STOP SUSPENDING AND EXPELLING SCHOOL KIDS

Schools need to stop suspending and expelling kids from school, this just has a spiral effect, if a child mis-behaves and gets suspended from school that child wins cause whenever a child wants to stay home for a while they just mis behave more and more, leaving the child to stay home and play x box, playstation or lie in bed etc, what schools need to be doing is introducing weekend schooling for those who mis behave. or have a seperate class room were they can go as punishment, sending them home is not the answer.

Why is this idea important?

Schools need to stop suspending and expelling kids from school, this just has a spiral effect, if a child mis-behaves and gets suspended from school that child wins cause whenever a child wants to stay home for a while they just mis behave more and more, leaving the child to stay home and play x box, playstation or lie in bed etc, what schools need to be doing is introducing weekend schooling for those who mis behave. or have a seperate class room were they can go as punishment, sending them home is not the answer.

Stop forcing disabled children to attend mainstream schools

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the assumption that disabled children should be taught in mainstream schools (Education Act 1981).

Give parents, and their child themselves, the choice to either send their child to mainstream school or specialist education. Scrap the need to attend a tribunal which is lengthy and expensive, and entirely unnecessary.

Teach Atheism in Schools.

Time to get humanity on track after 5,000 years of utterly ridiculous fairy tales. Teach and promote atheism in schools so our children can make an informed choice about all paths open to them within the realm of theology. It is abhorrent to me that instead of basing our syllabus on rational scientific empirical knowledge, we infect our children with lies and profane inaccuracies. Stop polluting young minds and help begin pointing humanity down the road of reason over that of highly contentious and  socially divisive theology.

Why is this idea important?

Time to get humanity on track after 5,000 years of utterly ridiculous fairy tales. Teach and promote atheism in schools so our children can make an informed choice about all paths open to them within the realm of theology. It is abhorrent to me that instead of basing our syllabus on rational scientific empirical knowledge, we infect our children with lies and profane inaccuracies. Stop polluting young minds and help begin pointing humanity down the road of reason over that of highly contentious and  socially divisive theology.

Remove the link between SEN diagnosis and funding.

The system for the provision of support to pupils with specific personalised learning needs is grotesquely expensive and inefficient. The problem with the whole system is that 'statementing' has funding attached, and therefore becomes bureaucratic on both a clinical and a financial level.

It would be so much simpler (and cheaper!) to simply dedicate a proportion of every school's budget to the provision of special educational needs. That money must be spent on support for individuals, but not assigned to specific individuals. Then the professionals within that school (possibly but not necessarily including educational psychologists) would be able to allocate resources to their students in a way that meets their needs.

It is of course important that children are properly diagnosed, but this should be a purely medical/clinical concern. The relationship with funding means that money is constantly being wasted on appeals and such.

Schools should use professional diagnosis to justify their allocation of the fixed pot of funds that they have been given as a school. If parents cannot agree with the provision that a school allocates their child then they should be allowed to look for another school.

The current problems all come from an overly litigious approach that favours bureaucrats and only benefits the children of parents that have enough time on ther hands to pursue their claims through the many conflicting agencies and organisations.

Why is this idea important?

The system for the provision of support to pupils with specific personalised learning needs is grotesquely expensive and inefficient. The problem with the whole system is that 'statementing' has funding attached, and therefore becomes bureaucratic on both a clinical and a financial level.

It would be so much simpler (and cheaper!) to simply dedicate a proportion of every school's budget to the provision of special educational needs. That money must be spent on support for individuals, but not assigned to specific individuals. Then the professionals within that school (possibly but not necessarily including educational psychologists) would be able to allocate resources to their students in a way that meets their needs.

It is of course important that children are properly diagnosed, but this should be a purely medical/clinical concern. The relationship with funding means that money is constantly being wasted on appeals and such.

Schools should use professional diagnosis to justify their allocation of the fixed pot of funds that they have been given as a school. If parents cannot agree with the provision that a school allocates their child then they should be allowed to look for another school.

The current problems all come from an overly litigious approach that favours bureaucrats and only benefits the children of parents that have enough time on ther hands to pursue their claims through the many conflicting agencies and organisations.

Government’s reasons for keeping cannbis illegal

To really make sense of these arguments members of the Government need to take part in the discussion, to present in this forum their thinking and reasons and the obstacles they would encounter in changing the laws.

This applies to all of the proposals actually, because otherwise we are just going round in circles.

Their feedback would be helpful.

With regard to cannabis for example, I heard one MP who is known to have smoked "in his youth"  (and not one of those who just "didnt inhale"!) say he opposed it because "someone has to do the work…"   i.e. an assumption, probably based on his own experience, that users are just doped out and that he, by being a politician, is taking responsibility for society or something.

Another reason would be pressure for the US, who started the prohibition.  At the time they were still a very young, wild culture, who had only just stopped shooting "Red Indians".  They needed controls.  Now their Adminstration are agressive, arrogant bullies but the "special relationship" still counts and we do what they do in everything.

Incidentally, one of the things smoking creatively does is enable you to think for yourself: possibly some in government would prefer us not to?

