Broads Authority Suspect Curriculum

[Timbo]

The Broads Authority has outlined its latest initiative to push young people to "learn in the region’s biggest “classroom without walls”. All well and good, I applaud their efforts to use the regions outstanding assets to educate children in the importance of preserving the Broads. However reading through the curriculum I discovered one area of concern. The little heading of 'National Parks'.

I have fired off a request to the Broads Authority for a copy of their curriculum, lesson plan and teaching materials. Once I receive copies of these documents I will of course publish them for your perusal. Hopefully they will have maintained ethicacy by sticking to the unadulterated facts of the Broads Authority's relationship to the National Parks.

As a stakeholder in the Broads...yes I think I am a stakeholder...I would sincerely hope they will be walking a very straight line whilst teaching children, but I suspect not. As an educator, should I not be satisfied, I have no problem in yanking their chain and organising a 'squeaky bottom' session with Justine Greening...

...and my bum doesn't squeak!

 

 

[Guest]

This obsession is both tedious and utterly pointless. The Broads get £3 million pound National Park Grant and if you visit the National Park website you will see them listed as one of the National Parks. If you think anyone outside the small - yes small - group of moaners about this gives a damn about the distinction between National Park Family and Nationals Park you are wrong. 

[MauriceMynah]

Bill, I agree that the group of people that keeps bringing this matter to our attention is indeed small, and I can accept that some of the regular readers might find it repetitive, but it is your "utterly pointless" comment that I feel needs to be contested.

There are certain facts within the repetition that I believe need to be supported.

The RSPB is a massive pressure group who's agenda may well not be to the advantage of the boating/fishing groups. They will not give up.

Full National Parks status would also not be in those two groups interests either.

I cannot see the push towards NP status being relinquished ... well ever actually, and for as long as there is that "push" however camouflaged, the issues have to be brought back to the public eye. 

 

[Guest]

But you are quite wrong. The BA has clearly stated in the debate over the name that it will no longer seek full National Park status and that Sandford will not apply. 

You are tilting at Windmills. 

[marshman]

MM - don't join that grouping!!  I thought better of you!!  It IS all rather silly and everyone now knows the ins and outs!! How on earth can you "teach" a child the subtle difference? To 99% of the population of the whole world, its a National Park - just live with it now!

Those who know different  and know what they know, are right, and can live in peace for a long long time time. As you know all know, primary legislation is required to change the actuality and I think I can safely say the Govt will not have enough time over the next 15 years or so to give it a thought!!  Timbo - with the greatest of respect just stop wasting the BA's time with what is really trivia - I am sure they have better things to do like put up tolls!

 

[Vaughan]

I am on Timbo's side in this, for one good reason :

Her Majesty's Government has to have an opposition in Parliament, which sadly it doesn't have at the moment, so it risks being considered un-accountable. This is what we call democracy.

As the BA also seems un-accountable, to an electorate, at least it should find itself accountable to its stake-holders opinions now and again.

As to the teaching of children I have said before, if the Broads can be maintained as the same fabulous boating playground that we all grew up in, then the children can learn to love them naturally.

[Timbo]

I'm quite all right with the self delusion over National Park Status. I'm quite happy that the checks and balances put in place to rein in the exuberant excesses of the current administration have so far held. Its when it gets to the education of children I have a real problem. Be under no illusion that children will not understand the differences.Hopefully the curriculum when it arrives will be well thought out, content relevant and appropriate and factually correct. Why wouldn't it be? But I suppose if I were to take a similar position of 'they are only kids' or only 'students' then my  lecture on The Tudor Revolution in Government on Monday is going to make for interesting listening.

Right, let me see...forget the destruction of local liberties and loss of independent jurisdiction in 1536, abolition of right of sanctuary in 1540 oh hang on there's the abolition of the privilege of sanctuary 1624...oh I'll just lump those together, right Wales...what do I do about Wales?

I mean it's administered as part of England from 1536, but not technically part of England...it's still not part of England 500 years later...oh let's not bother with a distinction...they're only students...let's just call it all England. Oh wait a minute there's Calais to think about... that was given parliamentary representation in 1536 too, hang on I'll cut Calais out of it...just complicates matters, why would the kids want to know it was a possession. Right now there's the Council of the North, Court of First Fruits, Court of Wards, Privy Council, Star Chamber...stuff that, lump 'em all together...right then kiddies...I know some of you have taken out some serious debt to attend, and I know some of you wanted and most of you needed an education but...

There was a war, then the Tudors jiggled things about and now it's a National Park. Now I'm off down the pub so amuse yourselves for two hours. The end of year exam...feel free to make up any old rubbish and you'll pass.

 

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, batrabill said:

But you are quite wrong. The BA has clearly stated in the debate over the name that it will no longer seek full National Park status and that Sandford will not apply. 

You are tilting at Windmills. 

Bill, if you honestly and sincerely believe that statement then I'm sorry, it's my firm and honest belief that you entirely wrong, even disillusioned. Dr Packman will eventually retire, and not before time, neither of us can have any possible preconception of whether his successor will further pursue the status of being a full and legal national park or not. Indeed neither of us can possibly know the reality of Dr Packman's as yet undeclared vision. I certainly don't trust him, not one iota. I admire his determination to achieve his vision, doesn't mean that I admire his manipulation of reality & people to achieve that end. Give the man an inch and he'll push for a yard, the pressure has to be maintained, we'd be fools if we backed off.

