| Non-motoring > Sharon Shoesmith | Miscellaneous |
| Thread Author: BobbyG | Replies: 61 |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 21:37
Sharon Shoesmith - BobbyG
|
|
Been reading about this case today and feel it throws up a lot of questions. Should she have been sacked? Should she have been sacked in the way she was? Was there too much political involvement in this case? It may be the 3 glasses of fine Chateauneuf talking (20th wedding anniversary), but I think this case sums up much of what is wrong in the world today. A child can be abused and neglected like this - how can anyone do this to a child? What a tough, tough job social workers have nowadays, could you imagine having to deal with issues like this every day at work? How do you switch off from that? Should the head of a dept automatically carry the can for failings in their dept? It seems there is a need nowadays to have a fall guy, we don't want to learn from mistakes or change things, its much easier to say you have sacked someone. Especially in politics and in cases like this, where politicians get involved. (Last December in the worst ever snow recorded in Scotland, the Transport minister was sacked for failing to keep the roads open - exactly how many people were in positions of responsibility between the snowplough drivers and him) On the plus side, I feel it is right that she should appeal her sacking - at the end of the day she was basically sacked live on tv by an Education secretary. None of us would put up with that in our own jobs would we? From one website "Philip Henson, head of employment at City law firm Bargate Murray, said: ''I am sure that Mr Balls will now realise that firing Ms Shoesmith live at a televised press conference back in 2008 was not such an erudite idea after all. ''Ms Shoesmith's case has a wider lesson for all employers of the need to ensure that they carry out a fair investigation and procedure, affording staff the opportunity to put their case forward, rather than pandering to public and media pressure and making a knee-jerk decision to fire members of staff. ''Although the Court of Appeal judges did not make a ruling on compensation, instead referring the case back to the High Court for 'further consideration', Ms Shoesmith is likely to receive compensation approaching, or hitting, the £1 million mark, taking into consideration reinstatement of her pension rights.'' Thoughts? While I top up my glass.... |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 21:47
Sharon Shoesmith - -
|
|
Top job, head honcho, means the buck stops here, except in the UK apparently it doesn't. If they want the senior position and the glory, kudos and perks that go with it then they should be prepared to accept the responsibilities that go with it too. What price honour. Last edited by: gordonbennet on Fri 27 May 11 at 21:50
|
|
New Fri 27 May 11 21:52
Sharon Shoesmith - Zero
|
|
Yeah but... Thats a bit like saying that you drive your truck, you crash the truck into a school bus queue because you were on the phone, and you walk away scott free and the transport manager gets jailed. It was of course a politcal act, alas one he didnt have the power to to do. On the other hand, if she had any morals she would have resigned. Last edited by: Zero on Fri 27 May 11 at 21:52
|
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:00
Sharon Shoesmith - -
|
|
>> Thats a bit like saying that you drive your truck, you crash the truck into >> a school bus queue because you were on the phone, and you walk away scott >> free and the transport manager gets jailed. The former wouldn't happen and rightly so, the possibilty of the latter has changed things much in the trucking game, some of it being lip service, or rather box ticking service, but the slave driving cowboy outfits no longer sport UK mainland reg plates, or if they do are few. Morals and honour, send out a search party equipped for an epic voyage. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:20
Sharon Shoesmith - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
I know someone who was in a similar position some years back, just an ordinary social worker who took one of the scores of phone calls ( in this case annonymous) that came into her office every week raising concerns about the treatment of a child. Like her colleagues she had a caseload that was impossible to deal with properly and had to grade priorities using no more than the instinct which developed with the job, often unable to give more than cursory attention to what she deemed were low risk cases. In one instance she got it wrong and a little boy was killed by his stepfather. She was sacked in a blaze of publicity, villified in the press and had to have police protection in the form of hourly patrols down her road for months afterwards. A susequent enquiry exonerated her completely, she received substantial compensation and re-instatement as an approved social worker, but not til after two years of hell where she came close to a serious breakdown. Social Workers are overworked, spend their days dealing with the filth of society, routinely facing threats and violence and in return they become the whipping boys of the tabloids, derided as naive bleeding heart liberals whenever a decision they make based on the information they have turns out to be the wrong one and results in a tragedy. The pressure they are under is enormous and there are no-where near enough of them to cope with the number of cases that come their way. I wouldn't want their job for Premiership wages. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:24
