Governors and Head of a Sheffield school have gone one step further in political correctness dropping the word "School " from its title after governors decided the term has "negative connotations". for parents of attending pupils

it is now officially known as a PLACE FOR LEARNING

Whistles and bells have been scrapped. The Head has banned the word school from use.

Other suggestions put forward for the Governors consideration included

Knowledge navigators .Teachers
Education Centre Nourishment...... Production Assistant Dinner Ladies
Detention........Reflection Periods
Libraries........Idea Stores


However, there were no negative vibes, connotations, for the word or use of a SLIPPER, children are to wear slippers instead of shoes,


To keep up with the ridiculous, maybe future posts and threads to this forum should only use politically correct terminology when referring to Places of Learning, we wouldnt want to offend the PC brigade or any visitors to the estimable forum (Im sure you can come up with something suitable )



Ketta

Come on Ketta! Although your postings have been factual to date surely you don't expect anyone to swallow this nonsence after having been so recently duped by Ms Snooze?

Well ...

The headteacher of Sheffield's Watercliffe Meadow, Linda Kingdon, said the south Yorkshire school, which is due to open on Monday, will instead be called a "place for learning".

From The Grauniad 2nd January 2009, online link here!

KK

Believe it or not, this was in the tabloids last week-front page of the Currant Bun & inside in the Mirror.

I wonder if this is a little brat-trap in disguise. Why else are children to be wearing slippers instead of shoes? There's also no new nomenclature at hand for these items. Teacher, sorry, educational guidancer, will no doubt follow suit in the footwear fashion of the day.

And then Mummy & Daddy can do so, too. Wouldn't it be nice if the result was some thoroughly hard slipperings in front of the class which the EG and parents take off THEIR slippers before the brats are made to take their clothes off for getting their just desserts!

Sorry, I meant Parenting Advisors in the first setence of Para 3, provided the latter of these has been duly identified by the organisation for which I used to be employed.


Steve M

This is on-topic, but out of thread, so I hope that Doctor Dominum visits here!

Doctor Dominum, in the hectic flurry of Steve's Soooze Scandal I omitted to take issue with you over your revelation in the 'Being a Victim' thread that:

I'm lucky 'Soooze' is not one of my students. If they manage to trick me, I have to give them a Mars Bar.

I am deeply shocked, Doctor. I had always thought of you as a man of the highest professional standards, whose concern for the well-being of his students was the guiding impulse of his waking hours. And yet here you are giving them Mars bars! Are you not aware of the terrible threat that your thoughtless action poses to their future health? I fear that here in the UK you'd probably be drummed out of the teaching profession for such a heinous crime!

Happily our government is well aware of the hideous dangers to children posed by people like yourself. Our finance and industry may grind to a halt and the population be smitten by mass unemployment due to said government's economic mismanagement, but the nation's children shall not be allowed to be exposed to the dangers of obesity and chocolate addiction!

Teachers and dinner ladies have been ordered to check the contents of their pupils lunch boxes for contraband items like chocolate, see the press report here. In addition the last few recalcitrants like yourself are being hunted down and prevented from continuing their thoughtless actions as detailed in this report.

Of course, my concerns may be unfounded. I doubt your pupils manage to trick you very often, so their waistlines are probably quite safe!

I am deeply shocked, Doctor. I had always thought of you as a man of the highest professional standards, whose concern for the well-being of his students was the guiding impulse of his waking hours. And yet here you are giving them Mars bars! Are you not aware of the terrible threat that your thoughtless action poses to their future health? I fear that here in the UK you'd probably be drummed out of the teaching profession for such a heinous crime!

I seem to detect a little sarcasm in your message, A_L. Is it just possible that you're not particularly enamoured of the way things are concerning this issue in the UK?

The fact is, if I taught in a state school here, I'd have the same type of problem. There's grave concern about the presence of 'junk food' in our schools here, and government schools have been more or less forced to prevent its sale in their school canteens and to prevent teachers distributing lollies are rewards. There's a great deal of pressure on independent schools to do the same (and this is one of those areas where the 2006 Education and Training Reform Act probably gives the government power to compel us if they choose to). We have, at our school, modified our tuck shop menus somewhat in response to these pressures (we've added a lot more 'healthy' options and somewhat restricted some items identified as particularly unhealthy - but we still maintain tuck shop choices that would not be allowed in state schools. And, yes, some teacher give out lollies or similar at times.

