I don't have a degree but when I signed on with an agency I had over 20 years of experience working in a non-school setting with a wide range of children with disabilities and a lot of schools needed cover provided by someone who knew a lot about different aspects of different disabilities for example I can sign,  and can also do the physio required for a child with cystic fibrosis. Some TAs know they want to teach but want to also be a SENCO and are building up their CV and experience. There isn't a lot in a PGCE that equips an NQT for working with statemented children.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Mrs. Magpie, I'd be interested to know why the TA's you know who have degrees are not qualified teachers, do you happen to know?


 
As Ive already said im always meeting people with degrees who are doing jobs like driving buses etc. Having a degree now does not mean you end up with high flying job. Also from what Mrs Magpie says about her job it requires a lot of skill. Skills which are often obtained through life experience rather then formal training.

I get a bit tired of the way jobs get stratified. I see people do jobs which are low paid ( and status) which actually require a lot of skills which arent acknowledged. Or are dangerous. The whole way that jobs are put in a hierarchy imo is artificial.

In former Communist states the highest paid and high status workers were miners. The job is dirty and dangerous. In those societies it was given high status. In our society who are the highest status and paid?Bankers - who gamble with other peoples money and get bailed out when they mess up.

About time the whole idea of work was relooked at.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

It depends on the degree. If you get a degree in maths or medicine you'll earn loads more. A degree an Arts subject, or media studies is practically worthless.

Gramsci, like it or not, jobs in our society are priced by supply and demand. There are plenty of people with the skills to be miners, not so many with the skills to become doctors. That's why we pay doctors more.


----------



## Blagsta (May 15, 2011)

so why do nurses get paid so badly?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> so why do nurses get paid so badly?


 
Because we can import them cheaply from Ghana. Good ones too.

And the skills needed to be an employable nurse are much less scarce than the skills needed to be an employable doctor.


----------



## Blagsta (May 15, 2011)

you don't know much about nursing


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 15, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> As Ive already said im always meeting people with degrees who are doing jobs like driving buses etc. Having a degree now does not mean you end up with high flying job. Also from what Mrs Magpie says about her job it requires a lot of skill. Skills which are often obtained through life experience rather then formal training.
> 
> I get a bit tired of the way jobs get stratified. I see people do jobs which are low paid ( and status) which actually require a lot of skills which arent acknowledged. Or are dangerous. The whole way that jobs are put in a hierarchy imo is artificial.
> 
> ...



The question I was asking, which Mrs. Magpie answered eloquently, was as these people had the pre-requisites to teach why they didn't pursue that route fully. If you didn't have a degree then clearly a TA's position was a way in. But the answers Mrs. Magpie gave, makes perfect sense. 

The degree problem has been caused by the devaluing of the qualification, everybody and their cat now has one and most employers only consider seriously the ones obtained from the higher universities (Russell Group, Oxbridge etc.).  I was campaigning for years when I was an Account Director at a PR Agency for Universities (predominantly upgraded Polythecnics) to stop promoting Media Studies Degrees as a way of getting into our industry.  We wouldn't even look at their applications. 

I'm with you on the Banker situation, I would have left them go under and of course the billions of pounds that the British public had invested in them.

You do acknowledge that the financial markets replaced our manufacturing base though, right? And that salaries of Bankers are controlled by the shareholders?

I in part agree with Laughing Toad (an Arts degree is a saleable commodity if acquired through the right University - it shows critical thinking which is what most professional organisations are looking for.  A History degree is well sought after by employers). And also agree about his notion of supply and demand.

I grew up in South Wales in the Rhymney Valley.  Nearly everybody worked down the mines - it was all they knew and all they wanted to know.  The few people who broke away and went to University were the very rare exceptions and often ostracized for doing so.

I think it's the education system that needs relooking at.  We had a strata that made perfect sense 20 years ago.  "O" Levels that gave you the qualifications, "A" Levels if you wanted to pursue an academic route, Colleges of Further Education if you wanted to pursue a practical one, Polythechnics for applied academia and Universities for pure academia.  It was a filtering system for achievement and ability and one that addressed the inequalities of what we have today.  

The bankers are nowhere near as overpaid say as Footballers.

If you are advocating a communist state then that's a whole different ball game but I think a return to realist values wouldn't be a bad thing at all.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> so why do nurses get paid so badly?


 
I don't think they do. A Nurse starts on £21,176 (Band 5) and has the potential to increase their salary to £40,175 (Band 7).  A consultant nurse has the opportunity of earning £97,478 (Band 9) according to the RCN they then of course get London Weighting if they are working here, an extra £4,036 to £6,217.  Hardly a paupers wage is it? And these of course are standard rates and don't include agency ones.


----------



## Blagsta (May 15, 2011)

do you know how much work and responsibility band 5 nurses have?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> you don't know much about nursing


 
I've just looked it up. You can get onto a nursing course with BCC at 'A' level. You need at least AAB to get into medical school. That's why doctors get paid more. It's not rocket science. (AAB by the way).


----------



## Blagsta (May 15, 2011)

as i said - you know nothing about nursing


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> as i said - you know nothing about nursing


 
Are you just going to keep saying that until someone tells you that nursing is a very very hard job and is undervalued by society?


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It depends on the degree. If you get a degree in maths or medicine you'll earn loads more. A degree an Arts subject, or media studies is practically worthless.
> 
> Gramsci, like it or not, jobs in our society are priced by supply and demand. There are plenty of people with the skills to be miners, not so many with the skills to become doctors. That's why we pay doctors more.



Quite clearly not so. Bankers remuneration has increased over the years. The gap between the poorest and highest has increased. This has nothing to do with skills. This is not due to supply and demand in a transparent market its due to social power of certain groups. 

Like it or not? Society can be organised in different ways. 

Bankers are an extreme case. But the near collapse of the banking system has shown that the last 30 years of the mantra of market forces is bollox. 

If there is going to be a equal market which is meritocratic then the kind of social advantages that are passed on need to be stopped. Inheritance for one. For a truly meritocratic market everyone should start from the same place. No inherited wealth, same education. Then fall or succeed in Hobbesian fashion competing with others in the free market.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Are you just going to keep saying that until someone tells you that nursing is a very very hard job and is undervalued by society?


 
 Blagsta Nursing is a very hard job and is undervalued by society.

There ive said it. Happy now?


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> You do acknowledge that the financial markets replaced our manufacturing base though, right? And that salaries of Bankers are controlled by the shareholders?
> 
> 
> I think it's the education system that needs relooking at.  We had a strata that made perfect sense 20 years ago.  "O" Levels that gave you the qualifications, "A" Levels if you wanted to pursue an academic route, Colleges of Further Education if you wanted to pursue a practical one, Polythechnics for applied academia and Universities for pure academia.  It was a filtering system for achievement and ability and one that addressed the inequalities of what we have today.
> ...



This is starting to sound like KB.

Bankers salaries are controlled by "remuneration" committees largely made up of people in the City. The shareholders ( especially institutional ones) allowed this to go on as long as the money rolled in. Shareholders dont care as long as they get a cut. Thats how the system works. Business is not about producing social good. If it does thats a byproduct nots its first aim. The whole NuLabour project was that "entrepreneurial" peoples self interest and greed could be harnessed to trickle down to benefit all under the right Government.

Filtering system for education. Interesting topic. There was one based around class. As you would know coming from a Coal mining area. Croslandite socialists tried to abolish Grammer school/ Secondary modern filtering and replace it with Comprehensive system. As they saw that filtering as reinforcing existing class inequality .I give credit for the Labour party increasing access. That leads to a problem. I pose this question. What if its that, with compulsory education being extended over the last century, society is getting to the point were the majority could do a degree? If not when they are young but later in life.

It could be argued that increase in access to education over the last century or so is part of the mass democraticisation process. Extension of suffrage etc. The unintended consequence is that tradtional filtering no longer works.Thats why the right have started to complain about declining standards over the years.

Its not that degrees are devalued. Its that most people are more intelligent than is assumed.

The great fear of extending the franchise years ago was that the people would vote to abolish the aristocracy and take over the means of production themselves. It could be that filtering is necessary to keep existing social hierarchies. Mass education is a potential threat.

Am I advocating Communism? Each according to his needs seems to me obvious. Even if full Communism is is not realistic it seems to the present state of affairs is crap. Ive never really understood why, as a friend on mine recently said, we have to have a society where some people have to have gold taps and others struggle with little.


----------



## Blagsta (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Are you just going to keep saying that until someone tells you that nursing is a very very hard job and is undervalued by society?


 Are you gonna keep chatting offensive shite until someone calls you a cunt?


----------



## Blagsta (May 15, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Blagsta Nursing is a very hard job and is undervalued by society.
> 
> There ive said it. Happy now?


 
It is indeed. Thank you.


----------



## LiamO (May 15, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> its still there:




No this is a video of her giving a presentation in Jan 2011.

I was after the tory party conference one where she comes across like  Harry Enfield's Tory Boy


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> so why do nurses get paid so badly?


 


Blagsta said:


> Are you gonna keep chatting offensive shite until someone calls you a cunt?


 
I was answering your question. You asked why nurses get paid so badly, and I explained to you, (very patiently I thought), that the skills required to be a nurse are less scarce than the skills required to be a professional in a higher paid occupation. I even gave you the links. You didn't acknowledge my repy, other than to say that I knew nothing about nursing. 

Frankly, I don't like your bedside manner.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

Oh that.  LiamO I couldnt find that either. I might have another look. Still this one sounds similar with her going on about "Gruesome".


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> It is indeed. Thank you.


 
I think you have upset LT.


----------



## Blagsta (May 15, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I think you have upset LT.


 
Good


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

LiamO said:


> No this is a video of her giving a presentation in Jan 2011.
> 
> I was after the tory party conference one where she comes across like  Harry Enfield's Tory Boy


 
Thats interesting. I can find it either. Nor can I find a transcript of what she said. If anyone here can I would like to know what she actually said.

Perhaps Paul can ask her that Urban would like to have her video at Tory party conference?

I found this though:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ights-Who-better-bed-Who-biggest-package.html

'She is mixed-race, and dates men across Brixton and London: black men, white men, brown men. Who is better to marry? Who is better in bed? And, most importantly, who has the biggest packet?’


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

She doesnt look like a Tory to me


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> She doesnt look like a Tory to me


 
Actually Gramsci, maybe this is new to you, but you can't judge people by what they look like on the outside. I think there might have even been some sort of civil unrest about that sort of thing about 30 years ago.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

I thought film studies was a bit Mickey Mouse until I covered for a sick colleague (as a TA, not teaching) in a film studies A level class. It was really interesting in terms of a 'love of learning for its own sake' and has made me appreciate film more so I think it is A Good Thing. A lot of kids don't have much cultural capital and to teach them to understand how film and media works is not something to be ridiculed. I'm all for visual literacy. Posh people do History of Art but tend already to have a more developed visual literacy than kids from estates*.




eta
* It's to do with exposure. Books, Art galleries etc etc


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

Also I judge lessons by how the students respond and if you're with a bunch of kids who 'get it' during a lesson they have a particular facial expression that lifts the spirit.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

But you can understand that someone with a media studies degree is going to earn a lot less than someone with a maths degree.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Also I judge lessons by how the students respond and if you're with a bunch of kids who 'get it' during a lesson they have a particular facial expression that lifts the spirit.


 
Which is an argument for high quality teaching and learning, no matter what the subject.


----------



## toggle (May 15, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I thought film studies was a bit Mickey Mouse until I covered for a sick colleague (as a TA, not teaching) in a film studies A level class. It was really interesting in terms of a 'love of learning for its own sake' and has made me appreciate film more so I think it is A Good Thing. A lot of kids don't have much cultural capital and to teach them to understand how film and media works is not something to be ridiculed. I'm all for visual literacy. Posh people do History of Art but tend already to have a more developed visual literacy than kids from estates*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I covered a little of that stuff when i did some culture and heritage studies. very focused on one particular area of film, and what their particular biases told us about the filmmakers, but all very interesting and one of the harder courses to get to grips with.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

@LT
I work in an exceptionally good school which is truly comprehensive ie 25% above average ability, 50% average ability and 25% below average ability.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> But you can understand that someone with a media studies degree is going to earn a lot less than someone with a maths degree.


I'm not in the least bit interested in learning solely in terms of later monetary return. I'm not interested in turning out financial fodder, but in turning out kids who understand the world around them and love to find things out and think for themselves.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

...I think it will make for a happier person, myself.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> @LT
> I work in an exceptionally good school which is truly comprehensive ie 25% above average ability, 50% average ability and 25% below average ability.


 
Then I really hope someone is explaining to these teenagers that an 'A' level in media studies is going to seriously disadvantage them financially, compared with a maths or physics 'A' level. A casual observer might think that the school is keen for the children to take easy subjects to boost its results. And a casual observer might think that the school was putting its own interests above those of the students.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'm not in the least bit interested in learning solely in terms of later monetary return. I'm not interested in turning out financial fodder, but in turning out kids who understand the world around them and love to find things out and think for themselves.



You might not be, but I'll bet your students are.


----------



## toggle (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Then I really hope someone is explaining to these teenagers that an 'A' level in media studies is going to seriously disadvantage them financially, compared with a maths or physics 'A' level. A casual observer might think that the school is keen for the children to take easy subjects to boost its results. And a casual observer might think that the school was putting its own interests above those of the students.


 
or you might gain some understanding that an A in media studies might well put them in a better position than a D in physics or maths, which might well be the more likely alternative.

and I am speaking from experience here, i barely scraped a D in the maths a-level i was bullied into doing because it was a 'real subject'. i had no aptitude for maths at that level and no enjoyment of it at all. i'd have been much better off doing a third subject I enjoyed and had a chance of at least a b grade in.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'm not in the least bit interested in learning solely in terms of later monetary return. I'm not interested in turning out financial fodder, but in turning out kids who understand the world around them and love to find things out and think for themselves.