Sharon Shoesmith - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Social Workers are overworked, spend their days dealing with the filth of society, routinely facing >> threats and violence and in return they become the whipping boys of the tabloids, derided >> as naive bleeding heart liberals whenever a decision they make based on the information they >> have turns out to be the wrong one and results in a tragedy. The pressure >> they are under is enormous and there are no-where near enough of them to cope >> with the number of cases that come their way. I wouldn't want their job for >> Premiership wages. And if they err the other way they're child snatchers conniving with 'secret' courts |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:27
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
|
I'm with you having had on and off involvement in areas of child protection off and on in the 90s I can only sympathise with the foot soldiers that occupy the trenches of child protection teams. There was a comment here a few weeks ago about about "ritual sackings" - never was it more true in Social Work circles....usually the front line staff are the ones in the firing line. This woman was sacked, effectively by Ed Balls, there was a breach of process. Buffoons messing around with something they have no clue about... |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:42
Sharon Shoesmith - rtj70
|
| If they had dismissed her with correct process then there would be no comeback. Personally I don't think she deserved to be able to appeal. Trouble is the law is the law and rules are rules. And that Ed Balls'd it up. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:50
Sharon Shoesmith - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> If they had dismissed her with correct process then there would be no comeback. Personally >> I don't think she deserved to be able to appeal. There must always be at least one line of appeal against adminstrative decisions. The trick is to sort the system so groundless appeals are kicked out with minimal processing cost. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:08
Sharon Shoesmith - Bromptonaut
|
|
Probably the right verdict. She was the boss at the time. On ther one hand if she had run things properly, the outcome would have been different. OTOH there are people so evil perverted and devious that no system on earth will stop them. Those two perspectives are seperated by a million shades of gray. Ed Balls and the Council were as incompetent at there jobs as they portray her as being at hers. If they'd gone through a proper process they'd possibly have enough evidence to support dismissal. Instead they went for easy headlines. They were even more incompetent at their jobs than they portrayed her to be at hers. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 27 May 11 at 22:10
|
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:40
Sharon Shoesmith - Alastairw
|
|
Someone has to carry the can. Things went wrong, the buck stops there. As other have said in different ways, if you take the perks of high office, you take the responsibility to do the job properly too. Fair enough, this lady was not sacked properly. However, I hope the 'compensation' in this case is only examplary, a notional £10, say. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:47
Sharon Shoesmith - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
>> Someone has to carry the can. Things went wrong, the buck stops there. As other >> have said in different ways, if you take the perks of high office, you take >> the responsibility to do the job properly too. >> Well the person with the overall responsibility for every public service is the Prime Minister, perhaps he should be sacked every time some one dies from other than natural causes? Someone should only carry the can if they have been negligent themselves. Sacrificial lambs do nothing to improve something. Last edited by: Robin Regal on Fri 27 May 11 at 22:47
|
|
New Sat 28 May 11 14:23
Sharon Shoesmith - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> Sacrificial lambs do >> nothing to improve something. >> Pour encourager les autres. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 23:27
Sharon Shoesmith - BobbyG
|
|
>>If they want the senior position and the glory, kudos and perks that go with it then they should be prepared to accept the responsibilities that go with it too. so why did every party leader not resign after the MP's expenses fiasco? |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:52
Sharon Shoesmith - Leif
|
| As Pugugly suggested, there was a failure of process. It is possible that she should have been sacked, maybe not, I don't know. But I feel she was sacked by Balls for political purposes without going through the proper processes. Even if she was negligent, and I have no idea if that was the case, she deserved to have a proper hearing, and not to be sacked to further a politician's career. It was all a bit unpleasant and just not right. You could say it was a Balls up. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 22:55
Sharon Shoesmith - rtj70
|
| Looks like she might get £1m in compensation then. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 23:04
Sharon Shoesmith - Zero
|
| I hop Ed Balls is reading that. He should be forced to pay it out of his own pocket. What a Richard. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 23:07
Sharon Shoesmith - rtj70
|
|
If they followed procedure/process I am sure she would have lost her job and be unable to appeal. And the country will be paying all the legal fees. So if we appeal that's more money and no guarantee she will lose. I can see why she won the appeal - but on moral and ethical grounds I think it's wrong. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 23:21
Sharon Shoesmith - Leif
|
|
