Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
Do we know that Hyufd isn't her Geography teacher!
I got an A* in Geography GCSE I will have you know.
The Norman Conquest should be studied in Key Stage 2 I believe, ie ages 7-11
Although under the new White Paper the national curriculum would of course be abolished, as one of its goals is to academise every school.
Depends which bit, Edmund the Confessor and his death and key consequences are certainly KS3.
I don't have a problem with the principles of academies but I do think they should have to do the National Curriculum, certainly at least until 14 and not just English and Maths, Science and Religious Studies as now. Though I think most largely follow it.
In any case it will only happen for all schools if the Tories are re elected. Personally I would have a few more grammar schools rather than make all schools academies
Why? What makes you think a third rate SPAD or drunken civil servant like, well, most of the DfE will know better what works for the children in my school and what will help them learn than I do?
As it ensures all children across the country have had the opportunity to acquire the same key knowledge before they leave school. How that is taught is then up to teachers.
It was of course the Thatcher Government which first introduced a National Curriculum with the Education Reform Act 1988
Yes, and it was a stupid reform. And still is. Who defines what 'key knowledge' is? Why? Is it the same for a private school in Kent as an inner-city school in Manchester?
For nine years I have worked in academies or private schools and paid precisely zero attention to the national curriculum. And bizarrely, despite my disdain for exams and cynicism towards the whole system, my students' results are among the best in the country.
Now, is that a coincidence, or is it because one size doesn't fit anybody and it's not smart to enforce it as such?
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
Which non-European literature, art and music did you have in mind? Other that The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Epic of Gilgamesh I'm not sure that I could name a non religious work of literature that wasn't written in a European language (which says much more about me than it does about world literature of course).
Though of course some might say that you lack of knowledge (and mine for that matter) is exactly the sort of indictment of our education system that Taz is referring to
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
I think there is a chess club at my school. I know there is a bridge club because I was briefly put in charge of it: a massive mistake, but I was able to offload it onto an incoming teacher who can actually play bridge and enjoys it.
Edit: just checked, and yes there is a chess club.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
Which non-European literature, art and music did you have in mind? Other that The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Epic of Gilgamesh I'm not sure that I could name a non religious work of literature that wasn't written in a European language (which says much more about me than it does about world literature of course).
I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Kama Sutra, although TBF that wouldn't be my choice to teach in a secondary school...
I don't actually doubt that Winchester will spend the money on matters that they consider worthy. The criticism is that it's a peculiar priority in our society to give them a large sum when there are so many other obvious needs at home and abroad.
Since it's his money, he is of course entitled to give it to anyone he likes, or indeed to spend it on riotous living. However, in his position he also has a responsibility to show leadership and set an example of reasonable priorities. That will apply even more if, in due course, he become Prime Minister.
You don’t know how much he gives to charity (neither do I)
Let’s say it’s £1m per year. Over 10 years - the period the 100k was given - it would mean that 1% of his charitable giving was to his old school.
Is that an example of “reasonable priorities”?
It might well be, and I wouldn't claim the right to judge. And it's good of him that he gives anything to anyone - not everyone does.
My point is just that it's a pity that he only choose to tell us about the money he's given a public school, and it suggests a lack of political judgment and leadership. If he told us that he's giving £1 million/year to various charities helping desperate people at home and abroad, and £10,000/year to Winchester, I think it would have been wiser. It's not a hanging offence, just (arguably) a slip.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
I said, specifically, just ONE YEAR. Age about 14 or 15, so they can understand it
Is it so unreasonable to ask British kids to spend ONE YEAR of their history education learning the history of Britain, so bright kids like my older daughter will know what the Battle of Hastings actually was, and when, and why?
Spend the rest of time teaching them the latest Woke piffle, if necessary
Ditto Geography. Spend one year making them look at maps and list capital cities and understand where the big rivers are, etc. One year giving them a mental map
FFS my older daughter is doing brilliantly at Geography and she cannot place most countries on a map
If they are too dim to absorb all this, faith enough. We should at least try
The only reason I know anything about my history is because a _brilliant_ primary 4/5 teacher would take her lunch breaks and read and talk about history with interested pupils. 100s, 1000s of years of history told to us by an engaged, literate teacher who cared about our education.
I remember pretty much zero from our actual 'history' lessons. Other than the teacher was lucky to escape with a warning after locking a pupil in a cupboard and shouting at them so hard their ear bled.
Said teacher went on to become a Conservative MP oddly enough.
But that one teacher who gave up her time to _actually_ educate us has coloured my view of schooling ever since. I owe her a great debt.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
Which non-European literature, art and music did you have in mind? Other that The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Epic of Gilgamesh I'm not sure that I could name a non religious work of literature that wasn't written in a European language (which says much more about me than it does about world literature of course).
I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Kama Sutra, although TBF that wouldn't be my choice to teach in a secondary school...
