Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, Matt, I doubt if your office is located in a village 2 miles from the nearest A road
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:This could easily be solved if "snow days" were declared across a borough and every teacher had to go into the school closest to them.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Schools are closed when not enough teachers can get in to school for there to be a safe ratio of adults to children. (Due to traffic chaos, road closures etc) Some of our teachers travel for an hour to school on normal non-snowy days.
quote:Neither is our kids' school
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, Matt, I doubt if your office is located in a village 2 miles from the nearest A road
quote:Possibly, but don't forget the complexities of the (English) education system nowadays with the existence of LEA schools (all 'locally managed'), Academies, Free Schools and the like ... teachers can't just swap from one to the other and issues such as the eligibility of CRB forms, contractual employment and budgetting would inevitably arise.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This could easily be solved if "snow days" were declared across a borough and every teacher had to go into the school closest to them.
quote:Who says they are? But the issue raised was that its unsafe because the ratios aren't good enough - which could be solved by teachers going to their nearest school. Undoubtedly this wouldn't be a great educational experience, but needs must and all that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Also, Leprechaun: sure, because teachers are completely interchangeable.
quote:[tangent]Son #1 is 8 and very meh. He does well at school, and enjoys a lot of what he does there, but his various digits were so crossed on Sunday night that Monday'd be a snow day that I worried he'd give himself arthritis. His view is that it's not that school is awful, but he's got a lot of other things he'd rather be doing. I take a similar view towards work.[/tangent]
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No one wants to spend millions on ploughs and gritters that get used for a week a year (if that) when there are other things like schools, libraries, sport facilities, social care etc to pay for.
Alternatively, we do, and it'll cost us more.
On another note, my kids' secondary school opened late yesterday to give extra travel time for teachers - but only between a half and two-thirds of the kids could be bothered to walk in. My school (a primary) had pretty much everyone turn up. (/tangent What is it that happens between primary and secondary that makes some (a reasonably sized minority, at least) children just go 'meh'? /tangent)
quote:Hormones.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(/tangent What is it that happens between primary and secondary that makes some (a reasonably sized minority, at least) children just go 'meh'? /tangent)
quote:My interpretation is
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Lep - your interpretation appears to be "teachers are nesh and it's all their fault they could get in if they wanted to or were forced to by facing losing a day's pay?"
quote:I would also suggest it is a supervision thing, with secondary kids more likely to be left at home to look after themselves. Parents would have to look after the primary school ones at home so are more likely to take them in. There's also more likely to be distance and transport issues with secondary schools. I'm guessing older ones find it easier to bunk off too, as their parents don't walk them to school.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Hormones.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(/tangent What is it that happens between primary and secondary that makes some (a reasonably sized minority, at least) children just go 'meh'? /tangent)
quote:Are you absolutely sure of this- i.e. have you actually seen directives which say it? I'm afraid it does sound like one of those "Health and Safety" urban myths that everyone believes but which have no substance in law.
Originally posted by claret10:
Apparently they are not allowed to grit paths as if a child or adult then slips they are libel and at risk of being sued.
quote:I agree, our school always grits the paths, though they do shut the playground if it is icy (the kids play in a field of snow at break instead
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The gritted path--->litigation is something of an Urban Myth, IIRC.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Well personally I was told this by someone who works at that particular school and was shocked. I'd never come across it before as all the schools I taught in happily gritted the paths. So i'm not sure if the school has it in writing. The person who told me was a cleaner and doesn't get paid unless she works and was irritated by the answers she had been given. It may be one of those grapevine rumours that covers why someone was too lazy to grit. However I will see this person later and I guess conversation will come to this topic, so I will investigate, cos it does seem ludicrous to me.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:Are you absolutely sure of this- i.e. have you actually seen directives which say it? I'm afraid it does sound like one of those "Health and Safety" urban myths that everyone believes but which have no substance in law.
Originally posted by claret10:
Apparently they are not allowed to grit paths as if a child or adult then slips they are libel and at risk of being sued.
quote:Not sure if that's the case in Scotland. I seem to recall some discussion a couple of years back about the schools being closed if authorities couldn't guarantee that they could get the kids in and back home again as the majority were on School buses. NEQ? You'd have a better idea on that one.
posted by KarlLB:
Point of order - local authorities do not close schools. It's the headteacher's call.
quote:I am sure all the teachers of the schools that closed were also planning to be at work until they had to stay at home. Most of them are probably also concerned about how their classes will make up the lost time, especially any whose pupils are due to take exams or SATS next term.
...teachers were not in work when the vast majority of parents of pupils were (or at least, were planning to be until they had to stay at home)...
quote:Not sure. Mine's off today because school transport isn't running, and that definitely isn't the headteacher's call.
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:Not sure if that's the case in Scotland. I seem to recall some discussion a couple of years back about the schools being closed if authorities couldn't guarantee that they could get the kids in and back home again as the majority were on School buses. NEQ? You'd have a better idea on that one.
posted by KarlLB:
Point of order - local authorities do not close schools. It's the headteacher's call.
quote:This is firmly in Health and Safety mythology:
Originally posted by claret10:
quote:Well personally I was told this by someone who works at that particular school and was shocked. I'd never come across it before as all the schools I taught in happily gritted the paths. So i'm not sure if the school has it in writing. The person who told me was a cleaner and doesn't get paid unless she works and was irritated by the answers she had been given. It may be one of those grapevine rumours that covers why someone was too lazy to grit. However I will see this person later and I guess conversation will come to this topic, so I will investigate, cos it does seem ludicrous to me.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:Are you absolutely sure of this- i.e. have you actually seen directives which say it? I'm afraid it does sound like one of those "Health and Safety" urban myths that everyone believes but which have no substance in law.
Originally posted by claret10:
Apparently they are not allowed to grit paths as if a child or adult then slips they are libel and at risk of being sued.
quote:
Don’t be put off clearing paths because you’re afraid someone will get injured. Remember, people walking on snow and ice have a responsibility to be careful themselves.
Follow the advice below to make sure you clear the pathway safely and effectively.
And don’t believe the myths - it's unlikely you'll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries if you have cleared the path carefully.
quote:Someone who is nesh wears thermal underwear and a scarf in May.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
4) I don't know what nesh means.
quote:In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
quote:That is actually in our contracts.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This could easily be solved if "snow days" were declared across a borough and every teacher had to go into the school closest to them.
quote:So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
Moo
quote:So it is true. If you clear a path carelessly, you can be held responsible for injuries caused by your carelessness. And who will be the judge of whether you were careless? The ambulance chasers will. Stay safe and leave the path untreated. Nothing they've said has put my mind at rest.
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
And don’t believe the myths - it's unlikely you'll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries if you have cleared the path carefully.
quote:If there is the possibility of the school year needing to run longer due to closure days, a smart system would have the staff contracted to work during the week after the end of the year on things like training, reporting or preparation for the next school year. If the school year needs to run longer, those days would be converted to normal school days. If it's not, then the staff could do those other duties or take that time off with pay to compensate them for the huge amounts of unpaid overtime that all teachers work during the school year.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
Moo
Actually, a school closure results in a heck of a lot of work - rearranging lessons, rebooking resources etc.
quote:Nope. The judge, not the lawyers.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:So it is true. If you clear a path carelessly, you can be held responsible for injuries caused by your carelessness. And who will be the judge of whether you were careless? The ambulance chasers will.
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
And don’t believe the myths - it's unlikely you'll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries if you have cleared the path carefully.
quote:Yes, of course. If they booked a holiday starting the day after the last scheduled day of the school year, they would have to cancel or reschedule. But most districts plan the make-up days when they plan their annual calendar. If there are no days to make up, then the day marked as the last day of school is the last day of school. If there are make-up days, then the school year runs through however many make-up days are necessary.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
quote:I think this is an excellent idea - and would endorse its introduction.
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
quote:I've checked - it is the headteacher's decision. However, that decision has to be made within a set of guidelines, so its not clear to me how much discretion the headteacher has to remain open in bad conditions.
Originally posted by kingsfold:
quote:Not sure if that's the case in Scotland. I seem to recall some discussion a couple of years back about the schools being closed if authorities couldn't guarantee that they could get the kids in and back home again as the majority were on School buses. NEQ? You'd have a better idea on that one.
posted by KarlLB:
Point of order - local authorities do not close schools. It's the headteacher's call.
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Perhaps Michael Gove and his hordes of 'experts' would step in and cover for teachers unable to get to work. Since he appears to believe that class sizes do not matter, he and his friends should each be able to keep around 100 children constructively occupied and edified for the one or two days in the British winter when the weather causes problems.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Yes - great idea - then send in OFSTED
Originally posted by Angloid:
Perhaps Michael Gove and his hordes of 'experts' would step in and cover for teachers unable to get to work. Since he appears to believe that class sizes do not matter, he and his friends should each be able to keep around 100 children constructively occupied and edified for the one or two days in the British winter when the weather causes problems.
quote:Or their weddings? Reschedule?
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Yes, of course. If they booked a holiday starting the day after the last scheduled day of the school year, they would have to cancel or reschedule.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
quote:In theory, that is the case in England as well. Or rather, children are entitled to a certain number of hours of education each year and teachers are required to teach a certain number of hours each year. However, at the school where I was based for a teaching practice, they were in negotiations to adapt the rules to facilitate a week's school closure when the snow overwhelmed the country in 2010.
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I imagine that more schools would stay open if teachers didn't get paid for snow days like people in the private sector.
Moo
quote:Any school staff member who scheduled their wedding (or travel) immediately after the term finishes when they know that's the way it works probably shouldn't be a teacher. For something as important as teaching children it would good to have people with more street smarts than that.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Or their weddings? Reschedule?
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Yes, of course. If they booked a holiday starting the day after the last scheduled day of the school year, they would have to cancel or reschedule.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
quote:A headteacher was interviewed on national radio this week and suggested that a lot of headteachers opt to close schools for fear of being sued by parents as a result of slips and trips. While I know the present government has tried hard to get the message across not to worry about that side of things - and not just in the case of schools (during 2010, for example, local councils would not grit pavements, only roads, for fear of litigation) - I am quite sure there will be a lingering caution towards opening against local authority guidance (and all local authorities have snow policies). Another interview with the principal of an academy revealed a very different attitude: determined to stay open they simply cleared the entrance areas and told parents to bring in their children, which they duly did.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
I've checked - it is the headteacher's decision. However, that decision has to be made within a set of guidelines, so its not clear to me how much discretion the headteacher has to remain open in bad conditions.
quote:This is what happens regarding gritting the roads where I live.
One thing that interests me is your use of the word "gritter". What is it?
quote:Interesting. By Canadian standards, that's not very much highway or roads. Gritting means sanding/salting over there, and is just called sanding.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:This is what happens regarding gritting the roads where I live.
One thing that interests me is your use of the word "gritter". What is it?
Aberdeenshire has 3370 miles of roads, and in snowy conditions the council prioritises 1000 miles of that. My children's route to school isn't included in that 1,000 miles.
In my opinion, the roads it does treat are treated to a high standard.
quote:Some jobs have an occupational requirement for this - clergy for example - and learn to live with it. Why are teachers to be treated so differently and what's changed from the days when they did live (if not in the same village as the school), then just a few miles away?
Originally posted by Jane R:
[QUOTE] It's no fun living in your school's catchment area; every time you poke your head outside your front door you're liable to be accosted by a pupil or parent, so it's like being at work all the time.
quote:I accept that moving isn't always easy but the keys are (in your own words) "or go wherever the work is...." and "flexibility."
Originally posted by Doublethink:
How does that fit with the message that in this difficult job market everyone should be flexible and prepared to commute or go wherever the work is - and the issue of negative equity, high rents and the inability to get new mortgages ?
quote:As a Governor and parent I was always told and understood that the Head's responsibility began and ended on the boundary of school premises. If it doe sextend to travel (presumably on leaving hom), then that has implications for schools dealing with behaviour on the way to school. can't see many schools picking that one up tbh.
Originally posted by Chorister:
I can see why, when headteachers are responsible for the safe arrival and departure of hundreds of children, plus staff, that they play safe and say 'School closed' until conditions improve.
quote:Point taken but the A38 has been long known as a problem and the council seem reluctant to do anything to solve it.
Originally posted by Chorister:
People usually look at photos to see the depth of snow, see 2cm and say 'That's nothing, what's all the fuss about?' But looking at this photo, there's hardly any snow at all, it's not the snow but the ice that caused the danger.
quote:The only clear circumstances I can envisage where liability would be imputed would be where the 'clearer' is being an absolute berk by making the situation more dangerous than it was before eg: clearing a snow-covered path by pouring boiling water onto it which subsequently freezes and turns the path into an ice rink.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Unless UK law has diverged very considerably from here, a school authority or a person clearing a pavement/footpath/sidewalk would only be liable for failing to take reasonable care. It's very hard to see how person clearing a footpath from snow could be liable, and nearly as hard in the case of a school authority. Fear of a successful action is just a furphy.
quote:Absolutely - I would be more than happy to do that. But treating schools like businesses is a mistake. Many things are lost, including creativity. If you treat us as a production line - then if standards of output are not good enough, we should be able to ask for better raw materials. Your kids!
