Britain's Strictest Headmistress - ITV, Sunday 22nd May 10:15pm

[ClaretDiver]

Excellent post JD!

[Rowls]

I have spent quite a long time monitoring her interactions with fellow teachers on social media over the last six or seven months. Many of her tweets have been deleted but a five minute search will guide you to many posts that still remain. The thing that I find disturbing most here is how she appears to treat people within the profession… Like they were dirt on the bottom of her shoe, in some examples.

What I also would like to question is her methodology behind commanding respect. I’m not going to slam it down, because different schools take different approaches, and I dare say there are excellent features within her philosophy, but what I would say, is highlighting social deprivation as a means for extremely strict discipline, is not something that I necessarily agree with….

Clear rules and boundaries - yes… Respect for everyone - yes… Sanctions for lack of compliance - yes. Zero tolerance on a number of issues - yes.

I do feel as though I’m in a good place to comment… I’m just about to finish my 18th year at the same school in an incredibly challenging inner-city area. At some stages throughout this period, my place of work has been situated in an area that has been in the bottom 1% (one percent) nationwide for social deprivation.

It’s tough, it’s bloody tough, but that doesn’t necessarily mean children come to school to be badly behaved or that they’re always hard work.

We give everything we have to give the children the best possible chance and shot at life… everything!

We’ve had boys in our fashion club, children of all ages, playing steel pans… full key stage choirs (120 children), boys in the netball team… Girls in the football team… Opportunities and love, wherever it is possible. Talents nurtured and allowed to blossom.

Our attendance for the last decade has been over 97% in every single year, apart from during the pandemic. This year and last, it’s over 98%. We make our school a place that children like to come.

Our results? They have been above national average for seven of the last eight years… Above national average!!! And as an added extra, many of our children arrive from Eritrean and Ethiopian backgrounds, having barely spoken a word of English before reaching four years of age. Their entry points are as low as they come!!

Suspensions? One child in the last 12 years.

Exclusions? None.

We don’t send children into isolation if they can’t afford their dinner money… we make them something different and we teach them the volume of good food and money!! We trust that they will eventually pay what is owed… And we very rarely have a problem, getting the money back!

There are a number of ways to skin a cat, so please forgive me for not showing much support for this alternative approach. Just because some areas are unbelievably difficult… There are several ways to garner respect. I’d like to think that all the children I have taught, and their parents, will respect me for that!

Hi jdrobbo and thanks for the response.

If you'd written that in the first place I almost certainly wouldn't have replied.

Whereas you view her replies and interactions as "treating people like dirt" I truly do not see that at all. I see her being firm, maybe a bit curt.

However, she faces a constant barrage of abuse. Things like people calling her names, insults abuse or labelling her as "disgusting" etc when all she is really trying to do is provide the highest standard of education.

She was getting this level of abuse has been coming her way long before she set up the school and way before twitter even existed.

She was cast out of the educational establishment for speaking out against the accepted dogmas that exist within the state system at a conservative party conference. She was effectively cast out if her chosen profession for openly questioning the status quo.

Yes, she can be forthright, firm and even a little bit curt. I don't think she's rude. You highlight that many of her tweets get deleted, that seems to me to be a sign of her decency: twitter is very instantaneous, better to delete something admit it wasn't wise than refuse to acknowledge mistakes. After all, nobody's perfect.

Her methods should be debated publicly abd that debate should, of course, be forthright and filled with passion. We should all be open to seeing what gets good results in education. Just because KB's methods work doesn't mean other approaches can't work. Especially for schools of a demographic intake different from her inner city intake.

We've never, to my knowledge, met but I get the impression you're a very decent guy and a great teacher. However, I think you were wrong to label KB the way you did.

UTC

[jdrobbo]

Thanks too for your reply. I’m sensing you’ve only been following her since she got her fame through television? Historically, I have found her to be way beyond curt. I stand by my words. I’ve read a lot of her content and if we’re judging her ‘curtness’ as acceptable, then I feel we have a bit of a problem. Cheers

Why do you think I was wrong? I do think the way she has treated some people is disgusting; I do think she has spoken to fellow-professionals as if they were dirt…why am I wrong to have these views?

[Lancasterclaret]

First time I've read deleting tweets is a sign of strength

[jdrobbo]

Her methods should be debated publicly abd that debate should, of course, be forthright and filled with passion. We should all be open to seeing what gets good results in education. Just because KB's methods work doesn't mean other approaches can't work. Especially for schools of a demographic intake different from her inner city intake.

We've never, to my knowledge, met but I get the impression you're a very decent guy and a great teacher. However, I think you were wrong to label KB the way you did.

UTC

You say ESPECIALLY…may I ask, did you read the content about the deprivation in the area I work? It kinda feels like you were just looking for snippets to meet your own agenda, Rowls. Regardless, cheers for the reply. It’s good to see how views differ.

[forzagranata]

I've followed her articles and speeches for a while and I have been impressed by her overall philosophy, particularly her refusal to submit to the 'racism of low expectations' - which also applies to social class.

After watching the documentary, I asked the opinion of someone I respect in the teaching profession, and their reply greatly encouraged me.

Basically, she said that broadly she agrees with KB's methods and approach (not in every case) but that actually many schools were already taking such an approach but they don't get the publicity that KB does because of the controversy around her.

