• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Frank Hovis

Empty Pronouncements from the Powerful

Recommended Posts

As a reader of a trade journal, through necessity rather than choice, which is mostly staffed by SJWs I have begun to pick up on this language.

It's all "urgent", "must", "change" and it is reminiscent of nothing so much as a child in a tantrum screaming "It's not fair!!!".

There are no solutions offered, unless free money for all is an option, just a long burst of "it's not fair" that serves zero purpose.

Here's the Ofsted chief inspector doing exactly that.

Schools shouldn't have to teach your kids to use the toilet or not be fat; that's the parents job.

Well sure, and most do that, but when the parents don't do that and the kid turns up fat and wearing a nappy what happens then?

When somebody who actually is in a position of power rather than some hack journalist starts making these empty and pointless exhortations then you realise that the infantilisation of society has reached the very top.

It's all very well saying that parents "must" but when parents "don't" then you should have an answer that isn't merely "But they must!".

Or maybe screaming until she's sick like Violet Elizabeth Bott.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46416421

Obesity in schools: Parents 'must not abdicate duties'

Parents should not expect schools to police children's eating and exercise, or toilet train pupils, England's chief inspector of education will say later.

Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman will argue that the answer to the obesity crisis lies in the home, and that parents should not "abdicate responsibility".

Neither can schools be a "panacea" for knife crime or child neglect, she will add in her second annual report.

Two studies have this year queried the benefit of school anti-obesity schemes.

In February, the British Medical Journal reported that a year-long anti-obesity programme involving more than 600 West Midlands primary school pupils yielded no improvements.

And in July an Ofsted study of 60 schools found no link between efforts to tackle obesity and pupils' weight.

Speaking to an audience of education and social care professionals in central London later, Ms Spielman will highlight concerns that - by the time they start primary school - almost a quarter of children in England are overweight or obese.

This rises to over a third by the time they move on to secondary school.

"Schools can and should teach children about the importance of healthy eating and exercise in line with their core purpose; their PE lessons should get them out of breath," she will say.

"But beyond that, schools cannot take over the role of health professionals - and above all parents."

Highlighting the growing evidence of children arriving at reception unable to use a toilet, she will add: "This is difficult for teachers, disruptive for other children and has a terrible social impact on the children affected."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's all "urgent", "must", "change" and it is reminiscent of nothing so much as a child in a tantrum screaming "It's not fair!!!".

Usually preceded with "we", "someone" or "the government".

And absolutely under no circumstances ever "I"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know. Parents (some) have been getting worse. A friend of mine is a first year primary teacher. The stories. Children who can’t behave, who can’t eat properly, who are not toilet trained. Then the story of the mother who demanded that she as teacher do something about her child being unwilling to go to bed. 

Then, whatever is wrong, it is up to education to address  knife crime, obesity, child abuse etc  no, education is to educate  the rest is for parents and families 

The state has handed a significant number of people everything they need and they have become both lazy and entitled. Whatever the issue, it is someone else’s to sort out. 

This has been going on for a while and a blind eye turned. I’m seeing this as that at least the problem is being acknowledged. A first. 

Will anything be done? Doubtful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

As a reader of a trade journal, through necessity rather than choice, which is mostly staffed by SJWs I have begun to pick up on this language.

It's all "urgent", "must", "change" and it is reminiscent of nothing so much as a child in a tantrum screaming "It's not fair!!!".

There are no solutions offered, unless free money for all is an option, just a long burst of "it's not fair" that serves zero purpose.

Here's the Ofsted chief inspector doing exactly that.

Schools shouldn't have to teach your kids to use the toilet or not be fat; that's the parents job.

Well sure, and most do that, but when the parents don't do that and the kid turns up fat and wearing a nappy what happens then?

When somebody who actually is in a position of power rather than some hack journalist starts making these empty and pointless exhortations then you realise that the infantilisation of society has reached the very top.

It's all very well saying that parents "must" but when parents "don't" then you should have an answer that isn't merely "But they must!".

Or maybe screaming until she's sick like Violet Elizabeth Bott.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46416421

Obesity in schools: Parents 'must not abdicate duties'

Parents should not expect schools to police children's eating and exercise, or toilet train pupils, England's chief inspector of education will say later.

Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman will argue that the answer to the obesity crisis lies in the home, and that parents should not "abdicate responsibility".

Neither can schools be a "panacea" for knife crime or child neglect, she will add in her second annual report.

Two studies have this year queried the benefit of school anti-obesity schemes.

In February, the British Medical Journal reported that a year-long anti-obesity programme involving more than 600 West Midlands primary school pupils yielded no improvements.

