In a previous topic I stated that Hartlepool had great schools and got this reply from SteveL -
"No, we don't. They consistently under-perform when compared to the national average and as a result we continue to fail our kids. Being too willing to accept mediocrity is one of Hartlepool's biggest problems".
DRiddle (a teacher) tried to defend but backed off when challenged.
So, just how bad is Hartlepools education system and its teachers - who is to blame - whats to be done or is SteveL right, do we just accept mediocrity in all of our services eg roads, rail, policing, health, environment and most importantly the education and future of our children.
I have to agree with much of what Stephen said really. The lack of aspiration in Hartlepool really worries me. The fact that the political class gets off on talking them down and telling them and the world that they'll never achieve as much as a child from a leafy suburb down south only adds to the mentality that our children can't achieve so shouldn't bother trying.
I firmly believe that grammar schools are one of the greatest tools for social mobility. Why we should make people feel guilty because they may excel more than their peers academically is beyond me. We should be encouraging these children, not putting them into a one size fits all system and hope they can still achieve something close to their true potential.
Hartlepool is a fine town but is inhabited with rather a lot of people with no vision or ambition.
The lack of opportunities and work doesn't help but the general opinion of future security doesn't exist.
Holding tramps like Chelsea Ferguson as a benchmark to success makes me want to boil my own head. :(
Probably just repeating, but for aspiration you need a role model and they are more scarce than hen's teeth in this town.
Nobody looks up to the police, their doctor or any authority these days and it is no surprise when you are more likely to hear a story about scandal than a medal being awarded. The Mail isn't even good enough to wrap fish and chips in these days.
Some people are more likely to throw a party because they have won some 'compo' than because their child has got good grades.
Always looking for short term quick gratification ...the Greggs generation that can't see what they are doing to themselves today and without a care for tomorrow.
Disagree with stephen allison
Disagree with SRMoore
Disagree with testicles
Disagree with Stig
Teachers are there to inspire kids to aspire and should be role models
There are people who have vison and ambition for their kids - Teachers and Parents
There opportunities to join the"professional class" or even become an MP.
The majority of kids do look up to the authorities
The political classes encourages ambition (would not dare to do any other)
The return of the 11+ and grammer schools will only encourage class division
My question was just how bad is Hartlepools education system and its teachers - who is to blame - whats to be done
All I have read so far is - "accept mediocrity"
A bit ironic that the derided 'Compo culture' is (in the main) the bastard child of the greedy middle/upper class solicitor fraternity!
I went to a grammar school and our boss was always threatening pupils they would be 'sent down the road' to an (implied) inferior establishment. Little did he realise a few years later he would end up as headmaster of said 'inferior' school.
QuoteDRiddle (a teacher) tried to defend but backed off when challenged.
I don't think it's fair to say I backed off. What I did was defend my own place of work categorically. I think it was right to do that. My place current of work
is a good school, a great school, with a fantastic Sixth Form College.
However, given the nature of the job I do, I
did back off and shy away from commenting on the situation with other schools. I do not think it would be fair or appropriate for me to comment directly on standards or achievement in other institutions. Particularly on a public message board.
Everyone contributing to this thread so far is not in my position and can essentially say whatever they want to. I would hope people would agree that I do not feel it appropriate for me to comment on this particular thread (other than to clarify my belief that I did not 'back off').
DRiddle is quite correct in abstaining from commenting on schools other than his own; to do otherwise could be be deemed unprofessional and potentially dangerous to relationships with other schools.
By the way, the 11 plus was NOT the last chance for children to go to grammar school, as there was some movement between schools in the first year or so of secondary education. I did attend a grammar school (not in Hartlepool, to be fair), and remember girls from other schools being transferred to us once it was deemed more appropriate to their needs.
Look at the people who run all our lives then stop wondering why we are where we are.
Vincent, stop blaming teachers for the state of Hartlepool, try blaming the parents.
having an almost daily interaction with schoolchildren in hartlepool the most basic maths is beyond many of them.
how much to xxxx school ?. 85p is the reply. how much for 2 of us? now we are talking 11 years and older and they cant add up a basic sum. 1 havent singled out any school as it is a town wide issue.
Quote from: testicles on February 27, 2013, 04: PM
Vincent, stop blaming teachers for the state of Hartlepool, try blaming the parents.
