I guess Mossad don't give their agents much training in democratic accountability. 
New Secondary School in Brixton
- Thread starter Gramsci
- Start date
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
I had heard it....made me smile anyway...I can do with light relief on this issue wherever I can get it because the whole stupid situation of lack of school provision in Lambeth makes the veins in my temples throb......
AND IT WAS LAMBETH BASTARDING COUNCIL THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS BY CLOSING & SELLING OFF SCHOOLS
(sorry for shouting)
AND IT WAS LAMBETH BASTARDING COUNCIL THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS BY CLOSING & SELLING OFF SCHOOLS
(sorry for shouting)
You tell 'em, Mrs M. It goes without saying that local residents mustn't suffer any more confusion like the total misrepresentation of Moorlands residents' wishes seen last week.
It's up to the schools campaign, really, to get proper channels of communication going with local residents' and other groups, otherwise they will be widdling in the wind. They must listen to residents and not alienate different parts of the community with scaremongery about crime. LBL must be made to provide a suitable site for a local school with no whining about cost or council tax hikes. They shouldn't have flogged off the family silver in the first place.
[off topic] Speaking of ''this door is alarmed", the one that always gets me is the announcement on the Northern Line: "This station is Oval." No it ain't!
[/off topic]
It's up to the schools campaign, really, to get proper channels of communication going with local residents' and other groups, otherwise they will be widdling in the wind. They must listen to residents and not alienate different parts of the community with scaremongery about crime. LBL must be made to provide a suitable site for a local school with no whining about cost or council tax hikes. They shouldn't have flogged off the family silver in the first place.
[off topic] Speaking of ''this door is alarmed", the one that always gets me is the announcement on the Northern Line: "This station is Oval." No it ain't!
[/off topic]Donna Ferentes
jubliado
I seem to remember Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory opening with a discussion about the possible meanings of the notice Dogs Must Be Carried On The Escalator. Will a cat do?
There were a small number of people from east Brixton at the meeting, all of whom were pretty hacked off by the SSCIL leaflet which was, frankly, scare mongering against the Somerleyton Road site.
These residents included 2 governors from Loughborough Primary a local vicar and an educational psychologist, who was particularly scathing about the SSCIL leaflet.
I didn't think the councillor was trying to 'divide and rule'. Seemed to me he was trying to make SSCIL think about parents and children other than those on Brixton Hill - hence the need for a future meeting to which the whole area will be invited, not just one bit of it.
These residents included 2 governors from Loughborough Primary a local vicar and an educational psychologist, who was particularly scathing about the SSCIL leaflet.
I didn't think the councillor was trying to 'divide and rule'. Seemed to me he was trying to make SSCIL think about parents and children other than those on Brixton Hill - hence the need for a future meeting to which the whole area will be invited, not just one bit of it.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
I'd really like to see a detailed map of Lambeth with what the council owns (although I don't think they actually know what they own) and try and identify a suitable site........failing that, perhaps we can get Blunkett to hand over the Brixton Prison site. it's an appallingly antiquated building that they don't really want any more that should be razed to the ground....not that that will ever happen, but heigh-ho........
Chrysanthemum
New Member
I'm getting really tired of the council saying they have no money. I'm tired of "consultations" after all the decisions have already been made. And I'm REALLY tired of threats from the council whenever people dare to disagree. How many times have we been told if we don't shut up we'll get nothing? This is what they're saying about the new school, even though the council isn't paying for it so they don't have the power to take it away.
I wouldn't mind knowing who voted to sell Dick Sheppard school, and who suggested that it should be sold.
I wouldn't mind knowing who voted to sell Dick Sheppard school, and who suggested that it should be sold.
Extremely well said -- and welcome to the boards, Chrysanthemum. It seems to be getting very horticultural round here lately.
You're not the only one. A cut and paste question from Lambeth's Education Scrutiny Sub-committee by Rob McDonald of the Woodfield Action Committee. Lambeth haven't answered his question yet.
Sorry about the length of this cut and paste but I thought it was a good question (and missed out points 1-21
). I'd like to meet this Rob McDonald.Welcome Chrysanthemum.
