'Why Michael Gove's remarks about east Durham schools made me see red' (From The Northern Echo)

This letter must have been written by a teacher - because the author is someone who doesn't know the difference between "infer" and "imply".

and Gove doesn't know what he is talking about,that is the main point.

This must be the most ham-fisted attempt at "staged managed journalism" I've ever seen.
Whatever will we read in tomorrow's edition ---- "Michael Gove ate my hamster".

You can't face the fact that Gove made his comments on the strengh of listening to hearsay ,when he should have found out the facts for himself.

Gove was generalising-- he didn't say every kid and every school is defeatist. Get it?

Plus, I think Gove is right.

As a working class individual educated in a state school, Michael Gove certainly speaks for me. State school education in the North East is, IN GENERAL, very, very poor. Many, not all (!), schools seem to exist as play things/ career vehicles/ wage payers for local councils and teachers, not as an institution to exclusively educate kids properly.

Having attended a North East state school Gove is entirely right – many are defeatist. Standards are set incredibly low for many children. My teachers truly believed that many of my peers would do no better than a call centre and, thus, did not even seek to educate or inspire past that point. There was no mention of careers such as finance, banking, law, accountancy, business leader, doctor etc. No aspiration. Compare that to private schools…

I fully welcome many of Gove’s changes, particularly Free Schools. The sooner state schools become more competitive and accountable to parents the better. The sooner we bring choice into education, the better.

P.s stop banging on about mining! The North East was mining, it no longer is. More mines closed under Labour, but who cares? Plus they closed for a reason. Let’s look to the bl**dy future.

Perhaps Gove made his comments based upon Ofsted reports, exam results and general performance of schools in this part of County Durham. After all, these sources of official data are produced to enable the Government and the wider public to make assessments and judgements of the schools in question.

Whilst I don't for one moment support Gove's comments, why is Paul Willis's letter addressed to Mr Gove yet written as if it was meant to be read by someone else? There is repeated use of "Mr Gove" & "him", instead of "You" or "Yourself" ? He has played into Gove's hands - Gove will see this letter as evidence to justify his assertions that East Durham education is lacking, particularly regarding grammar.

No O6,I think teachers who tell students they are only fit for xxx jobs,do so after years trying and failing to inspire chidren to better themselves,if the ability is not there teachers cannot make children more inteligent Do you really think teachers take up the job for their own advancment, and forget about the needs of their pupils,people with that attitude are better suited to politics.

Argo2013-- You prove Gove right with your line “if the ability is not there teachers cannot make children more inteligent”.

Apart from misspelling intelligent, which I was accept as a typo, I think you are being entirely defeatist.

I happen to believe every child has the ability to be ‘intelligent’, it’s all about socialisation and education.

Taxpayers are forcibly taxed and then forcibly provided, in many instances, with poor education for their children. It simply is not on. Gove is challenging this and right on too!

And, also, yes I think SOME teachers choose the job for reasons other than PURELY seeking to enlighten children and impart wisdom. I also think many teachers don't have much wisdom to impart. However, do not fret; I do not think all teachers fall in to this category.

If teachers cannot inspire children then they are either not doing their job properly or the system they are operating in is not fit for purpose. I believe the latter is the main problem, with a small smidgen of the former also in existence, as we all know it is virtually impossible to sack a poor teacher.

I do, however, think there are many excellent teachers, both in the North East and across the country, and I think they would thrive under a different system, such as one based on choice, competition and independence.

p.s I also think it wouldn't harm if all teachers had to work in other jobs first.

Perhaps some teachers do not inspire kids to become lawyers, bankers, financiers, architects, business leaders etc because they have no idea about these professions.

Surely going from primary school to secondary school- university- teaching is not the ideal route?

I think countries like Denmark take the right approach where people enter the teaching profession much later in life.

David Lacey wrote:
This letter must have been written by a teacher - because the author is someone who doesn't know the difference between "infer" and "imply".

This letter was written by a Y10 or Y11 student. Read the article.

proof read by a union official..?

Gove made no checks on his info about ne schools before speaking ,thats his problem,he starts speaking to grab the headlines to further his own agenda..

argo2013, I think Gove's comments are reasonable, so long as you understand that they were a generalisation. Furthermore, I think what he said has been twisted.

Also, what is his "agenda". If you mean improving the education of children then I am all for it.

Your contributions are excellent No06 and straight to the point. Gove has plenty of data to support his assertions. And I think he's right. Also the comment made by Graeme quite rightly makes me suspect that it is actually the work of a teacher (probably a union activist).
.
Gove is the best Education Secretary in a generation. He's trying to drive up standards in the face of opposition from dead beat union members with half a brain cell between them.

Furthermore - I should have added above - the stupid left wing twerps obviously didn't read the evidence upon which Gove based his comments. It is there for you to read.

I dont need to visit Afghanistan to know things are bad there, the reports coming from that area tell me enough. The reports, such as from Ofsted obviously do the are no favours either, therefore Gove makes a judgement based on those reports.
Perhaps its because he is saying things that people dont like to hear that is the main issue here. Nobody likes to be told they are crap at their job, even if they are the worst employee ever.

Do the area*

Apologies, a typo in my post!

No06,You can improve average pupils ,but if you think you can make every student capable of passing gcse, Alevels you should be a best selling author and tour lecturing at universities on your methods.As for Goves agenda it's his pushing ahead with academies,even going to the lenghts of using cash ment for state schools to fund them when their is no evidence that thy wil any better. As for some teachers putting their own interests first,couldn't you say that about any profession,like i said you need only look as far as politicians.

Argo123

You are plain wrong. Why don't you look at Singapore, South Korea or even France. They have excellent %pass rates, even in the key subjects of Maths and Science.

I know of many kids you would label "dumb" , and I presume you would give up on, who were moved to private schools (often on a sports scholarship) and ended up with BBB and higher in A levels. It's all about the quality of teaching, the atmosphere in which things are taught, the structures which allow this, and the socialisation of the child (which I accept predominantly happens in the home, by the family).

I strongly believe that every child is capable of getting an A in every subject at GCSE, the structures just have to be in place.

Furthermore Argo123, if I may add, if you are a teacher, you would epitomise what Gove is talking about. I would not want my kids being taught by someone with your attitude. Furthermore, as a taxpayer, I should have that choice.

Ps. Thanks David— I too agree that Gove is by far the best Education Sec. we have had in a long time.

Rurthermore, Argo123, you are also wrong about academies. There are lots of independent studies, both from the UK and internationally (i.e not conducted by a Union up to its eyeballs in special interests) that show academies outperform the standard council "owned" comprehensive.

Free Schools will do even better.

I can promise you that Paul indeed wrote this himself. It was not proof read nor did the school know he had written such a letter. Please don't make this about a slight mis-understanding of the word. Look at the bigger picture. Be proud that a 16 year old boy is bothered enough to stick up for his beliefs and to stick up for a school named and shamed by Gove despite receiving a 'good with elements of outstanding' from Ofsted only last year.

Dear Paul Willis,

I realise that as a teenager, you think that you know everything about everything. However, you do not.

For example, you claim, in your letter, that the north east is a, "mining area". When, in the sixteen years you have been alive, have you seen a mine in the north-east? Is it beside the chip shop? or next to the Apollo Pavillion?

You deliberately and wilfully misinterpret Mr Gove's words that he could sense the "smell of defeatism" in SOME East Durham Schools.

Perhaps from your privilaged perch in your ivory tower in the selective St Bede's, could you peer across the A19 to Wellfield Community School or across the dene to Dene House Comprehensive?
www.ofsted.gov.uk/in
spection-reports/fin
d-inspection-report/
provider/ELS/114313

www.ofsted.gov.uk/in
spection-reports/fin
d-inspection-report/
provider/ELS/114315

Durham County Council have, for years, accepted and condoned under-achievement in some East Durham Schools.

Thank goodness someone as perceptive as Mr Gove can challenge the ignorance in East Durham. Look at the success Shotton Hall has become as an academy, throwing off the shackles of DCC control. For goodness sakes, it's even helping out under-achieving Dene House!!!

