“This is an interesting article which could be perceived one of two ways, one way would be that its the authority wishing to keep control of underachieving schools and the other is that there could be some very positive benefits if the problems are identified and tackled effectively.”

“Actually, EMP565, I suspect it has more to do with the feedback loop whereby those with families who can afford to do so buy homes in, folr example, West Bridgford because the schools there get better results, thereby both driving up the price of houses there to help keep out those with lower incomes and ensuring that the schools there remain populated by children from more affluent supportive families who do better in schools, thereby maintainingtheir better results.

I am sure there are other factors as well, such as the consequent difficulty of recruiting the best teachers to such difficult environments, and even the difficulty of getting good administrators for the Nottingham school system (if you were good at such a job and had the choice, I am sure most would opt for the more pleasant life of administering Nottinghamshire schools and not having the populous baying for your blood on a regular basis).

Unfortunately, far from "bleedin obvious," nice though it would be to have a simple answer to such a complex and entrenched problem.”

“Article states -

Gill Ellis, director of learning and schools at the council, said: "Mel Woodcock has a high level of expertise. He is known to the local authority, understands systems and our schools, meaning he can hit the ground running."

Well what on earth do we pay Gill Ellis, her considerable salary for if not to have a high level of expertise, understand systems and our schools? She's responsible for improving schools and she's failed. Mr Courrier should be perfomance managing her! Or would he need to buy in a consultant to do that?

There is NO defence for this.”

“When I worked in a Nottingham City Secondary School (which is mentioned above), I saw the best most dedicated staff (including the Head) I have had the fortune to work with. I now work in a leafy South Coast school - which is considered very successful. A few differences:-

In Nottingham large elements of the pupils were vitually lawless, not caring what happened if they ruined lessons for others, abused/assaulted staff, walked out of lessons etc...

There was a very prevelent attitude of being seen as part of the group (often gang) at the cost of education.

The vast majority NEVER did homework and were happy to tell you they wouldn't ever do it.

The level of violence used necessitated all staff receiving "physical intervention training" to protect themselves from accusations (or injury).

The most influential people were often the kids involved in gangs-not staff.

The staff was over run with lesser educated youth workers/mentors who consistently undermined teachers.("She can't help it she has a bad homelife etc...")

Far too many parents (if they could be contacted at all) were unsupportive/uncaring etc.. Without parental support what does a school have?

On top of this 25% of school age children living in Nottm City, left the boundary every day to attend County schools. One assumes, these were supportive parents who cared enough to try to get their kids into "better" schools.

What I will say is this: If the group of staff I worked with in Nottingham 10 years ago were to swap places with the staff here in leafy Sussex, the results here would improve dramatically (and they are already outstanding) and there would be a lot of very scared (yes scared) staff in Nottm.

My 3 years teaching in Nottm were amazing, tough, rewarding and soul destroying (usually in a single day), but I defy any quango/strategic plan to change the above. Unfortunately in parts of Nottm there is an uneduacted underclass who hold little or no aspiration for their children, who are sent to school as a babysitting service. (We see them on Monday evenings appearing on Coppers)

Educate the parents and you can educate the kids!

We were great at sport though!”

“heads of schools get paid a good salary for doing a job. if they fail sack them. why spend money on consultants to do something a head should be doing.”

“Have you ever thought Formerly, that Nottingham City schools may be near the top of the free school meal table precisely because of their consistently appalling educational attainment levels over past decades? Because I have. As John Cleese might say 'Bleedi***viousinit!"

Over decades Nottingham City Council have set for themselves an incredibly low standard in educational attainment, they have then consistently failed to achieve it. Consequences flow from this.”

“I'm not sure what to make of this, except to say that Councillor Owen and Councillor Culley are clearly out of step with each other.

But what I do know is that the Department for Education needs to stop and think.

Not only are academies no longer democratically accountable due to the lack of involvement from the local authority, but academy status is no guarantee of success, as proved late last year when a school in I think Mansfield ended up in special measures within a few months of conversion. In fact, research recently published suggests that academies are more reliant on GCSE equivalents, which the government is devaluing, than the national average.
http://tinyurl.com/7o3jxda

The DFE need to stop these bullyboy tactics and have a serious think, otherwise it could well find itself in the dock yet again.”

“The way this story is presented, it appears that the sole motivation for engaging a consultant is to try and prevent certain schools from slipping out of Council control. Given that there has been friction between central Government and Nottingham City Council in the past there may be some basis for thinking this.

However, as the key thing is surely to improve the schools concerned then we should welcome this move regardless of what has prompted it although I have one major reservation.

According to the article Mr Woodcock's remit would be to 'look at management structures and, if necessary, appoint executive boards including senior council officers and governors. He would help to construct an improvement plan and see if partnerships can be worked with thriving schools.' If that is truly the scope then it is a pity that Ms Ellis and her team are not capable of addressing these fairly basic organisational and improvement issues themselves and save the Council £40,000.”

“You really are a very silly man, harrystotle. I am making no excuses for the City's schools -- as I said, there are other schools in equally deprived areas that perform significantly better. But, as usual, you ignored that because, in addition to being entirely incapable of seeing anything other than black and white yourself, you seem unable to comprehend that others are capable of taking a more balanced view.

As for your nonsense about how I "conveniently forget" the City's private schools raising exam results in my analysis, I can only suggest again that you go back and read what I actually wrote rather than what your simplistic imagination assumed. Since I was comparing the City and County exam results for students entitled to free school meals, very few of whom you will find in the High School or Holygirt, I had, of course, excluded the private schools. And when you compare like with like by looking at the results of students entitled to free school meals, the City outperforms the County.

No amount of your simplistic prejudice and mindless hatred can change basic facts.”

“EMP565 has pretty much nailed it.

As usual FormerlyW is full of excuses for poor performance by the City Council but conveniently forgets to mention that the City's exam results are flattered by the inclusion of our High Schools, Holygirt etc etc, schools that thankfully the City Council has no control over. When the effect of the fee paying schools is removed, the comparison of City v County is very different.

As EMP565 correctly points out - the important factor is the trend and the city schools rose only one place in the performance league tables last year whereas the county schools improved signicificantly.

It would be a crying shame if Nottingham's school children were denied a better education as a result of the Labour council's control freakery and their fear that other organisations will be able to do a far better job of running a school than they can. It's clear from the article what is driving the council's actions here....and it's not poor exam results.”