Just to be clear here, for those that don't realise it, the "big rich city boys" being questioned in this case are the educational foundation formed by the Leathersellers Company - a not for profit company - who have been involved in education in Lewisham since 1634 (http://www.leathersellers-federation.com/193/chairmans-welcome).
So the question here is around how you think education should be delivered, NOT one of "profit" in the same way that a profit making company may, for example, take over a train operating contract, take the government subsidy then channel a proportion of that as dividends back to shareholders.
Politics and ideology have used education as a football for years. Cannot see that changing in a hurry. Surely there is a place for both state and academy run education? After all, the only thing society wants is a well educated stream of talent emerging into the workplace and society. If you asked any University admission officer what they thought of the general standard of state educated young adults knocking at their door, then you find the system failing anyway.
True but I think you are missing a point here. University level education improves under an academy. (from all income groups) It's those well below average (who frankly should be undertaking job specific apprentice style education) who suffer the most. (of all income groups)
Do you mean A-level results? What would make an Academy get better A-level results that another kind of school?
Just to be clear here, for those that don't realise it, the "big rich city boys" being questioned in this case are the educational foundation formed by the Leathersellers Company - a not for profit company - who have been involved in education in Lewisham since 1634 (http://www.leathersellers-federation.com/193/chairmans-welcome).
So the question here is around how you think education should be delivered, NOT one of "profit" in the same way that a profit making company may, for example, take over a train operating contract, take the government subsidy then channel a proportion of that as dividends back to shareholders.
Politics and ideology have used education as a football for years. Cannot see that changing in a hurry. Surely there is a place for both state and academy run education? After all, the only thing society wants is a well educated stream of talent emerging into the workplace and society. If you asked any University admission officer what they thought of the general standard of state educated young adults knocking at their door, then you find the system failing anyway.
True but I think you are missing a point here. University level education improves under an academy. (from all income groups) It's those well below average (who frankly should be undertaking job specific apprentice style education) who suffer the most. (of all income groups)
Do you mean A-level results? What would make an Academy get better A-level results that another kind of school?
Well of course if you are an academy and are able to select for potential exam success, then you have more chance of getting students into University. Any school that selects can do that, not only an Academy. On that basis it is not the quality of teaching, but the quality of selection that counts. There is no evidence that an Academy is better at educating per se.
Well of course if you are an academy and are able to select for potential exam success, then you have more chance of getting students into University. Any school that selects can do that, not only an Academy. On that basis it is not the quality of teaching, but the quality of selection that counts. There is no evidence that an Academy is better at educating per se.
It's not fact! It can't be as none of the really good teachers want to work for them, the benefits to teachers are much better in state run schools. Academies may be selective of students (as much as legally allowed) but they can't choose the very best teachers as they would rather work elsewhere.
I agree with you Sadie that it is the quality of teaching that matters. It is no biggie if a teacher oversees the next Stephen Hawkins to an A* in GCSE maths, but for some teachers, even if you give credence to examination results, getting a student to 'E' grade in maths can represent a massive achievement.
Here is what the New Statesman said about Free Schools:
The Belvedere Academy in Liverpool, up there with Mossbourne among the most inspirational all-ability comprehensives in England, is a free school. It was the first independent school to come into the state sector under the academies programme (in 2007), dropping all fees and the eleven-plus and becoming a community comprehensive in admissions while retaining its independent governance. It was a catalyst for a string of other excellent private schools to become academies, which all also dropped selection and fees. More are following suit under the "free school" label. This is profoundly in the national interest, to promote educational quality and equality, which is what Labour stands for.
It is against the law to select on grounds of ability, playing the system by drawing up preferred catchment areas is a peripheral issue and few will be able to do anything that makes a material difference to the demographics.
The arguments against Academies are about the politics of school administration and changes to teachers working environment. These are secondary to the interests of children.
There is nothing to show that Academies make things worse and the new system gives potential for radical improvements and allow a new ethos to develop to challenge the private system.
I'm an NUT member. I also can't quite see why anyone would believe that leaving schools in the hands of the government would absolutely be the right move, given the consistent decline in educational standards in England in the last 50 years
I'm an NUT member. I also can't quite see why anyone would believe that leaving schools in the hands of the government would absolutely be the right move, given the consistent decline in educational standards in England in the last 50 years
Do you know if the NUT have a measure or a definition as to what is meant by 'educational standards'?
