Loading ...King Edward’s headteacher published a letter on the school’s website yesterday to explain his thinking in respect of the current poor weather conditions. Presumably in response to the criticism from parents reported on this site on Monday, he started by commenting upon Monday’s decision to open the school to pupils from Louth, only to send them home again 50 minutes later.
He says,
Having planned out a “pop up curriculum” over the weekend we decided to try and implement a “Louth based School” on Monday. We have never tried this before and are often asked by parents why this is not possible. Having evaluated our efforts, we now know that despite the planning we did over the weekend it is simply not possible to offer any meaningful education on this basis: let alone offer pupils continuity in the courses that they are following.
I had assumed that the school had been caught by the unexpected severity of the weather, but we now know that the shambles that occurred was the result of a meticulous plan! The school planned to bring in only the 150 local kids. They planned a “pop up curriculum” (whatever that might be). And, presumably they planned to have sufficient teachers to offer some sort of service to the students.
As I understand it, approximately 150 students did arrive; as did at least 13 teachers. So, with the “pop up curriculum” in hand, why was it not possible to follow through? It seems to me that the comments of teachers that have been reported to this site (see previous article) may well provide the answer. They simply weren’t on board. They didn’t want to be there. What other explanation can there be for a programme, that according to the headteacher took the weekend to plan, failing after just 50 minutes?
Over the past few days news channels have reported endless stories of innovative endeavours by public servants to overcome the difficulties. After the worst snowfalls on Wednesday, the BBC reported that half the schools in Lincolnshire were still open for any pupils that could make the journey to them. One headteacher was reported as saying how important it is to set an example to children. “We have a can-do culture here”, she said. The King Edward’s culture is increasingly clear – can’t do, won’t do. Or is it – don’t know what to do?
Mr Lascelles says he now knows it is not possible to provide any meaningful education on this basis.
So there we have it – 13+ experienced teachers are unable to get together and provide a worthwhile and enjoyable learning experience for 150 students, despite having a whole weekend to plan it. I think that says it all.
Dear Jim,
This is the first time I have looked at your site and I must admit I am appalled and disgusted by your blatant slagging off of the school and the Head.
If you feel so strongly why didn’t you apply for the recent Governers election?
We as parents feel very lucky to have such a good school in Louth and are very happy with our daughters education. Print that on your website.
Annika Keelan
Annika, thank you for your contribution.
I understand that not everyone sees our current school system the way I do. However, I know from the emails I get that I am not alone in believing that our schools are consistently failing our kids and it is disappointing to me that that view is not reflected in the comments to this site. It seems that many people have a fear of expressing their concerns and anger publicly – that in itself should surely be a real concern to everyone!
I certainly do not think that I am “slagging off” anyone. I do believe I am expressing a legitimate view; the basic tenets of which have also been expressed by CEOs, the former head of the CBI, a former head of OFSTED and even, in part, the current Education Secretary.
In particular there is extreme frustration about the Education System’s emphasis upon limiting curricula, testing and academic achievement measured against outdated and arbitrary criteria; rather than upon life skills, personal values, independent learning, individual creativity and independence of thought.
I believe it is this emphasis that led to Mr Lascelles’ assertion that it was not possible for 13 teachers to provide any meaningful education to 150 pupils on that Monday. From my perspective, it was a wonderful, missed opportunity to do something creative and different – even if it was just a bit of bonding or teambuilding. It seems that teaching has become little more than regurgitation.
I also believe that there is a vacuum in the culture at KEVIGS which leads not only to inconsistency of message and provides a poor example to the pupils, but is also responsible for a number of incidents in recent times which call into question the professionalism and judgment of staff at the school. I have chosen, to date, not to publish examples of this, but I will continue to review that decision with supporters of the site.
I respect your right to disagree, but I do think yours would have been a more worthwhile contribution if, rather than castigating me for my view and simply repeating the mantra “such a good school”, you had been able to point to the things that in your view make it such.
Too many people, it seems to me, have been hoodwinked by exam results and league tables; reliance upon which has resulted in our national education results falling into the second league and a steady stream of unemployable graduates arriving on the jobs market. Perhaps you would like to give your view on that.
As for election as a Governor, it seems clear to me that the system of school management is a major part of the failure of the system as whole. By the nature of their existence, and the expectations of collective responsibility, Governors are virtually duty bound to support the school and the headteacher in every way and are therefore the last place to find agents of change.
On what do you base your assertion that governors are ‘virtually duty bound to support the school and the headteacher in every way’? Have you had comments from governors to that effect, or have you previously been a parent governor of any school?
Even if you perceive problems with the current system of school management, surely that does not necessarily preclude the possibility of making any positive impact on a school as a parent governor?
