The travails of Michael “Oiky”
Gove’s Free Schools revolution have continued this past week, with Warwick
Mansell’s suggestion that another had been rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted proved
true as
news emerged that The Hawthorne’s Free School on Merseyside had indeed got
the lowest possible rating. And the saga of
Oldfield School, in Bath, is, as they say, ongoing.
I wouldn't celebrate just yet if I were you, Tobes
But the most significant news, and potentially most worrying
to all those parents in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham ambitious
for their children, is that there is to be yet another change of head teacher at none other than the West London
Free School, the brainchild of the loathsome Toby Young. WLFS opened its doors
in 2011. So that’s a third head teacher in
three years.
Colour me unconvinced, because I am: this appears to be at
least the tenth teacher departure from WLFS since it opened. Moreover, it seems
the
impression was given by the departing head teacher that his predecessor was
still very much involved, despite “moving
upstairs”, but he, too, has since departed. Why there is such a high
turnover of staff is worrying, but Tobes’ advert
for another head is worse.
“The West London Free
School is an all-ability secondary school that asks every child to do at least
eight academic GCSEs or IGCSEs” it begins. Does this mean “study at least eight subjects to GCSE level”?
If so, that is how the text should read. One might have expected the Hon Toby
Daniel Moorsom Young, who took a First in PPE at Oxford, to have a more
coherent grasp of the English language.
And, as the man said, there’s more: WLFS “takes children from across the local
community and gives them a classical liberal education”. Political
interference klaxon sounding long and loud on that one. Why so? Tobes, who is
an ardent supporter of the Tory Party, describes himself as a “Classical Liberal”. Indeed, the label is
another way for the right to reclaim the word “Liberal” for themselves.
Perhaps Tobes is unaware just how loaded that remark is:
describing the kind of education on offer at the school over which he presides
in the same terms as his political orientation suggests a disturbing and only
slightly illegal slanting of the curriculum. No sensible school administrator
should even suggest such a move. Did he not get someone else to read through
the advert before placing it?
And that is not an isolated slip: Tobes tells that the
successful candidate will “Be committed to a classical liberal
education” (mind you, he
also wants the new head to have “flare
[sic] and dynamism”). Perhaps, in the
interests of clarity and openness, Tobes would like to explain his choice of an
expression that means “right-wing”
when it comes to the kind of job from which that sort of thing should be
absent.
Then he can also explain why there is such a high turnover
of staff. We’re waiting.
Liberal Education is not a Tory label, it has a specific meaning:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_education
|Liberal Education is a term with a specific meaning that seems correctly used in this context. Please try using Google next time:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_education
He's silent for once - please don't provoke him!!
ReplyDeleteFor those two anonymous commenters I would point out that (a) Tobes specifically used the term "Classical Liberal", and (b) this happens to be exactly the same as his description of his political orientation, that being firmly towards the Tory Party.
ReplyDeletePlease try to engage brain before commenting next time, @2!
"flare"
ReplyDeleteTo burn unsteadily or to bring back 70s fashion?
Either way not really Michael Gove's passion?
'...with 10 applicants for every [time we] place [an advert for Headteacher].
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with you but your own, crucial, sentence in this piece is unclear:
ReplyDelete"Why there is such a high turnover of staff is worrying, but Tobes’ advert for another head is worse."
You don't set out or discuss here 'why' there is such a high turnover (and I'd like to know why indeed). But 'the fact that' there is such a high turnover is certainly worrying and isn't that what this sentence should have said?
But to pursue the point nonetheless raised properly; is there any clarity about 'why' there is such a high turnover?