Here is what the New Statesman said about Free Schools:
The Belvedere Academy in Liverpool, up there with Mossbourne among the most inspirational all-ability comprehensives in England, is a free school. It was the first independent school to come into the state sector under the academies programme (in 2007), dropping all fees and the eleven-plus and becoming a community comprehensive in admissions while retaining its independent governance. It was a catalyst for a string of other excellent private schools to become academies, which all also dropped selection and fees. More are following suit under the "free school" label. This is profoundly in the national interest, to promote educational quality and equality, which is what Labour stands for.
It is against the law to select on grounds of ability, playing the system by drawing up preferred catchment areas is a peripheral issue and few will be able to do anything that makes a material difference to the demographics.
The arguments against Academies are about the politics of school administration and changes to teachers working environment. These are secondary to the interests of children.
There is nothing to show that Academies make things worse and the new system gives potential for radical improvements and allow a new ethos to develop to challenge the private system.
I like how Labour has managed to shoehorn itself into the success of this school, despite the fact it is pathologically opposed to free schools, private schools, academies, and schools having independent governance.
Here is what the New Statesman said about Free Schools:
The Belvedere Academy in Liverpool, up there with Mossbourne among the most inspirational all-ability comprehensives in England, is a free school. It was the first independent school to come into the state sector under the academies programme (in 2007), dropping all fees and the eleven-plus and becoming a community comprehensive in admissions while retaining its independent governance. It was a catalyst for a string of other excellent private schools to become academies, which all also dropped selection and fees. More are following suit under the "free school" label. This is profoundly in the national interest, to promote educational quality and equality, which is what Labour stands for.
It is against the law to select on grounds of ability, playing the system by drawing up preferred catchment areas is a peripheral issue and few will be able to do anything that makes a material difference to the demographics.
The arguments against Academies are about the politics of school administration and changes to teachers working environment. These are secondary to the interests of children.
There is nothing to show that Academies make things worse and the new system gives potential for radical improvements and allow a new ethos to develop to challenge the private system.
If you look at Belvedere academy in Liverpool I think you will see their results are on the decline and that they appear to have about 50% of the number of SEN pupils than the national average.
Here is what the New Statesman said about Free Schools:
The Belvedere Academy in Liverpool, up there with Mossbourne among the most inspirational all-ability comprehensives in England, is a free school. It was the first independent school to come into the state sector under the academies programme (in 2007), dropping all fees and the eleven-plus and becoming a community comprehensive in admissions while retaining its independent governance. It was a catalyst for a string of other excellent private schools to become academies, which all also dropped selection and fees. More are following suit under the "free school" label. This is profoundly in the national interest, to promote educational quality and equality, which is what Labour stands for.
It is against the law to select on grounds of ability, playing the system by drawing up preferred catchment areas is a peripheral issue and few will be able to do anything that makes a material difference to the demographics.
The arguments against Academies are about the politics of school administration and changes to teachers working environment. These are secondary to the interests of children.
There is nothing to show that Academies make things worse and the new system gives potential for radical improvements and allow a new ethos to develop to challenge the private system.
Believe me there are many other arguments against Academies than merely school admin and the changes to working conditions. The irony of your comment is that the interests of most children are secondary to Acadmies, whilst the interests of the more able are their primary focus.
Believe me I could regale you with stories of how Acadmeies are run, their ethos, their management. One such story is the forced permanent exclusion of a large number of pupils in year ten who were not going to reach the floor target in terms of their results. This would have had a detrimental effect on the school's results. So their parents are told to remove them from school or risk them being told to leave. The parents panic, remove them from the school and they are then placed in other local schools. Guess who has them on their results?
The chant about sheep is because our executive headteacher is called Mr David Sheppard and at his last school he re drew the catchment area to not include a big council estate, the school was called charter. If you want to see the student body as being brainwashed by teachers than i can not change that but im telling you as the student leader of the protest no one is being brainwashed.
