Marple Hall School NUHOPE regime

[Bowden Guy]

Blimey, bold type, capital letters, underlining, double question marks all in the same post. However, disappointed not to see even one exclamation mark!!!!!!!!

[I am the Walrus]

"I am", sorry but you are demonstrating by action my fears stated earlier in this thread. You have 9 posts to your name. Every single one on this thread. Every single one castigating NUHOPE. Perhaps you may want to consider contributing to other topics involving the community?

Phil, I am frankly baffled by both of your inputs into this discussion. I started this thread, and am commenting on it, as my family are affected by the subject and it is the only one I currently feel qualified to comment on.

You don't know if I am relatively new to the area or if I am a lifelong resident: don't forget, Marple Hall School now serves a much wider community than just Marple as several secondary schools in the borough have been closed over the last couple of decades.

You say I am castigating NUHOPE but you have conveniently missed the fact that I have said it obviously works for some but is seriously failing others. You have also missed the fact that I support the school, in general, and that I feel they achieve good results AND that the Ofsted report which resulted in NUHOPE being instigated was an unfortunate blip for the school.

Incidentally, I can't help but notice you seem to be getting very curt responses from the school - for example I'll pretty much guarantee

Most responses from the school are perfectly proffessional, polite and pleasant. That one, very early on in any communications, not so much.

A"pretty much guarantee" isn't really a guarantee.

As I said earlier, I may actually agree with you but it is hard to see this as a balanced platform where any supporters of NUHOPE are welcomed to stick their head above the parapet.
RH

You have now taken two opportunities to tell me that you may well agree with me but that you are not going to tell me you agree with me??? Two wasted opportunities to comment on the subject at hand instead of being personal towards me in your opinions.

Forums like this are rarely balanced as they only reflect the opinions of those who are willing to comment.

I think if you read back you will find that most people who have commented have supported the school but are not happy with the way NUHOPE is being handled. THOSE people are the ones who have then been "castigated" (too strong a word in this instance) for their parenting skills, for their communication skills or for their unwillingness to risk confrontation.

You will also find that NO-ONE has spoken in outright favour of NUHOPE, especially not you, or have you? I don't know because you won't tell me.

I think, looking at the numbers of times this thread has been read compared to the small number of comments in relation, Miss C. was right when she/he suggested that the silent majority don't have a strong opinion to offer one way or the other. Perhaps one should assume, therefore, that most people are happy with the status quo.

So, as I said at the start; I may be way out of line with my thinking on this but nobody on here has yet suggested that.

Finally Phil, apologies for the multi-paragraphs. I know you have inferred you don't like them but it is the best way to separate points so they can be read clearly. Apologies also for the fact that you have provoked me to respond on a personal level to your comments.

[Dave]

"I am", sorry but you are demonstrating by action my fears stated earlier in this thread. You have 9 posts to your name. Every single one on this thread. Every single one castigating NUHOPE. Perhaps you may want to consider contributing to other topics involving the community?

I can't see why that should be a problem  'I am' feels strongly about NUHOPE, and therefore uses the forum to promote discussion on the matter.  That's what all of us do.  The last thing a forum such as this needs is members who clutter it up with posts on matters about which they don't actually care very much! 

NUHOPE detentions are served on the day of the "offence", straight after school, which is incredibly inconvenient for anyone who has lifts arranged for their children, or who has appointments arranged for after school etc.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of NUHOPE, this aspect of it suggests a depressingly arrogant and out-of-touch attitude by the school, which says 'you have forgotten your pencil or glanced out of the window, so we can prevent you from going to your piano lesson or your football training'.  As if school is the only thing that matters in a child's life.   

[Rudolph Hucker]

"I am", sorry but you are demonstrating by action my fears stated earlier in this thread. You have 9 posts to your name. Every single one on this thread. Every single one castigating NUHOPE. Perhaps you may want to consider contributing to other topics involving the community?

Incidentally, I can't help but notice you seem to be getting very curt responses from the school - for example I'll pretty much guarantee that no authority in the UK would ever answer a genuine question from me with the phrase "because we don't have to". Could it be that somehow you have exhausted THEIR patience (as much as they have exhausted yours)?

You also state that you have been "told" that one of the NUHOPE sessions had 80 students in it. How close exactly are you to the school and/or the regime? Who was it that told you (and how reliable would they be considered by an impartial audience)?

As I said earlier, I may actually agree with you but it is hard to see this as a balanced platform where any supporters of NUHOPE are welcomed to stick their head above the parapet.

RH

[I am the Walrus]

I'm with marpleexile on this - the actual reason for the NuHope detention may not be quite the same as the reason that the child chooses to pass on to their parents. I'm sure that the school form teachers would be happy to supply the original reasons if asked.

