What's Going On At Castle Rushen?

[QLD-Bloke]

Lonan, I thought it was was so self-evident that comments on an internet bulletin board were opinion that no further clarification was needed.

 

Your requirement for additional explanation is noted - you're spot on for a career as a creationist, I don't think you'd cut it as a politico.

 

I would suggest that anyone who states an opinion as if it was an established fact - such as, for example, stating that someone is bad at their job rather than waiting for supporting evidence - is more likely to be of a 'creationist' turn of mind.

 

Lonan,

 

Again - an internet forum = place for expressing opinion and this isn't rendered void should a contributor not type 'in my opinion' before every statement.

 

I've stated the reasons for my view of the CRHS head as not properly competent for the job of running CRHS (see several previous posts), comment on those points rather than this faux-concern that - heaven forfend! - I might already have made up my mind about someone who I've been dealing with directly and indirectly for the last four years. Your continued harping on a single sentence of one of my posts without addressing the several comments around it - and I'm more than ready to discuss and debate those - is 1/10 concern-troll and 9/10 AFDave (if you don't know who he is, have fun looking up one of my favourite creationist chew-toys)

 

Your comments re problems with 'bringing CRHS into the 21st century' are noted but the CRHS staff I've dealt with didn't share that view and too many experienced and highly-rated staff have left. Is Mrs T the only person in step? Isn't one of the strengths of the Manx Schools the fact that they avoided the worse of continued changes imposed across the UK and stayed with the proven systems that the UK eventually came back to? Do you really think Neil Mcgregor couldn't be 'brought into the 21st century' and that was the reason he left? As I recall it was the fact of his leaving that really confirmed to the DoE that there was more to the problems at the school than a new broom stirring up dust.

 

The DoE ignored complaints from parents and staff for 2-3 years, filing them under 'not able to judge the effectiveness of a headteacher' but they eventually had to act. The report was, for all the kind words, an indictment of the managment of the school (particularly communication - ironic given the silence from the DoE) and who should carry the can for these failings? Blaming the staff shouldn't cut it as a defence because headteachers should lead and if a manager can't bring their staff on board or enforce their objectives then they aren't functioning as a manager and ought to be let go. In commercial terms a failing manager is sacked without compunction but schools are historically different due to the fact that the head has the same protections as a teacher. However, the modern head insists on the powers of a manager - including control of budgets - and ought therefore to be treated, hired and fired as if they were in the commercial sector. Mrs T was more than ready to assert her independence from DoE control (she intially refused access to the inspectors to 'her' school; pushed for the sale of part of the sports fields fro housing with the money being kept by the school) when it suited her, so this all might just be her own petard.

 

If the reports are correct, she's been suspended for failing to manage her budget within the limits set out by the DoE. This, aside from any view of her ability as a teacher or headteacher, is a serious failing for which she might well expect to be sacked. A suspension pending arbitration is normal procedure and would explain the reticience of the DoE and the staff involved to discuss the case as it's an internal disciplinary issue. I have no comment on this allegation and will await whatever outcome the investigation/arbitration delivers.

 

QLD

[Lonan3]

With no wish to get too involved in the name-calling, I will only say that, although I have no particular interest in the school (all of my children have attended Ballakermeen), the people I referred to in my previous post included CRHS teachers. Of the (admittedly small) number I've spoken to, all were extremely supportive of Mrs T.

 

Incidentally, full marks to the radio crew who went to CRHS to get reactions to the 'No term-time holidays' story and did their very best to dig into this one!

[Bauer21]

Want to hear a funny coincidence??(if not im telling you anyway)

 

She was my Deputy head teacher when i was at high scool in staffordshire. Its a small world after all..........

[QLD-Bloke]

With no wish to get too involved in the name-calling, I will only say that, although I have no particular interest in the school (all of my children have attended Ballakermeen), the people I referred to in my previous post included CRHS teachers. Of the (admittedly small) number I've spoken to, all were extremely supportive of Mrs T.

 

Incidentally, full marks to the radio crew who went to CRHS to get reactions to the 'No term-time holidays' story and did their very best to dig into this one!

 

OK - we'll call it quits re insults (I plead guilty, your honour) and get down to supporting commentary.