[Greenmile]

... You highlight that many of her tweets get deleted, that seems to me to be a sign of her decency: twitter is very instantaneous, better to delete something admit it wasn't wise than refuse to acknowledge mistakes. After all, nobody's perfect...

I don’t know a huge amount about her, tbh, but from what I have seen, a refusal to acknowledge mistakes seems to be part of her MO.

Deleting tweets is just one example of this. Hiding the evidence of being wrong instead of acknowledging she was wrong by way of a further clarifying tweet. When she doesn’t delete them in time she gets very defensive over people pointing out her mistakes, such as the fake Churchill quote she stuck on the wall at her school, or the Ike and Tina Turner picture.

I’m also a little surprised that the usual suspects are yet to criticise her for “pulling the race card”, or is that ok to do as long as you’re a Tory?

[jdrobbo]

I don’t know a huge amount about her, tbh, but from what I have seen, a refusal to acknowledge mistakes seems to be part of her MO.

Deleting tweets is just one example of this. Hiding the evidence of being wrong instead of acknowledging she was wrong by way of a further clarifying tweet. When she doesn’t delete them in time she gets very defensive over people pointing out her mistakes, such as the fake Churchill quote she stuck on the wall at her school, or the Ike and Tina Turner picture.

I’m also a little surprised that the usual suspects are yet to criticise her for “pulling the race card”, or is that ok to do as long as you’re a Tory?

And what of the “Girls shouldn’t sit further maths or physics; they’re just too hard for them” quote? High expectations

[Rowls]

You say ESPECIALLY…may I ask, did you read the content about the deprivation in the area I work? It kinda feels like you were just looking for snippets to meet your own agenda, Rowls. Regardless, cheers for the reply. It’s good to see how views differ.

I've not said that your methods cannot work. Only that here do work.

I am confident you are a good teacher, I suspect you're much better than 'good'.

[Greenmile]

And what of the “Girls shouldn’t sit further maths or physics; they’re just too hard for them” quote? High expectations

I wasn’t aware of that one. Sounds pretty poor form for a teacher to say that. Ada Lovelace would be turning in her grave.

Just a guess, but I’m presuming she’s yet to acknowledge that she was wrong?

[dsr]

And what of the “Girls shouldn’t sit further maths or physics; they’re just too hard for them” quote? High expectations

That's not a quote, and saying that it is is as bad as what you accuse her of doing. She said that girls (obviously only some of them) don't select maths and physics A level, because they dislike hard maths.

[jdrobbo]

That's not a quote, and saying that it is is as bad as what you accuse her of doing. She said that girls (obviously only some of them) don't select maths and physics A level, because they dislike hard maths.

You’re quite right and I apologise for attempting to direct quote her…

I have gone to the trouble of finding her quotes:

“physics isn’t something that girls tend to fancy…girls become so turned off from physics…it (physics) isn’t something that girls tend to fancy. They don’t want to do it, they don’t like it…I just think they don’t like it…There’s a lot of hard maths in there that I think they would rather not do.”

My conclusion is that this is a very poor and uninspiring claim to make.

Boys didn’t fancy fashion until we offered them an opportunity in fashion club; they didn’t even know they were allowed to play netball in a school team. Why create barriers with words? You need to empower youngsters, not make sweeping statements about groups of them.

And respectfully, I’d strongly argue that my mis-quoting of her (I shouldn’t have used direct speech) is absolutely nowhere near as some of the comments she has made (AND RETRACTED COUNTLESS TIMES) over the last year or so. My quote was broadly close and a blind man on a galloping horse will be able to see that. But in the interest of balance, I’ll apologise for that bit.

[dsr]

You’re quite right and I apologise for attempting to direct quote her…

I have gone to the trouble of finding her quotes:

“physics isn’t something that girls tend to fancy…girls become so turned off from physics…it (physics) isn’t something that girls tend to fancy. They don’t want to do it, they don’t like it…I just think they don’t like it…There’s a lot of hard maths in there that I think they would rather not do.”

My conclusion is that this is a very poor and uninspiring claim to make.

Boys didn’t fancy fashion until we offered them an opportunity in fashion club; they didn’t even know they were allowed to play netball in a school team. Why create barriers with words? You need to empower youngsters, not make sweeping statements about groups of them.

And respectfully, I’d strongly argue that my mis-quoting of her (I shouldn’t have used direct speech) is absolutely nowhere near as some of the comments she has made (AND RETRACTED COUNTLESS TIMES) over the last year or so. My quote was broadly close and a blind man on a galloping horse will be able to see that. But in the interest of balance, I’ll apologise for that bit.

True to an extent, but on the other hand, if you want more girls to do physics, surely it's essential to know why they don't do it now? I don't think she should be criticised for formulating the problem.

[jdrobbo]

True to an extent, but on the other hand, if you want more girls to do physics, surely it's essential to know why they don't do it now? I don't think she should be criticised for formulating the problem.

Yes indeed. I’d like to think that practitioners within my profession are always looking at how to tap in to subject areas where certain individuals or groups appear less tuned in, to generate more passion and interest… in the 90s it was girls and PE…often centred around their uniform policy… it was a huge issue…in primary, it’s often boys writing, although hopefully a corner is being turned in that regard…at 15, it’s possibly physics (girls), but do you believe that way of ‘formulating the problem’ is appropriate way of showing girls that it could offer an excellent career path? It’s just a no from me and I can absolutely see why field experts have criticised her over her claims.