>> I can see why she won the appeal - but on moral and ethical grounds >> I think it's wrong. You are perhaps not alone in thinking that. But ultimately a politician Ballsed up and had he kept his mouth shut, then a process would have been followed, and she would have been sacked if that was the appropriate route to follow. What we had was trial by News Of The world or whichever paper was vocal on the issue. I suppose if she deserved the sack, then Balls created the worst possible outcome. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 23:10
Sharon Shoesmith - Iffy
|
|
The compo is likely to exceed the money Shoesmith would have been paid had she remained in post, performing her duties adequately. Hard to see that as anything other than a reward for incompetence. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 23:19
Sharon Shoesmith - Alastairw
|
|
When I worked for HMRC a DI I respected told me that in in public service everyone rises to the level of their own incompetance ie: you do a good job, you get promoted, until you get promoted to a job you can't do, at which point you either stick, or retire (usually on health grounds, with an enhanced, index linked pension) The DI himself was promoted sideways into a technical role when he reached his imcompetance limit. I left before it happened to me. ;) I think this is what happened to Ms Shoesmith. Unfortunately baby P paid the price. |
|
New Fri 27 May 11 23:30
Sharon Shoesmith - Iffy
|
|
...I left before it happened to me. ;)... At my modest level, a phrase sometimes used is: 'He was clever enough to leave just before he was found out.' |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 14:53
Sharon Shoesmith - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> Looks like she might get £1m in compensation then. The headlines mention that figure. Not convinced she'll get anything near it. I'd also think more of her if she didn't still deny any responsibility - though I suppose she may be advised to avoid any admission. |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 15:08
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
|
She was interviewed on R4 this morning. Seems sensible enough. HMG appealing to, that NuLab invention, the Supreme Court. |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 15:10
Sharon Shoesmith - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> She was interviewed on R4 this morning. Seems sensible enough. HMG appealing to, that NuLab >> invention, the Supreme Court. Nu-lab but still a good thing? |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 15:20
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
| Might be me being a tad conservative with a small c ! |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 15:38
Sharon Shoesmith - Iffy
|
|
One could speculate about the amount of compo, so I will. Happily for her she was earning a large salary, about £135,000 a year. I think she's already 'lost' two years of that, and she will be able to claim the sacking has denied her the opportunity to earn that sum each year for years into the future. Thus she might get six or eight years money, plus something for hurt to feelings, stress, etc. In that respect she is being treated no differently to anybody else. It's just that six times her salary is a lot more than six times what most other people earn. |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 15:32
Sharon Shoesmith - Armel Coussine
|
|
Seems to me that departmental heads are not actually in a position to monitor closely the performance of coalface social workers or to have much say in their hiring and firing. Not only are some departments overstretched, but for a variety of reasons many have incompetents in their ranks who are protected by the mass of regulation that keeps everyone half-paralysed. If departmental heads were free to shape and run their departments, then any failures like the Baby P one (and there seem to be quite a few) could be considered their responsibility, and they might then be expected to resign. However that isn't the way things are. It seems unlikely that Mrs Shoesmith could have done anything about the low-level incompetents who allowed this child to be murdered, and that Ed Balls was therefore wrong to blame her and responsible for her successful (so far) compensation claim. This is the flip side of the modern world's obsession with equality and individual rights. Certainly people should be treated on an equal basis and their rights respected. But not at the cost of child protection that is just going through the motions and allowing abuse to continue unchecked. Because the fact is that people aren't equal and the work of protecting the likes of Baby P from their carers is a tough and gritty business that stupid bigoted wimps can't manage. |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 16:14
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
| I wonder whether child P's mother will receive funding to sue Mrs S..... |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 16:28
Sharon Shoesmith - Armel Coussine
|
|
And by the way, I do agree that front men (or women) and paper-shufflers like Mrs Shoesmith (and enormous numbers of other public employees, head teachers and specialized council advisers on this, that and the other) seem to be grossly overpaid given the sort of people they so often are and the purely formal, bureaucratic, non-hands-on nature of their work in many cases. It seems the excuse for this is that if you don't offer these astronomical salaries you don't get applications from qualified candidates who are in danger of escaping to the private sector. Damn good thing if they did if you ask me. That'd learn'em, as they say. It also occurs to me that if they paid people less and asked them to take more responsibility, they might get better people and better value for money. But what do I know? Anyway it's too late to change easily. We are all up to our bums in excrement if you ask me. |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 16:44
