Broads Authority Suspect Curriculum

[Wussername]

2 minutes ago, Wussername said:

We can only presume that's where he is!

Or where he thinks he is!

[MauriceMynah]

or where the French think he is.

[Vaughan]

"Here be dragons!"

[Vaughan]

I know exactly where I was just now - in a local bar in an Occitain village, where a good sized glass of Minervois rosé costs 1€ 50.

Have a nice day!   

[MauriceMynah]

and you're there with drag on???

[Timbo]

10 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

and you're there with drag on???

Francophile...Member of the Some Mother's Do 'Ave 'Em appreciation society!
We love you really Vaughan!

[MauriceMynah]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 9:35 AM, marshman said:

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!

 

Marshman,

I have thought very long and hard about your post before replying to the above post, It’s taken me 5 days to do so and think I’ll take things in much the order you have presented them.

Fistly you say “Don’t join that grouping” By that I take you to mean the “Anti National Park” group. Sorry but I’ve been a ‘fully paid up member’ for some years now. If however you mean the “knock Packman at every opportunity” group, no I’m not a member of that one and doubt I ever will be.

I realize that 99% of the world’s population thinks the broads to be a National Park, but I don’t agree that we should just “live with it”. Far from it. To adopt that stance would leave those involved open to push things through.

…“Those who know different and know what they know, are right”…

Hmmm,… I once knew that I would receive my state pension when I reached 65. I knew this and I knew that I knew this and that I was right.  WRONG !!! The government changed the rules. They’ve done it before and they can do it again, it just depends who is pressing for what.

“The government will not have enough time over the next 15 years or so to give it a thought” Whilst I agree that the government has more important things to worry about, surely it would be quicker for them to cave in and change the act, than to keep arguing with the pressure groups and one of their own quangos. The route of least resistance I believe is to be full NP status.

This is what I genuinely believe to be the case.

Also to Batrabill  may I add that I do not believe that Dr Packman has abandoned his aim for full National Park status… irrespective of what he may have said.

[JennyMorgan]

52 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

 

“The government will not have enough time over the next 15 years or so to give it a thought” Whilst I agree that the government has more important things to worry about, surely it would be quicker for them to cave in and change the act, than to keep arguing with the pressure groups and one of their own quangos. The route of least resistance I believe is to be full NP status.

 

I honestly believe the above to be verging on fact. Having sat in on various meetings at BA HQ I also believe that there are those who are relying on that route to fulfill their ambition. Gently gently catch the monkey. 

[Vaughan]

I have already nailed my colours to the mast in a previous post on this thread.

My reason is because I fear for the future of navigation on the Broads if they are to be swallowed up by National Park (and RSPB) thinking.

Secondly, I feel that the fact that they get a National Park grant doesn't mean that they would not have to get a government grant of some sort anyway - it's just a question of what you call it, and in what terms you couch it. Meantime, the other half of their income comes from BOATS, so those boats must expect to be able to NAVIGATE and to MOOR UP, no matter what other consideration.

Thirdly, I hope I can say that I have not made personal attacks on Dr Packman on here, unless I have disagreed with something he has publicly stated. However, I can count on my fingers at least six ex members of the BA whom I know personally and who all have the same things to say about him. Two of whom (excluding Peter) have given their written opinions in public. That is a bit too much of a coincidence, for me.

[JennyMorgan]

Written opinions from ex members of the BA, yes, I have seen such letters too. Also pretty damning opinions from ex BA staff.

[Timbo]

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

I feel that the fact that they get a National Park grant doesn't mean that they would not have to get a government grant of some sort anyway

Reading the legislation rather than Broads Authority documentation, The Broads Authority do not get a National Park Grant. What they receive, same as they have always received, is government funding that for ease of administration is paid through the National Parks administrative apparatus. 

In exactly the same way that from 1536 the Principality of Wales, a country in its own right with its own identity, culture, needs and requirements different to those of England, was governed through English administrative structures up until 1999.

It's the historian in me you see. It may seem pedantic, it might annoy the hell out of some people but its a discipline that is essential to a more precise interpretation and understanding of events. Of course history is open to interpretation, for example  as an historian I would not say that to 99% of the world's population the Norfolk Broads are a National Park. Simply because if you asked 99% of the worlds population about the Norfolk Broads a majority would ask 'where?' and a significant proportion of people would assume they were somewhere near Ibiza. To be honest a majority of the UK population wouldn't give a monkey's wotsit if they were a National Park or not...which makes a marketing strategy based on renaming The Broads as a National Park an utterly gormless, shambolic waste of resources better spent for the benefit of all elsewhere. 

Still we are stuck with it, stupid as it is. I think what really irks me is that if marketing was the objective a good marketing consultant would have advised them that more could be made of The Broads differences to National Parks than any similarities. You don't advertise a product by saying that it's exactly the same as all other products.  You play to a product's strengths, its individuality. In the case of The Broads it's unique blend of community, wildlife and landscape. What makes it different is what makes it marketable.

The Broads is NOT a National Park. It is so much more!" Now that is marketing!
No uniforms, signboards, van livery, stationery or committees were altered in the creation of this strapline reducing costs and our carbon footprint.

[Vaughan]

7 hours ago, Timbo said:

Reading the legislation rather than Broads Authority documentation, The Broads Authority do not get a National Park Grant. What they receive, same as they have always received, is government funding that for ease of administration is paid through the National Parks administrative apparatus. 

Bingo!

I had a feeling that this would be the case.

"A rose by any other name" and all that.

[grendel]

Actually I think at least 50% would think Norfolk Broads were those underdressed young ladies tottering between night clubs in Norfolk, rather than a beautiful landscape, with wildlife and boats.