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I've paid my taxes for my children's education, now to be blunt, I want you to deliver what you presum to promise. Part of that is attendance and if the school is closed, make the days up.
quote:The safety issue is not about falling on ice - it's about adult to pupil ratio.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As this relevant article from today's local paper says, no local school has ever been sued for someone falling on ice. My wife's school is in an identical situation and experienced similar absenteeism, by the way.
quote:They live in villages where the roads were closed? Why don't you ask them?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
quote:I understood that for pupils travelling to / from school by school bus (more than half the pupils at my kids' school) the school / education authority becomes responsible from the point they get on the bus to the point they get off.
As a Governor and parent I was always told and understood that the Head's responsibility began and ended on the boundary of school premises. If it doe sextend to travel (presumably on leaving hom), then that has implications for schools dealing with behaviour on the way to school. can't see many schools picking that one up tbh.
quote:Perhaps they could. But perhaps sufficient of their colleagues couldn't that the school couldn't ensure sufficient ratios of staff to students.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
quote:Yes
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Just for the record, I am self-employed and don't get paid at all unless I am actually sitting at my desk working; unlike most employed people, who get paid for being In The Building even if they are merely converting oxygen into carbon dioxide. They also get paid leave (30 days a year plus public holidays in my last job) and most employers will allow them a certain number of days off sick at full pay. However I do not envy other people who have different working conditions and I certainly do not envy teachers. Carping at other people who have better contracts with their employers than you and demanding that all working conditions should be equally bad will only encourage a race to the bottom, and things are bad enough already.
Can I get to work? Yes - then school should open. Do I get paid if I can't get to work? Nope - nor should you.
quote:We - and they - live in suburbia.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:They live in villages where the roads were closed? Why don't you ask them?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
quote:It's not about skiving, it's about equal treatment. If everyone else in a given area is still expected to get in to work, there's a legitimate question as to why teachers shouldn't be.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
quote:I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's not about skiving, it's about equal treatment. If everyone else in a given area is still expected to get in to work, there's a legitimate question as to why teachers shouldn't be.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
Conversely, if travelling conditions in a given area are considered so bad that teachers shouldn't be expected to be able to get to work, then everybody else in that area shouldn't be expected to either.
Both ways work fine for me, it's just the implication that some people are important enough to not be allowed to risk travelling while everyone else still has to risk their necks on (apparently) unsafe roads that grates.
quote:What are the legal ratios of staff to children in secondary schools? I'd be surprised if it is that restrictive. If some teachers can't get into school, doubtless some children can't. It might not be possible to have a normal day's teaching but possible to do some useful stuff.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Perhaps they could. But perhaps sufficient of their colleagues couldn't that the school couldn't ensure sufficient ratios of staff to students.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
quote:Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
quote:I'm not sure about this. I'm not saying that schools are in a unique position, but their role and nature are unusual.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not about skiving, it's about equal treatment. If everyone else in a given area is still expected to get in to work, there's a legitimate question as to why teachers shouldn't be.
Conversely, if travelling conditions in a given area are considered so bad that teachers shouldn't be expected to be able to get to work, then everybody else in that area shouldn't be expected to either.
Both ways work fine for me, it's just the implication that some people are important enough to not be allowed to risk travelling while everyone else still has to risk their necks on (apparently) unsafe roads that grates.
quote:It's solely down to head teachers not Local Authorities. On the other hand, I'd like to see LAs give higher priority to gritting around schools.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
quote:I think you're unnecessarily focussing on the teachers, and not on the children. A good employer will certainly consider the safety of their employees, but as I've said above, you'll have thousands of children criss-crossing any given LA, generating possibly thousands of extra car journeys in treacherous conditions. It might even be that you only get to work because the schools are closed.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
quote:Firstly, as has been pointed out, it's the head teacher's call, not the local authority's. Secondly, heads do not make the call on whether it's safe for their teachers to get to school; they do it on the basis of whether they can provide a safe environment for the children - how many of their teachers they expect will be able to get in comes into that, but it's not the primary driver.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
quote:What other reason though is being given?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's not about skiving, it's about equal treatment. If everyone else in a given area is still expected to get in to work, there's a legitimate question as to why teachers shouldn't be.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a nasty undercurrent of "teachers wanted a skive; fine the lazy bastards a day's pay if they don't turn up and they'd somehow manage it" going on here.
Conversely, if travelling conditions in a given area are considered so bad that teachers shouldn't be expected to be able to get to work, then everybody else in that area shouldn't be expected to either.
Both ways work fine for me, it's just the implication that some people are important enough to not be allowed to risk travelling while everyone else still has to risk their necks on (apparently) unsafe roads that grates.
quote:A common sense approach is to say to parents that they must be the judge of how safe they and their children will be as far as getting into school when there are adverse weather conditions. The government's relaxed the rules - such snow days are not automatically marked down as unauthorised absences. The head teachers job is to make sure conditions are safe on site.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I think you're unnecessarily focussing on the teachers, and not on the children. A good employer will certainly consider the safety of their employees, but as I've said above, you'll have thousands of children criss-crossing any given LA, generating possibly thousands of extra car journeys in treacherous conditions. It might even be that you only get to work because the schools are closed.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Any local authority that decides it's far too dangerous for teachers to try to get to work but that doesn't also close the roads is doing exactly that.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think anyone's implying any such thing.
Surely if the roads are too dangerous for some, then they're too dangerous for all?
quote:The same holds true rurally in Canada. It's hard to argue a dense population when we have less than 2 people per square km. Road clearing is a priority. I suspect that because we drive in winter conditions for somewhere about 6 or 7 months of the year, it is a matter of expectation, experience, how to drive on snow, in ruts, with ice, winter tires and other things.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
You probably have a lot more regular snowfall than Aberdeenshire though, so that 4x your city has spent so far would go a hell of a lot further and be useful on a larger number of days.
Secondly, Aberdeenshire doesn't actually contain the city of Aberdeen, so it's not an outlandishly low amount of road mileage for a large rural area with lots of small towns. You're in a densely populated city, which would allow the road clearing resources to be concentrated in a smaller area where they could work more regularly, so the equipment cost is offset by the benefit of having increased usage.
Snow causing disruption in Britain is more of an anomaly, rather than the norm. The small number of days affected make it a complicated balancing act - do governments shell out more funds on more road-clearing equipment that will be used just a few times a year, or should they spend significantly less on equipment and just accept a few days of severe inconvenience? The decision would be much more clear cut in most Canadian cities where the larger number of days that equipment would make it a more economical purchase for the authorities.
quote:The chief explanation being given for school closures is that teachers can't get in, so I'm responding to that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think you're unnecessarily focussing on the teachers, and not on the children.
quote:If that's the case, then I'd be happy to swap and make it so that businesses close in order for schools to stay open
It might even be that you only get to work because the schools are closed.
quote:Officially yes, but they follow the LA guidance.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Firstly, as has been pointed out, it's the head teacher's call, not the local authority's.
quote:What other drivers are there though, given that the "being sued for slippery paths" thing has been debunked several times on this thread?
Secondly, heads do not make the call on whether it's safe for their teachers to get to school; they do it on the basis of whether they can provide a safe environment for the children - how many of their teachers they expect will be able to get in comes into that, but it's not the primary driver.
quote:Many LEAVE school without basic language, reading or numeracy skills too.
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE]Absolutely - I would be more than happy to do that. But treating schools like businesses is a mistake. Many things are lost, including creativity. If you treat us as a production line - then if standards of output are not good enough, we should be able to ask for better raw materials. Your kids!
Many children arrive at school without basic language skills and we are expected to churn out level fives at the end of the process. Any decent production line would look first at the raw materials, and change them.
The market economy in schools does not work and I most certainly didn't ask for it. I fought hard against it.
quote:It's not unreasonable.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And if the teacher/student ratio is the prime indicator of a safe environment, then we're right back to the question of why it's perfectly fine to say that businesses should expect their staff to get in regardless of the weather, but somehow offensive to apply the same standard to teachers.
quote:Er...having read the thread, I'm not sure you're right: it does seem to boil down largely to this pupil:teacher ratio thing ie: the numbers of teachers who make it in or not. Please advise what other reasons there are
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Read the thread Matt; it's got bugger all to do with anyone judging whether it's safe for teachers to drive or not.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Point is that if only a fairly small proportion of teachers can't make it in then the school will not be a safe environment. Your office is not like that.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Er...having read the thread, I'm not sure you're right: it does seem to boil down largely to this pupil:teacher ratio thing ie: the numbers of teachers who make it in or not. Please advise what other reasons there are
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Read the thread Matt; it's got bugger all to do with anyone judging whether it's safe for teachers to drive or not.
quote:Do businesses expect staff to get in whatever the weather? It's almost as if you imagine that only a teacher is able to cite the weather as a reason one cannot get to work; this is bollocks - in November 2010 I spent almost a week working from home because of snow.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Officially yes, but they follow the LA guidance.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Firstly, as has been pointed out, it's the head teacher's call, not the local authority's.
quote:What other drivers are there though, given that the "being sued for slippery paths" thing has been debunked several times on this thread?
Secondly, heads do not make the call on whether it's safe for their teachers to get to school; they do it on the basis of whether they can provide a safe environment for the children - how many of their teachers they expect will be able to get in comes into that, but it's not the primary driver.
And if the teacher/student ratio is the prime indicator of a safe environment, then we're right back to the question of why it's perfectly fine to say that businesses should expect their staff to get in regardless of the weather, but somehow offensive to apply the same standard to teachers.
quote:But we all made it in. So did everyone else in town and the environs with whom I did business on Friday.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Point is that if only a fairly small proportion of teachers can't make it in then the school will not be a safe environment. Your office is not like that.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Er...having read the thread, I'm not sure you're right: it does seem to boil down largely to this pupil:teacher ratio thing ie: the numbers of teachers who make it in or not. Please advise what other reasons there are
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Read the thread Matt; it's got bugger all to do with anyone judging whether it's safe for teachers to drive or not.
quote:It won't surprise you to know that I consider the whole "if there are even slightly more kids per teacher than the rules require then it's an unsafe environment" thing to be absolute bollocks as well.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Point is that if only a fairly small proportion of teachers can't make it in then the school will not be a safe environment.
quote:The difference is that the children will all live locally to the school; especially in the case of primary schools. My children's secondary would have 30% of pupils living within a mile of the school, perhaps 70% living within four miles and 100% living within 8 miles. However, many, if not most of the teachers will live outwith that 8 mile radius, and some will be much further.
I've never heard of teachers not able to get to school when children/buses could.
quote:Absolute bollocks it might be. But you undermine your argument by the use of "than the rules require".
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It won't surprise you to know that I consider the whole "if there are even slightly more kids per teacher than the rules require then it's an unsafe environment" thing to be absolute bollocks as well.
quote:Because they are bad people.*
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Hence we're back to the point: if I and many others could make it into work on Friday, why couldn't my kids' teachers?
quote:Yeah, you know what - most of my unhappiness about this is rooted in envy. I wanted to have a couple of days off at the start of this week as well, but I had to slog my guts out on icy paths and freeze my tits off waiting for shitty public transport (my car having packed in thanks to the cold) to get to work while the teachers got to stay at home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs. Dammit, I want to stay home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs! Why should they get all the fucking breaks?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
When your kids ask "How come my friend gets ice cream for breakfast and I don't?", what do you tell them?
. I still haven't heard a convincing reason for no-shows other than living in villages/ rural areas, both of which are pretty thin on the ground round here.quote:Headteachers don't close the school because of no-shows. They close because they cannot guarantee shows. It's not the same thing at all. The head looks out at 6am, looks at the weather forecast, and asks not "is it reasonable to expect the teachers to make it in?", but rather "can I guarantee that they all will, and that I can maintain a safe environment for the children all through the school day?" If the answer is "no, I really can't guarantee it.", then he closes the school.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that witty contribution
[cp with Marvin]
quote:I can see the point about the ice - but then why were the local school closedin the snow but reopened again when the snow had gone leaving ice behind?
Originally posted by Chorister:
People usually look at photos to see the depth of snow, see 2cm and say 'That's nothing, what's all the fuss about?' But looking at this photo, there's hardly any snow at all, it's not the snow but the ice that caused the danger. Sending your child to school in these conditions puts them at risk from skidding drivers whether they are in a vehicle or pedestrians by the roadside.