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
Exactly what the Tory governments have prescribed over 12 years. Don't like it? You know what to do.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
Which non-European literature, art and music did you have in mind? Other that The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Epic of Gilgamesh I'm not sure that I could name a non religious work of literature that wasn't written in a European language (which says much more about me than it does about world literature of course).
Though of course some might say that you lack of knowledge (and mine for that matter) is exactly the sort of indictment of our education system that Taz is referring to
For poetry, Omar Khayyam. And of course, the Thousand and One Nights.
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
@Richard_Nabavi - desuetude is such a good word. And rarely heard these days. Your education was not in vain.
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
One of the younger members of my extended family apparently got a very good grade in A level English literature without reading a single, complete book!!
Whole thing seemed to be about various snippets and bite-size portions of various works.
You all know my opinion of the current a-level and GCSE qualifications, so I won't bother labouring them in detail. Briefly, I think the issue with Leon's daughter is that they are so overstuffed with very precisely prescribed content that it's almost impossible to ever deviate from the script. If your case study for oil production is Nigeria, you teach Nigeria. While it might be useful intellectually to compare it to Iran, Venezuela or the USA, that isn't necessary for the exam so you move on rapidly to the next topic.
I personally find that incredibly tedious and unhelpful for everyone. But what do I know? I'm only a professional historian who's lectured in several unis, published multiple reference works and been a secondary school teacher for a decade. My opinion is obviously less important than that of the civil servants who overruled all expert advice to set the exams.
I do seriously wonder whether the goal is enlightenment and education and knowledge or getting as many through as possible at the highest grades in order to "show" that the government's policies work.
Sickening if true.
Do you? I don't think any teacher does. Not after their second year, anyway...
My teacher grandchildren are all of the option that getting their charges through to upcoming exams is their prime purpose in life. The one in the primary school in Basildon also sees it as his duty to see that the children are in a ‘safe space’ for at least the time they are with him.
Well, I'm glad to hear he doesn't think it's his job to put them in danger. But I just find it incredibly sad that that's what our education system has come to.
Not that it's much better in the United States, where I am being paid large sums of money to tutor people to get top grades.
I suppose, paradoxically, that makes me a beneficiary of the system I despise (grrrr). But as @Dura_Ace has said on here before, if you want to get them top grades in an exam, grill them remorselessly on past papers for about three months before. You'll kill their love for the subject stone dead, but they will get good grades.
I tell my classes that I see myself as having two jobs: to teach them Physics, and to get them though the exams. I can still find time to do things which are not strictly on the curriculum because I think they ought to know them, but it seems to get harder to find the time as the years go on.
And there are times when I will say "you need to say this for the exam, but it's actually not really like that".
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
I don't actually doubt that Winchester will spend the money on matters that they consider worthy. The criticism is that it's a peculiar priority in our society to give them a large sum when there are so many other obvious needs at home and abroad.
Since it's his money, he is of course entitled to give it to anyone he likes, or indeed to spend it on riotous living. However, in his position he also has a responsibility to show leadership and set an example of reasonable priorities. That will apply even more if, in due course, he become Prime Minister.
You don’t know how much he gives to charity (neither do I)
Let’s say it’s £1m per year. Over 10 years - the period the 100k was given - it would mean that 1% of his charitable giving was to his old school.
Is that an example of “reasonable priorities”?
It might well be, and I wouldn't claim the right to judge. And it's good of him that he gives anything to anyone - not everyone does.
My point is just that it's a pity that he only choose to tell us about the money he's given a public school, and it suggests a lack of political judgment and leadership. If he told us that he's giving £1 million/year to various charities helping desperate people at home and abroad, and £10,000/year to Winchester, I think it would have been wiser. It's not a hanging offence, just (arguably) a slip.
He hasn't chosen to tell us about anything. This is a scoop based on a one line entry in a list on pages 70-90 of an incredibly obscure school magazine 3 years out of date. Someone who dislikes him a lot has put a great deal of work into discrediting him, and it has worked.
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
One of the younger members of my extended family apparently got a very good grade in A level English literature without reading a single, complete book!!
Whole thing seemed to be about various snippets and bite-size portions of various works.
You all know my opinion of the current a-level and GCSE qualifications, so I won't bother labouring them in detail. Briefly, I think the issue with Leon's daughter is that they are so overstuffed with very precisely prescribed content that it's almost impossible to ever deviate from the script. If your case study for oil production is Nigeria, you teach Nigeria. While it might be useful intellectually to compare it to Iran, Venezuela or the USA, that isn't necessary for the exam so you move on rapidly to the next topic.
I personally find that incredibly tedious and unhelpful for everyone. But what do I know? I'm only a professional historian who's lectured in several unis, published multiple reference works and been a secondary school teacher for a decade. My opinion is obviously less important than that of the civil servants who overruled all expert advice to set the exams.