[Spiral]

if you want more girls to do physics, surely it's essential to know why they don't do it now?

Probably because for generations they've been socialised in such a way where they're told boys do this and girls do that. There's nothing innate in the structure of a male's brain compared to a female's brain that gives one sex a natural inclination to, say, engineering, and the other to, say, art. Any delineation along gender lines on any given field is socially endowed, not biologically endowed, so any question along the lines, "why do more boys prefer physics than girls?" can be satisfactorily answered, "because they like what they're told to like, and what they are told to like is informed by the gender expectations they begin to notice and strive to meet from adolescence onwards." Morons like this head teacher only reinforce these rigid gender expectations under the false pretence of providing the best environment for these children. It's no coincidence that she's loved by social conservatives, because she's essentially a niche political commentator whose vocation provides a convenient alibi against any accusation of being what she really is: a self promoting political activist saying things conservatives love to hear. Whether she's conscious of it or not (a lot of motives spring from the subconscious) her comment about girls doing physics is an attempt to reify a totally arbitrary gender binary whose rigidity gives stability to a person's conceptions of gender.

[dsr]

Probably because for generations they've been socialised in such a way where they're told boys do this and girls do that. There's nothing innate in the structure of a male's brain compared to a female's brain that gives one sex a natural inclination to, say, engineering, and the other to, say, art. Any delineation along gender lines on any given field is socially endowed, not biologically endowed, so any question along the lines, "why do more boys prefer physics than girls?" can be satisfactorily answered, "because they like what they're told to like, and what they are told to like is informed by the gender expectations they begin to notice and strive to meet from adolescence onwards." Morons like this head teacher only reinforce these rigid gender expectations under the false pretence of providing the best environment for these children. It's no coincidence that she's loved by social conservatives, because she's essentially a niche political commentator whose vocation provides a convenient alibi against any accusation of being what she really is: a self promoting political activist saying things conservatives love to hear. Whether she's conscious of it or not (a lot of motives spring from the subconscious) her comment about girls doing physics is an attempt to reify a totally arbitrary gender binary whose rigidity gives stability to a person's conceptions of gender.

She's not a moron. Maybe she's someone who disagrees with you, but that doesn't make her a moron.

OK, suppose you're right and these girls who don't take physics are doing it not because they don't like the hard maths, but because their ancestors were told not to do physics. we can't go back and tell their ancestors that they must do physics, it's too late for that.

Have you any evidence for the three conjectures I can detect in your post, that
(1) boys and girls have no biological differences in their brains;
(2) for the last 16 years (let's discount what they were told before they were born) the prevailing ethos in schools has been that girls are different and shouldn't do science;
(3) that teenagers are heavily influenced by their parents and teachers and are inclined to do as they are told?

[Spiral]

Just to add, look at the quote of hers jdrobbo posted a few posts back and pay attention to the subtext. The subtext is important because I feel it is where ideas are emotionally felt; where the text itself is usually understood and comprehended rationally, it is used to carry other ideas under the radar. So her speculations on the idea that girls don't like physics because of the hard maths involved carries within it — in the subtext — the idea that girls don't like to challenge themselves with maths, and this totally unchallenged sub-textual idea carries with it its implied corollary that boys DO like challenging themselves. So there's an idea taken for granted here about the actual competence of boys vs girls, as well as mental fortitude of boys v girls, neither of which can be supported by biological study (only a social science that ultimately reports on the differences in how boys and girls are socialised differently, so we have a sort of circular reasoning here), and this is the first sexist point within the subtext. If this position is to be taken at face value (it ought not to, but it it were to be), its corollary is that boys should be set on one educational and career path, girls the other, and taken to its conclusion this means that men get a job, women stay at home and look after babies. That's the second sexist point made within the subtext. Her attempts at explaining a phenomenon only serve to reinforce it.

[dsr]

Just to add, look at the quote of hers jdrobbo posted a few posts back and pay attention to the subtext. The subtext is important because I feel it is where ideas are emotionally felt; where the text itself is usually understood and comprehended rationally, it is used to carry other ideas under the radar. So her speculations on the idea that girls don't like physics because of the hard maths involved carries within it — in the subtext — the idea that girls don't like to challenge themselves with maths, and this totally unchallenged sub-textual idea carries with it its implied corollary that boys DO like challenging themselves. So there's an idea taken for granted here about the actual competence of boys vs girls, as well as mental fortitude of boys v girls, neither of which can be supported by biological study (only a social science that ultimately reports on the differences in how boys and girls are socialised differently, so we have a sort of circular reasoning here), and this is the first sexist point within the subtext. If this position is to be taken at face value (it ought not to, but it it were to be), its corollary is that boys should be set on one educational and career path, girls the other, and taken to its conclusion this means that men get a job, women stay at home and look after babies. That's the second sexist point made within the subtext. Her attempts at explaining a phenomenon only serve to reinforce it.

I'm not specially interested in your emotional feelings about what Ms Birbalsingh didn't say. Your emotions about what she didn't say are not necessarily the same as hers (or mine, for that matter) because you and she don't think alike.