And in July an Ofsted study of 60 schools found no link between efforts to tackle obesity and pupils' weight.

Speaking to an audience of education and social care professionals in central London later, Ms Spielman will highlight concerns that - by the time they start primary school - almost a quarter of children in England are overweight or obese.

This rises to over a third by the time they move on to secondary school.

"Schools can and should teach children about the importance of healthy eating and exercise in line with their core purpose; their PE lessons should get them out of breath," she will say.

"But beyond that, schools cannot take over the role of health professionals - and above all parents."

Highlighting the growing evidence of children arriving at reception unable to use a toilet, she will add: "This is difficult for teachers, disruptive for other children and has a terrible social impact on the children affected."

Amanda Spielman, the OFSTED chief from this thread :

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This and so many other intractable problems are caused because the government is subsidising the population to avoid paying for bad decisions and poor behaviour.

If primary school children are disruptive and can't use the toilet, the school should be able to tell the parents, "we will be unable to teach your child until this has been resolved."

I think the school system is in need of reform, I think kids should have the option to leave after having learned to read, write, and do sums (further education should be voluntary, for those who enjoy it, and most importantly, will benefit). I'm sure that about 100 years back, a child could leave school at 12 and it didn't seem to affect Britain being a plentiful source of world class engineers and scientists.

Sadly it's going the other way, and children are now being forced to stay in the education system until they are 18, when they are not learning anything, don't want to be there, and would be better off in an apprenticeship of some sort (I've seen this in children of a few people I know. It's not good for them to be kept in a system in which they do not fit).

Interestingly, I got talking to a carpet fitter, he unoffcially left school at about 14 and started helping his brother in his carpet fitting business (I should have asked how his parent's were able to do this and not force him to return to school under threat of prosecution). At the age of 23 he has his own successful carpet fitting business, and is married with a wife and a child. He is a hard working, good natured fellow, and I don't see why the state should have made it difficult for him.

The irony is that, financially and in terms of mental maturity, this man is years ahead of many graduates whom are tens of thousands of pounds in debt, and are supposedly what every young person should aspire to (according to the government).

'I've also trained school leavers, and I am surprised at their lack of knowledge after they've been through both GCSEs and A levels. The school has had them 5 days a week for 13 years (5-18) for goodness sakes, and of those that we can train, it takes a year or two of effort on the part of my colleagues and I to make them productive.

 

Edited by PeptoAbysmal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, PeptoAbysmal said:

If primary school children are disruptive and can't use the toilet, they should be able to tell the parents, "we will be unable to teach your child until this has been resolved.".

 

This is the problem. Cannot allow hurt feelings or the little snowflakes not feeling like they are the bestest person in the world. 

One example of this snowflakery is the way that nits are dealt with. There is no longer someone who checks heads, the nit nurse.  That’s discriminatory. So, instead letters are sent home. Not with the child with nits but all parents receive a letter. 

Of course the feckless parent who is allowing their child to be nit central breeding ground ignores the letter. Thus, nits are rampant in schools and every child suffers. 

Just because we are not allowed to hurt the feelings of those who negate their responsibility to others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

It's all "urgent", "must", "change" and it is reminiscent of nothing so much as a child in a tantrum screaming "It's not fair!!!".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46416421

Obesity in schools: Parents 'must not abdicate duties'

Ofsted chief Amanda Spielman will argue that the answer to the obesity crisis lies in the home, and that parents should not "abdicate responsibility".

I think it's potentially more constructive than that. Politics is all about building a consensus to make a change. Even dictators need to maintain their support, and the process is more intricate, and starts at a lower level in democracies. If Amanda Spielman is acting in good faith (and I have no reason to think not), then she is trying, both with the authority of her position, and through stirring up disapproval amongst us, the hoi polloi, to make it easy for a government to make reforms.

She is not being explicit about what she wants, but she is preparing the ground for a politician to say something like "parents must do XXX, otherwise their benefits will be sanctioned", or "children will be sent home if they are not toilet trained" (or any number of other possible policies).

It all sounds like moaning and belly-aching, but I think that's the nature of politics in the early stages of forming policy. The outrage and "memes" we see on social media and in the papers (and on this site too, to be fair), are the same thing, but starting at a level below the "Ofsted chief" or other "son of an under-castellan" who has a foot on the ladder of influence. It's not pretty, it's often demeaning and petty, and can lead to mob justice if the complaints are ignored, but I think it is the very nature of the market-place of ideas in a large democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, One percent said:

This is the problem. Cannot allow hurt feelings or the little snowflakes not feeling like they are the bestest person in the world. 

