Re: Teacher exposed violent school classes is in sh*t


"abelard" <abelard3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1jur23hgpn1mjkv6dqsdj0v4jr55r22v56@xxxxxxxxxx
On 24 Apr 2007 02:31:36 -0700, Mel Rowing <mel.rowing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 24 Apr, 09:22, Ar <Ar@::1.t> wrote:

The key paragraphs:

Bradley Albuery, the presenting officer outlining the case against Mrs
Mason, said that by filming teachers and pupils without their
knowledge or consent she created a conflict of interest. "She was
there not as a broadcaster but as a teacher," he said.

"All of her attention should have been directed at the education of
the children. That she took a camera into the classroom shows that her
agenda was not . . . focused wholly on the needs of the children."

never-the-less there is a strong public need that the truth about
the government cartel schools to be public knowledge....

by the criterion you present no data on the realities of the 'schools'
will be placed in the public forum....

And do not the public talk to their children about what goes on at school?

Do not children take their schoolbooks home to do homework? How many parents use this as an opportunity to have a browse?

Are children invisible to the general public as they to and fro between home and school?

Do not parents have opportunities to examine OFSTED reports appertaining to the local schools?

Are there not increasingly sophisticated tables to allow parents to compare the performances of schools?

Does the tedium of Parents' Evenings still prevail?

Have schools been surrounded by fences and barbed wire?

Have the semi-social opportunities for parents to enter and interact with the school disappeared? (are there no longer any open evenings, plays, concerts, displays, galas and such like)

Are not parents these days directly represented on Boards of Governors?

> almost no 'teacher' will dare to admit they can't control the classes
and educate under the conditions widely prevalent in uk 'schools'
>
part solution to this sort of problem would ne a whistle-blower's
charter with stringent protections....mre minor problems
but even then the cartels will do everything within their power to
cover their incompetences

If there is anything over which a whistle needs to be blown then it is likely that it will be public knowledge before the trill sounds.

There is more than a suspicion that this particular whistle blower had more in mind than the interests of the schools in which she sought work and the children for whom she took responsiblilty. Apparently she involved no fewer than 18 schools in her scam. Not content with the not inconsiderable fee she would have earned as a supply teacher, she sought to better it by accepting further payment from an outside party to further a predetermined agenda. That was her primary goal rather than engaging herself with the task of teaching those she was given charge. If she didn't find anything untoward then she was of no value to her secondary employer.

That in itself draws into question as to herself as a factor in behaviours she is alleged to have filmed. Any teacher of a few days experience will tell you that it is the easiest thing in the world to get a class round your neck. All you have to do is not do the task for which you're paid. Poor teachers do it all the time and suffer a miserable work experience as a result! It must be one of the few jobs that is easier to do than not if you see what I mean.

Regarding teachers who cannot cope, in good schools there is support. Many a weak young teacher has been helped along to make a competent one. There are some that all the help and support in the world makes no difference. They are best out of the situation for which not everybody is cut out, painful that this must be for them. However, that is nothing to do with whistleblowers.

There are major problems in some schools. Such schools are identified and placed under special measures and if these are unsuccessful they're closed. Most if not all schools face more minor problems which they address and overcome on a continuous basis without the incumberance of any whistle blowers.

.

Loading