Please look at my initial post before going off subject
I would like answers not a war of words, the subject is to important
how much for 2 of us?
Fair question. A bogof deal perhaps? Smart kids.
Quote from: rabbit on February 27, 2013, 04: PM
how much for 2 of us?
Fair question. A bogof deal perhaps? Smart kids.
My son attends a primary school in the north of Hartlepool and we are very happy with the standard of teaching and support so far. I remember the headmaster stating quite clearly during a welcoming assembly for new parents that whilst the school will always strive to bring out the very best in our children they are not the sole provider of education and that it is up to all parents to invest time in educating their children to the best of their abilities. I knew from then on I'd get on with him.
Education doesn't stop at the school gates.
Agree with LL that Driddle should dip out of this one but he must accept that he and his collegues are in the driving seat and are there to be shot at, you cannot keep blaming the system and the parents when kids cant add 2 x 85 or read at the age of 11
Good teachers are role models, mentors, white knights if you like, Mr Riddle said "If you teach young people to CARE, and teach them that they CAN influence things, make a difference, that NOTHING is beyond them"
So whats going wrong?
Quote from: Vincent on February 27, 2013, 04: PM
Quote from: testicles on February 27, 2013, 04: PM
Vincent, stop blaming teachers for the state of Hartlepool, try blaming the parents.
Please look at my initial post before going off subject
I would like answers not a war of words, the subject is to important
surely 'too important' ..... what's that about standards?
Quote from: Vincent on February 27, 2013, 05: PM
Agree with LL that Driddle should dip out of this one but he must accept that he and his collegues are in the driving seat and are there to be shot at, you cannot keep blaming the system and the parents when kids cant add 2 x 85 or read at the age of 11
Good teachers are role models, mentors, white knights if you like, Mr Riddle said "If you teach young people to CARE, and teach them that they CAN influence things, make a difference, that NOTHING is beyond them"
So whats going wrong?
Good teachers are rather like those tenants who, stuck in a wilderness of overgrown front gardens and scrap cars outside the front door, somehow manage to maintain immaculate gardens, clean curtains and no doubt an immaculate home producing well-balanced kids. Both are worth their weight in gold and deserve far more recognition and support than they get.
Question for Mr Riddle. How much does a state funded school get allocated for each student per term/year?
The Hartlepool Mail is reporting a story of how Michael Gove singled out East Durham as an area where children lack ambition and stated how it was a bad thing. How does the Mail cover it?
"Minister blasts ambition in East Durham"
Just in case you were in any doubt as to which political party this paper favours...
QuoteQuestion for Mr Riddle. How much does a state funded school get allocated for each student per term/year?
The short answer in that on average nationally it balances out at about £4.950 per pupil. The long and complex answer that I won't bore you with is that it varies depending on the socio economic situation with the cohort due to new legislation known as the 'pupil premium'. It's bascially funded slightly differently if a child is or was on 'free school meals'. You get a little bit more for each child in that situation.
But as I say, the short answer is around 5k.
Is this leading to a 'we should give each parent a 5k voucher and let them choose' type statement shane?
Quote from: DRiddle on February 28, 2013, 04: PM
QuoteQuestion for Mr Riddle. How much does a state funded school get allocated for each student per term/year?
.
Is this leading to a 'we should give each parent a 5k voucher and let them choose' type statement shane?
It was a genuine question to get a rough figure to see if a suggestion like that would be feasible.
Is that 5k per annum or term?
Quote from: kipperdip on February 28, 2013, 04: PM
SRM - Congratulations on the scoop !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You'll be telling us next that the next Pope will be a Catholic.
I hear Labour have already demanded that no discrimination should be made against a candidate from another faith and that there be a 50% quota of women added to the shortlist.
Rumour control also reports that Tony Blair will also run for pope. Manifesto pledge 1 is to raise a new papal army and invade Iran as he has intelligence that they have the Ark of the Covenant and will use it on the West with just 15 minute notice.
QuoteIs that 5k per annum or term?
5k a term? Are you having a laugh? That's Eton prices... I thought you'd know that being a Tory? ;)
It's 5k a YEAR, or there abouts.
Why should a school get more if a child receives school meals ?
The reason is not obvious to me as I would have thought all students were treated the same when they were through the school gates.
Quote from: DRiddle on February 28, 2013, 06: PM
QuoteIs that 5k per annum or term?