Presumeably there are EU laws too.

But whatever the obstacles are, our message must have got across by now so it would be great if they could use this site to join in and answer.

Why is this idea important?

To really make sense of these arguments members of the Government need to take part in the discussion, to present in this forum their thinking and reasons and the obstacles they would encounter in changing the laws.

This applies to all of the proposals actually, because otherwise we are just going round in circles.

Their feedback would be helpful.

With regard to cannabis for example, I heard one MP who is known to have smoked "in his youth"  (and not one of those who just "didnt inhale"!) say he opposed it because "someone has to do the work…"   i.e. an assumption, probably based on his own experience, that users are just doped out and that he, by being a politician, is taking responsibility for society or something.

Another reason would be pressure for the US, who started the prohibition.  At the time they were still a very young, wild culture, who had only just stopped shooting "Red Indians".  They needed controls.  Now their Adminstration are agressive, arrogant bullies but the "special relationship" still counts and we do what they do in everything.

Incidentally, one of the things smoking creatively does is enable you to think for yourself: possibly some in government would prefer us not to?

Presumeably there are EU laws too.

But whatever the obstacles are, our message must have got across by now so it would be great if they could use this site to join in and answer.

Change the law so teachers are allowed to share information

 

I was a teacher who was found guilty of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing for sharing information with other professionals.  I showed my risk assessment for Child T, an 11 year old pupil, to the instructors at an outdoor education centre.  My risk assessment said that Child T was likely to run off, was reckless, refused to follow instructions and had a Statement which gave him full time support in school for his violent behaviour.  Hackney Social Services complained because I hadn’t allowed them to change my risk assessment so that Child T would be allowed to stay in an unsupervised dormitory.  (Child T was a “looked after child” from Hackney)  The Department of Education said the disciplinary finding was reasonable because I hadn’t followed the correct guidance and the law. 

 

In summary Department officials said that what I should have done was either to have gone to the HSE to get permission to share information or entered into a formal dispute with Kent CC about it.  I had done everything else officials described; in fact it was KCC who had told me to write the risk assessment for Child T when I went to them with my great concern about taking him without his support at night.  In school, even with his support, he had managed to assault both staff and pupils.

 

The Department agreed that I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident if I had changed my risk assessment but said I shouldn’t have worried because Kent CC would have been criminally liable too! 

 

THE DEPARTMENT WROTE:

 

“ [a] with regard to your statement "I gave information to Bowles, in line with government guidance”

 

 [iii] it appears to DfES that anyway your action was not in line with DfES guidance.  While HASPEV advises school staff to give information to a provider (e.g.: "The group leader should also provide any relevant information to the provider such as the group's age-range, competence etc." – para 169), it also advises that the group leader's risk assessment for the visit should be approved by the head teacher (para 37).  DfES understands that your action in passing information to the provider in this case was not approved by the head teacher.  Therefore it appears that your action went against DfES advice on obtaining head teacher approval

 

 [b] You mentioned that you gave information to Bowles "as a PID" (Public Interest Disclosure).  DfES has not issued guidance on PIDs, though as you know, our web pages now refer enquirers to DTI and HSE advice on the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  DfES's view is that the employment tribunal system is adequate for dealing with PID matters between school staff and their employers;

 

[c] Your letter seems to imply that your only choices were either to send the information as you did, or to modify the risk assessment in line with Hackney's wishes.  DfES believes that a school employee generally has more options.  The employee could pass the provider's request for information to the head teacher.  If the head teacher then sent to the provider, or directed the employee to send to the provider, information which the employee believed would endanger safety, the employee could take that concern to the school's Governing Body; and then, if still not satisfied, to the school employer.  If still unsatisfied with any response from the school employer, the employee could follow the procedures outlined by DTI (as mentioned above), e.g. by informing the HSE if the PID related to "matters which may affect the health or safety of any individual at work; matters which may affect the health and safety of any member of the public arising out of, or in connection with, the activities of persons at work" (source: DTI guidance).  DFES'S VIEW IS THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACTED SIMILARLY IN THIS CASE, INSTEAD OF SENDING INFORMATION TO THE PROVIDER;


[e]  You also wrote that if you had modified the risk assessment in accordance with Hackney's wishes "I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident".  It might be worth reminding ourselves here that, as we both know, the school employer retains the main responsibility under workplace safety law.  Therefore:

– IF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ACTS ON THE EMPLOYER'S INSTRUCTIONS, THEN THE EMPLOYER AT LEAST SHARES CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITH THE EMPLOYEE; and

– if the school employee has done what workplace safety law requires (i.e. has drawn to the employer's attention the employee's view that the employer should make further arrangements to deal safely with a workplace risk, and has otherwise cooperated with the employer's arrangements), then the employer, not the employee, will bear the main
criminal liability; and if the employee, exercising their common-law duty of care, still believes that a particular action approved by the employer would be negligent of a pupil's safety, then THE EMPLOYEE CAN AVOID ALL CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY REFUSING TO TAKE THAT ACTION AND ENTERING A FORMAL DISPUTE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER as at 2c above.

