John Humphries Programme
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: John Humphries Programme
Emm, I have not seen anyone vilify anyone. Have I missed something?
People kind of have to be thick skinned on forums at times.
No-one makes folk stay nor should they make them go. It's up to the individual.
People kind of have to be thick skinned on forums at times.
No-one makes folk stay nor should they make them go. It's up to the individual.
Re: John Humphries Programme
Could everyone please take a deep breath and be considerate in their posts.
Re: John Humphries Programme
It's OK Mitasol; no more from me. It should all calm down now.mitasol wrote:Could everyone please take a deep breath and be considerate in their posts.
Re: John Humphries Programme
Can't speak for anyone else Amber, (or should I say 'comrade'?) but I have enjoyed your posts 
Re: John Humphries Programme
me tooews147 wrote:Can't speak for anyone else Amber, (or should I say 'comrade'?) but I have enjoyed your posts
mad?
Re: John Humphries Programme
And me. Very few people can debate so naturally and so eloquently.
Re: John Humphries Programme
I haven't watched the program yet but I am sorry I do not agree that it is up to the so called middle classes to sort out the problems with education by using their children as guinea pigs.
By and large the majority of parents who chose a school that is not local are not greedy and selfish. Neither do most of them buy in to the celeb culture. I think a couple of polls on this site alone would prove me right on those accounts and I make my assumptions based on having read and entered many debates just like this one on the site.
The leadership point is very valid and if you look at counties where there are only comprehensives you will see this, if you want examples I can give them but would rather not publicly. However it is easier for poor leadership and teaching to be masked where there is strong parental support, less so when there is not and this is why the worse comprehensives are often in the areas of social deprivation, call it what you will.
Re grammars. They are not just for the poor and socially disadvantaged, they are for those children deemed academically suited to the pace and level of work they provide. Many rely on parental contributions that the poor would not and should not be expected to provide. So remove those with money and you once again penalise those with less. Isn't that the same problem that some comprehensive have?
On another thread Herman makes a valid point. Many of us benefited from the Grammar school system when it was countrywide resulting in a huge socio/ economic shift. Possibly there are less children out there now who need that opportunity that a Grammar school could give them. Many parents and children are happy with what is on offer and as EE points out it is arrogant of us to make broad based assumptions about them.
However there are still some parents and children who would benefit, like Amber I know them. If they are near a good comprehensive then they will be fine if not then Grammar is still their only option. The system in Gloucestershire is skewed toward those parents who are able to access choice for their children but it is the CC that creates this problem by not allowing primaries do address it, backed by certain heads and teachers who feel they to have a right to dictate which schools their pupils should go to.
The government gives parents choice but unfortunately it is left to the parents to find out what that choice is. I don't have sharp elbows I just happened to be born with a set of genes which enabled me and now my children to benefit from a very good education.
By and large the majority of parents who chose a school that is not local are not greedy and selfish. Neither do most of them buy in to the celeb culture. I think a couple of polls on this site alone would prove me right on those accounts and I make my assumptions based on having read and entered many debates just like this one on the site.
The leadership point is very valid and if you look at counties where there are only comprehensives you will see this, if you want examples I can give them but would rather not publicly. However it is easier for poor leadership and teaching to be masked where there is strong parental support, less so when there is not and this is why the worse comprehensives are often in the areas of social deprivation, call it what you will.
Re grammars. They are not just for the poor and socially disadvantaged, they are for those children deemed academically suited to the pace and level of work they provide. Many rely on parental contributions that the poor would not and should not be expected to provide. So remove those with money and you once again penalise those with less. Isn't that the same problem that some comprehensive have?
On another thread Herman makes a valid point. Many of us benefited from the Grammar school system when it was countrywide resulting in a huge socio/ economic shift. Possibly there are less children out there now who need that opportunity that a Grammar school could give them. Many parents and children are happy with what is on offer and as EE points out it is arrogant of us to make broad based assumptions about them.
However there are still some parents and children who would benefit, like Amber I know them. If they are near a good comprehensive then they will be fine if not then Grammar is still their only option. The system in Gloucestershire is skewed toward those parents who are able to access choice for their children but it is the CC that creates this problem by not allowing primaries do address it, backed by certain heads and teachers who feel they to have a right to dictate which schools their pupils should go to.
The government gives parents choice but unfortunately it is left to the parents to find out what that choice is. I don't have sharp elbows I just happened to be born with a set of genes which enabled me and now my children to benefit from a very good education.
Re: John Humphries Programme
I don't think the programme suggested that is what should happen, but that it was an inevitable consequence of that fact that they did not that the 'gap' had widened. This is what I meant when I said in my earlier post that his analysis was simplistic. He did then focus on some successful schools with highly dynamic leadership but didn't seem to ask why that kind of leadership was not more widespread.Tolstoy wrote:I haven't watched the program yet but I am sorry I do not agree that it is up to the so called middle classes to sort out the problems with education by using their children as guinea pigs.
Indeed, although parental support alone is not enough. One of the reasons my DD are in the indie sector (apart from the fact that we don't have grammar schools, which, TBH is the main reason!) is that I spent 6 years as part of a primary school governing body trying, amongst other things, to drag a reluctant head kicking and screaming to address the needs of the more able and raise teacher expectations. Quite frankly we were totally unsuccessful, most of the more able voted with their feet and moved out to Bucks etc or went to the private sector early, with inevitable consequences for the school. A summary of my time would be that there was an underlying resentment of bright children and their 'sharp elbowed' parents throughout the school, high aspirations were treated with derision. I am aware that many schools are not like this and that there are many fantastic heads and teachers doing a wonderful job every day, but our only secondary options here offered more of the same, so we opted out.Tolstoy wrote:The leadership point is very valid and if you look at counties where there are only comprehensives you will see this, if you want examples I can give them but would rather not publicly. However it is easier for poor leadership and teaching to be masked where there is strong parental support, less so when there is not and this is why the worse comprehensives are often in the areas of social deprivation, call it what you will.
Tolstoy wrote: The system in Gloucestershire is skewed toward those parents who are able to access choice for their children but it is the CC that creates this problem by not allowing primaries do address it, backed by certain heads and teachers who feel they to have a right to dictate which schools their pupils should go to.
Actually I think the system everywhere is skewed in this way and it is this that is the nub of the problem, rather than the behaviour of middle class parents.
I think all of us on here, by definition of the fact that we are here, have just hte tincy winciest bit of angle to our funny bonesTolstoy wrote:The government gives parents choice but unfortunately it is left to the parents to find out what that choice is. I don't have sharp elbows I just happened to be born with a set of genes which enabled me and now my children to benefit from a very good education.
mad?
Re: John Humphries Programme
With fantastic leadership, I believe any school , no matter how deprived can do well. However, there never has been, or ever will be, enough of these leaders to go around.In fact, the job as a head teacher is one of the least sort after promotions of any profession and many schools have problems when trying to recruit one. Why do you think this is?
Re: John Humphries Programme
All those awful parents they have to deal with?ews147 wrote:With fantastic leadership, I believe any school , no matter how deprived can do well. However, there never has been, or ever will be, enough of these leaders to go around.In fact, the job as a head teacher is one of the least sort after promotions of any profession and many schools have problems when trying to recruit one. Why do you think this is?
mad?