 

I don't doubt that there are some or even many who appreciate Mrs T's approach/intentions/objectives and would be content/happy/willing to work under her as head. However, I feel that she's the wrong person for CRHS although this view is formed from the effects of her policies on the education of my children, may having met her and communicated with her and the opinion of my OH (a teacher) who would rather not work than work at CRHS under Mrs T.

 

Ballakermeen is a school I do rate - even though the previous deputy head (just retired) is a bugger of rugby ref who doesn't know the rules! - and I note that, given the choice, a Rushen MHK's kids decided to go there (Hell, even Mrs T's daughter got out of CRHS at the earliest opportunity!)

 

It would be a shame if all of the blame fell on the head and none on the DoE who really ought to keep a closer eye on the schools and be prepared to intervene in a smaller way at an earlier time so as to give everyone the best chance at the school that they are obliged to go to.

 

Agreed on the radio crew - the silence from the involved parties I can understand but I felt that our fourth estate had been too compliant up til now. To little like Paxman and too much like Kevin Turvey*

 

QLD

 

*(OK that last one might have been a bit harsh)

[QLD-Bloke]

Want to hear a funny coincidence??(if not im telling you anyway)

 

She was my Deputy head teacher when i was at high scool in staffordshire. Its a small world after all..........

 

Which school? Very small world, I was at school in Staffs as well

 

Mind, from the way you spelled "scool" it must have been King Edward's in Lichfield! <g>

[angelo]

Lonan, I thought it was was so self-evident that comments on an internet bulletin board were opinion that no further clarification was needed.

 

Your requirement for additional explanation is noted - you're spot on for a career as a creationist, I don't think you'd cut it as a politico.

 

I would suggest that anyone who states an opinion as if it was an established fact - such as, for example, stating that someone is bad at their job rather than waiting for supporting evidence - is more likely to be of a 'creationist' turn of mind.

 

Lonan,

 

Again - an internet forum = place for expressing opinion and this isn't rendered void should a contributor not type 'in my opinion' before every statement.

 

I've stated the reasons for my view of the CRHS head as not properly competent for the job of running CRHS (see several previous posts), comment on those points rather than this faux-concern that - heaven forfend! - I might already have made up my mind about someone who I've been dealing with directly and indirectly for the last four years. Your continued harping on a single sentence of one of my posts without addressing the several comments around it - and I'm more than ready to discuss and debate those - is 1/10 concern-troll and 9/10 AFDave (if you don't know who he is, have fun looking up one of my favourite creationist chew-toys)

 

Your comments re problems with 'bringing CRHS into the 21st century' are noted but the CRHS staff I've dealt with didn't share that view and too many experienced and highly-rated staff have left. Is Mrs T the only person in step? Isn't one of the strengths of the Manx Schools the fact that they avoided the worse of continued changes imposed across the UK and stayed with the proven systems that the UK eventually came back to? Do you really think Neil Mcgregor couldn't be 'brought into the 21st century' and that was the reason he left? As I recall it was the fact of his leaving that really confirmed to the DoE that there was more to the problems at the school than a new broom stirring up dust.

 

The DoE ignored complaints from parents and staff for 2-3 years, filing them under 'not able to judge the effectiveness of a headteacher' but they eventually had to act. The report was, for all the kind words, an indictment of the managment of the school (particularly communication - ironic given the silence from the DoE) and who should carry the can for these failings? Blaming the staff shouldn't cut it as a defence because headteachers should lead and if a manager can't bring their staff on board or enforce their objectives then they aren't functioning as a manager and ought to be let go. In commercial terms a failing manager is sacked without compunction but schools are historically different due to the fact that the head has the same protections as a teacher. However, the modern head insists on the powers of a manager - including control of budgets - and ought therefore to be treated, hired and fired as if they were in the commercial sector. Mrs T was more than ready to assert her independence from DoE control (she intially refused access to the inspectors to 'her' school; pushed for the sale of part of the sports fields fro housing with the money being kept by the school) when it suited her, so this all might just be her own petard.

 

If the reports are correct, she's been suspended for failing to manage her budget within the limits set out by the DoE. This, aside from any view of her ability as a teacher or headteacher, is a serious failing for which she might well expect to be sacked. A suspension pending arbitration is normal procedure and would explain the reticience of the DoE and the staff involved to discuss the case as it's an internal disciplinary issue. I have no comment on this allegation and will await whatever outcome the investigation/arbitration delivers.