5k a term? Are you having a laugh? That's Eton prices... I thought you'd know that being a Tory? ;)
It's 5k a YEAR, or there abouts.
My quality education in Henry Smiths must surely have cost more than 5k a term? The school dinners alone were worth that! ;)
Quote from: Stig of the Seaton Dump on February 28, 2013, 06: PM
Why should a school get more if a child receives school meals ?
The reason is not obvious to me as I would have thought all students were treated the same when they were through the school gates.
You would think that all students get the same amount spent on them too but a pupil at West Park primary gets less per head spent on them than a pupil at Kingsley for example. Part of the reason why West Park wanted to go independent, so they would get their fair share.
QuoteWhy should a school get more if a child receives school meals ?
The reason is not obvious to me as I would have thought all students were treated the same when they were through the school gates
Basically the government have decided to target a particularly vulnerable cohort. National statistics (going back decades) have clearly identified a strong correlation between students who get free school meals and educational underachievement. The theory being that it's as good an indicator as any to associated factors which have caused the child to be in need of free dinners. (Parental unemployment, socio economic reasons etc.)
Consequently, they made a decision to target this problem with extra funding. For 2013-14 is essentially an extra £900 per pupil and so long as the child has had free school meals within the last 6 years that counts and the school gets the extra money.
The children are not treated any differently. It's just additional funding aimed at raising achievement within a vulnerable group of young people who, through no fault of their own, are very likely to be disadvantaged in the thier education in relation to other children from more affluent backgrounds.
The school use the money to help ensure a better education for all their pupils, but obviously in doing so, they help those who are amongst the most in need statistically.
The poorer your cohort of pupils (the more you have on free dinners), the more money the school gets to help address the issues associated with that.
Nationally it adds up to about £1.65 Billion pounds worth of additional funding.
Just a random thought . . but where do the kids who opt out of free school meals fit in? ...the ones who spend their lunch times outside the local chippy or pasty shop. (memories of parents feeding a daily fix of chips through the school fence to their chip-starved offspring post Jamie Oliver)
Quite amusing, if you are on a decent wage, pay more than average tax and therefore pay more towards the education system than average and still support state education your child will potentially get less spent on their education than somebody from a family that has no work ethic ! (I appreciate not everybody is unemployed by choice.)
Not what I call fairness or equality.
It doesn't really work like that Stig. All children in the school benefit from the extra money, as it's the school overall that benefits, not literally just the poorer children who trigger the additional money. E.g the money can be used for better teachers, extra resources etc. which will benefit everyone.
DRiddle, that would be true if every school had a perfect mix of children from every social background and if that was the case then there would be no need to target kids on free school meals.
It is not something I worry about greatly but to me it appears as skew as taking away child benefit where one parent earns 60K and allowing another family to keep it when the joint earnings are 100K.
Back to schools ... it doesn't send the right message home when a child comes home and says all the teachers have new iPads and here is a form asking for £5 for a text book.
That sends the message that the schools are about looking after the teachers and not pupils which leads to the parents becoming disengaged.
The relationship the schools have with parents could definitely be improved, the 2x5 minute parental consultation sessions don't build strong enough bridges to help the parents maximise how they can contribute to the child's education. that in turn could make the teaching job easier and the parents support of the child more rewarding.
As I said earlier in the thread, although I'm happy to answer specific questions such as the one by Shane, I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment openly on this topic.
I appreciate your integrity DRiddle ,,,thanks for making me think more about this topic.
It is parental consultation sessions (...what a tedious name) next week for me and I will use the opportunity to raise the point about improving parent engagement.
Quote from: DRiddle on March 01, 2013, 02: PM
It doesn't really work like that Stig. All children in the school benefit from the extra money, as it's the school overall that benefits, not literally just the poorer children who trigger the additional money. E.g the money can be used for better teachers, extra resources etc. which will benefit everyone.
It's not just school meals that trigger the payment, foster children also qualify for the pupil premium.
OFSTED have a duty to carry out assessments to ensure there is an improvement in the children's education and educational standard so it's a win win for the schools and the kids - another great policy from the LIberal Democrats
That's true Vincent. I kept is relatively simple for the purposes of explanation. Looked after childen, as well as the children of some service personnel can also trigger addtional payments. I agree with the policy, I actually think it's a very good idea. However, it does not in anyway balance out the lie which was told about student tuition fees, which is by far the most socially divisive act of education related policy ever. In my opinion. Throwing schools a £900 a year bone per pupil is one thing.... lumbering the same kids helped by the premium with debts that typically will end up in real terms at £60-70,000 over their life time is another.
