I wonder what sort of adults these kids will turn into? There is some hope for some of them but others do not realise that this is their 2nd. chance.

If you watch the full clip minus the unfortunate slip of the tongue by Starkey on YouTube - you will see that gave quite a good history lesson to the students getting them to understand how their modern-day language, posturing et all had roots in the past. He was able to engage them with rap music - shrewd move on his part and it worked. Channel 4 is clearly editing for the sake of entertainment. However, it is worth noting that the lippy, larking-about few for each teacher were always the same students - with Connor leading the pack and dominating at every opportunity.. Sad thing is they do have potential and just don't care. They have to put the hard work in and If nothing else, Starkey and Alvin Hall proved that you can come from a dirt-poor background and be successful I found them both very inspiring.

This can't be about education. Just because someone might be an expert in a particular field, doesn't mean they will be any good at actually teaching it.

I find the above comments (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the main article) absolutely horrendous, seeing as how this comes from a "Democratic Socialist"/Left-Wing newspaper.

Before I begin ranting, however, I must admit that I may be partially biased due to my own incredibly liberal views of Socialism itself. I'm no libertarian (far from, infact), but I also tend to be fairly supportive of high civil and political rights, whilst keeping the economy more-or-less equal (or, ofcourse, removing it. Why do we need such a capitalist construction anyway?).

Anywho, before I digress from the main topic, I felt the need to express how absolutely appalled I am at both the person that wrote the article and the majority of those that commented upon it, for the show (despite the fact that it picks scenes based on commercial value) has one thing right: "Those that do well get into the top groups, whereas those that don't are shoved in the bottom groups and forgotten about, innit?"

By claiming yourselves as "true socialists", yet denying these kids both the right to a good education (I scoff at any claims of "They don't deserve it", due to the fact that this comes from the mouths of people who seek to abolish all forms of discrimination (of wealth, sex, race, sexuality etc.) from people who claim the -exact- same thing - "They don't deserve rights because they don't deserve it") and the freedom of expression they deserve (by limiting the children with discipline, whether you like it or not, you are impeaching on their civil rights and/or ability to express themselves - they need to learn in a way that benefits them. Surely, we all know what an iron-fisted tyrannical hierarchy of the "important" at the top and "lesser" people at the bottom will bring?).

What do I propose? Simple. A more casual, friendly environment that is more down-to-earth. The one main problem facing our education system today is not too little discipline - rather, it is the teaching methods that people follow. All that, in my eyes, can be learned from "good ol'" cane-thwacking is resentment for the "supervisor" (and, ofcourse, being oppressed/coerced into conforming - and we all know (some of us even preaching) how oppression is never the answer).

I, personally, know that, for most children, the issue is either the strictness of the teaching method or the "holier-than-thou" attitude of most teachers. We are entering a new generation of children, each more liberal-minded and outspoken than the last (except with a few simple-minded bigots, ofcourse, but they are increasingly rare). Therefore, if these people are "spoke down upon", they will act in rebellion by simply refusing to co-operate. Not out of a desire to not learn, rather, out of a desire to speak one's mind and get it heard. They desire, as do I, a setting in which teachers speak to students as equals - perhaps even acting/dressing/speaking in ways in which they can relate (another thing the new generation seems to lack is attention-spans, hence, this is one solution). To let them speak their piece if need be, but make it somewhat work-related. If people aren't doing work, ask them why. "It's boring" - then challenge them to make it more interesting, and follow through! Gather ideas, and actually work with the children!

So often, as socialists, we talk about removing the class barriers - why, then, do we seek to add an age-barrier or hierarchy similar to that found in capitalism in our schools when there should be the same extent of equality?

I wish I'd watched this whole series now! Seen from the perspective of the current A C Grayling New College of the Humanities scandal (people have made comparisons already) I can see the differences: I've always thought that Jamie Oliver has his heart in the right place, far more than snooty people like Dawkins and Grayling (hey, I wonder what those rough kids would make of their elitist rants and secular Bibles? I'd like to set council estate kids on the pair of them! Precisely because I am not a Christian!)

The difference between the Dream School and NCH is that Dream School, far from costing £18,000 a year, made some kind of attempt to do something for the economically disadvantaged. For that it has to be given props. Like I said, I'd really like to see Dawkins take the same kind of crap Starkey did; explain his ideas to rough/"clueless" kids; tell why he thinks religion is bunk to a class with at least 3 or 4 Muslims and religious black Christian kids. Yeah: they'd need a good metal detector: but I think