 

QLD

 

Governors approved all her accounts. Fire the Governors.

[angelo]

Lonan, I thought it was was so self-evident that comments on an internet bulletin board were opinion that no further clarification was needed.

 

Your requirement for additional explanation is noted - you're spot on for a career as a creationist, I don't think you'd cut it as a politico.

 

I would suggest that anyone who states an opinion as if it was an established fact - such as, for example, stating that someone is bad at their job rather than waiting for supporting evidence - is more likely to be of a 'creationist' turn of mind.

 

Lonan,

 

Again - an internet forum = place for expressing opinion and this isn't rendered void should a contributor not type 'in my opinion' before every statement.

 

I've stated the reasons for my view of the CRHS head as not properly competent for the job of running CRHS (see several previous posts), comment on those points rather than this faux-concern that - heaven forfend! - I might already have made up my mind about someone who I've been dealing with directly and indirectly for the last four years. Your continued harping on a single sentence of one of my posts without addressing the several comments around it - and I'm more than ready to discuss and debate those - is 1/10 concern-troll and 9/10 AFDave (if you don't know who he is, have fun looking up one of my favourite creationist chew-toys)

 

Your comments re problems with 'bringing CRHS into the 21st century' are noted but the CRHS staff I've dealt with didn't share that view and too many experienced and highly-rated staff have left. Is Mrs T the only person in step? Isn't one of the strengths of the Manx Schools the fact that they avoided the worse of continued changes imposed across the UK and stayed with the proven systems that the UK eventually came back to? Do you really think Neil Mcgregor couldn't be 'brought into the 21st century' and that was the reason he left? As I recall it was the fact of his leaving that really confirmed to the DoE that there was more to the problems at the school than a new broom stirring up dust.

 

The DoE ignored complaints from parents and staff for 2-3 years, filing them under 'not able to judge the effectiveness of a headteacher' but they eventually had to act. The report was, for all the kind words, an indictment of the managment of the school (particularly communication - ironic given the silence from the DoE) and who should carry the can for these failings? Blaming the staff shouldn't cut it as a defence because headteachers should lead and if a manager can't bring their staff on board or enforce their objectives then they aren't functioning as a manager and ought to be let go. In commercial terms a failing manager is sacked without compunction but schools are historically different due to the fact that the head has the same protections as a teacher. However, the modern head insists on the powers of a manager - including control of budgets - and ought therefore to be treated, hired and fired as if they were in the commercial sector. Mrs T was more than ready to assert her independence from DoE control (she intially refused access to the inspectors to 'her' school; pushed for the sale of part of the sports fields fro housing with the money being kept by the school) when it suited her, so this all might just be her own petard.

 

If the reports are correct, she's been suspended for failing to manage her budget within the limits set out by the DoE. This, aside from any view of her ability as a teacher or headteacher, is a serious failing for which she might well expect to be sacked. A suspension pending arbitration is normal procedure and would explain the reticience of the DoE and the staff involved to discuss the case as it's an internal disciplinary issue. I have no comment on this allegation and will await whatever outcome the investigation/arbitration delivers.

 

QLD

 

Governors approved all her accounts. Fire the Governors.

 

...and the IOM DOE did go along with every daft change made in England and Wales: SATS, numeracy hour, literacy hour. The only one they didn't do was league tables. Ask yourself why.

 

...and I thought the PE dept went on strike/left because the Head wouldn't let them hold noisy practices outside classrooms while exams were in progress. That was the story in Castletown at the time.

[Emti]

Lonan, I thought it was was so self-evident that comments on an internet bulletin board were opinion that no further clarification was needed.

 

Your requirement for additional explanation is noted - you're spot on for a career as a creationist, I don't think you'd cut it as a politico.

 

I would suggest that anyone who states an opinion as if it was an established fact - such as, for example, stating that someone is bad at their job rather than waiting for supporting evidence - is more likely to be of a 'creationist' turn of mind.

 

Lonan,

 

Again - an internet forum = place for expressing opinion and this isn't rendered void should a contributor not type 'in my opinion' before every statement.