There may be no known biological reason why girls are taking A level physics in lower numbers than boys, but surely that means that empirical evidence from a woman who teaches and speaks to these girls is more valuable, not less? If you discount science and discount the experiences of teachers, then all you are left with is educational theory which isn't and cannot be tested.

Could you go through your reasoning again as to why "Girls don't do physics because they find the maths too hard" means "I think women should stay at home and have babies"? I'm sorry, but it seems such a big jump that I need a better step-by-step rationale.

[Spiral]

She's not a moron. Maybe she's someone who disagrees with you, but that doesn't make her a moron.

OK, suppose you're right and these girls who don't take physics are doing it not because they don't like the hard maths, but because their ancestors were told not to do physics. we can't go back and tell their ancestors that they must do physics, it's too late for that.

Have you any evidence for the three conjectures I can detect in your post, that
(1) boys and girls have no biological differences in their brains;
(2) for the last 16 years (let's discount what they were told before they were born) the prevailing ethos in schools has been that girls are different and shouldn't do science;
(3) that teenagers are heavily influenced by their parents and teachers and are inclined to do as they are told?

No, she is a complete moron. It's not about disagreement, she's a fking idiot.

Conjecture 1: the base 'stuff' of the brain of a male and a female is identical. A scientist can look at a brain and know it to be a 'male one' or a 'female one' based only on its grey matter density compared to an aggregate of other known 'male' and 'female' brains (i.e. there's no identifiable characteristic that marks a 'male' brain from a 'female' brain), and the development in the structure of the human's brain is informed by two things: hormonal balance (which is determined by sex organs — not the brain), and environment, by which I mean the person's brain developing by forming neurological connections in response to external stimuli — social interactions, physical sensations, memories.

Conjecture 2: not completely sure what it is you're saying that I'm saying there.

3: A social cue is not didactic as you argue (or rather, seem to be saying I'm arguing, which I'm not). A gender expectation is not some thing a person is explicitly told, but at a very young age people pick up on what gender differences as a social concept are. For example, an adult casually saying to a young girl "that's not very lady like" puts an unspoken expectation on her to behave a certain way: "ladylike". She then seeks out what is "ladylike", and if this idiot teacher — to the young girl, a person of perceived authority — if this moron opens her stupid godforsaken face hole and implicitly suggests physics is "boy-like", this young girl, who is in the process of developing an aversion to "boy-like" things in the process of discovering herself, rejects physics as a topic of interest not because she is intellectually incapable of doing physics, but because she doesn't want to be seen as being "not ladylike". At no point was her gender-expectation-informed aversion to physics made explicitly: at every step of the way it was suggested implicitly, with the girl filling in the blanks along the way.

[CoolClaret]

This is where progressives lose me.

Gender stereotypes can of course influence boys/girls to a large degree and her them to conform to said standards/stereotypes but largely when presented with equal opportunity, girls/boys clearly choose different paths and pass times, with some outliers in both groups.

There’s even a phenomenon known as the ‘gender-equality paradox’ where “The gender-equality paradox is the finding that various gender differences in personality and occupational choice are larger in more gender equal countries.”

This isn’t to say girls or boys should be dissuaded from any career path that they wish to chose from nonsense views like ‘girls not like hard maths’ or whatever because the ones that do chose it do it because they want to and are normally very good at it…

But we also shouldn’t be alarmed when we end up with situations like having 90% + of engineers blokes or whatever.

[Spiral]

Could you go through your reasoning again as to why "Girls don't do physics because they find the maths too hard" means "I think women should stay at home and have babies"? I'm sorry, but it seems such a big jump that I need a better step-by-step rationale.

Don't worry if you're confused dsr, I have a fix. Just look at social attitudes towards men v women from the 1950's and before it. If you have any imagination you will be able to see how designating one gender to an intellectual/academic sphere and the other gender to non- or less-intellectual/academic spheres (for example, something more 'nurturing' or 'creative' *gags*), this restricts a human's potential, both genders, for the woman to be intellectually powerful, and a man to be nurturing or creative.

Anyway, why am I even doing this? You're the kind of social conservative I'm talking about who laps her stuff up, her and others like her. There's literally not a single thing I can type that you'll give serious thought to without shifting the goalposts. You're just a textbook case of a person confused by changing attitudes.

[Spiral]

But we also shouldn’t be alarmed when we end up with situations like having 90% + of engineers blokes or whatever.

I'm just going to comment on this last line because it's the main thing I want to respond to, but if '90% of engineers are men' (to use that emblematically, as a rhetorical turn of phrase, the specifics don't matter so long at the point is preserved about a gender skew), owing to the social dynamics of any environment with such a skew (either towards men or women, doesn't matter), in practical terms it creates a self-perpetuating imbalance unless the environment is changed and the social dynamics are adjusted to remove intangible barriers. For example, few women are going to want to work in an industry where most of her hypothetical colleagues are passing around porn and making sexist remarks (I've worked in engineering places, I know how coarse even highly skilled engineers can be).

[dsr]

No, she is a complete moron. It's not about disagreement, she's a [deleted] idiot.

