Labour MP attacks Bolingbroke Free School and shows real spirit in disagreeing with the Labour front bench

Francis Gilbert's picture
 136
Lisa Nandy's attack on Bolingbroke Free School is worth watching because she shows what's wrong with the free schools policy: it's chronically unfair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj4QrbYI4vw
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 12:30

I think the Wandsworth model is interesting because the admissions policy has been designed to be inclusive. I do not see the education of middle class children and lower income children as being mutually exclusive. In fact, mixing them up in the same new school can only be a good thing in so far as it drives social mobility. In a small way that model will help give poor children a good chance at their local comprehensive school in Wandsworth. As I have stated above, if that is a model that works, then other schools in other pars so fthe country should look at the model too. From little acorns.


Kate Johnston's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 07:08

Laura. When I was talking about stats, it was the 27% of Northcote children I was referring to. My point about stats is that this figure on its own sounds a lot. However unless you add other figures around it, it is meaningless. For example how many children in the Northcote borough attend a Wandsworth primary school? If the figure is say 15% then the secondary school figure starts looking better. And if the admissions policy chosen was distance based then it would primarily include just Northcote children. The fact is that feeder schools have been chosen - what percentage of children are from the Northcote ward? Not that many I'd say. I don't have any of these figures but I think that they would give a different figure than just quoting the "shocking" 27%. Just giving "basic stats" doesn't give the full picture - just the picture wanting to be portrayed.


Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 11:33

You need to take a chill pill Jon otherwise your school won't open. Nice that the school is a super affluent area - you will be like those charters in American states like New York which don't have the real challenge of tackling the povert/low attainment cycle you yourself mentioned.


Laura Brown's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 13:50

This is so not complex! The intake of the school is not children currently in years 8-13 – they make up 0% of the pupil intake. The school is starting with year 7 only in 2012, will have year 7 and 8 in 2013 etc – 100% of its intake is made up of children currently at primary school who will move into the school one year at a time starting with the year 6 leavers in 2012. If the parent promoters had really wanted to bend over backwards for an inclusive intake, they would have included Falconbrook from the start and not had to be forced into a u-turn by the campaign against them. I will certainly be watching to see what the FSM % and BME % turn out to be once the school gets going and unfortunately, I don’t expect to be pleasantly surprised!!


Laura Brown's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 13:55

Absolute rubbish! If the parents setting up this school, sent their children to the 4 existing schools in the area (which I live further away from and can get into!!), they would actually be supporting the educating of middle class children alongside lower income children. The 'poor children' and indeed the middle class children who go to them are already served well by existing schools and it would be great to see more middle class parents support them rather than setting up shop elsewhere...


Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 11:51

Nope, still not 'smelling the fear'.


Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 14:33

I think you show a disturbing lack of understanding in relation to basic need provision in the borough. And also the wider political narrative through which such basic need can be delivered in the current climate. If you had an inkling about any of that then you would not have made the above statement. Clearly I support the free school policy and therefore the parents in Wandsworth (or wherever else there is a credible case for such a school) but the level at which you debate makes the case for the school merely by the degree of ignorance you display. You are making the case for the school all by yourself with your petty class politics and lack of knowledge of the wider educational need in the borough. The more you post, the stronger the case becomes for the new comprehensive school in Wandsworth.


Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 14:51

Laura -

You are of course quite right and very reasonable in promoting an inclusive policy. As Jake or whoever he is has shown, he is as selective as the government is about giving people a balanced picture of the real motives behind Academies and Free Schools. He has already shown that he has swallowed hook line and sinker the government line that such schools, like their American models, exist to provide opportunities for the disadvantaged. This is an untruth packaged up to make a policy serving the already advantageous appeal to the public, many of whom remain ignorant of the long term consequences of these policies. They have not significantly improved the lives of poor children in America, they have served the middle class well in some wealthy areas and the for-profit making companies that run them have done well.

His high-handed, rabid and quite insulting approach to this debate mirrors the government's arrogant rolling tank policy, so one can only surmise that he is doing their dirty work with his histronics. He has mentioned that he is co-founder of an education project for the disadvantaged. I wonder how the disadvantaged will react as they read his hectoring, personal, snobbish, bullying and condescending spite here? Hardly reassuring and hardly the sort of character to front such an enterprise. If anyone is class conscious and playing politics here - but pretending not to - is is him

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 12:04

so how is opening a school in an affluent going to improve the poverty/low attainment cycle in that borough or across the country?


Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 12:06

No - just smelling affluence and an easy job done and kudos for yourself?


Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 17:41

Am I meant to be 'smelling the fear' now?


Sassy Puff's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 16:43

Allan -
Both yourself and Laura make excellent points, thank you.
I have to say I share your concerns that "Jake" is the co - founder of an education project for disadvantaged children. Not least because although he claims to be" trying to make a difference" for these children, yet goes on to admit that he is only "at pre start up and sourcing seed funding", therefore he has no website. Surely any potential benefactors need to see exactly where their money would be going?
Perhaps he provides them with his telephone number and gets them to leave a message after the condescending tone..?

Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 17:58

One can meet and discuss potential supporters to explain a new venture before needing a website. I think the point you make is a bit odd.

The main objective of this website is to celebrate and encourage parents to support their local state school. Since you Saskia by your own admission did neither of these things with your childs primary or secondary choice of school, it is not clear why you even feel justified to post on a website whose ideals you do not support?

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 18:06

Most Free School sites, steering committees, founders hide behind a screen. This means no scrutability, no accountability, no transparency, last minutes consultation. It's a covert and dishonest way of going about things, as if there two agendas - one private and real; the other for public consumption or force feeding


Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 18:19

As I understand it, the Bolingbroke school has held several public consultation sessions and will reply to any information requests.


Sassy Puff's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 18:28

Hmm. So, you concede your fantastical venture is only at discussion stage, but you feel able to make sanctimonious comments such as "As for myself, I am the co-founder of an education project to help disadvantaged children. You can keep doing the politics. We’ll keep trying to make a difference". Wow, just wow.
Camilla Batmanghelidjh must be terrified.
During the course of your many cursory internet searches about myself, you will have discovered that ours is an agnostic household. Therefore, given that our nearest primary was a church school, I chose the first non denominational school that I saw and was happy with. As for my not choosing a local school for my son, I chose one in Wandsworth, which is more than 73% of the parents in Northcote do.
I feel very justified in posting here, thank you very much and I do not need approval from someone who is too gutless to appear here under his own name, makes deeply personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him and led an extremely dishonest campaign based on the fears of certain parents regarding race and class.
You can continue with your very public meltdown, Jon. It is almost as entertaining as seeing you humiliated into accepting Falconbrook as a feeder school.

Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 18:54

Jake is my own name but again you seem a little obsessed with this character 'Jon'. And why would he be having a very public meltdown? You talk in riddles. Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. It also looks like in your world two wrongs do in fact make a right. And again - like Laura - you stoop to playing the race and class cards with no evidential basis for doing so. Thats about as low as it gets.


Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 19:08

And you chose the first non-faith school that you were 'happy with' - that wasn't even your second closest primary school was it? Or first closest if you exclude the faith school you discounted. So much for local parents supporting their local school to get on board and help improve it. By your own admission you just kept going until you found a school you liked. You did everything the founders of this site and the people who post on this site oppose - "three mile prayers and half mile graces" as someone once wrote of people like you. You have some nerve.


