Jamie's Dream School

[MarathonMama]

Has there been a thread about this already because I really need to rant...

Is anyone else watching this and getting annoyed? The sense of entitlement these kids (and Jamie!) have drives me mad, they seem to think their education should be handed to them on a plate, with no personal effort or accountability. I can't see how instilling a belief that the education system has failed them and it's got nothing to do with their attitude or behaviour is going to help them in later life?

I really wish someone would give them some home truths instead of pandering to their whims.

Rant over

Glad to see people enjoying the behaviour Guru blog, I love it!

The thing that made me most mad about the final episode was Alistair Campbell being undermined by the Head. Of course Angelique shouldn't have been allowed to go on the trip. I'm amazed to say my respect for Alistair Campbell has shot up through watching this series as he actually showed some understanding of what teaching is like and how to handle the students. I particularly liked his earth shattering realisation that teachers couldn't hang around talking to the kids for hours because they had, shock horror, another lesson to teach; the others didn't seem able to make this massive conceptual leap. These kids are being done no favours by being allowed to walk all over all the adults they come across, quite the reverse.

I am extremely annoyed with this show. These kids who have no respect for anyone get the privilege of all of these amazing experiences and have done nothing to deserve it. What kind of lesson is that? What kind of message does it send to all the kids who have worked hard?

And that Harlem kid - what a spoilt, selfish, egotistical little creature. Even by the end of the show, she'd learnt absolutely nothing. In fact, her ego had grown even bigger; the mum should be absolutely ashamed of herself for sticking up for her daughter in that fight with the headteacher - no wonder the girl has turned out like that. Its not like its a normal school - she's been kicked out of all of them already!!

To sum up, Jamie Oliver was way off track with this show. Its unsustainable and not scalable. The only thing that needs to be changed in the education system is to teach ppl how to be proper parents and discipline their children. The show would have been a million times more successful if it was a boot camp show. You need to break them before you can build them up again.

Why be annoyed? The general public can now see exactly what teachers deal with day in, day out. Not that Harlem is representative of all school children without GCSEs. She was selected for a reason.

I'm annoyed because the kids didn't deserve or appreciate the privileges that were spoon-fed to them - even if it was to make a point. There are easier ways to show the general public how these kids behave; besides I think the general public is already aware of it - seeing that noone dares stand up to them on public transport.

This society is far too liberal for my liking - and we can see the kind of youth it is breeding. Everyone is scared to put them in their place.

They would have specifically selected these kids for the behaviour that they displayed. It made good TV.

I'm not so sure c0rns1lk. I dont think Jamie Oliver is that manipulative, or smart (if I was to base his intelligence on this current idea of "fixing" the education system). I dont want want to believe he would exploit children in this way - no matter how badly they've turned out.

At the end of the day, these kids just need a good kick up the backside. For example, world's strictest parents. Now that was a good idea - which is why a bootcamp and compulsory/forced/whatever-you-want-to-call-it community service scheme would work. Would people in this forum consider me 'extreme' if i said the army should be disciplining these kids?

I would - why the army?

I would consider you extreme too, rin 1. I haven't been able to watch all of the programmes but it's pretty clear a lot of these kids haven't been spoon fed with pushy parents poring over their personal organisers from school and driving them to oboe lessons after school. Why would anyone say they haven't 'deserved' this chance. What I did see was the credits rolling on Wednesday telling viewers what most of the kids were going on to do and my immediate response was to think well done, both to JO and to his teachers and to the kids. Nana Kwame, three university offers for computer science: great lad, bloody good for him. Good luck to all them, poor kids.

@c0rns1lk: I suggested the army because we have a lot of soldiers out of work, and I think they'll make good role models and command discipline. Using the army is a model which is scalable to a whole society of disrespectful teens, unlike JO's approach, and the army approach can be extended to those kids who don't even want to enrol in such educational programmes.

@Yellowstone:
An interesting reply, but I dont quite see your point. The whole reason they have turned out like this is because they didn't have pushy parents or anyone to guide them properly. As the show proved, tiptoeing around them didn't do a thing. As for Nana Kwame (and that girl who stuck out the Biosphere), they were the minority. Using kid gloves hasn't and doesn't work with these kids.

I think the majority of them don't 'deserve' the chance because 'their cup is full'. They think they know everything already and that attitude means they simply aren't capable of appreciating what they have. There are some children in this country who eat up every ounce of knowledge and experience they can get, and many thousands of children in other countries who walk miles through dirt in bare feet to get to understaffed "schools" taught by teachers with very limited knowledge. Here everything is handed to them on a platter and they act like royalty who believe they deserve it and more.

Poor kids? I think if you contrast them with actual poor kids, you'll see they're just spoilt kids.

What about all the others just like them?

I said poor kids because they've all been let down or sold short by something or someone. And they are still kids. From the snatches of the programmes I saw, there were few who didn't have something engaging about them.

rin1 why do you suppose some ex-soldiers find it hard to get work? I would say that soldiers trying to adjust to a non-institutionalised world are particularly poorly placed to help kids who are rudderless like these.