In my sincere & honest opinion any effort to mislead children in order to achieve one's personal agenda is pretty despicable. The truth is the truth, calling the Broads a National Park is, if we really believe the Authority, is allegedly for no other reason than for marketing, if that is a fact then it means it's not for education but can we honestly believe that. The emerging evidence suggests not.

Tim is on the money.

[Guest]

Ah, so you are using the "unknown future" argument. We don't know what a future head of the BA will do?

None of us know what will happen in the future so we must fight it now. Only trouble is, that can be used to justify ANYTHING. Ergo it is meaningless.

The opinion on this forum is skewed by a small number of people who waste no opportunity to rubbish the BA and, much more reprehensibly, individuals in the BA. Something I find very distasteful. 

Everyone has a right to disagree but to personalise it is wrong.

[Guest]

It appears the real culprits are The National Parks. They seem to be misleading everyone!

[Vaughan]

44 minutes ago, batrabill said:

Everyone has a right to disagree but to personalise it is wrong.

Dr Packman is the head of an un-accountable Quango, and he appears often to express his personal opinion and influence over other officers and members.

There is a very old saying : If you stick your head up over the parapet, expect to get shot at!

[Hockham Admiral]

Please let's  keep it friendly, peeps.

We all have our own opinions and are entitled to express them; but in the best traditions of respect and courtesy, please.   

[JennyMorgan]

I recently, just before Christmas, spoke face to face with Dr Packman and asked him about the National Park branding. His answer was simple, 'I've taken it as far as I can at this moment in time'. Obviously that statement doe not exclude the future thus I presume that it is meaningless hence we must maintain our caution.

As for personalisation, how and why should we avoid it? I have just written that I had a conversation with Dr Packman, should I have just said a 'representative of the Broads Authority'? Would that have been preferable? It would rather have devalued both my comment & reality.

Bill, clearly you waste no opportunity in attempting to rubbish the opinion of those who appear to be somewhat less naive than yourself in regard to the governance and management of the Broads Authority.. 

Strangely enough Marshman & myself can agree to disagree without rancour, it can be done.

[jeffbroadslover]

I am wondering if Dr. Packman  has applied to change his name by deed=poll to Dr. Packman-Trump

Jeff

[Guest]

As usual you go on the personal attack when ever anyone challenges you. I find that disappointing. 

I shall take my naivety somewhere else. 

[ranworthbreeze]

2 hours ago, jeffbroadslover said:

I am wondering if Dr. Packman  has applied to change his name by deed=poll to Dr. Packman-Trump

Jeff

Hi Jeff, 

Is that because he also has a dodgy wig

Mind you I thought his hat was grafted to his head.

Regards

Alan

[JennyMorgan]

Dr Packman is a gentleman in that he takes his hat off in the office and no, he doesn't wear a wig. 

[johnb]

I  would be interested in seeing the teaching material for  the children, it is my experience that children up to 12 at least, are not expected to question "facts" which could be described as "what we understand at the moment".   I am sure many of the things we have, believe and enjoy at the moment would have been thought impossible by my teachers.

There is also a discussion on this forum about how the Broads came into being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

would be able to bre

[Wussername]

55 minutes ago, batrabill said:

As usual you go on the personal attack when ever anyone challenges you. I find that disappointing. 

I shall take my naivety somewhere else. 

I do not necessarily agree with all of your comments. You are not unique in that respect, others fall into that category, . However I think it is important indeed imperative to this forum that you  express your opinions. Some of which I find thought provoking. It is the very strength of this forum. There are some very hard hitters. But hang in there.

Andrew

[Timbo]

It's not a discussion unless there's all sides represented. That is the most important thing if any debate on any subject is to be considered valid. The discussion needs your input Batrabill.

52 minutes ago, johnb said:

There is also a discussion on this forum about how the Broads came into being.

As an historian and archaeologist that is one of the aspects I'm most interested in. How the history of the Broads is to be taught. Will it be a rehash of the C19th history that seems to be constantly trotted out or will they be teaching a curriculum that takes into account current thought and research?

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Dr Packman is a gentleman in that he takes his hat off in the office and no, he doesn't wear a wig. 

I was taught in the Army that a British gentleman always takes his spurs off before going to bed.

[JennyMorgan]

11 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I was taught in the Army that a British gentleman always takes his spurs off before going to bed.

.....and put them on his elbows!

[Baitrunner]

10 hours ago, batrabill said:

It appears the real culprits are The National Parks. They seem to be misleading everyone!

I quite like this page. It shows all sorts of activities. Call it what you will it's still ours. 

I appreciate there may be an underlying urge to push it to a fully protected environment but it just needs enough doubt and a few people to keep them on the straight and narrow. 

i haven't read the link yet, so just have to hope it isn't trying to brainwash the younger generation. But let's face it most of the younger generation probably give as much thought to boating as they do fishing and bird watching!!

opinions are valid and welcome, attacks unwelcome!!

[Baitrunner]

Ok reading that sounds like a brilliant idea. It doesn't indicate any emphasis on anything. 

I do know loads of locals who have never experienced the broads. Doing whatever. 

I have a born and bred 65 yr old coming out with me and his wife this year never been on a boat. Surely a good thing?

Ok maybe there is an underlining theme, but what I have read sounds brilliant. 

Lets see what the cariculum actually is. 

[JennyMorgan]

I agree, Mark.

A curriculum that promotes the Broads as the Broads and the legal reality would gain a great deal of respect and hopefully be a new start in the Authority regaining the trust that it has lost over the last ten or twelve years.