I can see why, when headteachers are responsible for the safe arrival and departure of hundreds of children, plus staff, that they play safe and say 'School closed' until conditions improve.
quote:The mug of hot chocolate might happen. Along with lesson prep, marking, pupil grading and all the other admin that usually happens at 10pm.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Dammit, I want to stay home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs! Why should they get all the fucking breaks?
quote:It's not unusual for teachers to live a considerable distance from the school at which they work. Some do it deliberately so there is no chance of their children attending the school at which they teach. This affects urban schools as well as rural ones, so insufficient teachers = no school. It's a serious problem in South Wales, with teachers who live in the valley towns unable to get to Cardiff and Newport.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that witty contribution
[cp with Marvin]
quote:Teachers don;'t - we have to word harder, replanning all our lessons, rebooking resources. Much less work to go in and teach what's already prepared.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yeah, you know what - most of my unhappiness about this is rooted in envy. I wanted to have a couple of days off at the start of this week as well, but I had to slog my guts out on icy paths and freeze my tits off waiting for shitty public transport (my car having packed in thanks to the cold) to get to work while the teachers got to stay at home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs. Dammit, I want to stay home with a nice mug of hot chocolate and a few DVDs! Why should they get all the fucking breaks?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
When your kids ask "How come my friend gets ice cream for breakfast and I don't?", what do you tell them?
quote:Rubbish. Most teachers want to continue as a vocation, a service - all the unions/professional associations oppose academies.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Schools want to be treated like businesses - they have been campaigning for the freedom to source their own services for ages, hence the whole academy scam now in place.
quote:Thin that through.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:Any school staff member who scheduled their wedding (or travel) immediately after the term finishes when they know that's the way it works probably shouldn't be a teacher. For something as important as teaching children it would good to have people with more street smarts than that.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Or their weddings? Reschedule?
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Yes, of course. If they booked a holiday starting the day after the last scheduled day of the school year, they would have to cancel or reschedule.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So teachers who have booked holidays would have to cancel them?
Originally posted by Moo:
In every US state that I have lived in, the schools are required to be open a certain number of days, which means the teachers are required to work. If there are a lot of snow days, the school lets out later in the spring.
quote:Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:As a Governor and parent I was always told and understood that the Head's responsibility began and ended on the boundary of school premises.
Originally posted by Chorister:
I can see why, when headteachers are responsible for the safe arrival and departure of hundreds of children, plus staff, that they play safe and say 'School closed' until conditions improve.
quote:Indeed - At 7 miles away, I was the closest teacher to my last school and i often walked all the way there and back in snow.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
whose staff all live within 5 miles
Unlikely to be the case for many schools. 30 miles is more likely.
quote:This is true only in parts. The bus companies take out their own insurance for transporting the children. They make the decisions on running a service in adverse weather conditions presumably in consultation with LA.
Originally posted by leo:
Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
quote:What do you mean? The implication seems to be that excellence in education is at the expense of other schools.
Originally posted by leo:
We went into teaching to cooperate and compete, not to 'win' and stamp over others so that their kids fail whilst ours succeed.
quote:Strawman.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Thin that through.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:Any school staff member who scheduled their wedding (or travel) immediately after the term finishes when they know that's the way it works probably shouldn't be a teacher. For something as important as teaching children it would good to have people with more street smarts than that.
Originally posted by leo:
Or their weddings? Reschedule?
How long is the average honeymoon.
If it is 2 weeks, then you have to marry the day after term breaking up. Then you return to work immediately after coming home.
Or are teachers only allowed to marry during the summer?
quote:I really don't know where you get this from. Firstly, teachers like all employees cannot be insured/covered for journeys to and from work. If they were, such journeys would make up part of the working day - and they don't. If it did, then I'd make sure that teachers did come out to work and gtake the risk on being sued. Can you provie me with example sof heads being sued for this? No, I didn't think you can.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
quote:Surely if the teacher was driving it would be covered by the motor insurer? Mrs B's car insurance covers 'social and domestic use including travel to and from place of work'; I think that's fairly standard wording.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:This is true only in parts. The bus companies take out their own insurance for transporting the children. They make the decisions on running a service in adverse weather conditions presumably in consultation with LA.
Originally posted by leo:
Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
I am also a governor as well as the husband of a teacher. As far as I'm aware head teachers are not responsible for teachers' journeys to and from school. This is certainly not covered by school insurance.
quote:Yes, but...that would still seem to indicate that there are lower expectations on teachers than the personnel of the firms with which I deal. I'm querying why that should be the case.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Headteachers don't close the school because of no-shows. They close because they cannot guarantee shows. It's not the same thing at all. The head looks out at 6am, looks at the weather forecast, and asks not "is it reasonable to expect the teachers to make it in?", but rather "can I guarantee that they all will, and that I can maintain a safe environment for the children all through the school day?" If the answer is "no, I really can't guarantee it.", then he closes the school.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that witty contribution
[cp with Marvin]
He may, of course, get that call wrong.
C'mon, Matt, you're a lawyer. You're good at spotting subtle differences.
quote:I understand why it would be a problem in rural areas but not urban/ suburban ones. Here in the 'Solent City/ M27 Corridor' conurbation, my staff were able to get in from Waterlooville, Gosport and Southampton on Friday; the firms I had dealings with were in locations as diverse as Portsmouth, Gosport, Havant, Southampton, Winchester and Bishops Waltham and in no case did I fail to talk to the receptionist initially, and then the person concerned and/or his/her assistant, nor did anyone say "we're short-staffed today because of the weather" or words to that effect. The only problems I could envisage in getting to any of our closed local schools would have been if some of the teachers live in some of the remoter Meon Valley villages but, TBH, I can't imagine being able to afford to live there on a teacher's salary! Maybe some fat cat lawyers (yeah right!) could afford it but, funnily enough, the lawyers all made it in anyway...
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It's not unusual for teachers to live a considerable distance from the school at which they work. Some do it deliberately so there is no chance of their children attending the school at which they teach. This affects urban schools as well as rural ones, so insufficient teachers = no school. It's a serious problem in South Wales, with teachers who live in the valley towns unable to get to Cardiff and Newport.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Thanks for that witty contribution
[cp with Marvin]
quote:Yes - that is what is happening with competition between schools.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:What do you mean? The implication seems to be that excellence in education is at the expense of other schools.
Originally posted by leo:
We went into teaching to cooperate and compete, not to 'win' and stamp over others so that their kids fail whilst ours succeed.
quote:Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Surely if the teacher was driving it would be covered by the motor insurer? Mrs B's car insurance covers 'social and domestic use including travel to and from place of work'; I think that's fairly standard wording.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:This is true only in parts. The bus companies take out their own insurance for transporting the children. They make the decisions on running a service in adverse weather conditions presumably in consultation with LA.
Originally posted by leo:
Not true. Any pupil in uniform on buses to and from school is his/her responsibility. Plus insurance covers teachers on the journey to and from school - head is responsible and can be sued.
If you are a governor, you should know this.
I am also a governor as well as the husband of a teacher. As far as I'm aware head teachers are not responsible for teachers' journeys to and from school. This is certainly not covered by school insurance.
quote:I have never worked for Bristol.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Leo, until you provide written proof, you're blowing the wind - unless of course Bristol is any different from the rest of the area around it, where I happen to live. If that evidence isn't forthcoming then it's to a warmer place with this one.
quote:TES Magazine on 12 November, 2010
Education Secretary Michael Gove recently pledged to give schools the right to punish pupils for out-of-school behaviour, but that right already exists. Some would argue it has existed in common law since Victorian times when children could be caned for not wearing a cap on the way to school. In any case, the 2006 Education Act states that schools can "regulate the behaviour of pupils when off school premises". …. guidance also implies that schools should primarily concern themselves with off-site behaviour that has a clear link to school rules or an impact on school life. Examples given include bullying another pupil, problems on school transport or incidents that occur when pupils are in uniform
quote:ATL Guidance
Discipline outside the school
School rules can be made to regulate, as far as is reasonable, pupil behaviour outside of school when the pupil is not in the control of a member of staff. There is, however, no definition of 'reasonable' - this must be a judgement made by the governors and the head, who must be clear about the factors that they take into account. Any sanctions imposed must happen while the pupil is actually on school grounds
quote:So there are only 2 Saturdays in the year, apart from the summer, when teachers can get married and have a fortnight's honeymoon and an additional 2 where the honeymoon can only be a week.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I'm talking only about US schools where the systems works that "make up" days are added to the end of the school year, at the start of the long summer break. The mid-term holidays should still be fine.
quote:Just admit that you made an erroneous claim.
Originally posted by leo:
Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
quote:Most shipmates know I've got plenty of time to teachers but aren't those just about the options typical working couples have? Moreover, I'm sure workers in the US have less paid vacation leave than is usual in the UK and Europe (not sure about Oz & NZ).
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So there are only 2 Saturdays in the year, apart from the summer, when teachers can get married and have a fortnight's honeymoon and an additional 2 where the honeymoon can only be a week.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I'm talking only about US schools where the systems works that "make up" days are added to the end of the school year, at the start of the long summer break. The mid-term holidays should still be fine.
quote:Leo, nothing to do with the head nor the school then.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
quote:Possibly yes, but a teacher is quite aware of that fact before applying for the job as is pretty much everyone else in the UK. Consider the possibility of better working conditions, more holidays and secure employment as compensation.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]So there are only 2 Saturdays in the year, apart from the summer, when teachers can get married and have a fortnight's honeymoon and an additional 2 where the honeymoon can only be a week.
quote:1. Apologies for the geographical error.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]1. I have never worked for Bristol.
2. Education Secretary Michael Gove recently pledged to give schools the right to punish pupils for out-of-school behaviour, but that right already exists. Some would argue it has existed in common law since Victorian times when children could be caned for not wearing a cap on the way to school. In any case, the 2006 Education Act states that schools can "regulate the behaviour of pupils when off school premises". …. guidance also implies that schools should primarily concern themselves with off-site behaviour that has a clear link to school rules or an impact on school life. Examples given include bullying another pupil, problems on school transport or incidents that occur when pupils are in uniform
3. Discipline outside the school
School rules can be made to regulate, as far as is reasonable, pupil behaviour outside of school when the pupil is not in the control of a member of staff. There is, however, no definition of 'reasonable' - this must be a judgement made by the governors and the head, who must be clear about the factors that they take into account. Any sanctions imposed must happen while the pupil is actually on school grounds
quote:How very retro...
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Consider the possibility of better working conditions, more holidays and secure employment as compensation.
quote:In effect it is - as Boogie points out, the end product is dependent on the quality of the raw materials. Schools in some areas are competing for the most desirable pupils; oversubscribed schools can cherry-pick applications to ensure they get a high proportion of middle-class children from families that place a high value on education. Meanwhile the 'sink' school down the road is stuck with everyone else's leftovers (because they have to be educated somewhere) and has to work three times as hard to achieve similar results.
The implication seems to be that excellence in education is at the expense of other schools.
quote:Australia - annual leave is generally four weeks per year for a full-time employee. Depending on the position and/or the industry, it may need to be booked many months in advance though.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Most shipmates know I've got plenty of time to teachers but aren't those just about the options typical working couples have? Moreover, I'm sure workers in the US have less paid vacation leave than is usual in the UK and Europe (not sure about Oz & NZ).
Originally posted by leo:
quote:So there are only 2 Saturdays in the year, apart from the summer, when teachers can get married and have a fortnight's honeymoon and an additional 2 where the honeymoon can only be a week.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
I'm talking only about US schools where the systems works that "make up" days are added to the end of the school year, at the start of the long summer break. The mid-term holidays should still be fine.
quote:I passed on my union rep. file to my successor so i cannot say any more than what i remember.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Just admit that you made an erroneous claim.
Originally posted by leo:
Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
Schools/headteachers are not liable when teachers travel to and from school. Any claims for accidents on such journeys would be covered by private car insurance, and in terms of absence from work may or may not be covered by union insurance. Schools insure against long term teacher absence so this may be what you are thinking about.
quote:Working conditions? When was the last time you looked at the state of some of our school buildings?
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Consider the possibility of better working conditions, more holidays and secure employment as compensation.
quote:Really? Assuming school finishes at 4.00pm (probably on the late side) and allowing 30 minutes for your seven mile drive home, is it really impossible to arrange your work so that on one occasion you leave work immediately after the end of the school day and schedule an electrician, plumber, etc. for late afternoon? (Assuming you can't find an electrician, etc. who works evenings, which you should be able to.)