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
I think that something did get tabled at the meeting of the Education Scrutiny Committee. Unfortunately, and this is far too common, the paper has not found its way onto the Council's website. I think it is down to cock-up rather than conspiracy, although I suspect that leading lights of the administration aren't complaining that these documents are not seeing wide circulation.
Perhaps you should raise this with the Chairs of the three new Scrutiny Committees as well as whoever is now in charge of "Democratic Services support" - the committee clerks team in old fashioned language.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Magnificent. Do the school deny or admit that they asked these questions?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I take Mr BCs point about the leaflet but I told SSCIL I thought it would upset people.It has cauased a distraction from the real issues of the site and kind of school.
Warm welcome to new posters-good to see this thread has encouraged new posters on site.
The City Academy idea also concerns me.This(see links on my early posts)is as far as I can see a form of school which will be controlled by the "sponsors" and not the local Council or community.It is all very well to criticise SSCIL but if this kind of school is built local people wont necessarily have much say in it anyway.
Warm welcome to new posters-good to see this thread has encouraged new posters on site.
The City Academy idea also concerns me.This(see links on my early posts)is as far as I can see a form of school which will be controlled by the "sponsors" and not the local Council or community.It is all very well to criticise SSCIL but if this kind of school is built local people wont necessarily have much say in it anyway.
I think Gramsci is right to have concerns about the City Academy model. The Clapham experience though, shows that well motivated parents working with the council and Dfes can mitigate the worst effects of the semi-independence given to the sponsors. In that case, the school really will be a community school in respect of its admissions policy, which is the most important bit.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
In the Gaurdian on Saturday 19th an article on Bliars new speech about education at the opening of the Business City Academy in Bexley.This is a publicly founded independant school
.It has, presumbly for educational purposes, a "business court with a mini stock exchange and trading floor" .This means it attracts extra cash from the government
.
Bliar stated their was a programme for 50 city academies in the next four years and the government wanted more private sponsors.
Bliar said that:
" Academies embody all we are seeking to achieve,tackling social exclusion and transforming life prospects for the least advantaged in society" He said they were part of " a fundamental change" in the comprehensive system,ending the "one size fits all " approach.(quotes from Gaurdian)
I dont see how getting private sponsors to set up blatently biased education is ending the one size fits all approach.Its interesting that they are encouraging business type education with extra cash.I thought education was about equiping people with critical tools and self confidence to engage with the wider world.Encouraging this kind of education is completely ideological.Not that I have an argument with being ideological its just that if that is what New Labour want that should be open about it.
This is replacing one size with another not bringing in more "choice" or "diversity"(New Labour buzzwords--see Alan Milburns article in Friday 26th Gaurdian).
.It has, presumbly for educational purposes, a "business court with a mini stock exchange and trading floor" .This means it attracts extra cash from the government .Bliar stated their was a programme for 50 city academies in the next four years and the government wanted more private sponsors.
Bliar said that:
" Academies embody all we are seeking to achieve,tackling social exclusion and transforming life prospects for the least advantaged in society" He said they were part of " a fundamental change" in the comprehensive system,ending the "one size fits all " approach.(quotes from Gaurdian)
I dont see how getting private sponsors to set up blatently biased education is ending the one size fits all approach.Its interesting that they are encouraging business type education with extra cash.I thought education was about equiping people with critical tools and self confidence to engage with the wider world.Encouraging this kind of education is completely ideological.Not that I have an argument with being ideological its just that if that is what New Labour want that should be open about it.
This is replacing one size with another not bringing in more "choice" or "diversity"(New Labour buzzwords--see Alan Milburns article in Friday 26th Gaurdian).
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I read Alan Milburns article in the Gaurdian(Friday 26th)for the life of me I dont get New Labours Third Way talk:
Here are a few quotes from his article relevant to education:
"Economic prosperity relies on all our people having good education and skills..the worst thing..would be to move towards a monolithic old style take it or leave it service.We should move forwards to a service where their is diversity in supply and choice is extended to those with or without wealth...The whole purpose of democratic socialism is to empower people who have traditionally been with out..Labour parties constitution says "in the hands of the many not the few." "
He also states another New Labour mantra that the the party must not mix up ends and means.This if I get it right is that collective ownership is unnessary.Private enterprise can supply schools and hospitals as long as the ends are the same-haelthy and educated citizens.
