BB100

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> Teachers are removed via other means all the > time... encouraged to leave, capability > proceedings followed by resignation or compromise > agreement... Therein lies the problem - poor performing teachers just move on elsewhere. I live with a HR manager so I know the problems inherent in sacking people, but if schools are following the correct proceedures it begs the question why are there so many poor performing teachers?

It's on a temporary site in Dulwich with 150 boys in Year 7.

MichaelDavern Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Do you truly believe that her style was to do with the > NUT Yes, yes and yes - not one headteacher but the president of the NUT. I know she would turn in her grave if she knew her school was applying to be an academy, bless her. I think it is not unwise to regard any opposition by the NUT with suspicion unless proved otherwise. It doesn't hurt to be cautious.

If they get caught they get detention. Staff currently stand outside the shops and park to stop them going in.

My Headteacher was once president of the NUT. She only liked the sound of her own voice, meanwhile she run her own school into the ground, with her staff spending most of the time in the smoking room or asleep in the lesson. I'm not in favour of the fast-track academies but any opposition by the NUT reaks of self-preservation. Sorry to be brutal but over a hundred years trade unions have also stymied development of education. Academies in some ways spells liberation, although fragmentation of the sector is not desirable either.

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dulwich Mum made a point about being fined for > cycling on the footpath being illegal. I always > thought that was the case here. Also is it not > 'illegal' here to leave a child under a certain > age at home alone? Regardless of the rights or > wrongs of that law which I'm sure applies to these > kids, that would presumably apply to them being > away from home alone. You can cycle on the footpath until you're 13 yrs old (a policeman told me). There are no laws as to the age you can leave a child alone at home. However SS can intervene if you leave your child alone and it is evident they can't look after themselves. There are no laws as to the age a child can go out alone. It's down to judgement of child's competance. Since we do not know the children's competance in this case we have no place to make judgement.

I'm not saying it's right, but judging from past comments on this forum from people anxious over the boys use of the park it's probably a sensible decision to prevent local resident uproar, lol. They have to go home and change out of uniform if they want to use their local facilities. They are not allowed in shops in uniform, either.

> Anyhow, should there be a need for more debate on > this, someone could start a new discussion to > which I would happily contribute. > > Getting back to academies, what do the people who > have posted so far feel about Kingsdale and > Charter both becoming academies? The motives of trade unions are very relevant to this debate when a tendancy to protect their members overrides the best interests of children and such concerns are central to a debate on academies when a trade union rep is involved in the discussion. If academies mean Kingsdale can quickly rid of the dead-wood teachers that are failing to teach my child because they are on facebook or their mobile during the lesson, then so be it.

MichaelDavern Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It will not reach its capacity for a few more years and > with no playground, sports activities for this > sports specialist academy will be done on the > park. As I've said before, it will be over the Head's dead body for any Harris Boy to set foot in the park even at hometime. They do their PE at SouthBank, swimming at the pulse, and cycling at Herne Hill. They do 5 hourse PE a week, compared to the two hours most schools do. It's not always what you have it's what you do with it. I visited a school recently with a beautiful playing field but the kids told me that never have the time to use it.

chantelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > wait - just because children go to private school > means money is not an issue? maybe that is true > for a minority of parents but i doubt it applies > to most children at private school. Fair point but was just making the point that the reason the parents are letting them go to school on their own is because they want to let them, not because of necessity/financial reasons.

'Children need to learn about risk and daring; and if we don't give them opportunities for excitement they will simply invent their own' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/7871753/Hail-the-heroic-parents-who-let-their-children-cycle-to-school.html 'recent studies suggest that UK children are too frequently attracted to the ?wrong? sort of risk. Whether it?s smoking, drinking, fighting or unprotected sexual activity, UK children appear more attracted to potentially dangerous risky activities than many of their international peers.' http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC%20DfES%20Publication%20-%20Risk%20Taking%20Behaviour_tcm6-21251.pdf Research suggests that overprotecting children leads to them to seeking riskier risks. For example, whilst parents think their children are safely at home and off the streets and away from pedophiles, instead they are on their computers talking to them!

chantelle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > there's also a broader issue here of two parents > needing to get to work, and finding it difficult > to drop off and collect their children. No, if you read the article in the Telegraph it says the kids go to private school (money not an issue). The parents want their children's lives not to be restricted by the culture of fear we have in the Uk. I do wonder what social services would actually do if the Head went forward with his threat anyway. Haven't they got more serious cases on their books to attend to? Doesn't this kind of discussion promote a distraction from more important social work? 'Nearly 32,000 children in the UK are known to be at risk of abuse right now' http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/prevalence_and_incidence_of_child_abuse_and_neglect_wda48740.html. Maybe the Schonrock's need to let the Head go ahead and report it to SS and take a stand for what they believe in. They might be surprised to find that Social Workers have a more realistic perception of the actual risks to children.

pablogrande Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I won't let my three year old out in the garden on > his own, not until he's finished the ironing. I used to iron when I was 5. Now my kids can't even butter their own bread because they are frightened about knife crime.

?Thirty years ago England and Wales were the third or fourth highest child killers in the Western world, but we?re now fourth lowest.? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8497277.stm

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think it's probably more to do with the head not > allowing them to leave the premises by themselves > but insisting that an adult picks them up. Lol!

