Ollerenshaw's Facebook Rant

[dave_ragg1984]

Its the snow and ice thats a worse killer on a bike

 

 

Thats where I draw the line. As soon as it snows, I'm getting the bus to work.

[bossrocks]

I believe the state spends around £6,000 a year per pupil. Half of it seems not to reach the school that does the educating.

I'm sure if you divided overall spend by the number of pupils, the cost may even be higher than £6k. I was thinking more along the lines of, how much money would a state school receive in additional funding if you were to send your son there? And therefore how much is the LEA saving by not having to provide that funding?

 

Its criminal that so much of the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant from the DCSF ends up being retained centrally by the council (this isn't a dig at OMBC, it happens everwhere). Cut down on the middle men and get the money into the classroom! Then we might have state schools which can compete with private schools in terms of the quality of education they provide.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Consider the fact that the state also pays to educate people whom it is difficult to educate, whereas as private and public schools do not.

 

Consider also why pupils from those schools do much better on average than you're state school kids.

 

You're welcome - more than welcome - to do what's best for your little 'un. But don't try and justify it by slagging off the state sector on the misperception of its inefficiency.

[opinions4u]

Consider the fact that the state also pays to educate people whom it is difficult to educate, whereas as private and public schools do not.

It's a fair call and, to be honest, not one I'd ever considered.

 

Consider also why pupils from those schools do much better on average than you're state school kids.

There are numerous reasons.

 

You're welcome - more than welcome - to do what's best for your little 'un. But don't try and justify it by slagging off the state sector on the misperception of its inefficiency.

Not sure I did slag off state inefficency.

 

A relatvely small school such as Hulme has inherent inefficiencies caused by size. My main issue with the state system in Oldham is that it seems hell bent on trying to get everybody to achieve average. The net result of which is that the measure of average can only decline over time because half the kids aren't encouraged to stretch themselves, and many of the other half are forced to over-stretch themsevles against their true abilties and end up simply hating education.

 

I'd suggest that the cause of such an approach in the state sector is the way schools are measured / targeted. I think that was something that came out of John Major's regin at no.10 and has changed little since.

 

Of course, the reason for this thread existing does show that private education doesn't guarantee good judgement!

 

Edited March 6, 2011 by opinions4u

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Fair enough!

[bossrocks]

Consider the fact that the state also pays to educate people whom it is difficult to educate, whereas as private and public schools do not.

 

Consider also why pupils from those schools do much better on average than you're state school kids.

 

You're welcome - more than welcome - to do what's best for your little 'un. But don't try and justify it by slagging off the state sector on the misperception of its inefficiency.

I don't know if this was directed at my comment - I wasn't suggesting that state schools are inefficient and I appreciate the enormity of the challenge they face educating many of today's youngsters. I was only saying that the process of funding schools via local authorities, who then retain a proportion of that funding, is inefficient. I'd rather see the funding go direct to the schools where possible.

[leeslover]

O4u does make a valid point, the current set up means its job done if schools pass whatever targets the gov set at any level. So state school pupils dont get into oxbridge on the same ratio as private ones - but did the schools try to get them there? Or were the kids with potential already above the target level so not worth bothering further with?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

O4u does make a valid point, the current set up means its job done if schools pass whatever targets the gov set at any level. So state school pupils dont get into oxbridge on the same ratio as private ones - but did the schools try to get them there? Or were the kids with potential already above the target level so not worth bothering further with?

 

I think - let me just check my pulse - that we agree. We do!

 

Saying that, young Josh (6 foot 5 inches) might have had a better chance of a berth in the boat race than he does of first-team action, but did Hulme push him in the right direction?

[Yard Dog]

I would send my lad to Hulme without a second's hesitation, but for the fact the local Primary School near me is very good so he will go there. Then you want him to go to a secondary school with at least some mates from his Junior 4 class and I can't see that happening if he went to Hulme - would feel tight sending him off to Hulme on his own whilst all his mates went to Crompton House or North Chadd.

 

The thickest person I know went to Hulme. How he has gone through Hulme and finished up as stupid as he is I do not know - the teachers must have despaired.

[maddog]

I would send my lad to Hulme without a second's hesitation, but for the fact the local Primary School near me is very good so he will go there. Then you want him to go to a secondary school with at least some mates from his Junior 4 class and I can't see that happening if he went to Hulme - would feel tight sending him off to Hulme on his own whilst all his mates went to Crompton House or North Chadd.

 

The thickest person I know went to Hulme. How he has gone through Hulme and finished up as stupid as he is I do not know - the teachers must have despaired.

I went to Hulme and was the only person from my junior school to do so. I didn't want to go - I wanted to go to Royton and crompton with all my mates. Best thing I ever did, career-wise. And you make new friends.

 

The thicker ones tended to be the richer ones.

