I did and it was logical. You have nothing to criticise it with because there's nothing to criticse you're just trolling it seems.
I did and it was logical. You have nothing to criticise it with because there's nothing to criticse you're just trolling it seems.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
His assumption that male students automatically fare better with practical experiments is rather hilarious. Obviously the guy has never been near a classroom again after having left school.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I don't think he automatically assumes it.
I think he thinks that some boys (and some girls too) are more interested in practical hands on learning than theoretical. He's not wrong.
Here's a hint, though, why that will fall flat on its face: Without theory you don't get much out of the practical.
Also, in my long experience: They guys who don't pay attention during theory also don't pay attention when doing practical stuff. After all, it's not like there aren't instructions involved.
It's a nice theory - but it's just that: A theory. Reality does look quite different.
And reality states that those who are not interested in a subject will not be swayed by practical exercises. There's no magic: Do this and suddenly they'll engage more!
It may help with general engagement but I call bullshit on his gender theory.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I don't think anyone's suggesting its a magic bullet, or will work for everyone, or to do practical instead of theory rather than as well as it. Rather that it would be a good idea to try and engage pupils more.
An improvement in "general engagement" would be a good thing would it not? Or do you view an improvement in "general engagement" as a bad thing?
Yes, but he made it specific about boys, dude. Learn to read.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Yes, because there's a difference between boys and girls on average, or do you deny that?
Dude, that's so broad a distinction that it becomes completely useless.
Everytime someone trots out these: "But people from group [A] learn differently than group [B]!" or "[A] mus be taught this way, [B] this way!" or "If you only do this, [A] will fare much better!" it always falls flat on its face when you look closely enough.
There's so much different styles of teaching over the decades with hardly anyone actually stopping to look at whether those actually work that such advice is complete rubbish.
The most important factor which usually evolves from meta-studies: The teacher. Build a rapport with your pupils, be confident and interesting at teaching and then it does not matter how you're teaching. It simply does not work to force a method of teaching upon a teacher who does just fine with the way he does things. Some teachers do wonders with mostly old-style lectures. Others do lots of group assessments. Still others favour a massively individualized approach. Then there's projects. And so on. A plethora of methods which are only as good as the person using them. You do not force a chainsaw on a glass blower.
I'm a teacher. You are not. You have never stood in front of a class for several hours a day, several days a week, several weeks a year. Don't presume to tell me something about which you know nothing.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
No dude its not useless.
"In 2004, 63.3% of female GCSE entries resulted in an A* to C grade, compared with 54.9% of male entries."
That's not a useless distinction, that is a tremendous difference. Yes of course teacher's matter. Yes I agree teacher's matter more than style. But it is worth addressing the massive gender gap. If the roles were reversed and there was major underperformance by girls relative to boys and someone said that should be addressed would you be as upset about that? He made it specific about boys because of the data.
You really do. not. get. it.
"He made it specific about boys because of the data."
Rubbish data. He jumped from a conclusion to a cause. You have to be VERY careful with those conclusions because they're rarely so simple as your thought processes turn out to be. It is almost NEVER "from A follows B" but usually "It's A under conditions of B, C and D while E is a countering factor with F also to be considered."
The problem is that you do not have a clue. You don't know anything about this profession. And you obviously do not educate yourself on it. So shut your trap about stuff you have not got the faintest clues of. I'm done with your willful ignorance. I'm also done with those idiotic suggestions of the most moronic orders that "Oh, but if we only did that it would magically fix everything!"
If it was so simple it would already have been done.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I must say, a normal PM would be resigning now. But I guess De Pfeffel doesn't do normal.
Congratulations America
He's got nothing to resign for. What bandwagon are you jumping on today?
How about the lies/bullshit about why the report had to be delayed?
The chaps giving the conference this morning were clear that all the excuses given were complete rubbish.
Imagine if Corbyn did that. Imagine how furious you'd be. Imagine the "bandwagon" you'd be jumping on.
But no. Johnson can lie through his teeth all day every day. The PM of our fine nation is perfectly within his rights to lie to us. That's fine and normal.
Conservatives 2020.
You forgot the part where he tried to push for an inexperienced committee chairman and kicking the new chairman out of the party in retaliation. For no other purpose i could see than to interfere with a committee.. which just happens to be in control of a report which is critical on the government.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Oh yeah, I literally can't keep track of all the lies and corruption anymore.
I guess that's the strategy though.
Grieve was kicked out of the party for voting against the government on a matter of confidence. That's standard precedence for confidence motions and all the MPs who were kicked out knew that when the vote was called a confidence motion. Which incidentally was literally the same thing John Major did to get Maastricht through. It had nothing to do with the committee.
As for why the report was delayed, it was only laid before the PM after the election had been called for.
Edit: Oh I misread sorry the new kicking out lol. Nevermind. That was odd.
The report has been needlessly delayed. That was made clear long ago.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The report is out now and its a damp squib. There's nothing that interesting in it which is why people are still whining about delays rather than the juicy, shocking elements of the report which would be what you'd be banging on about if they existed.
The reason the report was delayed was that there was an election. Nothing can be released after the election is called, it is called purdah. The report wasn't cleared before the election and while it could have been rushed through it wasn't and was within the normal period of time when the election was voted for by the last Parliament's MPs. If the MPs hadn't voted for the election the report would have come out.
Post-election it would have been illegal for the report to be released before the new committee authorised it.
You may want a wild conspiracy but its like the Wizard of Oz - pull back the sheets and there's nothing to see here.
On the contrary, it's quite damning.