I suggest you do some thinking (and reading) before putting pen to paper (again) Paul

Best wishes

argo2013 wrote:
Gove made no checks on his info about ne schools before speaking ,thats his problem,he starts speaking to grab the headlines to further his own agenda..

Check Gove's speech: he makes reference to several schools in East Durham which are performing at 'inadequate' or 'in need of improvement'. Indeed he referenced Wellfield and Dene - the two worst offenders!!!

Traser wrote:
Dear Paul Willis,

I realise that as a teenager, you think that you know everything about everything. However, you do not.

For example, you claim, in your letter, that the north east is a, "mining area". When, in the sixteen years you have been alive, have you seen a mine in the north-east? Is it beside the chip shop? or next to the Apollo Pavillion?

You deliberately and wilfully misinterpret Mr Gove's words that he could sense the "smell of defeatism" in SOME East Durham Schools.

Perhaps from your privilaged perch in your ivory tower in the selective St Bede's, could you peer across the A19 to Wellfield Community School or across the dene to Dene House Comprehensive?
www.ofsted.gov.uk/in

spection-reports/fin

d-inspection-report/

provider/ELS/114313

www.ofsted.gov.uk/in

spection-reports/fin

d-inspection-report/

provider/ELS/114315

Durham County Council have, for years, accepted and condoned under-achievement in some East Durham Schools.

Thank goodness someone as perceptive as Mr Gove can challenge the ignorance in East Durham. Look at the success Shotton Hall has become as an academy, throwing off the shackles of DCC control. For goodness sakes, it's even helping out under-achieving Dene House!!!

I suggest you do some thinking (and reading) before putting pen to paper (again) Paul

Best wishes

I assume then that you can see his ivory tower from your own? What sort of insecure and/or bitter person launches a scathing attack on a 16 year old for defending his school. Your crass generalisations about teenagers "think you know everything about everything" and your pathetic stereotypes of the North East "was it next to the chip shop?" are nothing short of embarrassing. He has misinterpreted nothing, merely quoted what Gove himself has said. Look at that Ofsted website you quote from and find the report for Paul's School (or did you deliberately ignore it) and see if it deserves to have been shamed by Gove's speech. In which case, what has this teenager said that is wrong? Gove did initially refuse to cite his sources (which turned out to be word of mouth from teachers in The west of Durham and a report by a single minister about a single school a decade ago), Gove did 'chastise the many (and vast majority) of teachers that do nothing but push for the very best for their pupils (althou if you have evidence that many many teachers in the North East do not, I'd be happy to hear it), Give does come from an entirely dissimilar background to most children in East Durham, Paul's school is not defeatist (again, read the Ofsted report and while you're there, please point out the bit that says it is 'selective')', Gove should visit schools that he is to make comments on (I wouldn't start talking about the atmosphere in a hospital for example if I'd never actually been there, I'd look foolish, why should Gove be allowed to do it? How can he sense anything when he's not been within 50 miles of any of ese schools?) and Paul is entirely correct that the failings of a small minority should not reflect on all (again, if you have evidence that it is more than a small minority, let's see it).

So before you go trying to puff yourself up to see bigger than you are by attacking a teenager, actually a. Read what he says not just what you think he says and b. please actually have some idea what you're talking about.

North east and proud wrote:
I can promise you that Paul indeed wrote this himself. It was not proof read nor did the school know he had written such a letter. Please don't make this about a slight mis-understanding of the word. Look at the bigger picture. Be proud that a 16 year old boy is bothered enough to stick up for his beliefs and to stick up for a school named and shamed by Gove despite receiving a 'good with elements of outstanding' from Ofsted only last year.

Exactly. Clearly the school must be doing something write for a pupil to stick up for it as vocally and passionately as he has!

Zagadee wrote:

Traser wrote:
Dear Paul Willis,

I realise that as a teenager, you think that you know everything about everything. However, you do not.

For example, you claim, in your letter, that the north east is a, "mining area". When, in the sixteen years you have been alive, have you seen a mine in the north-east? Is it beside the chip shop? or next to the Apollo Pavillion?

You deliberately and wilfully misinterpret Mr Gove's words that he could sense the "smell of defeatism" in SOME East Durham Schools.

Perhaps from your privilaged perch in your ivory tower in the selective St Bede's, could you peer across the A19 to Wellfield Community School or across the dene to Dene House Comprehensive?
www.ofsted.gov.uk/in


spection-reports/fin


d-inspection-report/


provider/ELS/114313

www.ofsted.gov.uk/in


spection-reports/fin


d-inspection-report/


provider/ELS/114315

Durham County Council have, for years, accepted and condoned under-achievement in some East Durham Schools.

Thank goodness someone as perceptive as Mr Gove can challenge the ignorance in East Durham. Look at the success Shotton Hall has become as an academy, throwing off the shackles of DCC control. For goodness sakes, it's even helping out under-achieving Dene House!!!

I suggest you do some thinking (and reading) before putting pen to paper (again) Paul

Best wishes

I assume then that you can see his ivory tower from your own? What sort of insecure and/or bitter person launches a scathing attack on a 16 year old for defending his school. Your crass generalisations about teenagers "think you know everything about everything" and your pathetic stereotypes of the North East "was it next to the chip shop?" are nothing short of embarrassing. He has misinterpreted nothing, merely quoted what Gove himself has said. Look at that Ofsted website you quote from and find the report for Paul's School (or did you deliberately ignore it) and see if it deserves to have been shamed by Gove's speech. In which case, what has this teenager said that is wrong? Gove did initially refuse to cite his sources (which turned out to be word of mouth from teachers in The west of Durham and a report by a single minister about a single school a decade ago), Gove did 'chastise the many (and vast majority) of teachers that do nothing but push for the very best for their pupils (althou if you have evidence that many many teachers in the North East do not, I'd be happy to hear it), Give does come from an entirely dissimilar background to most children in East Durham, Paul's school is not defeatist (again, read the Ofsted report and while you're there, please point out the bit that says it is 'selective')', Gove should visit schools that he is to make comments on (I wouldn't start talking about the atmosphere in a hospital for example if I'd never actually been there, I'd look foolish, why should Gove be allowed to do it? How can he sense anything when he's not been within 50 miles of any of ese schools?) and Paul is entirely correct that the failings of a small minority should not reflect on all (again, if you have evidence that it is more than a small minority, let's see it).

So before you go trying to puff yourself up to see bigger than you are by attacking a teenager, actually a. Read what he says not just what you think he says and b. please actually have some idea what you're talking about.

And apologies for the typos, I hate typing on a tablet - my spelling is usually much more precise.

loan_star wrote:
I dont need to visit Afghanistan to know things are bad there, the reports coming from that area tell me enough. The reports, such as from Ofsted obviously do the are no favours either, therefore Gove makes a judgement based on those reports.
Perhaps its because he is saying things that people dont like to hear that is the main issue here. Nobody likes to be told they are crap at their job, even if they are the worst employee ever.

I think the main criticism is that Gove gave no evidence. If he had visited the schools or quoted various reports then few could have any criticisms. It's the fact that he didn't give evidence, refused initially to cite his evidence and then it turned out his only evidence was the word of mouth from some teachers in other schools in the county and a decade old soundbite by a politician who ave themselves come out pf the woodwork to criticise Gove.

Now if Gove wishes to provide real evidence that defeatism is both a problem in East Durham and evidence that it is a greater problem than in any other area of Britain, then I shall have no choice than to fully support him. But until that time, all his words look like are hot air.

'Labour supporter sees red'

spragger wrote:
'Labour supporter sees red'

All I can see from his letter is a young adult defending his school, not making a political statement. However surely we should be supporting young people getting involved in politics not dismissing their views.

North east and proud wrote:
I can promise you that Paul indeed wrote this himself. It was not proof read nor did the school know he had written such a letter. Please don't make this about a slight mis-understanding of the word. Look at the bigger picture. Be proud that a 16 year old boy is bothered enough to stick up for his beliefs and to stick up for a school named and shamed by Gove despite receiving a 'good with elements of outstanding' from Ofsted only last year.