I do seriously wonder whether the goal is enlightenment and education and knowledge or getting as many through as possible at the highest grades in order to "show" that the government's policies work.
Sickening if true.
Do you? I don't think any teacher does. Not after their second year, anyway...
My teacher grandchildren are all of the option that getting their charges through to upcoming exams is their prime purpose in life. The one in the primary school in Basildon also sees it as his duty to see that the children are in a ‘safe space’ for at least the time they are with him.
Well, I'm glad to hear he doesn't think it's his job to put them in danger. But I just find it incredibly sad that that's what our education system has come to.
Not that it's much better in the United States, where I am being paid large sums of money to tutor people to get top grades.
I suppose, paradoxically, that makes me a beneficiary of the system I despise (grrrr). But as @Dura_Ace has said on here before, if you want to get them top grades in an exam, grill them remorselessly on past papers for about three months before. You'll kill their love for the subject stone dead, but they will get good grades.
I tell my classes that I see myself as having two jobs: to teach them Physics, and to get them though the exams. I can still find time to do things which are not strictly on the curriculum because I think they ought to know them, but it seems to get harder to find the time as the years go on.
And there are times when I will say "you need to say this for the exam, but it's actually not really like that".
History is the same.
'I will teach you how to do blind source work. It is as much use in actually doing history as a stone pen, but it may be of use to you in other fields and you can always forget it when writing your dissertations.'
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
One of the younger members of my extended family apparently got a very good grade in A level English literature without reading a single, complete book!!
Whole thing seemed to be about various snippets and bite-size portions of various works.
You all know my opinion of the current a-level and GCSE qualifications, so I won't bother labouring them in detail. Briefly, I think the issue with Leon's daughter is that they are so overstuffed with very precisely prescribed content that it's almost impossible to ever deviate from the script. If your case study for oil production is Nigeria, you teach Nigeria. While it might be useful intellectually to compare it to Iran, Venezuela or the USA, that isn't necessary for the exam so you move on rapidly to the next topic.
I personally find that incredibly tedious and unhelpful for everyone. But what do I know? I'm only a professional historian who's lectured in several unis, published multiple reference works and been a secondary school teacher for a decade. My opinion is obviously less important than that of the civil servants who overruled all expert advice to set the exams.
I do seriously wonder whether the goal is enlightenment and education and knowledge or getting as many through as possible at the highest grades in order to "show" that the government's policies work.
Sickening if true.
Do you? I don't think any teacher does. Not after their second year, anyway...
My teacher grandchildren are all of the option that getting their charges through to upcoming exams is their prime purpose in life. The one in the primary school in Basildon also sees it as his duty to see that the children are in a ‘safe space’ for at least the time they are with him.
Well, I'm glad to hear he doesn't think it's his job to put them in danger. But I just find it incredibly sad that that's what our education system has come to.
Not that it's much better in the United States, where I am being paid large sums of money to tutor people to get top grades.
I suppose, paradoxically, that makes me a beneficiary of the system I despise (grrrr). But as @Dura_Ace has said on here before, if you want to get them top grades in an exam, grill them remorselessly on past papers for about three months before. You'll kill their love for the subject stone dead, but they will get good grades.
I tell my classes that I see myself as having two jobs: to teach them Physics, and to get them though the exams. I can still find time to do things which are not strictly on the curriculum because I think they ought to know them, but it seems to get harder to find the time as the years go on.
And there are times when I will say "you need to say this for the exam, but it's actually not really like that".
I sympathise. I have to unravel some stuff that gets taught at a level in chemistry. Biggest bug bear, dots and crosses for electrons in bonds. No, electrons do not come in two flavours...
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Trust YOU to give priority to fellow flint-knappers!
Hardly surprising you left out the Irish. But you dare to cancel WINSTON CHURCHILL???
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
Which non-European literature, art and music did you have in mind? Other that The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Epic of Gilgamesh I'm not sure that I could name a non religious work of literature that wasn't written in a European language (which says much more about me than it does about world literature of course).
There is plenty of Arabic literature. Much of it not translated into European languages.
But I am not sure why you stipulate 'not written in a European language'. Does being written in English, French or Spanish make the literature less African or Latin American or whatever?
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
Which non-European literature, art and music did you have in mind? Other that The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Epic of Gilgamesh I'm not sure that I could name a non religious work of literature that wasn't written in a European language (which says much more about me than it does about world literature of course).
I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Kama Sutra, although TBF that wouldn't be my choice to teach in a secondary school...
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Trust YOU to give priority to fellow flint-knappers!
Hardly surprising you left out the Irish. But you dare to cancel WINSTON CHURCHILL???
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
One of the younger members of my extended family apparently got a very good grade in A level English literature without reading a single, complete book!!
Whole thing seemed to be about various snippets and bite-size portions of various works.
