John Simkin

You might be interested in how the America's Fox News channel reported the Hutton Report: The British Broadcasting Corporation was forced to pay up for its blatant anti-Americanism before and during the Iraq war. A frothing at the mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest. The BBC - the "Beeb" - was one of the worst offenders in the British press because it felt entitled to not only pillory Americans and George W Bush, but it felt entitled to lie. And when caught lying, it felt entitled to defend its lying reporters and executives. The incident involved the reporter Andrew Gilligan who made a fool of himself in Baghdad when the American invasion actually arrived in the Iraqi capital. Gilligan, pro-Iraqi and anti-American, insisted on the air that the Iraqi army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American military. Video from our own Greg Kelly of the American army moving through Baghdad at will put the light to that. After the war, back in London, Gilligan got a guy named David Kelly to tell him a few things about pre-war assessments on Iraq's weapons programmes. And Gilligan exaggerated about what Kelly had told him. Kelly committed suicide over the story and the BBC, far from blaming itself, insisted its reporter had a right to lie and exaggerate, because, well, the BBC knew the war was wrong and anything it could say to underscore that point had to be right. The British government investigation slammed the BBC on Wednesday and a Beeb exec resigned to show they got it. But they don't. So the next time you hear the BBC bragging about how much superior the Brits are at delivering the news than Americans who wear flags in their lapels, remember it was the Beeb caught lying.

I believe Britain is one of the most defective democracies in the western world. The main problem we have is that the vast majority of the population refuse to accept we have a problem. A major reason for this is that we are brought up to believe we pioneered the idea of democracy and that somehow the rest of the world followed our example. I have already mentioned the problems with our first past the post system. However, this is not the major reason why our democracy is so flawed. The real problem is that over the last 200 years we have allowed the prime minister to obtain too much power. Unlike in many European countries, our prime minister does not have to share power with a president. We do have a monarch, but all her power is handed over to the prime minister. We do not have an elected second chamber. At one time the House of Lords had a permanent Conservative majority. Blair promised to give the British people an elected second chamber. However, it is another promise he has broken. He has reduced it in size and increased the importance of new peers. He of course, has tremendous power over deciding who goes to the Lords. A recent leak revealed the types of people he wants in the House of Lords. Blair is particularly opposed to “controversial” figures (in other words people who are likely to criticise him). A prime minister’s main power comes from his party. In theory, they have the ability to remove him from power. In reality, this is highly unlikely to happen. The reason is that the prime minister has total control over MPs political career’s. He decides who will fill the hundreds of jobs to be filled in government. In previous times, Prime Ministers attempted to create governments that represented all opinions within the party. Tony Blair has abandoned this policy. Ministers know that if they imply criticism of their leader they will be demoted. Unless a young MP shows complete loyalty to the prime minister’s policies, they will not even reach junior ranks in the ladder of success. If someone criticises him too much, such as George Galloway, he will be removed from the party. The main abuse of power concerns his control over the information that the public receives. Several journalists have pointed out that the government have developed very sophisticated methods of controlling the media coverage they receive. The BBC case is just one extreme cases of this. Journalists claim the only way they can counteract this is by relying on “unauthorized sources”. These whistleblowers, once identified, are sacked, and sometimes, prosecuted. Despite all this power, the Prime Minister is still vulnerable to the journalist who has decided he/she has no desire for a knighthood or some other honour given out by the government. Of course, recently, some journalists have been able to show that Blair misled the British public about the most important issue possible: the reasons why the government had decided to break international law by invading another country. However, this does not mean instant dismissal. Instead the Prime Minister has the power to decide on who is going to be his judge and jury. He can also decide on the offence he has been charged with (known as the inquiry remit). What is more, he can even decide that he can decide the charge is not even against him but some other individual or group of individuals (in the latest case, the Security Services). I am interested in hearing from people living in other countries about what would have happened if your prime minister/president, had misled the population about such an important issue. Do you have the mechanism to get rid of them? Or do you have to wait until the next election?