It's a little bit like... well you know that analogy already right?
60k for a degree in Golf Course management or The Beatles does seem steep. One consequence might be that we see more kids take up skilled vocational training, like the ones we have a national shortage of. Electricians, plumbers, engineers and so on.
Quote from: DRiddle on March 02, 2013, 11: AM
That's true Vincent. I kept is relatively simple for the purposes of explanation. Looked after childen, as well as the children of some service personnel can also trigger addtional payments. I agree with the policy, I actually think it's a very good idea. However, it does not in anyway balance out the lie which was told about student tuition fees, which is by far the most socially divisive act of education related policy ever. In my opinion. Throwing schools a £900 a year bone per pupil is one thing.... lumbering the same kids helped by the premium with debts that typically will end up in real terms at £60-70,000 over their life time is another.
It's a little bit like... well you know that analogy already right?
It is not over their lifetime but it is about choice, I am happy to pay my taxes to support the education system but if an adult wants to go to university why should the taxpayer support him / her - choice David choice
Multiple conflation flaws are now littered right thoughout this 'debate'. Firstly this one...
Quote60k for a degree in Golf Course management or The Beatles does seem steep. One consequence might be that we see more kids take up skilled vocational training, like the ones we have a national shortage of. Electricians, plumbers, engineers and so on.
I agree that some degrees do not hold any genuine merit. I did not say that they all did. My point was that financial barriers should not preclude young people and essentially determine their 'life chances'.
Additionally, I fully agree we have a skills shortage in areas such as those you mention Shane. However, the way to address that is to put money into that avenue of education. Not to force people down that pathway by closing the other major door available to them.
There have been some excellent policies which will come into effect in the next 3-5 years or so that will address exactly the issue you highlight (increased participation age, 14-19 reform, colleges being allowed to teach 14 years olds instead of schools etc.) However, none of these should are anything to do with Uni fees.
QuoteIt is not over their lifetime but it is about choice, I am happy to pay my taxes to support the education system but if an adult wants to go to university why should the taxpayer support him / her - choice David choice
It is essentially a lifetime. How long is a
life sentence Jim? 25 years?
A person with no children has their taxes used to fund the education of other people's children. If you're going to go down that line of argument you're going to hit a dead end very quickly.
My point wasn't about the fees initially. It was about the lie. The one Mr Clegg eventually felt he should publicly apologise for. Remember?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUDjRZ30SNo
Students DO NOT pay tuition fees up front and only pay them back in installments once earning a decent wage that the education they chose has enabled them to get.
To state that students from not so well off families cannot go to university because of the fees is nonsense and another reason why they are needlessly put off.
QuoteStudents DO NOT pay tuition fees up front and only pay them back in installments once earning a decent wage that the education they chose has enabled them to get.
To state that students from not so well off families cannot go to university because of the fees is nonsense and another reason why they are needlessly put off.
Again, I did
not say that they
do pay their fees up front. Give me some credit. I work in a situation that helps hundreds of young people access uni year after year. I know all about the barriers of entry and exactly how they work.
Students from not so well off families have to make a decision because they
know going to uni will, somewhere down the line, lead to big debt.
Take the hypothetcial example of a female student from a poor background who wants to be a primary school teacher. She has options of course. She could train via college as a hairdresser, incur little or no debt and start earning money at 18 or 19 years of age, but she wants deep down to be a primary school teacher.
She knows she's facing £36,000 worth of tuition fees if she trains as a teacher, as well as a ball park figure of £20,000's worth of debt that she'll incur on living costs over the four years.
That's £56,000 worth of debt with even mentioning interest yet.
Let's suppose she does it, and enters the teaching profession with her debt (which we'll say at this stage is £56,000). She now has herself a job that pays £21,588.
She's 22, has a student debt of £56,000 and a monthly take home pay after tax, national insurance, pension and student loan payments of about £1250.
Had she gone down the hair dressing route, at 22, she'd have no debt, probably have been able to put a few quid by for a deposit on a house further down the line and if she was on £16,000 a year doing her hair dressing she'd be bringing home abour £125 a month LESS than if she'd decided to be a teacher.