You all know my opinion of the current a-level and GCSE qualifications, so I won't bother labouring them in detail. Briefly, I think the issue with Leon's daughter is that they are so overstuffed with very precisely prescribed content that it's almost impossible to ever deviate from the script. If your case study for oil production is Nigeria, you teach Nigeria. While it might be useful intellectually to compare it to Iran, Venezuela or the USA, that isn't necessary for the exam so you move on rapidly to the next topic.
I personally find that incredibly tedious and unhelpful for everyone. But what do I know? I'm only a professional historian who's lectured in several unis, published multiple reference works and been a secondary school teacher for a decade. My opinion is obviously less important than that of the civil servants who overruled all expert advice to set the exams.
I do seriously wonder whether the goal is enlightenment and education and knowledge or getting as many through as possible at the highest grades in order to "show" that the government's policies work.
Sickening if true.
Do you? I don't think any teacher does. Not after their second year, anyway...
My teacher grandchildren are all of the option that getting their charges through to upcoming exams is their prime purpose in life. The one in the primary school in Basildon also sees it as his duty to see that the children are in a ‘safe space’ for at least the time they are with him.
Well, I'm glad to hear he doesn't think it's his job to put them in danger. But I just find it incredibly sad that that's what our education system has come to.
Not that it's much better in the United States, where I am being paid large sums of money to tutor people to get top grades.
I suppose, paradoxically, that makes me a beneficiary of the system I despise (grrrr). But as @Dura_Ace has said on here before, if you want to get them top grades in an exam, grill them remorselessly on past papers for about three months before. You'll kill their love for the subject stone dead, but they will get good grades.
I tell my classes that I see myself as having two jobs: to teach them Physics, and to get them though the exams. I can still find time to do things which are not strictly on the curriculum because I think they ought to know them, but it seems to get harder to find the time as the years go on.
And there are times when I will say "you need to say this for the exam, but it's actually not really like that".
History is the same.
'I will teach you how to do blind source work. It is as much use in actually doing history as a stone pen, but it may be of use to you in other fields and you can always forget it when writing your dissertations.'
Blind source work? Never heard of it. New innovation in teaching?
You all know my opinion of the current a-level and GCSE qualifications, so I won't bother labouring them in detail. Briefly, I think the issue with Leon's daughter is that they are so overstuffed with very precisely prescribed content that it's almost impossible to ever deviate from the script. If your case study for oil production is Nigeria, you teach Nigeria. While it might be useful intellectually to compare it to Iran, Venezuela or the USA, that isn't necessary for the exam so you move on rapidly to the next topic.
I personally find that incredibly tedious and unhelpful for everyone. But what do I know? I'm only a professional historian who's lectured in several unis, published multiple reference works and been a secondary school teacher for a decade. My opinion is obviously less important than that of the civil servants who overruled all expert advice to set the exams.
Sorry to hear of this.
When I was doing my A levels, 22 (ish) years ago, this process was already in motion. My history A level teacher, the head of history, was going down the ultra prescribed route to get results. We didn't have any interesting discussions at all in the class. The other teachers were still trying to teach, in the traditional sense, by making us think, the classes were much more fun.
I've lost confidence in the whole education system and don't take it seriously anymore. As I said before, I just see it as my own responsibility to teach my son things that I am interested in (history, philosophy, politics, religion, architecture); try and pass on the knowledge I have accrued.
Good for you. Hope he's enjoying it.
Yeah. I planted the seed in him at age 3 by buying him a childrens encyclopedia of history. Didn't exactly force it on him though. He then started asking about it. Eventually he announced that one of his hobbies was history. I am assuming his interest levels will vary as the years go on. Museums and historic sites are very useful. By linking it to fighting (one of his other hobbies at the moment), maybe the interest will prevail. You can only hope.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
Which non-European literature, art and music did you have in mind? Other that The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Epic of Gilgamesh I'm not sure that I could name a non religious work of literature that wasn't written in a European language (which says much more about me than it does about world literature of course).
Though of course some might say that you lack of knowledge (and mine for that matter) is exactly the sort of indictment of our education system that Taz is referring to
For poetry, Omar Khayyam. And of course, the Thousand and One Nights.
You are making me feel better, as I have heard of (and know a bit about) those.
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
One of the younger members of my extended family apparently got a very good grade in A level English literature without reading a single, complete book!!
Whole thing seemed to be about various snippets and bite-size portions of various works.
You all know my opinion of the current a-level and GCSE qualifications, so I won't bother labouring them in detail. Briefly, I think the issue with Leon's daughter is that they are so overstuffed with very precisely prescribed content that it's almost impossible to ever deviate from the script. If your case study for oil production is Nigeria, you teach Nigeria. While it might be useful intellectually to compare it to Iran, Venezuela or the USA, that isn't necessary for the exam so you move on rapidly to the next topic.
I personally find that incredibly tedious and unhelpful for everyone. But what do I know? I'm only a professional historian who's lectured in several unis, published multiple reference works and been a secondary school teacher for a decade. My opinion is obviously less important than that of the civil servants who overruled all expert advice to set the exams.