[6]  DfES does not wish to take a view on whether any criticism by Hackney Social Services was or was not reasonable.  As stated at para 2c above, we believe that an employee can take a concern, about information which the employee believes would endanger safety, through internal and external dispute channels as outlined;”

Why is this idea important?

 

I was a teacher who was found guilty of misconduct at a disciplinary hearing for sharing information with other professionals.  I showed my risk assessment for Child T, an 11 year old pupil, to the instructors at an outdoor education centre.  My risk assessment said that Child T was likely to run off, was reckless, refused to follow instructions and had a Statement which gave him full time support in school for his violent behaviour.  Hackney Social Services complained because I hadn’t allowed them to change my risk assessment so that Child T would be allowed to stay in an unsupervised dormitory.  (Child T was a “looked after child” from Hackney)  The Department of Education said the disciplinary finding was reasonable because I hadn’t followed the correct guidance and the law. 

 

In summary Department officials said that what I should have done was either to have gone to the HSE to get permission to share information or entered into a formal dispute with Kent CC about it.  I had done everything else officials described; in fact it was KCC who had told me to write the risk assessment for Child T when I went to them with my great concern about taking him without his support at night.  In school, even with his support, he had managed to assault both staff and pupils.

 

The Department agreed that I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident if I had changed my risk assessment but said I shouldn’t have worried because Kent CC would have been criminally liable too! 

 

THE DEPARTMENT WROTE:

 

“ [a] with regard to your statement "I gave information to Bowles, in line with government guidance”

 

 [iii] it appears to DfES that anyway your action was not in line with DfES guidance.  While HASPEV advises school staff to give information to a provider (e.g.: "The group leader should also provide any relevant information to the provider such as the group's age-range, competence etc." – para 169), it also advises that the group leader's risk assessment for the visit should be approved by the head teacher (para 37).  DfES understands that your action in passing information to the provider in this case was not approved by the head teacher.  Therefore it appears that your action went against DfES advice on obtaining head teacher approval

 

 [b] You mentioned that you gave information to Bowles "as a PID" (Public Interest Disclosure).  DfES has not issued guidance on PIDs, though as you know, our web pages now refer enquirers to DTI and HSE advice on the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.  DfES's view is that the employment tribunal system is adequate for dealing with PID matters between school staff and their employers;

 

[c] Your letter seems to imply that your only choices were either to send the information as you did, or to modify the risk assessment in line with Hackney's wishes.  DfES believes that a school employee generally has more options.  The employee could pass the provider's request for information to the head teacher.  If the head teacher then sent to the provider, or directed the employee to send to the provider, information which the employee believed would endanger safety, the employee could take that concern to the school's Governing Body; and then, if still not satisfied, to the school employer.  If still unsatisfied with any response from the school employer, the employee could follow the procedures outlined by DTI (as mentioned above), e.g. by informing the HSE if the PID related to "matters which may affect the health or safety of any individual at work; matters which may affect the health and safety of any member of the public arising out of, or in connection with, the activities of persons at work" (source: DTI guidance).  DFES'S VIEW IS THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACTED SIMILARLY IN THIS CASE, INSTEAD OF SENDING INFORMATION TO THE PROVIDER;


[e]  You also wrote that if you had modified the risk assessment in accordance with Hackney's wishes "I would have been criminally liable in the event of an accident".  It might be worth reminding ourselves here that, as we both know, the school employer retains the main responsibility under workplace safety law.  Therefore:

– IF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE ACTS ON THE EMPLOYER'S INSTRUCTIONS, THEN THE EMPLOYER AT LEAST SHARES CRIMINAL LIABILITY WITH THE EMPLOYEE; and

– if the school employee has done what workplace safety law requires (i.e. has drawn to the employer's attention the employee's view that the employer should make further arrangements to deal safely with a workplace risk, and has otherwise cooperated with the employer's arrangements), then the employer, not the employee, will bear the main
criminal liability; and if the employee, exercising their common-law duty of care, still believes that a particular action approved by the employer would be negligent of a pupil's safety, then THE EMPLOYEE CAN AVOID ALL CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY REFUSING TO TAKE THAT ACTION AND ENTERING A FORMAL DISPUTE WITH THEIR EMPLOYER as at 2c above.

[6]  DfES does not wish to take a view on whether any criticism by Hackney Social Services was or was not reasonable.  As stated at para 2c above, we believe that an employee can take a concern, about information which the employee believes would endanger safety, through internal and external dispute channels as outlined;”

Ending forced collective worship in schools

At present all childeren at state schools are legally required to take part in daily collective worship of God. This is completly out of place in our modern secular society, where religous belief is in massive decline and church attendances are dwindling. Furthermore, forcing people to worship God violates their fundamental human right of freedom of religion (which includes the freedom not to believe in God), and so obviously infringes upon their civil liberties. It should be entirely up to people whether they want to believe in God or not, and it shouldn't be forced upon them by the state.

Why is this idea important?