Can you not see how some people from certain backgrounds could look at a situation like that and think "Aahh it's not worth it, i'll just train for a job"? This policy is about social engineering and facilitates social division.
I realise you'll say "Well Tony Blair brought it in" and you may well be right. However, I assure you, this policy will do NOTHING for our region.
A teacher life - The school I work at is a great school. There is fantastic teaching and learning going on and we have all raised our game. My teaching is better than it has ever been. We are accountable for the success of our students as we have never been before and this can only be a good thing. However, it is a job not my life.
The day begins. In case you might enjoy gradually waking up, taking some quiet time for yourself, thinking about the day to come or, who knows, possibly even talking to and enjoying the company of your colleagues before the daily morning meeting starts, a rolling PowerPoint is displayed for us all to read as a starter activity. Every teacher recognises this as the way to control disillusioned students: occupy their every minute in case they take a breath, look around and realise the pointlessness of it all.
You teach your lessons and let your head be filled with what it should be. The subject you love so much that you knew a job teaching it would be fantastic; the energy and humour of young people, those lovely light bulb moments when something clicks, the unpredictability of it all, a kid thinking they can't do something and then succeeding and the brilliant questions or observations that make your heart sing.
You go to the staffroom looking forward to a chat and a good laugh with some of the great staff you are lucky to work with. Here you will find lists of looked after students, lists of FSM (free school meals) students, lists of students who are not making progress in maths, lists of students who are not making enough progress in English and, hell, even lists of looked after free school meals students who have the audacity to not be making enough progress in maths and English. Some teachers struggle to even recognise who these students are it is so long since they have attended school. You daren't look up above seat height. I feel like a police officer being pursued by a never ending ID parade.
And then you go to a meeting. Meetings are controlled by the minute. Bloated agendas groan with weight. Interjections are waved away and questions have to be asked after the meeting has ended. Heartbeats quicken. Blood pressure rises. People inwardly and, sometimes, outwardly weep. You tune out and desperately try to catch on to the coat tails of the day's successes. They seem like a distant dream.
Its a hard life David - so tell us, why are the standards of education so bad in Hartlepool (SteveL), oh sorry, your not able to.....
I cannot contractually (nor do i deem it ethical or appropriate to) comment on the general standards of education in Hartlepool on a public message forum.
I, (like you i'm assuming?) have signed a contract which includes a detailed page on appropriate use of ICT. This includes speaking publicly in a way which could reflect badly on my place of work. Hence my reluctance to be drawn into a debate on the specific title topic of this thread.
I have answered questions on specific aspects of national educational policy that have been put to me. I have offered my view on tuition fees. I'm comfortable and happy to do that. But anything closely related to SteveL's initial question is off limits to me and rightly so.
The poor performance of St Hild's was one of the first stories we ran on HTH ten years ago and the fact that we did so upset a lot of people at the time. In a way, this sort of reaction was one of the main reasons for the poor performance.
At the time, the GCSE results standard comparison showed that St Hild's at 23% was exactly half of that achieved at English Martyrs at 46% - with no explanation offered. The Mail had covered the results which were all announced on the same day and quoted the then Headmaster of St Hild's as saying how 'satisfied' he was with the results. It was this sort of complacency which prompted us to pick up the issue.
I suppose it's a natural thing for people not to appreciate when their bad performance has a light shone on it and I remember Cllr Rob Cook, one of the school's Governors, throwing a bit of a wobbler over it. We took the view that the constant throughput of pupils meant that it was important that action was taken quickly and that the education of our kids was far too important to play second fiddle to the embarrassment of some adults.
St Hild's is now a school on the mend but, as the Mail write up shows, there's still a long way to go which is a bit disappointing given that its ten years since we first ran that story.
Consider the following extract:
"It also says school governors are now more effective and says they now appreciate how poor the school's results have been in the past and understand their responsibility in monitoring its performance more closely."
The implication here is that there was a time when the School Governors were not effective and did not appreciate how bad the school results had been - something that clearly wasn't accepted when we ran that original article.
Hopefully that situation has now changed but I have the feeling that, if left unmonitored, things will slip back to the original low level of aspiration for the school's pupils. Progress to point B is always dependant on knowing and accepting exactly where point A is first and not pretending that it is somewhere else.
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/education/school-requires-more-improvement-1-5466804