Well again I ask why he has written a letter to Gove in a style that is appropriate for a 3rd party, vague in places, waffly and suggests he is trying to sound articulate but doesn't quite have the ability to string the right phrases together? For example "With great interest I would offer Mr Gove the chance to visit my school" - With great interest in what? Why would he "offer" a visit, why doesn't he personally throw down the gauntlet to Gove to visit? "I suggest you visit my school" would be more direct, accurate and concise.

If I received a letter addressed to me concerning my actions that referred to "his" instead of "you" , I would question who wrote it and the ability of the person writing it to understand grammar. If you are going to criticise the education secretary, a least make your written criticism look as if you wrote it and that you have some understanding of grammar.

Well Zagadee,

SO may flaws in your arguments.....

Gove said that some schools in East Durham aren't doing the best for students and you roll out one student who wants to be a doctor as proof positive that all East Durham schools are delivering quality education for the children and value for money for the taxpayer.......

Let's look at the evidence (in addition to the OFSTED reports for Dene and Wellfield which you conveniently ignore):

2012 GCSE League Tables (5+ good GCSEs or equivalent qualifications 2012)

Shotton Hall 67%
St Bede's (Plee) 56%
Dene House 50%
Wellfield 44%

Why is St Bede's (literally across the road from Shotton Hall) with an identical catchment area doing 11% worse than Shotton Hall? Or, frankly, why does St Bede's fail 11% more students than its comparator school.

And, gosh, St Bede's only achieved 6% more than Dene House, a school which was given an inadequate and in need of improvement notice at its last OFSTED inspection.

Contrary to your own incorrect statement, Zagadee, the comment you refer to was not made about a school in the "west of Durham" (you seem to soar into flights of fancy in your diatribe here!). The statement was originally made to Lord Adonis at Hylton Red House in Sunderland (www.thenorthernecho
.co.uk/business/educ
ation/10266160.print
/)

And as to the school's selectivity: simply ask them for a copy of the admissions policy: there's a whole list of additional entry criteria which guarantees entrance (and those additional entry criteria do not exist for the local competitor schools!)

I've already provided evidence of two local schools which are badly serving the local communities (and Gove did make reference to SOME schools in East Durham) but you conveniently ignore that........

Thanks, Zagadee, but I'll trust the reports and views of Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted. He knows failing schools when he sees them and there's certainly two in East Durham: Wellfield and Dene House!

Those who, seemingly, refuse to accept criticism of the general level of education in East Durham schools are simply endorsing Gove's view.
This attitude does display defeatism as it fails the children of that area by accepting the status quo as being adequate provision of education.

Traser, pointless using facts against those taking offence at Goves remarks. If the echo did a bit of research instead of printing more left wing propaganda we wouldnt be having this discussion!

David Lacey wrote:
Furthermore - I should have added above - the stupid left wing twerps obviously didn't read the evidence upon which Gove based his comments. It is there for you to read.

Probably the most ironic comment ever :)

Graeme_r wrote:

North east and proud wrote:
I can promise you that Paul indeed wrote this himself. It was not proof read nor did the school know he had written such a letter. Please don't make this about a slight mis-understanding of the word. Look at the bigger picture. Be proud that a 16 year old boy is bothered enough to stick up for his beliefs and to stick up for a school named and shamed by Gove despite receiving a 'good with elements of outstanding' from Ofsted only last year.

Well again I ask why he has written a letter to Gove in a style that is appropriate for a 3rd party, vague in places, waffly and suggests he is trying to sound articulate but doesn't quite have the ability to string the right phrases together? For example "With great interest I would offer Mr Gove the chance to visit my school" - With great interest in what? Why would he "offer" a visit, why doesn't he personally throw down the gauntlet to Gove to visit? "I suggest you visit my school" would be more direct, accurate and concise.

If I received a letter addressed to me concerning my actions that referred to "his" instead of "you" , I would question who wrote it and the ability of the person writing it to understand grammar. If you are going to criticise the education secretary, a least make your written criticism look as if you wrote it and that you have some understanding of grammar.

If you're going to attack someone else for the quality of their writing/typing, shouldn't you at the very least make sure your own doesn't contain any mistakes?

Traser wrote:
Well Zagadee,

SO may flaws in your arguments.....

Gove said that some schools in East Durham aren't doing the best for students and you roll out one student who wants to be a doctor as proof positive that all East Durham schools are delivering quality education for the children and value for money for the taxpayer.......

Let's look at the evidence (in addition to the OFSTED reports for Dene and Wellfield which you conveniently ignore):

2012 GCSE League Tables (5+ good GCSEs or equivalent qualifications 2012)

Shotton Hall 67%
St Bede's (Plee) 56%
Dene House 50%
Wellfield 44%

Why is St Bede's (literally across the road from Shotton Hall) with an identical catchment area doing 11% worse than Shotton Hall? Or, frankly, why does St Bede's fail 11% more students than its comparator school.

And, gosh, St Bede's only achieved 6% more than Dene House, a school which was given an inadequate and in need of improvement notice at its last OFSTED inspection.

Contrary to your own incorrect statement, Zagadee, the comment you refer to was not made about a school in the "west of Durham" (you seem to soar into flights of fancy in your diatribe here!). The statement was originally made to Lord Adonis at Hylton Red House in Sunderland (www.thenorthernecho

.co.uk/business/educ

ation/10266160.print

/)

And as to the school's selectivity: simply ask them for a copy of the admissions policy: there's a whole list of additional entry criteria which guarantees entrance (and those additional entry criteria do not exist for the local competitor schools!)

I've already provided evidence of two local schools which are badly serving the local communities (and Gove did make reference to SOME schools in East Durham) but you conveniently ignore that........

Thanks, Zagadee, but I'll trust the reports and views of Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted. He knows failing schools when he sees them and there's certainly two in East Durham: Wellfield and Dene House!

Dear Traser.

No wonder you think there are flaws in my arguments. From what I can read you seem SO very confused about the situation and about what has been said. But I'll do my best to make things clear for you.

1. This topic is about this boy's reply to Gove's comments about defeatism in schools. Please keep on topic as very little of your last post referred to any of this.

2. You clearly don't like Wellfield or Dene House. We get it. However, you could easily pick two bad schools from any local authority in the UK. This is not evidence of defeatism. You post links to the Ofsted reports, but again I ask you to please point out the sections where they said staff or the 'air' in these schools were defeatist.


3. Just to repeat, where is the evidence that East Durham is 'defeatist' (which is the crux of this whole argument twixt Gove and Willis)? Just to inform you, evidence would involve reliable and impartial findings of this defeatism as well as a comparative study showing that the rate of defeatism was higher than in other UK areas. Can you please provide the sources to such evidence?

4. "you roll out one student who wants to be a doctor"

No I didn't. He wrote a letter - I didn't roll out anyone.


5. "Gove said that some schools in East Durham aren't doing the best for students"

That's part of what he said. But I assume you have actually read what Gove originally said and therefore know that he carried on and on... The reason and main point behind Paul's letter (relating to the whole 'staying on topic idea) is that he singled out certain schools that included St Bede's, a school found to be 'Good' with features of 'Outstanding' by Ofsted (more on this further down).

6. "Dene and Wellfield which you conveniently ignore"

I wasn't 'conveniently' ignoring them. Having once lived a mile from Wellfield I am far more knowledgeable than you about both and the good sides to the school. But as mentioned above, waving a couple of poorly performing schools around does not prove any comments of defeatism.