At present all childeren at state schools are legally required to take part in daily collective worship of God. This is completly out of place in our modern secular society, where religous belief is in massive decline and church attendances are dwindling. Furthermore, forcing people to worship God violates their fundamental human right of freedom of religion (which includes the freedom not to believe in God), and so obviously infringes upon their civil liberties. It should be entirely up to people whether they want to believe in God or not, and it shouldn't be forced upon them by the state.

Overhaul the Learning & Skills arrangements

Scrap the large number of quangos operating in the 'education and skills' area, in particular there is no justification for Sector Skills Councils.

Stop writing blank cheques from the taxpayer to one hundred plus Awarding Bodies who are all competing with each other for 'business'.

Abandon the Qualificiations Credit Framework which is wrecking many perfectly sound vocational qualifications, adding complexity where none is needed, and is apparently driven by an unwanted and unjustifed plan by Brussels for a European Qualifications Framework.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the large number of quangos operating in the 'education and skills' area, in particular there is no justification for Sector Skills Councils.

Stop writing blank cheques from the taxpayer to one hundred plus Awarding Bodies who are all competing with each other for 'business'.

Abandon the Qualificiations Credit Framework which is wrecking many perfectly sound vocational qualifications, adding complexity where none is needed, and is apparently driven by an unwanted and unjustifed plan by Brussels for a European Qualifications Framework.

Scrap religious assemblies in schools

Scrap the law that says that all schools must hold an act of (broadly Christian) collective worship every day because:

• It forces young people to pray or worship in other ways, regardless of their personal beliefs

• It does not respect children’s and young people’s rights to freedom of religion or belief

• It does not recognise the plurality of beliefs in the UK

• The system whereby you can opt your child out of religious worship is deeply flawed in theory and practice

• Under 16s can’t opt-themselves out without their parents’ permission

• Inclusive assemblies are a better alternative and contribute more to well being and development.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the law that says that all schools must hold an act of (broadly Christian) collective worship every day because:

• It forces young people to pray or worship in other ways, regardless of their personal beliefs

• It does not respect children’s and young people’s rights to freedom of religion or belief

• It does not recognise the plurality of beliefs in the UK

• The system whereby you can opt your child out of religious worship is deeply flawed in theory and practice

• Under 16s can’t opt-themselves out without their parents’ permission

• Inclusive assemblies are a better alternative and contribute more to well being and development.

New Type of School – Centre of Enterprise

I would like to suggest that potentially self-funding schools are founded in areas with high unemployment with the aim of fostering enterprise. Pupils could be taught all the necessary skills needed to set up and market their own business. The school could incorporate exhibiton ares and a retail outlet. They could also trade online worldwide. Pupils could also earn money by providing services to the local communty. It would be compulsory for teachers to have spent some time as a self-employed person and the general approach would be positive towards self-employment.

Business could participate and sponsor pupils. A worldview could be fostered. The creative approach would ensure that the process learning is fun but also it could be taught that making money can be enpowering. Pupils would see the results of their endeavours being ploughed back into the school creating growth of the school. Even if the school struggled financially there would be lessons to be learned.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to suggest that potentially self-funding schools are founded in areas with high unemployment with the aim of fostering enterprise. Pupils could be taught all the necessary skills needed to set up and market their own business. The school could incorporate exhibiton ares and a retail outlet. They could also trade online worldwide. Pupils could also earn money by providing services to the local communty. It would be compulsory for teachers to have spent some time as a self-employed person and the general approach would be positive towards self-employment.

Business could participate and sponsor pupils. A worldview could be fostered. The creative approach would ensure that the process learning is fun but also it could be taught that making money can be enpowering. Pupils would see the results of their endeavours being ploughed back into the school creating growth of the school. Even if the school struggled financially there would be lessons to be learned.

Repeal all laws on the books that the authorities and courts ignore and refuse to enforce. Otherwise they are just meaningless propaganda.

As apparent in High Court Judge Mackie QC's ruling of July, 2010 (Admin Court, London) the courts and authorities categorically refuse to enforce breaches to Section 13A and 14A of the Education Act 1996 by schools and LEA's even though it is a very recent law. This law was introduced to "ensure" parents their kids will be educated up to the level of their individual aptitude and abilities and parents would be provided with "REASONS" by schools if this was questioned. In this alarming and stone age ruling Judge Mackie QC makes it very clear in his judgement parents are unable to question and challenge failures of teachers in the courts uder these statutes when they fail in their "professional "duties to our children these laws are supposed to protect. His rulling indicates the law that ensures us that our children must be educated up to their individual level of aptitude and ability by state schools is unenforceable in English Courts. In his ruling he also makes it clear parents should consider what is in the "best interests" of their children before kids are home schooled by them. That's an insult to all parents who home school their children precisely because they think it is in their kids best interests to do so, particulary when state schools fail miserably in their duties under these "pretend" laws. The ongoing High Court case is about the Arnewood High School in New Milton teaching a year 9 pupil at a year 4 level, even despite school assessments and the fact that the pupil in question had surpassed the level they were teaching him at years ago at junior school, and the school knew it! Hence the parents decided to opt for home schooling. It's a challenge under 13A and 14A about the school and authorities refusing to provde any explanation or reasons to parents in relation to their demands for answers for this shameful state of afairs. But, evidently these laws in reality mean nothing, so why have them? Full details of the case and ruling can be found on www.arnewoodschool.org.uk. Indeed a very scary development and insult for responsible parents who choose to home educate because they consider state schools don't come up to the standards they expect. What is equally mind boggling is that Mr. Michael Gove MP and his department agree with this judges ruling! Now there's a "ponderance". 

