Forced Academies, the Department for Education and Haringey

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on March 7, 2012 at 16:27

Thank you for that beautiful feedback!

Keep going, no matter what people feel about academies, people should be supporting you against the way you as parents have been treated. Some people in this council (both officers and elected members) have completely lost their minds!

A lot of the community disengagement and social issues have solely been caused by this lack of accountability and poor public relations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 7, 2012 at 17:47

I don't believe it!  No one should be compared with Mr Meldrew who is a role model and should remain an inspirational and aspirational personality.

I said earlier that I thought council control of schooling appeared odd to me, but nor do I understand the notion of finding sponsors for schools, under Academy status. I had hoped that someone might provide more information about what is actually proposed, so that there may be light as well as heat.

One caveat to the insufficiency of consultation: it applies mainly to big, important things that the council wants to happen. With little things, the council sometimes engages in consultation to a fault.

I'm glad Seema that you don't ignore AP, the Borough's most important public building. In several ways, it seems roughly to be pointed in the right direction, even if so far without sorely needed independent trustees on board.

(BTW, the High Court action over Ally Pally focused on the lack of Public Consultation by the Charity Commission about the sale. But it was recognised by the Judge, that the Commission had been bullied by the Trustees (our local council). Costs were awarded against the Trustees, because of their conduct) More news on AP here, together with a host of links, including to the official site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 17, 2012 at 15:15

Alan I note in the Haringey Independent the other day, you refer to a member of a commission into the future of Haringey’s education set up by the council.

You're quoted as saying this member is "a closed-minded ideologue".

Now I don't know the gentleman referred to or anything about him. I have already confessed I don't feel qualified to talk about the issues involved, but like many residents, I'm vaguely aware that Haringey's record on education isn't amongst the nation's best (isn't it amongst London's worst?).

But from my remote viewpoint, I find it hard to see how abusive name-calling can be constructive – even for someone you clearly regard as an opponent.

I'm not sure that your clarification to the article (the roof survey analogy) added to a better understanding of the actual issues.

I'd like to know if you accept there's any problem with the council's education system?

I think a good starting point might be to assume that, like yourself, this gentleman wants the best for Haringey's school children even if there might be differences as to how to achieve that end.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 18, 2012 at 0:36

Clive, not single Local Education Authority (LEA) in the country, nor a single school - including academies - is without problems. However, the remit and purpose of the Education Commission is not simply what happens with particular schools but the role of our LEA in the coming years and the challenges it faces.

The Education Commission members will be asked to seek evidence, including the views of a broad range of people - specifically parents, school students, governors and school staff. Then to formulate recommendations about future plans and priorities for the LEA in supporting and challenging schools.

So the Commission will be a sort of research project. If any piece of research is to have a chance of success its members should bring curious open minds and a willingness to listen and learn and to modify and change their initial ideas. Their conclusions - however critical - should be based on robust evidence gathered and assessed with fairness and balance.

Mr Kelly's sweeping view about Haringey is a matter of record - he wrote that it is "toxic". He's also stated his preferred solution for education in the borough - academies.

You don't like the words "close-minded ideologue?" Perhaps we might at least agree that Mr Kelly is a strongly convinced, partisan academy advocate who has already unequivocally condemned Haringey as an LEA.

He is entitled to hold any opinion he wishes. But why are you surprised that I and many other people are appalled that he has been invited by Claire Kober to join the Commission?

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 18, 2012 at 23:15

I don't regard you as such, but is it possible that the gentleman of whom you complain might in turn regard you as a closed-minded ideologue?

And if he did and stated as much to the press, would you regard that as helpful?

The point I'm making is that name-calling doesn't get us very far.

A late friend of mine, from Tunbridge Wells, argued with me some years ago that local councillors should not come from political parties, but that they should all be independents. I didn't understand it then, but what he said makes more sense now.

It does seem to me that having schooling a function of - in effect - local party-political control (in our case, of 40 years standing), is a recipe for trouble.

And I have little doubt that you would regard schooling currently as normal, neutral and non-political and that politics have suddenly and rudely been introduced!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 19, 2012 at 1:01

Clive, the word "ideologue" is not a name-calling. It's a description. Ideologue (OED): "A proponent or adherent of a political, economic, or other ideology, especially one who is uncompromising or dogmatic.

I oppose the Government's NHS Deforms. And I'm an advocate for a non-commercially controlled NHS funded from taxation. If that makes me a health ideologue in your eyes, I'm proud to have the label. But although I'm uncompromising, I hope I'm not dogmatic. I don't rubbish the private health system and say it's "toxic". 

Zena and were once visiting friends in Washington and we had a brief chat with someone who worked for a Senator. When he heard we were from the UK he smiled warmly and said: "We really like you guys. But that socialised medicine - it just don't work".

Or let me suggest another analogy. Imagine Haringey was setting up a Commission to recommend the future framework for our IT. How would you feel if you heard that Bill Gates had kindly agreed to sit on it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 19, 2012 at 10:58

I'm sure Mr Kelly would be welcome to make a submission. Although as he is the editor of the Times Educational Supplement he hardly lacks a platform for his views. He could also give evidence as a governor of a Haringey school.

It seems, Clive, that Mr Hoyle hasn't been paying attention to your very strong negative views on Microsoft and Bill Gates. Nor has he grasped the difference between someone who is invited to give evidence to a commission as an advocate of a particular policy (or company's products in Bill Gates' case); and someone who sits on the supposedly independent expert Commission itself, hearing and weighing-up the evidence and differing views.

Oh well, Will Hoyle is in excellent company. Plainly, Cllr Claire Kober has also failed to grasp this basic point.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on March 19, 2012 at 11:08

By introducing the NHS and IT I think we are getting away from "Forced Academies" and absusive language used about someone associated with this. To me, it suggests intransigence and an unwillingness to engage in dialogue.

I still think that the opportunity could be taken to discuss the actual issues involved, rather than ad hominem type comment (albeit in another forum).

As for Bill Gates, I think this is a poorly chosen analogy, if you mean to suggest that by bringing him onto a commission on IT in Haringey, it would lead to some kind of radical change.

Mr Gates would already be satisfied at the pervasiveness of his company's products at the council and in the council schools and his only possible interest would be that the council purchased more of them and paid higher licence fees.

What passes for "Information Technology" in schooling (not just in Haringey) is in truth, learning to use the second-rate products of a US corporation distinguished by its criminal conviction for monopoly abuse.

Not learning about computing in a wider context can lead to a closed mind.

This kind of teaching of "IT" is not merely narrow, but sad in the country that produced the widely regarded father of Computer Science (Alan Turing). As you may have noticed, there are moves to get away from learning about computing through the prism of a single, monopolistic company and not before time.

In a sense, this is a good example of a way in which education is restricted in the Borough.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page