 
And actually maths is about understanding the world, finding things out and thinking for oneself. Maths is beautiful and fascinating, and it'll get you a lucrative job (if you desire).


----------



## LiamO (May 15, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Thats interesting. I can find it either. Nor can I find a transcript of what she said. If anyone here can I would like to know what she actually said.


 
That's my point. She was on Irish radio portraying herself as an 'innocent' educationalist who had been used and abused by the Tories. I saw the original. It was so bad and cringe-inducing, I actually thought it was a piss-take at first.

If she can successfully remove all trace of the video, who can challenge her on it. Ansd she seems to have pulled it off. If I get a copy I will definitely follow it up with RTÉ and see if they will get her back on for a 'discussion' about the differences in what she claims she did/said and what she actually did.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 15, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> @LT
> I work in an exceptionally good school which is truly comprehensive ie 25% above average ability, 50% average ability and 25% below average ability.


 
I think I know what you you are trying to say - but I do hope that you aren't responsible for teaching the statistics module of GCSE Maths


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

We are heavily over subscribed (as in well over 1000 families are disappointed). They sit a test in Year 6 and we take that proportion of kids in those bands. I'm not a teacher btw. What is it about my post that you quoted makes you cringe, statistically speaking?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 15, 2011)

toggle said:


> or you might gain some understanding that an A in media studies might well put them in a better position than a D in physics or maths, which might well be the more likely alternative.
> 
> and I am speaking from experience here, i barely scraped a D in the maths a-level i was bullied into doing because it was a 'real subject'. i had no aptitude for maths at that level and no enjoyment of it at all. i'd have been much better off doing a third subject I enjoyed and had a chance of at least a b grade in.


 
It sounds like you had a bad experience toggle. You struggled with the hard subjects and you feel that you should have done the easier ones instead. It's a perfectly rational argument. What wouldn't be rational would be to then claim that people with media studies qualifications should be paid the same as those with maths qualifications.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> And actually maths is about understanding the world, finding things out and thinking for oneself. Maths is beautiful and fascinating, and it'll get you a lucrative job (if you desire).


I don't deny that. Maths is elegant and very useful in terms of other stuff eg Biology.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It sounds like you had a bad experience toggle. You struggled with the hard subjects and you feel that you should have done the easier ones instead. It's a perfectly rational argument. What wouldn't be rational would be to then claim that people with media studies qualifications should be paid the same as those with maths qualifications.


It's not about the money! It's about the love of learning which should then equip you to find out what you love doing. Did you do an A level in Patronising? You certainly found your niche in life.


----------



## lang rabbie (May 15, 2011)

All measures of average (mode, median mean) are point values in a distrubution.  eg. if you use the mean,  by definition it is the mid-point of the distribution and  50% must be above it and 50% must be below it.


----------



## toggle (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It sounds like you had a bad experience toggle. You struggled with the hard subjects and you feel that you should have done the easier ones instead. It's a perfectly rational argument. What wouldn't be rational would be to then claim that people with media studies qualifications should be paid the same as those with maths qualifications.


 
Incorrect. 

I struggled with a subject that was simply not right for my skill setl. I don't think that the biology and chemistry that I did very well in (well enough for it to be suggested I did the oxbridge exams in anyway) were what you would consider an easy subject. 

and I agree with Mrs M. you are patronising. and you do jump to the most amusingly idiotic conclusions.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 15, 2011)

lang rabbie said:


> All measures of average (mode, median mean) are point values in a distrubution.  eg. if you use the mean,  by definition it is the mid-point of the distribution and  50% must be above it and 50% must be below it.


What about if you have three bands and each of those has a points above and below the mean of each, iyswim


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

LiamO said:


> That's my point. She was on Irish radio portraying herself as an 'innocent' educationalist who had been used and abused by the Tories. I saw the original. It was so bad and cringe-inducing, I actually thought it was a piss-take at first.
> 
> If she can successfully remove all trace of the video, who can challenge her on it. Ansd she seems to have pulled it off. If I get a copy I will definitely follow it up with RTÉ and see if they will get her back on for a 'discussion' about the differences in what she claims she did/said and what she actually did.



Is there is a link to the Radio programme she was on?

Im curious about this. 

As you say all record of the Tory party conferance speech seems to have gone.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Actually Gramsci, maybe this is new to you, but you can't judge people by what they look like on the outside. I think there might have even been some sort of civil unrest about that sort of thing about 30 years ago.


 
I was there. It was called a riot.

Any chance ur a teacher? as u sound like one.

The new Tory women. Reflecting the diversity that is modern Britain. Still same right wing politics apart from that.


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2011)

LiamO said:


> That's my point. She was on Irish radio portraying herself as an 'innocent' educationalist who had been used and abused by the Tories. I saw the original. It was so bad and cringe-inducing, I actually thought it was a piss-take at first.
> 
> If she can successfully remove all trace of the video, who can challenge her on it. Ansd she seems to have pulled it off. If I get a copy I will definitely follow it up with RTÉ and see if they will get her back on for a 'discussion' about the differences in what she claims she did/said and what she actually did.



Had another search. Youtube says it was taken down by request of BBC for copywright infringement. But I cannot find it on BBC site. Searched on BBC. I found this. It has short excerpt and her talking about her ideas shortly after her speech at Tory Conferance. Here she openly talks of being right wing. Someones sense of humour put her in old school classroom.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11774322

All three videos of her on BBC website on link below. Including one from Daily Politics show. The tory and labour people cringemakingly agree with her. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Katharine Birbalsingh

Watching the bit from the Daily Politics show makes me feel that I must be really out of touch.  They are all agreeing with each other. Thats Politics?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> do you know how much work and responsibility band 5 nurses have?


 Yes.  Not only have I recently spent 3 Months in St. Thomas's Hospital, have a dear friend who was a chair for the RCN in South Wales but I also lived with a nurse for 7 years (though the bands then were based on A - G she was a grade F).  Bands 1 - 4 were auxiliary nurses previously, Bands 5 - 7 RGN/SEN Bands 8-9 Sister/Management. The roles and responsibilities were considerably higher then - e.g. a Sisters role was an overseer of the entire Ward whereby much of their role has now been passed onto management. Of course a lot depends on where you work.  E.g. Intensive Care nurses (who are usually superb) have a far tougher job than a nurse on a General Ward (who are usually not - Christina Patterson's talk on Radio 4's Four Thought backed up the experience I and many other people I know have had).  Though the question isn't how much work they are doing or what the responsibilities are but whether they are poorly paid.  I think £25,000 at 21 and the potential to earn over £100,000 per annum later in your career can be in no way considered poorly paid. But I'd be interested in your take on the subject?


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

Seeing as the Nursing Times are reporting 77% of nurses work beyond alloted hours, 63% of nurses suffered work related stress in last year, only 45% are happy with work/life balance (down 10% from last year), 31% reported taking more sick leave than normal in last 12 months etc (Nursing Times Vol 107, No 17).  Nurses often take more responsibility than doctors (e.g. when giving out meds), have to deal with the difficult emotional side of care more than doctors.

I don't think that earning less than average wage is very good.  It's all very well saying that some nurses can earn good money, but the vast majority don't.  Roles and responsibilities of nurses were not higher in the past, this is a myth.  Nurses roles have vastly expanded (Kozier b et al, 2008).


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

"Nurses keep working under poor conditions, such as those at Mid Staffordshire, because of a "Dunkirk" spirit which means they are taken advantage of" - Nursing Times Vol 107, No 18


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

> Nurses are propping up the health service by consistently working in excess of their contracted hours and providing last minute shift cover. Findings from the Royal College of Nursing, released on the eve of RCN Congress 2011, raise serious concerns for patient care, as only a minority (17 %) of nurses reported having good staffing levels where they work.


http://www.rcn.org.uk/newsevents/ne...reland/survey_highlights_pressures_on_nursing


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

> Hospitals in the West Midlands refusing to pay Bank Holiday rates to nurses and other frontline healthcare staff who work on the day of the Royal Wedding are giving their workers a raw deal, says the Royal College of Nursing (RCN).


http://www.rcn.org.uk/newsevents/ne...holiday_pay_snub_a_raw_deal_for_nursing_staff


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

all for less than median pay
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

Are you the same Paul Atherton that "promotes Prostitution as a force for good" btw?


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

Just listening to Christina Patterson's talk - while not denigrating her experience, it sounds awful, but she misrepresents nurse training.  She states "qualified nurses [who] trained in a classroom".  This is a misrepresentation - university nursing courses are actually 50/50 classroom and placement.


----------



## LiamO (May 16, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Is there is a link to the Radio programme she was on?
> 
> Im curious about this.
> 
> As you say all record of the Tory party conferance speech seems to have gone.



I'll be speaking to the prson who told me about it later today, so I'll get more details. She is an experienced left-wing political activist and was quite taken aback by my reaction and explanation. She could hardly believe we were discussing the same person.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> This is starting to sound like KB


. 
No, these are my views which may agree with KB's in some instances as they will agree with yours in others.



> Bankers salaries are controlled by "remuneration" committees largely made up of people in the City. The shareholders ( especially institutional ones) allowed this to go on as long as the money rolled in. Shareholders dont care as long as they get a cut. Thats how the system works. Business is not about producing social good. If it does thats a byproduct nots its first aim. The whole NuLabour project was that "entrepreneurial" peoples self interest and greed could be harnessed to trickle down to benefit all under the right Government.


As you rightly point out people aren't keen to give up what they've earned and you make my point about shareholders - the more they earn the happier they are to allow CEO's etc. to take large salaries. Businesses BY LAW have to put profits first.  Good explanation of this in the documentary The Coporation but the Philanthropy shown by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet show there is a global warmth to focus on societal good.



> Filtering system for education. Interesting topic. There was one based around class. As you would know coming from a Coal mining area. Croslandite socialists tried to abolish Grammer school/ Secondary modern filtering and replace it with Comprehensive system. As they saw that filtering as reinforcing existing class inequality .I give credit for the Labour party increasing access. That leads to a problem. I pose this question. What if its that, with compulsory education being extended over the last century, society is getting to the point were the majority could do a degree? If not when they are young but later in life.


I went to Lewis Boys School Pengam  when it was a comprehensive (1979 - 1984) my eldest brother when it was a Grammar and my elder brother during the transition.

The notion of class in a Welsh mining Valley seems somewhat laughable. But there did exist for my brothers the 11 Plus which measured academic ability to be able to attend.

Lloyd George called the school the "Eton of Wales" (Neil Kinnock attended 1953 - 1960) but by the time I attended as a comprehensive it was a shadow of it's former self.  Previously as a Grammar 80% of it's students were expected to attend University by the time I arrived it was down to less than 5%.  

For me, lessons were more akin to life lessons than they were to academic learning. Fortuitously we had some excellent teachers that threw out curriculums and focused what were the best needs for their students acknowledging that the brighter ones would just have to plow their way through.

In stark contrast to my sixth form school Radyr Comprehensive which was the complete reverse i.e. focusing only on the students who were expected to get an Oxbridge education and laying waste to the rest.

I'm not sure I'm following your thread here, so apologies if I've misunderstood.  But are you suggesting that just because people could accomplish a degree that they should?

In the last 15 years people have been made to believe, wrongly, that a University education would improve your life chances.  Whilst that was true 20 years ago and before, it certainly doesn't apply today (unless of course you are pursuing a career that requires it e.g. Doctor).

To me this push to put pupils into University above all else was simply a way to keep the youth unemployment figures down and had nothing to do with improving education. As too, the EMA which was in essence paying pupils to stay on in education.

There can be no argument that educational accomplishment has declined in the UK when the Chief Executive Officer of the examination board makes statements like "... we are not dumbing down exams, we are just making the questions easier" Clarifying that by stating that some students were confused by the language within the question (i.e. words of more than 1 or 2 syllables) and therefore they were required to simplify it.  This included changing quotes and as the Radio 4 interviewer said "This then no longer makes it a quote?".

Warwick Mansell made similar comments in The Guardian in August 2009

When Imperial College (one of The Russell Group) have to give it's students a foundation course in Maths just to bring their students up to a level they should have achieved in School to do, of all things, Engineering (my friend is the head of the course)- there can be no doubt whatsoever, we have a real problem with standards.

It could be argued that this could have been caused by the privatisation of the examining boards of course.

Or simply that exam invigilators are allowed to assist exam students or that multiple choice exams are often a preferred option in Exam rooms.

Or that the structure of exams has been placed more on coursework than in the exam room.

Or that percentile scoring has been abolished (e.g. 5% of the years top marks get an A etc.) 

But what cannot be disputed is standards and the quality of education has declined.



> It could be argued that increase in access to education over the last century or so is part of the mass democraticisation process. Extension of suffrage etc. The unintended consequence is that tradtional filtering no longer works.Thats why the right have started to complain about declining standards over the years.
> 
> Its not that degrees are devalued. Its that most people are more intelligent than is assumed.



People are definitely not more intelligent when it comes to Academia.  University courses have moved from academic to practical courses. I love what Mrs. Magpie is saying about learning for learnings sake.  This is something that has been so undermined in the last 15 years it's frightening. Everything is, as she puts it, about producing a production line for employment.  And why I am so anti-vocational courses at a University level and would promote the re-instatement of Polythechnics or its equivalent.

But the value of a degree to an employer has definitely diminished.

A student has to make a choice whether they were studying for studies sake or to improve employment chances. 

