Goodrich School in Daily Mail

[Otta]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's hard to decide who comes out of this the

> worst (apart from the children and the rest of the

> staff). I think I'd prefer to have both governors

> and a head who were capable of better judgement.

>

> Actually it would be nice to have a governor and a

> head who could manage to resolve any differences

> at a level somewhere above 'playground' in the

> first place.

Wisest post of the thread.

[intexasatthe moment]

I agree with Bob's post but think that maybe the governor should be cut some slack - voluntary role with minimal training , carried out in spare time .

[Neil_Howie]

Can I ask a question? My children go to Alleyn's so I, literally, couldn't care less about this. Does that make me racist? I'm genuinely worried now that I'm not responding to the issue correctly.

[Penguin68]

I have no children now at (any) school at all, so I have no 'interest' (any form of stake) in this, hence I am disinterested but not, as it happens, uninterested in what appears to be a compounding series of misunderstood-communications both within the school and within this forum. There are real problems with defining racism; some believe that people who form part of a racial minority who may have been, or who are, oppressed cannot themselves ever be racist - thus in the UK only white people (the unoppressed majority) can be racist. Others perceive that judging anyone simply by the external criteria of skin colour or national origin suggests a racist attitude, regardless of what the ethnic background of the one judging is. There are also some people who would define racism as being based only on the pereception of the one who feels discriminated against, outwith any intention of the one seen as discriminating - hence the concept of institutional racism where the intent of the 'racist' is not an issue, but simply the balance of the processes the 'racist' is operating.

I personally believe that intent is a requirement, although knowledge that an inherently discriminatory system is being worked within can be seen as 'implied' intent.

I am not sure that someone is a racist simply if they are unable to put themselves in another's shoes sufficently to be sensitive to what could be interpreted as 'racism' even where it is not, and never had been, intended as such. Often that requires levels of knowledge and experience far beyond the normal. 'Lynch-mobs' have never been part of the UK experience of racist activity - such that portraying one (especially one which nods towards the Gothic horrors of the Frankenstein myth) might not have been seen by someone not sensitised to the history of the Southern states as being racist (although clearly violence towards racial minorities by groups is not, sadly, unknown in the UK).

[showboat]

An excellent and coherent post Penguin68.

"some believe that people who form part of a racial minority who may have been, or who are, oppressed cannot themselves ever be racist - thus in the UK only white people (the unoppressed majority) can be racist."

This, in particular, is an important and relevant point to our scoiety today, though not on topic for here.

I'm not sure I agree that intent is central to a definition of racism. Racism is a subtle and pervasive prejudice that can creep into our lives without us realising it. If we feel uncomfortable when we see a group of youths from a specific ethnic background walking towards us then that surely is a racist reaction, albeit one with minimal impact on others so long as we do not respond in line with that feeling. Likewise it is surely racism if we don't like the ethnic background of our friends new partner, or it too makes un uncomfortable, even if we can't say why. But again, so long as we keep it to ourselves and (hopefully) recognise that our attitudes might be wrong, then no harm done.

I don't feel the governer at the centre of this did act in an overtly racist manner - having given it a lot of thought - but is guilty only of bad judgement. I echo the comments by *Bob*; this should have been sorted internally.

[Mick Mac]

Penguin - do you consider yourself black or white?

[Neil_Howie]

Penguin - a genuine question.

"If we feel uncomfortable when we see a group of youths from a specific ethnic background walking towards us then that surely is a racist reaction" - yes. it surely is. But if we don't feel uncomfortable in any way until the moment, say, some of the group noisily suck their teeth as they pass us, then are they being racist or are we?

[showboat]

Mick Mac - why is that relevant (genuine question)?

Neil - Of course you're not. Anyone who sucks their teeth at me is being aggresive and they know it. Skin colour/ethnic background is irrelevant. The same goes for any other aggresive, hostile or offensive behaviour. Are they being racist? Well, who knows? It's no more specific than calling someone a wanker for no reason as you walk by.