Originally posted by leo:
Think, too, of all the other stuff - I cannot get a plumber, electrician, delivery etc. except in holiday time. Or else hire them in term time, lose a day's pay AND pay the school Ł170 per day to get a supply teacher.
quote:How many times do I have to say it? Because everyone knows teachers are lazy and irresponsible and lawyers are selfless and dedicated. Teachers skive off when lawyers have to work, boo hoo.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but...that would still seem to indicate that there are lower expectations on teachers than the personnel of the firms with which I deal. I'm querying why that should be the case.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Well, you're the expert in questioning people.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
... Reply to Soror Magna: I have, and was told that an insufficient number of teachers were able to make it in. Which doesn't answer the question at all, hence it isn't childish, thanks very much!]
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Actually that's not really comparing like with like. Most people are able to book a day off - either out of their holiday allocation, or losing a day's pay for it - more or less any time during the year. Teachers can only do so, as Leo says, in holiday time... while a parent's funeral or something equally serious might be a reason for time off, I doubt if most head teachers would look favourably at a request even to attend to a burst pipe, let alone an IKEA delivery. And I can only imagine the response you would get from a builder or electrician asked if he would start work at teatime!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And the same surely applies to most other working people who would tend to have far less in terms of holiday time. If I want to have a workman in, go to the quack or the tooth-puller etc, I have to take time out of work with the resultant loss of productivity and therefore pay unless I manage to make the time up elsewhere.
quote:Usually in meetings until 5pm.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Really? Assuming school finishes at 4.00pm (probably on the late side) and allowing 30 minutes for your seven mile drive home, is it really impossible to arrange your work so that on one occasion you leave work immediately after the end of the school day and schedule an electrician, plumber, etc. for late afternoon? (Assuming you can't find an electrician, etc. who works evenings, which you should be able to.)
Originally posted by leo:
Think, too, of all the other stuff - I cannot get a plumber, electrician, delivery etc. except in holiday time. Or else hire them in term time, lose a day's pay AND pay the school Ł170 per day to get a supply teacher.
quote:Indeed - wasn't able to go to any funeral for anyone other than immediate family. Not even close friend.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:Actually that's not really comparing like with like. Most people are able to book a day off - either out of their holiday allocation, or losing a day's pay for it - more or less any time during the year. Teachers can only do so, as Leo says, in holiday time... while a parent's funeral or something equally serious might be a reason for time off,
Originally posted by Matt Black:
And the same surely applies to most other working people who would tend to have far less in terms of holiday time. If I want to have a workman in, go to the quack or the tooth-puller etc, I have to take time out of work with the resultant loss of productivity and therefore pay unless I manage to make the time up elsewhere.
quote:You, as a governor,have access to the Burgundy Book - then again, free schools and academies tend to TUPE staff over then tear up its rules.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I passed on my union rep. file to my successor so i cannot say any more than what i remember.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Just admit that you made an erroneous claim.
Originally posted by leo:
Cover is included in professional association membership - as is absence from work if it occurred whilst on the way to or from school.
Schools/headteachers are not liable when teachers travel to and from school. Any claims for accidents on such journeys would be covered by private car insurance, and in terms of absence from work may or may not be covered by union insurance. Schools insure against long term teacher absence so this may be what you are thinking about.
quote:1. For a long time I worked outside whatever the weather, snow and ice included. Anyway elf and safety mean the buildings and working conditions will always be ok, or they'd be closed. Actaully I was looking wider than that: pensions, training course, tiem out of classrooms.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]
1. Working conditions? When was the last time you looked at the state of some of our school buildings?
2. 'More holidays'? I used to take one week off in the summer and a couple of days over Xmas. The rest got used for preparation and work-related reading.
'Secure employment?' not since local management where redundancies happen according to pupil numbers and there is no longer early retirement except on actuarily reduced pensions
quote:Must be a rule your school applied on an individual basis then. No school I've been Governor of has applied such a rule.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] ndeed - wasn't able to go to any funeral for anyone other than immediate family. Not even close friend.
quote:Not individual - it is in the Burgundy Book that governs conditions of service.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Must be a rule your school applied on an individual basis then. No school I've been Governor of has applied such a rule.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE] ndeed - wasn't able to go to any funeral for anyone other than immediate family. Not even close friend.
quote:So you must know some fairly uncommitted teachers.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. .... Well, schools did want the market economy .....What on earth is the Burgundy book anyway? Why do I need to know about wine when we are talking about schools?
quote:Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
quote:My kids' school (Scottish state comprehensive) deals with behaviour problems on school transport. The bus driver, or any pupil on board, can report to the school and have a matter dealt with. I have known this to happen on more than one occasion.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:1. Apologies for the geographical error.
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]1. I have never worked for Bristol.
2. Education Secretary Michael Gove recently pledged to give schools the right to punish pupils for out-of-school behaviour, but that right already exists. Some would argue it has existed in common law since Victorian times when children could be caned for not wearing a cap on the way to school. In any case, the 2006 Education Act states that schools can "regulate the behaviour of pupils when off school premises". …. guidance also implies that schools should primarily concern themselves with off-site behaviour that has a clear link to school rules or an impact on school life. Examples given include bullying another pupil, problems on school transport or incidents that occur when pupils are in uniform
3. Discipline outside the school
School rules can be made to regulate, as far as is reasonable, pupil behaviour outside of school when the pupil is not in the control of a member of staff. There is, however, no definition of 'reasonable' - this must be a judgement made by the governors and the head, who must be clear about the factors that they take into account. Any sanctions imposed must happen while the pupil is actually on school grounds
2. "pledged to give ......can regulate .... a clear link to school rules." Not statutory then - have you ever heard of it being done? Not that long ago I had reason to challenge this personally on an issue of bullying, amounting technically to assault. I was told by all concerned (school, social services and police)that the school could no nothing. The police weren't interested either. Even in uniform it's off school premises and it wasn't repeated on the premises.
3. "School rules can be made to regulate..." It falls down because it isn't implicit - it has to be accepted - what head/school in their right mind would do that? What is "reasonable" anyway. It means nothing as there are so many get outs.
None of this says that the head has the kind of responsibility you have claimed for them. Santions may be available for behaviour and that's about it. Does anyone know of any school that applies this?
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
3. Well, schools did want the market economy
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Which schools? Or rather, by schools maybe you mean power-crazed head teachers (there are a few) or Tory governors. There are many instances of schools being forced into academy status despite the overwhelming opposition of staff and parents... and even, now Gove has his evil way, overriding heads and governors.
quote:Leo, you are just so removed from ordinary people's lives aren't you?
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
quote:How old are you Exclamation Mark? It must be a long time since ordinary workers didn't have the whole of Saturday off, or at least the afternoons. And the Holiday Pay Act came in in 1938.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
When I was a labourer it was never less than a 10 hour day, 6 days a week. Any holiday was unpaid, so people rarely took them as they had to earn a living wage and there wasn't enough to pay for a holiday left over. .
quote:I think that's a good balance. The school-provided (or at least school-contracted) transport is clearly within the bounds of the school's responsibility, no question there. The behaviour of senior students who are allowed to leave the grounds during breaks is an issue of whether students are abusing privileges which could be withdrawn.
Originally posted by North East Quine:
My kids' school (Scottish state comprehensive) deals with behaviour problems on school transport. The bus driver, or any pupil on board, can report to the school and have a matter dealt with. I have known this to happen on more than one occasion.
Similarly, school pupils who leave the school premises at lunchtime, to buy sweets, or generally hang out, would be dealt with by the school if they misbehaved.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
quote:I'm 55. And, yes, I was self employed at the time (and after), in the absence of paid work. Some people did that for many years.
Originally posted by Angloid:
[QUOTE]How old are you Exclamation Mark? It must be a long time since ordinary workers didn't have the whole of Saturday off, or at least the afternoons. And the Holiday Pay Act came in in 1938.
quote:When I was in training and newly qualified, I typically worked a 70 hour week.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Less of the humble, thank you; I have my pride, you know!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
OK! But I didn't think you were particularly rich.
quote:I did about 70 hours each week for 32 years. RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:When I was in training and newly qualified, I typically worked a 70 hour week.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Also, my professional association once did a survey on working hours - the average was 50 hours per week in term time and 40 in holiday time
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Well, you're alone in my experience of the teaching profession on that score. You also seem unable to do the work in the same time frame as your colleagues. Martyr to the cause or inefficient?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
quote:You are the perfect argument as to why Gove is right.
Originally posted by leo:
RE staff get higher number of pupils with Gove's silly EBac, we are going back to the one lesson per week scenario. On the old 40 period week, allowing for 5 frees, s/he might get 35 lessons x 30 pupils each = 1,050 kids - i.e. the lone specialist teaching the entire school.
When i started teaching, the only 'textbooks' found in most stock cupboards were bibles. Nothing on world religions - so i had to write all my own materials and banda them.
For anyone who is ahead of the game, standard textbooks never keep up with what one wants to do.
quote:I've long reached the conclusion that if I were to believe everything people say about their jobs then I would have to conclude that a) everyone works every weekend except for me and b) everyone is doing really, really well except for me.
Originally posted by leo:
I did about 70 hours each week for 32 years. RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
quote:Misusing sacred artefacts is highly unprofessional - sounds like the 'RE teacher' was a non-specialist and, therefore, had no training.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:You are the perfect argument as to why Gove is right.
Originally posted by leo:
RE staff get higher number of pupils with Gove's silly EBac, we are going back to the one lesson per week scenario. On the old 40 period week, allowing for 5 frees, s/he might get 35 lessons x 30 pupils each = 1,050 kids - i.e. the lone specialist teaching the entire school.
When i started teaching, the only 'textbooks' found in most stock cupboards were bibles. Nothing on world religions - so i had to write all my own materials and banda them.
For anyone who is ahead of the game, standard textbooks never keep up with what one wants to do.
My yr9 daughter has just started Humanities (which she has been told includes RE) after the RE teacher retired. My only encounter with the RE teacher was when, at a parents' evening I saw her shoving Jewsh prayer caps onto children's heads to entertain prospective parents. My yr7 son has RE but it doesn't seemed to have grabbed his attention. So what.
I thought for one moment about complaining that RE was no longer taught at Yr9 then visualised you teaching my children and decided to leave well alone. Sorry, but I can't regard Re as an important subject when one of its professed luminaries posts like you do.
quote:It is simple arithmetic - if you look at the pupil caseload figures i gave above.
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:I've long reached the conclusion that if I were to believe everything people say about their jobs then I would have to conclude that a) everyone works every weekend except for me and b) everyone is doing really, really well except for me.
Originally posted by leo:
I did about 70 hours each week for 32 years. RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
quote:Sorry but Leo is quite right, to an extent. When I was teaching as an RE specialist (I'm currently on a career break whilst I got over my differences with SM (homophobic bitches!), discern my vocation with the Church, and generally try to keep my sanity) I would see pretty much the entire school in my working week, whilst also monitoring what the few none specialists got upto to ensure everything was hunky-dorey - one of the problems that not having to have a specialist teach the subject, the department gets little attention in terms of staffing in most schools.
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:I've long reached the conclusion that if I were to believe everything people say about their jobs then I would have to conclude that a) everyone works every weekend except for me and b) everyone is doing really, really well except for me.
Originally posted by leo:
I did about 70 hours each week for 32 years. RE teachers' workload much higher than those from other subjects.
quote:Am I right in thinking that you are a governor?
Originally posted by Spawn:
I can't regard Re as an important subject
quote:This thread is very strange. This group of 'Christian unrest' has largely been devoted to teacher-bashing. In the outside world, when asked to rank professions in terms of trustworthiness, teachers come out high up.
Originally posted by Spawn:
You are the perfect argument as to why Gove is right.
quote:The journalists I know went into it because they love to write and they have a love of words.
Originally posted by leo:
I suppose that journalists went into theirs for the love of truth.
quote:Hmmm - are photographers journalists?
Originally posted by leo:
Pity they didn't write novels instead of photographing members of the royal family in various states of undress then.
quote:That Act doesn't apply to agency workers, for example. Theoretically they are available for work seven days a week and although paid annual leave does accrue (a right only applied to agency workers relatively recently), and thanks to the present government it is now a day one right, agencies only ever pay a percentage of the time you work as they claim that since everyone works different hours 'a day' does not actually mean 7.5 hours, for instance, even if your working day actually IS 7.5 hours (as set by the client you are working for). Sick leave continues to be unpaid and if you don't have enough paid annual leave accrued, bank holidays would be unpaid also.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:How old are you Exclamation Mark? It must be a long time since ordinary workers didn't have the whole of Saturday off, or at least the afternoons. And the Holiday Pay Act came in in 1938.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
When I was a labourer it was never less than a 10 hour day, 6 days a week. Any holiday was unpaid, so people rarely took them as they had to earn a living wage and there wasn't enough to pay for a holiday left over. .
quote:Paid by their masters/mistresses.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Hmmm - are photographers journalists?