 

I've stated the reasons for my view of the CRHS head as not properly competent for the job of running CRHS (see several previous posts), comment on those points rather than this faux-concern that - heaven forfend! - I might already have made up my mind about someone who I've been dealing with directly and indirectly for the last four years. Your continued harping on a single sentence of one of my posts without addressing the several comments around it - and I'm more than ready to discuss and debate those - is 1/10 concern-troll and 9/10 AFDave (if you don't know who he is, have fun looking up one of my favourite creationist chew-toys)

 

Your comments re problems with 'bringing CRHS into the 21st century' are noted but the CRHS staff I've dealt with didn't share that view and too many experienced and highly-rated staff have left. Is Mrs T the only person in step? Isn't one of the strengths of the Manx Schools the fact that they avoided the worse of continued changes imposed across the UK and stayed with the proven systems that the UK eventually came back to? Do you really think Neil Mcgregor couldn't be 'brought into the 21st century' and that was the reason he left? As I recall it was the fact of his leaving that really confirmed to the DoE that there was more to the problems at the school than a new broom stirring up dust.

 

The DoE ignored complaints from parents and staff for 2-3 years, filing them under 'not able to judge the effectiveness of a headteacher' but they eventually had to act. The report was, for all the kind words, an indictment of the managment of the school (particularly communication - ironic given the silence from the DoE) and who should carry the can for these failings? Blaming the staff shouldn't cut it as a defence because headteachers should lead and if a manager can't bring their staff on board or enforce their objectives then they aren't functioning as a manager and ought to be let go. In commercial terms a failing manager is sacked without compunction but schools are historically different due to the fact that the head has the same protections as a teacher. However, the modern head insists on the powers of a manager - including control of budgets - and ought therefore to be treated, hired and fired as if they were in the commercial sector. Mrs T was more than ready to assert her independence from DoE control (she intially refused access to the inspectors to 'her' school; pushed for the sale of part of the sports fields fro housing with the money being kept by the school) when it suited her, so this all might just be her own petard.

 

If the reports are correct, she's been suspended for failing to manage her budget within the limits set out by the DoE. This, aside from any view of her ability as a teacher or headteacher, is a serious failing for which she might well expect to be sacked. A suspension pending arbitration is normal procedure and would explain the reticience of the DoE and the staff involved to discuss the case as it's an internal disciplinary issue. I have no comment on this allegation and will await whatever outcome the investigation/arbitration delivers.

 

QLD

 

Governors approved all her accounts. Fire the Governors.

 

...and the IOM DOE did go along with every daft change made in England and Wales: SATS, numeracy hour, literacy hour. The only one they didn't do was league tables. Ask yourself why.

 

...and I thought the PE dept went on strike/left because the Head wouldn't let them hold noisy practices outside classrooms while exams were in progress. That was the story in Castletown at the time.

I heard that is was because year 11s were no longer allowed to play in matches in case they sometimes missed parts of lessons in spite of the fact that some of the best results the previous year came form those who were on the teams.

I also heard that the head decided to take the sports hall out of action for several weeks at a time because the previous way exams were sat did not suit so all had to be in the hall- except of course they weren't.

I know that several sports clubs (not just school sports) were unable to meet because of this. I had not heard about 'noisy practices'. But maybe the head just did not rate sport and so figured that pe should just disappear while the children got on with the only true function of a school- sitting exams.

 

Again it is all hearsay. As parents we had to wait two weeks last year to be told anything officially about no extra-curricular sports. I felt so sorry for the year 7s who had been looking forward to playing for their school. I don't blame the pe staff because if even half of the rumous flying around were true then they were seeing their speciality being steadily down graded and I am glad they had the courage to do something about it.

 

This year it is 3 weeks in to term and I am again hearing lots of rumors and reading the newspaper to find out anything about my children's school. We were told at one point before the report last year that parents were being consulted but that did not happen. I believe that the PTA is finding it hard to get any support among parents. Perhaps that is because we are continually being side-lined or ignored and made to feel that we have no business dealing with school other than at parents-night or to let them know if children are absent.

[Sebrof]

Lonan, I thought it was was so self-evident that comments on an internet bulletin board were opinion that no further clarification was needed.

 

Your requirement for additional explanation is noted - you're spot on for a career as a creationist, I don't think you'd cut it as a politico.

 

I would suggest that anyone who states an opinion as if it was an established fact - such as, for example, stating that someone is bad at their job rather than waiting for supporting evidence - is more likely to be of a 'creationist' turn of mind.