If the latter, than having a degree in itself will not help (that's why so many graduates end up doing jobs that don't require a degree).



> The great fear of extending the franchise years ago was that the people would vote to abolish the aristocracy and take over the means of production themselves. It could be that filtering is necessary to keep existing social hierarchies. Mass education is a potential threat.



Mass education has been law since 1870 (although only bewtween the ages of 5 to 10 it has now of course been raised to 16). Filtering is about finding the best people by attribute. All our societies are based on hierarchies wherever in the world you are or whichever system.  This includes animals.



> Am I advocating Communism? Each according to his needs seems to me obvious. Even if full Communism is is not realistic it seems to the present state of affairs is crap. Ive never really understood why, as a friend on mine recently said, we have to have a society where some people have to have gold taps and others struggle with little.



Because that is Human Nature, sadly.  

Why is water, an essential to life, so cheap compared to Diamonds which are not?

Because people are inherently greedy as a generality.  They are easily manipulated (look how quickly communist states and african nations embraced Westernised Consumerism).

As Orwell's Animal Farm so eloquently puts it "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others."

I don't think you can find any society in the globe or in history that doesn't show these traits.  But if you can, it would be great to hear about them?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Are you the same Paul Atherton that "promotes Prostitution as a force for good" btw?


If you're asking if I am the same Paul Atherton who is a Film/TV Producer, that made films about racism, domestic violence and prostitution, then, yes.  

If you're trying to suggest that putting forward an argument about the positives of prostitution in one of my films (looking at the interaction of communication and companionship to mental health) should somehow demean my arguments, that seems a little futile.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> If you're asking if I am the same Paul Atherton who is a Film/TV Producer, that made films about racism, domestic violence and prostitution, then, yes.
> 
> If you're trying to suggest that putting forward an argument about the positives of prostitution in one of my films (looking at the interaction of communication and companionship to mental health) should somehow demean my arguments, that seems a little futile.



I'm quoting from this blog
http://paulathertonsimpletvproductions.blogspot.com/

"He promotes Prostitution as a force for good"

is this you?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Seeing as the Nursing Times are reporting 77% of nurses work beyond alloted hours, 63% of nurses suffered work related stress in last year, only 45% are happy with work/life balance (down 10% from last year), 31% reported taking more sick leave than normal in last 12 months etc (Nursing Times Vol 107, No 17).  Nurses often take more responsibility than doctors (e.g. when giving out meds), have to deal with the difficult emotional side of care more than doctors.
> 
> I don't think that earning less than average wage is very good.  It's all very well saying that some nurses can earn good money, but the vast majority don't.  Roles and responsibilities of nurses were not higher in the past, this is a myth.  Nurses roles have vastly expanded (Kozier b et al, 2008).



I'd tend not to take much credence to trade publication surveys (NT or otherwise), they are after all appealing to their reading audiences.

However would be grateful of the title of the publication Krozier et al 2008 wrote and particularly what section you are referring too within it, to support your contention that Nurses roles have vastly expanded?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I'm quoting from this blog
> http://paulathertonsimpletvproductions.blogspot.com/
> 
> "He promotes Prostitution as a force for good"
> ...


 
I've clearly just answered that question - but what is its relevance?


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I've clearly just answered that question - but what is its relevance?


 
So it is you.  Interesting.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> So it is you.  Interesting.


 
If you want to have an educated debate about the role of prostitution in British Society, I'll happily do so.  But if you feel that your argument about Nurses being underpaid is now so weak you'd rather move away from the issue, let's please start another thread.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I'm quoting from this blog
> http://paulathertonsimpletvproductions.blogspot.com/
> 
> "He promotes Prostitution as a force for good"


 
Always the sign of a weak argument when you have to take something out of context.

"Primarily specializing in social commentary documentary, he takes on challenging subjects like Domestic Violence (Silent Voices), Prostitution (Sex in Public) and Racism (Enough of this Black B***cks). It is however, his approach to these subjects that make his work unique. He promotes Prostitution as a force for good, blames Black Communities for their part in British racism and forces an audience to see the affects of domestic violence through the eyes of the children who witness it."


----------



## TruXta (May 16, 2011)

What context are we missing from that quote?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Just listening to Christina Patterson's talk - while not denigrating her experience, it sounds awful, but she misrepresents nurse training.  She states "qualified nurses [who] trained in a classroom".  This is a misrepresentation - university nursing courses are actually 50/50 classroom and placement.


Her point being that they were trained in a classroom as to previously being trained mainly on the ward.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> What context are we missing from that quote?


 By stating the statement outside of the context of the paragraph, It implies I was promoting Prostitution as force for good as a campaign, as opposed to a point within a documentary.


----------



## TruXta (May 16, 2011)

Same difference, no?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Oh, something else. Sometimes TAs with degrees are thinking of getting a PGCE but aren't sure whether teaching is for them and being a TA gives a really good idea of what the job actually entails so they sign up with an agency and work in different schools (this also applies to deciding between primary & secondary). All the agency workers I know have degrees.
> 
> I don't have a degree but when I signed on with an agency I had over 20 years of experience working in a non-school setting with a wide range of children with disabilities and a lot of schools needed cover provided by someone who knew a lot about different aspects of different disabilities for example I can sign,  and can also do the physio required for a child with cystic fibrosis. Some TAs know they want to teach but want to also be a SENCO and are building up their CV and experience. There isn't a lot in a PGCE that equips an NQT for working with statemented children.



Thank you.  That was extremely helpful.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> If you want to have an educated debate about the role of prostitution in British Society, I'll happily do so.  But if you feel that your argument about Nurses being underpaid is now so weak you'd rather move away from the issue, let's please start another thread.


 
Post on here in your real name, then anyone can look up your interests.  Quit whining.

Now if you'd like to respond to my evidence about nursing, please do.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Always the sign of a weak argument when you have to take something out of context.
> 
> "Primarily specializing in social commentary documentary, he takes on challenging subjects like Domestic Violence (Silent Voices), Prostitution (Sex in Public) and Racism (Enough of this Black B***cks). It is however, his approach to these subjects that make his work unique. He promotes Prostitution as a force for good, blames Black Communities for their part in British racism and forces an audience to see the affects of domestic violence through the eyes of the children who witness it."


 
Yes, and?  You promote prostitution as a force for good, as I quoted.  What's the problem?


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> By stating the statement outside of the context of the paragraph, It implies I was promoting Prostitution as force for good as a campaign, as opposed to a point within a documentary.


 
That's entirely your reading.  I merely quoted your own words.  Have a word with yourself maybe?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Same difference, no?


 
Not at all. The whole nature of documentary is to start debate.  To put forward different ways of thinking. 

Because I interview subjects that promote prostitution as a force for good doesn't necessarily mean I support the contention.  The programme maybe weighted that way to address the medias perception of all prostitutes either being slaves (Emma Thompson) or high class call girls (Billie Piper)   

But again not sure of the relevance of any of this in relation to this thread on The Michaela School or the debate about Nurses being poorly paid????


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

If you don't support the contention, then why state that you do on your blog?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> all for less than median pay
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285



Could you clarify your point here.  Using the median isn't comparative of anything.  The only true measure in the context of our argument which is about low pay (would be to examine the lowest paid in society) or as it stands, minimum wage, which is currently paid at £5.93 per hour, £44.48 per day, £224.00 per week, £970 per week or £11,648 per year (assuming a working week of 39 hours) against the starting salary of a Nurse which is £21,176 almost double.  So again, how would you conclude that they are poorly paid, when by your own evidence they are being paid more than nearly 50% of the working population?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> If you don't support the contention, then why state that you do on your blog?


I didn't "It is however, his approach to these subjects that make his work unique."  Which means it is the subject that I am promoting.  Anyway.  As I've now said twice - none of this is relevant to the argument at hand - so start a new thread on the subject if you'd like to know more.  

But let's keep to the thread of the debate here.

Be grateful if you respond to my citation question asked of you?


----------



## Winot (May 16, 2011)

Give it a rest Blagsta - the guy's annoyed you and so you're attacking him for something that's completely irrelevant to this thread.  Take it to another thread please.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

Winot said:


> Give it a rest Blagsta - the guy's annoyed you and so you're attacking him for something that's completely irrelevant to this thread.  Take it to another thread please.


 
Attacking?  I've asked him a question.

Although, yes, I'll leave it.  He's made it clear he can't defend what he does.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Could you clarify your point here.  Using the median isn't comparative of anything.  The only true measure in the context of our argument which is about low pay (would be to examine the lowest paid in society) or as it stands, minimum wage, which is currently paid at £5.93 per hour, £44.48 per day, £224.00 per week, £970 per week or £11,648 per year (assuming a working week of 39 hours) against the starting salary of a Nurse which is £21,176 almost double.  So again, how would you conclude that they are poorly paid, when by your own evidence they are being paid more than nearly 50% of the working population?


 
Media is the standard measure of average pay.  If you have any figures for the mode, I'd like to see them.


----------



## TruXta (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Media is the standard measure of average pay.


 
Unintentional but hilarious (and sadly true) typo, that.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Media is the standard measure of average pay.  If you have any figures for the mode, I'd like to see them.



Are you able to address the question i.e. 





> So again, how would you conclude that they are poorly paid, when by your own evidence they are being paid more than nearly 50% of the working population?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> all for less than median pay
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285



Interesting to note that under the graph you've provided a link to we have:



> The full-time occupations with the highest earnings in 2010 were ‘Health professionals' (median pay of full-time employees of £1,067 a week)


----------



## TruXta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Interesting to note that under the graph you've provided a link to we have:
> 
> "The full-time occupations with the highest earnings in 2010 were ‘Health professionals' (median pay of full-time employees of £1,067 a week)"


 
That'll be doctors and other highly paid specialists, not nurses.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That'll be doctors and other highly paid specialists, not nurses.



That is the median for Health Professionals which obviously includes Nurses.

http://www.healthprofessionals.co.uk/


----------



## TruXta (May 16, 2011)

Yes, but the very highly paid skew the numbers somewhat.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yes, but the very highly paid skew the numbers somewhat.


 Well spotted)))) So clearly the Median of the entire graph is skewed in the same way.  Which means the modal is going to be lower than the Median.  Which immediately places a nurses STARTING salary above it and can therefore not be claimed to be poorly paid. In fact I would argue only those in the lowest 30% would say they were poorly paid. Q.E.D.


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2011)

KB has two page interview in Standard today about the school.

Its on the Evening Standard website. I cant put link up at moment as not home.


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> .
> 
> Because that is Human Nature, sadly.
> 
> ...



Orwells novel was an attack on Stalinism. This was well known at the time which is why he got so much stick from Pro USSR lefties in UK. His book was popular in Eastern Europe being circulated underground. However Orwell was a (maverick) Socialist. Homage to Catalonia was his record of fighting in the Spanish cival war. He met Communists and Anarchists. In this book he recounts how communism/ Anarchism worked in areas of Spain held by those fighting Franco.


----------



## nagapie (May 16, 2011)

How is this school going to decide its intake, are there any selection criteria?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 16, 2011)

nagapie said:


> How is this school going to decide its intake, are there any selection criteria?


 
No. Free schools aren't allowed to select.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Are you able to address the question i.e.


 
I've already shown that band 5 nurses get less than median wage.  Do you have any figures for mode wage?


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Interesting to note that under the graph you've provided a link to we have:


 
Interesting in what way?  We already know that doctors, consultants, surgeons etc are very well paid.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Well spotted)))) So clearly the Median of the entire graph is skewed in the same way.  Which means the modal is going to be lower than the Median.  Which immediately places a nurses STARTING salary above it and can therefore not be claimed to be poorly paid. In fact I would argue only those in the lowest 30% would say they were poorly paid. Q.E.D.


 
So have you any figures for mode?  Yes/no.

I'm not disputing that there are many jobs that have worse pay than nurses btw.  What I am saying is that for what nurses do, it is low paid.

Any comment on that?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 16, 2011)

Can you start a new NHS pay thread, chaps? This has got aggressively off-topic.


----------



## Blagsta (May 16, 2011)

Sorry Mrs M.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (May 16, 2011)

nagapie said:


> How is this school going to decide its intake, are there any selection criteria?


 
Here Katherine Birbalsingh says:

*in following the admissions code, we will spread our locality wide, and if oversubscribed, choose via a lottery. That way we will not impact the nearest schools.*

(She also says that the Free School won't destabilise local schools & won't divert funding from them - I think she's probably wrong on both those).


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2011)

Two page article in todays Evening Standard here:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-warrior-who-thinks-our-schools-are-broken.do

I haven't had a chance to read it all yet as ive been busy.


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2011)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Here Katherine Birbalsingh says:
> 
> *in following the admissions code, we will spread our locality wide, and if oversubscribed, choose via a lottery. That way we will not impact the nearest schools.*
> 
> (She also says that the Free School won't destabilise local schools & won't divert funding from them - I think she's probably wrong on both those).



Interesting link u spotted Ms Ordinary.

I notice she says:

The Guardian readers keep asking questions in the streets. So we’ve drawn up a Q&A sheet to help dispel the myths surrounding free schools. Will it work? Who knows

Probably not Kate u know what we are like.

Some of the questions look like the kinds of things that posters have been asking here.

KB is media savvy- Blogging , Twitter etc. I assume she lurking on here.

Hello Kate.


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> .
> 
> Mass education has been law since 1870 (although only bewtween the ages of 5 to 10 it has now of course been raised to 16). Filtering is about finding the best people by attribute. All our societies are based on hierarchies wherever in the world you are or whichever system.  This includes animals.
> 
> ...