Originally posted by leo:
Pity they didn't write novels instead of photographing members of the royal family in various states of undress then.
quote:If you're being pedantic, some journalists are photographers.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Hmmm - are photographers journalists?
Originally posted by leo:
Pity they didn't write novels instead of photographing members of the royal family in various states of undress then.
quote:I am sure that he is right - to an extent.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
]Sorry but Leo is quite right, to an extent.
quote:Plenty of very intelligent dyslexic pupils have benefited from modular assessment. The return to end of course exams will simply cut hundreds of bright, creative people out of the loop. This saddens me as we have come a long way in promoting dyslexia friendly schools and assessment systems.
Originally posted by Cod:
Or the policy of moving away from modules and towards end-of-course exams: once again, this allows greater flexibility in how to teach - one is not restricted to bite-sized modules.
quote:Well, where do we start...
In the meantime, does no-one wish to respond to my comments on Gove?
quote:Heh. The key metric in that ranking appears to be how many school leavers go on to university - and given that recent governments have been happy to declare any old shack that accepts school leavers with two "F" grades at A-Level onto its food preparation course a university it's hardly surprising that we're ranking highly on it. It doesn't mean we're actually any good, it just means we did a fair job of fudging the figures.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And according to this, the UK's education system is sixth best in the world.
quote:Not just dyslexic students but any student who find a particular subject a struggle - so most students. I struggled with both maths and science (science because of the maths content) at school, and did much better in science because it was modular.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Plenty of very intelligent dyslexic pupils have benefited from modular assessment. The return to end of course exams will simply cut hundreds of bright, creative people out of the loop. This saddens me as we have come a long way in promoting dyslexia friendly schools and assessment systems.
Originally posted by Cod:
Or the policy of moving away from modules and towards end-of-course exams: once again, this allows greater flexibility in how to teach - one is not restricted to bite-sized modules.
While schools are controlled by politicians systems will swing from one extreme to the other so that those politicians will be seen to be "doing something".
quote:Isn't that the whole point of grading work in the first place? If you think everybody should pass regardless of whether they're actually any good at the subject then why bother even marking it?
Originally posted by ken:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
quote:I do believe that the GCSE exams that are proposed will have different tiers (just as those that exist now do) and I'm not sure about the AS&A2-level ones yet, but since there should be some form fo entry standard to A levels I don't see the point in having tiered papers - especially since dyslexics etc. are entitled to additional time/help etc.
Originally posted by ken:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
Its not about teaching. They don't want to help you learn more than you otherwise might have. That's not what the Tories think secondary schools are for. Or at least, not what exams are for.
quote:And some people are only shit at things when they don't have the level of support they need to achieve their best. Maths was my worst subject at secondary school. Nevertheless, I was getting 'A's in fourth form under the teacher I had. She went on maternity leave for fifth form, I got a new teacher with a completely different method, and while I passed my CSE maths, completely failed my GCE. I literally could not understand his teaching method, but I thoroughly understood his predecessor's.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Some people are just sh*t at some subjects, people need to learn to live with that fact, people will fail some subjects for whatever reason...
quote:And some people are only shit at things when they don't have the level of support they need to achieve their best. Maths was my worst subject at secondary school. Nevertheless, I was getting 'A's in fourth form under the teacher I had. She went on maternity leave for fifth form, I got a new teacher with a completely different method, and while I passed my CSE maths, completely failed my GCE. I literally could not understand his teaching method, but I thoroughly understood his predecessor's.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Some people are just sh*t at some subjects, people need to learn to live with that fact, people will fail some subjects for whatever reason...
quote:If we're talking about primary schools, especially small ones, that might be true. You need to wait until the kids have gone home. Sometimes they don't go. Sometimes no-one comes to pick them up. You can kick a 12-year-old out onto the street to walk home a few miles on their own, but not a 6-year-old. (I have no idea what the legal position on that is, but from the point of view of ordinary decency, you can't) Its not, strictly speaking, a teacher's job to wait with them until they do go, or to phone their parents and find out what's happening, but most will, because that's what teachers do. And someone has to. A larger school might have some staff members doing it on a rota, or some kind of after-school club, but in a typical small primary school teachers will wait with kids who are expecting to be collected.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Assuming school finishes at 4.00pm (probably on the late side) and allowing 30 minutes for your seven mile drive home, is it really impossible to arrange your work so that on one occasion you leave work immediately after the end of the school day...
quote:
... Assuming you can't find an electrician, etc. who works evenings, which you should be able to.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Where do you live? I have trouble finding people who can come at all, or predict their time within any frame less than a day. Like they say they'll be there in the morning, and don't turn up till 6pm. And there was one time someone was meant to come from the phone company and they missed three successive appointments altogether - I took three days off work to see them in different weeks, and they never came at all. quote:What he said. Schools did not want this crap. When they did it to our school there was almost unanimous opposition from teachers, other staff, and parents. We even got onto the national news at one point as some protestors occupied the school roof for a few weeks.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
3. Well, schools did want the market economy
quote:I know people who don't get those things. Not many of them, and not all entirely legal (though some are) but they exist. Mostly working in trades relating to building. (But also I think some people working in sales or similar almost entirely on commission). Strictly speaking they are not forced to work anti-social hours, but sometimes you need the money
Originally posted by Angloid:
How old are you Exclamation Mark? It must be a long time since ordinary workers didn't have the whole of Saturday off, or at least the afternoons. And the Holiday Pay Act came in in 1938.
quote:It is the difference between mastery and evaluation. And the government keeps confusing the two. We want all students to achieve literacy, i.e. that is a mastery goal, we happy for you to have extra resources, time and teaching to achieve that - because once you have it, it makes life much easier for both you and everyone else (in the same way we want people to be able to cross the road or dress themselves).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Isn't that the whole point of grading work in the first place? If you think everybody should pass regardless of whether they're actually any good at the subject then why bother even marking it?
Originally posted by ken:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
quote:What's with this Americanism of 'grading'.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Isn't that the whole point of grading work in the first place?
Originally posted by ken:
That's the point. These are exams that are designed to separate the students into different classes. If you struggled with maths (or any other subject) you are meant to fail it.
quote:I doubt that. I took part in Gove's risible and insulting consultation that asked closed questions - one of which was 'Do you agree that tiering should be abolished?' or some such.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I do believe that the GCSE exams that are proposed will have different tiers (just as those that exist now do)
quote:Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
The key metric in that ranking appears to be how many school leavers go on to university - and given that recent governments have been happy to declare any old shack that accepts school leavers with two "F" grades at A-Level onto its food preparation course a university it's hardly surprising that we're ranking highly on it.
quote:Also, Further Education is woefully underfunded and never considered as important as Higher Education - and it is a nightmare to re-enter if you've been out of education because of the funding system. All FE fees must be paid upfront, unlike university. The scrapping of EMA also hurt the many in Further Education who are on a low income and/or support themselves.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Marvin:quote:Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
The key metric in that ranking appears to be how many school leavers go on to university - and given that recent governments have been happy to declare any old shack that accepts school leavers with two "F" grades at A-Level onto its food preparation course a university it's hardly surprising that we're ranking highly on it.
The new universities certainly are underfunded compared to Oxbridge and the Russell Group, but Further Education colleges (which do teach subjects such as food preparation) don't count as universities and would not be included in statistics measuring the number of school leavers who attend university.
And the fact that a course does not appear on Mr Gove's approved list of 'academically rigorous' subjects doesn't mean it is worthless or not intellectually demanding. Reading University, for example, offers BScs in Food Science (for those who want to get a job in the ever-expanding ready meals industry). The minimum entry requirements are 3 A levels at BBB or BBC, at least two core science subjects, one of which must be grade B. If you don't believe me you can check their website - www.reading.ac.uk.
Of course, Reading is a member of the Russell Group so perhaps it's a bad example. I'd be interested to hear which university you were thinking of when you made that comment. If it exists.
quote:It only appears to be teacher bashing if you elevate this particular group of workers into constantly put-upon saints, who only have children's best interests at heart, working longer hours than anyone else and always doing so efficiently, brilliantly and selflessly.
Originally posted by leo:
This thread is very strange. This group of 'Christian unrest' has largely been devoted to teacher-bashing. In the outside world, when asked to rank professions in terms of trustworthiness, teachers come out high up.
Journalists, however, come out very low down.
Teachers went into our careers for the love of our subject and 'for the kids.'
I suppose that journalists went into theirs for the love of truth.
quote:I thought it was a good example of the school and its staff being held accountable - the school dropped the ball, it was rightfully complained about and they responded to that complain by coming up with an alternative that was a bit better.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Spawn, you say that criticism and complaining is usually a good thing, but the anecdote you relate is actually a counterexample; your son was discouraged by his first term's report.
quote:It doesn't matter who did it, it's still a terrible idea.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
quote:Yes, and it's those FE colleges that are slowly being turned into universities in their own right. We've got five frigging "universities" in Birmingham now, and frankly only two of them are worthy of the name in my opinion.
The new universities certainly are underfunded compared to Oxbridge and the Russell Group, but Further Education colleges (which do teach subjects such as food preparation) don't count as universities and would not be included in statistics measuring the number of school leavers who attend university.
quote:This one'll do for a start.
I'd be interested to hear which university you were thinking of when you made that comment. If it exists.
quote:Of course they are - and of just as much (if not more) value if they go on to prepare our restaurant meals!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is someone who scrapes a couple of A Level passes then gets a 'degree' in Food Preparation really equivalent to someone with four "A"s at A Level and a degree in Physics?
quote:While I agree with you, personally I think the problem lies with devaluing Further Education. The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct. You can be part of the 'intellectual elite' and still not want to go to uni or have uni not be right for you.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It doesn't matter who did it, it's still a terrible idea.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
quote:Yes, and it's those FE colleges that are slowly being turned into universities in their own right. We've got five frigging "universities" in Birmingham now, and frankly only two of them are worthy of the name in my opinion.
The new universities certainly are underfunded compared to Oxbridge and the Russell Group, but Further Education colleges (which do teach subjects such as food preparation) don't count as universities and would not be included in statistics measuring the number of school leavers who attend university.
quote:This one'll do for a start.
I'd be interested to hear which university you were thinking of when you made that comment. If it exists.
There's nothing wrong with FE courses in Tourism or Salon Management, but are they really worthy of being given equivalent status to a BA/BSc in a proper academic subject? Is someone who scrapes a couple of A Level passes then gets a 'degree' in Food Preparation really equivalent to someone with four "A"s at A Level and a degree in Physics? This is just a ridiculous watering down of the whole concept of what a degree is - it's supposed to be an achievement that singles the bearer out as part of the intellectual elite, not just another routine stepping stone on the path of life. It's supposed to mean something.
quote:Yep - and you can be incredibly intelligent yet not at all academic. Gove makes the mistake of thinking his path is the only path (God forbid!)
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
While I agree with you, personally I think the problem lies with devaluing Further Education. The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct. You can be part of the 'intellectual elite' and still not want to go to uni or have uni not be right for you.
quote:That devaluing has happened in no small part because successive governments have tried to make everything academic. And in the process they've not only devalued NVQs and suchlike, they've devalued academia as well.
Originally posted by Boogie:
This constant devaluing of everything except the academic in this country has done us no end of harm.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That devaluing has happened in no small part because successive governments have tried to make everything academic. And in the process they've not only devalued NVQs and suchlike, they've devalued academia as well.
Originally posted by Boogie:
This constant devaluing of everything except the academic in this country has done us no end of harm.
quote:I have a bias here, but Robert Gordon University is one of the 1992 new Universities, and the Guardian is currently ranking it 35th in the UK. 97.1% of its graduates are in employment within 6 months of graduating.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jane R:
[qb]Thank you for demonstrating how difficult it is to get a Tory to say something positive about the education system. Might I remind you that the first wave of 'old shacks' were magically transformed into 'new universities' in 1992, when the last lot of Tories were in power?
It doesn't matter who did it, it's still a terrible idea.
quote:This is true. But I also don't think you can pigeonhole people neatly into 'academic' -> HE and 'vocational' -> FE. One of our neighbours works as a builder, but he is also a member of the local astronomical society. I don't know whether he knows as much as someone with a BSc in astrophysics, but he certainly knows more than I do. Yet I'm an 'academic' type.
The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct.
quote:OK, so what would you consider a 'proper' academic subject? Would you agree that subjects offered by traditional universities (eg Oxbridge or the Russell Group) count? Because if so, I'd like to point out that they all offer Management Studies and/or Business Studies; why is it OK to study management at university but not Salon Management at an FE college? The University of York (recently ranked the best university under 50 years old in the UK, and 8th best in the world; usually ranked in the top 5 of all UK universities) has a BA in Heritage Studies. You might want to have a look at the course information page before dismissing that, because it's really archaeology for students wanting to work for museums and you won't get a place without some fairly good A level grades.