7. "Why is St Bede's (literally across the road from Shotton Hall) with an identical catchment area doing 11% worse than Shotton Hall? Or, frankly, why does St Bede's fail 11% more students than its comparator school. And, gosh, St Bede's only achieved 6% more than Dene House, a school which was given an inadequate and in need of improvement notice at its last OFSTED inspection"

a. Oh dear.... You are aware that there are several measures of success used to rate schools, not just the 5A*-C inc Maths and English aren't you? In fact (and I think I asked you to look at this before, but you 'conveniently ignored' them) why would Ofsted give St Bede's such a glowing Ofsted report if it was so rubbish? The facts according to Ofsted are that it seems to help its pupils make excellent 'progress'. To put this in a way I think you'll understand is that St Bede's allows their pupils to make significant advances in their learning compared to the average progress pupils make. Basically put, pupils make much more progress compared to their starting point (at the start of year 7) than most other schools. And this is 'failing' the pupils how?

b. Didn't you think things through logically. If 5 A*-C inc M + E results are all that matters, why have Grammar Schools with a 95+ % rate been attacked by Ofsted and why aren't most SEN schools rated as inadequate? Progress made by pupils is far more important (to Ofsted and arguably to the pupils) than percentages of grades. There are other criteria too to rate the how a school and its pupils achieves if you'd like to look into them.

c. How can you justify completely ignoring the Ofsted report for St Bede's in order to attack it and then claim that you "trust the reports and views of Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted"? If you trust these reports so highly, you should be praising St Bede's.

8. "the comment you refer to was not made about a school in the "west of Durham" (you seem to soar into flights of fancy in your diatribe here!)".

So not only do you fail to understand what Gove is on about, the points Paul Willis was making or the criteria Ofsted use to rate its schools, but you also (either through ignorance or willfully) choose to completely misunderstand what I say and try to turn it into an attack. What I said was that Gove admitted that he had two sources of information, Lord Adonis (who incidentally has come out of the woodwork to attack Gove using his aged comment) and word of mouth from schools in West Durham (actual Gove quote "I visited north and west Durham and they told me about east Durham"). Clear now?

9. About the points raised in 8 above, can you explain why it is acceptable for an education secretary to make remarks about the schools of a region based solely on word of mouth and a decade old comment from a single minister without ever having set foot near any of the schools? Gove has since come up with a couple of statistics but at the time of Paul's writing, this was all the proof Gove had given.


10. "And as to the school's selectivity: simply ask them for a copy of the admissions policy: there's a whole list of additional entry criteria which guarantees entrance"

So that's a no to you actually being able to provide any evidence yourself then? I have looked into the school though and they seem to have pupils of varying academic ability, a fair few SEN and free school meal kids and rather surprisingly, a lot of pupils who aren't Catholic. So what exactly do you think they are 'selective' in again?


11. "I've already provided evidence of two local schools which are badly serving the local communities"

Yes, and as explained, you can find two local schools that badly serve their communities in any local authority. And neither does the existence of these schools prove Gove's points about defeatism or disprove Paul Willis' comments that his school is far from Defeatist. If you're going to provide 'evidence', at least make sure it is relevant to the topic in hand.

12. "I'll trust the reports and views of Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted"

Yes, while totally ignoring everything the St Bede's report says about the school (Incidentally you are aware that he doesn't actually check every school himself and that most reports are written by others - just wanted to check).


While I do admire your passion, I feel that you need to reread what has been said by both Gove and Paul Willis and actually understand what the points are here as many of the arguments you provide give little or no support to central point of defeatism in schools. You might also want to brush up on current educational foci (try volunteering at your local Primary School if you have children that go there, I've found that they are always eager to have parents in to help and it's a fantastic way to learn about and observe the current foci and practices in education. Alternatively, your children's secondary school will surely be happy to give you a tour of the school and observe some classes so you can actually find out what things are like for yourself (shocking concept, I know).

Finally I suggest you do some thinking (and reading) before putting fingers to keyboard (again) Traser.

Best Wishes!

Zagadee wrote:

Traser wrote:
Well Zagadee,

SO may flaws in your arguments.....

Gove said that some schools in East Durham aren't doing the best for students and you roll out one student who wants to be a doctor as proof positive that all East Durham schools are delivering quality education for the children and value for money for the taxpayer.......

Let's look at the evidence (in addition to the OFSTED reports for Dene and Wellfield which you conveniently ignore):

2012 GCSE League Tables (5+ good GCSEs or equivalent qualifications 2012)

Shotton Hall 67%
St Bede's (Plee) 56%
Dene House 50%
Wellfield 44%

Why is St Bede's (literally across the road from Shotton Hall) with an identical catchment area doing 11% worse than Shotton Hall? Or, frankly, why does St Bede's fail 11% more students than its comparator school.

And, gosh, St Bede's only achieved 6% more than Dene House, a school which was given an inadequate and in need of improvement notice at its last OFSTED inspection.

Contrary to your own incorrect statement, Zagadee, the comment you refer to was not made about a school in the "west of Durham" (you seem to soar into flights of fancy in your diatribe here!). The statement was originally made to Lord Adonis at Hylton Red House in Sunderland (www.thenorthernecho


.co.uk/business/educ


ation/10266160.print


/)

And as to the school's selectivity: simply ask them for a copy of the admissions policy: there's a whole list of additional entry criteria which guarantees entrance (and those additional entry criteria do not exist for the local competitor schools!)

I've already provided evidence of two local schools which are badly serving the local communities (and Gove did make reference to SOME schools in East Durham) but you conveniently ignore that........

Thanks, Zagadee, but I'll trust the reports and views of Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted. He knows failing schools when he sees them and there's certainly two in East Durham: Wellfield and Dene House!

Dear Traser.

No wonder you think there are flaws in my arguments. From what I can read you seem SO very confused about the situation and about what has been said. But I'll do my best to make things clear for you.

1. This topic is about this boy's reply to Gove's comments about defeatism in schools. Please keep on topic as very little of your last post referred to any of this.

2. You clearly don't like Wellfield or Dene House. We get it. However, you could easily pick two bad schools from any local authority in the UK. This is not evidence of defeatism. You post links to the Ofsted reports, but again I ask you to please point out the sections where they said staff or the 'air' in these schools were defeatist.


3. Just to repeat, where is the evidence that East Durham is 'defeatist' (which is the crux of this whole argument twixt Gove and Willis)? Just to inform you, evidence would involve reliable and impartial findings of this defeatism as well as a comparative study showing that the rate of defeatism was higher than in other UK areas. Can you please provide the sources to such evidence?

4. "you roll out one student who wants to be a doctor"

No I didn't. He wrote a letter - I didn't roll out anyone.


5. "Gove said that some schools in East Durham aren't doing the best for students"

That's part of what he said. But I assume you have actually read what Gove originally said and therefore know that he carried on and on... The reason and main point behind Paul's letter (relating to the whole 'staying on topic idea) is that he singled out certain schools that included St Bede's, a school found to be 'Good' with features of 'Outstanding' by Ofsted (more on this further down).

6. "Dene and Wellfield which you conveniently ignore"

I wasn't 'conveniently' ignoring them. Having once lived a mile from Wellfield I am far more knowledgeable than you about both and the good sides to the school. But as mentioned above, waving a couple of poorly performing schools around does not prove any comments of defeatism.

7. "Why is St Bede's (literally across the road from Shotton Hall) with an identical catchment area doing 11% worse than Shotton Hall? Or, frankly, why does St Bede's fail 11% more students than its comparator school. And, gosh, St Bede's only achieved 6% more than Dene House, a school which was given an inadequate and in need of improvement notice at its last OFSTED inspection"

a. Oh dear.... You are aware that there are several measures of success used to rate schools, not just the 5A*-C inc Maths and English aren't you? In fact (and I think I asked you to look at this before, but you 'conveniently ignored' them) why would Ofsted give St Bede's such a glowing Ofsted report if it was so rubbish? The facts according to Ofsted are that it seems to help its pupils make excellent 'progress'. To put this in a way I think you'll understand is that St Bede's allows their pupils to make significant advances in their learning compared to the average progress pupils make. Basically put, pupils make much more progress compared to their starting point (at the start of year 7) than most other schools. And this is 'failing' the pupils how?

b. Didn't you think things through logically. If 5 A*-C inc M + E results are all that matters, why have Grammar Schools with a 95+ % rate been attacked by Ofsted and why aren't most SEN schools rated as inadequate? Progress made by pupils is far more important (to Ofsted and arguably to the pupils) than percentages of grades. There are other criteria too to rate the how a school and its pupils achieves if you'd like to look into them.

c. How can you justify completely ignoring the Ofsted report for St Bede's in order to attack it and then claim that you "trust the reports and views of Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted"? If you trust these reports so highly, you should be praising St Bede's.