What I find difficult with this is I think criticisms of the monolithic welfare state are sometimes correct.The left was critical of this back in the sixties.It was often patronising and prescriptive.The left answer is genuine community ownership and control.
Their is a left libertarien tradition from Syndicalism to more radical forms of education that agrees their should be more "empowerment" and "choice" and "diversity".New Labour frustratlingly use the rhetoric but come up with what I think the Conservatives would dream up.
A telling comment in Milburns article is when he says:
"if we are to avoid the failure of the Clinton Administration to leave a lasting legacy we have to put down roots by entrenching out progressive values as the new centre ground of British politics."
Quite so-and New Labour have modelled themselves on Clintons policies.In the end they will fail.They will be seen in the future to have continued a waterd down version of Thatcherism.
If all this seems going from the point of the thread I dont think so.What gets lost in a lot of local politics and large meetings is a discussion of the underlying issues.A lot of Council work is about keeping LBL afloat the bigger picture often gets lost.Which is why people get fed up with politics-its not about ideals-its about who is a better manager the Lib/Dems or Labour.
Here are a few quotes from his article relevant to education:
"Economic prosperity relies on all our people having good education and skills..the worst thing..would be to move towards a monolithic old style take it or leave it service.We should move forwards to a service where their is diversity in supply and choice is extended to those with or without wealth...The whole purpose of democratic socialism is to empower people who have traditionally been with out..Labour parties constitution says "in the hands of the many not the few." "
He also states another New Labour mantra that the the party must not mix up ends and means.This if I get it right is that collective ownership is unnessary.Private enterprise can supply schools and hospitals as long as the ends are the same-haelthy and educated citizens.
What I find difficult with this is I think criticisms of the monolithic welfare state are sometimes correct.The left was critical of this back in the sixties.It was often patronising and prescriptive.The left answer is genuine community ownership and control.
Their is a left libertarien tradition from Syndicalism to more radical forms of education that agrees their should be more "empowerment" and "choice" and "diversity".New Labour frustratlingly use the rhetoric but come up with what I think the Conservatives would dream up.
A telling comment in Milburns article is when he says:
"if we are to avoid the failure of the Clinton Administration to leave a lasting legacy we have to put down roots by entrenching out progressive values as the new centre ground of British politics."
Quite so-and New Labour have modelled themselves on Clintons policies.In the end they will fail.They will be seen in the future to have continued a waterd down version of Thatcherism.
If all this seems going from the point of the thread I dont think so.What gets lost in a lot of local politics and large meetings is a discussion of the underlying issues.A lot of Council work is about keeping LBL afloat the bigger picture often gets lost.Which is why people get fed up with politics-its not about ideals-its about who is a better manager the Lib/Dems or Labour.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
mmmm, I'm not convinced by this at all...a City Academy is not a community school in any way, shape or form..........
You're right, of course, they're not community schools and that is a significant draw back. My point was that the worst effects can be mitigated, as is the case with the new Clapham school. Although the sponsor is the Church Schools Company, it's a non-denominational co-ed school with an admissions policy more like a community school than the majority of Lambeth's secondary schools. The aim should be to make the admissions policy of the Brixton School the same.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
To right they are not community schools.I got the new tabloid Independant today(rather good I thought).It had an article that caught my eye;
"Public schools to sponsor state sector to boost inner cities"
Public schools ie Eton,Harrow and Dulwich college are thinking of "sponsoring" or even running the new largely government funded City Academies .According to the Independant article "Graham Able,master of Dulwich College,said that he expected independant schools would go into partnership with City Academies."(Independant is these peoples term for Public Schools)
The City Academy programme is going to be criticised at the Labour Party conferance
Apparently the Public Schools are trying to cozy up to Bliars government by offering to support City Academys.Also they are trying to improve their PR as they have been calls to remove their charitable status.Yes u got that right posh private schools are run as "charities".
Dulwich College not as well known as Eton is one of the most expensive in the country as well as being asset rich(land and buildings).