Why is this idea important?

As apparent in High Court Judge Mackie QC's ruling of July, 2010 (Admin Court, London) the courts and authorities categorically refuse to enforce breaches to Section 13A and 14A of the Education Act 1996 by schools and LEA's even though it is a very recent law. This law was introduced to "ensure" parents their kids will be educated up to the level of their individual aptitude and abilities and parents would be provided with "REASONS" by schools if this was questioned. In this alarming and stone age ruling Judge Mackie QC makes it very clear in his judgement parents are unable to question and challenge failures of teachers in the courts uder these statutes when they fail in their "professional "duties to our children these laws are supposed to protect. His rulling indicates the law that ensures us that our children must be educated up to their individual level of aptitude and ability by state schools is unenforceable in English Courts. In his ruling he also makes it clear parents should consider what is in the "best interests" of their children before kids are home schooled by them. That's an insult to all parents who home school their children precisely because they think it is in their kids best interests to do so, particulary when state schools fail miserably in their duties under these "pretend" laws. The ongoing High Court case is about the Arnewood High School in New Milton teaching a year 9 pupil at a year 4 level, even despite school assessments and the fact that the pupil in question had surpassed the level they were teaching him at years ago at junior school, and the school knew it! Hence the parents decided to opt for home schooling. It's a challenge under 13A and 14A about the school and authorities refusing to provde any explanation or reasons to parents in relation to their demands for answers for this shameful state of afairs. But, evidently these laws in reality mean nothing, so why have them? Full details of the case and ruling can be found on www.arnewoodschool.org.uk. Indeed a very scary development and insult for responsible parents who choose to home educate because they consider state schools don't come up to the standards they expect. What is equally mind boggling is that Mr. Michael Gove MP and his department agree with this judges ruling! Now there's a "ponderance". 

Repeal Section 436A of the 1996 Education Act

Section 436A of the 1996 Education Act and the statutory guidance relating to it is in direct conflict with Section 437

Section 436A of the 1996 Education Act states:

“436A Duty to make arrangements to identify children not receiving education
(1) A local education authority must make arrangements to enable them to establish (so far
as it is possible to do so) the identities of children in their area who are of compulsory
school age but —
(a) are not registered pupils at a school, and
(b) are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school.
(2) In exercising their functions under this section a local education authority must have
regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this Chapter, “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means efficient full-time
education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he
may have.””

whereas section 437 states:

“1) If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education”

Why is this idea important?

Section 436A of the 1996 Education Act and the statutory guidance relating to it is in direct conflict with Section 437

Section 436A of the 1996 Education Act states:

“436A Duty to make arrangements to identify children not receiving education
(1) A local education authority must make arrangements to enable them to establish (so far
as it is possible to do so) the identities of children in their area who are of compulsory
school age but —
(a) are not registered pupils at a school, and
(b) are not receiving suitable education otherwise than at a school.
(2) In exercising their functions under this section a local education authority must have
regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
(3) In this Chapter, “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means efficient full-time
education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he
may have.””

whereas section 437 states:

“1) If it appears to a local education authority that a child of compulsory school age in their area is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise, they shall serve a notice in writing on the parent requiring him to satisfy them within the period specified in the notice that the child is receiving such education”

SSCO scheme: A waste of money??

The SSCO scheme has spent hundreds of millions of government money to improve PE at primary level since 2000. Has there been a substantial improvement??

As a current SSCO there was a lot of improvement in the early years but recently figures have stagnated and new initiatives have been introduced (5 hour offer) to keep people in their jobs. You are not going to get every pupil loving PE and taking part in sport outside of school. FACT.

Has confidence in primary teachers improved or are they still scared of teaching PE? This money could have been spent on full time PE teachers in primaries or shared teachers amongst smaller schools.

There are a lot of meaningless jobs in the 450 partnerships. PDMs on £35k+, assistant PDMs on £25k, competition managers on £20k, administrative staff, county PDM managers and full time coaches. Is this money justified for the output received?

Why is this idea important?

The SSCO scheme has spent hundreds of millions of government money to improve PE at primary level since 2000. Has there been a substantial improvement??

As a current SSCO there was a lot of improvement in the early years but recently figures have stagnated and new initiatives have been introduced (5 hour offer) to keep people in their jobs. You are not going to get every pupil loving PE and taking part in sport outside of school. FACT.

Has confidence in primary teachers improved or are they still scared of teaching PE? This money could have been spent on full time PE teachers in primaries or shared teachers amongst smaller schools.

