tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post6243738795213520698..comments2024-03-14T02:53:31.171+00:00Comments on Tom Bennett's School Report: Burn the Witch: why everyone hates Michael WilshawTom Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03211959016018081924noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-65278721836059563022012-05-15T20:08:04.249+01:002012-05-15T20:08:04.249+01:00You judge a man by his intentions. Wilshaw is only...You judge a man by his intentions. Wilshaw is only doing everything that he's doing to try and raise standards and improve the future life chances of young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Is this such a crime?<br /><br />Teaching unions and academics are always banging on about the attainment gap between rich and poor but what are they actually DOING about it? Not much so far as I can tell. I think Wilshaw knows that without action nothing will change and the scandal of the attainment gap will persist.<br /><br />It's like they say - if you keep doing what you've always done then you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-24724021964540155662012-05-13T11:52:14.437+01:002012-05-13T11:52:14.437+01:00It is my contention that the paper/s *represented*...It is my contention that the paper/s *represented* Mr Wilshaw by misquoting him. How is this possible? Elementary, my dear Watson.<br /><br />As for love/do-not-love, the actual quote:<br /><br />"Let me tell you about stress. ‘Stress’ is what my father felt, who struggled to find a job in the 50s and 60s and who often had to work long hours in three different jobs and at weekends to support a growing family."<br /><br />Is not the diametric opposite of the misquote:<br /><br />"Headteachers don't know what stress is."<br /><br />In fact, in the context of Mr Wilshaw's attitude and behaviour, this seems to be a plausible paraphrasing.<br /><br />At the risk of some binary thinking(!) I see him as a Witchfinder General.<br /><br />I have very strong views on Ofsted, and maybe this colours my judgement but, given the context of his previous pronouncements, even if he has been misquoted I don't think he can reasonably claim to have been misrepresented in this case.<br /><br />But in the end this is all deckchairs on the Titanic. Ofsted is wrong. I want to read articles about how to destroy the Evil Empire.<br /><br />Beam me up, Scotty.Ann Kittenplannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-19116051911562875422012-05-13T10:27:35.362+01:002012-05-13T10:27:35.362+01:00Well if he didn't actually say it, and the pap...Well if he didn't actually say it, and the papers misrepresented him by paraphrasing, how is it his fault? I can't find him ever saying that teachers don't know what stress is. It's CLOSE to his words but then, so is 'I love you' and 'I don't love you.' In fact, I've read a lot of stuff from him expressing that the profession is too hard for the wrong reasons, and that he wants people to work hard for meaningful enterprises, not paperwork. He's getting blamed a lot for spin that others have thrown up, and I find that sad, whoever or whatever he is. We should be better than that.<br /><br />Thanks for all comments; and YES THIS to the binary thing. It's also easier.<br /><br />Oh and YES THIS to the third thing; levity and arch commentary far easier than sincerity and confronting reality. Always<br /><br />TTom Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03211959016018081924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-74759453917995403742012-05-13T09:53:43.331+01:002012-05-13T09:53:43.331+01:00"Play it again, Sam."
Isn't one poi..."Play it again, Sam."<br /><br />Isn't one point that whether he said it or not it fits with his stated views. He might not have actually specifically directly said, 'Teaching is not stressful,' (though he seems to have come pretty close) but, even if he didn't, it fits in with what we know about him.<br /><br />(Analogue II) Isn't the alleged comment, and its mis/interpretation, in a way comparable to the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone: it's not at all clear that that particular phone was hacked but the story exposed fundamental corruption.<br /><br />Ultimately though this is an epiphenomenal imbroglio, the real question is: Is Ofsted a good thing, or a bad thing?<br /><br />-----<br /><br />Good, and important, point about binary, reactionary, thinking: It's more important to pick a fight than understand a position.<br /><br />-----<br /><br />Related: It's more important to make a joke eg #popleveson than it is to address an issue, no matter how serious.Ann Kittenplannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-40983720990167927242012-05-13T09:05:04.532+01:002012-05-13T09:05:04.532+01:00Tough crowd.Tough crowd.Tom Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03211959016018081924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-39906699123178089292012-05-13T09:04:39.080+01:002012-05-13T09:04:39.080+01:00He isn't going for inspiration- he isn't M...He isn't going for inspiration- he isn't MLK. He's going for 'tough inspector' because that's who he is. He's implying that some school leaders justify not having high standards for kids because it's harder to do so than not. I think few people would actually point to stress as their reason not to do so- but they would still in practice avoid making tough calls because of the perceived effort required. I hear this all the time in my advice column- difficult children either being placated by weak-willed senior staff, or low-achieving children fobbed off with low targets. It's only some management out of many. But it does happen. Why NOT point it out, if it's your job to do so?