One example of this snowflakery is the way that nits are dealt with. There is no longer someone who checks heads, the nit nurse.  That’s discriminatory. So, instead letters are sent home. Not with the child with nits but all parents receive a letter. 

Of course the feckless parent who is allowing their child to be nit central breeding ground ignores the letter. Thus, nits are rampant in schools and every child suffers. 

Just because we are not allowed to hurt the feelings of those who negate their responsibility to others. 

What an utter mess, and yet common sense never seems to prevail, and everyone (everyone of average means) is permanently stuck having to participate in a topsy-turvy, kafkaesque, nightmare of being forced to conform to the basest propensities of the maladjusted.

Edited by PeptoAbysmal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BurntBread said:

I think it's potentially more constructive than that. Politics is all about building a consensus to make a change. Even dictators need to maintain their support, and the process is more intricate, and starts at a lower level in democracies. If Amanda Spielman is acting in good faith (and I have no reason to think not), then she is trying, both with the authority of her position, and through stirring up disapproval amongst us, the hoi polloi, to make it easy for a government to make reforms.

She is not being explicit about what she wants, but she is preparing the ground for a politician to say something like "parents must do XXX, otherwise their benefits will be sanctioned", or "children will be sent home if they are not toilet trained" (or any number of other possible policies).

It all sounds like moaning and belly-aching, but I think that's the nature of politics in the early stages of forming policy. The outrage and "memes" we see on social media and in the papers (and on this site too, to be fair), are the same thing, but starting at a level below the "Ofsted chief" or other "son of an under-castellan" who has a foot on the ladder of influence. It's not pretty, it's often demeaning and petty, and can lead to mob justice if the complaints are ignored, but I think it is the very nature of the market-place of ideas in a large democracy.

You may be right but as I said I am exposed to this on daily basis in the trade press - simple moaning with no solutions offer beyond give everyone loads of free money - so I am on the lookout for it.  Moan moan moan from the very people who I would expect to actually offer solutions and are in a position to do something about it.

I would have expected her to make the suggestions herself.  The obvious one is that sending in a child who cannot use the toilet means that they are sent back and it is treated as truancy which can ultimately lead to a custodial sentence for the parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I would have expected her to make the suggestions herself.  The obvious one is that sending in a child who cannot use the toilet means that they are sent back and it is treated as truancy which can ultimately lead to a custodial sentence for the parents.

Yes, you're right: in her role, she should be offering solutions, or at least policy suggestions. If she is just asking for more money to be thrown at the problem, that's dereliction of duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

I have come to the conclusion that so many senior people in our society keep saying that we lack the skills to do X, Y or Z is simply because they are idiots themselves.

We have a winner.

Mostly these announcement s are exercises in official arse covering by those in positions of responsibility for a continued failure to deliver.

The recent furore about rail fares is a classic example

Every year ticket prices go up by a bigger percentage than wages.

Every year it is claimed it is needed for investment to improve services and reliability.

Every year I can expect to travel exactly the same clapped out, dirty, overcrowded train built decades ago - that is if it has not been cancelled due to 'congestion ', 'staff shortages' , signal failure, overrunning engineering works (are there any other kind?) or the wrong kind of weather

Basically the subtext is give us your money but dont expect anything in return.

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

I have come to the conclusion that so many senior people in our society keep saying that we lack the skills to do X, Y or Z is simply because they are idiots themselves.

Usually I would say that it is because these people have never had a proper job.  Look at Amber Rudd for instance.

A couple of years post uni at J P Morgan, so presumably in a junior role, and then thirteen years in a family non-job (director, two days a month) that ended in failure. 

It's Corbynesque in its lack of achievement or actual, proper work.

Quote

 

Rudd became a director of the investment company Lawnstone Limited at the age of 24 in January 1988, taking over from her sister and brother-in-law.[21] Lawnstone became involved with Zinc Corporation, which was taken over by Monticello in 1999, before going into liquidation in 2001.

Rudd was a co-director of Monticello between 1999 and 2000, but the company was liquidated in 2003.[22] Between 1998 and 2000, she was also a director of two companies based in the Bahamas, Advanced Asset Allocation Fund and Advanced Asset Allocation Management.[23][24]

Rudd helped to find extras for the film Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), for which she was credited as the "aristocracy co-ordinator", and appeared briefly in one of the church scenes in the film.[17][25]

 

 

Amanda Spielman however has no such excuse.  She has had a decent career and is clealry very capable in the real world.  So why come out with this guff?
 