Your strong feeling about and commitment towards education provision in Louth is laudable, but I think standing for election as a parent governor to become involved in effecting change would constitute a much more positive and proactive move than continuing to snipe from the sidelines.
I have spoken to a number of governors of a number of different schools. I have always found that their perception of their school, its ethos and education in general, exists in an entirely different paradigm to mine and in fact to many other parents I speak to. Many parents express their anger and frustration about a whole range of school issues: in groups of parents they will express dislike of the way their children are treated, how effectively work is marked, the relevance of subject matter, the absurdity of uniform, the provision of too much or too little homework and so on. The mention of governors to such parents often brings about a rather patronising smile.
The original intention of this site was to give parents an opportunity to record and debate those issues, since clearly in their eyes (and I fully understand this view) the system of school governors is simply irrelevant to the debate.
My personal perspective is rather wider. I believe that the education system is utterly flawed and fails to serve the interests of society or mankind in general. I believe that wherever one looks in business, sport, politics and public service, that view is supported. The root cause of the failing, in my opinion, is the lack of core values in society – and that must start with schools. I do not believe that this is the kind of debate that governors would consider it appropriate to hold. Indeed, based upon my experience of conversations with them, I doubt that many are equipped to hold it.
This site, of course, has largely failed. Instead of taking the opportunity to address the issues, most parents have remained silent. The relatively few contributions that the site has had since its inception have been from people who simply seek to defend the current system and everything it stands for. In doing so they have not entered into debate about the issues at all, but confined themselves to attacking me for having the audacity to question whether the best decisions are being taken and whether the people taking them are effective. One amateur psychologist even explained to me that my opinions are the consequence of being bullied at school – news to me! They have all, in general, done this behind a cloak of anonymity. I find it all quite sad.
A rare exception with regard to anonymity is Annika’s contribution to this thread. Yet she is typical in that nothing in what she says addresses any of the issues raised in the article. She merely berates me for questioning the head teacher and the “good school”.
The few parents and a couple of teachers who have supported the site or some of the issues I have covered have done so only by private, “not for publication” emails. Some have said that they fear the backlash if they expressed their views openly. I do not need to wonder why that might be, but I do wonder why you have not given your name, given that your contribution is entirely neutral.
Perhaps even the mere association with a site that seeks to deviate from the status quo is reason enough.
Dear Jim,
Thank you for your reply, however I do not intend to engage in a never ending debate with you regarding our childrens school and the whole education system. Frankly I’m far too busy. Until your website has something positive to say I won’t visiting it again.
Regards,
Annika Keelan
Ahh! That, perhaps, is the difference (and possibly the reason we are where we are) – I am never too busy for my children and their education.
I must say that I am intrigued to understand how you will know if I ever say anything positive, in your view, if you have closed your mind to hearing it. C’est la vie!
I share the view of Annika, your website appears to do nothing more than criticise King Edwards, you seem to not even acknowledge all the great things that the school, the staff, and the pupils do.
Now, as for this article, I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the school cannot remain open if it is unsafe for ANY of the buses to come and collect the children to take them back home, this is for the pupils safety. In this case, in my view, the chances of the snow getting worse, and of the roads freezing, and pupils possibly being stuck at school clearly outweigh the benefit of ”teambuilding” in the freezing cold with just 100-odd pupils.
Hope to see your one of your future posts being of one balance, with a site entitled “Louth Parents” you aren’t being very representative of the parents of louth..
Thank you,
Thank you for your post.
This site is called Louth Parents because it is open to the parents of Louth Schools to submit their views, as you have done. The purpose of the site is to give the parents of pupils at ALL Louth secondary schools a voice which they do not have in any other way.
If you wish to celebrate the many successes of KEVIGS, you are free to do so and I believe that in doing so you would assist parents who are making decisions about the right school for their children. A number of contributors have cited the “good school”, but none have given a single example that I can recall.
I have no doubt that KEVIGS is a better school than many – perhaps even most – but unfortunately, given the quality of secondary education in this country, that is not saying very much.
You say that the school cannot open if any of the buses do not run. The headteacher opened the school to Louth children only, knowing that more distant buses were not running.
You say that any benefits of staying open are outweighed by the risks to pupils. I might agree with you, but neither buses nor risks were the reason the Headteacher gave for closing the school. The reason given was that after just 50 minutes, the 13+ teachers on site discovered that they were “unable to provide any meaningful education”, despite having a plan to do so.
Mr Lascelles letter does not stand up to scrutiny, but it is clear to me that many parents do not want to question the motives and efficacy of the school or engage in any meaningful debate about it. That, of course, is their choice; in which case Louth Parents is not the place for them.