I do seriously wonder whether the goal is enlightenment and education and knowledge or getting as many through as possible at the highest grades in order to "show" that the government's policies work.
Sickening if true.
Do you? I don't think any teacher does. Not after their second year, anyway...
My teacher grandchildren are all of the option that getting their charges through to upcoming exams is their prime purpose in life. The one in the primary school in Basildon also sees it as his duty to see that the children are in a ‘safe space’ for at least the time they are with him.
Well, I'm glad to hear he doesn't think it's his job to put them in danger. But I just find it incredibly sad that that's what our education system has come to.
Not that it's much better in the United States, where I am being paid large sums of money to tutor people to get top grades.
I suppose, paradoxically, that makes me a beneficiary of the system I despise (grrrr). But as @Dura_Ace has said on here before, if you want to get them top grades in an exam, grill them remorselessly on past papers for about three months before. You'll kill their love for the subject stone dead, but they will get good grades.
I tell my classes that I see myself as having two jobs: to teach them Physics, and to get them though the exams. I can still find time to do things which are not strictly on the curriculum because I think they ought to know them, but it seems to get harder to find the time as the years go on.
And there are times when I will say "you need to say this for the exam, but it's actually not really like that".
History is the same.
'I will teach you how to do blind source work. It is as much use in actually doing history as a stone pen, but it may be of use to you in other fields and you can always forget it when writing your dissertations.'
Blind source work? Never heard of it. New innovation in teaching?
Where you see a previously unseen source and evaluate how reliable it is.
The new A-level is actually a step backwards in that regard, as in the old one you at least had to use them to answer a meaningful question. Now you just have to say 'how useful' they are to somebody answering a specified question. Which strikes me as rather meaningless.
You don't even have to compare them and consider which might offer most utility where they differ (which is actually an important skill).
The only good thing is that in the original specification you were expected to know inordinate amounts of background detail. Of material you had never seen before. Which would not be provided by the exam board. And you would be marked down for not mentioning it...
Fortunately, that was one of two things that a near-riot by Cambridge university forced a rethink on. Now, you are not expected to know anything beyond what's in the label the exam board provide.
I don't actually doubt that Winchester will spend the money on matters that they consider worthy. The criticism is that it's a peculiar priority in our society to give them a large sum when there are so many other obvious needs at home and abroad.
Since it's his money, he is of course entitled to give it to anyone he likes, or indeed to spend it on riotous living. However, in his position he also has a responsibility to show leadership and set an example of reasonable priorities. That will apply even more if, in due course, he become Prime Minister.
You don’t know how much he gives to charity (neither do I)
Let’s say it’s £1m per year. Over 10 years - the period the 100k was given - it would mean that 1% of his charitable giving was to his old school.
Is that an example of “reasonable priorities”?
It might well be, and I wouldn't claim the right to judge. And it's good of him that he gives anything to anyone - not everyone does.
My point is just that it's a pity that he only choose to tell us about the money he's given a public school, and it suggests a lack of political judgment and leadership. If he told us that he's giving £1 million/year to various charities helping desperate people at home and abroad, and £10,000/year to Winchester, I think it would have been wiser. It's not a hanging offence, just (arguably) a slip.
He hasn't chosen to tell us about anything. This is a scoop based on a one line entry in a list on pages 70-90 of an incredibly obscure school magazine 3 years out of date. Someone who dislikes him a lot has put a great deal of work into discrediting him, and it has worked.
Seamus Milne looks quietly at his shoes…..
If it had been a guardian scoop then he would have had that info.
If the BBC then Jamie Angus who is BBC “Senior Controller of News Output and Commissioning”.
So not necessarily a hatchet job “Blue on Blue” but possibly an old Wykehamist journo remembering it or seeing it in an old boys magazine.
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
Various things make it harder to do stuff in school.
One is the sense in some schools that squeezing out more exam results is the only thing, and time running or attending a chess club is time not doing after school revision with Year 11. It's not universal- Thing 1 has got involved in all sorts of eccentric interests at her local comp, but that's not as common as it should be.
More generally, clubs happen less than N years ago. We also don't trust teenagers to be out on their own as much, perhaps due to a dear of traffic and perverts.
But it's definitely a shame.
(And since everyone else has banged on about Sunak, it's foolish politics and if he wanted to give the money to Winchester, he'd have been wise to do it anonymously. And if he wanted to do the most good per pound in education, donating to local comps, or Uni outreach would have done a lot more. In terms of grades, state schools generally do fine. It's the social capital, showing what's possible and how to get there, that's the challenge.)
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Trust YOU to give priority to fellow flint-knappers!
Hardly surprising you left out the Irish. But you dare to cancel WINSTON CHURCHILL???
Wellington has been left out as well.