The excuses you offer are not sufficient to justify the extreme delay. Nor are they consistent with the initial rationale, which was that the report could not be released due to procedural issues pertaining to vetting—an excuse that was rejected by those who had knowledge of its contents. The report was ready to be made available to the public several weeks before the beginning of the purdah period; Johnson's decision to sit on it could not have been justified by purdah.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There's not been an extreme delay. It was a matter of days between the report being finalised (after which it needs vetting and signing off which takes time) and Parliament being dissolved for the election.
After Parliament dissolved it would have been illegal to release it.
So the delay was a few working days and these things always take some.
The report was ready in the beginning of October. It was made available to the PM on October 17th, by which point it had already been thoroughly vetted by other relevant parties. Parliament was dissolved on November 6th, just over two working weeks later. While it is indeed true that weeks are made up of days, it's disingenuous to describe two full working weeks as "a few working days". The election was held nearly 8 months ago, so there has been plenty of time to release it since. Eight months to release an important report that was ready to be released is nothing less than an extreme—and, in this case, unjustifiable—delay. It is astonishing how skilled you've become at bullshitting yourself. Or, perhaps, in your case, it requires no skill at all.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Its not disingenuous to say that two working weeks is a matter of working days. And when it comes to dissolving Parliament the PM has a number of things on their plate not just this damp squib of a report to deal with.
But after those days, no it is not astonishing that this report wasn't released in the last eight months as it would have been against the law to release it. Get your facts straight.
The fact you want this report illegally releasing is flabbergasting. Or did you not know, nor care, that it would have been illegal to release it?
This is nonsense. "A few days" implies "less than a week". Roughly five working days implies "about one working week". Roughly 14 working days implies "about two working weeks". You're using words like an idiot again, and it's just tiresome. The PM had no justification for sitting on the report for as long as he did—and, indeed, he failed to offer a compelling excuse. Since the report could have been released before purdah, that is no excuse either.
The report had already been approved for release by all other parties; even if one accepts your claim re. the necessity of being re-approved by a new committee, the earliest date at which the report could've been legally released is not just now. If that truly were the case, the initial decision to delay its release is an even more egregious act of obstruction. If the PM knew that an inexcusable delay would prevent the report from being released for another 8 months, he had an obligation to approve it swiftly, before purdah set in. As usual, your excuses only serve to undermine your case.But after those days, no it is not astonishing that this report wasn't released in the last eight months as it would have been against the law to release it. Get your facts straight.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Grieve himself said that it "normally" took on average 10 working days to clear a report like this. Parliament was dissolved after 14 working days. So that is longer than normal by a grand total 4 working days during which time the PM had many more serious matters to deal with at the time like Brexit, the end of our Article 50 period at Halloween, the attempted ratification of his deal and the election vote to force through an extension of Article 50 to January and the vote for an election. A hell of a lot more than than just a report to sign off on his plate!
17 October 2019 was right during the wrangling over whether Article 50 should be extended or not with Grieve backing a law compelling an extension. Did you conveniently forget about that Meanwhile he plopped this on the PMs in tray while that was all going on then whinged about it not being cleared sooner. Maybe he should have submitted it to the PM sooner or not backed the election or not been fighting for an article 50 extension or . . . the list goes on.
The necessity of being re-approved by a new committee is not just my claim it is the law. The initial decision to not sign off on the report within standard timings for these matters is not a major issue. Maybe Parliament shouldn't have voted for an election before the report was published but it did.
Steely, gogo & Tim, I need your help verifying this scandalous list:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RussInChe...50820214349826
(thread)
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You didn't ask me, but I think you rely too much on Twitter for your "news".
1. Hancock is right, it began on the 16th.
2. Lockdown was finalised on the 24th but it had already started on the 16th.
Not going to bother with the rest of the rant because its quite clear the guy is a liar.
Timeline:
16th: Hancock said in Parliament that all non-essential travel should stop, work from home if you can, don't go to bars or restaurants etc. Johnson (I think) said it on daily news briefing. Reports that schools would be closing etc.
18th: Announced that all schools would close, except for key workers.
20th: Announced that all pubs, restaurants etc must close.
23rd: Johnson says you must stay at home by law.
Only a liar would say that it began on the 24th. The 24th was when the penalty of law came into force but the messaging for lockdown had come in immediately.
Statement to the House on 16 March after the COBR meeting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...-to-parliamentToday we are advising people against all unnecessary social contact with others and all unnecessary travel.
We need people to start working from home if they possibly can.
We should steer clear of pubs, clubs, cinemas and restaurants.
We should only use the NHS when we really need to.
Wording here is important.
'Lockdown', is the time during which the country as a whole was under actual lockdown: stay indoors, do not go to work, do not go out unless absolutely necessary, no travel except for keyworkers, all shops and businesses closed except for essential ones. This point started on the 24th.
The minor steps taken before the 24th were not lockdown - because the country was not locked down. I was still going in to the office at that time.
I have just re-checked my emails. There is an email sent from our Chair of the UK Major Incident Group to all departments heads, further disseminated to all staff in the UK. The email states that with immediate effect that all staff except those in key positions must work from home following the Prime Ministers speech. This email was sent on the night of the 23rd March.
And we were told all that "stay indoors, do not go to work, do not go out unless absolutely necessary, no travel except for keyworkers, businesses close" etc from the 16th.
I forgot another one for the list. The 22nd was Mothers Day and all week the government were saying that because there should be no non-essential travel do not go to visit your mum for mother's day.
Only a twisted individual would suggest that we were not locked down on Mother's Day this year when people were told not to visit mums, that every restaurant, pub, bar, cinema etc had been ordered to close etc
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