<br /><br />You can't INSPIRE the whole profession- it's too diverse. You can't please everyone; but you can set out your stall and stick to it. Whatever he said ('I love you all'/ 'Cower, worms') he would face this criticism. SO I think we need to stop jumping on high horses every time we can find something that we take issue with stylistically. Does anyone know what ELSE he said in the speech? Damn few do, I imagine, because they fell into the whirlpool of indignation. And WE'RE supposed to be the critical thinkers?<br /><br />Thanks for the comment.<br /><br />TTom Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03211959016018081924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-20227178173667352032012-05-13T08:56:26.021+01:002012-05-13T08:56:26.021+01:00I don't think his job IS to motivate teachers....I don't think his job IS to motivate teachers. He's responsible for monitoring and reform, which isn't, can't be painless. Change anything, and someone will feel it.<br /><br />Also, I wouldn't want to judge a man on words I haven't heard; even the critical reporters didn't quote him as saying the words in the headlines- they paraphrased to suit.<br /><br />He gets a hostile press; as critical observers we need to be discerning, whether he's the devil or a saint. He's said a LOT of things in support of the profession, but that gets breezed over. No Twitter storms erupt when he claims that most teachers feel burnt out because of paperwork. Why doesn't that register with people? Is it because we find it easier, more convivial to demonise?Tom Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03211959016018081924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-2790667348201473722012-05-12T20:17:35.416+01:002012-05-12T20:17:35.416+01:00Oh Yawn! I was expecting something far more enter...Oh Yawn! I was expecting something far more entertaining ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-51941202157714467252012-05-12T14:38:44.019+01:002012-05-12T14:38:44.019+01:00Critics of Wilshaw likened to witch burners in art...Critics of Wilshaw likened to witch burners in article which claims that we should not demonise our opponents...<br /><br />Here's why I do not have too much sympathy for SMW<br />This is the relevant paragraph:<br />"We need to learn from this and challenge those who have power invested in them to make the difference, but too often make excuses for poor performance – it’s just too hard, the children are too difficult, the families are too unsupportive, this job is far too stressful."<br />These are the people for whom SMW thinks need to know about what stress really means. Who exactly excuses poor performance by saying the job is far too stressful? Is it a straw (or perhaps wicker) man fallacy? In a moment of near Franciscan charity let us give SMW the benefit of doubt and say that there are many people who excuse (rather than explain) poor performance by citing such factors. Then SMW goes on to explain what stress is. Here it might be worthwhile asking what the point of explaining the meaning of stress to people who already know what stress is. It's futile at best. We are left though with the strong impression that these people, according to SMW, do not know the meaning of stress and that what these people need is a bit of SMW's homespun wisdom:<br />1) SMW's dad and others worked hard and experienced stress<br />2) Stress is experienced by the unemployed millions (unemployed because of a poor experience of school - not because of the macro-economic climate). Note this stress will not excuse rioting because that's another very bad thing according to SMW.<br />3)SMW himself experienced stress because of industrial action. All the teachers left him alone to cope with classes at lunchtime - funny that *none* of his colleagues felt a kind of loyalty to him.<br />4) Stress can be caused by writing letters three times to the council (tip - perhaps ask for climbing frames rather than brick walls to be built in playgrounds)<br /><br />What exactly is the point of these four observations? Does he really think that those who excuse poor performance will be suitably inspired?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3019828684971971203.post-55935257955803059802012-05-12T14:19:58.677+01:002012-05-12T14:19:58.677+01:00I'd still like to know what he *said* not what...I'd still like to know what he *said* not what was written in the published version of the speech. He has been known in the past (Newsnight) to say things that were not exactly what he meant, and I don't know if it is common for so many newspapers to get hold of the wrong end of the stick. I worry that someone writes his speeches for him, based on his notes then he accidentally says what he really means when he has to deliver the speech. I may be being unduly cynical here, but even if he doesn't mean some of the harsh things he is reported to have said he is taking a very strange route to motivating teachers. I assumed he didn't even want to attempt to get teachers on his side ever since his appointment speech. He seems to be continuing in that veinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com