I have friends from Eastern Europe who dont embrace Westernised consumerism. Whilst disliking the authoritarian nature of Communism a lot of people in East Europe have been losers. I have one friend who said that people were nicer to each other when they lived under communism.

Wilkinson and Picket point out in the intro to Daniel Dorlings book Injustice that in 90% of human history we have lived in fairly egalitarian societies. Hierarchical class societies developed with agriculture around 10 000 years ago. They suggest that the characteristics that enabled humans to live in unequal class societies are pre-human like animal ranking. Dominance hierarchies that only reemerged after a long period of egalitarian development.

Of Course Engels discussed the findings of early anthropology in a similar fashion in Origins of Family , Private property and the State. He saw the potential development of industry and technology in the future freeing us to live in egalitarian societies again.

Anthropology demonstrates that humans can live in a diverse kind of societies from tyrannical to egalitarian. We are not like animals we can change our social arrangements.

Ive just read an interesting book by Sue Gerhardt - The Selfish Society. She uses psychoanalysis, neuroscience and history to show how personality types change over time. People are not inherently greedy as though determined by our genes. Social pressures and in her view early child development produce either a character type for societies based on winner takes all greed or one which develops empathy and a "social brain" for a more caring world. 

See here for book review. She also has been Freelance doc maker. The book is relevant to education. She is someone who KB would say is into "mollycoddling" not "Tough Love".

 U need to read the whole book. The ideas in it are to much to explain in one post. Here is review:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/18/selfish-society-sue-gerhardt

Here is article by her on social brain:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul/24/childrensservices.politics

Her work can imo be applied to education. 

Wilkinson and Pickett work was read by all politicos at last election but they dont seem to have taken notice of it in reality. They dont argue for overthrow of capitalism but say social democracy is feasible. We dont have to live in dog eat dog competition.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level

Both books point out that post war Western Europe and US were gradually becoming more egalitarian. It was the rise of Neo Liberalism over the last 30 years that has led to roll back of liberal ( Guardian reading) ideology. 

This also affects education. I see KB as part of this rightward shift.

I didnt ignore your question on dumbing down of exams. I havent answer yet.


----------



## Gramsci (May 16, 2011)

Dumbing down and filtering.

I have read "The Selfish Society" and "The Spirit Level". Just got Daniel Dorlings "Injustice- why social inequality exists"

Here is review. Looks like he covers education. Oh yes its Chapter 3. Havent had chance to read it yet. Looks like it would make Kate apoplectic.

In this book Daniel Dorling challenges five of the core beliefs which, he argues, today underlie most injustice in the world. 

Firstly, there is the notion that "elitism is efficient". Underpinning that belief is the spurious science of "IQism", based on the idea that there is a fixed quotient of intelligence (IQ) in society, with only a small percentage of "gifted" children at the top end. Prior to the 1970s that belief condemned the majority of working class children to an inferior education in secondary modern schools with the lucky few, along with most middle class children, creamed off into grammar schools.

Like many other reactionary ideas, IQism was challenged by the great social struggles of the late 1960s and for a while all political parties supported comprehensive education. The rise of neoliberalism since the early 1980s, however, and the introduction of competition into every area of education through tests and league tables have meant the return of these old elitist ideas, albeit in a slightly different form. 

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11262


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2011)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Here Katherine Birbalsingh says:
> 
> *in following the admissions code, we will spread our locality wide, and if oversubscribed, choose via a lottery. That way we will not impact the nearest schools.*
> 
> (She also says that the Free School won't destabilise local schools & won't divert funding from them - I think she's probably wrong on both those).



DfE website on Free School admission:

All it says is that FS will  -"Like Academies, Free Schools will be expected to have inclusive admission arrangements."

Kate says FS will have same admissions code as ordinary schools. This is not quite what the DfE website says.

Also DfE says "Free Schools will be required to participate in coordinated admissions processes in their area. Parents will submit applications to the local authority and the local authority will offer places (once the Free School has informed the local authority who has priority for admission). This means Free Schools must abide by the deadlines within the local coordinated scheme for admissions"

Not sure what this means. Does it mean that FS can decide some kind of priority applicant?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 17, 2011)

Ms Ordinary said:


> Here Katherine Birbalsingh says:
> 
> *in following the admissions code, we will spread our locality wide, and if oversubscribed, choose via a lottery. That way we will not impact the nearest schools.*
> 
> (She also says that the Free School won't destabilise local schools & won't divert funding from them - I think she's probably wrong on both those).


 
As far as I've been able to research thus far, there are 400 children unable to get places to schools this year in Lambeth (thanks to Toad's report).  The Michaela school will take up just 1/4 of those (i.e. 100 places), ergo no funding coming from other schools (as you know schools are paid per student).  And again as these are overspill would not have any impact on current educational supply.

Perhaps you have a different take?


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2011)

Very little. There is a £50 million budget for free schools, and this will have to fund all the free schools in the country. This is less than the cost of 2 new BSF buildings. Very little money is being spent because the people setting it up are working for free, there is little bureaucracy, and old buildings are being used.

From Kates Q&A piece. 

Im no expert on the practicalities of schools but this rings alarm bells. At least the last Government did plough money into the new Academies ( like the one in Shakespeare road).

Can someone say if it is feasible to set up  a school on such a small start up budget? What happens if the old building needs more work than thought?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 17, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Very little. There is a £50 million budget for free schools, and this will have to fund all the free schools in the country. This is less than the cost of 2 new BSF buildings. Very little money is being spent because the people setting it up are working for free, there is little bureaucracy, and old buildings are being used.
> 
> From Kates Q&A piece.
> 
> ...



The New School Network and Partnerhips for Schools (their Guidance on Capital Programmes for 2011-2012 should help explain).  Seem to get involved with the management of Capital infastructure at all stages.

As for the building needing more work than thought.  That would rest with the contractor and I believe that conditions of contract would mean they would need to prove indemnity insurance for budget failure.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I'm quoting from this blog
> http://paulathertonsimpletvproductions.blogspot.com/
> 
> "He promotes Prostitution as a force for good"
> ...


 
Ah Blagsta.  Keep up the good work. Good thing I cant sleep at the moment as ive stopped smoking. Your joisting with Paul takes my mind of the ciggies.

However the documentary does look like its an interesting take on the prostitution debate.  

So does the Doc on Racism.

Cant find much on the web. Hi Paul are they available to see anywhere on web?

BYW there is a new fashion on U75 to use ones real name. Call me old fashioned but i liked it when everyone used user names. Even if some of us know who we are or guess.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 17, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I have friends from Eastern Europe who dont embrace Westernised consumerism. Whilst disliking the authoritarian nature of Communism a lot of people in East Europe have been losers. I have one friend who said that people were nicer to each other when they lived under communism.



As do I, especially in Africa, where UK aid provided White Goods and prefab housing to an area where there had previously been no crime, literally, overnight, there was.



> Wilkinson and Picket point out in the intro to Daniel Dorlings book Injustice that in 90% of human history we have lived in fairly egalitarian societies. Hierarchical class societies developed with agriculture around 10 000 years ago. They suggest that the characteristics that enabled humans to live in unequal class societies are pre-human like animal ranking. Dominance hierarchies that only reemerged after a long period of egalitarian development.
> 
> Of Course Engels discussed the findings of early anthropology in a similar fashion in Origins of Family , Private property and the State. He saw the potential development of industry and technology as in the future freeing us to live in egalitarian societies again.
> 
> Anthropology demonstrates that humans can live in a diverse kind of societies from tyrannical to egalitarian. We are not like animals we can change our social arrangements.



I'm more akin to Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives, which can be found as a Ted Talk.  His take is that we need both Liberal & Conservative minds to work together as one.  Some really interesting research into moral coding.  Getting away from the immediate reaction of Left is Good, Right is Bad (or vice versa) thinking.

Thanks for the reading suggestions.  I have read Affluenza and of course the obligatory No Logo.  

But will try and find the time to check your other referred texts.


----------



## TruXta (May 17, 2011)

Haidt is good but is a little too much in love with relatively weak evolutionary arguments. They're hypotheses, not facts.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 17, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Dumbing down and filtering.
> 
> I have read "The Selfish Society" and "The Spirit Level". Just got Daniel Dorlings "Injustice- why social inequality exists"
> 
> Here is review. Looks like he covers education. Oh yes its Chapter 3. Havent had chance to read it yet. Looks like it would make Kate apoplectic.


 
In contrast, adore Professor Robert Sapolsky's Lecture series about Human Behavioural Biology. Which would argue that actually we do have a genetic propensity to aspire to Alpha Types (the elite) which is part of


----------



## TruXta (May 17, 2011)

Sociobiology 101 - genetics is not destiny.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Haidt is good but is a little too much in love with relatively weak evolutionary arguments. They're hypotheses, not facts.


 
Please expand?


----------



## TruXta (May 17, 2011)

Later, dude. Too late, off to bed.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sociobiology 101 - genetics is not destiny.


 
Suggest you watch the entire series (I think 25 Lectures in total) before commenting.  Then by all means counter with a differing viewpoint supported with citations.  But start with episode 1 to get a good overview of the basic argument (it, as you would expect, gets progressively harder).


----------



## TruXta (May 17, 2011)

I don't have to watch 25 lectures to know that what I said is right. Genetics by definition cannot be destiny.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I don't have to watch 25 lectures to know that what I said is right. Genetics by definition cannot be destiny.


The arguments Sapolsky's make as a Professor from Standford University in  are compelling.  

Who have you been reading to give you such assurances that your perspective is emphatically correct?

I'm guessing you'd acknowledge, that animals have Genetics that are their destiny - Salmon that return to their spawning grounds, birds that migrate etc. so why not Humans?

And you'd agree that your DNA dictates your Gender right? Which again in part would affect your destiny, no? 

Much research has been done into Genetic Memory too, which again can be argued in part, dictates destiny.

Eg.

Rodolfo R. Llinas (2001). I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self. MIT Press. pp. 190–191.
Allan Paivio (2006). Mind And Its Evolution: A Dual Coding Theoretical Approach. Routledge. pp. 240.
Mihai Nadin (1997). The Civilization of Illiteracy. Dresden University Press. pp. 103–104.
Louis D. Matzel (2002). "Learning Mutants". In Harold E. Pashler. Steven's Handbook of Experimental Psychology. John Wiley and Sons. p. 201.
 Brian Keith Hall, Roy Douglas Pearson, and Gerd B. Müller (2003). Environment, Development, and Evolution: Toward a Synthesis. MIT Press. pp. 17.


----------



## TruXta (May 17, 2011)

Wrong thread dude. The answer is still no btw. Genetics is not destiny.


----------



## stethoscope (May 17, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> And you'd agree that your DNA dictates your Gender right? Which again in part would affect your destiny, no?


 
Just. No.


----------



## ash (May 17, 2011)

I have just read the leaflet that i was given at the gates to my daughters school -  quote - 

'The Michaela community school is named after Michaela a teacher from St Lucia ........She was a huge success with children because of her old school carribbean values.  tough love works with our kids'

Who are OUR KIDS and does this exclude children who are not from a carribbean culture.  Whichever you look at I do not consider this a very inclusive statement!!


----------



## TruXta (May 17, 2011)

ash said:


> Who are OUR KIDS and does this exclude children who are not from a carribbean culture.  Whichever you look at I do not consider this a very inclusive statement!!


 
If you don't know who your kids are who will? And I don't think you can parse that sentence so that it refers exclusively to children from a Carribbean culture - Michaela's "old skool carribbean values" apparently work for all kids - it's tough love, not bloody voodoo.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2011)

Ash has a point. I read her 2 page feature in ES:

It says:

It will be called the Michaela Community School - named after an inspirational former colleague, much loved by pupils for her no-nonsense approach, who died earlier this year of cancer. "She was a huge success with children because of her old-school Caribbean values: tough love works with our kids," says a leaflet that Birbalsingh has been delivering around local estates. "We're very particular about wanting to cater for the community," she says, "we don't want the sharp-elbowed middle-classes to come charging on in."

So her motivation is, admirably, to give deprived, mostly black children from estates the same advantages as private school 
pupils.

Also later in the article:

And she makes a good point about the need for a more responsive, less centralised state system. "All the state school systems we admire - Japan, Finland, Korea, Hong Kong - are monocultural societies. As soon as you have a multicultural society, it's different - you've got to be able to personalise the education according to who you're teaching. You shouldn't have the dead hand of the state insisting that everything is the same: sameness is not the same as equality." 


Im not clear what intake she is aiming at. The way the leaflet is worded it makes it sound as though "our children" means children of Carribean descent. If she wants a Free school that does cater for mainly one group then I suppose thats no different from religious schools. 

She will also offer media and cultural analysis, to question certain stereotypes of black people in particular. 

Im not a teacher but arent issues around media representations already taught at schools? I thought she didnt like media studies.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2011)

The ES article also says she allies such as Tony Sewell and Anthony Seldon ( Public school).

Here is article by Tony Sewell supporting KB:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/11/birbalsingh-teacher-black-asian-pupils-aladin

The row over free schools is a healthy and interesting one. Birbalsingh is a brave black woman who had the audacity to berate the schools system and, more pointedly, the leftwing consensus on education. Birbalsingh and I, and a growing number of what I call black and Asian free thinkers, are now turning against our mainly white liberal mentors. We are tired of their flawed research always positioning black and Asian people as victims of institutional racism, never demanding any responsibility from the individual

I blame white liberal Guardian readers for the declining standards in this country.


----------



## Gramsci (May 17, 2011)

Why Lefty Liberals are to blame. (from the ES article)

"At some point, the Left decided that the way to achieve equality was to pull the standards down. That's not how you achieve equality." 