Sassy Puff's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 21:33

Dear Jon,
I know this must be really, really hard for you to grasp, but I'll try again. We are an agnostic household, my nearest primary school was a church school. Now, I don't know what circles you mix in, but given that I am agnostic and my son has never even been baptised, I felt it would be immoral and hypocritical to take a school place from a child who is being raised in the Christian faith.
Are you seriously suggesting that as an agnostic, I should have lied my way into a church school ?? Why would I "get on board and help improve" a faith school, when I don't believe in God?!
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic
The school my son ending up going to, was the first open day that we attended and we loved it. Therefore, we didn't bother looking at any others.
I am really not sure why the vast majority of your posts seem to be concerned with a someone that you have never met; I would have thought you would have had bigger fish to fry, to be quite honest.
I have no political affiliation, I do not have hold any public office nor am I a figurehead for any organisation.
I am a single mother and full time undergraduate, who is deeply concerned about the future of state schools in her borough. For some reason, you have taken a deep dislike to myself and you use any forum on which I appear to make highly personal remarks about myself. Instead of engaging with or trying to understand those who oppose you, you descend to the same tired worn out insults; class war! Lefties! Spin!
I didn't agree with hardly anything Kate Johnston had to say, but she was able to keep a civil tongue in her head and came across as a thoughtful and intelligent individual.
In two years, you have never provided any proof that Northcote parents cannot get into their local schools, yet at the same time you make disparaging and offensive comments about CG at every turn. As do your supporters, might I add.
Having someone who doesn't even know where your child's school is, tell you to your face that there is "rampant knife crime" at their school, is probably one of the most unpleasant and hateful things to experience as a parent.
There is no knife crime at CG and as the parent of a young black man, I take great offence at being told so by people who use the BME percentage at my son's school to make disgraceful, unsubstantiated slurs on my child, his friends and their school.
I don't think I have much else to say on this thread, I think it must be very boring for others to have to read personal attacks on myself and although it has been fun watching you "bringing the crazy" as the Americans say, I'm bored myself now.
Just exactly how my choice of school for my boy drives the debate on free schools forward, or proves the need for a new school in Battersea, is a total mystery to me.
However, I am really grateful for you coming here and showing just how petty and deeply unpleasant you are.
I will watch what happens to your school with great interest and I sincerely hope that it does not sound the death knell for other schools in the borough.

Jake's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 23:09

For some reason you continue to confuse me with another person. Whatever. My problem with you on this post is as follows. You posted recently on a local website that "when I looked at primary schools for my son, although we had two schools that were much nearer, I chose one that was a good 30 minute walk away" We know the first school was faith based, fine - was the second also faith based? Why did you not support that local primary school? We also know that if you live in Putney but selected a secondary school in Balham then you also failed to support your local state secondary school - which I'm guessing would have been either Ashcroft or Elliot? You would not send your son to Elliot because it was in special measures. Is not the whole point of this very site to encourage support by local parents such as you of such schools to help turn them around? So the problem with you is that you berate parents in the Northcote area for not supporting Chestnut Grove but when it comes to your own child you do not support your local school. Personally I dont mind what choices parents make for their children - Dianne Abbott for example. What I do mind however is when you take the moral high ground in a public forum such as this but then you do the opposite to what you preach with your own child. Endless repetition about the closest primary being faith based does not hide the fact that by your own words you did not support your second closest primary nor indeed support any of your local secondary schools. In short, practice what you preach or expect to be criticised if you enter into a public debate. You may well find the truth unpleasant or even boring and if that is the case then it may be better if you refrain from future posts if you do not want people to know the type of person you actually are.


Sassy Puff's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 18:34

Exactly, Allan! It would appear that some people get their information about NYC from old episodes of "Hill Street Blues". I was there in 2007 and when you look at areas such as Willamsburg in Brooklyn, you can see just how much the city has changed.


Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 18:37

not last 2 years, sorry, last 20 years


Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 21/06/2011 - 19:39

Jon/Jake -

I would suggest a visit to New York so you can see for yourself that it is not the pit of despair your prejudices or heroes have led you to believe that it is. It really is very diverse now - you can go to Harlem or the Bronx and see white middle class people not strung out on crack! Perhaps then you will see that the spin of the miracle work of Charters in New York is a sham and that the real work of poverty/low attainment is not being carried out in destitute areas. Until you do this, or understand this, it's not a good idea repeat that Gove, Wilshaw and Hyman are the Oracles of Education. But if you did go, or read up about it, I still wonder whether you would be selective with what you wish to see. Easy to deal with capable kids in a mixed area. But you are a Segregation Denier. Oops - here we go I'm playing the race card and the class card, political card, riddle card, snake tongue card. My deck has run out...

Jake's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 10:57

As I pointed out above and as has also been flagged on other posts on this site, the fundamental problem is that no middle ground can be found with the majority of people on this site. This is because the site is founded in left wing ideology. So it wouldnt matter if this site was about education, the economy, the welfare state, foreign policy or whatever. The entrenched ideology makes any centrist agreement nigh on impossible. For me, although I support a social democrat model (I am not a Tory) education is actually beyond politics. That is not the case for most people on this site - just look at the political pedigree of the founders of this site for example. Any debate here is a bit like asking a Man Utd fan to start supporting Liverpool. Its never going to happen. Any comments from Janet Downs for example about looking at OECD info can readily be countered by alternative sources such as the recent LSE report. And yes, I have been to New York in recent years.