NUHOPE detentions are served on the day of the "offence", straight after school, which is incredibly inconvenient for anyone who has lifts arranged for their children, or who has appointments arranged for after school etc. When asked why 24 hours notice can't be given the response is "because we don't have to" this doesn't help engender a healthy working cohesion between school and parent. There has been a ridiculous situation last year when a friend of mine was told her child MUST serve the NUHOPE instead of going to pre-arranged after-school catch-up lessons (arranged and hosted by school to help some students improve their grades ready for options)!!

Parents are notified by text, on the day, if their child has received NUHOPE(s) and the reason for the detention is given AND as perviously stated by other parents; if we enquire about the NUHOPE or ring school to ask to postpone, we are given the circumstances of the "offence".

Some of the reasons are so silly that some of the students will actually "apeal" on the day to the Head of NUHOPE and have the detention punishment removed BUT the whole act of having to go through that really impinges on a child's day, on their school routine, and more importantly, on their trust & respect for the staff and the system!

Personally, I think NuHope is just a little bit silly and will eventually get reworked into something less rigid and institutional, if only because it gets costly in staff time to police it. Like Simone, I can't see it being inflicted on future sixth formers. On the whole Marple Hall is a good school and parental involvement in children's education to be recommended.

I am told that one of the NUHOPE sessons last week had around 80 students in it and occupied two classrooms!! So, thats approx 80 text messages, 80 amounts of time spent giving out the NUHOPE, likely 80 amounts of time with the student being less productive as they feel slightly embittered about receiving a NUHOPE, at least two members of staff to run the two classrooms, 80 sets of NUHOPE records to be updated, probably a fair number of phone calls being fielded, by staff, from parents who have received a text message and are unhappy about the reasons given or about the inconvenience of serving a NUHOPE on that particular night (can't it be tomorrow etc.) and the added knowledge that this may so easily happen all over again the next day!

Is it working? Really??

As Ofsted said in 2013:

" in some instances, students, while compliant, lacked self-motivation, drive or a thirst to acquire new knowledge."

[Miss C]

And yet again you two presume to know how others think rather than those of us who just think about the questions. I am bowing out of debates like this one that I don't know enough factual information about for my opinion to be valid; what a shame you both won't be able to do the same and leave it to people like I am the walrus who have genuine concerns and first hand knowledge of a situation. I am the walrus- I hope you can contact the school and resolve your issues with them.

[simonesaffron]

..but I do wonder what other people would think if they stumble on this forum.

They would be struck immediately by the candour, humour and equipoise that is consistent throughout the postings compared to most other intertwaddles.

[Dave]

I do wonder what other people would think if they stumble on this forum.

They would be astonished to find themselves in such a haven of civilised courtesy and reasoned debate, compared with most internet forums! 

[Miss C]

Thanks henrietta but don't worry about it. This forum tends to be dominated by a few people  and their cogitations at times. For me, I think these type of discussions- a few facts and lots of conjecture can be harmful to a community, whether it's a discussion about a school,, a supermarket or anything else. Some people are too busy sharing their wisdom with us to understand that. The editors do a stellar job but I do wonder what other people would think if they stumble on this forum. I guess the silent majority wouldn't have enough of an opinion to comment; again like newhope and asda.

[simonesaffron]

"Rudeness" ??

[My login is Henrietta]

Miss C,

I think that when you start feeling as if you are being patronised on the inter twaddle then you are taking it all a little bit too much to  heart.

This is an internet forum where people give views and opinions. Sometimes these opinions are not real. Sometimes the people aren't even real, sometimes they just assume the persona of their poster identity. Having said that I really did enjoy your diatribe. I thought that the way the thread of hysteria ran through it was hilarious. It made it Goonish or even Fawltyish and I could easily visualise one of those characters giving forth with those words. I hope that you will consider this a compliment.

Back on topic I think that your own understanding about the role of the governors is incorrect. It is entirely within their remit to do what you say they can't do and in any case the governor situation at MHS is unique within Stockport in that sense.

I have not actually picked up that people are criticising the school outside Nohope. My interpretation of it is that some people believe it to be a good school but that Nohope is detracting from the educational quality of the product in general and the educational experience for the students in particular and if this is what they believe then they are entitled to criticise. those STUDENTS are their CHILDREN It is not really for you to censor or even to understand. If you 'don't get it,' you don't get it - but you don't have to - it is all ENTIRELY up to you.

I think that Marpleexile makes a very good point when he/she talks about things 'unfairly impacting upon your child's welfare....'

If this is the case you have to do something. You can't just side with school because they are the school and they are part of the community.

Dave's advice is good advice ...'a short, reasonable, calm letter'.... and insist on a written reply.  
 

Whilst I support your right to state your mind I do not support your rudeness in your replies to Miss C.

[Dave]

Don't forget that the new Head hasn't appeared from nowhere - he was the old Deputy Head. Presumably he supported this initiative when it was launched?

Don't bank on it.  As 'I Am' wrote earlier in this thread:

Whilst typing this there has been another post about the new Head being opposed to NUHOPE. That has been suggested to me too

I have also heard this said.    If it's true, he would not be the first deputy head to disagree with the headteacher - far from it!  But as I explained above, I think he may be trapped in it for the time being. 