She claims that the amount of Old Etonians in the Cabinet does not prove entrenched social inequality but the superiority of private school education - because they are benchmarked, they become more competitive.

She does not imo understand how Class works if she thinks this.


----------



## ash (May 18, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Ash has a point. I read her 2 page feature in ES:
> 
> It says:
> 
> ...



Interesting Gramsci.  I don't agree with religeous schools and am not sure that schools that focus on a race are parallel to church or islamic schools.  I take issue with judgements about old school values being the sole preserve of a specific race.  I also feel that the whole 'working'class' 'carribbean' focus is just as divisive and unhealthy as the Toby Young sharp elbowedd middle classers.  A school should be representative of the community and Lambeth is not predominately caribbean and there are working class children of all races. I also feel 'appearing; to not be inclusive to all would not benefit a school.  To be honest the leaflet seemed prettty basic - I threw it away but it talked of knowledge based learning and other sound bites that did not seem any more than should be the norm.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 18, 2011)

ash said:


> Interesting Gramsci.  I don't agree with religeous schools and am not sure that schools that focus on a race are parallel to church or islamic schools.  I take issue with judgements about old school values being the sole preserve of a specific race.  I also feel that the whole 'working'class' 'carribbean' focus is just as divisive and unhealthy as the Toby Young sharp elbowedd middle classers.  A school should be representative of the community and Lambeth is not predominately caribbean and there are working class children of all races. I also feel 'appearing; to not be inclusive to all would not benefit a school.  To be honest the leaflet seemed prettty basic - I threw it away but it talked of knowledge based learning and other sound bites that did not seem any more than should be the norm.


 
I think that last point is what she is trying to get across.  It should be the norm - but it isn't.

But I'd be interested to know, do you believe that all education should be the same regardless or as KB puts it

you've got to be able to personalise the education according to who you're teaching.?

And therefore have different schools offering different types of learning.  So far, of course you can only get those choices if you have the money to pay for it.


----------



## tarannau (May 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> The arguments Sapolsky's make as a Professor from Standford University in  are compelling.



Yeah, I can tell that you've studied and understood his work in depth. So much so that you can't get the name of the world-class university he teaches at right. 


He's not arguing the same simplistic thing as you fwiw


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 18, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Ash has a point. I read her 2 page feature in ES:
> 
> It says:
> 
> ...



KB's drive is aimed at the children who she believes have been let down by the system.  As she's working in Lambeth the school make up from the estates is predominantly poor & black, but not exclusively. Her drive is clear, because she feels that Black Children have suffered more by declining education, poor media perceptions etc (Not media studies). she wants to offer the opportunity for that group to have the choice of going to a school that offers parents a different type of discipline than is currently available in LA Schools in the borough, different style of teaching etc.

But this is where I think she has gone wrong, her conference speech, was of course about Black Children in education and how she believes they were being let down by the current system.  It is clearly her focus.  But she has fallen into the trap of addressing those and only those issues because that's the way the media are engaging her.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 18, 2011)

tarannau said:


> Yeah, I can tell that you've studied and understood his work in depth. So much so that you can't get the name of the world-class university he teaches at right.
> 
> 
> He's not arguing the same simplistic thing as you fwiw


 
A typo, hardly a game changer.  Sorry not aufait with the abbreviation fwiw? Very briefly (as I agree with TruXta - wrong thread for this debate), seeing as you've weighed in, can you state what you think he's arguing?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 18, 2011)

fwiw = for what it's worth


----------



## Gramsci (May 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> KB's drive is aimed at the children who she believes have been let down by the system.  As she's working in Lambeth the school make up from the estates is predominantly poor & black, but not exclusively. Her drive is clear, because she feels that Black Children have suffered more by declining education, poor media perceptions etc (Not media studies). she wants to offer the opportunity for that group to have the choice of going to a school that offers parents a different type of discipline than is currently available in LA Schools in the borough, different style of teaching etc.
> 
> But this is where I think she has gone wrong, her conference speech, was of course about Black Children in education and how she believes they were being let down by the current system.  It is clearly her focus.  But she has fallen into the trap of addressing those and only those issues because that's the way the media are engaging her.



I think she also seeks out the media. Ive realised recently that some people do seek out media.

Have you read the Evening Standard article?I thought it was balanced between giving her point of view and some of the problems of her views.

I dont think she has really thought through what she is trying to do. Its one thing to criticise education policy. Its something else to set up example of alternative. 

I think Ash has raised interesting point:


I also feel that the whole 'working'class' 'carribbean' focus is just as divisive and unhealthy as the Toby Young sharp elbowedd middle classers. A school should be representative of the community and Lambeth is not predominately caribbean and there are working class children of all races.

I think KB is not trying to set up some kind of sectarian school. But Ashes reaction to getting her leaflet in his hand is I think perfectly understandable. 

I think the viewpoint of Ash is common across Black and White parents in Lambeth. They want schools that are representative of of community. They want there children to go to school with children of all races and faiths. So when they leave school they are used to living and working with people from different backgrounds. But then that in KB eyes would be "Guardian readers" view.  I can tell u its not.

Therefore Im against Faith schools and not keen if this Free School is being set up as a school to take Black British kids and educate them separately.


----------



## Gramsci (May 18, 2011)

tarannau said:


> Yeah, I can tell that you've studied and understood his work in depth. So much so that you can't get the name of the world-class university he teaches at right.
> 
> 
> He's not arguing the same simplistic thing as you fwiw



I havent gone into this as I havent time at the moment to plough through all of it and its potentially derailing this thread. Not against Genetics. But i learn my science from Sci Fi. If anything its possible that increased computer power plus the ability to alter our genetic make up could give humans the possibility to transcend determined biological traits we inherited from our early history.

Its interesting in relation to education as its the nature / nurture debate. Education is necessary as humans are born vulnerable with brains that are not developed.


----------



## Gramsci (May 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> KB's drive is aimed at the children who she believes have been let down by the system. .
> 
> But this is where I think she has gone wrong, her conference speech, was of course about Black Children in education and how she believes they were being let down by the current system.



The current system?

Well Im hardly a supporter of Blair and the Third Way. But I do take issue with her on this.

Blair and New Labour supported Faith schools and Academy Schools run on traditional lines. (Like Ark run school around the corner from me). Blair ,if I remember correctly, supported things like school uniform etc. 

So what exactly was KBs problem? You could always say New Labour didnt go far enough. The Tory/ LD Free school programme is imo underfunded. The Free Schools set up will in a few years time will need injection of funds to keep going.

Just re read this. Im sticking up for New Labour KB must be so right wing for me to do this.


----------



## Gramsci (May 18, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> KB's drive is aimed at the children who she believes have been let down by the system.  As she's working in Lambeth the school make up from the estates is predominantly poor & black, but not exclusively.


 
Id really like to see what she said to the Tory party conference. The working class is different depending on what part of the country ur. Race and Class is a minefield. 

Im a bit concerned her leaflet uses Carribean only . Over my time in Brixton and London i reckon its become more diverse. I now know Eritreans, Sudanese , Algerians , East Europeans, Portugese and South Americans .None of whom were around when I was first in Brixton in large numbers. Asians were in Brixton as shopkeepers. But my memory is that the big groups in London were Asian, Carribean and Irish 30 years ago.

Some of the more recent groups do not have the political representation that those of Carribean descent have developed over the years.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 19, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> The current system?
> 
> Well Im hardly a supporter of Blair and the Third Way. But I do take issue with her on this.
> 
> ...



LOL  I'm not going to defend Katharine's handling of the press.  I think she needs a press agent or PR person. 

I agree and think the Evening Standard article was a balanced representation especially as Richard closes by stating that he believes that she has all good intentions.

Blair of course predicted this outcome in 2005 in his Education White Paper - all the aspects of a Free School were laid out then.

I think the reality though is whilst there was a vision by Labour it never filtered through to the schools that KB worked in, in South London and this is what she felt was unfair.

I totally agree that there is a problem with Myopia, both from a Lambeth perspective and a London one (the rest of the country hardly having any of these muti-cultural problems with it being predominantly white).

But I don't think on any level anybody could make the argument that this school is intentionally being exclusive in it's intake, though it's intake will of course be self selective.

The over riding comments from parents at the Dove were selfish and openly so.  One Nigerian family came up to me and said "we just want the best for our children, other parents have to do the same for theirs, I don't care if that makes me selfish, Im putting my children first".

There was a lot of support for this viewpoint. The type of parents that would send their children to MCS are looking for a certain type of education and discipline and overall an academic based education with the hope of their children aspiring to an Oxbridge education.

But the reality of the free school is that is open to anyone to apply too.  I'll see if I can get a transcript of the speech for you.

The leaflet handed it out is basically the same as the web - Ethos & Curriculum and doesn't make any reference to Caribbean except where the name of the school derived i.e the Caribbean teacher who died of cancer who the school is named after:
Michaela was an extraordinary teacher whose old-school Caribbean values ensured huge success for her pupils. She died of cancer in early 2011.
The Michaela Community School is named after this outstanding teacher because she lived an exemplary life: the kind of life we would want for all of our pupils


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2011)

The trouble with this is that it becomes self selective. Whilst schools cant I think lay down that they want children from certain ethnic or religious groups parents get the message about the sort of pupils a school wants to have. 

Guardian reading liberals need not apply is the message im getting.


The over riding comments from parents at the Dove were selfish and openly so. One Nigerian family came up to me and said "we just want the best for our children, other parents have to do the same for theirs, I don't care if that makes me selfish, Im putting my children first"

Sorry I dont get what this family mean. Most parents want the best for there children. What is context they said this in?

The more I read up about this the less I like it. 

Blair and co funded the Evelyn Grace Academy. Run on the lines of a bootcamp. So it did filter down to South London. Still dont see what KBs problem is. She ignores this. 

Seems to me her problem is not with last Government but with those with lefty liberal values. But then she is reformed lefty. They are the worst. Go totally right wing. The ( supposed) certainties of Marxism attract them. Then they become just as militant about the right. 

Another former lefty (ex Labour) is Philipp Blond , whose book Red Tory, I have read. At least he puts forward a thought through argument.


----------



## Gramsci (May 19, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> The leaflet handed it out is basically the same as the web - Ethos & Curriculum and doesn't make any reference to Caribbean except where the name of the school derived i.e the Caribbean teacher who died of cancer who the school is named after:
> Michaela was an extraordinary teacher whose old-school Caribbean values ensured huge success for her pupils. She died of cancer in early 2011.
> The Michaela Community School is named after this outstanding teacher because she lived an exemplary life: the kind of life we would want for all of our pupils



This quote does not say that she was a good Teacher who happened to be Caribbean. It says she had "old school Caribbean values" and "this is the kind of life we would want for all our pupils". Which is different emphasis.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 20, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> The trouble with this is that it becomes self selective. Whilst schools cant I think lay down that they want children from certain ethnic or religious groups parents get the message about the sort of pupils a school wants to have.
> 
> Guardian reading liberals need not apply is the message im getting.



All schools are self-selective (as we all are, we attract people who think and behave as we do).  

Parents get to pick which schools they put their children in (of course they don't always get their selection), even with state run community schools (including Comprehensives). So not sure of your argument here? Faith Schools, Grammar Schools all state funded can pick and chose their applicants based on a variety of selection criteria.

But surely the key thing here is, choice?



> The over riding comments from parents at the Dove were selfish and openly so. One Nigerian family came up to me and said "we just want the best for our children, other parents have to do the same for theirs, I don't care if that makes me selfish, Im putting my children first"
> 
> Sorry I dont get what this family mean. Most parents want the best for there children. What is context they said this in?



Sadly that is not the case.  I would argue from my experience in the DWP, Social Services, Probation Services, living on council estates, residing in children's homes and as a documentarist there are many, many families who leave their children to the wayside. Not pursuing their children's best interests at all. 

However, the point this family were making, was that they are not going to pick up the slack for other people's children.  They wanted the Free School and the benefits they saw it offering to them - and if that made them selfish, then it was a moniker they were prepared to wear.

It's an attitude I'm hearing a lot lately.


> The more I read up about this the less I like it.
> 
> Blair and co funded the Evelyn Grace Academy. Run on the lines of a bootcamp. So it did filter down to South London. Still dont see what KBs problem is. She ignores this.



I said it hadn't filtered to a school KB had worked in.  And Evelyn Grace is very new, though clearly already appealing to parents and media alike - see yesterdays Telegraph

But the pudding is in the eating and we won't know how successful the school is until we see their results with the first group of students to pass through their system in a few years.



> Seems to me her problem is not with last Government but with those with lefty liberal values. But then she is reformed lefty. They are the worst. Go totally right wing. The ( supposed) certainties of Marxism attract them. Then they become just as militant about the right.
> 
> Another former lefty (ex Labour) is Philipp Blond , whose book Red Tory, I have read. At least he puts forward a thought through argument.


 
Not going to comment on her politics.  That's for her to decide and act on.  But I do think she makes an important point when raising the issue that her politics shouldn't be considered when looking at her ability to do the job.  As she asked at the Dove "How many parents know the politics of the headmaster of the school their children go to?" The answer was of course - None!


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 20, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> This quote does not say that she was a good Teacher who happened to be Caribbean. It says she had "old school Caribbean values" and "this is the kind of life we would want for all our pupils". Which is different emphasis.


Which doesn't alter the fact that it's not suggesting that only Caribbean pupils can attend the school. 

Drawing two halves of two separate sentences and placing them together is hardly the responsibility of the author. 

But it still remains the fact that this paragraph exists merely to explain why the school was named and nothing more.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 20, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> All schools are self-selective (as we all are, we attract people who think and behave as we do).