It leaves me speechless that a Labour Government can get into bed with the Public School system.They should abolish them or at least take away their charitable status.
The more I find out about this City Academy idea the less I like it
"Public schools to sponsor state sector to boost inner cities"
Public schools ie Eton,Harrow and Dulwich college are thinking of "sponsoring" or even running the new largely government funded City Academies
.According to the Independant article "Graham Able,master of Dulwich College,said that he expected independant schools would go into partnership with City Academies."(Independant is these peoples term for Public Schools)The City Academy programme is going to be criticised at the Labour Party conferance
Apparently the Public Schools are trying to cozy up to Bliars government by offering to support City Academys.Also they are trying to improve their PR as they have been calls to remove their charitable status.Yes u got that right posh private schools are run as "charities".
Dulwich College not as well known as Eton is one of the most expensive in the country as well as being asset rich(land and buildings).
It leaves me speechless that a Labour Government can get into bed with the Public School system.They should abolish them or at least take away their charitable status.
The more I find out about this City Academy idea the less I like it
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
There are quite a few people left in Lambeth (OK most of them are now turning 50 and apt to nostalgia when you go for a drink with them) who will tell you that running a state secondary school as though it is a public school can work for all ability ranges - viz Tulse Hill School in the late 50s/early 60s
as recorded on this school site - see home page and links for 50s and 60s tales
as recorded on this school site - see home page and links for 50s and 60s tales
The private schools (I refuse to call them public schools. They're about as public as a masonic lodge) do get edgy when their charitable status is mentioned. It means, for example, they don't pay rates. Some of them own whole towns. Dulwich College (as Gramsci says) owns vast amounts of property.
I think it was George Orwell who compared the British private schools to a plague of rats and called for their extermination. They are engines of snobbery, passing their foul values from one generation to the next.
I think it was George Orwell who compared the British private schools to a plague of rats and called for their extermination. They are engines of snobbery, passing their foul values from one generation to the next.
Why should it be left to parents to have to fight the iniquities of an intrinsically unfair system? That is totally unacceptable.
You said earlier
Even if one accepts what you say (which I don't -- at all) you cannot break this issue down into convenient 'bits'. A curate's egg where parents are made responsible for limiting the damage caused by the bad 'bits' -- regardless of their ability to do so, and we are talking about many poor, working class people here, not privileged Cla'hamites -- is just not good enough when we are considering the education of children.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Article by Tony Pearce of the Socialist Educational Association called "Profiting from Education":
http//:www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/0109/page9.htm
He makes two very interesting points:
1)Education is accepted by the Government as just another commidity in the global marketplace.In the ongoing world trade talks their are proposals that governments should open up previously state run services(education,council housing,health etc) to privatisation by foreign firms.This favours the US and other wealthy countries.The argument is to forestall a US takeover of education the UK has to develop its own private educational "service providers".
2)Their has been intense lobbying by the private educational sector of the government
http//:www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/0109/page9.htm
He makes two very interesting points:
1)Education is accepted by the Government as just another commidity in the global marketplace.In the ongoing world trade talks their are proposals that governments should open up previously state run services(education,council housing,health etc) to privatisation by foreign firms.This favours the US and other wealthy countries.The argument is to forestall a US takeover of education the UK has to develop its own private educational "service providers".
2)Their has been intense lobbying by the private educational sector of the government
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I agree with Infostella on this-I did not fully notice that Mr BC said that "well motivated parents" make a difference.Unfortunately this tends to mean middle class parents pressure.I dont mean this in an abusive sense(their are left wing people who "middle class").Its that the better off have the time and links to make a difference.
I had a look at the Tulse Hill site Lang Rabbie.It was,as were a lot of the early state schools after the war,run as a pale shado of the Public School by teachers who would rather have been Headmasters at Eton.Also it was a state school,whatever its defects,the City Academies are going back to prewar private education.Their used to be lots of (crap)minor private schools for those who could afford them.
It was this as well as the division of Grammer and Secondary Modern that lead in the sixties to the modernisation of Schools as Comprehensives.This was as much a cultural revolution as as educational one.The state schools like Tulse Hill that Lang Rabbie mentions IMO reinforces the existing class structure.