Re this:

More worrying is the fact that the school does not publish the minutes of its Governors meetings either on its website or, indeed, anywhere else AFAIK. I would like to see the notes of the discussions that took place before Nuhope was launched and the record of the decisions made. More specifically, I would be interested in knowing if Nuhope was "endorsed" by the governing body (with the implication that it was effectively a decision by the head) or whether it was "authorised" or "approved" by governors, meaning that they were collectively responsible and accountable for its launch.

These are very good questions.  I would be very surprised if NUHOPE had not been approved by the Board of Governors before it was introduced.  But Bowden Guy and the rest of us are entitled to know that.  The rules are clear: the minutes of school governors meetings are public documents and a school must provide a copy to anyone who asks for it.  A last resort would be a FOI request, but this should not be necessary. 

[hollins]

It's very hard to judge this from the outside, because a lot of the info is third hand.

We've heard a couple of stories from parents about the seemingly stupid little things that have seen their offspring fall foul of NuHope, and if true, then it would appear that either the system is flawed, or it is being implemented badly.

However, from my own experience as a child, and having dealt with children via voluntary youth services, I strongly suspect that the version of events being relayed to the forum (via parents, via their kids), isn't the whole truth. When I was a child, when I got in trouble, unless it was so bad that school phoned home, the version I told my Mum was always significantly watered down. So, someone on here has reported that a child was given a NuHope detention for staring out of the windows. Probably true, but I would imagine that what little Johnny forgot to mention to mum, was that he spent the entire lesson staring out of the window, thus he did no work, and couldn't answer questions when called upon because of it, etc. The child who was given NuHope for being late to class, because the previous class let them out late - why was she the only one to get a NuHope, surely the entire class of 20+ kids got one? No, just her? I would imagine then that there were other factors at work that contributed to her lateness.

The principle of NuHope seems sound to me, clamp down on the small problems and the large ones take care of themselves. For me, the issue is whether it's being implemented properly, fairly and with enough common sense - and I suspect that it is.

But, if you truly believe that NuHope is unfairly impacting upon your children's welfare then follow the advice already laid out here, and make formal complaints.

I'm with marpleexile on this - the actual reason for the NuHope detention may not be quite the same as the reason that the child chooses to pass on to their parents. I'm sure that the school form teachers would be happy to supply the original reasons if asked.

My own children missed the full-school implementation of NuHope (just), so I'm not really a good person to comment, I guess. However, having occasionally had to pick the children up from school reception in the middle of the day (because they were ill!) I did notice a massive improvement in behaviour in the school grounds and corridors over the last few years: something is clearly working.

NuHope's half-hour or (if missed) one-hour detentions seem a relatively minor irritation - an opportunity to get homework done. However, "isolation" has been there since long before NuHope and is definitely nothing to be proud about.

Personally, I think NuHope is just a little bit silly and will eventually get reworked into something less rigid and institutional, if only because it gets costly in staff time to police it. Like Simone, I can't see it being inflicted on future sixth formers. On the whole Marple Hall is a good school and parental involvement in children's education to be recommended.

[Bowden Guy]

Dave, given that what you have just written is complete conjecture, as you would no doubt acknowledge, the conclusion you have drawn is rather strange. Don't forget that the new Head hasn't appeared from nowhere - he was the old Deputy Head. Presumably he supported this initiative when it was launched?

More worrying is the fact that the school does not publish the minutes of its Governors meetings either on its website or, indeed, anywhere else AFAIK. I would like to see the notes of the discussions that took place before Nuhope was launched and the record of the decisions made. More specifically, I would be interested in knowing if Nuhope was "endorsed" by the governing body (with the implication that it was effectively a decision by the head) or whether it was "authorised" or "approved" by governors, meaning that they were collectively responsible and accountable for its launch.

[Dave]

Corium's interesting quotes from recent inspection reports are very revealing.

The school has recently introduced a new behaviour management policy, which most teachers are enforcing rigorously. Many parents, students and staff believe that behaviour has improved rapidly at the school as a consequence and inspectors agree.

Having worked in education myself - though mostly in colleges rather than schools - I'm beginning to see what a difficult position the headteacher and governors of MHS are in.  Basically, it looks like this: NUHOPE was introduced by the previous head, who has now left.  In their most recent inspection report (2013), Ofsted found that it had had a beneficial effect (see above).   

Now, look ahead to the next inspection, just as the head and governors will certainly be doing.   If the school abandons NUHOPE before the next inspection, and then the inspectors decide that behaviour has now deteriorated, the new head will be blamed, obviously, and that can have very serious consequences, up to and including the governors requiring his resignation.

On the other hand, if NUHOPE is retained, and the inspectors still decide at the next inspection that behaviour has deteriorated, then he's got the all-clear to scrap it, on the basis that it may have worked in the past, but no longer does so, and anyway, it wasn't his idea!

A depressing reminder that our children are pawns in the chess game of inspection.