Quote

 

Amanda Spielman (born 22 May 1961) has been HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills since January 2017.[1]

Spielman was educated at Clare College, Cambridge and has a master's degree in comparative education from the Institute of Education, University of London.[2]

She was with KMG Thomson McLintock from 1982 to 1986 then Kleinwort Benson from 1986 to 1992. She was a director of Newstead Capital from 1992 to 1994 and of Bridgewater Business Analysis from 1994 to 1995. She was a principal at Mercer Management Consulting, Boston from 1995 to 1997 and then at Nomura Principal Finance from 1997 to 2004.

From 2005 onwards she was part of the founding management team at Ark Schools.[3][4][5] From 2011 to 2016 she was chair of Ofqual, the exam regulator.

In June 2016, Spielman was selected by Education Secretary Nicky Morgan to take over as chief inspector of schools and children's services in England, to replace Sir Michael Wilshaw. Following a pre-appointment hearing, Spielman's nomination was rejected by the Education Select Committee which expressed concerns about her suitability, citing her lack of teaching experience and her failure to show "passion" and supposed failure to show understanding of the "complex role".[6] However their objections were overridden by the minister who wrote to the Select Committee chair dismissing their arguments and confirming her intention to appoint Spielman.[7]

In 2018, Spielman supported a primary school headteacher's right to set a uniform policy that did not permit hijab for children in Key Stage 1 (ages 4-7). The UK's National Education Union derided this as “naked racism dressed up as liberalism.”[8]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, BurntBread said:

Yes, you're right: in her role, she should be offering solutions, or at least policy suggestions. If she is just asking for more money to be thrown at the problem, that's dereliction of duty.

It would be far easier for schools to be left to manage this locally. Then we don't need to pay a high-up expert to moan, and either ignore or make the problem worse with inflexible top-down legislation, that dick heads will either ignore or get away with because they're "disadvantaged", and will criminalise otherwise good parents for trifling breaches of the rules.

If the local idiots can't toilet train their kids, send them to school clean, or in good temper from decent food and a good night's sleep, other parents should be able to ostracize them until they behave.

Instead we're getting another generation of people with no social boundaries, and no concept of cooperation.

Edited by PeptoAbysmal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Masked Tulip said:

I have come to the conclusion that so many senior people in our society keep saying that we lack the skills to do X, Y or Z is simply because they are idiots themselves.

A lot of idiotic senior politicians will be getting their advice from senior corporate people who are equally idiotic - that plus self serving - the idiot politicians just seem to go along with that idiotic advice.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Usually I would say that it is because these people have never had a proper job.  Look at Amber Rudd for instance.

A couple of years post uni at J P Morgan, so presumably in a junior role, and then thirteen years in a family non-job (director, two days a month) that ended in failure. 

It's Corbynesque in its lack of achievement or actual, proper work.

 

Amanda Spielman however has no such excuse.  She has had a decent career and is clealry very capable in the real world.  So why come out with this guff?
 

 

Yes, never had a proper job, and increasingly the children of parents who have never had a proper job, but they are very highly salaried & pensioned often with enormous power in so many public sector positions - councils, schools, NHS, police, central govt.

I find the mindset of such people to be so very limiting. They are ideologues with a language and culture that is alien to me. I increasingly find that they have a lack of basic commonsense and also lack empathy for understanding how their decisions will affect others. 

The only skills they do seem to share is groupthink, the language of their ideology and using both to shout down any debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Usually I would say that it is because these people have never had a proper job.  Look at Amber Rudd for instance.

A couple of years post uni at J P Morgan, so presumably in a junior role, and then thirteen years in a family non-job (director, two days a month) that ended in failure. 

It's Corbynesque in its lack of achievement or actual, proper work.

 

Amanda Spielman however has no such excuse.  She has had a decent career and is clealry very capable in the real world.  So why come out with this guff?
 

 

Significant in its a sense is that she has no experience as a teacher. What does she really know about education other that a bit of academic study of different countries education systems? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Masked Tulip said:

Yes, never had a proper job, and increasingly the children of parents who have never had a proper job, but they are very highly salaried & pensioned often with enormous power in so many public sector positions - councils, schools, NHS, police, central govt.

I find the mindset of such people to be so very limiting. They are ideologues with a language and culture that is alien to me. I increasingly find that they have a lack of basic commonsense and also lack empathy for understanding how their decisions will affect others. 

The only skills they do seem to share is groupthink, the language of their ideology and using both to shout down any debate.

Agreed the majority are like this but Amanda Spielman isn't (or rather wasn't) like this, she has a very good career behind her, so why has she become a bumbling idiot?