Surely the hidden subtext behind that comment is that, because she is a woman who has achieved a great deal in her life, but has done it without following the rules of life as laid down by spiral, then you believe that women (or other women, if you are a woman yourself) are (or ought to be) subservient to yourself. This makes you are an utter chauvinist pig of the worst degree.

It's nonsense, but no more nonsensical than yours.

Fact - people who achieve like Birbalsingh has achieved, are not morons. Not even if they disagree with your ideas of intelligence.

[CoolClaret]

I'm just going to comment on this last line because it's the main thing I want to respond to, but if '90% of engineers are men' (to use that emblematically, as a rhetorical turn of phrase, the specifics don't matter so long at the point is preserved about a gender skew), owing to the social dynamics of any environment with such a skew (either towards men or women, doesn't matter), in practical terms it creates a self-perpetuating imbalance unless the environment is changed and the social dynamics are adjusted to remove intangible barriers. For example, few women are going to want to work in an industry where most of her hypothetical colleagues are passing around porn and making sexist remarks (I've worked in engineering places, I know how coarse even highly skilled engineers can be).

So what do you want the outcome to be?

The global phenomenon that I mentioned refers to % of women holding STEM degrees, with a higher % coming in ‘non gender equal countries’

I didn’t specifically mean the work place… but you aren’t going to get women engineers in the workplace if they aren’t choosing said topics in school.

In fact, in my electronics engineering class and other classes in college 100% of the people were male, and to walk to our classroom we have to pas travel & tourism which was 95-100% female.

There’s nothing stopping either gender/sex (I get confused between the two now) in England choosing either (ok maybe a bit of social conditioning when young) but you still get outcomes like that… I don’t think that will ever change if honest and I don’t know what to do about it, nor do I think it should necessarily be viewed as a negative.

For reference at university there was one girl in the entire Electronic/Electrical engineering course.

[Spiral]

Surely the hidden subtext behind that comment is that, because she is a woman who has achieved a great deal in her life, but has done it without following the rules of life as laid down by spiral, then you believe that women (or other women, if you are a woman yourself) are (or ought to be) subservient to yourself. This makes you are an utter chauvinist pig of the worst degree.

It's nonsense, but no more nonsensical than yours.

Fact - people who achieve like Birbalsingh has achieved, are not morons. Not even if they disagree with your ideas of intelligence.

Nah, trust me, that first paragraph is 1000% more nonsensical than anything I've posted on this thread. You're simply shifting the goalposts onto a debate about the definition of a moron because that's a surer footing for you. And there's no hidden subtext behind my saying she'd a moron: I think she's a moron, regardless of what she's achieved in her life. Success is a subjective idea anyway. World's moving past you mate. Waste of my time arguing with you if you're so incapable of countering the points I make that you instead argue the toss over me calling her a moron. Bye.

[dsr]

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/list ... #bob-dylan

Rolling Stone's top 100 songwriters of all time. 10 are women, 6 are partnerships with a woman involved. 84 are men, singly or together. Why? Are girls not brought up to be into music? It may be so, but if someone has other ideas, should they be published so we can have a debate?

[Spiral]

So what do you want the outcome to be?

The global phenomenon that I mentioned refers to % of women holding STEM degrees, with a higher % coming in ‘non gender equal countries’

I didn’t specifically mean the work place… but you aren’t going to get women engineers in the workplace if they aren’t choosing said topics in school.

In fact, in my electronics engineering class and other classes in college 100% of the people were male, and to walk to our classroom we have to pas travel & tourism which was 95-100% female.

There’s nothing stopping either gender/sex (I get confused between the two now) in England choosing either (ok maybe a bit of social conditioning when young) but you still get outcomes like that… I don’t think that will ever change if honest and I don’t know what to do about it, nor do I think it should necessarily be viewed as a negative.

For reference at university there was one girl in the entire Electronic/Electrical engineering course.

I've already argued a few posts back, perhaps pre-emptively it seems, why this might be the case. It's about the social expectation to conform to a gender role. If you want to rebalance, you need to redefine those gender roles, otherwise people are boxed in by their social expectations. I really want to stick to the teacher's comment about girls ding physics, because that kind of thinking is the illness, gender imbalances in any given field the symptom. Look at the cause, not the effect.

[CoolClaret]

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/list ... #bob-dylan

Rolling Stone's top 100 songwriters of all time. 10 are women, 6 are partnerships with a woman involved. 84 are men, singly or together. Why? Are girls not brought up to be into music? It may be so, but if someone has other ideas, should they be published so we can have a debate?

This is entirely different because, well for a starter is a subjective measure and also the barrier for entry for women was a lot higher when a lot of these artists first came on to the scene - not to mention the music business - even to this day, talking execs and songwriters/ghost writers are heavily dominated by men.

[dsr]

I'm just going to comment on this last line because it's the main thing I want to respond to, but if '90% of engineers are men' (to use that emblematically, as a rhetorical turn of phrase, the specifics don't matter so long at the point is preserved about a gender skew), owing to the social dynamics of any environment with such a skew (either towards men or women, doesn't matter), in practical terms it creates a self-perpetuating imbalance unless the environment is changed and the social dynamics are adjusted to remove intangible barriers. For example, few women are going to want to work in an industry where most of her hypothetical colleagues are passing around porn and making sexist remarks (I've worked in engineering places, I know how coarse even highly skilled engineers can be).