There are a lot of meaningless jobs in the 450 partnerships. PDMs on £35k+, assistant PDMs on £25k, competition managers on £20k, administrative staff, county PDM managers and full time coaches. Is this money justified for the output received?

High Court Judge rules he is of the opinion home educating a child is not in their best interests

High Court Judge Mackie QC ruling dated 2 July, 2010 (Admin Court). In his ruling he makes it clear parents are unable to question and challenge failures of teachers when they fail in their "professional "duties to children. His rulling indicates the law that ensures us that our children must be educated up to their individual level of aptitude and ability by state schools is unenforceable in English Courts. He also makes it clear in his ruling parents should consider what is in the "best interests" of the child before children are home schooled. He obviously cannot comprehend the fact that people home school their children precisely because they think it is in their kids best interests. The ongoing High Court case is about the Arnewood School in New Milton teaching a year 9 pupil at a year 4 level, even despite their own assessments, and the fact that the pupil in question had surpassed the level they were teaching him at years ago at junior school, and the school knew it. Hence the parents decided to opt for home schooing. It's also about the school and authorities refusing to provde any explanation or reasons to parents in relation to their demands for answers. Type in "arnewood" in the search box to pull up more info. Full details of the case and ruling can be found on www.arnewoodschool.org.uk. Indeed a very scary development and insult for responsible parents who choose to home educate because they consider state schools don't come up to the standards they expect. What is equally an insult to us all is Mr. Michael Gove MP and his department agree with this postion! Now there's a "ponderance". 

Why is this idea important?

High Court Judge Mackie QC ruling dated 2 July, 2010 (Admin Court). In his ruling he makes it clear parents are unable to question and challenge failures of teachers when they fail in their "professional "duties to children. His rulling indicates the law that ensures us that our children must be educated up to their individual level of aptitude and ability by state schools is unenforceable in English Courts. He also makes it clear in his ruling parents should consider what is in the "best interests" of the child before children are home schooled. He obviously cannot comprehend the fact that people home school their children precisely because they think it is in their kids best interests. The ongoing High Court case is about the Arnewood School in New Milton teaching a year 9 pupil at a year 4 level, even despite their own assessments, and the fact that the pupil in question had surpassed the level they were teaching him at years ago at junior school, and the school knew it. Hence the parents decided to opt for home schooing. It's also about the school and authorities refusing to provde any explanation or reasons to parents in relation to their demands for answers. Type in "arnewood" in the search box to pull up more info. Full details of the case and ruling can be found on www.arnewoodschool.org.uk. Indeed a very scary development and insult for responsible parents who choose to home educate because they consider state schools don't come up to the standards they expect. What is equally an insult to us all is Mr. Michael Gove MP and his department agree with this postion! Now there's a "ponderance". 

sex education for minors

I have recently had to deal with the situation of my  child being taught 'HOW TO HAVE SEX' at school. This you call sex education, no this I call abuse . A childs mind needs to be free from the things that only an adult more mature mind can deal with . If we want our children to be as inocent as possible then do we as adults not need to protect thier minds, showing a child a video of a man having sex with a woman to me is pornography. How is a mind as young as a nine year old supposed to comprehend the physical nature of sex. 

Are not all children inquisitive, are some possibley disturbed and yet such things as this are only going to force the issues within their heads. You would not put a nine/ten year old a class and talk to them about how to murder some one, no it is sociably unaccetpable yet here we are giving our children the tools to go out and do such things as have sexual intercourse with each other. To me this is morally wrong. I accept that as part of growing up we need to learn about how our human bodies develop but until our children reach senior school then and only then should we educate them more approprate matters.

If the government is to proceed with this and teach our even younger children how to have sex with each other then the possibilities of more disturbed children growing up. Are we ready to tackle the rapists and peodohiles that this may bring forth to our communities. Only recently 2 ten year old boys were cought trying to force themselve upon a young girl you have to ask yourself was this before or after the 'sex education'.

 

Why is this idea important?

I have recently had to deal with the situation of my  child being taught 'HOW TO HAVE SEX' at school. This you call sex education, no this I call abuse . A childs mind needs to be free from the things that only an adult more mature mind can deal with . If we want our children to be as inocent as possible then do we as adults not need to protect thier minds, showing a child a video of a man having sex with a woman to me is pornography. How is a mind as young as a nine year old supposed to comprehend the physical nature of sex. 

Are not all children inquisitive, are some possibley disturbed and yet such things as this are only going to force the issues within their heads. You would not put a nine/ten year old a class and talk to them about how to murder some one, no it is sociably unaccetpable yet here we are giving our children the tools to go out and do such things as have sexual intercourse with each other. To me this is morally wrong. I accept that as part of growing up we need to learn about how our human bodies develop but until our children reach senior school then and only then should we educate them more approprate matters.

If the government is to proceed with this and teach our even younger children how to have sex with each other then the possibilities of more disturbed children growing up. Are we ready to tackle the rapists and peodohiles that this may bring forth to our communities. Only recently 2 ten year old boys were cought trying to force themselve upon a young girl you have to ask yourself was this before or after the 'sex education'.