They didn't used to be (I'm talking secular state system, not church or private). You sent them to the local school. I'm not praising nor condemning that, just saying how it used to be.


----------



## Gramsci (May 20, 2011)

PaulAtherton;11780241

[COLOR="red" said:
			
		

> Not going to comment on her politics.  That's for her to decide and act on.  But I do think she makes an important point when raising the issue that her politics shouldn't be considered when looking at her ability to do the job.  As she asked at the Dove "How many parents know the politics of the headmaster of the school their children go to?" The answer was of course - None![/COLOR]



Oh come on. Most heads of schools dont go public in the way she has. They dont blog about issues about education. Im sure she has skills and is competent etc. Thats not the point. 

She has made political intervention into how education should be done. The Free school she wants to set up is political intervention. As is education in general. Supporting Comprehensive education is political. 

Im not arguing with her making a political intervention. If she did say this she is using an argument that the right often use. The one way to have a go at Guardian reading liberals is to insinuate that they are political and ur just speaking commonsense.

You are documentary maker. As Blagsta points out u have made docs on subjects where people have heated opinions- race and prostitution.

Education is one of those areas of social policy where people have opposing views. Even if they regard there ideas as commonsense. 

The whole point of documentary making is either imo ( unless fly on the wall reality tv counts as doc making)is to get underneath the surface commonsense reality ( Adam Curtis for example) or to present an issue then take sides and make a polemical doc (nothing wrong with that. Some of the best early docs were made in 
WW2).

(To edit my post. Fly on the wall doc making is increasingly being seen just as constructed as other forms of doc making. )

I assume ur thinking of making a doc on this Free School.


----------



## Gramsci (May 20, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I said it hadn't filtered to a school KB had worked in.  And Evelyn Grace is very new, though clearly already appealing to parents and media alike - see yesterdays Telegraph


 
Ofsted report for EGA only gives it "satisfactory" 3 rating so I dont see how Telegraph see it as Blueprint for future. Telegraph like it because Telegraph readers like old style discipline etc.

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/136182


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> All schools are self-selective (as we all are, we attract people who think and behave as we do).
> 
> Parents get to pick which schools they put their children in (of course they don't always get their selection), even with state run community schools (including Comprehensives). So not sure of your argument here? Faith Schools, Grammar Schools all state funded can pick and chose their applicants based on a variety of selection criteria.
> 
> But surely the key thing here is, choice?



How far would u take this?

I was listening to a radio programme a while back about the problems a local authority up North was having with education.

Despite the local authorities best efforts they found that Asian parents were applying to one set of schools and White parents to another. The parents in this town up North (cant remember were exactly) were unofficially segregating the school system using "choice". Everyone in the town knew which were the White and Asian schools. There were faults on both sides for this happening. Some white parents didnt like Asians. Some Asian parents didnt want there daughters going to mixed schools.

The problem with giving people choice is the results aren't always the ones that one would hope for.

I think it was this programme. Cant find actual programme online:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6390467.stm

I would really like to know the specific selection admission policy for KBs new school. And not just who it aspires to take.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> All schools are self-selective (as we all are, we attract people who think and behave as we do).
> 
> So not sure of your argument here?



thinking about this I vaguely remember when Comprehensive education (removal of selection by 11+ and amalgamation of grammer and secondary modern school plus one of the private schools into Comps) was brought in. (The 11+ was truly awful - I was one of the last to do it).

Plymouth ,were i come from, was divided on class lines. Dockyard, Fisherman in one area and the military ( its Naval port) and professional in another. Cant go into South West in detail. But it was a peculiar place. Well heeled backwoods Tories and hard drinking but respectable working class along with hippy dopeheads.  The old 11+ was iniquitous. The backwoods Tories had a Public school as well.

The abolishment of 11+ and bringing in of Comprehensive education was a big change. I do think that some in Labour party saw it as gradually getting rid of private schools as well. The private schools were definitely a bit worried. And many people saw it a good thing in my area to bring this new education in.

From what I remember this was all seen as progress. Not dividing kids up into winners and losers. Or reinforcing class hierarchies. Its hard now to describe how it was seen then. Definitely in a class ridden town like Plymouth it was perceived as a good thing. Unlike the rest of rural Devon Plymouth had large established working class. 

There is a lot to be said for non selective comprehensive community schools. This thoughtful article here puts the context. Also points out they were successful in many areas. 

http://www.socialisteducation.org.uk/CB2.htm


My view would be in agreement with quote from article below. Based on my personal experience of living whilst these dramatic social changes were taking place in the 70s. This was all gradually rolled back with Mrs T. Then TB came along with "post Comprehensive education."


Other social reformers believed in the idea of the ‘social mix’ – the theory which anticipated the steady amelioration of social class differences and tensions through pupils’ experience of ‘social mixing’ in a new comprehensive school. This very narrow view of egalitarianism could be found in one of Circular 10/65’s definitions of a comprehensive school:

        A comprehensive school aims to establish a school community in which pupils over the whole ability range and with differing interests and backgrounds can be encouraged to mix with each other, gaining stimulus from the contacts and learning tolerance and understanding in the process. (DES, 1965, P. 8)


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2011)

the opposing view from 2005:

In the wake of Tony Blair's 2002 declaration of a "post-comprehensive era", with the spread of faith schools and the burgeoning city academy programme, the comp seems to be an endangered species.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4202774.stm


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> It depends on the degree. If you get a degree in maths or medicine you'll earn loads more. A degree an Arts subject, or media studies is practically worthless.



You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

My BA has stood me in better stead in terms of work than my BSc has ever done.

Try not to make sweeping generalisations. Toads were historically symbols of wisdom, so you're letting the side down.



> Gramsci, like it or not, jobs in our society are priced by supply and demand. There are plenty of people with the skills to be miners, not so many with the skills to become doctors. That's why we pay doctors more.


 
And why is that? Give it a bit of thought, because a well-reasoned assessment of why what you propose is currently the case *should* give you all the information you need to discern the "why" of it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> But you can understand that someone with a media studies degree is going to earn a lot less than someone with a maths degree.


 
More generalisations. I know media studies grads (admittedly from the '90s rather than the last decade) who're on high 5-figure salaries at the big 4 TV companies, and maths grads who're in one case a dustman, and in another a record shop manager. The composition of your degree, and where you studied are also both important with those two fields of study.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I'm not in the least bit interested in learning solely in terms of later monetary return. I'm not interested in turning out financial fodder, but in turning out kids who understand the world around them and love to find things out and think for themselves.


 
Choosing your field of study based on the probability of high remuneration is probably the single worst thing someone  can do, either at secondary or tertiary level. While education has, to some degree, to be instrumental, in that you need to want to learn for your own self-improvement, I'd be very worried if kids at secondary school were basing their options choices, for example, on the possibility that doing sciences was more likely to get them a job 3-5 years down the road than languages, history or even an art subject.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 21, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> They didn't used to be (I'm talking secular state system, not church or private). You sent them to the local school. I'm not praising nor condemning that, just saying how it used to be.


 
Back when I went through the secondary system (in the days of ILEA), my parents were sent a form on which they had to enter three ranked choices from a list of schools within (IIRC) a 3.5 mile radius (although you could enter one school outside the radius if you could establish that you had a previous relationship with the school, for example if a previous child had gone there. Primary school-wise, you were sent to the nearest, as you say.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
> 
> My BA has stood me in better stead in terms of work than my BSc has ever done.
> 
> Try not to make sweeping generalisations.



We were talking about the likely future earnings of schoolchildren. Whilst I appreciate your advice, I prefer to rely the results of high quality academic research, rather than the experience of someone on the internet who claims to have friends who earn a lot. 



ViolentPanda said:


> Toads were historically symbols of wisdom, so you're letting the side down.



I'm not actually a toad. It was just a name I made up.



ViolentPanda said:


> And why is that? Give it a bit of thought, because a well-reasoned assessment of why what you propose is currently the case *should* give you all the information you need to discern the "why" of it.



Why is what? I don't understand your question. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (May 21, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'm not actually a toad. It was just a name I made up.


 I always assumed it was an oblique reference to Le crapaud riant, or possibly Toad of Toad Hall.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back when I went through the secondary system (in the days of ILEA), my parents were sent a form on which they had to enter three ranked choices from a list of schools within (IIRC) a 3.5 mile radius (although you could enter one school outside the radius if you could establish that you had a previous relationship with the school, for example if a previous child had gone there. Primary school-wise, you were sent to the nearest, as you say.


 
Interesting point Panda. This past history ( for that it what it is now) of ILEA and how it worked is now forgotten.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> I'm not actually a toad. It was just a name I made up.



picture of Laughing Toad Lizard


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> We were talking about the likely future earnings of schoolchildren. Whilst I appreciate your advice, I prefer to rely the results of high quality academic research, rather than the experience of someone on the internet who claims to have friends who earn a lot.



That's hardly "high quality academic research", old fruit. It's an article that looks at (to use the author's own word) "some" degree subjects.

It's also interesting that Vignoles references her own work *not* on the subject of differential degree "values", but on her research hobby-horse of wishing to see the re-introduction of a more thorough compulsory mathematics component to compulsory education (it'd also have been nice if readers were informed of the origins of the data in table 1a).



> I'm not actually a toad. It was just a name I made up.



You don't say!




> Why is what? I don't understand your question. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase it.


 
Sure, I'm always happy to assist the impaired.

You set out an argument that there are fewer, better-remunerated doctors than "miners" because of a differential of skill level. If you bother to think *why* that might be the case, you can reach one of two conclusions:

1) That there is a differential in the degree of educability that creates fewer doctors and potential doctors "naturally".

2) That there are schema of social stratification that reinforce a differential in the degree of education accessible by different "potential doctors" such that there will always be more people amenable to being taught the skills of mining than can access a medical degree.

My question to you is: "Given your previously-stated views, which do you arrive at, point 1 or point 2"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I always assumed it was an oblique reference to Le crapaud riant, or possibly Toad of Toad Hall.


 
He does have that Grahame-ish air about him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 22, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Interesting point Panda. This past history ( for that it what it is now) of ILEA and how it worked is now forgotten.


 
I know a lot of people (mostly outside of education) celebrated ILEA's demise alongside that of the GLC, but people tend to forget that with a unitary authority, a degree of "slack" with reference to places could be maintained in the system without affecting school performance. The end result of ILEA not being around to "mothball" school buildings and then bring them back into use at a later date (as happened between the inception and destruction of ILEA) was that we had responsibility devolved to local authorities, followed by a spate of sales of school buildings from the late 1980s onward that meant that once demographics in the capital had shifted so that fewer school places were needed, there was (quite literally, in some cases) nowhere to go once we had a resurgence in the number of children born in or brought to live in the capital.  Sadly, this created just the sort of environment where private capital could get a grip on education provision.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
> 
> My BA has stood me in better stead in terms of work than my BSc has ever done.
> 
> ...


 
In all fairness Violent most Business Administration Courses and MBA's are BA's rather than BSc's.  It's the subject and not the qualification that is pertinent, that is until like with like comparisons are made e.g. My Business Admin qualification is considered more impressive as a BSc than my counterparts who achieved BA's - rightly or wrongly


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 23, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Ofsted report for EGA only gives it "satisfactory" 3 rating so I dont see how Telegraph see it as Blueprint for future. Telegraph like it because Telegraph readers like old style discipline etc.
> 
> http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_reports/display/(id)/136182



Ofsted reports are for another thread I would suggest.  I have known quite a few inspectors over the years and the system is ludicrously flawed.

However, the score whilst satisfactory, seems in stark contrast with some of the comments contained within:



> Students join the academy with attainment that is generally below average. The academy has ambitious targets for its students and by the time they reach the end of Year 9 all students are expected to achieve Level 5 in English, science and mathematics. The school's tracking data and inspectors' observations of students' work in lessons show that a majority of students are on track to achieve these challenging targets which is good progress.





> The academy has worked hard to support and challenge students who have previously not attended as well as they might, and attendance and punctuality are good.





> The academy gives a high priority to providing students with opportunities to develop the skills and personal qualities needed to equip them for the next stage in their education and to prepare them to become the leaders of tomorrow. Students respond positively to these opportunities and a large majority are able to apply their skills satisfactorily. The extended day provides excellent opportunities for all students to participate regularly in physical exercise and many students say that they really enjoy these opportunities, which include team sports, martial arts and dance.





> Daily routines and management of students contribute to an environment where opportunities to discriminate against or bully others are limited. The academy has worked hard to eliminate any differences in outcomes for different groups and gaps between the different groups have closed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 23, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> In all fairness Violent most Business Administration Courses and MBA's are BA's rather than BSc's.  It's the subject and not the qualification that is pertinent, that is until like with like comparisons are made e.g. My Business Admin qualification is considered more impressive as a BSc than my counterparts who achieved BA's - rightly or wrongly


 
Yeah, but that's a perception thing. People tend to assume that a BSc bears some relation to hard sciences rather than social sciences, and are impressed accordingly. 

MBA is a postgrad qualification, BTW (however shite many of the actual courses are).


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Ofsted reports are for another thread I would suggest.  I have known quite a few inspectors over the years and the system is ludicrously flawed.
> 
> However, the score whilst satisfactory, seems in stark contrast with some of the comments contained within:


 
This is a thread about schools. Ofsted is the official Government appointed inspectors. You put up article from Telegraph. The article was making out the school was some kind of blueprint for other schools. In fact its just an average school. The fact that it appeals to media does not make it any better. As for parents thats mixed. It came up here on Urban a while back(cant find link). I looked at Ofsted report for school (not mentioned in journalist report but in one of comments). I dont see your problem with this.