Just to add, look at the quote of yours above and pay attention to the subtext. The subtext is important because I feel it is where ideas are emotionally felt; where the text itself is usually understood and comprehended rationally, it is used to carry other ideas under the radar. So your speculations on the idea that girls don't like porn because of the hard [whatever] involved carries within it — in the subtext — the idea that girls don't like to challenge themselves with porn, and this totally unchallenged sub-textual idea carries with it its implied corollary that boys DO like challenging themselves. So there's an idea taken for granted here about the actual lasciviousness of boys vs girls, as well as mental fortitude of boys v girls, neither of which can be supported by biological study (only a social science that ultimately reports on the differences in how boys and girls are socialised differently, so we have a sort of circular reasoning here), and this is the first sexist point within the subtext. If this position is to be taken at face value (it ought not to, but it it were to be), its corollary is that boys should be set on one educational and career path, girls the other, and taken to its conclusion this means that men get a job, women stay at home and look after babies. That's the second sexist point made within the subtext. Your attempts at explaining a phenomenon only serve to reinforce it. [with acknowledgements to spiral who helped with some of the ideas]

I think when arguing that it's wrong to make a statement about how men and women are different, making a statement about how men and women are different doesn't hack it.

[CoolClaret]

I've already argued a few posts back, perhaps pre-emptively it seems, why this might be the case. It's about the social expectation to conform to a gender role. If you want to rebalance, you need to redefine those gender roles, otherwise people are boxed in by their social expectations. I really want to stick to the teacher's comment about girls ding physics, because that kind of thinking is the illness, gender imbalances in any given field the symptom. Look at the cause, not the effect.

Maybe but again that doesn’t explain the phenomenon to which I was referring to - because in countries that are more socially conservative, there’s a higher % of female STEM grads…

[Spiral]

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/list ... #bob-dylan

Rolling Stone's top 100 songwriters of all time. 10 are women, 6 are partnerships with a woman involved. 84 are men, singly or together. Why? Are girls not brought up to be into music? It may be so, but if someone has other ideas, should they be published so we can have a debate?

You're actually quoting the Rolling Stone magazine in support of an argument about gender. If you submitted that as evidence in support of any serious thesis or in any serious debate you'd be laughed straight out of the room. I think you've lost the fking plot. I literally don't even know where to begin, but I think I'd use the word 'spurious' a lot if I were to actually respond.

[Spiral]

Maybe but again that doesn’t explain the phenomenon to which I was referring to - because in countries that are more socially conservative, there’s a higher % of female STEM grads…

I'll defer to your greater knowledge on the matter of STEM grads in foreign countries, but if I were to speculate, could it be even remotely possible that even within those more socially conservative countries successful initiatives have been taken to make the field more appealing to women? Like, for example, NOT having teachers implying girls are dum dums who can't do maths?

[CoolClaret]

I'll defer to your greater knowledge on the matter of STEM grads in foreign countries, but if I were to speculate, could it be even remotely possible that even within those more socially conservative countries successful initiatives have been taken to make the field more appealing to women? Like, for example, NOT having teachers implying girls are dum dums who can't do maths?

No idea - there’s plenty of material on it if you so wish to look for it.

My argument is basically men/women tend to enjoy different things (as a whole) with some overlap and also outliers from each gender/sex as a whole.

I don’t think it’s all necessarily social conditioning either -

I also agree that there should be no discriminatory barrier to entry or dissuasion for anyone willing to seek out any activity/career path etc - as long as any prerequisites are applied across the board.

But I also don’t think we should be that massively concerned when we see certain fields dominated by women or men

[Spiral]

I think when arguing that it's wrong to make a statement about how men and women are different, making a statement about how men and women are different doesn't hack it.

Well it's just as well I'm not making a point about how men and women aren't different, isn't it, and that I'm actually making a point about how men and women (boys and girls) and SOCIALISED differently. I'm at the point where I'm beginning to think this is just too confusing for you — a person who likes the comfort and stability of a neatly organised worldview that does not admit to complexity. How can you read my posts where I argue how boys and girls are socialised differently, and conclude that I'm somehow making the argument that the genders men and women are not socially distinct? The very argument I make that boys and girls are socialised differently presumes those genders are socially distinct. That's not to say it ought to be that way — my argument is that these roles are artificially and arbitrarily created, and can be repressive. How did you even come to the conclusion that I'm somehow attempting to argue that there are no social differences? That contradicts what I'm saying? Or perhaps you're misrepresenting what I'm saying because it's easier to attack the strawman. I think what you sometimes do is obfuscate and conflating gender and biological sex whenever it suits your argument, and you slither back and forth between the two, adopting whatever concept best suits your badly made point. You're either looking for neat, easily digestible conclusions because you lack the intellect to comprehend nuance, of you're just plainly arguing in bad faith, it's one or the other. You think you've just posted a gotcha, but it's like you didn't even read what I posted.

[Spiral]

No idea - there’s plenty of material on it if you so wish to look for it.

My argument is basically men/women tend to enjoy different things (as a whole) with some overlap and also outliers from each gender/sex as a whole.

I don’t think it’s all necessarily social conditioning either -

I also agree that there should be no discriminatory barrier to entry or dissuasion for anyone willing to seek out any activity/career path etc - as long as any prerequisites are applied across the board.