Not just him, but Nelson, the Royal Navy, the French, Napoleon, etc. (not all of that would be under the rubric of Empire).
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
I said, specifically, just ONE YEAR. Age about 14 or 15, so they can understand it
Is it so unreasonable to ask British kids to spend ONE YEAR of their history education learning the history of Britain, so bright kids like my older daughter will know what the Battle of Hastings actually was, and when, and why?
Spend the rest of time teaching them the latest Woke piffle, if necessary
Ditto Geography. Spend one year making them look at maps and list capital cities and understand where the big rivers are, etc. One year giving them a mental map
FFS my older daughter is doing brilliantly at Geography and she cannot place most countries on a map
If they are too dim to absorb all this, faith enough. We should at least try
The only reason I know anything about my history is because a _brilliant_ primary 4/5 teacher would take her lunch breaks and read and talk about history with interested pupils. 100s, 1000s of years of history told to us by an engaged, literate teacher who cared about our education.
I remember pretty much zero from our actual 'history' lessons. Other than the teacher was lucky to escape with a warning after locking a pupil in a cupboard and shouting at them so hard their ear bled.
Said teacher went on to become a Conservative MP oddly enough.
But that one teacher who gave up her time to _actually_ educate us has coloured my view of schooling ever since. I owe her a great debt.
My kid is in year 3 (at a regular state primary); so far since Year 1 they've done a good overview of the Plague & Great Fire, Egypt, Sumeria, Hellenic Greece and Roman Britain, and some bronze age China. She's also learned some palaeontology and the history of antiquarianism and the roots of history and archaelology in Britain.
At home just in the normal course of things we've talked about mesolithic/neolithic transition through to bronze age, iron age and roman Britain at one end, plenty of the Tudors (thanks to Horrible HIstories which is excellent), Kings & Queens, French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (mainly when visiting France), C17th-C18th slave trade, the World Wars (through her grandparents' and great grandparents' perspective), and the Ukraine conflict has given us a way in to talking about the Cold War and post-colonial conflict.
I'm actually quite impressed with what the school does and how well it covers the material at the right level, and encourages them to engage with sources to learn "facts" and "perspectives" and the beginning of historiography, rather than just rote learning.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
Which non-European literature, art and music did you have in mind? Other that The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and The Epic of Gilgamesh I'm not sure that I could name a non religious work of literature that wasn't written in a European language (which says much more about me than it does about world literature of course).
There is plenty of Arabic literature. Much of it not translated into European languages.
But I am not sure why you stipulate 'not written in a European language'. Does being written in English, French or Spanish make the literature less African or Latin American or whatever?
I specified not written in a European language because I do know quite a bit of non European literature written in English or Spanish.
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
Do we know that Hyufd isn't her Geography teacher!
I got an A* in Geography GCSE I will have you know.
The Norman Conquest should be studied in Key Stage 2 I believe, ie ages 7-11
Although under the new White Paper the national curriculum would of course be abolished, as one of its goals is to academise every school.
Depends which bit, Edmund the Confessor and his death and key consequences are certainly KS3.
I don't have a problem with the principles of academies but I do think they should have to do the National Curriculum, certainly at least until 14 and not just English and Maths, Science and Religious Studies as now. Though I think most largely follow it.
In any case it will only happen for all schools if the Tories are re elected. Personally I would have a few more grammar schools rather than make all schools academies
Why? What makes you think a third rate SPAD or drunken civil servant like, well, most of the DfE will know better what works for the children in my school and what will help them learn than I do?
As it ensures all children across the country have had the opportunity to acquire the same key knowledge before they leave school. How that is taught is then up to teachers.
It was of course the Thatcher Government which first introduced a National Curriculum with the Education Reform Act 1988
Yes, and it was a stupid reform. And still is. Who defines what 'key knowledge' is? Why? Is it the same for a private school in Kent as an inner-city school in Manchester?
For nine years I have worked in academies or private schools and paid precisely zero attention to the national curriculum. And bizarrely, despite my disdain for exams and cynicism towards the whole system, my students' results are among the best in the country.
Now, is that a coincidence, or is it because one size doesn't fit anybody and it's not smart to enforce it as such?
I know which my money's on.
~ No, it ensures every pupil at least studied English, Maths, History, Science, RS, IT, Geography, some arts and PE ie the core elements of education and the key elements within those areas until 14.
The fact you were good at teaching one particular subject within that just makes you a good teacher in one school. Other teachers will be good, average or mediocre. However it does at least ensure every pupil has the opportunity to study the core subjects
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
I think there is a chess club at my school. I know there is a bridge club because I was briefly put in charge of it: a massive mistake, but I was able to offload it onto an incoming teacher who can actually play bridge and enjoys it.
Edit: just checked, and yes there is a chess club.
That's good. So it does continue at least in some places, although probably not in every school.
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
Do we know that Hyufd isn't her Geography teacher!
I got an A* in Geography GCSE I will have you know.