[Mick Mac]

showboat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Mick Mac - why is that relevant (genuine

> question)?

Its not relevant - Penguins are black and white, I just thought it was ironic. Thought I'd try to lighten the mood. :(

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Mick Mac - why is that relevant (genuine question)?

Shakes his head in disbelief.

[showboat]

That's so embarrasing. I mean, just so embarrasing...

That's what I get for being caught up in the East Dulwich-ness of it all!

(Going off now to sit in a dark corner until this feeling of shame and stupidity passes)

[Nicholas Spears]

If Dully and LadyLibra are right in suggesting that any reference to a crowd with makeshift weapsons implies a racist lynch mob, the Met Police/Southwark council racism-cold-case-review-team are going to be busy.

Before this thread started the East Dulwich Forum had carried 37 references to 'pitchforks' in relation to public anger.

Surely the numerous posters can't all be racists?

Or is it evidence to back up LadyLibra's surprising suggestion that Goodrich school is riddled with BNP and KKK members?

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Its not relevant - Penguins are black and white, I just thought it was ironic. Thought I'd try to lighten the mood.

We've found another one of them racists! Lets get our pitchforks! Err....I didn't mean pitchforks I meant rolled up copies of the Guardian (I should be ok with that, yeah?).

[Penguin68]

Mick Mac - I am not sure that feather colour is matched by skin colour (it isn't in the chickens I eat) but visually I do of course consider myself black and white (but never grey!)

Showboat - your response to Neil's question is one I concur with. However I suspect that one may interpret actions by other groups more swiftly (and in a condemnatory fashion) than you would of groups whose behaviour you are more confortable with. As someone on the wrong side of 60 I am more wary of young people (of whatever colour) because I no longer share or have real knowledge of what idioms and actions actually mean. 'Gay' meant cheeful when I was young, then homosexual and now apparently 'bad' (or sad) - so if I heard someone calling me 'gay' I might find it difficult to interpret it correctly, but would probably be most concerned if it was a young person speaking when I was most unsure what he/ she actually meant by the word.

However much we fight it 'people like us' are more reassuring than 'people not like us' - whether that's an age, a sex, an education, a religion, a social class, a nationality etc. etc. thing. We all try to act on the basis of what real individuals are, not what their 'group' may represent, but one of our human skills is actually classification of things, which exactly militates against these good intentions.

[showboat]

But another human skill is the ability to absorb and be absorbed by other cultures. Humans are at their strongest when they co-operate. It's the old adages of teamwork and mutually beneficial actions. Although I agree with the point that 'people like us' are more reassuring, I think it's part of our development as a species that we slowly (often very slowly) move towards a point where we actively encourage different groups to interact, as the exposure to others is often what has pushed us forward.

Of course there are terrible examples of the opposite being true - the colonisation of various indeginious (sic) peoples throughtout history show this - but we should've now gone past the point where we instinctly assume others are lesser than us. We need to push against these instincts, which are rooted deep in our brain as part of our desire to survive, and almost 're-learn' how to interact with those we don't understand.

[Tony Rabbit]

Psychology and Life: (copyright acknowleged).

One of the most effective demonstrations of how easily prejudiced attitudes

may be formed and how arbitrary and illogical they can be comes from the

class of a third-grade school-teacher in Riceville, Iowa. The teacher, Jane

Elliott, wanted to provide her students from this all-white rural community

with the experience of prejudice and discrimination in order to draw from it

the implications of its seductive appeal and devastating consequences. To do

so, she devised a most remarkable experiment, more compelling than any

done by professional psychologists.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~poroi/seminars/2004-5/bloom/poroi_paper.pdf

1968 Blue Eyes / Brown Eyes Teaching Experiment in Racism.

Two decades after Jane quit teaching in Riceville, wounds in this rural pocket of America are

raw when it comes to her. Time hasn?t healed these wounds; lesions in Riceville have been festering

so long that today they?re toxic.