[Dave_Og]

I don't know if this was directed at my comment - I wasn't suggesting that state schools are inefficient and I appreciate the enormity of the challenge they face educating many of today's youngsters. I was only saying that the process of funding schools via local authorities, who then retain a proportion of that funding, is inefficient. I'd rather see the funding go direct to the schools where possible.

I'm a governor of a very small (35 pupils) village primary and I am staggered by the inefficiency imposed by the bureaucracy of central and local government. The headteacher who is head of 2 schools due to the shortage of heads (lord knows what happens when she retires next year) has to be some sort of saint to have put up with the utter adminsitrative nonsense that she has to deal with. It also means that getting people to volunteer as governors is very difficult.

[latic12345]

O4u does make a valid point, the current set up means its job done if schools pass whatever targets the gov set at any level. So state school pupils dont get into oxbridge on the same ratio as private ones - but did the schools try to get them there? Or were the kids with potential already above the target level so not worth bothering further with?

 

I agree with this. When I was there, Hulme had an "Oxbridge" supplementary programme. It was voluntary for those interested and would brief you on colleges, give interview prep, help you write the application form etc etc. It was pretty good and meant that typically upto 6 students per year would get in. Not that bad a ratio really (there's somewhere between 50 and 60 in each 6th form year though).

 

I can concur that Hulme isn't full of lots of swots and clever types though. When I went, there were two ways in:

 

Going to the prep and "graduating" to the senior school

Taking the entrance exam

 

Those who went to the prep did alright, but just because they were clever at 7 when they entered the prep, doesn't mean they're clever at 16/18. Same applies to the entrance exam. Some would pass at 11 but it doesn't mean they take the opportunity. I can also agree with Maddog, typically those that didn't take the opportunity were those that probably didn't need to.

[beag_teeets]

Well, this thread has taken a turn from a young lad doing what pretty much every other young lad does these days.

 

As for the Head mentioned in the post above mine, I've worked in both the public and private sector, currently in the public and I heard something the other day that rings true in the case of this head. In the private sector, they can not afford for any person to become indispensable, single point of failure and all that. However, in the public sector, they can not afford for you not to be indispensable, if you aren't indispensable then you aren't doing the job properly.

[Lisa]

 

its not the pupils who go there/have been there's fault that their parents could afford/decided to send them there, they're 'told' to go there in effect as more often than not their parents decide, should they be so able as to have a choice to make regards their education.

 

Not an attack on you - you can obviously say what you like - but i get slightly wound up by this perception that people who have been to grammar school are 'posh' or 'clever' - trust me, the actual kids who do attend are you're average lad in the street, just that they have been given an opportunity by their parents - a lot of them don't take it. )

 

Although some 11 year olds have their own brain and make their own choice of which school they would like to go to, nothing to do with the amount of cash their parents have!

 

I went to Hulme and was the only person from my junior school to do so. I didn't want to go - I wanted to go to Royton and crompton with all my mates. Best thing I ever did, career-wise. And you make new friends.

 

The thicker ones tended to be the richer ones.

 

Good job you're not rich then!!

[Bristolatic]

I'm an ex Hulme pupil from the 1950s and I guess it's changed a hell of a lot since then. It didn't have a prep in those days so I went to Werneth Prep (God, that was an odd place!). If I ever have one regret in life, it was that I gave up even trying at school when I was about 14 or so. End result? Not one 'O' Level, wasted all the teachers' time, cost my (not very well off) parents a packet and never fulfilled any potential I may have had.

 

Those who know me will know I'm anything but posh and I'm far from thick, but I wasted an excellent education, which was what Hulme offered. I learnt from it, though, and made sure that the first Mrs Bristolatic & I gave our two children the best education even though we were never very well off. It paid off and I've got a son, daughter and 5 grandsons that anyone would be proud of.

 

This probably repeats what many have already said, but one thing stands out. Young Master Ollerenshaw has had a bloody good education (assuming he applied himself) and has a job most of us would do for nothing. He won't have been earning a fortune, but surely he would have had a couple of quidsworth of rainy day money put by. He only had to wait a matter of days and should have had more intelligence than to vent his spleen so publicly.

 

If Hulme taught him anything, he has forgotten about how to behave in the big, wide world. And that was part of what Hulme was all about; it taught you values. Have a long, hard look at yourself, young Joshua, and learn from this. You're a big boy now. If you demonstrate this attitude at the club on a daily basis, perhaps that's why you're at Mossley, Salford and the like. Grow up a bit, son, and you just might have a career. Maybe.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Bristolatic

[latic12345]

I'm an ex Hulme pupil from the 1950s and I guess it's changed a hell of a lot since then. It didn't have a prep in those days so I went to Werneth Prep (God, that was an odd place!). If I ever have one regret in life, it was that I gave up even trying at school when I was about 14 or so. End result? Not one 'O' Level, wasted all the teachers' time, cost my (not very well off) parents a packet and never fulfilled any potential I may have had.