Happily our government is well aware of the hideous dangers to children posed by people like yourself. Our finance and industry may grind to a halt and the population be smitten by mass unemployment due to said government's economic mismanagement, but the nation's children shall not be allowed to be exposed to the dangers of obesity and chocolate addiction!

Yes - interestingly, it's just recently been concluded that Australia doesn't have an obesity crisis in our schools - after several years of constantly being told that we did. Apparently the research that caused panic and lead to wholesale reform surrounding food in schools was flawed.

Teachers and dinner ladies have been ordered to check the contents of their pupils lunch boxes for contraband items like chocolate, see the press report here. In addition the last few recalcitrants like yourself are being hunted down and prevented from continuing their thoughtless actions as detailed in this report.

We do spend lessons with our junior boys analysing and discussing the contents of their lunchboxes and ensuring they understand the importance of an overall healthy diet. We've been doing that for decades. I actually don't think that's a bad idea but there's nothing wrong with children having some food that isn't 100% healthy. If a child has a healthy balance diet most of the time, treats do no harm.

Of course, my concerns may be unfounded. I doubt your pupils manage to trick you very often, so their waistlines are probably quite safe!

I don't get tricked that often, but it's only one of the things I have to hand out Mars Bars for. If any boy approaches me and asks me to, I have to give him his name, house, form, and tutor. If I can't, he gets a Mars Bar (unless he's an identical twin - then he only gets it if I can't name him and his brother's details). If I violate one of my lab safety rules, no matter how small, I have to buy the entire class a Mars Bar.

I used food a lot with my students, I have for many years. I've often said that McDonald's is one of the greatest inventions I ever discovered running a boarding house. It's a wonderful comfort food for a boy who needs a bit of TLC that isn't of a type a big, tough teenager needs to resist for reasons of credibility.

Nothing wrong with it occasionally - and certainly not a cause for concern in a school which requires ninety minutes of sports training twice a week after school, and Saturday morning sport, on top of the normal PE requirements of just about any school here, not to mention the incidental exercise they get walking around (because they would never run indoors) the school, which is not of a modern, efficient, design.

I seem to detect a little sarcasm in your message, A_L. Is it just possible that you're not particularly enamoured of the way things are concerning this issue in the UK?

Absolutely correct Doctor! Over here political correctness and the nanny state are combining in a deadly embrace to rob the population of any initiative or self-reliance. Any problem is always someone else's fault and dealing with it is always someone else's responsibility. It's not that I'm bitter and twisted you understand, just old enough to remember when things worked properly and people and organisations held themselves accountable for their own actions.

Mc Dons is possibley the best example of the worst in a company.
Absolutely no food value except calories.
Animal cruelty.
Exploitation of children.
Environmental waste producing ( packaging )
Anyone who eats a second after trying one needs their brains testing.

Mc Dons is possibley the best example of the worst in a company.

Yes, well, in Australia at least, McDonald's is the major sponsor of the sporting activity (Little Athletics) that gives more children from less advantaged backgrounds an opportunity to compete in athletic sports than any other, thus helping to reduce one of the historical disadvantages poorer children in this country have had to deal with for decades. They also provide a massive amount of support to children, and the families of children, who are dealing with life threatening illnesses and I've personally seen the huge value of that with several of my stricken students over the years. They have negatives and they have positives about them.

Absolutely no food value except calories.

This one simply isn't true. Certainly you can't live on McDonald's alone, but as one meal a week or so in a balanced diet, McDonald's works quite well.

When I buy McDonald's for one of my students, it's normally a Cheeseburger Happy Meal or a Medium Big Mac Meal.

A Cheeseburger Happy Meal generates about 31% of a person's daily energy needs. 35% of their protein needs. 38% of their fats. 25% of their carbs. 33% of their sugars.

That's all fine as part of a balanced diet and comprises quite a lot of food value. Roughly a third of a persons DIs in many areas, which is reasonably appropriate for something that should be viewed as one of a persons three meals a day. You probably shouldn't have it on a daily basis, but it is OK occasionally.

Big Mac Meal - a somewhat different story.

48% of a person's daily energy needs. 58% of their protein needs. 62% of their fats. 36% of their carbs. 47% of their sugars.