 

Lonan,

 

Again - an internet forum = place for expressing opinion and this isn't rendered void should a contributor not type 'in my opinion' before every statement.

 

I've stated the reasons for my view of the CRHS head as not properly competent for the job of running CRHS (see several previous posts), comment on those points rather than this faux-concern that - heaven forfend! - I might already have made up my mind about someone who I've been dealing with directly and indirectly for the last four years. Your continued harping on a single sentence of one of my posts without addressing the several comments around it - and I'm more than ready to discuss and debate those - is 1/10 concern-troll and 9/10 AFDave (if you don't know who he is, have fun looking up one of my favourite creationist chew-toys)

 

Your comments re problems with 'bringing CRHS into the 21st century' are noted but the CRHS staff I've dealt with didn't share that view and too many experienced and highly-rated staff have left. Is Mrs T the only person in step? Isn't one of the strengths of the Manx Schools the fact that they avoided the worse of continued changes imposed across the UK and stayed with the proven systems that the UK eventually came back to? Do you really think Neil Mcgregor couldn't be 'brought into the 21st century' and that was the reason he left? As I recall it was the fact of his leaving that really confirmed to the DoE that there was more to the problems at the school than a new broom stirring up dust.

 

The DoE ignored complaints from parents and staff for 2-3 years, filing them under 'not able to judge the effectiveness of a headteacher' but they eventually had to act. The report was, for all the kind words, an indictment of the managment of the school (particularly communication - ironic given the silence from the DoE) and who should carry the can for these failings? Blaming the staff shouldn't cut it as a defence because headteachers should lead and if a manager can't bring their staff on board or enforce their objectives then they aren't functioning as a manager and ought to be let go. In commercial terms a failing manager is sacked without compunction but schools are historically different due to the fact that the head has the same protections as a teacher. However, the modern head insists on the powers of a manager - including control of budgets - and ought therefore to be treated, hired and fired as if they were in the commercial sector. Mrs T was more than ready to assert her independence from DoE control (she intially refused access to the inspectors to 'her' school; pushed for the sale of part of the sports fields fro housing with the money being kept by the school) when it suited her, so this all might just be her own petard.

 

If the reports are correct, she's been suspended for failing to manage her budget within the limits set out by the DoE. This, aside from any view of her ability as a teacher or headteacher, is a serious failing for which she might well expect to be sacked. A suspension pending arbitration is normal procedure and would explain the reticience of the DoE and the staff involved to discuss the case as it's an internal disciplinary issue. I have no comment on this allegation and will await whatever outcome the investigation/arbitration delivers.

 

QLD

 

Governors approved all her accounts. Fire the Governors.

 

...and the IOM DOE did go along with every daft change made in England and Wales: SATS, numeracy hour, literacy hour. The only one they didn't do was league tables. Ask yourself why.

 

...and I thought the PE dept went on strike/left because the Head wouldn't let them hold noisy practices outside classrooms while exams were in progress. That was the story in Castletown at the time.

I heard that is was because year 11s were no longer allowed to play in matches in case they sometimes missed parts of lessons in spite of the fact that some of the best results the previous year came form those who were on the teams.

I also heard that the head decided to take the sports hall out of action for several weeks at a time because the previous way exams were sat did not suit so all had to be in the hall- except of course they weren't.

I know that several sports clubs (not just school sports) were unable to meet because of this. I had not heard about 'noisy practices'. But maybe the head just did not rate sport and so figured that pe should just disappear while the children got on with the only true function of a school- sitting exams.

 

Again it is all hearsay. As parents we had to wait two weeks last year to be told anything officially about no extra-curricular sports. I felt so sorry for the year 7s who had been looking forward to playing for their school. I don't blame the pe staff because if even half of the rumous flying around were true then they were seeing their speciality being steadily down graded and I am glad they had the courage to do something about it.

 

This year it is 3 weeks in to term and I am again hearing lots of rumors and reading the newspaper to find out anything about my children's school. We were told at one point before the report last year that parents were being consulted but that did not happen. I believe that the PTA is finding it hard to get any support among parents. Perhaps that is because we are continually being side-lined or ignored and made to feel that we have no business dealing with school other than at parents-night or to let them know if children are absent.

 

Rumours.

 

S