As am I, and I agree, but that space doesn't need to be like a five star hotel.

I've been to a number of new schools built under BSF, totally over engineered and unnecessarily costly.

And don't get me started on Hospitals, the new Kingsmill Hospital in Mansfield is rediculous, yes a new facility was needed, but it didn't need to look like it belonged on the Strip in Vegas!

And whilst I agree that education needs sorting, along with politics, the quialty of parenting by some in this country leaves a hell of a lot to be desired as well. Discipline in schools is all well and good, but discipline at home is lacking in some cases.

[I have many friends with kids, some of them are wonderful parents and their children are a joy to spend time with, others are brining up socially inept dysfunctional kids but can't see it]

I think there are two main factors behind the decline of education. The first is a negative second order consequence of a positive change - intelligent women are now much freer to choose careers (Law, Medicine etc) that were previously the sole domain of men. With more options, naturally fewer 'choose' teaching.

Secondly, education is an area were politicians seem to believe they know more about it than the professionals and their constant tinkering and demand for rigid adherence to curricula (sp?) has led to teaching barely being seen as a profession at all any more. I suspect this arises from the fact everyone has been to school and so develops an opinion, whereas not everybody has served in the military or spent such large amounts of time in hospitals or GP surgeries or courtrooms. Imagine if the SoS for Defence decided the Army only need one NCO rank - the Army would tell him to where to go, I'm sure.
It is sexist, though hopefully not offensively so, but perhaps the lack of aggressive defence of the teaching profession was down the fact that so many teachers were and are women and didn't/don't inspire as much deference in our still somewhat sexist society as an, invariably male, Brigadier General.

Indeed. My point is though is that they themselves have to be educated to a level which allows them to do their jobs effectively. Similar to Kosh I am currently involved in school governance and the standard of the majority of applications for teaching posts is nothing short of a disgrace.

Question Time the other week was from inner London. Gove was on discussing his new plans for the English baccalureate. As you might expect the locally picked audience was not overly sympathetic. Whether or not one agrees with the detail of his proposals is for another debate. What frightened me was the fact that four teachers in the audience all claimed they would find it difficult if not impossible to engage their pupils in the core subjects that the baccalaureate covers. Apparently pupils "wouldn't be interested". FFS teachers are trained, and paid well, to engage children and inspire them to learn. Instead of hand wringing get on and do it or get out would be my message.

Unfortunately teachers are increasing encouraged only to get the maximum number of pupils the highest grades possible in the easiest subjects they can push them into. We have League Tables to thank for that.

There are still good, inspiring teachers out there - my kids have been fortunate enough to attend schools that have some. There are far too many average or poor ones though, and a reluctance to deal with them.

Agreed which is why trying to concentrate more on core subjects and giving pupils a proper grounding is a good thing. That's harder for some teachers though which is why some don't like it.



Agreed.

What is the cause of that disgrace? Do no better potential applicants exist or are they simply not attracted to what has become an undervalued profession.




Nearly half of newly qualified teachers leave the profession within 5 years. Sourcehttps://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/16/teaching-problem-schoolsrl

Some better applicants exist, but there is a distressingly large majority who really don't seem to be up to the standard that should be expected. And I'm not sure what you mean by an 'undervalued profession'. The rewards available to good teachers are better now than they ever have been. In fact the slew of low-quality applicants is at least in part due to the efforts made to attract all and sundry into the profession and the rewards on offer. In other words the opposite effect to that you suggest.


From my experience the vast majority are people who should never have been teachers in the first place. They've applied for the wrong reasons and don't have the aptitude, skills, or personal qualities required.

As per Kosh above. The money is excellent in the teaching profession now. And so it should be for good teachers who have the ability to do the job to the required standard.

Where's the problem then? Just give the jobs to the good applicants. As long as there are enough good people to fill the jobs, what does it matter if you have also have a slew of low quality applicants that have to be rejected? It's a shame they've wasted their own time and yours, but it won't impact on the pupils.

By undervalued, I don't mean underpaid necessarily - I suspect the increases in pay are necessary (painfully so for the government due to the number of teachers) to counterbalance education being a societal and political football, the resultant loss of kudos and professional freedom and increasingly trying working conditions in some schools. But money, by itself, motivates you to a job only so well as you don't get sacked.

back on topic.

Although I think this is good news for the region, A few hundred jobs is better than non. Plus if all is done correctly the knock on effects will create further jobs in the region. I don't believe wind power is the way to go. Doesn't it take 20+ years before a wind turbine actually reduces co2 due to the energy used and omissions output in manufacturing of the turbine, also I dont believe that takes into consideration the transport of the raw materials, transport of the actual turbine and then the installation of the turbine. And then on top the maintenance. All that coupled with the fact they cant run in high wind due to the fact the substations and cabling back to sure cant take the amount of power they produce. Also wind isn't reliable enough.

By the time they become carbon neutral they will probably be in need of replacing or so much maintenance the whole process starts again.

Better options should be further researched. However our dependence one energy whether it be foreign or domestic as a whole should be reduced. Better insulation and building methods as a start such as turf roofs. Them pipes that run deep under ground (don't know what they are called) for hot water and heating should be adopted more. Also as daft as it sound health & safety plays a stupid part, such as having to leave lights on inside abandoned buildings in case some one breaks in.

Also I just don't like the look of the things, however I still have never heard the supposed noise people say they make, even when stood near one when windy whether it be up or down wind of the things.

Still good news for the region and hopefully castle street however I wont hold my breath on the latter.

There are not - that's the point. As a Governor sitting on an appointments panel if you reject an application on the basis that it's a poor one you are rejecting that application for your school only. The unsuccessful candidate is more than likely to find a job at another school sooner or later. The good ones tend to migrate to the best schools. The not so good tend to finish up at the bad. Not always the case but generally true. It's one reason why good schools are good and bad schools are bad. Leadership and teacher quality are the two biggest factors in a school being successful or not. That's why it's possible to have a good school in a not-so-good area and vice versa.

I realise that - it was the point I was making in slightly perverse, overly subtle way.

Basically we all agree that we want and need better teachers. You and Kosh talk about dealing with the poor ones - a fair but underdefined point - or encouraging them to move on, which, without moves to replace them, swaps a quality problem for a quantity one. Long term we need to produce more and better educated potential teachers (a chicken and egg kind of problem) or attract more of the cream to teaching (which'll have a cost elsewhere). The situation might be a disgrace, but it is a predictable outcome of the system and attitudes we have - without changing those, we won't change the situation.

Back on topic - really good news for the city.

I am no expert however back home the system in schools is still run under the following rules
1, you go to school smart
2, you speak when spoken to
3, your disruptive you get hammered
the buildings are functionate and highly equiped however the whole ethos of schooling is different there with a real battle to get results and excel from most kids whereas here there is a growing number of kids whom see school as the bit before the dole queue, thankfully not all...
There is a lot to be proud of in the UK (not the weather or gas prices mind) however in many areas this country is light years behind the USA, OZ and NZ especially in education

but like i say thats my opinion and i am no expert but i doubt there is many teachers go to work planning to be a crap teacher

thats what i was trying to say but you do it so much more legibly

Please take a look at the true carbon footprint and environmental impact of nuclear, from mine to socket. Then come back and tell us that alternative, renewable sources are so bad.

How do you suggest the nuclear industry generates the power to refine the product?