Allan Beavis's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 11:07

Great! New York is terrific. What did you think of the public schools and Charters? Did you like The Bronx, Harlem, Washington Heights? By the way, you seem reluctant to say who you are or publicise your organization for the disadvantaged so how you raising sponsorship? My guess is a lot of people would be dissuaded from backing you after reading your bullying and offensive rhetoric here. By the way, a lot of people here have made it clear their opposition is not political so you really don't have the monopoly on caring about education or kids. It is you who is seeking to twist this into a political debate. Still waiting for a coherent answer from you about how you think Charters have turned around the poor/low attainment cycle. Endless visits to Manhattan ain't gonna give you the answers.


Jake's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 11:58

I don't think I can claim a monopoly on bullying or offensive rhetoric on this thread. Coming from you in particular that is especially rich. As is your claim that this site is not politically motivated. You don't have to look too hard on this site to find people you have offended. The reason I posted the link to the Gove speech this week was that there is ample evidence of high performing overseas schools in that text. I also posted above that we should seek to emulate the successful school models in this country and discard that which does not work. But at the end of the day the UK is neither Finland, Sweden, the USA or wherever. So only time will tell if the likes of Sir Michael Wilshaw have got it right. In the interim you keep on believing your own PR. Whether my education project succeeds or not will thankfully have nothing to do with you.


Allan Beavis's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 14:24

Well I don't have a project helping the disadvantaged on the go. As I said, if "Jake" were revealed to be behind your enterprise, then it is going to put a lot of people off, specially sponsors. No - your project has nothing to do with me but I wonder why you found it necessary to bring it up in the first place


Jake's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 14:46

It was a rebuttal to your accusation above that I was: "ignorant and witless and even when faced with the possibility of balancing your prejudices, you walk away, shouting. You pretend to care about teaching the poor but you’d rather focus on the middle class". The point being that I do actually care about teaching the poor and am trying to do something about it. As for Sakia's oh so funny comment that "Camila Batmanghelidjh must be terrified" one assumes that even CB had to start from somewhere. As ever you just display what a bunch of buffoons the majority of you are on this site. You have more in common with the Chuckle Brothers than Camila Batmanghelidjh.


Allan Beavis's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 15:26

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


Jake's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 16:46

Is that yet another example of you 'winding me up' because - to use your own words - you 'enjoy smelling the fear'? I imagine you watch a lot of Chuck Norris movies as well.


Janet Downs's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 18:19

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is an international organisation which collects, analyses and summarises global data. Its views are highly respected by governments. Its views, therefore, carry considerable weight. It would have to be an organisation of similar standing to be able to counter its conclusions. However, if Jake has such evidence from an organisation equal to the OECD then perhaps he could provide this contradicting evidence with links.

Jake mentions the LSE report. It was more nuanced than has been suggested by supporters of the view that competion between schools results in higher standards. It said more time would be needed to assess fully the academy effect. In any case, it is unclear how the academy effect will work when most schools are academies.

Sassy Puff's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 22:47

Sigh. Yawn. Is my cyberstalker still here?
Excuse me Jon, but do you know exactly where I was living when I chose a primary school for my son? No, I didn't think so.
I only saw one primary school, I loved it on first sight and did not bother seeing any others. We were living in SW15, my son's school was in SW15. There is no story.

As for secondary schools, Elliot is 1.5 miles away, Ashcroft is our nearest school and happened to be one of our choices. We were offered the place at CG and took it.
I think it is you that has the nerve criticizing myself for sending my child to a Wandsworth state school when 73% of the families in your ward fail to send their children to ANY state school in the borough. In addition, you reserve the right to demand a free school when you have a school with an outstanding OFSTED 0.7 miles away, yet for some bizarre reason I am a hypocrite for not sending my son to a school in special measures, which isn't even our nearest school.
According to your morals and logic, I am also a hypocrite for not bullshitting my way into a faith school and denying a Christian child their rightful place, when ours is an agnostic household.