But I also don’t think we should be that massively concerned when we see certain fields dominated by women or men

This is why I made a point of trying to bring this back onto the topic of this teacher's views (and others who share her beliefs). I'm not really that fussed about gender imbalances in STEM, it's way down the list of things that even the most diehard feminist would care about, and so with the greatest respect I won't be looking into it, because 1. that sounds fking tedious, and 2. my gripe is with the backwards quote from this teacher that jdrobbo quoted a bit ago. Everything you describe is a conversation on the symptom. I don't care about the symptom as I do the cause, and it's the cause (the imposition of often repressive gender norms, comments such as this moronic teacher made) that I'm concerning myself with.

[Colburn_Claret]

Most women I know, would rather be hairdressers than mechanics, and most men would rather be mechanics than hairdressers.
I don't believe there is any social conditioning that has led to this reasoning, just Darwens natural selection in progress.
There are obviously men and women who are happy to break this invisible barrier, with great success, and good on them.

Back to subject, if a teacher points out these differences, and uses physics and maths as the example, so what, it really doesn’t matter.
Now if the same teacher told a pupil they couldn't do a given subject because of their sex, then they should be sacked. As far as I'm aware that isn't the case here. People keep adding 2 and 2 together and coming up 6, simply because they don't like the woman. It doesn't matter if she's likable, if she does the job.
During all these differing opinions nobody has said she hasn't done the job of raising the standards in her school.
As jd said, it isn't the only way to run a school, other methods are also just as successful. It's horses for courses here, and the whole argument has been blown out of proportion.

[Spiral]

The last thing I want to say for now before logging off is just to point out how dsr's comment above (which I suspect he thought was hilarious) parodying what I said fundamentally misunderstands my comment speculating on why a woman might be averse to working in a coarse engineering place with a gender balance heavily skewing towards men. He misunderstands it so much that I'm embarrassed even to have to spell it out, I'm embarrassed that he needs every little detail spelling out for him, but basically, the reason a woman might not want to be around a bunch of middle aged engineers passing around porn is not because I'm making any assumption that she has a dislike of porn (which is the strawman dsr has attributed to me in order to call hypocrisy); no, the reason she might not like being around middle aged men passing around porn in because THEY ARE MIDDLE AGED MEN PASSING AROUND PORN.

[jdrobbo]

I have spent quite a long time monitoring her interactions with fellow teachers on social media over the last six or seven months. Many of her tweets have been deleted but a five minute search will guide you to many posts that still remain. The thing that I find disturbing most here is how she appears to treat people within the profession… Like they were dirt on the bottom of her shoe, in some examples.

What I also would like to question is her methodology behind commanding respect. I’m not going to slam it down, because different schools take different approaches, and I dare say there are excellent features within her philosophy, but what I would say, is highlighting social deprivation as a means for extremely strict discipline, is not something that I necessarily agree with….

Clear rules and boundaries - yes… Respect for everyone - yes… Sanctions for lack of compliance - yes. Zero tolerance on a number of issues - yes.

I do feel as though I’m in a good place to comment… I’m just about to finish my 18th year at the same school in an incredibly challenging inner-city area. At some stages throughout this period, my place of work has been situated in an area that has been in the bottom 1% (one percent) nationwide for social deprivation.

It’s tough, it’s bloody tough, but that doesn’t necessarily mean children come to school to be badly behaved or that they’re always hard work.

We give everything we have to give the children the best possible chance and shot at life… everything!

We’ve had boys in our fashion club, children of all ages, playing steel pans… full key stage choirs (120 children), boys in the netball team… Girls in the football team… Opportunities and love, wherever it is possible. Talents nurtured and allowed to blossom.

Our attendance for the last decade has been over 97% in every single year, apart from during the pandemic. This year and last, it’s over 98%. We make our school a place that children like to come.

Our results? They have been above national average for seven of the last eight years… Above national average!!! And as an added extra, many of our children arrive from Eritrean and Ethiopian backgrounds, having barely spoken a word of English before reaching four years of age. Their entry points are as low as they come!!

Suspensions? One child in the last 12 years.

Exclusions? None.

We don’t send children into isolation if they can’t afford their dinner money… we make them something different and we teach them the volume of good food and money!! We trust that they will eventually pay what is owed… And we very rarely have a problem, getting the money back!

There are a number of ways to skin a cat, so please forgive me for not showing much support for this alternative approach. Just because some areas are unbelievably difficult… There are several ways to garner respect. I’d like to think that all the children I have taught, and their parents, will respect me for that!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001nqg5

My school (and its area) has just been on the tv

A bit of context about the area beginning at around 22 minutes 50 seconds

A small bit about my place of work from 33 minutes.

Our Headteacher is seen cutting up food for children who haven’t been taught to hold a knife and fork…she decides not to put any children who have forgotten or can’t pay lunch money in isolation. I may also feature and as the only bloke at school, it doesn’t take a genius! Hard working, well behaved and aspirational children though.

[Rowls]

The latest "Progress 8" scores have been released for 2023.

These score measure how much a school "adds" to a child's education. It is calculated by measuring how well the students have done measured against students of a similar background.

