Best snob post of 2009, now with added wriggle

[Keef]

In other words the schools with lower aspirations are out to impress the inspectors and OFSTED and the schools with higher aspirations are out to impress the parents of future admissions.

Very well said.

[Brendan]

Goes to highlight the stupidity propagated by decades of management consultants in the public sector.

Similar can be said for the NHS. Bad departments are out to impress by meeting their targets while good departments are out to treat their patients.

[lard]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

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

> lard Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > One wot makes them spell fings correctly too.

> But

> > hey. let's not PURSUE this. :-)

>

> I see you PERUSED that thread lard....

??? just pointing out in post above.

[Strawbs]

lard Wrote:

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

> One wot makes them spell fings correctly too. But

> hey. let's not pursue this. :-)

^

*snigger*

[dulwichmum]

OK, so I used an E instead of a U, I never said I was bright, just wealthy.

And while we are on the subject, on either this thread, or the one in the drawing room, someone said something about clever people being rich. I know some incredibly rich, outstandingly thick people... I imagine we all do.

Has anyone considered the educational achievements of our Royal Family? OHMYGOD! Prince Charles has a D in home economics...

Some incredibly bright people become terminally ill and leave their young family with no bread winner, some incredibly bright people go bankrupt for taking a chance with a business, some incredibly bright people become jobless, pregnant as teenagers.

I myself am not terribly clever but I am simply loaded (smirk)!

[dulwichmum]

And I look down on EVERYONE!

[lard]

Touch?!

Or should that read touchy?? :-)

We all do typos DM, no requirement to justify. I just liked that it was in an edukashional fred, that was all.

Enjoy your Krug! :-)

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Any chance of lending me a Cockle Mumsy?

[daizie]

LOL DM ! Is that because you married well ?

[????]

dulwichmum Wrote:

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

> And I look down on EVERYONE!

Well being a roofer that's no surprise

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

Any chance of lending me a Cockle Mumsy?

Charming. Any chance of a "Lady" instead?

[siousxiesue]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I couldn't quite make out what an academy was from

> that site.

>

> Does it mean that an academy is a school partly

> funded by sponsors, that follows the national

> curriculum, that has standard entry conditions,

> but is free to dedicate part of the schooling -

> the 'philosophy' - to issues that reflect the

> sponsors agenda?

>

> I can't make out if academies are allowed

> everywhere, or only in 'deprived' areas?

>

> It strikes me that this approach is most likely to

> appeal to those groups with an agenda who set out

> to twist the minds of the young and brainwash the

> elders: churches?

Yes Hugenot, you read correctly-the sponsors have influence over the school/academy curriculum, to the extent that in some parts of this country, creationism is now being taught! Whatever the rights/wrongs of academies, funding like this should not come with 'strings'

[indiepanda]

Well, after reading this I feel quite lucky as a working class girl I wasn't shovelled off to the nearest sink school as befits someone in my position!

Seriously though, as far as I can see in this country we have lots of (mainly middle class) kids going to university when there aren't enough graduate jobs for them all (and the tuition fees don't cover all the costs), and plenty of (mainly working class) children leaving school without the basic 5 GCSEs most eomployers expect.

Something feels wrong, and it seems to me the top priority isn't the amount of money invested in education for the better off.

[Huguenot]

Well I went to what would be considered a well-to-do school under most schemes. A great record at Oxbridge etc.

My peers are all architects, bankers, surgeons, actors etc.

But I don't recognise any of those things DM identified as the hallmarks of 'quality' education. We had no lessons on A-level selection, no squad of work-placement gurus, nobody writing supporting statements, nobody sitting us down and persuading us to do worthy rather than easy tasks.

Mostly the influence was cultural, the school was full of upwardly mobile middle class kids who wanted to do well. In that sense it had nothing to do with the aspirations of the school, and everything to do with the aspirations of the parents.

My Dad (as PGC nominated up earlier, and the ex-head of a 1,600 pupil state school) would observe that this thread smacks of the greatest challenge to education: the desire to lay the problems of the children at the door of the school.

You don't need a special type of school, you need a special type of parent. If Macroban is right, and ED is bursting with aspirational middle class families, then that is what your local school will be, regardless of what you imagine the school's aspirations to be.

Great education should be streamed, competitive and balance risk and reward.

Any parent who doesn't welcome that is merely demonstrating their own inadequacy by trying to bring everyone down to the perceived level of their own child. They not only reveal a lack of belief in their kids, but also a dirty desire to undermine the success of others.