We now know more about the two inquiries. The most important thing for Bush is to make sure his report is not published until after the election in November. This he guaranteed by making it a very wide-ranging inquiry. It will no doubt end up with a report on how Bush’s government manipulated intelligence data for their own political ends, but by this time he will either be a defeated candidate or into his last term as president. Although America has a political system that gives far too much power to those with money, it does have two things that are vitally important in a democracy: a freedom of information act and the willingness to use television to give the public as much information as possible about the actions of government officials. Compare what has come out of the Senate Intelligence Committee in America with our own Parliamentary Security and Intelligence Committee (PSIC). It is only because the American committee was televised that the American public have been able to discover that the raw intelligence data had been manipulated by Bush for political ends. It does not have to wait for the committee to report these findings in March, they have seen it with their own eyes. In Britain we had to accept the judgement of the PSIC, a small group of MPs selected by the party whips and therefore excluding any independent thinking politician. We now know they got it nearly completely wrong (evidence from the public Hutton Inquiry). Why did they get it so wrong? Why for example, did the government not explain to the British public that the 45 minute claim was about battlefield weapons and not long-range weapons? For some reason the PSIC were not interested in telling the British public about this. Yet nothing could be more important. Under international law, unless a country can show it is in imminent attack, it can not make a pre-emptive strike on another country. That is what we did. The only way that Blair could convince his Labour MPs to vote for the war, was by given the impression that Iraq could deliver WMD against our people. The Parliamentary Security and Intelligence Committee knew that Blair mislead the House of Commons and the British public about this issue, but decided to withhold this information. Under our system they can do that. Under the American system that kind of information is revealed on television. I know which system I prefer. Blair has of course not only refused a public inquiry, but confined it to the investigation of intelligence on WMD in Iraq and debarred the inquiry from examining the political and diplomatic decision to wage war, and the legal basis for doing so. Blair is right to think that the inquiry will find it very difficult to publish a report that will be critical of the government. The trouble is, so does the British public, and so it will not restore faith in his honesty. Blair has also selected his committee very carefully. Lord Butler has a proven reputation for believing politicians who lie to him. This is the man who investigated Jonathan Aitkin and Nigel Hamilton and told the public they had been telling the truth. He also came to the same conclusions about the Tory ministers involved in providing arms for Iraq in the 1980s. In every case he got it wrong (as discovered by the court cases that followed his pathetic inquiries). When he retired it was pointed out to him by a journalist that he had proven to have been a lousy detective. He defended himself by saying he had not been trained as a policeman and it was the fault of the politicians for lying to him about what they had been doing. His lousy investigative work was rightly criticised by the Scott Report. His defence is interesting. He caused quite a stir when he said that governments are justified about being “selective about the facts”… He went on to say that by doing this you are not actually telling lies, you are just misleading the public by not telling the whole truth. As you can see, he is the ideal man to carry out this kind of investigation. Blair is also safe with Ann Taylor and Michael Mates as they have already been involved in one failed investigation into the government’s role in the build up to the war (one of the reasons why the Liberal Democrats refused to take part in the inquiry was that their representative would have been Alan Beith, a fellow member of the same Parliamentary Security and Intelligence Committee). Mates is another man who has already shown he is a person who is willing to be influenced if he is given the right sort of rewards. Remember how he was forced to resign as Northern Ireland minister in 1993 for using his position in government to lobby for Asil Nadir. Note also the Northern Ireland connection with these inquiries (Hutton, Mates, Chilcott), no coincidence I can assure you. One of the things that Blair and Bush have been keen to say over the last few days is that all the world’s security services got it wrong about WMD in Iraq. On the surface this might appear to have been true. There is no doubt that spies in Iraq have been sending out similar information about WMD. Kenneth Pollack, a CIA analyst, attended a meeting on this issue in the Spring of 2002 in Washington. The intelligences agencies of the United States, Britain, China, Russia, Israel, Germany and France had all received information that Iraq was producing WMD. The most remarkable information came from the German Federal Intelligence Service. They had received information that Iraq was only three years away from building a nuclear weapon. Pollack was so convinced by what he heard at this secret meeting that he went away and wrote a book called Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. However, it would be wrong to believe that all these intelligence agencies reported to their respective governments that Iraq had WMD. They rarely make such judgements. This is especially true when they are relying on information being provided by members of the intelligence services in the country they are spying on. The reason being that they may in reality be working on behalf of their own government. Western intelligence agencies discovered this after the collapse of communism in the late 1980s. They realised they had completely over-estimated the military capability of the Soviet Union. The reason being was that they had been relying on the information being supplied by agents working within Soviet intelligence. In reality they were doing the work of the Soviet regime. By exaggerating Soviet military capability, they were helping to prevent their country being attacked by the United States. Saddam was playing the same game. He was actually controlling the agents supplying information to the western intelligence agencies. He did it because he thought it would help stop his country being invaded by Israel or Iran. This is not to say that Saddam fooled the various intelligence agencies. After their experiences with the Soviets they were fully aware of this tactic. It is never the role of intelligence agencies to say how this information should be used. The real question to be asked is why of all the countries that received this information, it was only the United States and Britain who decided that it warranted a pre-emptive strike. France, Germany, China and Russia had similar sort of information and yet they took the opposite view. According to Blair we are not able to ask this question in Britain. However, the Senate Intelligence Committee is allowed to ask this question. They are even allowed to ask it in public. We even have some answers. In 2002 the Office of Special Plans (a group with an interesting history, for example, the organizers of Executive Action) set up a unit inside the Pentagon. The role of this group was to sift through all intelligence arriving from Iraq. From this they selected the information that supported the view that Iraq had WMD and passed it onto Bush. This included information that experienced intelligence officers had already classified as being unreliable or false. This is what Edward Kennedy meant last week when he talked about having overwhelming evidence that intelligence reports were being manipulated for political reasons. Did the same thing happen in Britain? Maybe, but Blair is making a good effort to try and make sure we will never find out.