8. "the comment you refer to was not made about a school in the "west of Durham" (you seem to soar into flights of fancy in your diatribe here!)".

So not only do you fail to understand what Gove is on about, the points Paul Willis was making or the criteria Ofsted use to rate its schools, but you also (either through ignorance or willfully) choose to completely misunderstand what I say and try to turn it into an attack. What I said was that Gove admitted that he had two sources of information, Lord Adonis (who incidentally has come out of the woodwork to attack Gove using his aged comment) and word of mouth from schools in West Durham (actual Gove quote "I visited north and west Durham and they told me about east Durham"). Clear now?

9. About the points raised in 8 above, can you explain why it is acceptable for an education secretary to make remarks about the schools of a region based solely on word of mouth and a decade old comment from a single minister without ever having set foot near any of the schools? Gove has since come up with a couple of statistics but at the time of Paul's writing, this was all the proof Gove had given.


10. "And as to the school's selectivity: simply ask them for a copy of the admissions policy: there's a whole list of additional entry criteria which guarantees entrance"

So that's a no to you actually being able to provide any evidence yourself then? I have looked into the school though and they seem to have pupils of varying academic ability, a fair few SEN and free school meal kids and rather surprisingly, a lot of pupils who aren't Catholic. So what exactly do you think they are 'selective' in again?


11. "I've already provided evidence of two local schools which are badly serving the local communities"

Yes, and as explained, you can find two local schools that badly serve their communities in any local authority. And neither does the existence of these schools prove Gove's points about defeatism or disprove Paul Willis' comments that his school is far from Defeatist. If you're going to provide 'evidence', at least make sure it is relevant to the topic in hand.

12. "I'll trust the reports and views of Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector of Ofsted"

Yes, while totally ignoring everything the St Bede's report says about the school (Incidentally you are aware that he doesn't actually check every school himself and that most reports are written by others - just wanted to check).


While I do admire your passion, I feel that you need to reread what has been said by both Gove and Paul Willis and actually understand what the points are here as many of the arguments you provide give little or no support to central point of defeatism in schools. You might also want to brush up on current educational foci (try volunteering at your local Primary School if you have children that go there, I've found that they are always eager to have parents in to help and it's a fantastic way to learn about and observe the current foci and practices in education. Alternatively, your children's secondary school will surely be happy to give you a tour of the school and observe some classes so you can actually find out what things are like for yourself (shocking concept, I know).

Finally I suggest you do some thinking (and reading) before putting fingers to keyboard (again) Traser.

Best Wishes!

So to summarise your points 7a and 7b and your conclusion.

Given the level of ability the pupils have when the pupils start at Dene House and Wellfield the lower numbers of pupils achieving 5+ good GCSEs is probably the best they can do and if you think about it they have actually done really well.

If that isn't defeatist it's difficult to know what is.

Jdgibson,

In points 7a, 7b or my conclusion, please point out where I mentioned Dene House or Wellfield School. Can you also highlight where I said that pupils from Dene House or Wellfield had done the best that they could do.

My comments in these sections were about the Ofsted grading criteria (look it up for yourself if you like) and the only school I mentioned it in relation to was St Bede's, the school in question in Paul Willis' letter. Anything else you think you saw in my reply seems to exist only in your head.

Zagadee wrote:
Jdgibson,

In points 7a, 7b or my conclusion, please point out where I mentioned Dene House or Wellfield School. Can you also highlight where I said that pupils from Dene House or Wellfield had done the best that they could do.

My comments in these sections were about the Ofsted grading criteria (look it up for yourself if you like) and the only school I mentioned it in relation to was St Bede's, the school in question in Paul Willis' letter. Anything else you think you saw in my reply seems to exist only in your head.

You were making points in reply to Traser on the Ofsted grading criteria who in his post had compared the grading and results of a number of East Durham schools including St Bede's, Dene House and Wellfield. You quoted Traser's entire post in your post. I am, like others on the thread commenting on and continuing the debate on the entire thread, not logic chopping on discrete sections of text to hide the weakness of my argument.


If you admit that the pupils at Dene House and Wellfield are not doing the best they could then you are again admitting the main point of Gove's argument, that schools in East Durham are failing their pupils.

From the dictionary on my laptop

defeatist |diˈfētist|
noun
a person who expects or is excessively ready to accept failure.

adjective
demonstrating expectation or acceptance of failure: we have a duty not to be so defeatist.

Jdgibson, you seem to be confused about what you actually said.

1. You focused in on 3 sections on my reply to Traser and then claimed to 'summarise' them by talking about things not mentioned in them. Was iI correct to point this out? Absolutely. If you had claimed to summarise all of what I had said or all of what had been said by anyone in this conversation, then that would be different. But you did not. You yourself said that you were summarising those 3 sections of my post so that is what you were judged upon. Don't start trying to claim you were doing something else now that you've been caught out.

2. Yes you are 'logic chopping' discrete sections. Hence you replied to a tiny bit of what I said and conveniently ignored the parts where I challenged you to back up what you said in the hope I wouldn't notice you'd failed to respond. You would also not just be focusing on two schools that you think prove your point while ignoring every other school. So Mr Pot, please stop insulting the kettle.

3. Please say where I claim that Wellfield or Dene House are not doing the best they could. I have have made no criticsm positive or negative of either school so kindly please try and focus on what I do say and not start reading what you think I say.

4. You may want to also re-read Gove's initial statement as he claimed it was an atmosphere of defeatism, nowhere in his comments, your posts of Traser's posts have either of you provided evidence of this defeatist attitude in any of the schools named by Gove. You can quote grades all you want, but the crux of ithis argument (since you now claim to be responding to the whole conversation as an entirity) is whether East Durham schools and in particular the ones highlighted by Gove) have a defeatist 'air' within them. Now can you actually provide any actual relevent and reliable evidence that is is so?

From the dictionary:

Evidence.
Noun = Data presented in proof of the facts of the issue.
Verb = To support with evidence

How many nits do you have to pick before claiming victory in the argument?

The evidence from Offsted seems to prove that a few schools in the East Durham area are not performing well. If the reply is that they are doing the best they can, is that not defeatist?

Zagadee wrote:
Jdgibson, you seem to be confused about what you actually said.

1. You focused in on 3 sections on my reply to Traser and then claimed to 'summarise' them by talking about things not mentioned in them. Was iI correct to point this out? Absolutely. If you had claimed to summarise all of what I had said or all of what had been said by anyone in this conversation, then that would be different. But you did not. You yourself said that you were summarising those 3 sections of my post so that is what you were judged upon. Don't start trying to claim you were doing something else now that you've been caught out.

2. Yes you are 'logic chopping' discrete sections. Hence you replied to a tiny bit of what I said and conveniently ignored the parts where I challenged you to back up what you said in the hope I wouldn't notice you'd failed to respond. You would also not just be focusing on two schools that you think prove your point while ignoring every other school. So Mr Pot, please stop insulting the kettle.

3. Please say where I claim that Wellfield or Dene House are not doing the best they could. I have have made no criticsm positive or negative of either school so kindly please try and focus on what I do say and not start reading what you think I say.

4. You may want to also re-read Gove's initial statement as he claimed it was an atmosphere of defeatism, nowhere in his comments, your posts of Traser's posts have either of you provided evidence of this defeatist attitude in any of the schools named by Gove. You can quote grades all you want, but the crux of ithis argument (since you now claim to be responding to the whole conversation as an entirity) is whether East Durham schools and in particular the ones highlighted by Gove) have a defeatist 'air' within them. Now can you actually provide any actual relevent and reliable evidence that is is so?

From the dictionary:

Evidence.
Noun = Data presented in proof of the facts of the issue.
Verb = To support with evidence

Stop being so ridiculous. Unless your conclusion is totally divorced from everything apart from points 7a and 7b then I am commenting on everything you said.

The main point Gove is making is that some schools in East Durham are failing their pupils in that they are not achieving the results he believes the children should be capable of.

As various posters have pointed out by using a few schools as examples this is a fact.

This thread is a political debate and as in all political debate conducted in loose English where references to earlier parts of the debate are implied or assumed.