The Norman Conquest should be studied in Key Stage 2 I believe, ie ages 7-11
Although under the new White Paper the national curriculum would of course be abolished, as one of its goals is to academise every school.
Depends which bit, Edmund the Confessor and his death and key consequences are certainly KS3.
I don't have a problem with the principles of academies but I do think they should have to do the National Curriculum, certainly at least until 14 and not just English and Maths, Science and Religious Studies as now. Though I think most largely follow it.
In any case it will only happen for all schools if the Tories are re elected. Personally I would have a few more grammar schools rather than make all schools academies
Why? What makes you think a third rate SPAD or drunken civil servant like, well, most of the DfE will know better what works for the children in my school and what will help them learn than I do?
As it ensures all children across the country have had the opportunity to acquire the same key knowledge before they leave school. How that is taught is then up to teachers.
It was of course the Thatcher Government which first introduced a National Curriculum with the Education Reform Act 1988
Yes, and it was a stupid reform. And still is. Who defines what 'key knowledge' is? Why? Is it the same for a private school in Kent as an inner-city school in Manchester?
For nine years I have worked in academies or private schools and paid precisely zero attention to the national curriculum. And bizarrely, despite my disdain for exams and cynicism towards the whole system, my students' results are among the best in the country.
Now, is that a coincidence, or is it because one size doesn't fit anybody and it's not smart to enforce it as such?
I know which my money's on.
~ No, it ensures every pupil at least studied English, Maths, History, Science, RS, IT, Geography, some arts and PE ie the core elements of education and the key elements within those areas until 14.
The fact you were good at teaching one particular subject within that just makes you a good teacher in one school. Other teachers will be good, average or mediocre. However it does at least ensure every pupil has the opportunity to study the core subjects
I don't think you quite understand the point of the National Curriculum. You could say everybody had to study those subjects without rigorously prescribing what topics to do within them. But the latter is what it does.
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
@Richard_Nabavi - desuetude is such a good word. And rarely heard these days. Your education was not in vain.
Chess can, umm, have its practical side. Years ago a certain girl, who was friend, studied the game up a bit and then invited me around for a meal, after which, to my surprise, produced a board with a gleam in her eye. Her comment, after losing in 20 moves or so, was "TOMS! YOU'RE A S***". Then, cooling down a bit, she again took the initiative.
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
One of the younger members of my extended family apparently got a very good grade in A level English literature without reading a single, complete book!!
Whole thing seemed to be about various snippets and bite-size portions of various works.
You all know my opinion of the current a-level and GCSE qualifications, so I won't bother labouring them in detail. Briefly, I think the issue with Leon's daughter is that they are so overstuffed with very precisely prescribed content that it's almost impossible to ever deviate from the script. If your case study for oil production is Nigeria, you teach Nigeria. While it might be useful intellectually to compare it to Iran, Venezuela or the USA, that isn't necessary for the exam so you move on rapidly to the next topic.
I personally find that incredibly tedious and unhelpful for everyone. But what do I know? I'm only a professional historian who's lectured in several unis, published multiple reference works and been a secondary school teacher for a decade. My opinion is obviously less important than that of the civil servants who overruled all expert advice to set the exams.
I do seriously wonder whether the goal is enlightenment and education and knowledge or getting as many through as possible at the highest grades in order to "show" that the government's policies work.
Sickening if true.
Do you? I don't think any teacher does. Not after their second year, anyway...
My teacher grandchildren are all of the option that getting their charges through to upcoming exams is their prime purpose in life. The one in the primary school in Basildon also sees it as his duty to see that the children are in a ‘safe space’ for at least the time they are with him.
Well, I'm glad to hear he doesn't think it's his job to put them in danger. But I just find it incredibly sad that that's what our education system has come to.
Not that it's much better in the United States, where I am being paid large sums of money to tutor people to get top grades.
I suppose, paradoxically, that makes me a beneficiary of the system I despise (grrrr). But as @Dura_Ace has said on here before, if you want to get them top grades in an exam, grill them remorselessly on past papers for about three months before. You'll kill their love for the subject stone dead, but they will get good grades.
I tell my classes that I see myself as having two jobs: to teach them Physics, and to get them though the exams. I can still find time to do things which are not strictly on the curriculum because I think they ought to know them, but it seems to get harder to find the time as the years go on.
And there are times when I will say "you need to say this for the exam, but it's actually not really like that".
History is the same.
'I will teach you how to do blind source work. It is as much use in actually doing history as a stone pen, but it may be of use to you in other fields and you can always forget it when writing your dissertations.'
Blind source work? Never heard of it. New innovation in teaching?
Where you see a previously unseen source and evaluate how reliable it is.
The new A-level is actually a step backwards in that regard, as in the old one you at least had to use them to answer a meaningful question. Now you just have to say 'how useful' they are to somebody answering a specified question. Which strikes me as rather meaningless.