'She cut her hair and I stopped loving her.' Billy Bragg - Walk Away Renee Did Billy Bragg actually write that?

What about the best last lines: Diving for dear life When we could be diving for pearls Elvis Costello (Shipbuilding)

You have provided a great analysis of democracy in the United States. Much of what you say is also true of Britain and other countries in Europe. The most depressing factor in the changes that have taken place is the growth of political apathy. I suspect that the average 19th century industrial worker had a greater understanding of politics than a person in a similar situation today. You are right to say that the decline in trade unionism is partly to blame for this. The control of the mass media is another major factor in this. However, I am still optimistic for the future. The reason being that the wealthy and powerful members of society have an insatiable desire for even more power and wealth. For example, take the way media moguls use their power to persuade governments to maintain low tax rates on high incomes. Governments have gone along with this over the last 25 years. It is now causing serious problems for governments as a lack of revenue is causing a dramatic decline in the public services. As you rightly pointed out, the middle classes are also suffering now. They have reached the stage where they (and the state) cannot provide their children with what they enjoyed themselves when they were young. This decline in the standard of living will hopefully create a new interest in politics. Maybe, at the same time, it will see the emergence of new political parties, fully committed to changing the system. Or are all political parties, like our Labour Party, corruptible?

Sounds very interesting. Have you considered having an online conference at the same time? This is something the Education Forum could organize for you.

This is great news. We will be in contact with you soon.

Whereas the Manic Street Preachers lyrics reflect a 19th century view of education, the Pink Floyd’s is a much more a recent cynical view. I am a supporter of the Manic Street Preachers position. Of course education can be manipulated to support the dominant ideology. However, history shows us that there are always enough teachers with integrity to make sure this does not happen in a democratic society. As you know, I am the eternal optimist.

The BBC Radio 2 is currently holding a poll for the best first line in a popular song. One suggestion is from A Design For Life by Manic Street Preachers. "Libraries gave us power" Any other suggestions? Maybe we could ask the students currently taking part in the international debate to join in.

