notwell Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 Well Ramsey Grammar doesn't. I know, we got about 2 or 3 weeks off when they found it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 On 15/06/2017 at 9:11 PM, Max Power said: Being an MHK involves asking questions (or should do), not just pandering to every perceived need that departments have and just taking people's word for things. I was merely asking a question but you seem to think that a new building = a first class education. I got a ban for calling a spade a spade, before I could reply to that. Everything that can help our children can useful, whether that is a new school, a different teaching system or a totally new curriculum has got to help. Our kids are the future for everyone. I think you are way off the mark there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 9 hours ago, dilligaf said: I got a ban for calling a spade a spade, before I could reply to that. Everything that can help our children can useful, whether that is a new school, a different teaching system or a totally new curriculum has got to help. Our kids are the future for everyone. I think you are way off the mark there. What you're saying Dilli, is that everything new is good and anything old is bad. That has not been proven to be the case so many times, we keep experimenting with children's education down the years, to their detriment sometimes. I'm not in favour of just chucking money at things just to give the impression that something positive is being done. Having said that, I still haven't heard a solid good reason that a new school building improves a child's education to any great extent. That's not to say that I think staff and pupils should endure poor conditions. You're right, I don't have kids but that puts me in a position to be pragmatic I guess? Glad you're back btw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamHandwich Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 So it turns out this 'co-location' was a fait accompli all along. Who could possibly have guessed that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 I do not know what all the fuss is about, St Thomas's are simply moving to new premises, the fact that they are conjoined to an existing school is unimportant, except to a few hysterical women that think they should be consulted on everything. They should just get over themselves and be grateful their little darlings are being educated by the state for free. The fact that one is a town counciller seems to have given them false ideas of their own importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamHandwich Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 Well the fact is that the Department was required by law to consult on it and then promptly ignored over 400 objections, whilst playing some clever word games along the way to pretend there was only 2 objections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kopek Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 The fact is, this will be a segregated School and segregation in any form cannot be a good situation especially when it is deliberately formed. We are not being told the full story......... Why? did the govt think this was a good move? Who owns the old school? The Church? The govt. What money is to change hands in this 'deal'? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Govt want the site for a car park extension? Perhaps to compensate for the loss of Prom parking that they overlooked in their prom re-vamp plans? Did that play a factor in the move? There has not been a debate on the Island about faith schools, if allowed, should they be state funded? Should they be discouraged? Would an Islamic Madrassa concentrate our thoughts on this subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 15 minutes ago, SamHandwich said: Well the fact is that the Department was required by law to consult on it and then promptly ignored over 400 objections, whilst playing some clever word games along the way to pretend there was only 2 objections. Bollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamHandwich Posted May 16, 2018 Share Posted May 16, 2018 Which part specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted May 17, 2018 Share Posted May 17, 2018 All of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.