There's nothing wrong with FE courses in Tourism or Salon Management, but are they really worthy of being given equivalent status to a BA/BSc in a proper academic subject?
quote:Yo uare quite right that other people have other knowledge, but the example fo the builder you give is different than the decision about academic and vocational. The builder has chosen a vocational career and has a hobby which is academic. He is free, at his leasure to persue his hobby and take an academic degree in it if he so wishes. So yes you are right that you can't just pidgeon hole people, but people make choices which pidgeon-hole them...
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade:quote:This is true. But I also don't think you can pigeonhole people neatly into 'academic' -> HE and 'vocational' -> FE. One of our neighbours works as a builder, but he is also a member of the local astronomical society. I don't know whether he knows as much as someone with a BSc in astrophysics, but he certainly knows more than I do. Yet I'm an 'academic' type.
The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct.
[Snip]
The Welsh have just decided to keep GCSEs.
quote:But the education system in Germany is very different, they do not have a regimented 'comprehensive' system and to an extent stream students along the lines of the old grammar-secondary modern style, and their different school paths are weighted towards different skills and abilities, with specialist special schools for those with learning and emotional disabilities. We have a problem in this country that has led to the devaluation of all qualifications because we do not respect and appreciate the inherent value and worth of the individual, rather we judge vocational and academic against each other in a push to ensure 'everyone succeeds the same' rather than appreciate that vocational and academic are different and can't really be compared as like-for-like.
Originally posted by Boogie:This doesn't happen in Germany, and their manufacturing base is still healthy and thriving.
quote:Yes, very true.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
We have a problem in this country that has led to the devaluation of all qualifications because we do not respect and appreciate the inherent value and worth of the individual, rather we judge vocational and academic against each other in a push to ensure 'everyone succeeds the same' rather than appreciate that vocational and academic are different and can't really be compared as like-for-like.
quote:Allow for different students to have different timetables (to avoid the argument of seperate schools, which whilst logical to me seesm to go like a lead balloon in UK education circles in the main) that are weighted to different subjects. Even in year 7 it is possible to see where a student's natural aptitude lies - whether academic/creative/etc. - and whilst it is not clear cut it is possible to orientate a student's timetable so that a hands on D&T student who is crap at music would do more D&T and less music, the student who has a natural aptitude for humanities but really does stink at D&T would do less D&T and more humanities.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yes, very true.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
We have a problem in this country that has led to the devaluation of all qualifications because we do not respect and appreciate the inherent value and worth of the individual, rather we judge vocational and academic against each other in a push to ensure 'everyone succeeds the same' rather than appreciate that vocational and academic are different and can't really be compared as like-for-like.
What's to be done?
quote:I don't think 'academic' is the same as 'intelligent'.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Jade:quote:This is true. But I also don't think you can pigeonhole people neatly into 'academic' -> HE and 'vocational' -> FE. One of our neighbours works as a builder, but he is also a member of the local astronomical society. I don't know whether he knows as much as someone with a BSc in astrophysics, but he certainly knows more than I do. Yet I'm an 'academic' type.
The problem comes when the 'intellectual elite' are considered to be the elite of humanity in general - I know you don't think that, but over-valuing Higher Education and under-valuing Further Education is what went wrong imo. This isn't to dismiss Higher Education, but the idea that 'smart = Higher Ed' is not automatically correct.
And like Mr Gove, I was good at exams (being slightly lazy, I prefer cramming at the last minute and then doing a bunch of exams to having to work steadily throughout the course) and good at academic subjects (I'd have got the EBacc with two additional languages). Unlike him, though, I recognise that the same learning style doesn't suit everyone.
I'm beginning to think Gove is a power-crazed megalomaniac - he's supposed to consult the Welsh and Northern Irish education secretaries before announcing changes that will affect them, and he seems to have done a really good job of putting their backs up. The Welsh have just decided to keep GCSEs.
quote:Absolutely. When I taught in a comprehensive school back in the dark ages, we wrote at least a paragraph of personal report on each pupil in each subject. This highlighted their strengths and pin-pointed targets for improvement. Since the box-ticking 'results'-oriented regimes of the last few governments ("the price of everything and the value of nothing" was a phrase attached to Thatcher but as relevant to Blair's government) this has been reduced to a computer printout in standard gobbledegook, if my wife's more recent experience is any guide.
Originally posted by Spawn:
all year 7s were then reissued their school reports to be told that they needed to make rapid progress to achieve their targets. This was better but even better would have been a few lines from each teacher telling me in personal terms how my son was settling into his new school and new subjects.
quote:One way of achieving this might be to take the Labour Party's idea of a technical baccalaureate alongside the EBacc. In my view the EBacc is a thoroughly good thing for academic children but not for all. We need skilled workers, non academic engineers and manufacturers as much as we need academic whizz kids.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Allow for different students to have different timetables (to avoid the argument of seperate schools, which whilst logical to me seesm to go like a lead balloon in UK education circles in the main) that are weighted to different subjects. Even in year 7 it is possible to see where a student's natural aptitude lies - whether academic/creative/etc. - and whilst it is not clear cut it is possible to orientate a student's timetable so that a hands on D&T student who is crap at music would do more D&T and less music, the student who has a natural aptitude for humanities but really does stink at D&T would do less D&T and more humanities.
Having been involved in timetabling I can imagine it would create a really big headache initially and would require extra money for an increased teaching staff - but this investment (to this small government, low tax and spend peep) would be a wise and appropriately placed investment for the future returns that it would reap (both for the individual student and for the country as a whole.)
quote:What did I say that led you to believe that I thought it was? I have been arguing against narrowing the curriculum and for modular courses.
I don't think 'academic' is the same as 'intelligent'.
quote:Whoever said that getting a job was the primary purpose of a degree?
Originally posted by North East Quine:
97.1% of its graduates are in employment within 6 months of graduating.
quote:That would be far better than the current system, which would give that pupil even more music teaching so that they can become average at it, even if that means they never get beyond average in D&T. Better to be average at everything than brilliant in one area and crap in another - that is the mantra of modern educational orthodoxy.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Even in year 7 it is possible to see where a student's natural aptitude lies - whether academic/creative/etc. - and whilst it is not clear cut it is possible to orientate a student's timetable so that a hands on D&T student who is crap at music would do more D&T and less music
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
One way of achieving this might be to take the Labour Party's idea of a technical baccalaureate alongside the EBacc. In my view the EBacc is a thoroughly good thing for academic children but not for all. We need skilled workers, non academic engineers and manufacturers as much as we need academic whizz kids.
quote:Different methods of assessment tend to favour different people. Whichever we use some will be relatively advantaged by it, and others disadvantaged. So the peope who design exams can choose what kind of people they want to pass and what kind they want to fail, and choose accordingly.
Originally posted by Jane R:
And like Mr Gove, I was good at exams (being slightly lazy, I prefer cramming at the last minute and then doing a bunch of exams to having to work steadily throughout the course) and good at academic subjects (I'd have got the EBacc with two additional languages).
quote:Dunno about Marvin, but personally I don't think Business Studies and similar vocational degrees are "real academic subjects" for most of the students who take them, however bespired their university is. They can be for some of the academics who teach it, but then you can research pretty much anything. But so what? Academic education doesn't have any particular particular moral superioroty over training in useful skills, but they are different things.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Marvin:quote:OK, so what would you consider a 'proper' academic subject? Would you agree that subjects offered by traditional universities (eg Oxbridge or the Russell Group) count? Because if so, I'd like to point out that they all offer Management Studies and/or Business Studies; why is it OK to study management at university but not Salon Management at an FE college?
There's nothing wrong with FE courses in Tourism or Salon Management, but are they really worthy of being given equivalent status to a BA/BSc in a proper academic subject?
quote:Because the courses are meant to achieve different things.
Originally posted by Boogie:
My son has just qualified as an A320 pilot. His course was very modular. At least half of it was practical = flying real planes, starting with the smallest. This fact won't make him a less good pilot.
Why does cramming all the knowledge and expertise into one exam make it somehow more valuable at A level (in Gove's eyes)?
quote:I object to the dropping of RE - which I'm assuming you had to do at GCSE, surely? Also a language is no longer compulsory at GCSE (although it was dropped in 2007(?) or thereabouts, so definitely a Labour misstep). I did my GCSEs in 2005 and had to do maths, English language, English literature, RE, a science and a language. I also did geography, history and another language (school was a language specialist school).
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
One way of achieving this might be to take the Labour Party's idea of a technical baccalaureate alongside the EBacc. In my view the EBacc is a thoroughly good thing for academic children but not for all. We need skilled workers, non academic engineers and manufacturers as much as we need academic whizz kids.
Would this be a suggestion from 'just three words: education, education, education' Labour, who fecked about with the education system last time round to make a complete hash of most of it with it's admin. and overlapping 'initatives' which came out ten a penny... Hmm... look to Labour in Wales and wonder...
However, there is some merit in a TechBacc. but unfortunately it is just a little too late to call for them when there are already the university technical colleges coming out, of course lots of people don't like them because they are not within the 'mainstream' comprehensive system... but I likes them, and a techbacc could be part of that system...
Just as a quick tangent, there is a little bit of criticism about the Ebacc around (and most of it seems to focus on the compulsory 5 subjects detracting from other subjects) I just had to pip in how having to do compulsory English, maths, 1 science, 1 foreign language and either history or geography would not have altered my GCSE subject options greatly, nor stopped me doing any other subjects I might like, in any event it was requirement in my school to conform to what is now being classed the Ebacc anyhow (except for those in the lower streams) so I don't see the fuss - if people could enlighten me to what he actual problems (beyond a lack of coursework) with the Ebacc are I would be grateful.
quote:
But to be honest I think I'd rather it if we'd let universities be universities, and concetrate on research and scholarship, and perhaps had rather fewer of them, and if there was another group of higher education institutions, sort of sitting between the FE colleges and the traditional universities, perhaps concentrating less on theoretical research, and more on technical subjects and engineering and other useful but less obviously scholarly things such as business studies or teacher-training or art and design. Hey, maybe we could call them "Polytechnics"! Now wouldn't that be a radical idea?
This.quote:The government did, back in 2011. But 'employability' and 'enterprise skills' were being bandied about as buzzwords long before that.
Whoever said that getting a job was the primary purpose of a degree?
quote:Please, go back and re-read the proposals for the EBacc... your two point reply had two errors!
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I object to the dropping of RE - which I'm assuming you had to do at GCSE, surely? Also a language is no longer compulsory at GCSE (although it was dropped in 2007(?) or thereabouts, so definitely a Labour misstep). I did my GCSEs in 2005 and had to do maths, English language, English literature, RE, a science and a language. I also did geography, history and another language (school was a language specialist school).
quote:this link provides a rather basic overview of the situation. Whilst a full course RS GCSE is optional any school which does not provide RS in some form (as listed above in response to Jade) is breaking the 1944 law (so not really a recent development) and OfSTED would be required to intervene and ensure the law was being followed. Many schools do seem to get away with breaking the law somehow (but having seen the lying and deception that goes on at inspection time I'm not surprised that it is not picked up).
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
quote:No - daily collective worship and Religious education have been compulsory for all pupils on role, including 6th formers, since 1944 and this was reiterated in the 1988 Education Reform Act and in Circular 1/94.
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
quote:You are technically correct but you are echoing Nick Gibbs's standard reply to all the howls of protest about the demoting of RE.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Please, go back and re-read the proposals for the EBacc... your two point reply had two errors!
1. RE has not been 'dropped', the legal requirement from the previous legislation that RS be taught in some fashion is still in force, everyone must still do some 'RS' until the end of compulsory school-leaving age (whether schools approach it as a discreet subject, part of citizenship/general studies/humanities etc. has always been a possibility) in no way has RS been 'dropped'.
quote:RE teachers are being made redundant, PGCSE and B. Ed. places for RE have been halved.
90.3 per cent indicated there had been a reduction in the provision of education about religion and belief at their school since the EBacc was introduced.
quote:Sorry leo but I can't agree. The EBC has not killed of any subject - all it is is an overarching qualification to recognise that a certain degree of ability has been accomplished in 5 core subjects (which for the life of me I can't disagree with the 5 chosen). It neither harms any other subject, nor reduces the choices of learners.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:No - daily collective worship and Religious education have been compulsory for all pupils on role, including 6th formers, since 1944 and this was reiterated in the 1988 Education Reform Act and in Circular 1/94.