You are right yellowstone, they are still kids - their behaviour and attitude shows that. But the timeframe for calling them 'kids' is running out very quickly, and very soon they will just be lazy adults claiming benefits from a society that overtaxes its members already. I'm don't disagree when you suggest something must have happened for them to turn out this way, but for how long are they going to get away with keeping this attitude. The soft approach clearly isn't working, and something has to be done that is scalable to a whole society and isn't going to cost a fortune (as Jamie Oliver's programme did).

I was suggesting that the soldiers might be better placed to instil structure into these kids than someone who is from the non-institutionalised world, as you put it. Now that I think about it, it seems that these soldiers are ideally placed for this job - they know structure first hand, and keeping some of this structure (as bootcamp style teachers/disciplinarians) might help them transition more easily into the non-institutionalised world. What do you think?

Some of the kids were quite nice kids. Nana Kwame was a good kid who just needed a brake as per the girl from Bangladeshi background and one of the single moms. Some of the others needed a kick up the ass including Harlem and Henry who I would suggest has just smoked to much skunk. Not a good advert for legalisation. He was obviously from a well off family as were some of the others. The well off kids for me just waited their upbringing and were spoilt rotten. The ones who really appreciated the help were the poorer kids who saw the opportunity and grabbed it. For me for anything good to come of it, some of these really inspiring teachers should go and work in some of the really needy comps in rough areas where mentors are really needed to inspire the kids.

bitsy I didn't see enough of the series to judge each kid. The big name teachers on the programme aren't career teachers so won't realistically be going to work in needy comps. It's ironic that the Headteacher of Westminster School wanted to do exactly that but (last I read in the paper) has had that ambition scuppered by red tape (some qualification he's missing is preventing him working in the state sector despite his distinguished career). I definitely agree that inspirational teaching is exactly what's needed, at school level.

rin1 have you any connection with the army at all? I used to. Ex-servicemen who can't find work have problems of their own, often complicated. So what I think is: bad idea.

"some of these really inspiring teachers" which ones were they?

I agree that mentoring from them might be helpful, but aside from Alvin and Alistair who had potential, their teaching skills were atrocious!

I know plenty of truly inspiring teachers who work in needy comps, unfortunately teaching hundreds of kids each day means it's impossible to give the individual attention these kids crave.

I agree that they are not very good teachers but if Cherie Blair came into the local comp to teach a class or two and talk about becoming a lawyer, this would mean a lot. She was not from a particularly wealthy background and worked her way up in a traditional private school occupation. Ok they may not learn a lot academically in that session but surely the mentoring aspect of that would be worth it. I still remember some of the visitors we had at school (nobody famous apart from the local MP) and kids take that in more sometimes than their normal teacher. Probably not best to send in the history teacher but what about somebody like Daly Thomson teaching a sports class.

If that's typical of a state school head than goodness for private school heads and the parents and teachers with the Sarkey type views. Illustrates what we pay for. The attitudes were amazing and totally different from what you get in the private sector (just those children anyway). JO kept saying how bright there were - most of them weren't bright and eeryone all their lives will have been telling them how great they are to bolster their self esteem when they need to be squashed, told when they aren't good enough and then helped to get to school on time and sit silently.

The girl interested in being a lawyer might have potential but she's probably left it 10 years too late to start getting top grades. What they need most is to learn that you work for hours learning stuff off by heart or practising at whatever it might be you're going to get on in just about anything and you need to persist and persist.

A few language classes and elocution might also help a lot of them get on sadly as some were so incoherent even if the ideas they had and brains were good people could be turned off by the way they speak.

JO knows perfectly well he got on because he worked much harder than most other people (ditto me and most others who do well - it's mostly effort not talent - you put off until tomorrow what you might want today and it's doing that that helps most). It was that inability to ensure delayed gratification of some but not all of them which was the interesting bit and the fact they were given last chances and basicalyl taught play up and then wheedle your way out of things and you'll always be okay and that bad behaviour doesn't matter. Those were the lessons being taught at the end of the day.

Xenia do you mean Starkey or sarky?

And do you really believe that everyone has been telling these kids all their lives how great they are? I'd put money on the fact that they've been told either that they're rubbish or that the world is rubbish - I didn't get the impression that they were suffering from heightened levels of self-esteem, just that they were all in a bit of a mess.

I also don't understand why in so many threads you advocate elocution lessons. Different accents are part of British culture and always have been. It would be a very mean thing to lose the rich variety of accents that we have here today, whether indigenous British or here from abroad.

Lastly I do hope success isn't based more on hard work than on talent. Lots of people who bang on about that being the key are excruciatingly pompous and dull. Long live the primacy of talent!