For some reason you appear to believe you are conducting a forensic cross examination in a court room with your pretentious psuedo legal clap trap.


Taking the point you made "Progress made by pupils is far more important (to Ofsted and arguably to the pupils) than percentages of grades. "

The implication of this statement and the inference that I drew is that when looking at the the performance of a school you do not just look at the outcome in terms of the percentage of pupils achieving a defined standard but rather you look at the standard the pupils were at when they they entered the school and the standard they were at when they left and measure the performance of the school in terms of that improvement.

This is entirely consistent with everything I have posted on this thread, entirely constant with the view that pupils in the schools being discussed are capable of achieving better results, entirely consistent with the view that those schools are failing their pupils in not getting them to achieve better results and entirely constant with the view that that is defeatism.

In arguing the position that a schools performance should be measured by the amount of improvement from the starting point rather than an attainment of a defined standard you are arguing it is acceptable for pupils in East Durham to achieve lower results and have reduced life chances than pupils who were fortunate enough to go to better schools because at the time they entered the school those pupils were already behind. That is what Gove is talking about. Your own argument is evidence of the atmosphere of defeatism that you are trying to deny.

The bracketed part of your point "Progress made by pupils is far more important (to Ofsted and arguably to the pupils)" is one of the most ridiculous and naive things I have ever read. Pupils will not get a job or get into college or university unless they meet the entry requirements. If a job needs a C in GCSE Maths a D will not get you the job because when you entered secondary school you were already 3 years behind.


Finally in any debate it is correct to make inferences from what the other person has said.

You may not have explicitly mentioned Wellfield or Dene House but in the context of the debate and from the points you had made my posts contained reasonable inferences from your position.

This is a debate in English, not a proof in predicate logic, but in predicate logic as in this debate you cannot prove anything without inference.

Oh dear jdgibson, we do like to twist things do we not.

Your initial post referenced solely comments 7a and 7b. You mentioned nothing else so can't then through a hissyfit when this is what y are judged upon.

But this is not even the main point of this conversation. The initial arguments made by Gove that is the centre of Paul Willis' letter is that there is an air of defeatism in certain East Durham schools. You can ramble on and on about grades and english vs logic as much as you want, but that doesn't hide the fact that you, like Gove, have provided no evidence of this defeatism. As far as I can see, the best you've managed is some ignorant mixture of 'lower results must mean more defeatism' and 'the focus on progress ahead of results is defeatist'. Both of these are OPINIONS, not fact. I find it astounding that you can type so many words covering such a diverse and rambling range of ideas het not actually provide any evidence for or against the central point of this thread. And yes, you can easily prove things without inference. They're called facts and evidence. So yet again, I invite you to stop hiding behind rants and bulbling logic and provide some evidence to support Gove's claims that certain schools have a defeatist attitude in schools. Not the defeatist attitude you 'infer' from twisting my words but the defeatist attitude on the schools mentioned by Gove. And a tualy evidence, not opinion or infered and faulty logic.

And incidentally, it is Ofsted's view that progress is a bigger indicator of a school's success than its raw results. So call me naive if you like for making you aware of this (since I seem to be the only one of the two of us to know anhing about how schools are judged) but it's Ofsted you should be calling naive as it's their view not mine, I'm just repeating it to enlighten. Of course I doubt even you could be so ignorant or arrogant to claim you know better than the entirety of Ofsted.

And lastly, if by 'pseudo-legal' you mean holding you to account for what you say, challenging you on making statements without any supporting evidence and challenging you whe you twist things, then I guess I must be guilty.

And once again, apologies to everyone for the typos. Blame tablet keyboards and apple's irritatingly making-things-worse autocorrect feature.

Zagadee wrote:
Oh dear jdgibson, we do like to twist things do we not.

Your initial post referenced solely comments 7a and 7b. You mentioned nothing else so can't then through a hissyfit when this is what y are judged upon.

But this is not even the main point of this conversation. The initial arguments made by Gove that is the centre of Paul Willis' letter is that there is an air of defeatism in certain East Durham schools. You can ramble on and on about grades and english vs logic as much as you want, but that doesn't hide the fact that you, like Gove, have provided no evidence of this defeatism. As far as I can see, the best you've managed is some ignorant mixture of 'lower results must mean more defeatism' and 'the focus on progress ahead of results is defeatist'. Both of these are OPINIONS, not fact. I find it astounding that you can type so many words covering such a diverse and rambling range of ideas het not actually provide any evidence for or against the central point of this thread. And yes, you can easily prove things without inference. They're called facts and evidence. So yet again, I invite you to stop hiding behind rants and bulbling logic and provide some evidence to support Gove's claims that certain schools have a defeatist attitude in schools. Not the defeatist attitude you 'infer' from twisting my words but the defeatist attitude on the schools mentioned by Gove. And a tualy evidence, not opinion or infered and faulty logic.

And incidentally, it is Ofsted's view that progress is a bigger indicator of a school's success than its raw results. So call me naive if you like for making you aware of this (since I seem to be the only one of the two of us to know anhing about how schools are judged) but it's Ofsted you should be calling naive as it's their view not mine, I'm just repeating it to enlighten. Of course I doubt even you could be so ignorant or arrogant to claim you know better than the entirety of Ofsted.

And lastly, if by 'pseudo-legal' you mean holding you to account for what you say, challenging you on making statements without any supporting evidence and challenging you whe you twist things, then I guess I must be guilty.

For a pedant you are remarkably loose with the facts that can be verified easily enough by scrolling up the page.

jdgibson says... 
9:16am Sun 10 Mar 13
So to summarise your points 7a and 7b and your conclusion.

Zagadee says... 
2:29pm Sun 10 Mar 13
In points 7a, 7b or my conclusion

I accept your point you can prove things on evidence without inference. However that does not mean evidence is the only way to prove anything. Inference can be and is used to establish proof.

However your bizarre personal attacks about rambling, rants, and twisting words in your third paragraph seem more to be a reflection of what you are doing than anything I have posted.

You seem completely ignorant of ideas on logic and debate that go back to time of Aristotle.

Perhaps, from your defence of Ofstead, Gove understated the problem and the current UK state education system simply gives up on large numbers of pupils and entire schools.

As you know full well, I was not calling you naive for explaining Ofsteads measure for judging schools. I was calling you naive for the view that making significant progress without reaching a defined standard of achievement is not failure. Further to this not reaching the defined standard of achievement needed to meet a child's goals such as reaching university will mean that the life chances for that child are permanently damaged.

Everything you have posted confirms the view that Gove hold about the attitudes that are prevalent in the current state education system yet you wilfully refuse to accept this as there is no eyewitness account of the accused holding a smoking gun moments after pulling the trigger.

Perhaps you should stop using the logical fallacies, stop denying that inference is a valid and rational means to reach a conclusion based on ideas that go back thousands of years, stop the personal attacks and address the central issue.

Are all schools in East Durham getting the best possible results for their pupils. yes or no.

If the answer is no why not.

Defeatism is the acceptance of failure, Not reaching a defined standard is failure. Explaining away that failure, as you have tried to do with reference to Ofstead's definition of failure as success is defeatism.

You even blame your tablet for your own failure to use it properly. It pretty much sums up your entire attitude to failure and your readiness to accept it.

Zagadee wrote:

Graeme_r wrote:

North east and proud wrote:
I can promise you that Paul indeed wrote this himself. It was not proof read nor did the school know he had written such a letter. Please don't make this about a slight mis-understanding of the word. Look at the bigger picture. Be proud that a 16 year old boy is bothered enough to stick up for his beliefs and to stick up for a school named and shamed by Gove despite receiving a 'good with elements of outstanding' from Ofsted only last year.

Well again I ask why he has written a letter to Gove in a style that is appropriate for a 3rd party, vague in places, waffly and suggests he is trying to sound articulate but doesn't quite have the ability to string the right phrases together? For example "With great interest I would offer Mr Gove the chance to visit my school" - With great interest in what? Why would he "offer" a visit, why doesn't he personally throw down the gauntlet to Gove to visit? "I suggest you visit my school" would be more direct, accurate and concise.

