I know!

I have somewhat missed my deadline for the September / October blog, so now it is a September /October/November blog.

There is no defence. It has been brilliantly busy, and the College is indeed more vibrant than ever, and I am so busy taking part in life at the College, writing about it has been somewhat pushed to the side.

No excuse.

So, to the headlines…

First Headline:

We were really pleased with the exam results that Year 11 achieved last year. The students responded to all the input they had about independent work and preparation and did themselves justice in the national arena. I was delighted to catch up with many of them last week at the Year 11 Presentation Evening to hear about how they were getting on and thriving within College life. I asked many of them if they felt we had prepared them well enough for the challenge of independent learning post 16, and they overwhelmingly did. This is such a significant thing for me. I believe that the biggest part of our job here, is skilling them to be successful lifelong learners; it is, after all, what OPEN MIND is all about and so to hear that they are not only enjoying but excelling at College is just fabulous.

Second Headline:

We spilt our lunchtime and so altered the internal timings of the College Day, moving from six fifty-minute lessons to five sixty-minute lessons. This change has proved very successful. The main drive was to ensure we addressed the issue of lunchtime queues, especially with more students in the College. This has happened successfully, and students can now access hot food options in two different locations. The hour-long lessons are also working well, giving time for deeper learning in each period and reducing the amount of change over times, so more time learning and less time moving around. 😊

Third Headline:

We have been managing the significant building project around the reclad of Goodwood block and its internal reconfiguration ready for the opening of our Resource Provision hopefully in September 2025. The launch of our Resource Provision is still on track as we go through all the required processes.  The consultation letter was shared with parents on the 30^th  of September 2024 as part of this process.

Fourth Headline:

Is that we had a very successful recruitment drive for September 2025, and we have had the largest number of 1^st place applications for Year 7 in the history of the College.

Fifth Headline:

We had a very successful OFSTED inspection on the 19^th and 20^th of November, where Inspectors were able to see the true ethos and quality of education on offer at Crookhorn for all learners. Once the report is published, I will focus on the details of this in my second Autumnal blog and also how we are planning to improve the College, based on feedback we received.

You might say that there are only five headlines, so what has taken up so much of my time? Well, alongside major events is the day to day of College life, where we are constantly striving to encourage over 900 students to engage proactively and positively in their learning. This entails a lot of time visiting lessons, talking with students, talking with staff and seeking proactive solutions before problems arise. It is full on and, of course, wonderful. It is what the job is all about.

I had always intended to write this term about the action we have taken as a College following on from my blog in September/October 2023. In this blog, I talked honestly about recognising the breakdown in relationships between College and parents over the issue of attendance in the post-COVID years. I made it clear that we needed to look at how we could rebuild this relationship and work proactively together, to encourage students to want to attend College as consistently as possible.

Over the course of 2023/24, we have worked as a team to look at ways in which we can rebuild the partnership effectively with parents and I would like to summarise some of the steps we have taken very briefly below:

1. We have looked at all our parental communication around attendance and changed our language significantly in all our letters, focussing much more on the support and partnership rather than punitive sanctions.
2. We have moved to a new telephone system which gives all staff easier access to being able to make contact with parents to enhance that partnership works across all academic and pastoral aspects of College life.
3. We have sought to successfully deliver workshops for parents through the mental health support team- in regard to understanding low mood and high levels of anxiety in children.
4. We have also organised for the Mental Health Support Team to attend our face-to-face parents’ evenings.
5. We ran a Year 11 and a Year 7 tutor evening, right at the start of term, to encourage contact between parents and the important first link in the College: the Tutor.
6. We had our very successful Year 7 parent and student Bingo Night with record numbers attending.
7. I have written two extensive letters to both Year 7 and Year 11 parents outlining the key points of the Autumn Term and advising on the steps parents can take, to work effectively in partnership with the College for the best outcomes for their children. I am just in the process now of writing the Spring one for Year 11 parents.
8. Our art, textiles and photography staff ran a wonderful exhibition which many students and their parents came to visit.
9. The pastoral team have been doing more home visits than ever before to try and bridge the gulf that can seemingly exist between College and home for some of our more severely absent students.
10. We have continued to work on and promote all strands of our GO WEST (walking, eating, sleeping and talking) strategy. An indication of our success here is the fact that I did not believe it would be possible to beat the 10,000 attendances to extracurricular clubs that we had in 22/23, but in 23/24 we hit a huge 22,000 attendances, which is a 120% increase.
11. The pastoral team are also continuously signposting relevant support organisations to all parents via Parent Mail concerning any issues that might be of cause for concern within a family or in regard to next steps academically- such as the Southampton University webinar recently in November concerning higher education.
12. We have successfully recruited 4 new parent Governors and my thanks to all parents who voted as part of the election process.

Through this endeavour, I believe we have made significant progress to repair and rebuild our partnership, and I was hugely moved by the OFSTED parent view where 92% of our parents said that they would recommend the College to another parent.