Okay, I must admit that all this education malarky is a bit of a mystery to me. I don't have kids and so my knowledge of education ended when I left school in 1970. So, I thought I'd have a search around - if only to find out what SEN meant. I was totally shocked to see that nearly 1 in 5 pupils are categorised as SEN. At school I suppose I was aware of a few kids who were just considered to be - how can I put this politely - "not academically minded". The whole concept of nigh on 20% of pupils having requirements different from the norm is just staggering to me. How did that happen? Is it diet, parental care, the aforementioned "not academically minded" being the mega-breeders or what? What is the logical explanation for this SEN level?
Unless, it's all just a ploy to get lots of highly paid jobs for specialist professions I'm at a loss to understand it.
"There is no expression in use today, which signifies that children or adolescents with special schooling and educational needs require particular care and monitoring in well-defined options, distinct from the ordinary educational system." That's from information on the French school system.
Here's another extract from Psychology Today: French child psychiatrists view ADHD as a medical condition that has psycho-social and situational causes. Instead of treating children's focusing and behavioral problems with drugs, French doctors prefer to look for the underlying issue that is causing the child distress—not in the child's brain but in the child's social context. They then choose to treat the underlying social context problem with psychotherapy or family counseling. This is a very different way of seeing things from the American tendency to attribute all symptoms to a biological dysfunction such as a chemical imbalance in the child's brain.
In other words, French shrinks believe that ADHD is a problem brought about by nothing more than inadequate parenting. That might explain why nearly 10% of kids in USA are on drugs for ADHD and almost none are in France.
Whatever, something has got to change. It seems to me that the UK educational system is in danger of doing children a great disservice by categorising them in this way. Is it really just a self-perpetuating way of keeping the gravy train going for vast numbers of "educational specialists" in a job they would not otherwise have or is it a genuine problem of epidemic proportions?
Okay, I must admit that all this education malarky is a bit of a mystery to me. I don't have kids and so my knowledge of education ended when I left school in 1970. So, I thought I'd have a search around - if only to find out what SEN meant. I was totally shocked to see that nearly 1 in 5 pupils are categorised as SEN. At school I suppose I was aware of a few kids who were just considered to be - how can I put this politely - "not academically minded". The whole concept of nigh on 20% of pupils having requirements different from the norm is just staggering to me. How did that happen? Is it diet, parental care, the aforementioned "not academically minded" being the mega-breeders or what? What is the logical explanation for this SEN level?
Unless, it's all just a ploy to get lots of highly paid jobs for specialist professions I'm at a loss to understand it.
"There is no expression in use today, which signifies that children or adolescents with special schooling and educational needs require particular care and monitoring in well-defined options, distinct from the ordinary educational system." That's from information on the French school system.
Here's another extract from Psychology Today: French child psychiatrists view ADHD as a medical condition that has psycho-social and situational causes. Instead of treating children's focusing and behavioral problems with drugs, French doctors prefer to look for the underlying issue that is causing the child distress—not in the child's brain but in the child's social context. They then choose to treat the underlying social context problem with psychotherapy or family counseling. This is a very different way of seeing things from the American tendency to attribute all symptoms to a biological dysfunction such as a chemical imbalance in the child's brain.
In other words, French shrinks believe that ADHD is a problem brought about by nothing more than inadequate parenting. That might explain why nearly 10% of kids in USA are on drugs for ADHD and almost none are in France.
Whatever, something has got to change. It seems to me that the UK educational system is in danger of doing children a great disservice by categorising them in this way. Is it really just a self-perpetuating way of keeping the gravy train going for vast numbers of "educational specialists" in a job they would not otherwise have or is it a genuine problem of epidemic proportions?
You're treading on dangerous ground here SEN means they have special educational needs, which could be mild emotional and social difficulties or speech problems, dyslexia or more seriously Adhd or Asd but is not limited to these. They great thing about SEN monitoring in schools is that children with difficulties without a statutory assessment will still get the additional help they need. Unfortunately academies are not helping SEN kids enough and they are the ones that are suffering the most in the academy system.
Be very careful about blaming parents for special needs. I have 4 children 2 of them are academically well above average and are looking to be going to grammar school the other 2 have both got quite severe special needs one is statemented one is not. I wouldn't say I was the best mother in the world but I am not to blame for neither of their needs.