Sharon Shoesmith - smokie
|
| I heard it said somewhere (could have been on here) that when the "public sector" employees start to appear on the job markets, they will find stiff competition when trying to find jobs, as many employers would be intrinsically biased against them, because they would think their skills and experience are not sufficiently broad for the private sector, and that they would not be prepared to take responsibility. That isn't intended to be inflammatory, just a point of fact. So why do the public pay policy people think that the private sector will be falling over themselves to attract them? |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 19:11
Sharon Shoesmith - madf
|
|
Well of course, the private sector does not employ many social workers so demand - and hence pay - is unlikley to be high. Ms Shoesmith pf course was supported by other Gov't emplyees. "It emerged last week that former social worker Nevres Kemal had warned government ministers that children were at risk in the borough, but a subsequent investigation into her complaints by the Commission of Social Care Inspection gave the council the all clear. Shoesmith, as chair of Haringey's Safeguarding Children Board, also carried out an internal review of Baby P's death. In her findings she was forced to acknowledge the similar case of Victoria Climbie, the Haringey eight-year-old who was murdered by her guardians in 2000, but added that lessons had been learnt. Yesterday Haringey residents gathered outside the council offices and shouted for Shoesmith to quit her £110.000 a year position. However the headteachers of 61 state-funded primary schools and seven secondary schools in the North London borough say her resignation would be detrimental to their pupils. In they open letter the say they have been compelled to show their support for Shoesmith and consider her “an outstanding public servant”. " www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5161092.ece hich says all you need to know about public sector competence,... |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 19:43
Sharon Shoesmith - Bromptonaut
|
|
Madf, The skills required of a social worker would I think include an ability to analyse complex facts, strong interpersonal skills including the ability to relate to both a wide range of professionals (medical, legal etc etc) and society's low life. Facts need to be marshalled, assessed against a complex legal framework and appropriate actions taken or recommended to others. Those skills are exportable and applicable in the private sector. If social work is a dead end job with massive responsibilities and low pay it simply wouldn't attract people of the right calibre. There are private sector social workers doing stuff like court reporting and acting as independent witnesses, There's also a large market for agency staff to fill short term vacancies or posts that are difficult to fill in places like London. After Climbie one of the recommendations was to merge child social services with education. The politicians, seeing a saving in senior posts, accepted this but didn't fund the training and cultural change it required Shoesmith was a respected educationalist put in charge of Social Services. Other authorities ended up with education run by men who'd never been near a classroom. |
|
New Sat 28 May 11 19:54
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
|
I have to defend Social Workers - most of the ones I knew (with a couple of exceptions) were female*, young and very inexperienced, when they were thrown to the lion's den that is child protection work, they went on the learning curve very quickly and were expected to deal with the most complex and sensitive issues one can imagine, consequently they became very good, well rounded, people with excellent marketable skills beyond their years - most "escape" into other posts as quickly as they can - for their sanity. Mind you we all know how the private sector revolutionized certain areas of the public sector bringing with them their excellent value for money skills into such areas as hospital cleaning - a lesson in how free market economy has brought a shine to our Hospitals. *not being sexist in any shape or form by the way. Last edited by: Pugugly on Sat 28 May 11 at 19:55
|
|
New Sat 28 May 11 21:32
Sharon Shoesmith - Leif
|
|
>> It also occurs to me that if they paid people less and asked them to >> take more responsibility, they might get better people and better value for money. There is always the suspicion that it is highly paid people in a company who argue that they must offer a high salary for a post otherwise they won't get quality. In other words, by employing other highly paid people, they protect their own inflated pay. >> But what >> do I know? Anyway it's too late to change easily. We are all up to >> our bums in excrement if you ask me. Nice image, thank you ... At least the roses will thrive, so it's not all bad news. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 01:13
Sharon Shoesmith - Fullchat
|
|
I'm sure at her interview she will have tripped out all the usual bull about reform, change, blah, blah and maybe a bit of blue sky thinking to impress. I bet she didn't say that she wouldn't be able to control the sharp end. That was a healthy 3 figure salary with a heavy responsibility that goes with it. Was she unfairly sacked? I'd agree that it was probably the process that failed but she deserved to be sacked. Someone used the analogy of a lorry driver and the boss. If the lorry was defective and the boss did not take reasonable steps to ensure it worked properly then yes they should be responsible. Slightly different circumstances but Corporate Manslaughter addresses this issue. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 01:40