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
GCSE, however, was new-ish - to stop kids mucking around in non-exam RE we put them through GCSE short or long course. Until Michael Gove, who listens to nobody, killed it with his EBacc nonsence.
quote:I wonder how many teachers you know? Or how often you have been to a pub, restaurant or whatever and observed different groupings of people from work.
Originally posted by Spawn:
It only appears to be teacher bashing if you elevate this particular group of workers into constantly put-upon saints, who only have children's best interests at heart, working longer hours than anyone else and always doing so efficiently, brilliantly and selflessly.
Now some teachers fit the bill. Others don't.
quote:For the third paragraph you are preaching to the choir. RS gets less time than any other subject, but that is very much dependent on how the individual schools view it. However, how the EBC affects this nobody knows, and then it is the fault of individual schools if they cut the amount of time given over to the none 5 EBC subjects. Gove can't be blamed for poor timetabling by schools, or a seeming inability for schools to possibly teach kids to an adequate level in the time they already assign to it.
Originally posted by leo:
You are technically correct but you are echoing Nick Gibbs's standard reply to all the howls of protest about the demoting of RE.
Because RE doesn't count as a 'humanity', it isn't IN the EBacc. (Now i have always resisted humanities as a notion - I am so old fashioned that I like separate subjects). So RE GCSE has to go into an option column alongside things like art, drama, design tech. etc. So it is competing with lots of (other popular subjects so won't get enough up[take to be viable.
In my last job, i had all pupils, including at Key Stage 4, for 5% of curriculum time, in line with the Agreeed Syllabus. That is 3 x 50 minute periods in a fortnightly 60 period timetable. Post Gove's EBacc I'd probably lose 2/3rds of that and have 1 50 min period per fortnight - 25 mins per week. That is worse, even, that the old fashioned 1 x 40 min. period. Imagine the caseload - I'd be teaching 1650 different pupils with all the reports, parents evening appointments that would involve.
So RE may not have been 'dropped' but it's certainly been kicked into obscurity.
NO GCSE means no A'level means fewer taking Theology degrees means fewer doing RE for PGCE means a cycle of ever-increasing decline.
According to a teachers' union which i normally have an intense dislike,quote:RE teachers are being made redundant, PGCSE and B. Ed. places for RE have been halved.
90.3 per cent indicated there had been a reduction in the provision of education about religion and belief at their school since the EBacc was introduced.
I don't believe in Hell but i wish it could be invented to house Michael Gove.
quote:I'm married to a teacher. She's an excellent teacher, of course as are most of the many teachers I know.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I wonder how many teachers you know? Or how often you have been to a pub, restaurant or whatever and observed different groupings of people from work.
Originally posted by Spawn:
It only appears to be teacher bashing if you elevate this particular group of workers into constantly put-upon saints, who only have children's best interests at heart, working longer hours than anyone else and always doing so efficiently, brilliantly and selflessly.
Now some teachers fit the bill. Others don't.
The likelihood is that the teacher group will be talking about work, kids and so on and they will then leave and do some marking when they go home to make up for the time they lost earlier.
I have worked in four large schools, one grammar, 3 comps. and encountered very few 'bad' teachers, if by 'bad' is mean uncommitted/unwilling to put in long hours. In fact, I reckon there were 3 of them.
quote:There have been several surveys demonstrating the decline in all these subjects, even to the extent of pupils being dragged out of them mid course and put in EBacc classes. I can't give you chapter and verse because I only monitor my own subject. A quick google at the various subject associations websites would show you.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As for it's inclusion in the EBacc and EBC - neither is art, music, drama etc. etc. etc. and until there is demonstratable evidence that these subjects are in decline then you don't have a point there.
quote:Its survival will be as a Cinderella subject - the sort of also-ran, joke subject that it used to be before the advances we made in the 1970s. The hidden curriculum message of a subject that has less time than any other is that religion is unimportant. I would prefer that RE were dropped altogether in this case.
Originally posted by Spawn:
My view is that RE will survive because it remains a privileged subject in the law with its own particular syllabus arrangements by committee of interest groups.
quote:I can understand your frustration as a specialist but RE is protected far more than other important subjects like music. Perhaps it needs to reinvent itself again. It certainly has to compete for attention but it was ever thus.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Its survival will be as a Cinderella subject - the sort of also-ran, joke subject that it used to be before the advances we made in the 1970s. The hidden curriculum message of a subject that has less time than any other is that religion is unimportant. I would prefer that RE were dropped altogether in this case.'
Originally posted by Spawn:
My view is that RE will survive because it remains a privileged subject in the law with its own particular syllabus arrangements by committee of interest groups.
quote:Er, I knew that the Ebacc contained a language, I pointed out that a language is not compulsory *at GCSE*, because it was dropped in ~2007.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:Please, go back and re-read the proposals for the EBacc... your two point reply had two errors!
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I object to the dropping of RE - which I'm assuming you had to do at GCSE, surely? Also a language is no longer compulsory at GCSE (although it was dropped in 2007(?) or thereabouts, so definitely a Labour misstep). I did my GCSEs in 2005 and had to do maths, English language, English literature, RE, a science and a language. I also did geography, history and another language (school was a language specialist school).
1. RE has not been 'dropped', the legal requirement from the previous legislation that RS be taught in some fashion is still in force, everyone must still do some 'RS' until the end of compulsory school-leaving age (whether schools approach it as a discreet subject, part of citizenship/general studies/humanities etc. has always been a possibility) in no way has RS been 'dropped'.
2. A foreign language is compulsory (again under these proposals) in the Ebacc... what foreign language is up to the school (and hopefully more will begin teaching mandarin and spanish).
The Ebacc is a small nucleus of subjects, (with three of them already being compulsory,) that are considered basic, in terms of skills and content, in this day and age for all jobs (English, Maths, Science, foreign language and history/geography) it in no way impeeds students option to choose other subjects (as the jack, whose wages I pay, on Breakfast this morning tried to claim), unless the school has a really slimmed down options choice and already timetables excessively for these core subjects (which raises questions about the schools ability to educate its students competantly) nor will it impede people's options at university as most universities run of the post-16 results as opposed to GCSE. The Ebacc will remain a part of ensuring that the basic necessary skills are taught and as a means of ensuring that schools are adequately equipping kids for the world...
quote:We never had a single religious Collective Worship at my school. We did it when my tutor didn't have too many notices to get through in registration, but it was just thinking about ~issues and treated as an annoyance by all the form tutors.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:No - daily collective worship and Religious education have been compulsory for all pupils on role, including 6th formers, since 1944 and this was reiterated in the 1988 Education Reform Act and in Circular 1/94.
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
GCSE, however, was new-ish - to stop kids mucking around in non-exam RE we put them through GCSE short or long course. Until Michael Gove, who listens to nobody, killed it with his EBacc nonsence.
quote:The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things! My RE lessons from years 8 and 9 are not very memorable (I remember learning the Islamic story of Ibrahim and Ismail, that's about it). For my GCSE (I did full course and had a brilliant teacher) we studied the Hindu concept of Ahimsa, did a case study of the amazing Hindu temple in Neasden and did a comparative exam on ethical issues in Christianity and Islam.
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. Yes many on the ship might well have insight into some of these topics but our students would have got a raw deal if any old teacher had been teaching them instead!
quote:Sorry about the confusion over the EBC language bit - it seemed as if you were saying that it was being dropped in the EBC proposals, not that you were celebrating the return of languages.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things! My RE lessons from years 8 and 9 are not very memorable (I remember learning the Islamic story of Ibrahim and Ismail, that's about it). For my GCSE (I did full course and had a brilliant teacher) we studied the Hindu concept of Ahimsa, did a case study of the amazing Hindu temple in Neasden and did a comparative exam on ethical issues in Christianity and Islam.
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. Yes many on the ship might well have insight into some of these topics but our students would have got a raw deal if any old teacher had been teaching them instead!
quote:Same here! I went to a grammar school, but if we had a "department of theology and philosophy" it must have been fully invisible. The RE teacher I remember best was indeed a history teacher. And a very nice person. She was a member of a tiny Pentecostal Church that met in a genuine tin tab that was on the edge of the school grounds. (I went once. Very, very nice people, singing lots of hymns out of books that looked like they were printed in the 1920s and compiled in the 1890s. Lots of Moody and Sankey and Fanny Crosby.)
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things![...]
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. [...]
quote:Depends how you define it. Circular 1/94 insisted that it had to be worship 'of a deity' but it has no legal standing, being only advisory. John Patten issued this circular because a lot of schools interpreted 'worship' as thinking about things of worth - provoking a response, in silence, from pupils is sufficient for it to be such 'worship'.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We never had a single religious Collective Worship at my school. We did it when my tutor didn't have too many notices to get through in registration, but it was just thinking about ~issues and treated as an annoyance by all the form tutors.
quote:RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
quote:You are certainly not right that RE, as opposed to Religious instruction or indoctrination, was the original core subject. I've already said that the tradition of regarding the Ebacc subjects as core has a long pedigree.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
It is only now that it is no longer core.
I know that you have told me before that RE should not be core but I don't think you have ever given me any reasons. Why is its knowledge base or its skills set inferior to, e.g. history?
quote:Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
Originally posted by Spawn:
cc subjects asquote:The merits of learning about our past (history) and our environment (Geography) don't need any defence. It is important to learn about the beliefs
Originally posted by leo:
quote:RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
It is only now that it is no longer core.
I know that you have told me before that RE should not be core but I don't think you have ever given me any reasons. Why is its knowledge base or its skills set inferior to, e.g. history?
quote:Do I have to establish that RE is inferior in terms of subject knowledge and skills-set? I think RE is important and should continue to be part of the curriculum - in a statutory way. It should be one of the options but in my opinion it's not quite as foundational as history and geography.
Originally posted by leo:
Partly agree about RE, RI, RK etc. but you haven't said why its subject knowledge and skills-set are inferior to the other subjects.
Nor is your speculation about it not being downgraded supported by any evidence - the evidence, in survey after survey, including that of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, points to massive downgrading.
quote:You have repeatably claimed that 'Gove is right' but have not produced any arguments as to why. It amounts to Gove is right - because I agree with him...because RE is not important - because i have seen some bad examples of it - therefore Gove is right - because i agree with him.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Do I have to establish that RE is inferior in terms of subject knowledge and skills-set? I think RE is important and should continue to be part of the curriculum - in a statutory way. It should be one of the options but in my opinion it's not quite as foundational as history and geography.
Originally posted by leo:
Partly agree about RE, RI, RK etc. but you haven't said why its subject knowledge and skills-set are inferior to the other subjects.
Nor is your speculation about it not being downgraded supported by any evidence - the evidence, in survey after survey, including that of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, points to massive downgrading.
quote:KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
Originally posted by Spawn:
On a tangent, I don't know enough about it but would be interested in knowing whether the history curriculum neglects the study of historical religiosity because that is thought to be covered by RE. Religious education needs to be applied to other subjects. How can you possibly appreciate art, music, literature, history, philosophy and even our environment without an understanding of the beliefs which have shaped us, our culture and our world?
quote:This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
quote:Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
quote:See this is the problem... that New Labour skill focus that I mentionin the post above this (sorry for hte double post)...
Originally posted by leo:
RE isn't there to service other subjects because it isn't about the past so much as about the future, equipping young people in their own spiritual quest and giving them the skill to evaluate.
quote:I have mischievously had a few shots at you which may have given the impression that I don't think RE is important. For that I apologise.
Originally posted by leo:
You have repeatably claimed that 'Gove is right' but have not produced any arguments as to why. It amounts to Gove is right - because I agree with him...because RE is not important - because i have seen some bad examples of it - therefore Gove is right - because i agree with him.
Any why are History and Geography more 'foundational' that RE?
quote:I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
quote:But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
quote:Furthermore when I studied the reformation for my history A 'level over two decades ago the Whig version of the reformation had already been superseded by Scarisbricke et. al.
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
Protestations that this is in your experience not done properly will be met with a blizzard of experiences of crap RE teaching.
quote:Absolutely they do. It's what us teachers spend a lot of time teaching them.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
If kids don't learn how to store and recall specific knowledge when they are young, and that being the best time to do it, then they wont have the skills to do the jobs that require it later on.
quote:You are right, we don't need to know as much stuff straight of (depending on the circles you move in and what careers you choose) but it is an important skill taht needs to be developed, even if it is only for the sake of being able to hold a conversation with somebody which tends to rely, especially in regards to current affairs, holding onto not only the immediate topic but the backstory as well.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Absolutely they do. It's what us teachers spend a lot of time teaching them.
My son is a pilot and needs to know every wire and sprocket within the plane, not just how to fly it.