Okay, I must admit that all this education malarky is a bit of a mystery to me. I don't have kids and so my knowledge of education ended when I left school in 1970. So, I thought I'd have a search around - if only to find out what SEN meant. I was totally shocked to see that nearly 1 in 5 pupils are categorised as SEN. At school I suppose I was aware of a few kids who were just considered to be - how can I put this politely - "not academically minded". The whole concept of nigh on 20% of pupils having requirements different from the norm is just staggering to me. How did that happen? Is it diet, parental care, the aforementioned "not academically minded" being the mega-breeders or what? What is the logical explanation for this SEN level?
Unless, it's all just a ploy to get lots of highly paid jobs for specialist professions I'm at a loss to understand it.
"There is no expression in use today, which signifies that children or adolescents with special schooling and educational needs require particular care and monitoring in well-defined options, distinct from the ordinary educational system." That's from information on the French school system.
Here's another extract from Psychology Today: French child psychiatrists view ADHD as a medical condition that has psycho-social and situational causes. Instead of treating children's focusing and behavioral problems with drugs, French doctors prefer to look for the underlying issue that is causing the child distress—not in the child's brain but in the child's social context. They then choose to treat the underlying social context problem with psychotherapy or family counseling. This is a very different way of seeing things from the American tendency to attribute all symptoms to a biological dysfunction such as a chemical imbalance in the child's brain.
In other words, French shrinks believe that ADHD is a problem brought about by nothing more than inadequate parenting. That might explain why nearly 10% of kids in USA are on drugs for ADHD and almost none are in France.
Whatever, something has got to change. It seems to me that the UK educational system is in danger of doing children a great disservice by categorising them in this way. Is it really just a self-perpetuating way of keeping the gravy train going for vast numbers of "educational specialists" in a job they would not otherwise have or is it a genuine problem of epidemic proportions?
You're treading on dangerous ground here SEN means they have special educational needs, which could be mild emotional and social difficulties or speech problems, dyslexia or more seriously Adhd or Asd but is not limited to these. They great thing about SEN monitoring in schools is that children with difficulties without a statutory assessment will still get the additional help they need. Unfortunately academies are not helping SEN kids enough and they are the ones that are suffering the most in the academy system.
Be very careful about blaming parents for special needs. I have 4 children 2 of them are academically well above average and are looking to be going to grammar school the other 2 have both got quite severe special needs one is statemented one is not. I wouldn't say I was the best mother in the world but I am not to blame for neither of their needs.
I blamed no one. You'll see the large number of question marks I used indicating that I was asking questions to which I had no answers. While highlighting how different countries (France vs USA, for example) deal with the same underlying problem in very different ways - and wondering, therefore, whether we were anywhere near getting it right.
Okay, I must admit that all this education malarky is a bit of a mystery to me. I don't have kids and so my knowledge of education ended when I left school in 1970. So, I thought I'd have a search around - if only to find out what SEN meant. I was totally shocked to see that nearly 1 in 5 pupils are categorised as SEN. At school I suppose I was aware of a few kids who were just considered to be - how can I put this politely - "not academically minded". The whole concept of nigh on 20% of pupils having requirements different from the norm is just staggering to me. How did that happen? Is it diet, parental care, the aforementioned "not academically minded" being the mega-breeders or what? What is the logical explanation for this SEN level?
Unless, it's all just a ploy to get lots of highly paid jobs for specialist professions I'm at a loss to understand it.
"There is no expression in use today, which signifies that children or adolescents with special schooling and educational needs require particular care and monitoring in well-defined options, distinct from the ordinary educational system." That's from information on the French school system.
Here's another extract from Psychology Today: French child psychiatrists view ADHD as a medical condition that has psycho-social and situational causes. Instead of treating children's focusing and behavioral problems with drugs, French doctors prefer to look for the underlying issue that is causing the child distress—not in the child's brain but in the child's social context. They then choose to treat the underlying social context problem with psychotherapy or family counseling. This is a very different way of seeing things from the American tendency to attribute all symptoms to a biological dysfunction such as a chemical imbalance in the child's brain.
In other words, French shrinks believe that ADHD is a problem brought about by nothing more than inadequate parenting. That might explain why nearly 10% of kids in USA are on drugs for ADHD and almost none are in France.