Sharon Shoesmith - Iffy
|
|
...That was a healthy 3 figure salary with a heavy responsibility that goes with it... The only thing Ms Shoesmith knows about responsibility is how to avoid it. ...Slightly different circumstances but Corporate Manslaughter addresses this issue... Interesting and valid analogy, although I doubt Ms Shoesmith would agree. As you say, the lorry firm boss is at risk if he doesn't take reasonable steps to ensure his wagons - and drivers - are up to scratch. There are times when it's an advantage to occupy a lowly position in the food chain - and I'm sure all that money would only spoil us. :) Hope it's a peaceful night for you in the East Riding. Last edited by: Iffy on Sun 29 May 11 at 01:42
|
|
New Sun 29 May 11 16:19
Sharon Shoesmith - Pete
|
|
God help us, the armchair experts are at it again. Do you really think that the task of keeping a fleet of lorries roadworthy is akin to that of ensuring that no harm befalls a child anywhere in your borough? Do any of you have any appreciation of the challenges faced by child protection workers in a place like Haringey? How many of you have had significant success in leading a large organisation with a highly stressed workforce that is facing those challenges? Using the logic displayed by many posters in this thread, let's sack all the service men and women deployed to Afghanistan - they've had years to sort the place out and there's still bombs going off. A lot of them on fat salaries with big allowances too. And don't get me started on the police force - they've been going for hundreds of years and STILL we get people being murdered in this country and not being caught. What's that about? I've never met Sharon Shoesmith (and neither has anyone else in this thread as far as I can tell). When I hear her on the radio I don't find myself warming to her at all, however the letter from Haringey Head Teachers protesting at her sacking is illuminating, I think. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 16:28
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
| Nice one. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 16:42
Sharon Shoesmith - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Do any of you have any appreciation of the challenges faced by child protection workers in a place like Haringey? I think so Pete. But you are right to ask the question. In my own posts above for example I seem to have been carelessly too ready to blame 'incompetence' (by front-line social workers) for these cases of tragic abuse. There have been one or two cases where something of the sort has seemed to be a factor. But in a society like ours, or any society really, these things are going to happen sometimes however hard the authorities try to prevent them. Perhaps incompetence isn't the right word anyway. The combination of abilities needed for this work 'in a place like Haringey' is very unusual. It's obvious that most people - most of us - don't have that combination. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 16:50
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
| I agree AC, balancing risks when you've got a heavy workload is complicated as most of us know, balancing those risks when there are lives in the balance is something else. Pete alludes to the military in Afghanistan, they balance risks every day and any miscalculation and their miscalculation can have devastating life changing consequences. Unless one has been in that position one can't really be expected to understand. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 17:39
Sharon Shoesmith - Pete
|
|
It's not just the challenges faced by front-line workers, it's the monumental task of trying to provide leadership for an organisation of the complexity and size of Haringey Social services. I don't accept that all public sector leaders are bureaucratic paper shufflers, nor do I accept that people such as head teachers are overpaid compared to people in the private sector with a similar level of responsibility. I've been a governor in a tough inner-city school and I have nothing but respect for the head teachers that I've encountered. And while we're on the subject, I don't subscribe to the 'private sector good, public sector bad' mantra. Some of the brightest, most able and most committed people I have encountered have been public sector employees - transplant surgeons generally aren't muppets - and I've met some right shysters in the private sector. Equally there are plenty of timewasters in the civil service, loal authorities etc, and hard-workers in the commercial sector. The European Head of Healthcare at KPMG is a former NHS Chief Executive. Do you think that he suddenly jumped 40 IQ points and start working substantially harder when he moved to the private sector? |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 17:58
Sharon Shoesmith - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I don't accept that all public sector leaders are bureaucratic paper shufflers, No one said they all were. But quite a few are. It isn't necessarily their fault either. It's the job. >> nor do I accept that people such as head teachers are overpaid compared to people in the private sector with a similar level of responsibility. I've been a governor in a tough inner-city school and I have nothing but respect for the head teachers that I've encountered. Hard to compare schools with private businesses. Educators ought to be much more motivated and driven than business executives, but one wonders whether they really are. Their work should be regarded as far more important than most of what goes on in the private sector too. But is it, really, by the powers that be or by public opinion? |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 18:13