"Oh, Great Spirit, keep me from ever judging a man

until I have walked a mile in his moccasins."

[traveller1]

I have children at both Goodrich (under the current and previous head) and Kingsdale and I am not afraid to say that I think that the current head at Goodrich is awful. That is an asssessment that I feel that I am both entitled and well placed to make. It has absolute nothing to do with the colour of her skin or her gender but is based on my dealings with her over the period of time of her headship. She has demonstrated - in my opinion - not just poor judgement but indequate management skills and dreadful communication skills. That is the source of parents anger and it neither irrational nor racist. When you have an issue with your child and you need it addressd and dealt with than you travel though the various levels of engagement (teachers, phase leaders and ultimately to the head). Unfortunately almost everyone that I know that has had to deal with the current head has not been satisfied with her performance (to say the least)and has walked away feeling not just dissatisfied but even angrier and more anxious than they were to begin with. Not a sign of effective management.

Also, what does it say about an individuals (in this case parents)ability to hold public institutions to account if they are immediately disenfranchised by being deemed a racist? Or by threats that any complaint may result in an individual suing for damages. Of course any employee or citizen should be protected from unfair treatment based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and so on. But it is patronizing and insulting to the current head to conclude that any criticism of her performance must be based on the colour of her skin. Believe me - when it comes to criticism of the current head you will be happy to discover that it cuts across racial, class and any other kind of boundary you could think up. And should those in positions of authority be protected from those who are dissatified with their performance? I cetainly hope not.

Contrast that with the head of Kingsdale who, in addition to being an excellent manager and inspirational head, has a wonderful working relationship with the parents at the school.

The poster in question, as has been noted over and over again, was advertising a meeting of the Parents Forum (parents and parent governors) and didn't even involve the current Head. It is also interesting to note that although the police were called because she found the poster so threatening, she still left it hanging up in the school for the following 6 weeks and it was only removed to be replaced with a poster for a PTA cake sale. Most people who saw it found it quite funny, understanding that parents were unhappy with both the head and the governing body of the school. It depicted an anrgy mob, not a racist mob. There had been no previous suggestion that the head felt she had been the victim of racist behaviour and she had every opportunity to bring the matter up with the governor in question. She chose to call the police and therefore must be willing to be held responsbile for her actions - that is the essence of accountability.

And finally - SHAME on you James Barber for suggesting that SATS results have anything to do with secondary school admissions, particulary during a period of time when people are agonizing over the availability of places as it is. SATS results have absolutely nothing to do with the application to secondary schools and aren't even used for banding purposes. I suggest that you check your facts first and adjust the resolution on your computer before you jump on any futher political bandwagons (once, of course, you've licked your finger and checked what you think are the prevailing winds of public opinion). Outrageous.

[citizenED]

Welcome to the Forum traveller1

[Tony Rabbit]

Thank you 'traveller1'.

Your prime comment para.1 that "You don't talk to me. I will talk to you if I want to" attitude was one of the main comments / points / criticisms raised at the Parents Forum (minutes of which are suppressed).

[Otta]

There are real problems with defining racism; some believe that people who form part of a racial minority who may have been, or who are, oppressed cannot themselves ever be racist - thus in the UK only white people (the unoppressed majority) can be racist.

I'm sure you're right, that some people do believe this, but I just can't believe that anyone would honestly think this is correct.

I think your posts have been good Penguin68.

[murphy]

Traveller1 wrote

I think that the current head at Goodrich is awful. That is an asssessment that I feel that I am both entitled and well placed to make. It has absolute nothing to do with the colour of her skin or her gender but is based on my dealings with her over the period of time of her headship. She has demonstrated - in my opinion - not just poor judgement but indequate management skills and dreadful communication skills.

Traveller1 - in what way is it right and fair that you carry out a personal and professional character assasination on the head? To do it on a public forum where the head has no real right of reply is a disgrace.