But that's not what I am saying. We really don't need to store as much 'stuff' any more in ordinary life. Our ways of working will change as a consequence - and maybe for the better.
quote:(I'm sorry if I get a little frustrated and angry for a while. I've been reading the Kakangelicalism thread and the angery emotions that are wildly flying around in that thread have settled on me atm. - they should pass soon, and then I'll be serene again - in fact it's already happening!
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am trying to say that if we put more of our effort into creativity and innovation rather than memorising then maybe we'll become a more balanced society?
We certainly need to learn about RE - but learning from RE is just as crucial imo.
)quote:Since secondary school teaching has such a focus on exams, facts and figures (and quotes and so on from subjects without facts and figures!) are taught more than transferable skills. This is a problem for employers.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
If kids don't learn how to store and recall specific knowledge when they are young, and that being the best time to do it, then they wont have the skills to do the jobs that require it later on.
Yes, I personally am a great fan of being able to say, oh I know which book to look in for that knowledge, without knowing it all entirely myself, but if I can't recall facts and figures in a discussion then it will be pretty boring as well...
quote:I hardly think the problem for employers is that too many facts are taught. It's clear that the emphasis has been on skills for a number of years. I just wish such a dichotomy was not set up by ideologues. We need both facts and skills.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Since secondary school teaching has such a focus on exams, facts and figures (and quotes and so on from subjects without facts and figures!) are taught more than transferable skills. This is a problem for employers.
quote:Fair point. I was basing my 'caricature' on some Yr. 9 history lessons I'd covered (back in the day when teachers did cover).
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
Protestations that this is in your experience not done properly will be met with a blizzard of experiences of crap RE teaching.
quote:Agree - I often put the pupils in groups to research and present a topic. For example, in year 9:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
There is a way to learn about in a creative fashion, allowing for the creativity and innovation to shine through even whilst learning about something, it is no cope-out, nor a cheat, but an emminantely useful lesson to get the kids to actually produce a lesson themselves as if they were to be expected to teach it so that they have to use their creativity and innovation to decide what needs to go in and how to present it and learn during it, but they also must learn the information to actually be competant to do it if ever called to.
quote:Gove has refused to meet RE professionals, church reps. etc. His EBacc consultation was risible - he did not ask whether people agreed with it but simply asked how was the best way to go about it.
Originally posted by Spawn:
So, I'd put the shoe on the other foot and ask how you as a specialist persuade Gove that RE is so important that it just has to be a core subject? I don't get the sense that many parents or children are bothered one way or the other for this to be a vote-threatening issue for the conservatives.
quote:TES 4/2/11
focus on factual recall rather than on exploring ideas failed to capture students' interest
quote:NASACRE: RE
emphasizes skills of debate, reflection, and creative discussion in contrast to
an increasingly exam-driven curriculum in other subject areas
quote:From various MPs at an early day motion debate:
challenges pupils to question and explore their own and others’ understanding of the world.
raises questions of identity, meaning and value and encourages people to reflect on their experiences, behaviour and opinions.
contributes positively and powerfully to the spiritual, personal, social, moral and cultural development of pupils.
Teaches children and young people about Christian and other religions’ beliefs, practices and responses to Ultimate Questions so that they can understand the world better and develop their own sense of place within it.
RE has a key role to play in enabling pupils to achieve and preparing them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life
quote:Hansard
Fiona Bruce: Religious issues are frequently at the top of any news agenda. Today’s RE helps young people make sense of that and wider world affairs. It also promotes community cohesion, as it allows young people, who are growing up in a diverse society, to discuss and understand the views and opinions of people whose beliefs and values differ from their own, in the safety of the classroom environment.
“In an increasingly confusing world, Religious Studies gives young people perhaps their only opportunity to engage seriously not only with the most profound philosophical questions concerning human existence and the nature of reality, but also with the most fundamental ethical dilemmas of our day”.
Where else will our young people obtain that?
RE lessons also develop transferrable skills such as critical analysis, essay structure and general written and verbal language skills. Those benefit other subjects as pupils learn how to express and articulate their views and, equally importantly, to respect those of others. Questioning, reasoning, empathy, philosophy, values and insight are all highly valuable skills fostered within RE learning. One student told me:
“It focused my thinking on areas of abstract thought, it improved and developed my analytical skills and logical reasoning”—
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): At this particular time in our history, when there is so much conflict still in the world, many teachers and parents believe a spiritual literacy and understanding of religion is hugely important and must continue in Britain… Mrs Pat Wager, head teacher at Sacred Heart Catholic high school in Fenham, which is my old school. She said:
“RS cannot be excluded from a domain entitled ‘Humanity’—RS is the pre-eminent humanity and yet it has no place.”
quote:Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews:
Commitment to religious education by schools is crucial to interfaith understanding and harmonious relations between people of different religious backgrounds. It is also essential to young people’s personal development, enabling them to work out their beliefs and the values they will take into adult life
quote:Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch:
Religious studies has proven itself to be a valuable contribution to the academic curriculum, teaching students to respect themselves and others and, importantly, build identities which contribute favourably to all areas of society..."The multi-disciplinary nature of the subject, involving textual study, philosophical thinking, ethics, social understanding and the skills of analysis and reasoning, develops critical thinkers,"
quote:
Religion matters to most human beings in the world today," he added. "To leave religion to the religious extremists, outside a good education system, is to distort it.
quote:<tangent> Actually I'd rather have a surgeon who checked facts that s/he wasn't sure of than one that went ahead regardless, especially if the Dread Disease I was suffering from was rare.
...you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation...
quote:What is wrong with local? As for 'interested groupings', it ensures balance between various factions: churches 'other' religions' elected councillors? It makes it democratic, which is more than can be said for other subjects. AND there are national guidelines - true, they are not compulsory but any ASC which doesn't give heed to them will disadvantage students when it comes to exams.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sorry to have taken several days to respond. None of the quotes you've posted do anything other than promote RE as a worthwhile and important subject.
How do you address the following questions. That the syllabus is set locally by interested groupings? That it isn't a subject with an academic pedigree (ie it's a hotch-potch of perfectly repsectable academic disciplines drawn together somewhat randomly)? And that it's a subject children can be withdrawn from?
quote:Nothing wrong with local arrangements or self-interest on the part of religious organisations but I think these factors pose some questions. Can we be sure that all authorities have the same rigorous standards or that there is sufficient balance? RE is not identical to theology. The right to withdraw is too well-established.
Originally posted by leo:
What is wrong with local? As for 'interested groupings', it ensures balance between various factions: churches 'other' religions' elected councillors? It makes it democratic, which is more than can be said for other subjects. AND there are national guidelines - true, they are not compulsory but any ASC which doesn't give heed to them will disadvantage students when it comes to exams.
Hotch potch? Theology was the Queen of Sciences for that reason. A well-rounded education. In schools, it is a meta-cognitive subject which illumines all the other subjects. God doesn't live in a box.
No academic pedigree? Theology is older than most of the other university subjects.
The right to withdraw ought to be scrapped since the subject no longer 'instructs' people in a particular faith. The only reason this hasn't happened is because it is a hot potato - the 1988 ERA already attracted religious fruitcakes before it considered changing the 1944 provisions. It would be a rerun of the 'Rome on the rates' outcry in the board schools era.
quote:Also, to withdraw the right to withdraw would conflict with certain minority religious groups position on these things. Since religion is a matter of personal conscience, it is up for the family to decide what, if any, interaction with other religious beliefs (however presented) is acceptable, adn some minority religious groups have a blanket ban on studying other faiths.
Originally posted by Spawn:
The right to withdraw is too well-established.
quote:Why do you assume 'sel;f interest'? SACRE members work many hours for no pay because of love for the subject and passion for the development of young people. Even the tories, to whom everything usually comes down to gain rather than giving.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Nothing wrong with local arrangements or self-interest on the part of religious organisations but I think these factors pose some questions. Can we be sure that all authorities have the same rigorous standards or that there is sufficient balance? RE is not identical to theology. The right to withdraw is too well-established.
Originally posted by leo:
What is wrong with local? As for 'interested groupings', it ensures balance between various factions: churches 'other' religions' elected councillors? It makes it democratic, which is more than can be said for other subjects. AND there are national guidelines - true, they are not compulsory but any ASC which doesn't give heed to them will disadvantage students when it comes to exams.
Hotch potch? Theology was the Queen of Sciences for that reason. A well-rounded education. In schools, it is a meta-cognitive subject which illumines all the other subjects. God doesn't live in a box.
No academic pedigree? Theology is older than most of the other university subjects.
The right to withdraw ought to be scrapped since the subject no longer 'instructs' people in a particular faith. The only reason this hasn't happened is because it is a hot potato - the 1988 ERA already attracted religious fruitcakes before it considered changing the 1944 provisions. It would be a rerun of the 'Rome on the rates' outcry in the board schools era.
quote:Nor will they believe if someone should rise from the dead - S. Luke
Originally posted by Spawn:
None of the quotes you've posted do anything other than promote RE as a worthwhile and important subject.
quote:As a matter of interest/information, do creationist parents have the right to withdraw their children from science lessons when evolution is taught? Or (and I think I know the answer to this) to vet every possible question and topic that comes up for discussion in English lessons, even those arising directly from set texts?
Originally posted by leo:
The right to withdraw may have been around for a long time but so it was for sex education. That right no longer exists. Things can change.
quote:I think the problem you identify is one of 'rights' and ownership. Of course children are not owned by anyone, least of all the 'state'. But don't take away responsibility from parents. And where does this idea that children are on loan come from? A very questionable idea. Sounds like you want further power grabs by the state into family life. Presumably your basis for doing so is that teachers know best.
Originally posted by leo:
Exactly - no they don't have that right.
I hate the notion that parents have 'rights' over their children. Their children don't belong to them. They are 'on loan'.
The state sometimes steps in to protect children from their parents e.g. blood transfusion and JW parents.
It should protect children from the narrow views of their parents in the interests of a rounded education that contributes to children's development in the image of God.
quote:Meant to add earlier: re- 'self interest' - When i was chair of our SACRE and also when on working parties (which has been most of the time in my 35 years of serving on SACREs) the work involved about 8 hours per week - usually on Saturdays - that doesn't feel like 'self interest'.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Nothing wrong with local arrangements or self-interest on the part of religious organisations but I think these factors pose some questions. Can we be sure that all authorities have the same rigorous standards or that there is sufficient balance? RE is not identical to theology.
quote:Thanks for the info - google turned up a consultation document issued this morning - I have forwarded it to all my colleagues.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I notice that a new measure for schools will now be around eight subjects including RE.
quote:I assume you mean on loan from God - and remember that we are told we are all one another's keepers.
Originally posted by leo:
Exactly - no they don't have that right.
I hate the notion that parents have 'rights' over their children. Their children don't belong to them. They are 'on loan'.
quote:
Let's see. He claims to want to give schools greater autonomy, but actually the 'free' schools programme is another ideologically-motivated attempt to chip away at the power of local education authorities.
quote:
And the much-vaunted 'EBacc' is simply another straitjacket for the curriculum, designed to force all GCSE students to study subjects that Mr Gove remembers from his own schooldays.
quote:
The previous government's attempts to improve vocational courses have simply been ignored, with the result that students who are not particularly good at academic subjects have nothing to engage their interest.
quote:I think that's a huge question in itself - leaving aside the additional problems posed by what sort of allowances should be made to children with disabilities. But I note your point.
So we're back to an 'all or nothing' round of exams at the end of most courses, which is More Rigorous (that's code for Harder To Pass), regardless of the fact that a three-hour written exam is neither the best way of testing knowledge of most subjects nor a realistic representation of how knowledge is used in (most of) the real world.
quote:This is somewhat tangental, but I don't think NZ does use a phonics system like the one I hear described as being used in UK schools. I did read of a comparative study of Scottish pupils (taught using phonics) and NZ pupils (taught using a "book-based" approach) and the NZ pupils were better. Certainly Codlet Major's reading work seems to involve reading book after book on tractors, fishing, taking the dog out, and other staple features of NZ life. It really isn't about rote-learing letter sounds. Either way, she has done extremely well (her maths is unfortunately not so hot).
Oh, and synthetic phonics (as used in New Zealand) IS the phonics system that is being used in English schools.
quote:PISA et al are based on attainment levels. The above survey is based partly on PISA results but also what is taught and what resources are put in. I have heard comments from NZ teachers (who have taught in the UK system) suggesting that children get introduced to various topics a fair bit sooner in the UK than in NZ - in some cases as much as two years sooner. Of course it doesn't follow that the children actually understand what is being taught to them - and if PISA is to be relied upon, it suggests that they quite often don't.
And according to this, the UK's education system is sixth best in the world. We don't fare quite so well in the OECD rankings, but sixth best (second best in Europe) isn't bad at all. You'd never guess it from Michael Gove and the media, though.