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
| Sadly AC the teaching profession has been all but de-constructed by the last government, they've ground down the last of the "aces" in education, the new generation are box tickers, that's all. Another job that's been de-skilled. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 18:56
Sharon Shoesmith - Pete
|
|
>> Sadly AC the teaching profession has been all but de-constructed by the last government, the new generation are box tickers, >> that's all. Another job that's been de-skilled. >> Again, I disagree. The ones that I know recognise that they have to tick the boxes if they are to keep their jobs, but they don't *just* tick the boxes. They demonstrate wisdom, compassion and detemination on a daily basis. Sounds like we've had different experiences of meeting head teachers. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 18:54
Sharon Shoesmith - Pete
|
|
>> >> Hard to compare schools with private businesses. Educators ought to be much more motivated and >> driven than business executives, but one wonders whether they really are. >> I don't see the logic of this. Why should they be more motivated? The head teachers I know work incredibly long hours and are passionate about making a difference. Equally, I'm sure that there are people working in the City who work incredibly long hours and are passionate about making shed loads of money. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 21:38
Sharon Shoesmith - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> Why should they be more motivated? The head teachers I know work incredibly long hours and are passionate about making a difference. Equally, I'm sure that there are people working in the City who work incredibly long hours and are passionate about making shed loads of money. Quite simply because it's their job to educate human beings - surely one of the most important functions there are - and thus shape the future personality of the society. Some 'passions' are more justifiable than others on a social level. But I agree with you Pete really. There's no objective reason why Polyanna's 'passions' should be more intense than Greedy-Guts's. It's just that one can't help wanting them to be. |
|
New Sun 29 May 11 22:40
Sharon Shoesmith - Robin O'Reliant
|
|
I have a few relatives who are/were teachers. The passion is often knocked out of them when they have to spend half the lesson imposing discipline in every class, face regular verbal abuse and both real and threatened violence often with very little back-up from overworked heads and town hall administrators who are only interested in box ticking. Add the fear of a malicious accusation racism or sexual/physical assault which will result in instant suspension while a prolonged investigation takes place and you have to wonder how many teachers actually cope at all, let alone retain the spirit in which they entered the profession. |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 08:24
Sharon Shoesmith - Leif
|
|
>> I have a few relatives who are/were teachers. I've heard the same thing from more than a few people who were teachers, or whose parents were teachers. It has been a crummy job for decades, long hours and relatively low pay. Stress is very high, I know loads who retired early due to stress, or who took a year off for stress. I suspect the problem is that teachers work long hours, not just 9 to 5, classes are too big, and they are constrained by the national curriculum, and laws that favour the children. Underfunding is a large part of the problem. |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 09:09
Sharon Shoesmith - Cliff Pope
|
|
>> >> - and thus shape the future personality of the society. >> >> >> I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who wants to shape the future personality of society. I try to keep them well clear of my children. |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 10:10
Sharon Shoesmith - Bromptonaut
|
|
Decalaration of interest as the OH is a teacher. Agree with everything Robin says. Mrs B can no longer hack the discipline issues full time; she mixes agency supply with home tuition for A level. There are still plenty of aces - at least in our bog standard rural comprehensive. Watching the music A level group and their teacher at the farewell concert was one piecce of evidence. Another is the twp senior history teachers who are in before 8 and as well as brinig n their subkect to life to much extra curricular stuff as well. As tro the politics I cannot seperate the parties. Blue Labour or Red Tories. Plunkett was useless and I cannot even remeber most of the others except Estelle Morris who ws far too understanding of the profession to survive in Whitehall. I'll judge Gove by his actions rather than his words. Academy status in effect puts every school under direct control from London. Even if he doesn't want to work that way he's given his sucessor the tools. And I suspect the removal of effective appeal rights on expulsion will come back to bite him. It's doubtful if the new provision is compliant with ECHR obligations and in spite of the headlines the number of re-instatements ordered annually is miniscule. |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 14:30
Sharon Shoesmith - Armel Coussine
|
|