As for me Ive like Orwell(as mentioned by Anna)have a gut hatred of public schools as I went to one(I did get a free place-they let in a few of the hoi polloi as a PR exercise).It taught me how the class system in this country works.I didnt have to read Marx.I remember in my first week their a Senior Teacher gave us new boys a pep talk.He said that we were not their to end up as dustmen but to become the person who told the dustmen what to do.(The old idea that working class are born to dig coal like they are a different genetic race).Never forgot it and never agreed with it even at that young age.I grew up in the docklands of Plymouth and unlike the people I went to school with and was taught by actually knew working class people.Extermination is the only policy for places like Dulwich college and the school I went to.
Also Lang Rabbies link to 50s and 60s Britain brings to mind a playwright(Pinter or maybe Orwell again?)talking about the generation of working class boys who went to these new state schools,typically run on public school lines-houses and prefects- who became slightly lost as they felt themselves neither working class or really middle class by the end of their education.I can identify with that.
I am going on a bit.Lang Rabbies/Annas post brought it all back.Perhaps that is why I get so interested in social ploicy around education.
I had a look at the Tulse Hill site Lang Rabbie.It was,as were a lot of the early state schools after the war,run as a pale shado of the Public School by teachers who would rather have been Headmasters at Eton.Also it was a state school,whatever its defects,the City Academies are going back to prewar private education.Their used to be lots of (crap)minor private schools for those who could afford them.
It was this as well as the division of Grammer and Secondary Modern that lead in the sixties to the modernisation of Schools as Comprehensives.This was as much a cultural revolution as as educational one.The state schools like Tulse Hill that Lang Rabbie mentions IMO reinforces the existing class structure.
As for me Ive like Orwell(as mentioned by Anna)have a gut hatred of public schools as I went to one(I did get a free place-they let in a few of the hoi polloi as a PR exercise).It taught me how the class system in this country works.I didnt have to read Marx.I remember in my first week their a Senior Teacher gave us new boys a pep talk.He said that we were not their to end up as dustmen but to become the person who told the dustmen what to do.(The old idea that working class are born to dig coal like they are a different genetic race).Never forgot it and never agreed with it even at that young age.I grew up in the docklands of Plymouth and unlike the people I went to school with and was taught by actually knew working class people.Extermination is the only policy for places like Dulwich college and the school I went to.
Also Lang Rabbies link to 50s and 60s Britain brings to mind a playwright(Pinter or maybe Orwell again?)talking about the generation of working class boys who went to these new state schools,typically run on public school lines-houses and prefects- who became slightly lost as they felt themselves neither working class or really middle class by the end of their education.I can identify with that.
I am going on a bit.Lang Rabbies/Annas post brought it all back.Perhaps that is why I get so interested in social ploicy around education.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Just been reading the "Mugged in Lambeth" thread-pages 4 and 5 contain posts on education-teachers/bullying and race/education.Interesting posts but at the back of my mind is now this gradual privatisation of education by this government is going on largely unseen.
For example how will it affect the power of pupils and parents?(As a Mrs Magpie points out on that thread children have little power as it is in our society).Will it make the issues of race and education worse or better?Will teachers lose a lot of rights they now have?
For example how will it affect the power of pupils and parents?(As a Mrs Magpie points out on that thread children have little power as it is in our society).Will it make the issues of race and education worse or better?Will teachers lose a lot of rights they now have?
I was taught this in my grammar school, by the headmaster who administered beatings - physical assaults on children - on class grounds.
One time my friend **** ******** and I got up to identical wickedness and were caught by the old sadist.
He straightaway gave **** a sound thrashing (with one of those old fashioned white canes with a walking stick arrangement at one end) while I was simply warned he'd report me to my (middle-class - teachers) parents.
Why was it OK to beat my friend's backside but not mine? Because he lived on a council estate. His father was a barman. So his proletarian buttocks could be freely assaulted, while my middle class derriere remained untouched.
I remember asking my father about this at the time. He confirmed (the old Marxist) that my friend had been assaulted for being working class.
I said: "But that's terrible!"
He said: "This is England."
Sorry to go on but that was my initiation into good old fashioned British class warfare, age 11.