For the second year in a row, the Michaela School under the leadership of Katherine Birbalsingh has achieved the highest score in the country.

Other Free Schools feature prominently in the highest achieving schools in the country.

[Rowls]

The "Us!" has been put on this graph by a staff member of the Michaela School.

[Rowls]

Some other schools that scored highly:



Well done to each and every one of them.

[Rowls]

Given the remarkable success of the Michaela School there's a strong case to be made for adopting their methods and techniques across the country.

It truly is an exceptional school.

But there remains, bizarrely, those who constantly oppose the school. At this stage, when it is so clear how much this school is supporting and improving the lives of these inner city children, the motives of those diametrically opposed to the Michaela School ought to be coming under question.

It was one thing to oppose the school when it was a theoretical idea, but it's entirely different to continue attempting to undermine this school when it is achieving all that it is for some of the poorest children in the country.

There really ought to be cross party support for the school and a willingness to replicate what they are achieving across the country. It isn't that there aren't other good schools out there, it's simply that this school is so outstanding we should be looking very closely at why and how they are achieving this phenomenal success and looking to see how this could be spread further afield.

Children have suffered in recent years with government lockdown restrictions messing with their education but there is an inner-city school providing its pupils with a golden ticket to improve their lives. It should be celebrated, certainly, but more importantly it should be copied across the country.

[Jellybean]

Her point about only giving children and young people brick phones that just text and call making potentially huge govt savings long term has really resonated. Or kids are like zombies these days. How many of our teenagers are seeing the most horrendous things, being bullied and getting caught up so much in social media pressure. Appreciate they would still have laptops etc but I'm with her on the brick phones particularly in the school week.

[Rowls]

Having just been awarded the highest "Progress 8" score in the country for the second year running, effectively making it by that measure the best school in the country, the "New European" website has apparently listed Katherine Birbalsingh in their vulgarly named "Sh*tlist" for 2023.

This is the kind of mindless opposition that I'm on about.

Here is a school headmistress who has set up and established one of if not THE best schools in the country, to the enormous benefit of her inner city intake of kids and what happens?

Do her detractors accept what a good job she has done? They look at her results and think, 'Maybe she knew what she was talking about?' Or even, 'Perhaps her methods ARE worth considering?'

No.

The post her name on their vulgar "Sh*tlist". There is gutter journalism and there is gutter journalism. Why don't they want inner city children to be able to succeed?

Katherine Birbalsingh is doing work of such outstanding success that her opponents only have foul and abusive language left to throw at her.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/the-ne ... list-2023/

[aggi]

Some other schools that scored highly:



Well done to each and every one of them.

I've always wondered why you are so keen for schools to emulate this method rather than the arguably more successful Tauheedul Islam Girls' High School?

I'm assuming it's not just down to her having better PR so why hang your hat on this particular style?

[aggi]

Having just been awarded the highest "Progress 8" score in the country for the second year running, effectively making it by that measure the best school in the country, the "New European" website has apparently listed Katherine Birbalsingh in their vulgarly named "Sh*tlist" for 2023.

This is the kind of mindless opposition that I'm on about.

Here is a school headmistress who has set up and established one of if not THE best schools in the country, to the enormous benefit of her inner city intake of kids and what happens?

Do her detractors accept what a good job she has done? They look at her results and think, 'Maybe she knew what she was talking about?' Or even, 'Perhaps her methods ARE worth considering?'

No.

The post her name on their vulgar "Sh*tlist". There is gutter journalism and there is gutter journalism. Why don't they want inner city children to be able to succeed?

Katherine Birbalsingh is doing work of such outstanding success that her opponents only have foul and abusive language left to throw at her.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/the-ne ... list-2023/

I think it's fair to say that she is judged by the company she keeps and the public image she projects.

If you're going to rock up to something like the National Conservative conference then you are going to get judged on more than your school results.

[dsr]

I've always wondered why you are so keen for schools to emulate this method rather than the arguably more successful Tauheedul Islam Girls' High School?

I'm assuming it's not just down to her having better PR so why hang your hat on this particular style?

Doesn't the Tauheedul Islam Girls' School have strict rules and expects very high standards, too? Their website suggests there may be similarities. (I have no personal knowledge of either school.)

[bfcjg]

The schools mentioned in the Blackburn area have fantastic but ever so rigid discipline that maybe stifles creativity and individual thought. A science teacher once told me that there are strong rumours that certain schools are very good at exam coaching which might be related to storage of examination papers and networking. Not agreeing or disagreeing but a school in one area is brilliant and a mile away one is in special measures what is the real success formula ?

[CoolClaret]

The schools mentioned in the Blackburn area have fantastic but ever so rigid discipline that maybe stifles creativity and individual thought. A science teacher once told me that there are strong rumours that certain schools are very good at exam coaching which might be related to storage of examination papers and networking. Not agreeing or disagreeing but a school in one area is brilliant and a mile away one is in special measures what is the real success formula ?

An important point to make; education should be more than passing exams that's for sure...

Education needs a complete over think

[Rowls]

I've always wondered why you are so keen for schools to emulate this method rather than the arguably more successful Tauheedul Islam Girls' High School?

I'm assuming it's not just down to her having better PR so why hang your hat on this particular style?

No, you’ll find I congratulate all schools on the list and published it here myself.