Do they give them some drugs or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PeptoAbysmal said:

 

It would be far easier for schools to be left to manage this locally. Then we don't need to pay a high-up expert to moan, and either ignore or make the problem worse with inflexible top-down legislation.

If the local idiots can't toilet train their kids, send them to school clean, or in good temper from decent food and a good night's sleep, other parents should be able to ostracize them until they behave.

Quite.

Maybe the authorities could just shut up about fat incontinent kids and just let peer pressure do the work for them. However, that would render most of the policy makers and their lackeys redundant as their lives are dedicated to micro managing the lives of the great unwashed through endless 'Strength Through Joy' initiatives. There are careers and pensions at stake here. What they really want is power without responsibility .(ie they take the money and you take the blame).

 

Edited by Virgil Caine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, One percent said:

Significant in its a sense is that she has no experience as a teacher. What does she really know about education other that a bit of academic study of different countries education systems? 

I don't see that as a negative; I see that as a positive.

A huge problem in the NHS is that senior positions in its trusts tend to be filled by Doctors who know the operational side but not by business people who can actually run a business efficiently.

I was first offered a job in the public sector specifically because I was in the private sector; the FD didn't want anybody from the public sector because they worked less hard and didn't think about organsiational reform because they had only known one way of working. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I don't see that as a negative; I see that as a positive.

A huge problem in the NHS is that senior positions in its trusts tend to be filled by Doctors who know the operational side but not by business people who can actually run a business efficiently.

I was first offered a job in the public sector specifically because I was in the private sector; the FD didn't want anybody from the public sector because they worked less hard and didn't think about organsiational reform because they had only known one way of working. 

Maybe but it isn’t a public sector/private sector issue, it’s whether you know anything about the industry you are making proclamations about. 

I would think in you case, it was your fundamental skill set that the employer was after. He then had a preference that someone with that skill set would be better if they had come from the private sector 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Agreed the majority are like this but Amanda Spielman isn't (or rather wasn't) like this, she has a very good career behind her, so why has she become a bumbling idiot?

Do they give them some drugs or something?

I worked at one major US IT company back in the 90's where the head of HR was said to be a senior scientologist. Myself and a few Brits ended up in a training seminar in Silicon Valley which, when it was over, we all walked out of the auditorium and blew a sigh of relief. It was brainwashing IMPO.

Very hard to resist even if a strong mind. Repetitive, repetitive, repetitive. You could watch others swaying as the hours progressed.

It has been with some interest that I have read about this company's HR procedures being adopted by various UK public sector / media organisations throughout the Noughties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PeptoAbysmal said:

 

It would be far easier for schools to be left to manage this locally. Then we don't need to pay a high-up expert to moan, and either ignore or make the problem worse with inflexible top-down legislation, that dick heads will either ignore or get away with because they're "disadvantaged", and will criminalise otherwise good parents for trifling breaches of the rules.

If the local idiots can't toilet train their kids, send them to school clean, or in good temper from decent food and a good night's sleep, other parents should be able to ostracize them until they behave.

Instead we're getting another generation of people with no social boundaries, and no concept of cooperation.

I think you put your finger on an important point: the most valuable reform is often to give people back their self-determination by relinquishing some power.

Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly difficult to make a decent living actually doing work, and so everyone is scrambling to be managers, or inspectors, or executives, or whatever the hell reason they can come up with to live off the tithes of others rather than putting in a decent day of productive work.

The only good managers I have come across were not only somewhat embarrassed about being managers, but also knew that their job was to provide line-of-sight, and then get out of the way. Having scrambled up to "chief of oftsted", she has probably long since forgotten this, if it had ever occurred to her at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've chosen a bad example to illustrate the point I think you want to make.

It is absolutely the role of parents to ensure that their children have the basic rules of how to behave amongst others. Primarily being respectful of others. That respect is evident in basic behaviours; not urinating or defecating in public, closing your mouth when eating, not spitting, not coughing without covering your mouth, allowing others to speak without interruption (unless they're going on an on :D).

It must be exasperating for a teacher to have a child in class who doesn't have those basic skills that should be taught from the parents example. 

Mind you in the case of children at primary school they will very often conform with normal behaviour when subjected to peer group pressure. I can imagine a child turning up at school in a nappy will be ostracised and ridiculed by their class mates. I still have a memory of girl in my class at primary school who no one would sit next to  because she always smelt as if she had wet herself.

Of course it can also go the other way as some class mates might like to imitate disruptive behaviour.

Edited by sleepwello'nights
add anecdote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this