It has just been announced that Blair will making a statement after George Bush announces his views today on the merits of an independent inquiry into WMD. Blair is obviously waiting for his orders from Bush. The situation is not the same in America and Britain. Bush did not use WMD as his main arguments for war. Anyway, Bush will be attempting to head off the trouble he is going to get into when the Senate Intelligence Committee publish its report in March. This is the same committee that exposed the American government’s Executive Action policy (a plan to remove unfriendly foreign leaders from power). They also discovered how the secret services worked with the Mafia in attempting to assassinate foreign leaders. They also exposed the methods used to smear progressive political figures such as Martin Luther King. Of course we have been hear before. Here is a secret taped conversation between Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover seven days after the Kennedy Assassination (released in 1995). Lyndon B. Johnson: Are you familiar with this proposed (Congressional) group that they're trying to put together on this study of your report... J. Edgar Hoover: I think it would be very bad to have a rash of investigations on this thing. Lyndon B. Johnson: Well, the only way we can stop them is probably to appoint a high-level one to evaluate your report and put somebody that's pretty good on it... that I can select... and tell the House of Representatives and the Senate not to go ahead with their investigations... From taped conversation with his friend, Richard Russell, we now know how they selected the committee to make sure the Warren Commission would rubber-stamp the FBI report (all based on blackmail – the famous Hoover files). However, the situation is not the same in 2004. The Senate Committee has already started taking evidence. Edward Kennedy has already said that he believes the evidence was manipulated. This has been backed up by leaks from David Kelly type figures who were involved in this process. Bush plan, like that of Blair with the Hutton Report, will be to dismiss any critical comments from these Senate committees with statements that the American people will have to wait until the official report is published. (Blair used this tactic all the time, even with things that were outside the remit of the Hutton Committee). Bush will no doubt put people on the committee that he can blackmail into provided the right sort of report. However, like Hutton, it will be dismissed as a “whitewash”. For that reason, he will try to make sure the report is published after the next election. Blair has a different problem. He has already organized one whitewash, can he get away with a second. Blair is now aware he made a mistake by limiting the range of Hutton’s Inquiry. He should have called for one straight away (just like Johnson (Warren), Macmillian (Denning), and Thatcher (Franks and Scott), did – of course they were all far more sensible than Blair). If Blair aggress to have an independent group of people to decide on the committee and if it is held in public and on television (important in allowing the public to judge who is lying) I will admit that maybe I have misjudged Blair. However, I think we all know what route he will go down. Let us hope that politicians have caught up on their history studies and will not agree that a Blair nominated committee will be an independent investigation.

It was made clear at the beginning that this debate would be restricted to two high ability students per school (except for the case of International Schools that have the ability to provide students from different countries). Details of these two students should be sent to Richard Jones-Nerzic. He will then arrange for them to be registered for the debate. If you want a whole class to be involved in another debate you will need to make the necessary arrangements with Richard. It was also decided that the first debate would take place in February. The reason for this was that Australian schools would not be able to take part before then. Richard also had a preference for the debate to be started in February. I will consult with Richard about the actual date when we will start. Read the message that I posted earlier.