So, not only are you a bully - exactly why has this thread turned into some lame ass witch hunt against myself? You are also a liar - you did not find the info about my son's primary school during a "cursory internet search", you found it on a members only website, on a thread that had nothing to do with Bolingbroke. Yet, apparently I'm the one who is obsessed with you.
You only know what you do about me, because on every thread on every website I have ever been on, I have been transparent and honest about who I am and what my experience of the the school admissions process has been.
This has laid me bare to criticism from yourself and your equally charming cronies, but so be it. It would be nice if just once you could get your facts right, but hey ho.
Allan is completely right when he says that you are smelling the fear; why else have you been here for over a week trolling?
I sincerely hope you didn't behave like this at the recent ARK hoedown - I wouldn't trust you not to urinate in the punch bowl.
Your posts never change Jon;
"Zero sum game"
"Class War"
"Lefties"
"Playing the race card"
"Spin"
"Left wing cant"
"Tilting at windmills"
And on and on...
Again, I really don't know why you feel the need to come after me in the way that you do.
But again I am so very grateful for you coming here and making yourself look petty, nasty and quite frankly, a tad unhinged.
Anyhoo, I think you are spending way too much time here. Surely you have far better things to do?
There are disadvantaged children depending on you, and you don't even have a website...

Jake's picture
Wed, 22/06/2011 - 23:31

Blimey.That sounds like someone who has put the child to bed, had one too many glasses of wine and the guilty conscience has kicked in. If none of that then have you considered anger management? Either way, thank you for clarifying that Chestnut Grove in Balham is closer to SW15 than Elliot school. Good to see you are supporting your local school. Have you thought about contributing a piece on the home page of this site about 'celebrating the achievements of your local school'? You can write two articles - one for your local primary and one for your local secondary school.


Jane Eades's picture
Thu, 23/06/2011 - 10:21

Just thought I say "hello" Pingu. Are you aiming at being banned from yet another forum? Can you give us advance warning of your next pseudonym?


Jake's picture
Thu, 23/06/2011 - 11:14

Not sure what you are talking about but there is a serious point worth pursuing here that understandably the likes of Sakia and yourself just do not wish to discuss. That is why you use all sorts of distraction nonsense to deflect from the truth. So let me ask Saskia again - did she put Elliot school down as one of the local school choices for her son where she lives in Putney?

For those not familiar with the schools in Wandsworth, Elliot is a failing school in Putney, the area where Saskia lives. Because it is a failing school it is also undersubscribed - anyone putting it down as one of their choices will get offered a place. Ashcroft is a successful academy in Putney and so difficult to get a place - last year they received a total of 1,579 applications for 210 places. Good to see Jane another successful academy.

So the point of all this is as follows. The primary purpose of this LSN site is to encourage support of local schools, especially when they are struggling. The likes of Francis and Fiona would say I'm sure that unless parents like Saskia get involved with their local failing schools such as Elliot then such schools may in time close. Saskia herself says that she is "deeply concerned about the future of state schools in her borough". Just not Elliot, the nearest school to her that she would have been offered a place at had she applied. But Saskia had no intention of wanting to support her local struggling school, even to the point of not listing Elliot as one of her school choices, for if she had she would have been offered Elliot and not Chestnut Grove.

All of which I actually have no issue with - apart from the fact that she then comes on a public forum such as this and berates parents in Northcote for not supporting their local school. You almost couldnt make this up. Its rank hypocricy. So yourself, and Allan and Saskia (of course) can throw up all sorts of smoke screens to detract from the truth that she was not willing to support a failing school close by to where she lives - a school where she would have been offered a place had she applied.

If Francis or Fiona want to support Saskia on this thread and offer any mitigating circumstances why a parent would not support a local struggling school then I'd be interested to hear their views. At the end of the day, it is wrong to publicly criticise anyone else for something you are guilty of yourself - people in glass houses and so on.

All of the above may be difficult to read but sadly the more Saskia protests her innocence the more I will point out that she is a hypocrite. Or she could just be honest and admit that had she applied to Elliot school she would have been offered a place but she did not want to send her son to a school in special measures. After all the council brochure states about Elliot that "all those who applied were offered places".

either youve removed my earlier comment or its got lost?? to the publisher... you've missed a few typos near the ending


Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.