For instance could you explain the rationale of your email: “Wisdom bounds over Pavlov’s dog”? I don’t think that many people know that “pavlov’ dog”means ” when someone simply reacts to a situation rather than use critical thinking. I can bet that a considerable number of our councillors are not educated enough (through formal education or own initiative) to google the expression to find out what it means. (I found in Wikipedia). Some might not even have a clue of what critical thinking means. To be fair how many people know who was Ivan Pavlov? And they would be mostly psychologists or working/ studying on a related field. So, just as a constructive criticism, a weakeness of the “movement” is that your first communication is a bit too sophisticated, a bit inaccessible. Could I suggest that you be more direct by saying that “councillors are acting like trained dogs instead of thinking on their own” - I believe that this is what you really mean and everybody understand the expression. Besides, you need strong headlines.

Another point, sending an email entitled as “wisdom bounds over Pavlov’s dog” might drive many to assume that it is a spam. They might even not open it. But you might get more success if the title is something like:”amendment to the education reform” etc… What I am saying is just use plain English (see http://www.plainenglish.co.uk) to be more successful in the campaign.

Yet, even though I think that your text is a bit too sophisticated, I am sure that most people can understand better than the council’s “Questionnaire - which way forward”. That’s because your text makes sense. The Questionnaire does not make sense at all. I was puzzled why I could not understand the Questionnaire when I have a Post Degree and have even heard of people who have PHDs in Education not being able to understand. The only answer could be: Because the Questionnaire does not make sense! We need someone to show this by desconstructing question by question. I am sure if are really psychologists you might be able to do this , philosophers too with the whole logic theory behind - and this would be really helpful, because one way to halt the process would be to prove with strong evidence faults on the consultation process.

Considering that the majority of posts use anonymity of pseudonyms, (including many of the more useful ones) it is left to readers to judge the merits of individual posts. As suggested by Patrick, a coordinated spread of approaches may be no bad thing.

Thank you for your reply. But I have to agree with Anon, without knowing who you are, it is difficult to take you seriously. There is a lots of points that I agree on the text and I believe that people can genuinely take initiative such as yours without being a hoax. However, there is something quite vague on what you have written and somehow the proposal seems a bit naive, like a bit “new age” sort of thing. I don’t think that this sort of thing will have any impact on guys such as David Pugh and Co. They just don’t care and it is obvious to me that they have a hidden agenda. Although you say that there is no political party involved, when you use the word movement, it implies an ideology, which we all have. At this point, I think that it is natural and helpful that concerned parents start taking their own initiatives, such as IWSCA, government online petitions, etc.. to keep the momentum. But what are you exactly? Are you a creative group, exploring the more philosophycal aspect of the issue? Because if you are there is a lots of scope for this that could keep the momentum. After all, we can all see the lack of common sense on the council’s proposal and we are all here to support island’s children.

You do not deserve any support until you can put names to your “MOVEMENT” otherwise NOBODY will take you seriously, at this precise moment in time all you are doing is giving everybody a jolly good laugh!!!

Thank you for your message and the very good points made. Apologies for the delay in responding whilst enquiries were being made. Consequently the following responses are offered:

IWSSCA is intended as a short term (less than 4 week) initiative with the single desire to ‘campaign to ensure that we do not commit too early to educational changes that may not deliver the sought improvement in standards.’ As such it avoids issues of ‘which way things will turn’. There is no 2-tier versus 3-tier element. There is no party political element. No support to a group is sought, only support to the Island’s children. (Also, people may have sensitive jobs).

The movement launched at a timely point in the run up to 19th March. This offers a focus, and specific target, for those so inclined. It does not seek to indoctrinate. It seeks common sense. Does the amendment go far enough? It’s weakness is it’s strength. Or, to quote Lao-tzu, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”.

Together, we are stronger! – Certainly. The IWSSCA blogsite was released slightly ahead of the coverage on this excellent SOS site. The IWSSCA blogsite was set-up not to display any reader comments, and the front page will shortly be annotated to clarify this, and guide any readers back here.

Further discussion welcome – especially with any individuals that may be in a better position to carry the amendment forward.

IW Schools Sanity-Check Amendment
‘Their future - It’s in our hands’

- It is very important to know who is running the project. At this stage people should be able to know who they are supporting and which way things will turn. Although I really approve the initiative, there is no information on the blog of who you are. At least Standard Non Tiers seems to be a registered organisation and it is easier to find out who they are and their history from their website.
- Should we not do a more focused and centralized effort? Perhaps the IWSSCA should come under the main campaign organisation (Standards non tiers) . Otherwise people will be fatigued of signing up so many petitions and checking so many different blogs. Just remember: Together, we are stronger!