If I received a letter addressed to me concerning my actions that referred to "his" instead of "you" , I would question who wrote it and the ability of the person writing it to understand grammar. If you are going to criticise the education secretary, a least make your written criticism look as if you wrote it and that you have some understanding of grammar.

If you're going to attack someone else for the quality of their writing/typing, shouldn't you at the very least make sure your own doesn't contain any mistakes?

I am Paul, and I can assure you that I did not send the letter to Mr Gove. Rather, it was headed with "Dear Mr Unwin", a reporter at the Northern Echo. They changed the introduction to "Dear Mr Gove", therefore introducing mistakes and causing my letter to address Mr Gove in the 3rd person. I also realise that yes, I have made several grammatical errors in my letter, but understand that I am still only 16 and, while not the best defence, it would explain my mistaking infer for imply. I do not live in an ivory tower; my mother is close to receiving dialysis and she supports me as a single parent. I work hard and study hard so that I can improve my position in society.

I wrote my letter because I refuse to be told by Mr Gove that he is speaking for students (myself included) when he has made me feel as if my best is not enough. The letter was written by me, but would more accurately be called an e-mail as I sent it from an e-mail to the Northern Echo; I have yet to hand a changed version (without the 3rd person seen in the paper) to Mr Gove.

I would hope that you all appreciate that I am still only a teenager, no matter how my letter/e-mail may have made me appear, and that comments that while I appreciate constructive criticism, scathing remarks made purely on the basis of assumption and indeed stereotyping (I do not believe I know everything, that's why I attend school: to learn), are entirely innapropriate and anyone making them should be ashamed of themselves for exposing anyone, especially a child, to such ignorant slander.

No06 wrote:
Gove was generalising-- he didn't say every kid and every school is defeatist. Get it?

Plus, I think Gove is right.

As a working class individual educated in a state school, Michael Gove certainly speaks for me. State school education in the North East is, IN GENERAL, very, very poor. Many, not all (!), schools seem to exist as play things/ career vehicles/ wage payers for local councils and teachers, not as an institution to exclusively educate kids properly.

Having attended a North East state school Gove is entirely right – many are defeatist. Standards are set incredibly low for many children. My teachers truly believed that many of my peers would do no better than a call centre and, thus, did not even seek to educate or inspire past that point. There was no mention of careers such as finance, banking, law, accountancy, business leader, doctor etc. No aspiration. Compare that to private schools…

I fully welcome many of Gove’s changes, particularly Free Schools. The sooner state schools become more competitive and accountable to parents the better. The sooner we bring choice into education, the better.

P.s stop banging on about mining! The North East was mining, it no longer is. More mines closed under Labour, but who cares? Plus they closed for a reason. Let’s look to the bl**dy future.

Well said! The North East (certainly some areas anyway) are firmly rooted in the past....the glorious coal mining past.

And the pit village mentality is the one thing that keeps us in the past.

Get a grip people of the North East.

Well jdgibson, again lots of words, trying to twist what has been said and some pathetically desperate backtracking when you've been caught out (even Aristotle can't save you).

All a smoke-screen it seems for the fact you still have not provided evidence for those East Durham schools being defeatist. Stop hiding behind pedantry and actually provide the evidence to support your statement.

Evidence. Actual evidence of defeatism being a problem in schools.

You know, reports from trusted independent bodies, statistics looking into defeatism within schools, anything like that. And comparitive studies between East Durham and other areas of the UK. And if you can't provide any such evidence, then at least have the guts to stop dancing around the subject and say so.

As my old History teacher used to say, put up or shut up.

paul.willis wrote:

Zagadee wrote:

Graeme_r wrote:

North east and proud wrote: I can promise you that Paul indeed wrote this himself. It was not proof read nor did the school know he had written such a letter. Please don't make this about a slight mis-understanding of the word. Look at the bigger picture. Be proud that a 16 year old boy is bothered enough to stick up for his beliefs and to stick up for a school named and shamed by Gove despite receiving a 'good with elements of outstanding' from Ofsted only last year.

Well again I ask why he has written a letter to Gove in a style that is appropriate for a 3rd party, vague in places, waffly and suggests he is trying to sound articulate but doesn't quite have the ability to string the right phrases together? For example "With great interest I would offer Mr Gove the chance to visit my school" - With great interest in what? Why would he "offer" a visit, why doesn't he personally throw down the gauntlet to Gove to visit? "I suggest you visit my school" would be more direct, accurate and concise. If I received a letter addressed to me concerning my actions that referred to "his" instead of "you" , I would question who wrote it and the ability of the person writing it to understand grammar. If you are going to criticise the education secretary, a least make your written criticism look as if you wrote it and that you have some understanding of grammar.

If you're going to attack someone else for the quality of their writing/typing, shouldn't you at the very least make sure your own doesn't contain any mistakes?

I am Paul, and I can assure you that I did not send the letter to Mr Gove. Rather, it was headed with "Dear Mr Unwin", a reporter at the Northern Echo. They changed the introduction to "Dear Mr Gove", therefore introducing mistakes and causing my letter to address Mr Gove in the 3rd person. I also realise that yes, I have made several grammatical errors in my letter, but understand that I am still only 16 and, while not the best defence, it would explain my mistaking infer for imply. I do not live in an ivory tower; my mother is close to receiving dialysis and she supports me as a single parent. I work hard and study hard so that I can improve my position in society. I wrote my letter because I refuse to be told by Mr Gove that he is speaking for students (myself included) when he has made me feel as if my best is not enough. The letter was written by me, but would more accurately be called an e-mail as I sent it from an e-mail to the Northern Echo; I have yet to hand a changed version (without the 3rd person seen in the paper) to Mr Gove. I would hope that you all appreciate that I am still only a teenager, no matter how my letter/e-mail may have made me appear, and that comments that while I appreciate constructive criticism, scathing remarks made purely on the basis of assumption and indeed stereotyping (I do not believe I know everything, that's why I attend school: to learn), are entirely innapropriate and anyone making them should be ashamed of themselves for exposing anyone, especially a child, to such ignorant slander.

And well said Paul. In one stroke you managed to show more sense and maturity than those that had nothing better to do on a Friday than to attack someone sticking up for their themself, their school and their area. Bravo!

Zagadee wrote:
Well jdgibson, again lots of words, trying to twist what has been said and some pathetically desperate backtracking when you've been caught out (even Aristotle can't save you).

All a smoke-screen it seems for the fact you still have not provided evidence for those East Durham schools being defeatist. Stop hiding behind pedantry and actually provide the evidence to support your statement.

Evidence. Actual evidence of defeatism being a problem in schools.

You know, reports from trusted independent bodies, statistics looking into defeatism within schools, anything like that. And comparitive studies between East Durham and other areas of the UK. And if you can't provide any such evidence, then at least have the guts to stop dancing around the subject and say so.

As my old History teacher used to say, put up or shut up.

Again you accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing your self.

The basis of my view that Gove had a point is by inference and that inference is from information you and others on this thread provided. I have explained this to you at least three times.

I am beginning to wonder if you actually understand any of the points I am making giving the way you simply ignore them and childishly demand that I jump through a set of hoops.

You have failed to provide any explanation as to the cause of the poorer results in some of the schools under discussion., instead you have fallen back on yet more logical fallacies and more personal abuse by implication.

For some reason you seem to view the systemic failure of the state education system to provide so many children with a decent education as nothing more than an opportunity for a silly point scoring game on a newspaper forum.

If you look at the innate ability of children at the age of five from privileged and under privileged backgrounds and then look at their progress though the education system and final outcomes at say age 18 you will see the those children from privileged backgrounds quickly move ahead of their more able but less fortunate peers and by the time they leave school have totally outpaced them.

Contrary to what the media would tell you, it is by and large not the brightest and the best that get to go to the so called elite universities but those with the richest parents.

I have come across many people in my life who to put it bluntly weren't very bright but enjoyed the advantage of a public school education and had the confidence that comes from that . Speaking grammatically correct English with an acceptable accent will still get you a long way in the UK even if you can't actually do a very good job at all.