 

Keep Religion out of State Schools

Followers of different faiths are free to educate there children about their religion out of school hours.  Religious schools are divisive  (look at N Ireland).  How many different religions would need to be catered for to be fair to all minority?  Are parents teaching their children to he hypocrites to get them into a church school because it had a good educational recored?

Why is this idea important?

Followers of different faiths are free to educate there children about their religion out of school hours.  Religious schools are divisive  (look at N Ireland).  How many different religions would need to be catered for to be fair to all minority?  Are parents teaching their children to he hypocrites to get them into a church school because it had a good educational recored?

Greed is good but only for the greedy

 

Make the Big Society the Number One objective of the Coalition Government

Can we have a restoration of individual responsibility, civic awareness and a government led programme to get society at large educated, aware and willing to engage as near to as possible en masse?

So lets get rid of thousands of CCTV cameras and all the other Big Brother measures people on this site are raising and try to return to the 1950 and 1960s, if not in terms of wealth in terms of values. It is up to us but the Government can make a huge difference and must.

Excuse me if this seems pedantic and rambling. It is not but the point I wish to make needs to be preached to the unconverted, many of whom will have been born into our mindless broken society, As a result, they may take it as normal and satisfactory and anything but broken. I need to explain why they are wrong.

The credit crunch showed the world that the idea of world trade creating wealth is simplistic and dangerous. They forgot to add that it also created world vulnerabilities when things go wrong. They also forgot to mention that the markets are not self-regulating and that, even where we have them, regulators are not infallible or incorruptible, and so we also need to regulate the regulators. As you may know, Fred the Shred was about to become one of them. Is that alone not enough to make the point?

It is nice to be miserable in comfort but money is not everything. Having purpose in life and sufficient education to see the need and benefits ought to be regarded as a human right. Added to that, that education needs to explain that putting others concerns high on one’s own agenda is of benefit to them but also to oneself.

A lot follows from this and properly educated people will realise that you cannot achieve happiness directly, only as a by-product of other activities and with some concern for others. There is nothing new in this, Aristotle argued it thoroughly and convincingly about 2000 years ago. Rousseau and many others argued that a sense of civic duty was a moral imperative.

What is not new in the misinformation age is that the fundamentals have not changed much in 2000 years either, except that we have science and technology to raise our thresholds of the minimum acceptable requirements for a satisfactory standard of living. This has occurred to such a level that mindless acquisition of the material is the prerequisite, not the learning and insights into how to appreciate and enjoy the simple pleasures.

For lack of an understanding of this, most of us willingly join the ever widening spiral to the English equivalent of the American Dream only to find that progress means more money, more stress, and more unhappiness. You expect your employer to tear you to shreds when it comes time for your performance review because it suits him to accentuate the negative then. You expect frequent if not universal lies and cheating from companies you deal with as a consumer. You expect advertisements to hide the truth and drive you mad on TV with all their mindless stupidity and false claims because all they are interested in is a fast buck. And so it goes on whichever way you turn.

Things are getting worse not better but if you were born not that long ago you will know little or nothing of what it was like in Britain before. We did not have immigration at such a high level that in Birmingham English is set to become a minority language. We had much less in all regards but we appreciated what we had and enjoyed it with a sense of calm, well-being and dignity.

We even had hobbies and engaged in creative activities rather than relying upon our X-box or TV to while away our leisure hours. All has seriously declined. Now being dishonest is not a major concern to many, only being caught out and then finding suitably remorseful words to feign a real apology. Murder someone over a discarded chocolate rapper and get a few years. Embezzle £billions and the sentence probably is heavier.

No this is not the rant of a religious fundamentalist, it is the rant of an atheist who values spiritual values and who thinks this planet is heading for premature destruction well before the sun burns up in about 3.5 billion years, at least where the inhuman species is concerned.

Why is this idea important?

 

Make the Big Society the Number One objective of the Coalition Government

Can we have a restoration of individual responsibility, civic awareness and a government led programme to get society at large educated, aware and willing to engage as near to as possible en masse?

So lets get rid of thousands of CCTV cameras and all the other Big Brother measures people on this site are raising and try to return to the 1950 and 1960s, if not in terms of wealth in terms of values. It is up to us but the Government can make a huge difference and must.

Excuse me if this seems pedantic and rambling. It is not but the point I wish to make needs to be preached to the unconverted, many of whom will have been born into our mindless broken society, As a result, they may take it as normal and satisfactory and anything but broken. I need to explain why they are wrong.

The credit crunch showed the world that the idea of world trade creating wealth is simplistic and dangerous. They forgot to add that it also created world vulnerabilities when things go wrong. They also forgot to mention that the markets are not self-regulating and that, even where we have them, regulators are not infallible or incorruptible, and so we also need to regulate the regulators. As you may know, Fred the Shred was about to become one of them. Is that alone not enough to make the point?

It is nice to be miserable in comfort but money is not everything. Having purpose in life and sufficient education to see the need and benefits ought to be regarded as a human right. Added to that, that education needs to explain that putting others concerns high on one’s own agenda is of benefit to them but also to oneself.