Those numbers are high - way too high for such a meal to be a daily event in a persons life. But once a week for a highly active boy wouldn't do them any harm.

Animal cruelty.

Again, I can only speak for Australia - but McDonald's Australia sources most of its meat locally and has to comply with the same regulations on animal treatment as any other company.

Exploitation of children.

It's my job to make sure my students aren't exploited, and I don't believe they are being, when I buy a boy a Big Mac meal because his grandmother has died and he needs some time with a grownup who needs to show they care.

Environmental waste producing ( packaging )

I'll give you that one - but they're better than most here.

Anyone who eats a second after trying one needs their brains testing.

I don't think I do. I don't particularly like Maccas myself, though will eat it with a boy, or if I'm in a hurry - but I take my students welfare very seriously. All joking aside, when you help to run a boarding school, you do worry about the pupil's diet. I'm not cavalier about this - that's why I have those numbers. I wouldn't give a student anything I felt would negatively impact their health, and I don't want McDonald's being a regular meal for them. But sometimes it's handy - and when I'm dealing with a boy in distress, especially so. If he's grieving, then, frankly, I don't give a damn for his vitamin intake that night.

D D you really are amazing.
The company does these things as part of its P R image and advertising campaign aimed at explotation of the young.
I am absolutely flumoxed by your naivety.
The food is absolute rubish and leaves one hungry within half an hour ( because it has no bulk) but full of calories
The quick fix of suger etc within the 2 minutes it takes to eat the thing leaves kids hyper.
No wonder you have to cane so many, perhaps they are all hyper on junk food.
Not forgetting that their "meal deals" that have sugar stuffed Coke or "smoothies".
Do you not understand why there are so many fat kids that become fat adults. Its because of fast food marketed by saturation advertising.

I'm with you on this one, Mimi. I was once persuaded to partake of a McDonald's milkshake. They were the only place open when we needed some refreshment, and my companion insisted the milkshakes were great.

I felt so nauseated after drinking the darn thing it almost spoilt the day's climbing. Strangely it didn't seem to affect my climbing partner, even though he had two of them!

D D you really are amazing.

Thank you.

The company does these things as part of its P R image and advertising campaign aimed at explotation of the young.

If the young are exploited by advertising, it's because their elders aren't protecting them well enough, and as they get older, educating them well enough so they can protect themselves. Hysterical overreaction about an occasional food choice serves to do neither.

Of course, MacDonald's supports sporting groups and charities as part of a PR drive. I'd rather they did that than nobody supported these things at all.

Large corporations are always being criticised for lacking social conscience - to me, it makes little sense to continue criticising them after they've started to do so, even if they only did it to shut you up.

I am absolutely flumoxed by your naivety.

I'm not naive. That's why I don't believe all the anti-corporate garbage fed to us about MacDonald's by people like Michael Moore, Eric Schlosser, and Morgan Spurlock. Instead, if I want to know about the nutritional value of food, as a scientist, I actually go and study the nutritional makeup of the food.

The food is absolute rubish and leaves one hungry within half an hour ( because it has no bulk) but full of calories

It's reasonably high in calories, but if you have a burger, it does have a decent amount of bulk behind it as well. Fries are a different matter, but fries really shouldn't be eaten in isolation.

The quick fix of suger etc within the 2 minutes it takes to eat the thing leaves kids hyper.
No wonder you have to cane so many, perhaps they are all hyper on junk food.

Ah... no. While I don't control their diet at home, the vast majority of our students seem to have a very healthy diet with only occasional junk food. We have a very low hyperactivity rate.

Not forgetting that their "meal deals" that have sugar stuffed Coke or "smoothies".

Not in Australia, they don't - at least not 'smoothies'. Yes, coke is common, but more and more of our students are choosing to drink Coke Zero.

Do you not understand why there are so many fat kids that become fat adults. Its because of fast food marketed by saturation advertising

We don't have many 'fat kids' at our school - in fact, none who are really fat, though there's a small number who are overweight. Why? Because we insist on a high level of physical activity. Yes, calorie intake leads to kids being overweight when coupled with inactivity. We address the latter, so don't have to worry too much about the former.

MacDonald's once every three weeks or so - and I would guess that that is the maximum any of our boarders get it - isn't a problem. Some day boys probably eat it more than that, but that's outside our control for the most part. We did used to ban boys eating at MacDonalds in school uniform until representations were made on the issue.