Austen, you argue your case well. The Jews do have a strong historical and legal case for living in the Middle East. The problem is that Arabs also have a strong case for living in the same region. The current reality of the situation has little to do with political and legal arguments. Israel is the dominant military power in the region and to a certain extent can impose its will on surrounding countries. The problem for the Israeli people is that some Arabs feel so strongly about the rights of their claims that they will use any methods, including suicide, to undermine the power of Israel. As you know, since the Second World War there have been several conflicts between groups using the latest technology and others using fairly primitive weapons. What we have discovered in that the latest technology does not win wars. You have to win the hearts and minds of the people you are trying to control. As the Americans found in Vietnam. Nations in western Europe have been fighting over territory for centuries. In 1945 we realised this had to stop. One of the most important features of this new policy concerned the way we treated Germany. This was a case of politicians learning from history. The realised that the harsh treatment suffered by the defeated nations in the First World War led to disaster. This time the defeated countries were rewarded by being given large sums of money. (I agree there was another motive behind this – it was feared that the defeated countries would become communist states). In 2004 it never enters the head of people in Europe going to war with other countries over territory. Each country still has a small percentage of people who still retain their hatred of other nations. Research suggests that the main reason for this is that they suffer from an inferiority complex. In some cases, such as the United States, governments have manipulated these emotions for short-term gain. This was brought to an end by peaceful pressure groups, led by people like Martin Luther King. (Although the antics of Bush’s supporters in Florida suggest that this racism has not yet been completely cleared out of the system.) Although you will not like to admit it, the situation in very similar to the situation in South Africa after the war. The whites held control and they had plenty of legal documents to justify this situation. At first the blacks tried to use peaceful methods. Eventually, like the Arabs in the Middle East, some blacks resorted to terrorism. This of course included Nelson Mandela. Most nations in the world supported the view that the all adults living in South Africa should have equal rights. It was clear that if all nations joined together and impose economic pressure on the white racist government in South Africa, the regime would have collapsed. Unfortunately, the United States, with the support of countries like Britain, were very worried about the type of government that would emerge if democracy was installed in South Africa (the same worries that the Americans have about Iraq). All the evidence suggested that a democratic election in South Africa would install, Mandela, a committed Marxist, in power. (Also the same reasons why the United States would not allow free elections in Vietnam). Eventually the world nations did get together and impose economic sanctions and eventually white leaders entered into negotiations. The result was Nelson Mandela became leader of the country. Did Mandela take revenge on the whites? No. Mandela had also learnt the lessons of history and it is the main reason he is recognised as the greatest statesman of the last 200 years. Today most of the world believes that the Israelis treat the Arabs badly. Most countries in the UN would like to impose economic and military sanctions on Israel. As you know the United States always vetoes these resolutions. It appears that the United States does not favour democracy when it is likely to be outvoted. The reason that the USA behaves in this way is that it sees Israel as its representative in the Middle East. This is of course the same way that American saw the white South Africans as their representatives in Africa. Eventually, I think the United States will eventually elect a president who understands foreign affairs. They will then apply political and economic pressure on Israel and they will be forced into meaningful peace negotiations. I would be interested in hearing how you think this situation will develop. Do you think that Israel will be able to overturn the rules of history?

I agree. I will give them a plug in today's Teaching History Online. I will also contact them about joining the Education Forum (I always do when websites are featured in my two email newsletters).

John Mayo posted this on another thread in the Forum. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=205 It is based on research with students. http://www.gillmacmillan.ie/ECom/Library3....c7?OpenDocument Students' perceptions of 'good' teachers 'Good' teachers Get angry sometimes, when there is a reason Listen to all sides Stick to the rules Treat all the children fairly Say sorry when they have done something wrong Give interesting lessons Always have things for the pupils to do Always mark classwork and homework Ask the children what they think Are on time for lessons Stop children behaving badly Deal with bad behaviour quietly (do not shout) Are the same way every day Try to make children understand

Reading the biographies section it seems we now have members from Britain (61), France (11), Spain (7), USA (6), Sweden (5), Netherlands (5), Canada (4), Australia (3), Greece (3), Italy (3), Finland (2), China (1), Brazil (1), Denmark (1), Belgium (1), Germany (1), Poland (1), Serbia (1), Belarus (1), South Korea (1), Sudan (1), Ireland (1) and Austria (1). http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=189

Whitewash is another interesting word. As David Chapman has pointed out: “Whitewash applied carefully and thinly, will last years. Too thick and it will flake off in no time.” The Warren Report was of the thin variety, the Hutton whitewash has indeed been painted far too thickly.

I have received your email Juan Carlos and have passed it on to Richard. As these topics are very student friendly they will probably not need to be started by a teacher. However, the previous Toulouse debate suffered from a series of very short contributions. Maybe someone has got a good student to make an initial posting that is fairly substantial. Otherwise we might get a series on one liners.