@Yellowstone
I do have some friends who served in the army, but they were not on the front line. I also have friends who have done military service (again, not front line) in other countries (because it was compulsory), and in general, they say it gave them an alternative view of life. I do appreciate some ex-servicemen have a lot of trouble adjusting back to normal life, but its important not to generalise this to all servicemen. Of course I am not advocating that we take them straight from the front line and put them in schools - that would be idiotic. I am saying that the majority of people who have served in the army are disciplined and understand structure very well. Without jumping to the extreme cases, I put it to you that a large number of soldiers out there are ready to start work, and with appropriate training, we could have a large number of needed disciplinarians in our many problem schools.

@Xenia
What a relief to read your reply. I was beginning to think everyone was blind and deaf when watching JO's programme. For their age, these kids are not bright at all! If people here truly and honestly thought they were 'bright' then standards have seriously dropped in the UK. Maybe people are using the wrong word - maybe people meant to use the word 'have potential'. But if thats the case then its a bit of an empty statement because everyone has potential.

If you go to some top schools in the UK - thats where you'll really see the massive gap between what kids that age should be achieving. Luckily, I think if these kids did choose to start working hard now, they would be able to "catch up". Of course, I seriously doubt they would catch up with any of the hard workers in their peer group, but they could compete with people 2-3 years younger than them. I think thats right too: that is the penalty for being idle, otherwise it wouldn't be fair on those who worked hard their whole lives.

@Yellowstone (again)
I agree, these kids probably havent been told they're great or been guided as much as some hard working kids. But its no good trying to make up for it now, especially when its not true. They're not great or bright or whatever words you choose to praise them. They need to be told, that success comes from hard work and the reason they are not successful now is because they have not been working hard. But, its not too late and they can start working hard and become successful. If they dont want to listen, then I think it should be forcefully drilled into them, because I dont want to pay for their benefits and they need to make themselves useful.

Are we calling this 'street talk' an accent now? And even worse are we calling it an accent worth keeping? Words/phrases like "innit", "brap", "wo'evaaa", "safe brotha" - if these were used in an interview, or if I was working with someone who spoke like that, they wouldnt get very far at all.

Finally, I'm in complete disagreement with your last sentence. A talented musician is 'talented' because he has spent years of his life practicing, learning, understanding and working hard, not because of the small head-start he was born with. If we lived in a world where 'raw talent' was everything, how unfair would that be? Either you're born with it, or you're a failure.

No, I prefer the real world we live in, where even though some people are born with head starts, a hard working individual without that head start can equal the 'talented' (in the general case).

rin1, apart from your army point, which I am sceptical of (if ex servicemen want to become teachers, they can apply and train like the rest of us. I'm sure some would make excellent teachers) I agree with your post wholeheartedly.

And Xenia, I can assure you that no state headteacher I have come across (10 years teaching in state sector) has ever been in the least bit like 'D'Abbs'. I can only assume he was hired for his general ineffectualness to ensure there was enough bad behaviour to make the programme interesting.

@qumquat
I think teaching is an extremely important job in society and teaching positions should be rewarded only to individuals who understand their subject in depth and are passionate about their subjects. Even then, finding a teacher who can really break down knowledge and communicate it to children in bitesize chunks is hard. (I remember watching a different 4oD documentary about a whole school of teachers who didnt even know the material they were teaching and relying on teacher supplements).

I dont think I've ever advocated making ex-servicemen teachers (in general). I've been saying they should be disciplinarians. Maybe it wont work in all schools too, but I think they would be especially suited in problem schools. Basically, if kids are repeatedly misbehaving in class or being a disruption, then they are sent on some kind of programme with disciplinarian who will serve out punishments (e.g., writing lines, some pushups, running a few laps or something and reinstill structure) - kind of like a period of rehabilitation. These unruly kids would very quickly learn they have it better off sitting quietly, learning and participating in the lesson than causing disruptions. I know it does sound a bit old-fashioned, but I really think things have gotten too liberal. And its more unfair when these kids stop other kids from learning.

There is a new scheme like teach first to get soldiers into schools I thought so it's a real plan not just a proposal on here.

Most children who want to work in poor schools say the thing that would help them most is if the other children in class would simply shut up and be made to be quiet so they could hear the lesson properly. I'm not suggesting teenagers are wonderful things in some schools. I've lived with 3 so far and they can be pretty difficult whatever school they are at but I certainly found the indulgent attitude towards these children very very different from what you might get in most private schools. Ther'#s no need to be so nice to children. In the real world of work (if they are lucky enough ever to get there) they will have to cope with turning up on time. I know someone who employs lots of ex offenders etc. Some are astounded when they're told yes you do have to be at work at 8am every day and you can't just decided to come in at 11 one day and if you do you lose your job. In other words some children have been failed by nothing having parents and schools who make it clear what's expected to them.

of course this is just one TV show and had to be good theatre and a lot oc dhilren have difficulties because of abuse at home or their own internal conditoins and the like but the one abiding issue that came out of this was lack of rules and lack of silence.

i blogged about Dream school including a summary if youd find it hepful? it here - leejackson.org/2011/04/jamie%E2%80%99s-dream-school-final-comments-from-a-professional-schools-speaker-dreamschool/