Despite saying it is flawed you quote selectively from the report. I can also quote selectively:

Relationships with parents and carers are generally satisfactory, but a significant proportion do not feel that their views and concerns are listened to. They would also like the academy to do more to enable them to support their children's learning.

A small but significant minority across the academy are making inadequate progress in English and a similar proportion of students in Year 9 are underperforming and are not on track to achieve their targets. Progress overall therefore is satisfactory. Students who have additional needs are supported well and they make satisfactory and sometimes good progress. Behaviour in classrooms and around the academy is generally satisfactory but close supervision by adults throughout the day does not enable students to set consistent standards for themselves or take responsibility for managing their own behaviour. A small minority of students find it difficult to comply with the academy's very high expectations of how students should behave in lessons and inspectors observed that this sometimes impacts negatively on their learning and the learning of others. .


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, but that's a perception thing. People tend to assume that a BSc bears some relation to hard sciences rather than social sciences, and are impressed accordingly.
> 
> MBA is a postgrad qualification, BTW (however shite many of the actual courses are).



But, as the old adage says "Perception is reality".

Sorry, you're quite right about the MBA having a crazy day!


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 24, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> How far would u take this?
> 
> I was listening to a radio programme a while back about the problems a local authority up North was having with education.
> 
> ...



I heard that program on Radio 4 too.

I thought the parents made some good points about why they chose certain schools for their children.

But are you suggesting we shouldn't have free will, because people will make decisions that another group of people will think are wrong?

I posted a link to KB's admission policy earlier in this thread.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 24, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> This is a thread about schools. Ofsted is the official Government appointed inspectors. You put up article from Telegraph. The article was making out the school was some kind of blueprint for other schools. In fact its just an average school. The fact that it appeals to media does not make it any better. As for parents thats mixed. It came up here on Urban a while back(cant find link). I looked at Ofsted report for school (not mentioned in journalist report but in one of comments). I dont see your problem with this.
> 
> Despite saying it is flawed you quote selectively from the report. I can also quote selectively:
> 
> ...



As I stated taking an OFSTED report as measure of a school is a pointless exercise.  

The first paragraph you cite asks more questions than it answers.

The second implies that children should be left to run wild as opposed to being supervised and that standards should be lowered to accommodate a small minority of students (thereby failing the large majority - hardly a fair expectation). 

Most of the complaints made by Ofsted are around reporting procedures more than anything to do with teaching and school management and that's why these reports aren't particularly helpful.

Many schools focus on getting a good report from OFSTED (visits are never unannounced) and focus on priming parents, teachers, etc. for the OFSTED inspectors often at the cost of the students. It's an incredibly poor way of assessing schools.  If you'd like to know all the problems with sample sizes, questionnaire design, self selecting respondents,  announced visits etc. as I said, probably best left to another thread.

However in this report alone the contradictions are blindingly obvious.  The report starts by saying that the school deals with specifically troubled children who have been truants and disruptive - but then goes on to suggest that the school is failing because a small minority are continuing their previous behaviour (which certainly should have been expected under the circumstances) - all though clearly they've been successful with the vast majority - which I don't think anyone would consider average.

I used selective quotes to show the difference between the content and the score of the OFSTED Report and to demonstrate how flawed the reporting is.

Commonsense tends to out on these matters.

But as I said until we measure the outcomes of the students once they've passed through the entire system it's all subjective and guesswork rather than facts.


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2011)

Thats not my reading of what looks to me a balanced and fair report. Perhaps I should take a Telegraph reporters view as a measure of a school  more seriously than a OFSTED report? I dont see why. 

You might think OFSTED report is pointless exercise but thats just your opinion.

Im often regarded here as loony lefty. When I due try to use recognised information I am then told that it not relevant. Oh well Id better start reading the Daily Telegraph clearly they know better.

Its ridiculous to say the OFSTED report is implying that children be left to run wild.  What it says is that , to put it bluntly , that the bootcamp methods dont encourage children to manage there own behaviour. It might put the fear of God into them temporarily.

Dont tell me that OFSTED reports arent relevant to a thread on Schools. If you have a problem with them thats tough.

There is no difference between the content and score that I can see. The report use measured language. Points out good and bad areas in the school. It does not say its a failing school. What I take issue with is how some of these Academy schools are praised but if you look at it more closely they are not necessarily that wonderful.


----------



## Gramsci (May 24, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> I heard that program on Radio 4 too.
> 
> I thought the parents made some good points about why they chose certain schools for their children.
> 
> ...


 
That clear then. You think people should have free choice even if it ends up with racially segregated schooling and girls being educated separately from boys for cultural and religious reasons. Thats all I wanted to know.

Im not saying ur wrong to think that people should be allowed to make there own decisions.  Its that there to much assumptions around the feel good factor of choice and diversity. I think a bit of realism and plain speaking is required. Its the same with the advocates of Direct Action and spontaneity. Its forgotten the right can do the same.

I noticed the Islamic Girls school in Blackburn that was mentioned in the Radio programme might benefit form Goves proposed reforms. I remember in the programme the Local Authority was trying to get the different communities to educate there children together in the interests of social cohesion. This was undermined when some Asian parents set up school for Muslim girls. 

I used to know an Asian girl. She told me that it was not approved of for Asian girls to marry out. It was not even about religion. Her parents were not Muslim.Many Asian parents want there daughters to marry someone who is Asian. And im not talking about forced marriages. Her parents were liberal. If they introduced her to a boy and she didnt like him they wouldnt force her to marry. She was Kenyan Asian. She was definitely not allowed to go out with a man who was Black African or of Black British . Complete no no that was even though she grew up in Kenya.

 This is the reality of the reason some of these schools are set up. To keep there children separate.

However its not something thats talked about in polite society. Its discussed in terms of choice and diversity in education. 

In her Evening Standard interview KB said:

 "All the state school systems we admire - Japan, Finland, Korea, Hong Kong - are monocultural societies. As soon as you have a multicultural society, it's different - you've got to be able to personalise the education according to who you're teaching. You shouldn't have the dead hand of the state insisting that everything is the same: sameness is not the same as equality."



The Free schools admission policy will not have been drawn up in detail yet. I was wondering what kind of detail KB would have in it. Looks like Gove is bringing in "reforms " on admission policies to schools. Call me a cynic but the devil is in the detail. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/22/michael-gove-admissions-popular-schools?intcmp=239


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 25, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> That clear then. You think people should have free choice even if it ends up with racially segregated schooling and girls being educated separately from boys for cultural and religious reasons. Thats all I wanted to know.
> 
> Im not saying ur wrong to think that people should be allowed to make there own decisions.  Its that there to much assumptions around the feel good factor of choice and diversity. I think a bit of realism and plain speaking is required. Its the same with the advocates of Direct Action and spontaneity. Its forgotten the right can do the same.
> 
> ...



You either have free choice or you don't.  You can condition free choice through societal conditioning and further in laws.

But, what you are saying is you don't agree with these people, then their free choice should be removed.

That's a dictatorial system that I wouldn't approve.

I am for free choice and giving people responsibility, not removing it from them.  But there are consequences for doing that - both positive and negative.

I've argued for years that people shouldn't be allowed to vote for a Government in the UK until they can pass an exam proving that they understand what they are voting (having read all party's manifestos, understand the electoral system etc.) - but that's not going to happen either - so we get popularity contests rather than real political voting.

It's the consequence of free choice.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 25, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Thats not my reading of what looks to me a balanced and fair report. Perhaps I should take a Telegraph reporters view as a measure of a school  more seriously than a OFSTED report? I dont see why.
> 
> You might think OFSTED report is pointless exercise but thats just your opinion.
> 
> ...


 
Should be pointed out that I cited the Telegraph to prove my point that the story was being covered by the media.  It was never to compare and contrast with OFSTED.

Why are you so keen not to run your critical eye over the Ofsted report, as you are with other issues?

Why will you not wait for the first cohort of students to complete their GCSE before deciding on whether or not the school has been a success?

The criticisms of OFSTED have come from friends who either work/or used to work as OFSTED Inspectors as of course did the headmaster of the school.

Why do you compare the school's strict discipline to a Bootcamp? And even if you do believe it to be a bootcamp, even by OFSTED's own admission it's working for these students, that clearly their previous schooling wasn't, so why would you want to take that away from them?


----------



## nagapie (May 25, 2011)

It's a pity that there is no such thing as free choice in education. People with money make the free choice to send to their children to whatever school they can afford. Those who can move to a catchment area of a good school then get the choice of going to that school. Everyone else, the majority of people, get no choice really. 

I very much doubt this free school or any other will cater to the those most in need of lifting out of deprivation. Whether it be through expensive school uniforms or by excluding children with special needs, they will select somehow. This will add to the whole less choice scenario that the taxpayer is paying for.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> You either have free choice or you don't.  You can condition free choice through societal conditioning and further in laws.
> 
> But, what you are saying is you don't agree with these people, then their free choice should be removed.
> 
> ...



I never said that free choice should be removed if they dont do things I like. What I am saying is that there should be some plain speaking and frankness about why certain groups make choices.

You are saying people shouldnt be allowed to vote unless they pass exam. I cant think of anything more dictatorial. If you say people have free choice then say it has to be conditioned then ur raising interesting questions about free choice.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Should be pointed out that I cited the Telegraph to prove my point that the story was being covered by the media.  It was never to compare and contrast with OFSTED.
> 
> Why are you so keen not to run your critical eye over the Ofsted report, as you are with other issues?
> 
> ...



You used the Telegraph link to say that the school was popular with parents and media. Not just that it was covered by media.

I will wait for first cohort of students if the media will. They dont.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sure, I'm always happy to assist the impaired.
> 
> You set out an argument that there are fewer, better-remunerated doctors than "miners" because of a differential of skill level. If you bother to think *why* that might be the case, you can reach one of two conclusions:
> 
> ...



Good post Violent Panda. I didnt know about this. As im a bit impaired   I am struggling a bit with 2. Are you saying that there are cultural barriers? That the limits to becoming a Doctor is due to Class structures? 

  Notice no answer from Laughing Toad.


----------



## Gramsci (May 25, 2011)

BTW Paul how did meeting with KB go?


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 25, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Good post Violent Panda. I didnt know about this. As im a bit impaired   I am struggling a bit with 2. Are you saying that there are cultural barriers? That the limits to becoming a Doctor is due to Class structures?
> 
> Notice no answer from Laughing Toad.


 
Apologies ViolentPanda I missed your post. It got lost amongst Gramsci's incoherent ramblings. 

There's no '_schema of social stratification_' as you put it. It's all about effort. Work hard, get good 'A' levels, get a good degree and you'll get paid more. Listen to people like you, get a media studies degree and you'll get paid less. It's true that working class parents are often much worse at teaching their children to work hard, but that's not anyone's fault but theirs.

But I'm sure you knew that already.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 26, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> BTW Paul how did meeting with KB go?


 
The meeting was due to take place at Baylis but was suspended due to Health & Safety issues.  Doing my interviews in the second week in June now.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 26, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> You used the Telegraph link to say that the school was popular with parents and media. Not just that it was covered by media.
> 
> I will wait for first cohort of students if the media will. They dont.



Either way not comparing it to OFSTED.  You have a strange way of reading things though - I said popular with parents and media and then referred you to the Telegraph to confirm my media position.

If we're appraising facts on the basis of what the media writes, we are in big trouble. I don't understand why you'd worry about what politicians say or what the media writes, if we can access research and facts for ourselves?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 26, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> I never said that free choice should be removed if they dont do things I like. What I am saying is that there should be some plain speaking and frankness about why certain groups make choices.



Why? It wont change how people behave and most people already know why they make the choices they do.



> You are saying people shouldnt be allowed to vote unless they pass exam. I cant think of anything more dictatorial.



That was exactly my point????


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 26, 2011)

nagapie said:


> It's a pity that there is no such thing as free choice in education. People with money make the free choice to send to their children to whatever school they can afford. Those who can move to a catchment area of a good school then get the choice of going to that school. Everyone else, the majority of people, get no choice really.
> 
> I very much doubt this free school or any other will cater to the those most in need of lifting out of deprivation. Whether it be through expensive school uniforms or by excluding children with special needs, they will select somehow. This will add to the whole less choice scenario that the taxpayer is paying for.


 
Could I ask which part of the country you reside in. I believe Urban environments give far more choice in terms of Schools than in the countryside and wonder if that's why you draw your conclusions?


----------



## nagapie (May 26, 2011)

PaulAtherton said:


> Could I ask which part of the country you reside in. I believe Urban environments give far more choice in terms of Schools than in the countryside and wonder if that's why you draw your conclusions?



I live in an urban environment. There is no such thing as free choice in the British education system. Can my child go to Eaton (not that I would want him to)?


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 26, 2011)

nagapie said:


> I live in an urban environment. There is no such thing as free choice in the British education system. Can my child go to Eaton (not that I would want him to)?



Of course your child COULD go to Eton. 

If he wanted to apply for a  Kings scholarship (14 places) or a New Foundation (2 places) i.e. that you pay no fees, or he could apply for a bursary if he was able to to pass the entrance exams straight off. 

The competition for scholarships is fierce for the 16 places each year out of the total of 260 but still accessible to anyone. Equally if he is accepted on Exam there is the potential for 1 of the 50 bursaries. 

The important part from your child's perspective is whether they have the right aptitude and the academic ability to enter the school.

But nothing whatsoever preventing him/her from applying or attending.


----------



## nagapie (May 27, 2011)

PaulAtherton, you can make your documentary but if you think that people have free choice about education in this country and it's all fair, then I have no interest in watching it. Your examples are bunk.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Good post Violent Panda. I didnt know about this. As im a bit impaired   I am struggling a bit with 2. Are you saying that there are cultural barriers? That the limits to becoming a Doctor is due to Class structures?
> 
> Notice no answer from Laughing Toad.