Newsletter 4 Membership We now have 290 members. So far 162 members have made postings (a total of 1,431 at the time of writing). Reading the biographies section it seems we now have members from Britain (61), France (11), Spain (6), USA (6), Sweden (5), Netherlands (5), Canada (4), Australia (3), Greece (3), Italy (2), Finland (2), China (1), Brazil (1), Denmark (1), Belgium (1), Germany (1), Belarus (1), South Korea (1), Sudan (1), Ireland (1) and Austria (1). This is only 118 people out of 270. If you have not done so, please post your biography on the forum. This enables us to find out where our members are coming from. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=189 Quoting Posts Displayed above each post in a topic, there is a 'Quote' button. Pressing this button will allow you to reply to a topic, and have the text from a particular reply quoted in your own reply. When you choose to do this, an extra text field will appear below the main text input box to allow you to edit the content of the post being quoted. Finding Material We are aware that the amount of information on the Education Forum has grown considerably over the last couple of weeks. This has made finding material more difficult. We currently include details of all sections on the home page. This means that it is a very long page. However, if we transfer some of these sections to a second layer, it will result in those sections being visited far less in the future. Today’s Active Topics Near the bottom of the home page you will find Today’s Active Topics (next to the Moderating Team). If you click this you will get details of the latest postings. This is what I do every time I visit the forum. This is the best approach if you are a regular visitor. If not, you will probably just go to the sections that interest you. Search At the top of the home page (in small text0 is the search facility. The search feature is designed to allow you to quickly find topics and posts that contain the keywords you enter. There are two types of search form available, simple search and advanced search. You may switch between the two using the 'More Options' and 'Simple Mode' buttons. Search: Simple Mode All you need to do here is enter in a keyword into the search box, and select a forum(s) to search in. (to select multiple forums, hold down the control key on a PC, or the Shift/Apple key on a Mac) choose a sorting order and search. Search: Advanced Mode The advanced search screen, will give you a much greater range of options to choose from to refine your search. In addition to searching by keyword, you are able to search by a members username or a combination of both. You can also choose to refine your search by selecting a date range, and there are a number of sorting options available. There are also two ways of displaying the search results, can either show the post text in full or just show a link to the topic, can choose this using the radio buttons available. Debates At the moment, the following issues provide opportunities for good debate. I would welcome your contributions to these and other debates taking place on the forum. What is the Purpose of Education? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=299 Bullying http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=174 Pastoral Care in Different Countries http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=235 Do Politicians Still Resign? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=283 The Middle East http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=293 Dealing with Terrorism http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=125 Blended Learning http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=246 Do We Live in a Democracy? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=243 Teacher Training http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=251 What makes a good teacher? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=205 Science Coursework http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=117

A friend of mine did an assembly the other day where he argued that the "Holocaust Memorial Day is counterproductive, as by institutionalising the day we either (a) brush it under the carpet or ( Have a tendency to focus on the Nazi Holocaust of Jews and label it as a "German" crime. In other words, it breeds prejudice and bigotry in a minority, and apathy and complacency in the majority - exactly the sort of thing which helps to create the conditions for another one." It sounds like a stimulating assembly. I am not sure I fully agree with it but he was clearly right to question this process. He definitely gave the students (and staff) something to think about. Many years ago I started a PhD (I later turned it into a MPhil) into the role that school plays in the development of political consciousness. This include a study of school assemblies and the way they impacted on the students. My research showed that the vast majority of students did not listen to the assembly. (Although they liked them as they saw it as a gentle introduction into the school day.) The main message they got from these was that morality was about obeying those in authority. However, I discovered that some assemblies did make them think deeply about issues. In most cases this involved assemblies given by someone who rarely gave them. If they used a different approach, especially if it included drama, they did take note. I have always thought that schools underestimate the ability of students to think deeply about moral issues. However, before you can do that, you have got to let them know that you really are interested in what they have to say in the issue. Lectures are totally ineffective in this process.