I assume if in your work some customers had been complaining about you and advertised a public meeting using a poster depicting you surrounded with pitchforks you would find it "quite funny". If those same people had made very public criticisms on internet forums, articles had appeared in the national press etc would that seem fair on you, or would it feel like you were being hounded out of your job and your future career threatened?

If you have personal issues with the head use the governors, local authority, MP or Dept of Educ.

[showboat]

Otta - I don't want to drag this off-topic, but I can assure you there are those who think this way. You'd be amazed what some sections of the community from the Indian sub-continent think about the Afro-Carribean community, and vice versa.

I remember reading a Darcus Howe column in which he railed against exactly that type of thinking, writing about how exasperated he felt by the infighting which does so much to hold back concerted and organised anti-racism action. No one can deny that white bigots are the biggest 'threat' where racism is concerned, but those who think it is limited to those idiots are fooling themselves. My wife (of Trinidadian descent) is constantly amazed by the attitudes she hears from Carribean's who feel safe talking in front of her.

[Nicholas Spears]

At last this is getting back on topic thanks to traveller1.

But why does murphy suggest he has no right to discuss it in public? Surely it's a state school, and we've all got an interest in it being run well? Suggestions he should go to the LEA don't wash when they might launch an over-the-top inquiry into the complainant.

And take a look at the Goodrich school website. The governors of the school publish their minutes on it, minutes where just this sort of criticism could be found if brought up at meetings.

At least, they used to publish their minutes, apparently till frozen with embarrassment that this might come out...

[Otta]

showboat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta - I don't want to drag this off-topic, but I

> can assure you there are those who think this way.

> You'd be amazed what some sections of the

> community from the Indian sub-continent think

> about the Afro-Carribean community, and vice

> versa.

>

> I remember reading a Darcus Howe column in which

> he railed against exactly that type of thinking,

> writing about how exasperated he felt by the

> infighting which does so much to hold back

> concerted and organised anti-racism action. No one

> can deny that white bigots are the biggest

> 'threat' where racism is concerned, but those who

> think it is limited to those idiots are fooling

> themselves. My wife (of Trinidadian descent) is

> constantly amazed by the attitudes she hears from

> Carribean's who feel safe talking in front of her.

I think you may have missed my point. I was basically trying to say what you've just said. I know / or have worked with lots of people from different races, and have witnessed lots of racism at other groups. To say you can only be racist if you've never experienced it, is a nonsense. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and if you are the victim of racism, that doesn't give a person the right to then go and be racist to other groups.

Anyway, off topic.

As for what Murphy said, I don't think s/he was saying that this issue shouldn't be discussed on here, but rather, that it was wrong to attack a person's professionalism, or personality on here. If that is what Murphy meant, then I couldn't agree more.

[traveller1]

I don't think that my assessment of the current head's professional ability is at all personal -- she may in fact be a nice person but that has nothing to do with my opinion of her performance as a Head Teacher. I have made my judgements based on how she has run the school and I have, in fact, taken up the issues with the appropriate and relevant authorities and have not posted those opinions on this forum until now. Why now? Well read this thread. There have been cruel assumptions about not just the govenor involved in this particular incident but about large swathes of the parents at the school. I am just trying to demonstrate that many parents are unhappy with her performance in many areas of managing the school and are well within their rights to air this dissatisfaction.

Management must be held accountable for their decisions - that is the essence of democracy. I would not have wanted to see this incident reported in the press but it has been. ONCE again, the poster advertised a meeting between parents and parent govenors (not the head) and in its context was funny and never threatening. And if it was felt to be so by the head than she should have dealt with the issue in a more constructive manner. She called the police and therefore put it in the public domain. Again, that was her decision and she should be held accountable for it. Given that some of the wild assumptons and assertions made on this forum are so off the mark I felt it was important to put the incident in context. This are not 'personal' issues with the head but are my assessment of her performance. An assessment that I am well within my rights to make.