You believe it is acceptable that pupils from under privileged backgrounds in Co Durham get a third rate education in poor schools that effectively destroys their life chances whilst at the same time the rich and privileged can buy their children an education, a career and the same privileged life that they themselves enjoy.

You may correctly say that Gove, being in the Tory party, will not do much about this but at least he recognises there is a problem. You on the other hand prefer to play silly games while children's future's are stolen from them by a self serving profession that in its arrogance believes that it and it alone has the right to define what is success and what is failure.

The starting point to solving a problem is recognising there is one. You have decided there isn't. Thirty minutes on the internet comparing the opportunities available for children growing up in Kensington and Chelsea compared to those for children in Peterlee will show you are wrong.

The problem is successive governments have spent their time in office point scoring, and changing teaching methods back and forth Teachers do know best in the field of education,would you tell people in other proffessions how to do the job they were trained for? There seems to be a consensus going arround the country,that people don't know their own jobs,and cleverdicks(who always know best even without any experience in other peoples jobs know better) politicians should keep their noses out and let people gwt on with their jobs.

Well Paul, thanks for clarifying the situation, I am sorry for doubting your understanding of grammar. It begs the question though, why didn't the Echo indicate accurately who your letter was actually addressed to? I guess it reinforces the old maxim "Never believe what you read in the papers"!.

It would have been brilliant if Paul had utilised his endeavours in trying to help his contemporaries in other East Durham schools who are being failed by a poor educational system.
Sadly, it appears he has been manipulated by the "local education establishment" and the Northern Echo in the pursuit of their political agenda.
It just comes across as a cheap jibe at Gove.

Word count for jdgibson last post: 499

Amount of word twisting or telling me I said things that I didn't actually say: 3

Number of words dedicated to actual evidence to prove Gove's original point: 0

Would he care to try again?

Incidentally, inference is not evidence. The 'logic'/inference you use is not proof, it is 'post hoc ergo proctor hoc', the same faulty logic that suggests that since 95% of brain tumour patients use mobile phone, then mobiles phones cause brain tumours and that suggests that since the number of autism cases rose after the MMR vaccine was introduced, then MMR causes autism. You have yet to provide any actual evidence for this defeatist attitude that Gove claims exists or any evidence that Paul Willis is wrong when he says that attitude does not exist in this school and any evidence that says that the below average results of some East Durham schools is because of a defeatist attitude.

And yes, I am willfully ignoring anything you say that isn't to do with the topic in the increasingly fruitless aim of getting you to prove a point with actual concrete verifiable facts, not opinions and erroneous logic.

Zagadee wrote:
Word count for jdgibson last post: 499

Amount of word twisting or telling me I said things that I didn't actually say: 3

Number of words dedicated to actual evidence to prove Gove's original point: 0

Would he care to try again?

Incidentally, inference is not evidence. The 'logic'/inference you use is not proof, it is 'post hoc ergo proctor hoc', the same faulty logic that suggests that since 95% of brain tumour patients use mobile phone, then mobiles phones cause brain tumours and that suggests that since the number of autism cases rose after the MMR vaccine was introduced, then MMR causes autism. You have yet to provide any actual evidence for this defeatist attitude that Gove claims exists or any evidence that Paul Willis is wrong when he says that attitude does not exist in this school and any evidence that says that the below average results of some East Durham schools is because of a defeatist attitude.

And yes, I am willfully ignoring anything you say that isn't to do with the topic in the increasingly fruitless aim of getting you to prove a point with actual concrete verifiable facts, not opinions and erroneous logic.

Are you serious.

You are lecturing me on inference when you can't even do arithmetic.

3 + 0 != 499.

Have 496 words simply disappeared.

To take your example on mobile phones and the logical fallacy of "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one" for those who don't read latin.

and the statement "since 95% of brain tumour patients use mobile phone, then mobiles phones cause brain tumours"

and use it in an analogous way to get


"since East Durham schools are defeatist then poor results in East Durham schools are caused by defeatism"

I have worded it in a similar way to make it easier for you.


I take it you do accept that mobile phones exist and that people with brain tumours use then so if my view on defeatism and East Durham schools is the same logical fallacy then you accept defeatism exists in East Durham schools, you accept some East Durham schools have poor results you just do not accept that the poor results are due to defeatism.

If you accept defeatism exists in East Durham schools, and if you believe anything in your 5th paragraph to be true then you must why are you persisting in this inane demand for a smoking gun.

Incidentally if you now accept both defeatism and poor results can be found in East Durham why do you believe they are unconnected.

Do you believeive the educational establishment in East Durham is conducting a bizarre experiment in reverse psychology.

Every time you post something it becomes ever more evident that you have not actually understood a single word I have written

I suspect you have spent a couple of days reading up on logic on wikipedia and haven't understood any of that either.

Perhaps you should do some extra homework in your own time to give you a chance to catch up.

I have explained my position to you three times, others on the thread have clearly understood it and agree with me.

You made a series of posts on Friday that were a defence of the current situation,a current situation that gives a very good education for the children of rich bankers in the South East but a very poor education for children in deprived areas like East Durham. Most people would think that if you defend the current situation you think it is acceptable but now you imply that you don't.

You still have nothing to say about the consequences to the children in the North East of a poor education, the cause of a poor education or the solution to the problem. In fact you deny there is a problem.

You have simply been taken in by what we now know was a thoroughly dishonest piece of journalism designed to generate outrage in East Durham and sell newspapers by misrepresenting and exploiting a child.

As you like examples let me finish with one.

Fred says 'I think all shoplifters should go to prison"
Bert says "Tom is a shoplifter so Fred thinks Tom should go to prison"
Fred says "Show me where I said that Tom should go to prison".

I read this with interest having worked in a couple of Durham schools in the past. I now work in the south of England, and in my opinion, the schools in the north were much more focussed on the needs of their students.

The school I worked at in Durham was at the cutting edge of developing vocational learning. They developed apprenticeship schemes with local firms, and students were able to study vocational subjects alongside English, maths and science. Results rocketed, and the outcomes for those students was brilliant. Many went on to work for the local companies involved, or elsewhere and all were equipped with skills for the workplace. Many modern apprenticeships lead eventually to degree level qualifications (often paid for by the employer without having to get in to debt because of tuition fees) and excellent jobs and my school gave the students these opportunities

In my current school the focus is on University. Everyone should aim to do 12 GCSE's in academic subjects, do 'A' levels and then move on into higher education after that. I see many of my former students who simply dropped out at 16 with few qualifications, or went to a third rate uni to do a degree with few job prospects and is now working in McDonalds or an equivalent. They certainly have no career.

Which of these models does Gove want us to follow? Why, the second of course... everyone must have as many 'academic' qualifications as possible.

jdgibson I would like to invite you to reread everything I have said as you tell me I have said things that I haven't.

For example: "Incidentally if you now accept both defeatism and poor results can be found in East Durham". No, I was saying that the logic in your brain was connecting the (still completely unsubstantiated) comment you heard about defeatism with subsequent discoveries that some schools wer ebelow average in East Durham. I have never accepted there is an air of defeatism in East Durham schools because no one has yet provided any evidence that there is (despite me asking you several times now to provide some).

"In fact you deny there is a problem". I have neither confirmed nor denied there is a problem. My focus is the defeatism comments.

"3 + 0 != 499". I'm putting this to ignorance, but I'll try to explain in very simple terms. You wrote 499 words. 3 times you twisted what I'd previously said. 0 words that were dedicated to actually providing evidence. Which means 499 words of talking about anything other than the topic.
Clear now?





So again, I invite you to stop trying to direct the coversation away from the topic and actually provide evidence of Gove's position that defeatism exists in East Durham schools. You can argue logic all you want, but what you 'logically infer' from an online conversation between people you don't know is not exactly evidence. And neither is your logic that makes you think 'Gove said there was defeatism in certain schools, these schools have below average results, therefore Gove is right'.If Gove had said those school serve tapioca pudding every day, would you be blaming tapioca pudding?

PROVE that what Gove said about defeatism is true. Ofsted, HMI repiorts, Local Authority Inspections, undercover Channel Four despatches teams....ANYTHING!!!
!!