A lot follows from this and properly educated people will realise that you cannot achieve happiness directly, only as a by-product of other activities and with some concern for others. There is nothing new in this, Aristotle argued it thoroughly and convincingly about 2000 years ago. Rousseau and many others argued that a sense of civic duty was a moral imperative.

What is not new in the misinformation age is that the fundamentals have not changed much in 2000 years either, except that we have science and technology to raise our thresholds of the minimum acceptable requirements for a satisfactory standard of living. This has occurred to such a level that mindless acquisition of the material is the prerequisite, not the learning and insights into how to appreciate and enjoy the simple pleasures.

For lack of an understanding of this, most of us willingly join the ever widening spiral to the English equivalent of the American Dream only to find that progress means more money, more stress, and more unhappiness. You expect your employer to tear you to shreds when it comes time for your performance review because it suits him to accentuate the negative then. You expect frequent if not universal lies and cheating from companies you deal with as a consumer. You expect advertisements to hide the truth and drive you mad on TV with all their mindless stupidity and false claims because all they are interested in is a fast buck. And so it goes on whichever way you turn.

Things are getting worse not better but if you were born not that long ago you will know little or nothing of what it was like in Britain before. We did not have immigration at such a high level that in Birmingham English is set to become a minority language. We had much less in all regards but we appreciated what we had and enjoyed it with a sense of calm, well-being and dignity.

We even had hobbies and engaged in creative activities rather than relying upon our X-box or TV to while away our leisure hours. All has seriously declined. Now being dishonest is not a major concern to many, only being caught out and then finding suitably remorseful words to feign a real apology. Murder someone over a discarded chocolate rapper and get a few years. Embezzle £billions and the sentence probably is heavier.

No this is not the rant of a religious fundamentalist, it is the rant of an atheist who values spiritual values and who thinks this planet is heading for premature destruction well before the sun burns up in about 3.5 billion years, at least where the inhuman species is concerned.

Dept. of Education (NI) should not be allowed to invent legislation that does not exist.

 

The Department of Education in Northern Ireland have recently issued new guidelines for school attendance which prevents parents from deregistering their child from school to electively home educate, even though this would require a change in law first.

Why is this idea important?

 

The Department of Education in Northern Ireland have recently issued new guidelines for school attendance which prevents parents from deregistering their child from school to electively home educate, even though this would require a change in law first.

Make authorities pursue organisers of female genital mutilation.

There are reports that young girls are regularly absented from school to undergo the barbaric act of female genital mutilation accross europe.

To date there has not been one successful prosecution in  britain.

Why is this idea important?

There are reports that young girls are regularly absented from school to undergo the barbaric act of female genital mutilation accross europe.

To date there has not been one successful prosecution in  britain.

Simplification of minibus driving regulations

To change the complicated rules around category D on driving licences to allow those passing their tests after Jan 1997 to have the same rights to drive a minibus as those who passed before.

Why is this idea important?

To change the complicated rules around category D on driving licences to allow those passing their tests after Jan 1997 to have the same rights to drive a minibus as those who passed before.

Freedom of choice for parents and children in Wales

In state schools in Wales it is compulsory for pupils to be taught Welsh(a minority language in Wales) as a subject. This means that parents and children are not able to exercise freedom of choice. Learning the Welsh language should be a matter of choice, not compulsion. so the law should be amended to give parents and children this freedom of choice.

Why is this idea important?

In state schools in Wales it is compulsory for pupils to be taught Welsh(a minority language in Wales) as a subject. This means that parents and children are not able to exercise freedom of choice. Learning the Welsh language should be a matter of choice, not compulsion. so the law should be amended to give parents and children this freedom of choice.

Update definition of forestry to include community and educational use

The current definition of forestry is limited and is inconsistent with DEFRA'S latest strategy for Trees, Woods and Forests which states that community and educational use of woodlands is core to it's aims.

Under current planning law, woodlands are only available for 'non forestry' use for 28 days a year. This means that community forest schools (which offer children opportunities to learn and connect with their environment), woodland playschemes and conservation groups using young people as volunteers may be required to apply for change of use. Current definitions of land use are also inflexible so that there are no sub groups; educational use is presumed to be a 'school' and a conservation project can find themselves being asked to supply car parking to the same specifications as a new build school in order to get change of use.

I would like the definition of forestry and agrigulture to be more flexible- to allow for sustainable community growing and conservation projects.

Why is this idea important?

The current definition of forestry is limited and is inconsistent with DEFRA'S latest strategy for Trees, Woods and Forests which states that community and educational use of woodlands is core to it's aims.

Under current planning law, woodlands are only available for 'non forestry' use for 28 days a year. This means that community forest schools (which offer children opportunities to learn and connect with their environment), woodland playschemes and conservation groups using young people as volunteers may be required to apply for change of use. Current definitions of land use are also inflexible so that there are no sub groups; educational use is presumed to be a 'school' and a conservation project can find themselves being asked to supply car parking to the same specifications as a new build school in order to get change of use.

I would like the definition of forestry and agrigulture to be more flexible- to allow for sustainable community growing and conservation projects.