Educational conditioning?

This is a comment attached to an article in the Mail

I am writing this comment as a mum of one of the children at Blackminster and the mum who bought this to the attention of the press. It is interesting and comforting to see that other people think what happened is wrong, very wrong and that I now do not feel like I overreacted in my dismay, anger and total amazement at the unbeliebility of the incident.

The school appear to have made light and their letter of apology did nothing to soothe us parents. They seem to think the problem lies with the tme elapsed between the incident and telling the children this was a spoof.

This is not the issue, the issue is that this should never have taken place, Under no circumsytances should be put in this situation. We censor what our children watch and read we hope that they all know the difference between reality and fiction but this needs to be made clear to them. We do not expect or wish to find that they are subjected to this kind of "experiment". - Vikki Woosey

The events that led to this letter being written were very well planned :-

1. Children were told there was a "gun in the school".
2. Alarm bells rang, children were evacuated onto the playing field.
3. 300+ children then watched as a teacher was gunned down by a "crazed hoodie", who then ran into the school building.
4. Children saw LSAs attempt CPR.
(4a. Children didn't see emergency services arrive)
5. Children returned to the building.
6. Children called into an assembly where they were told it wasn't real, it was playacting, it was role play, it was a science lesson.

Blackminster Middle School teaches children aged 10+ to 13+

The headteacher's response :-

'The role play was part of a science lesson where a selection of students and teachers acted out this scenario.

'The problem with a small minority of the pupils was that there was a slight delay in getting them back into the hall to to explain what had just happened.

So it was the children's fault?

Could the 'delay' in 'getting them into the hall' have been because the children were scared or upset and they didn't want to be herded indoors, especially as they'd just seen a gunman running inside?

'Most of them already knew it was a spoof but a couple of them were upset and we have since spoken to them and their parents and apologised to them.

Tsk, it must have been the naughty children's fault for not knowing it was a spoof. See, it was only a couple of them. Most, oooh, that'd be at least 151 children wouldn't it, already knew it wasn't real - so they wouldn't have got the point of the 'exercise' either, would they?

Heck, there are some rotten kids around these days, but there are loads and loads of decent kids too. Grown ups, especially teachers and headteachers, shouldn't try to pass the blame in this way.

Or should they? We'll see why later.

'It was one of the more popular teachers who played the victim, I don't think there would have been as much concern if it was one or two of the others.'

Ah, so this headteacher believes that children as young as 10 wouldn't have minded seeing somebody killed - as long as that person was less popular?

There's so much wrong with this statement that it could easily be the subject of a PhD thesis. Mrs Rigby isn't even going to try unpicking it further.

Maybe the school got the idea for this 'experiment' from here, which was a project from Science Year 2003, and decided to jazz it up a bit, and do their own thing - without truly understanding that they're dealing with children who, no matter how bolshie they may to be, are still children - and in the school's care. These are, after all, the same children who can be killed by a single particle of cigarette smoke at 20 yards.

In 2005, following an inspection, OFSTED inspectors concluded that the overall personal development and well-being of the learners was worthy of a 2 (2 = 'good'). Perhaps they might think otherwise now?

But then, maybe not.

Blackminster Middle School doesn't seem to be alone in experimenting with the thoughts and minds of its' children, because only a couple of weeks ago children at St Kilbride Primary School were 'traumatised' when their teachers decided to play Holocaust with them - and

deputy head teacher Elizabeth McGlynn segregated nine youngsters in Gerry Blair’s P7 class and told them they were being taken away from their families.

The role play was

... designed to give the 11-year-old children an insight into the horrors of the Holocaust as part of a project they are doing about the Second World War.

It worked so well that it

left pupils crying in fear.

These children were later told it was all a game, but their parents weren't amused and wrote letters of complaint to the council - which wrote a nicely 'on target apology :-

“Schools commonly engage in drama-based exercises which encourage children to use their imagination and act out a character. These role play situations are designed to help children understand diversity and develop empathy for the victims of prejudice and are usually very well received by pupils.

“We are sorry that the lesson had this affect on some pupils.

See? Same thing.

Some pupils.

Some pupils obviously didn't have enough diverse empathy for Holocaust victims, they were too busy being scared and upset for themselves - selfish little blighters aren't they?

All this leads nicely to the little boy who climbed a tree in the grounds of Manor School, Melksham. He couldn't get down, and was left there because the school has a policy to

observe the situation from a distance so the child does not get distracted and fall.

A passer by didn't think this was a good idea, so she strolled into the school and got him out of the tree.

Was the school grateful? Were they heck, they contacted the police and accused her of trespass!

Whew.

After all that, is it any real wonder that Truancy hits record high with an increase of 44% during the term of this government.

Schools Minister Vernon Coaker said

'Parents have a clear duty to ensure that their child is in school ...

Why, Mr Coaker, why? Because you 'say so' isn't good enough any more.