 

Those who know me will know I'm anything but posh and I'm far from thick, but I wasted an excellent education, which was what Hulme offered. I learnt from it, though, and made sure that the first Mrs Bristolatic & I gave our two children the best education even though we were never very well off. It paid off and I've got a son, daughter and 5 grandsons that anyone would be proud of.

 

This probably repeats what many have already said, but one thing stands out. Young Master Ollerenshaw has had a bloody good education (assuming he applied himself) and has a job most of us would do for nothing. He won't have been earning a fortune, but surely he would have had a couple of quidsworth of rainy day money put by. He only had to wait a matter of days and should have had more intelligence than to vent his spleen so publicly.

 

If Hulme taught him anything, he has forgotten about how to behave in the big, wide world. And that was part of what Hulme was all about; it taught you values. Have a long, hard look at yourself, young Joshua, and learn from this. You're a big boy now. If you demonstrate this attitude at the club on a daily basis, perhaps that's why you're at Mossley, Salford and the like. Grow up a bit, son, and you just might have a career. Maybe.

 

I agree with most things in here especially the bit about Hulme teaching good values. However, I would never play for Oldham for nothing. If I had no other source of income and they said come and play for nothing, I wouldn't do it. No matter how much you love the club, you'd be rubbish if you couldnt eat ;-)

[slystallone]

snip snip the Hulme Stuff!

 

 

You're a big boy now. If you demonstrate this attitude at the club on a daily basis, perhaps that's why you're at Mossley, Salford and the like. Grow up a bit, son, and you just might have a career. Maybe.

 

This is it for me.

 

I was actually pretty surprised that during the January ‘deadwood’ clearing that young Josh wasn’t part of it TBH.

Penney (for all that counts for) and now Dickov evidently don’t feel he is anywhere near ready for our 1st team – and when an opportunity has occurred where JO could have made the bench; PD has preferred to name a 37 year old GK coach with shattered Knee’s instead of him. The level of sides he’s gone out on loan to also speaks volumes too – no offence to followers of Mossley or Salford – but a young ‘Keeper hoping to make it at L1 level should surely be of a standard to push for Blue Square or possibly even a L2 side even?

 

I can’t help but think that Josh is destined for the likes of Staylebridge, FC United, Ashton, Hyde, Droylsden or other ‘local’ non-league; semi pro sides in the very, very near future. Even before his ill-advised & poorly thought out FriendFace * rants.

 

 

(* copyright IT Crowd!)

[singe]

Interesting clarification on the 'Fishul.

That they were told when they were going to be paid, that they were told by PDi fithere were any worries about Direct debits (source of young Josh's rant) then go and see the Chairman or even PD himself.

And that 9 other teams paid their players late.

I fully acknowledge how annoying it is not to get paid, and I never assumed JO's parents were laoded just because he went to Hulme, but it makes JO rant look even sillier now.

Not the only ones

[Bristolatic]

I agree with most things in here especially the bit about Hulme teaching good values. However, I would never play for Oldham for nothing. If I had no other source of income and they said come and play for nothing, I wouldn't do it. No matter how much you love the club, you'd be rubbish if you couldnt eat ;-)

To be honest, I was using poetic licence. It was illustrating how most of us would give anything to be a pro footballer. PD is right when he says it's the best job in the world. It was all I ever wanted, to pull on that blue and white shirt - well, a green one, actually, but you get the point. It didn't happen for me, but it has (pretty much) for Josh and he needs to grab it, literally, with both hands.

[latic12345]

To be honest, I was using poetic licence. It was illustrating how most of us would give anything to be a pro footballer. PD is right when he says it's the best job in the world. It was all I ever wanted, to pull on that blue and white shirt - well, a green one, actually, but you get the point. It didn't happen for me, but it has (pretty much) for Josh and he needs to grab it, literally, with both hands.

 

And I was annoyingly extending the base logic in your post knowing full well you were using poetic licence. You make a very valid point. One that is even strong if he is a fan*

 

 

*I dont know if this is true or not

[bossrocks]

I'm a governor of a very small (35 pupils) village primary and I am staggered by the inefficiency imposed by the bureaucracy of central and local government. The headteacher who is head of 2 schools due to the shortage of heads (lord knows what happens when she retires next year) has to be some sort of saint to have put up with the utter adminsitrative nonsense that she has to deal with. It also means that getting people to volunteer as governors is very difficult.

I've been on the other side of it myself - I used to work for Lancashire County Council's Education department and was always frustrated by their inefficiency. I worked with some very competent people but the general attitude seemed to be that trying to make things more efficient was almost derided and ridiculed.