 
I'm saying that we have an education system that for as long as I can remember has had in place informal (expectation-based) and formal educational barriers (remember the school careers officer? ) to exclude the working class from what is perceived to be a middle-class profession, as well as there being cultural barriers (usually also expectation-based) imposed from within and without. Tell people that they can't do something for long enough and most of them will start believing that they can't.
On top of that, you also have had, for most of the NHS's life, at least, a career-progression ladder that's relied very much on who, rather than *what* you know.

So sure, you *can* break through the barriers. they're not absolute (and in an age of paying for your education, have been weakened slightly), but it's still more of a struggle for a w/c person to become a doctor because of social and cultural barriers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 27, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Apologies ViolentPanda I missed your post. It got lost amongst Gramsci's incoherent ramblings.
> 
> There's no '_schema of social stratification_' as you put it. It's all about effort. Work hard, get good 'A' levels, get a good degree and you'll get paid more.



Yes, because it really is as simple as that, isn't it? 



> Listen to people like you...



Please quantify what you mean by people like me. 



> ...get a media studies degree and you'll get paid less.



And yet, of all the vast amount of evidence that there must be, from which you could prove your assertions, you chose to post links to something that didn't do more than give a narrow sample, part of the data being unattributed.

How about finding something that does actually lend weight to your assertion, hmm? 



> It's true that working class parents are often much worse at teaching their children to work hard, but that's not anyone's fault but theirs.
> 
> But I'm sure you knew that already.



Why would I "know" something that's just another of your sweeping, unsupported assertions? Please provide evidence for the "truth" of those assertions.

Oh, and please also answer my original question.


----------



## Laughing Toad (May 27, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, because it really is as simple as that, isn't it?



Yes.



> Please quantify (sic) what you mean by people like me.



People who express the same vile and offensive views as you.



> And yet, of all the vast amount of evidence that there must be, from which you could prove your assertions, you chose to post links to something that didn't do more than give a narrow sample, part of the data being unattributed.





> How about finding something that does actually lend weight to your assertion, hmm?



There are plenty. Here's another one.



> Why would I "know" something that's just another of your sweeping, unsupported assertions?


Because you can't possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be.



> Please provide evidence for the "truth" of those assertions.



see above, or here, or here, or even here.



> Oh, and please also answer my original question.


 
It's neither the first nor the second.


----------



## PaulAtherton (May 28, 2011)

nagapie said:


> PaulAtherton, you can make your documentary but if you think that people have free choice about education in this country and it's all fair, then I have no interest in watching it. Your examples are bunk.



I'm happy to accept your contestation, but on what grounds would you suggest anything I posted was "bunk"?

You merely asked if your child could attend Eton, I explained he/she could.  

I'd be grateful if you could point to anything that I provided in my post that you believe to be inaccurate or misleading?


----------



## Gramsci (May 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm saying that we have an education system that for as long as I can remember has had in place informal (expectation-based) and formal educational barriers (remember the school careers officer? ) to exclude the working class from what is perceived to be a middle-class profession, as well as there being cultural barriers (usually also expectation-based) imposed from within and without. Tell people that they can't do something for long enough and most of them will start believing that they can't.
> On top of that, you also have had, for most of the NHS's life, at least, a career-progression ladder that's relied very much on who, rather than *what* you know.
> 
> So sure, you *can* break through the barriers. they're not absolute (and in an age of paying for your education, have been weakened slightly), but it's still more of a struggle for a w/c person to become a doctor because of social and cultural barriers.


 
Ok thats clear to me now.

I think you are correct on this btw.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 28, 2011)

Laughing Toad said:


> Yes.



Except that it isn't. hard work and/or good A level results guarantee nothing except the possibility of attending university, and getting a good degree merely makes the likelihood of better remuneration possible.



> People who express the same vile and offensive views as you.



Which "vile and offensive" views are they, my precious little flower? Are they as vile and offensive as your trolling on other threads?




> There are plenty. Here's another one.



Much better, more informative, better spread of data, but still primarily estimates, I notice.



> Because you can't possibly be as stupid as you pretend to be.



Just as you can't possibly be as boorish, ignorant and arrogant as you pretend to be.

Or can you?




> see above, or here, or here, or even here.



Hmm, the person who mithers about stupidity appears to have engaged in it themselves.

I asked you to prove the truth of your assertion w/r/t the statement _"It's true that working class parents are often much worse at teaching their children to work hard, but that's not anyone's fault but theirs.

But I'm sure you knew that already."_

Not to post more links w/r/t the previous link.




> It's neither the first nor the second.


 
In fact it's both, and more.


----------



## quimcunx (Jul 14, 2011)

Article in the Telegraph re Birbalsingh. 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/k...t-they-need-boundaries-discipline-and-rigour/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> Article in the Telegraph re Birbalsingh.
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/k...t-they-need-boundaries-discipline-and-rigour/


 
Burblingtwit says "Children need boundaries. They aren’t born out of control". Failed biology, did you, Katharine? "control" is socialised into children. No-one is born with innate control.

FFS, if you're going to hold yourself up as some arbiter of good education, at least get your facts right, you twat!!


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 15, 2011)

There's a beautiful new gem today too about her Lambeth Free School:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/k...hool-in-lambeth-the-anti-tory-rich-of-course/


----------



## gaijingirl (Jul 15, 2011)

oh well - going by that article, I will not be approached any time soon by anyone wielding flyers since I am a white, bicycle riding, helmet wearing mother and by definition "the worst"!  Not a great bit of publicity that is it?  Hasn't exactly endeared me to her cause!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

snowy_again said:


> There's a beautiful new gem today too about her Lambeth Free School:
> 
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/k...hool-in-lambeth-the-anti-tory-rich-of-course/


 
Obviously, Katharine's "helper" hasn't had an awful lot of contact with "working class families" in the borough, as those I know are mostly united on the subject of Lambeth needing more schools, but are split about 65/35 against her "free" school.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

gaijingirl said:


> oh well - going by that article, I will not be approached any time soon by anyone wielding flyers since I am a white, bicycle riding, helmet wearing mother and by definition "the worst"!  Not a great bit of publicity that is it?  Hasn't exactly endeared me to her cause!


 
It's *great* publicity if the parents she's aiming for are _Telegraph_ readers, but going by the meat of the article she's aiming for the children of "working class families". Odd then, that she chooses the _Telegraph_ as the forum for this information, given it's readership demographics (firmly white, middle class and middle income). It's almost as though the article is incidental to reinforcing the prejudices of _Telegraph_ readers!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 15, 2011)

Being based in reality doesn't seem to be her greatest quality. If you've read or heard any of her book, she makes Johann Hari look like a court reporter.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's *great* publicity if the parents she's aiming for are _Telegraph_ readers, but going by the meat of the article she's aiming for the children of "working class families". Odd then, that she chooses the _Telegraph_ as the forum for this information, given it's readership demographics (firmly white, middle class and middle income). It's almost as though the article is incidental to reinforcing the prejudices of _Telegraph_ readers!



Those pages are a self perpetuating hate fest. Interspersed with some random shoe horned rant about the EU.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Being based in reality doesn't seem to be her greatest quality. If you've read or heard any of her book, she makes Johann Hari look like a court reporter.


 
I had the deep misfortune to hear it on R4, and got drawn in by it's awfulness.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2011)

snowy_again said:


> Those pages are a self perpetuating hate fest. Interspersed with some random shoe horned rant about the EU.


 
That's the _Telegraph_, sure enough!


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jul 17, 2011)

I've just read this "the Kennington Association have seized the mantle and agreed to hold a public meeting to discuss the proposal on Monday (18th July), 7pm at Ethelred Estate Community Youth Club, 7 Lollard Street, SE11 6QH." on a local blog, thought it might be of interest


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jul 17, 2011)

Edit: oops, link already posted.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Obviously, Katharine's "helper" hasn't had an awful lot of contact with "working class families" in the borough, as those I know are mostly united on the subject of Lambeth needing more schools, but are split about 65/35 against her "free" school.


 
And this quote from her article:

 “NO. Working class families are desperate for another school in Lambeth. They don’t have the luxury of political ideology"

Really? So having views on politics is preserve of middle classes?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 17, 2011)

Here is a viewpoint of a teacher on what he sees as the abolition of state education. Good article and covers some history. Antidote to KB

http://www.theliberal.co.uk/libdems/abolition-state-education.html


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 1, 2011)

Just read an interesting account of the public meeting mentioned above on a local blog.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2011)

Just read Lurkers blog on the meeting.

Must say its a bit nauseating the way the Labour Cllrs present are obviously trying to flog off the site quickly to stop any chance of the Free School getting it.

The subtext is clearly that the shiny new Cooperative Council ,which is being set up as an alternative to  Camerons Big Society, does not want a Free School. 

Despite , as said by KB and others, that New Labour were infatuated with the idea of Academy schools ( an old Tory policy they adopted). There is little difference between New Labour and the Tories on education. 

New Labours dislike of Free Schools is more to do with the fact that they are a Tory idea.

From reading the blog I think that even if KB found a site in the South of the borough the New Labour run Council would drag there feet on supporting it.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2011)

Also interesting the questions from some present with knowledge of education. I now wonder how really free Free Schools are. From what some questioners were saying it looks like the old system of governors of state run schools had more actual influence. Also that state schools always had the power to open late and some flexibility in how they used there premises.

KB was heavily backtracking on her life in the media. Saying it was something that she didnt look for. So all those blog entries and piece in Telegraph were forced out of her?  She likes to have her views in the media.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 2, 2011)

She has to earn a living to keep herself topped up on lattes at Lounge bar...


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2011)

I havent seen her in there recently.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 2, 2011)

Are you her?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2011)

not funny


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 3, 2011)

Sorry.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 3, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> KB was heavily backtracking on her life in the media. Saying it was something that she didnt look for. So all those blog entries and piece in Telegraph were forced out of her?  She likes to have her views in the media.


Oh the mendacity! She actively seeks publicity!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 3, 2011)

snowy_again said:


> Sorry.


 
That ok. Im not as good looking as her anyway

 I have seen her in there though. But havent introduced myself as a "Baby Eating U75er"


----------



## nagapie (Aug 11, 2011)

Birbalsingh was on Newsnight last night. I was surprised at how uninteresting she was. She wasn't very articulate or vociferous in attacking the school system and she blamed hip hop for the rioting - lame. I don't think she's talented or intelligent enough to make a good headteacher.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 12, 2011)

nagapie said:


> Birbalsingh was on Newsnight last night. I was surprised at how uninteresting she was. She wasn't very articulate or vociferous in attacking the school system and she blamed hip hop for the rioting - lame. I don't think she's talented or intelligent enough to make a good headteacher.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/k...ainers-is-ok-everyone-makes-excuses-for-them/

Checked out her blog and she going on about the rioters. Couldnt read it all.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 12, 2011)

That woman is vicious charicature.
This is what she has to say about Mark Duggan


> Do we really think that the police went out and killed a random innocent man?


 Well, um, it's been known to happen...


> They say he ‘lived by the gun’, and caused ‘grief’ to local people. Some say he was a crack cocaine dealer. His fiancée says he was determined not to go back to jail (so he has been in jail) and he has a child with her and another woman. She also has another 2 children from another man. Yet what do Mark Duggan’s parents say? That he was a good father and a respected member of the local community. How can someone with that reputation be considered a respected member of the local community?


Are we truly going to let such a blinkered and judgemental woman take charge of our children when rather than showing understanding, empathy or a commitment to tackling complex issues affecting their lives, she spouts her bilious condemnation?
I would never place my child in the care of such an obviously vile person.

If she were serious about bringing good education to our underprivileged children she would not politicise the matter and court the media but she would engage with our community more.
This thread/that school/that woman makes me genuinely angry.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 12, 2011)

And Ive got R4 (Any Questions) on and they are all piling in like Kate. Depressing. The complexity behind recent events is going out the window.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 12, 2011)

I knew when I saw her on C4 news and on Newsnight, before she even opened her mouth, what she would say. Now if that's not proof of a callous doctrinaire then I don't know what is.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 15, 2011)

I was at a bbq on Saturday with someone who used to work with her. They said the pupils never used to listen to her because she was too airy fairy and tried too hard to be down with the kids. Oh the irony.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 16, 2011)

She's just been on Radio 4 on a phone-in. Again.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 16, 2011)

But she is not courting publicity or politicising education. Not in the least.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> But she is not courting publicity or politicising education. Not in the least.



That's alright, then.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 18, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> But she is not courting publicity or politicising education. Not in the least.


Clearly not. She doesn't ring up to participate in phone-ins, oh no, they break into her house, drag her to the phone and FORCE her to participate. That's why her arguments are ill-prepared, badly thought through and generally a bit crap because she's acting under duress.


----------



## se5 (Aug 18, 2011)

There was an article in the Guardian on Tuesday which looks at education generally and refers to the situation in Lambeth and Lillian Baylis School - the journalist Melissa Been doesnt think proposals such as Birbalsingh's will improve the situation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/aug/16/crisis-britains-education-system


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2011)

Thanks for this. Kate was on Radio 4 .Any Questions just now. The hard left was represented by the Bishop of Burnley. How is it CofE say all the right things.


----------



## Winot (Aug 21, 2011)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for this. Kate was on Radio 4 .Any Questions just now. The hard left was represented by the Bishop of Burnley. How is it CofE say all the right things.



They haven't been 'the Conservative party at prayer' since Faith in the City annoyed Maggie so much.


----------