What's the point in them going to school? Where's the incentive to those who aren't A* material? Compulsory sex lessons haven't been enough to pull them in through the doors, and too few are being taught to read, write or do maths, and now we learn that primary school teachers are willingly traumatising those in their care - in the name of 'equality, diversity and blimmin drama.

So, come on Mr Coaker, and Mr Balls too, please tell us.

What's the point of school?

Is the point of school these days so that kiddies can learn what it's like to be the playthings of "the authorities" when they practice their own emergency games? It very nearly worked with the swine flu panic.

Here's how this little exercise was planned :-
1) Leaflets delivered to residents outlining emergency procedures in the event of radiation leak - delivered in the evening, after dark.
2) Almost simultaneous loudhailer announcements that water supplies are being cut off.
3) Residents panic.
4) "Authorities" say all is well.
5) "Authorities" say residents over-react.

It didn't go down too well in Portland, but that nice BBC said it was the silly residents' fault, they were mistaken - just like the frightened children.

....

Star Chamber suspensions.

David Blackburn in the Coffee House asks

If this is a suspension, what is an expulsion?

Sky’s Jon Craig asks one of those questions you wished you had posed: wasn’t Elliot Morley suspended already? Yes, he was, on the 14 May 2009 and with immediate effect. However, showing a fine disregard for the manner in which repeat offenders are usually treated, Labour suspended Morley again for good measure.

Here's an extract from Jon Craig's piece at Sky

On May 14 last year, just a day or so after the Daily Telegraph began unleashing its avalanche of disclosures about MPs' expenses, the Prime Minister said this at a Labour Party elections campaign launch:

"Where standards are transgressed and mistakes are made, we have got to take action.

"That is why we have suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party Elliot Morley because of the allegations, which are serious, which have been made against him. Where there is irregularity, it has got to be dealt with immediately."

Immediately?

Now call me old fashioned. But you would have thought the Prime Minister meant that Morley had had the Labour whip withdrawn, wouldn't you?

Well, yes, because that is what happened to those in other parties who'd been caught with their hands in the public purse. But there was a lot of kerfuffle, so it was hard for mere mortals to keep track of what was going on - we relied on being told the truth.

It did began to unravel a bit, when some MPs were able to wipe the slate clean by handing over some rather large cheques. But, frankly, by then nobody was at all surprised because those who did this at the beginning were important people, too important to be seriously told off.

Anyhow, there's much more information in Jon Craig's article, it's worth reading it all, because it goes some way to answering his question. So also, in part, does a comment left at Political Betting

For those keenly interested in the PLP (lots of you, seemingly), this is the position for Elliot Morley - he’s been suspended but not expelled, pending his attempt to clear his name. He’s not entitled to attend PLP meetings unless he’s acquitted.

So what some people thought was a serious punishment was little more than not being able to attend a few meetings and, as somebody else points out

 70: genuinely confused here. Do any of the those three Labour MP’s named today still hold the Labour Whip?

and also

72: XXXX, studiously avoiding the elephant in the room. He is still entitled to vote and prop up Gordo’s lame government.
His flagship policy to “clean up politics”, voted through by those facing criminal charges.

Back comes the response, which helps to clarify things

@ 70:  ....... They have been suspended (which means they can’t take part in any PLP proceddings) but not expelled (pending resolution of their cases - presumption of innocence etc.). The claim that it’s some recent decision relating to a vote on a Bill is mistaken - it was taken last June.

Some of the posts above imply that people think that anyone being prosecuted should no longer be able to sit as MPs, but in fact none of the parties have the power to remove MPs from their seats (otherwise the temptation for whips would be huge!).

@ 72: I try not to comment on MPs (and haven’t commented on Elliot Morley, apart from stating the position on his suspension), so ....

*shakes head*

This explanation seems to further muddy the waters and is another of those things that make the  Rigbys say, "Surely it can't be right."

It seems that a Labour MP can appear before Mr Brown's Star Chamber, and be told they've done something so bad that they should be punished, but now we're told that their serious punishment was little more than not going to meetings.

The peculiar thing is that these MPs have been before a disciplinary committee and have been punished even though it wasn't a big punishement, at least not to people who don't like attending meetings - so how is it that anybody can say these people were 'presumed innocent'?

How can that be?

You don't punish people for nothing - do you?

..........

Oh, and if anybody wants to find out more about Mr Brown's Star Chamber, there's an historical item in Wikipedia and this ... which is run by Mr Ed Balls department, DCFS

What is the Star Chamber?
The Star Chamber is one of the main vehicles in the Department's drive to reduce bureaucracy impacting on local authority children's services (including education) and schools. It was formed in 1999 to review existing and proposed data collection exercises originating from within DCSF and re-launched in October 2006 with a wider remit and enhanced powers. The Star Chamber ensures that new data collection exercises do not create unnecessary burden; do not duplicate in content existing collections; seeks to keep data requests to the absolute minimum needed to develop policy; and will amalgamate and streamline exercises wherever possible.

Surely this can't be the heart of the disciplinary body called The Star Chamber which is much feared by Labour MPs?

.