Thank you for recognising the work we are trying to do and being willing to travel the journey with us.

Here is to Christmas, our panto and OFSTED reports…

Finally, I would like to share with you an incredibly well-researched and eloquent piece of work which was submitted for the Sociology Challenge Award.  This is an excellent example of a student taking an opportunity, beyond the classroom, to develop their knowledge and understanding of a subject they are studying.

 

An Ideal Society – Sociology Challenge Award 2024

An ‘ideal society’ is hard to define. For some it can be total equality, such as communist ideas based on Karl Marx. For others it’s a utopia, where everything is ‘perfect’ and everyone is constantly happy. From asking people about their ideal society, the main consensus I gained is a society where no one is suffering. In some cases, this suffering can be explained by Marx’s theory of the bourgeoise oppressing the proletariat, but it could also be linked back to sexism and racism, which has been a recurring theme throughout history. Examples such as the Industrial Revolution and Slave Trade show how far society has come to reach fairness, however personally I believe that getting to a point where there are no complaints in the world is near to impossible, at least without censorship or ‘brainwashing’.

Speaking to people about their version of an ‘ideal society’ has given me varying results, from those believing that you should receive based on what you have earned, to those who summarise Marxist ideas without realising. There are pros and cons to each of these ideas, however a key issue that would arise with the first theory to gain what you earn is that some people in society cannot work or contribute, which therefore leads to the question of a welfare or benefit system, similar to what we have in place in the UK today.

As of August 2023, 22.6 million people in the UK were claiming a form of benefits, of which almost 30% are disabled. These statistics show that the benefit system is needed and proves that the theory wouldn’t work for a large amount of people in society, let alone on a global scale. Until unemployment is solved, there will still be those unable to find jobs and therefore cannot contribute in order to “gain what you earn”. Despite this, functionalists continue to argue that this is a positive thing since it encourages people to work harder and succeed so they don’t ‘fall victim’ to relative poverty, and also makes society want to do better. This theory is very much against the Marxist view of equality, where the idea of a communist state means that all businesses being owned by the people would lead to Equal Outcomes.

The idea of Equal Opportunities versus Equal Outcomes could be summarised as Equity v Equality, with the idea of everyone being given the same life chances, for example education, or if they should be given the same results, such as housing. Karl Marx believed in the idea of Equal Outcomes, with his manifesto outlining a Communist State; his idea (along with Friedrich Engels) was to replace private ownership with public/communal control of businesses. Countries such as China, Cuba and Vietnam have all implemented a form of this ideology, with the last two causing international issues throughout the Cold War. Cuba’s “Castroism Guevarism” was officially adopted in 1976, however since then it has continued to struggle economically, to the point where the country has experienced the largest outflow of migrants since the 1960s, and protests against the government continue, despite political opposition being illegal.

This unrest shows that in today’s society, communism does not solve issues of food and medical shortages; the ‘equality’ still leads to a power imbalance between civilians and the government who are in control. Because of this, and how communism has impacted the world previously (e.g. how the Truman Doctrine of Containment led to the Cold War and Brinksmanship), I think that the world’s current state means that communism would not work.

Instead, I think we should focus on providing a comfortable ‘minimum’ for so many. The Rowntree Foundation’s research in 2022 found that, in the UK, around 22% of the population are living below the poverty line, with 4.6 million of them being children. This start in life limits their chances of success, and often leads to deviant or criminal behaviour in order to survive. The Culture of Poverty appears as a subculture and can result in a cycle that can be hard to break without outside intervention. I believe that by focusing on giving everyone a ‘baseline’ to live, it would be one of the first steps toward an ideal society.

On a small scale this could be relatively simple, if you don’t consider limitations such as budgeting or accessibility. Despite this, charities such as the NSPCC and Children In Need have been set up to try and help, and more resources should be used. Derelict buildings could be utilised as, as well as new rehabilitation centres to create better life chances. However, as previously stated, the government can only do so much. Because of this, it would have to be funded by those wealthy enough to be able to sustain its support for the cause, potentially how Industrialists invested in Endowed Hospitals to focus on improving poor health to boost their workforce.

Oxfam’s research has shown that just 1% of each multi-billionaire’s money would be enough to end extreme poverty. Despite this, the world is still struggling to give even the most basic support to so many people – in ­­­­2015 the UN set the ‘Sustainable Development Goal 2’ to end world poverty and all forms of malnutrition by 2030, but by 2022 the World Bank had already determined it is unlikely to reach this goal. Continuously rising figures mean that now US$37 billion is needed each year from donor governments to solve the issues; this is equivalent to 1% of what the world annually spends on military products.

Whilst I realise that cutting this funding would be detrimental to the economy (“war is good for business and there is no profit in peace” ~Mr McGinley 2022), I believe that in my ideal society there would be no conflict, therefore there would be no need for war, however, if it was still necessary, spending could be limited or better distributed, so the services can help people and ensure the population’s safety.