>> I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who wants to shape the future personality of society. Naturally I meant shaping it by educating the young - imparting a certain amount of properly structured factual information, certainly, but also 'opening their minds' and teaching them how to think in a consistent, rational manner as well as read, write and count properly. A society can only be improved by having the proportion of such people increased. I am afraid these functions have been subverted in recent years by political interference and for some time by crappy modernizing ideas beloved of the idle slags who were then masquerading as teachers. No doubt that is the sort of thing you are suspicious of CP. Quite right. |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 10:05
Sharon Shoesmith - Zero
|
|
Teachers are not there to educate, you cant educate anyone. A teacher is there to open your mind, and provide the conduit for self education. Teachers who fail are those who cant open that conduit. |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 10:11
Sharon Shoesmith - Bromptonaut
|
|
>> A teacher is there to open your mind, and provide the conduit for self education. >> Teachers who fail are those who cant open that conduit. Absolutely - it's about learning to learn!! |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 13:44
Sharon Shoesmith - Cliff Pope
|
| Well said, Z and B. |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 13:59
Sharon Shoesmith - CGNorwich
|
|
"A teacher is there to open your mind, and provide the conduit for self education." That's all very well as long as whilst they are providing a conduit for self education,whatever that may mean, they also remember to teach their pupils to read and write, something that a surprisingly high proportion of the population are unable to do. |
|
New Mon 30 May 11 15:01
Sharon Shoesmith - madf
|
|
something that a surprisingly high proportion of the population are unable to do. " A scientist at Bath University looked at pages about diabetes on 15 internet health sites run mainly by charities and official bodies. He found people would need a reading ability of an educated 11 to 17-year-old to understand the sites. However, he said the average reading age of people in the UK was equivalent to an educated nine-year-old. " news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3641634.stm I was told approx 40% of the UK population cannot read anything more complex than the equivalent of the Sun... (which accounts in part for its success) .. and 20% struggle with the Sun.. Never mind, the education stats for exam passes show improvements for 20 years... See also www.literacytrust.org.uk/research/nlt_research/2364_literacy_state_of_the_nation Last edited by: madf on Mon 30 May 11 at 15:02
|
|
New Tue 31 May 11 12:41
Sharon Shoesmith - Roger.
|
|
Public sector workers just plain don’t like working. They like bank holidays, spurious sick days, micky-take levels of flexi-time, diversity courses, getting Indian head massages at away days at five star hotels, swanky team building events at five star hotels, nominating themselves for meaningless awards that involve them staying at five star hotels, gold plated taxpayer-funded pensions, gold plated taxpayer-funded wages, being un-sackable however useless they are or however little they do, going to “social media surgeries” run by Guardian bloggers, agreeing with whatever utter rubbish the Guardian/Independent comes out with, sneering at the Mail/Express, hilariously calling it the “Daily Heil,” sneering at the private sector, threatening to go on strike over a 1.5 per cent pay rise, going to meetings, going to meetings about meetings, Soviet style bureaucracy, political correctness, hosing down undeserving scumbags and chancers with public money, marshalling vindictive traffic wardens, bin-stasi divisions and vehicle idling officers to slap punitive fines on the people who pay their wages, describing miserable back-room non-jobs about equality and green issues as ”vital front line services,” claiming that they shouldn’t be laid off because the private sector won’t magically provide jobs for them, drawing up tendering documents for £80,000 worth of electric cars, dominating the audience of Question Time, taking six months to carry out tasks that should take about six days, empire building, expenses troughing, long lunch breaks, subsidised canteens, paying consultants to do jobs their highly paid managers should be able to do themselves, paying temp agencies to do the paper shuffling and paperclip sorting jobs that lower ranking staff can’t be bothered to do themselves, living in complete detachment from the real world and royally screwing anyone that isn’t one of them at every turn though spite, incompetence and a jaw-dropping sense of entitlement. A rant taken from another blog. Punctuation unaltered by me, but a few offensive words changed to protect the innocents on this forum! Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 31 May 11 at 14:10
|
|
New Tue 31 May 11 20:40
Sharon Shoesmith - Fullchat
|
|
"Hope it's a peaceful night for you in the East Riding." Indeed it was Iffy. Thank you. |
|
New Tue 31 May 11 12:55
Sharon Shoesmith - Mapmaker
|
|
>> >> She was interviewed on R4 this morning. Seems sensible enough. HMG appealing to, that >> NuLab >> >> invention, the Supreme Court. >> >> Nu-lab but still a good thing? >> What was wrong with the HoL? |
|
New Tue 31 May 11 13:12
Sharon Shoesmith - R.P.
|
| Nawt. It had an air of class about it and delivered sound enough judgements over the years and gave a whole new meaning to being judged by ones peers ? ! |
|
New Tue 31 May 11 13:19
Sharon Shoesmith - Cliff Pope
|
|
>>gave a whole new meaning to being judged by ones peers ? >> ! >> I think the right of peers to be tried by their fellows in the House of Lords was abolished in 1948. Wasn't there one who tried to invoke his right over a motoring offence? |
Forum Version 3.0 - By Khoosys
Car4play Forum