[????]

....and your last 3 sentences sum up the ethos behind comprehensive.....

[Huguenot]

On a technical point, streaming shouldn't be confused with pigeon-holing.

Good streaming systems allow for mobility based on performance.

[Fuschia]

The academy programme was originally intended to replace failing schools. Now there is a target for new academies, it seems any new school runs the risk... academies are undeomcratic and run outside of the local LEA, often isolated from other schools.

[Mick Mac]

Thats right Fuschia - that's how I understand it, Academies are created to solve specific problems which tend to arise in inner city deprived areas. ED needs a school, or another school which is not aimed at solving a problem but with getting the best from the children of ED. The demand for primary education this year suggests this will be needed sooner rather than later.

[Jeremy]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> You don't need a special type of school, you need

> a special type of parent. If Macroban is right,

> and ED is bursting with aspirational middle class

> families, then that is what your local school will

> be, regardless of what you imagine the school's

> aspirations to be.

I think this is true... the most important thing is for the pupils' parents to be supportive of their education, and to raise the children well.

Being realistic, in certain urban areas there is likely to be a larger concentration of children from less stable or troubled backgrounds. This can translate to lower academic acheivement, and disruptive behaviour. Of course these kids deserve a good education as much as anyone, but the requirements may be a little different.

Out of interest, how many teenage kids do you see in East Dulwich? Certainly, it seems to me that not many of the upwardly mobile families which Mick Mac is describing have children of secondary school age. Is it because they move out of London when the children get a bit older? Is it because the area has only recently become attractive to that demographic (after 2000)?

[Mick Mac]

I think you hit the nail on the head with that last post Jeremy. And I accept you have phrased it much more diplomatically than me.

Your last paragraph - there are few teenagers because of 1) the lack of suitable education and 2) the relatively recent increased attractiveness of the area.

We will continue to see a drift of families from ED and hence low teenage population unless we address the secondary schooling issue soon. I have said before I do not want to leave the area but we may have to.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Mick Mac Wrote:

I have said before I do not want to leave the area but we may have to.

Good and bad news Mick!

Good news is that you can buy a nice house near the 180 acre Danson Park in Bexley for around ?225,000 and send your children to the excellent local Grammar Schools.

Also you can catch a Train to Charing Cross ( 30 Mins) or Victoria/London Bridge/Waterloo etc. Also far less traffic and polution on the roads.

Easy access to North/East London, as well and the heart of Kent is 15 minutes away with all its beauty.

However, I HAVE to tell you the bad news.

I'm afraid this area is not really "edgy" and I've not experienced any crime in the 26 years I've been here though the Pubs in Bexleyheath can have a row ( or 2) after closing hours.

Spoke to a couple of PCSO's the other day and they are reduced to leafleating all Businesses in the area as there isn't a great deal to do.

...and Peckham is only 18 away by train...

"Come and join us,

Come and join us,

Come and join us over here

We're the exiles

We're the exiles

We're the exiles over here..":))

[Keef]

Perhaps you could ask the nice people at Aske's to open a Dulwich branch.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Actually, in all seriousness there probably is a very good reason why there are not more children ( 11-17) in Middle-Class East Dulwich.

Lets be honest many of the contributors on EDF ARE representative of the area in that they, originally, came from other parts of the Country and wanted to experience the stimulation and sheer variety of London.

They would prefer to live in a pleasant area which they are in a position to do, so East Dulwich ( and a few other similar areas) are perfect for these people.

They are probably early20's-Late 30's etc and enjoy all that London, uniquely in the UK, can offer.

Then their Family starts and its no longer the top priority to simply have a good time.

There are other considerations to "want the best for their children" so its not unreasonable that they would want to live further out in "safer" areas which often provide much cheaper accommodation.

Seems perfectly natural that a fair proportion will move when they reach around their early40's when they have children.

Also if people do have the financial flexibilty to live anywhere they often prefer more space and appreciate our Countryside as they get older so many are inclined to move to the Country or "by the sea" at a certain stage in their lives.

Some, probably, return home to where they were brought up!

Then THEIR children want to experience the "bright lights" and come to London as single people and the whole cycle continues....

[Mick Mac]

Sounds like its all pre determined Tony and I guess its not rocket science. But at 41 I still like to go out in ED - however I am beginning to feel a little old for most of the pubs, so maybe my time has come. [up for a big night tonight though, oh and I'm out again tomorrow...]

[????]

100