Whatever, something has got to change. It seems to me that the UK educational system is in danger of doing children a great disservice by categorising them in this way. Is it really just a self-perpetuating way of keeping the gravy train going for vast numbers of "educational specialists" in a job they would not otherwise have or is it a genuine problem of epidemic proportions?
You're treading on dangerous ground here SEN means they have special educational needs, which could be mild emotional and social difficulties or speech problems, dyslexia or more seriously Adhd or Asd but is not limited to these. They great thing about SEN monitoring in schools is that children with difficulties without a statutory assessment will still get the additional help they need. Unfortunately academies are not helping SEN kids enough and they are the ones that are suffering the most in the academy system.
Be very careful about blaming parents for special needs. I have 4 children 2 of them are academically well above average and are looking to be going to grammar school the other 2 have both got quite severe special needs one is statemented one is not. I wouldn't say I was the best mother in the world but I am not to blame for neither of their needs.
I blamed no one. You'll see the large number of question marks I used indicating that I was asking questions to which I had no answers. While highlighting how different countries (France vs USA, for example) deal with the same underlying problem in very different ways - and wondering, therefore, whether we were anywhere near getting it right.
I know you weren't personally but the very fact you were questioning it in the first place was offending enough. Living with ADHD for a lot of parents is a living nightmare, there is nothing worse than people saying that it's just a label for naughty kids or parents are looking for a diagnosis to hide their own coping problems.
When Mr Harris deigns to visit the academy my wife works at, all the TAs and teachers have to design and put-up what could only be described as a shrine to him in every class room. I kid you not. And they are told that if even one display is not sufficiently well-designed or reverent enough, then warnings will be considered. When she told me this, I thought, 'Stick up a photo display of L Ron Hubbard and you wouldn't be far out.'
When Mr Harris deigns to visit the academy my wife works at, all the TAs and teachers have to design and put-up what could only be described as a shrine to him in every class room. I kid you not. And they are told that if even one display is not sufficiently well-designed or reverent enough, then warnings will be considered. When she told me this, I thought, 'Stick up a photo display of L Ron Hubbard and you wouldn't be far out.'
Mr Harris? As in Rolf? I thought he wasn't allowed near schools any more?
not sure @cafcfan where you got that 20% figure from, but the actual figures for those in primary education with a SEN statement or on a School Action Plus programme is 7.7% (5.9% in my borough), and 7.7% nationally for secondary eductation (6.5% in my borough). Believe me, my borough cannot cope with the 5.9%.
I'm an NUT member. I also can't quite see why anyone would believe that leaving schools in the hands of the government would absolutely be the right move, given the consistent decline in educational standards in England in the last 50 years
Do you know if the NUT have a measure or a definition as to what is meant by 'educational standards'?
I'll ask them to take a strike day to come up with a definition
I'm an NUT member. I also can't quite see why anyone would believe that leaving schools in the hands of the government would absolutely be the right move, given the consistent decline in educational standards in England in the last 50 years
Do you know if the NUT have a measure or a definition as to what is meant by 'educational standards'?
I'll ask them to take a strike day to come up with a definition
OK, if the NUT haven't communicated it to you, what did you mean earlier when you said 'given the consistent decline in educational standards in England in the last 50 years'?
I'm an NUT member. I also can't quite see why anyone would believe that leaving schools in the hands of the government would absolutely be the right move, given the consistent decline in educational standards in England in the last 50 years
Do you know if the NUT have a measure or a definition as to what is meant by 'educational standards'?
I'll ask them to take a strike day to come up with a definition
OK, if the NUT haven't communicated it to you, what did you mean earlier when you said 'given the consistent decline in educational standards in England in the last 50 years'?
Basic literacy and numeracy, in a nutshell. I don't need the NUT to tell me that! I'm an NUT member for security, not because I believe in their militant approach
I don't think academies have as much power to do what they like as is being suggested on here. Academies are now so widespread and there is so much variety that it is almost meaningless to talk about them as a single group.
My problem is with free schools, which really do seem to be an ill thought out and politically motivated waste of money.
I don't think academies have as much power to do what they like as is being suggested on here. Academies are now so widespread and there is so much variety that it is almost meaningless to talk about them as a single group.
My problem is with free schools, which really do seem to be an ill thought out and politically motivated waste of money.