HeidiHi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think Stats is a good way of protecting > yourself. it does not> exempt anyone from having the same thing happening > to them. This is true. However they are helpful for getting things into a clearer perspective. However there is a distinct possibility that the stats are good becuase we are all supervising our children! > if the parents really > believe in entrusting their kids ability to go to > school unsupervised, why do they not let them > return home unsupervised? Because they don't trust them with the keys or being home alone?? Sorry for being wry here - even I struggle with the idea of the biking infants - however the facts are there are more risks in the home than on the street.

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So are adults being selfish when they leave the > house in the morning hoping someone will come to > their aid if they get run-over? Do you leave home > with a trained paramedic? > > Now we're just descending into the ridiculous. > Raise your game. Not really. If an adult gets run over most human beings would help. And the same for a child. So why then is it selfish to expect the child will get help but not selfish for the adult? Children are human beings too. I follow your line of reasoning but it is going down the lines of 'why should adults help children when their parents should be doing it?' But then why do adults help adults when they are in trouble? The same rule of humanity applies to both children and adults.

clare999 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of the children killed or seriously injured > were older, and not supervised by an adult. You still don't say where you get your stats from or date.

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The bottom-line is that if anything does go wrong > the parents are assuming > that other adults will salvage the situation > (unless, of course, the 8 yr old is a trained > paramedic). I'm sure most adults would help but > feel its a bit selfish to rely on this as a form > of child-care. So are adults being selfish when they leave the house in the morning hoping someone will come to their aid if they get run-over? Do you leave home with a trained paramedic?

buggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my experience (as a paeds ED nurse) nearly all > children who've been knocked over are accompanied > by police or staff from the school while contact > with the parents is attempted. About 8.45 is > typical time for us to get a case like this and > One of the things I found from my research was that children are now less competent than we used to be because of the over-parenting. They are losing the self-care skills we used to have, becuase we are not letting them take the risks we used to take as children. So of course they will get run-over going to school because they don't learn to cross the road at other times.

I should explain that I've just spent the last 3 months on a research project at Uni analysing risk culture and people's perceptions of risk. It is well accepted in academic literature that there is an inbalance between perception of risk and actual risk, to the point of hysteria - which I think some of you have illustrated quite nicely. YES it is right and proper to protect children and use common sense in doing so but in our society we have gone too far. It is over-regulating, over-restricting and over-supervising children's lives. It is affecting the development and well-being of our children. Paranoid parenting is damaging our children with unknown consequences. Please just keep in mind when you have this discussion and others like it - that as a society our perceptions of risk are distorted. I'm not saying the Schonrock's are right I'm just saying that we cannot see these types of issues as clearly as we think we do.

clare999 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Stats suggest thirteen under 15yo killed in > Southwark on the roads last year - of which 80% > cyclists or pedestrians. 2800 children killed or > seriously injured on the roads in UK during the > same year. Thats quite a lot. And most I expect were with their parents!

Growlybear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I can only > follow my own standards and conscience...but we live in a very different world today, > If these statistics are to be believed we actually live in a safer world: traffic deaths are lower than they ever have been (National Statistics, 15th April 2009) and child murders at the hand of strangers remain consistently low (National Statistics, 11th June 2009). So is it more dangerous, or has our perception of risk changed?

Growlybear Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >> I think that in cases where very young children > are perceived to be in a vulnerable or dangerous > situation, the school or other parents have a > responsibility as well as a right to intervene. > This is very sound reasoning. The problem is: who should define what is perceived as being vulnerable and at risk? As the below quote suggests we have become a society of paranoid parents, so are we really in the right position to judge the Schonocks when our perceptions of risk are distorted? (I'm not saying I would copy the Schonrock's actions or they are doing the right thing but I do think we are not in a good position to decide for them). 'There is a sense of danger and fear among parents and adults in contemporary society. In fact the danger to children is statistically minimal: traffic deaths are lower than they ever have been (National Statistics, 15th April 2009) and child murders at the hand of strangers remain consistently low (National Statistics, 11th June 2009). This apparent mis-match between reality and the fears discussed by parents and children is understandable when viewed alongside features of a culture of fear. An approach to parenting has arisen which asks ?what if?? and seeks to prevent any risk involving their child. This ?what if?? is enhanced and intensified by media horror stories and an over-assessment of risks and dangers. However, there is also an awareness of a need to allow children to experience some kind of independence and self-responsibility, and so parenting and childhood in a culture of fear is constructed as an issue of balance: a balance between creating ?cotton wool kids? and allowing children to be ?free range?'. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/everyday-fear-leanne-franklin.pdf

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I work in a school with oustanding leadership, > mostly outstanding features and consistently good > teaching. We score very well for contextual value > added. Yet due to the poverty in the area (family > 22/23 of schools - http://fos.dcsf.gov.uk/ for > explanation) and majority of pupils not having > English as a first language, we fall below 50% > A*-C at GCSE and I think we always will. > My husband went to school here at 5yrs old knowing no English at all and passed all his GCSE's. Similarly at my secondary school refugees arrived with no English in year 7 and 8 and left with 8 GCSE passes each - all living in relative poverty. Sorry but it is more complicated and ecological than blaming it just on poverty and language. Or what was happening in schools 20-30 years ago that they are not doing now?