Personally, I believe that the likeliness of this happening is quite slim, since throughout history records show how conflict has built and shaped civilisations. The Nature vs Nurture debate can be linked into this, with theories trying to explain whether things are caused by hereditary nature, or if it is a learned behaviour. Examples of social hierarchy and order can be seen since before the Ancient Greeks, with their strata based on four positions of power (Athens, Metics, Freemen, Slaves) and this system can be seen to continue through to the Medieval Feudal System and the stratification in today’s society. This form of classification could explain the human need to become ‘violent’ so you gain in order to prevent struggles and could provide an argument that society can never be ‘perfect’ since it is ‘programmed’ into humans to constantly be fighting to gain more.

Feminists argue that this class system is biased to allow men to gain more status in society, and to continue their control of women.  Today’s society is still seen to be patriarchal, where women are oppressed by men and not given the chance to succeed. This conflict theory can be represented in a variety of ways, with the Glass Ceiling Theory showing that inequalities are still clear in society, with 2023 statistics showing that there is still a 6% pay gap between the two genders. This can be linked back to primary socialisation, which is predominately focused on learning the norms of society, including gender stereotypes. By bringing up a child to conform to these, society becomes limited in the amount of progress it can make, and its continuation through to secondary socialisation emphasises how these norms are ingrained into society.

Religion has enabled society to reinforce these norms, which creates beliefs that are socially constructed, and influence our behaviours. The idea of ‘sin’ and ‘evil’ can be found in multiple forms throughout time (e.g. Eves’ corruption leading to sin, and the opening of Pandora’s box), and I think that these reflect the morals and values we have today.

Society creates a large emphasis on the value of wealth, which can mean those who have ‘less’ begin to experience Relative Poverty, even if they have the means to survive. This can eventually lead to Robert Merton’s Strain Theory, which is the idea that not owning what others have can cause resentment and can result in deviant or criminal behaviours in order to reach this norm. In 1942, the Beveridge Report identifies this greed as one of the ‘five evil giants’ that causes problems in our society, and I believe that this can be linked back to how suffering can be prevented.

Giving a ‘baseline’ standard of living will solve the issue of suffering, but as long as there is an imbalance in society there will continue to be a power dynamic and oppression. I think that although it can be significantly reduced, there will always be an ‘opportunity structure’ in place unless you are under ‘rule’ of extreme dictators such as Hitler or Mussolini. Throughout their time in power, their countries were seen to be (at least on the surface) in cohesion, and I think that although their actions were clearly wrong, the idea of working to reach a common goal could lead to an ideal society.

In dystopian worlds such as James Dashner’s book ‘The Maze Runner’, the characters worked and aimed to reach the common goal of survival. This is a small-scale approach to the issue, and the circumstances clearly were not ideal, but the situation shows how the means of survival over-ride the human nature to want. Again, another dystopian example of an ‘ideal society’ is George Orwell’s book ‘1984’, however in this case the society is constructed on censorship and complete control of the population. This lack of freedom never ends well (again as shown through Cuba’s protests against the government), but it does show how even societies that are meant to be ‘ideal’ can result in negative outcomes.

In my opinion, a ‘perfect society’ is where no one wants for anything, since the supply can easily meet the demand. However, to me an ‘ideal society’ is something slightly different, and it is where no one is suffering or living below the poverty line. As I have previously said, this is near impossible for a variety of reasons, but raising the standard of living would mean society is slowly progressing towards this. The government has already tried to implement this by giving everyone the same chances (for example, the 1944 Free Education Act), and by setting up the welfare state they have tried to give people an ‘outcome’ so that they can survive.

However, this isn’t a simple system and for many is more of a hinderance then help. The 2016 film ‘I, Daniel Blake’ (written by Paul Laverty, directed by Ken Loach) represents how the process can be difficult to manage, and shows the difficulties faced. Stereotypes from the media create a portrayal of those on benefits to be ‘lazy’, since the few stories of this that make the news are sensationalised and used as scapegoats to explain the country’s issues. The government doesn’t really try to tackle any of these problems, which is why one of the first steps toward an ideal society is a government with no agenda other than the public’s best interest. Having this as their first priority means that re-establishing the welfare system would make it more accessible and create the basis of what is needed for society to thrive.

A properly implemented welfare state means that a ‘baseline’ of living conditions is given to everyone, leading to better opportunities. Having ‘standardised living’ means that whilst you can want more, you have the chance to go and earn whatever it is you desire. These equal opportunities would result in a hopefully happier society, with no discrimination and crime. Society’s norms would have advanced to the point where, whilst there is still order, it does not need to be forcefully regulated, and it is typical for there to be differences in society without it causing issues.

In conclusion, my ideal society is one where the bare minimum is given so that the population have the opportunity to thrive and develop. - Orianna S.