Expect more free schools to pop up even if you think they will be a waste of money. This idea is already in place.
I don't think academies have as much power to do what they like as is being suggested on here. Academies are now so widespread and there is so much variety that it is almost meaningless to talk about them as a single group.
My problem is with free schools, which really do seem to be an ill thought out and politically motivated waste of money.
Expect more free schools to pop up even if you think they will be a waste of money. This idea is already in place.
I know. I heard Cameron's election pledge. Dogma triumphs over evidence once again.
Comments
Academic selection.
The Belvedere Academy in Liverpool, up there with Mossbourne among the most inspirational all-ability comprehensives in England, is a free school. It was the first independent school to come into the state sector under the academies programme (in 2007), dropping all fees and the eleven-plus and becoming a community comprehensive in admissions while retaining its independent governance. It was a catalyst for a string of other excellent private schools to become academies, which all also dropped selection and fees. More are following suit under the "free school" label. This is profoundly in the national interest, to promote educational quality and equality, which is what Labour stands for.
It is against the law to select on grounds of ability, playing the system by drawing up preferred catchment areas is a peripheral issue and few will be able to do anything that makes a material difference to the demographics.
The arguments against Academies are about the politics of school administration and changes to teachers working environment. These are secondary to the interests of children.
There is nothing to show that Academies make things worse and the new system gives potential for radical improvements and allow a new ethos to develop to challenge the private system.
Believe me I could regale you with stories of how Acadmeies are run, their ethos, their management. One such story is the forced permanent exclusion of a large number of pupils in year ten who were not going to reach the floor target in terms of their results. This would have had a detrimental effect on the school's results. So their parents are told to remove them from school or risk them being told to leave. The parents panic, remove them from the school and they are then placed in other local schools. Guess who has them on their results?
So, I thought I'd have a search around - if only to find out what SEN meant. I was totally shocked to see that nearly 1 in 5 pupils are categorised as SEN. At school I suppose I was aware of a few kids who were just considered to be - how can I put this politely - "not academically minded". The whole concept of nigh on 20% of pupils having requirements different from the norm is just staggering to me. How did that happen? Is it diet, parental care, the aforementioned "not academically minded" being the mega-breeders or what? What is the logical explanation for this SEN level?
Unless, it's all just a ploy to get lots of highly paid jobs for specialist professions I'm at a loss to understand it.
"There is no expression in use today, which signifies that children or adolescents with special schooling and educational needs require particular care and monitoring in well-defined options, distinct from the ordinary educational system." That's from information on the French school system.
Here's another extract from Psychology Today: French child psychiatrists view ADHD as a medical condition that has psycho-social and situational causes. Instead of treating children's focusing and behavioral problems with drugs, French doctors prefer to look for the underlying issue that is causing the child distress—not in the child's brain but in the child's social context. They then choose to treat the underlying social context problem with psychotherapy or family counseling. This is a very different way of seeing things from the American tendency to attribute all symptoms to a biological dysfunction such as a chemical imbalance in the child's brain.
In other words, French shrinks believe that ADHD is a problem brought about by nothing more than inadequate parenting. That might explain why nearly 10% of kids in USA are on drugs for ADHD and almost none are in France.
Whatever, something has got to change. It seems to me that the UK educational system is in danger of doing children a great disservice by categorising them in this way. Is it really just a self-perpetuating way of keeping the gravy train going for vast numbers of "educational specialists" in a job they would not otherwise have or is it a genuine problem of epidemic proportions?
Be very careful about blaming parents for special needs. I have 4 children 2 of them are academically well above average and are looking to be going to grammar school the other 2 have both got quite severe special needs one is statemented one is not. I wouldn't say I was the best mother in the world but I am not to blame for neither of their needs.
https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/362704/SFR26-2014_SEN_06102014.pdf
This article puts that figure as roughly 5 times the EU average:
telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9900440/Special-needs-rate-in-England-five-times-EU-average.html
Clearly, something is very, very rotten somewhere and it's probably not in Denmark. (The figure is only 1.5% in Sweden for example.)
My problem is with free schools, which really do seem to be an ill thought out and politically motivated waste of money.
If so the current standards are clearly low so do whatever is necessary.