[Vaughan]

48 minutes ago, grendel said:

Actually I think at least 50% would think Norfolk Broads were those underdressed young ladies tottering between night clubs in Norfolk, rather than a beautiful landscape, with wildlife and boats.

No, they are known here as "slummukin' grit mawthers"!

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Vaughan said:

No, they are known here as "slummukin' girt mawthers"!

And that is despite not necessarily being mothers, such is the Norfolk way, confusing to foreigners!

[BroadAmbition]

foreigners!

Blimey JM - You slipped up there didn't thee?  I was always lead to believe you inbreds referred to us immigrants as 'Furriners'

Griff

[Timbo]

I've received a reply from the Broads Authority. Below you will find links to the curriculum documents. These are open documents meant to be discussed and commented upon by the public and any concerns brought to the BA's attention. The BA wish to implement this educational strategy at the beginning of the next financial year so we only have until Friday 3rd of March to comment upon it.

Here is the kind reply from the guy at the BA's Education department. Along with links to the planning documents.
"At the moment, the Broads Curriculum is under development, but I attach the planning document  together with the proposed plan for the teaching materials .

I would be interested to receive any comments regarding either the strategy or the proposed curriculum.

The Broads Curriculum will be a dynamic document, subject to changes in response to requirements, and we will be working closely with partners within the Broads Environmental Education Network to develop it.  We would be happy to receive comments and contributions as it develops over the next year .

However, as the education strategy is  planned for adoption by the new financial year I would be grateful you could respond with any comments by email to me by Friday 3rdMarch 2017."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5zEK7l5GhVGNXNndUtMZEZ6R0xFbUZFd1FhUmpDTGhYZ1U0/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5zEK7l5GhVGSkhSYWxJUVMtX3dfeURXeWZzS1NnN0c5YjRn/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5zEK7l5GhVGY2tOWG96SWFtc2RaTG1YVE1rWGwtakdpZ0pN

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5zEK7l5GhVGOURhS3U0c21iTUpqamwxX1I1cGpZcXhScWlj

[Timbo]

I would be interested in what everyone else has to say about these documents.

I have a couple of fairly major concerns as an historian and landscape archaeologist.  The history section is ...the biggest load of cobblers I've read in a long time. Pre History and geography will be taught by...the RSPB using disproved theorems from thirty years ago. The RSPB? Give it a rest. Odd situation when both Cambridge and Birmingham University Archaeological Teams are involved in extensive Prehistory programs within the Broads area.

I just refuse to comment on the 'vikings digging the Broads'.

I'm quite shocked that the Archaeological Trust is involved in the Great Estuary crapola when should and do know better. 

I will be penning my polite replies to the BA Education Department and suggesting they would be better off screening Doug McClure's The Land That Time Forgot as it would be more factual that the crud they are proposing to present to children as fact.

[JennyMorgan]

Having Viking genes, and having dug a hole to bury a departed hamster the other day, I can assure you that the descendants of Vikings do dig around the Broads.  

[JennyMorgan]

I am not convinced that brainwashing children into accepting JP's personal 'vision', that he's the demi god in charge of a national park, should be encouraged. It's agreed that the use of the term is branding for marketing purposes, marketing does not include educating youngsters.

[JennyMorgan]

I shall be posting this comment to relevant departments.

 

Dear Mr Sanderson,

Thanks to a colleague I have had sight of the  the Broads Curriculum in regard to the education of local children. I note with concern the constant reference to The Broads National Park. Where education, especially that of children is concerned, accuracy & truth is paramount, in that I'm sure that you will agree.

The facts are clear in regard to the Broads being a National Park, namely that legally it is not and can not be, a fact that is accepted and not open to debate. The same applies to the fact that the Broads National Park Bill failed to complete its passage through Parliament. It is also a fact that the use of the contentious term 'Broads National Park' was to be nothing more than a branding term for marketing purposes. At no point has it been agreed that the term 'Broads National Park' should or even could be used for educational purposes.

To call the Broads something that it is not is nothing short of a lie, to use the term to mislead children via their education is undesirable. 

I will be referring this matter both to my M.P. and to various members of the Broads Authority. 

Yours, very sincerely, 

[JennyMorgan]

To the above I have added:

The invidious campaign by one particular individual to recreate the Broads as a national park, according to his vision, with the implications associated with the Sandford Principle should have no place in the proposed curriculum. 

[Vaughan]

I had a horrible feeling that Timbo would see the bit about the great estuary and sure enough he did! I noticed it too, and it was under the name of the Norfolk Archeological Trust. This is no better than I was taught at school.

It took a long time to wade through all this as my eyes kept glazing over but in all objectivity I can't see much at all in this "project" that I would not expect young people at school to be taught anyway, on subjects such as science, physics, geography, nature, etc. I don't see this as "Broads" specific.

My grand-children have started their schooling at the local children's school at Sutton, near Stalham, which I assume is one of the ones the BA group under the acronym "BEEN". I went there for one of their parents' days and I was hugely impressed. Also most gratified. If this is the way young people are being taught in Norfolk schools then I am entirely satisfied and suggest that the BA "vision" can do nothing to improve this. In fact they would be better to stop wasting all this public money on visions and get on with dredging rivers.

[JennyMorgan]

Vaughan, I like that, especially your last sentence.

I do wonder at the qualifications within Yare House for either education or marketing. Adequately qualified then I would have thought that such folk would have employment within those sectors rather than within the walls of Yare House.

The Authority does have a penchant for dabbling in matters outside their field of expertise in order to promote itself.

[ranworthbreeze]

From what I could see the reports had a pronounced ISO 9001 feel about them.

Great another generation of box tickers

Regards

Alan