Welcome to the Education Forum. It is good to see someone up for election who is willing to debate his ideas with others. If you win, and I hope you do, it would be good to see you do this once in office. I have no problems with your policies. My main concern is over how you plan to motivate members into action to defend education in this country. Surveys of opinions in the profession show that the majority have sensible ideas on education policy. They have rightly been consistently opposed to things like SATs, Ofsted and league tables. However, the same polls show that when it comes to the crunch, teachers are unwilling to take action to defend or change our education system. Before becoming a teacher I was a print worker. I was also an active trade unionist and we had little trouble persuading members to take action in order to defend living standards and the quality of the work that we performed (a major factor in why we took union action). However, as soon as I entered the teaching profession I realized the unions faced a serious problem. Nearly all teachers have followed a similar route into the profession. They were successful school students themselves. They discovered at an early age that you are rewarded for obeying those in authority. Some went through a rebellious stage at university but once back in the school system they reverted to their roles of people fully conditioned into the idea of doing what they were told. Schools, unfortunately develop authoritarian personalities. They contain very few people willing to question those in authority. Those who were willing to do this, were usually late entrants to the profession and had experienced life outside educational institutions. For example, soon after I entered the profession I was asked to be the school’s NUT representative. This was a sensible decision as no one else on the staff was willing to ask the head difficult questions in meetings. A few months later a woman from the office told me that her husband, the school caretaker, had been told that he was suffering from a complaint that appeared to have been brought on by contact with asbestos. What is more, the doctor told him that the previous caretaker had died as a result of the same medical complaint. The doctor suggested that there was probably exposed asbestos in the school. With the help of the caretaker I inspected the school. We indeed found exposed asbestos in the boiler room. We also found evidence of it in the boy’s toilets. I then called a meeting of the staff association and reported what we had found. The staff was appalled and called for immediate action to be taken. I then had a meeting with the head, the local union representative and officials of the local council. At this meeting I was told that the asbestos problem would be dealt with during the summer holidays. I complained that it should be dealt with straight away. This they refused to do. Nor did I get any support from the local union official. At a private meeting I told him that if immediate action was not taken members of the staff would go to the local press with the story. He smiled and told me that the newspapers would not print the story (he was right). He said that asbestos was a problem all over the country (it had traditionally been used in all school buildings) but the government did not have the money to sort it out. In order not to cause mass panic, newspapers had agreed not to publish stories about this problem. I then called another meeting with the staff. They remained united in trying to get this sorted out and insisted that the head addressed them on the issue. This he did. The head and the first deputy launched an attack on the professionalism of the staff. This was mixed with threats about the possible consequences of taking unofficial action. After being harangued for fifteen minutes they stormed out. The staff then voted overwhelmingly to drop the issue. I realised then that teachers were completely incapable of standing up for their rights when under pressure from their masters. The problem still remains. Unfortunately, I don’t know how you are going to change that.

The Fischer Family Trust have carried out some scale research into this. For example, it has just carried out some research to see if online revision results in higher GCSE grades. Researchers analysed data on more than 80,000 pupils, of which 31,000 had been using the revision programme SAM Learning, which teaches pupils to mark their work using the same techniques as examiners and reveals how they can score points even when they do not know a full answer. The research concludes that this revision scheme can raise the proportion of pupils who gain five good GCSE grades by at least 5 per cent. http://www.fischertrust.org/

The Fischer Family Trust has just carried out some research to see if online revision results in higher GCSE grades. Researchers analysed data on more than 80,000 pupils, of which 31,000 had been using the revision programme SAM Learning, which teaches pupils to mark their work using the same techniques as examiners and reveals how they can score points even when they do not know a full answer. The research concludes that this revision scheme can raise the proportion of pupils who gain five good GCSE grades by at least 5 per cent. The report is not due to be published until next month. However, you will eventually find it here: http://www.fischertrust.org/

I see that Microsoft is attempting to create an Educational Forum for ICT teachers. However, it does not appear to be very busy. Nor does it tell you how many people have registered. Despite its resources it is not a patch on this one. http://www.theeducationcommunity.com

A team of psychologists led by Peter Smith at Goldsmiths College has just investigated the cases of more than 5,000 adults who have been the victims of bullying. The researchers discovered that the victims of adult bullying were usually bullied at school. They came to the conclusion that certain types of people were vulnerable to bullying. This included low self-esteem, disability, physical weakness, shyness, maternal overprotection, lack of friends and social rejection of peer group. Smith discovered that the least effective coping strategies for bullied children include crying and fighting back. The most successful responses are to tell a teacher or friend. The theory is that bullying tends to thrive in environments where bystanders collude by not intervening. However, I would argue that adults that are bullied tend to rely on the strategies that they developed as children. This is a mistake. The only way to deal with bullies as an adult is to verbally stand up for yourself (especially in public situations). Adult bullies always find it difficult to deal with this situation. This is especially true of senior members of staff in a school.