You don't even have to compare them and consider which might offer most utility where they differ (which is actually an important skill).
The only good thing is that in the original specification you were expected to know inordinate amounts of background detail. Of material you had never seen before. Which would not be provided by the exam board. And you would be marked down for not mentioning it...
Fortunately, that was one of two things that a near-riot by Cambridge university forced a rethink on. Now, you are not expected to know anything beyond what's in the label the exam board provide.
Thanks. How odd it seems (both the change of the approach and the original insistence on assuming prior knowledge).
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
Various things make it harder to do stuff in school.
One is the sense in some schools that squeezing out more exam results is the only thing, and time running or attending a chess club is time not doing after school revision with Year 11. It's not universal- Thing 1 has got involved in all sorts of eccentric interests at her local comp, but that's not as common as it should be.
More generally, clubs happen less than N years ago. We also don't trust teenagers to be out on their own as much, perhaps due to a dear of traffic and perverts.
But it's definitely a shame.
(And since everyone else has banged on about Sunak, it's foolish politics and if he wanted to give the money to Winchester, he'd have been wise to do it anonymously. And if he wanted to do the most good per pound in education, donating to local comps, or Uni outreach would have done a lot more. In terms of grades, state schools generally do fine. It's the social capital, showing what's possible and how to get there, that's the challenge.)
We are trying to get as many pupils as possible involved in at least one extra-curricular activity at school, but it can be hard to get teachers to run things outside of normal school hours or at lunch and break times, given how much else we need to do.
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
Do we know that Hyufd isn't her Geography teacher!
I got an A* in Geography GCSE I will have you know.
The Norman Conquest should be studied in Key Stage 2 I believe, ie ages 7-11
Although under the new White Paper the national curriculum would of course be abolished, as one of its goals is to academise every school.
Depends which bit, Edmund the Confessor and his death and key consequences are certainly KS3.
I don't have a problem with the principles of academies but I do think they should have to do the National Curriculum, certainly at least until 14 and not just English and Maths, Science and Religious Studies as now. Though I think most largely follow it.
In any case it will only happen for all schools if the Tories are re elected. Personally I would have a few more grammar schools rather than make all schools academies
Why? What makes you think a third rate SPAD or drunken civil servant like, well, most of the DfE will know better what works for the children in my school and what will help them learn than I do?
As it ensures all children across the country have had the opportunity to acquire the same key knowledge before they leave school. How that is taught is then up to teachers.
It was of course the Thatcher Government which first introduced a National Curriculum with the Education Reform Act 1988
Yes, and it was a stupid reform. And still is. Who defines what 'key knowledge' is? Why? Is it the same for a private school in Kent as an inner-city school in Manchester?
For nine years I have worked in academies or private schools and paid precisely zero attention to the national curriculum. And bizarrely, despite my disdain for exams and cynicism towards the whole system, my students' results are among the best in the country.
Now, is that a coincidence, or is it because one size doesn't fit anybody and it's not smart to enforce it as such?
I know which my money's on.
~ No, it ensures every pupil at least studied English, Maths, History, Science, RS, IT, Geography, some arts and PE ie the core elements of education and the key elements within those areas until 14.
The fact you were good at teaching one particular subject within that just makes you a good teacher in one school. Other teachers will be good, average or mediocre. However it does at least ensure every pupil has the opportunity to study the core subjects
I don't think you quite understand the point of the National Curriculum. You could say everybody had to study those subjects without rigorously prescribing what topics to do within them. But the latter is what it does.
To be fair, it makes sense in some subjects. In science and maths you can make a good case for saying that some concepts depend on others and once you map those out you have something that looks pretty prescriptive but is sensible because it just works. The stuff the QCA (late New Labour?) did for science is better than anything I've seen since, to be honest.
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
I think there is a chess club at my school. I know there is a bridge club because I was briefly put in charge of it: a massive mistake, but I was able to offload it onto an incoming teacher who can actually play bridge and enjoys it.
Edit: just checked, and yes there is a chess club.
That's good. So it does continue at least in some places, although probably not in every school.
I'm guessing yours is not a bad one...
It does depend on getting a reasonably enthusiastic member of staff to help organise it, and that can be a real problem in many schools.
Chess is one of the cheaper options though, so I suspect there is more than you might think.
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
Where did Battle of Hastings take place, exactly? Believe it's still an open question!
"Battle of Hastings took place somewhere near Hastings, Kent. Bunch of obnoxious foreigners invaded, conquered and despoiled Britain. Until Brexit that is."
According to tradition - which I have never seen seriously challenged - it took place on Senlac Hill, and the altar of Battle Abbey which was founded within the lifetime of Odo of Bayeux was placed on the spot where Harold's body was found.
I have an old school atlas (1892) which has maps of famous battles. It has a map of the "Battle of Senlac".
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
Do we know that Hyufd isn't her Geography teacher!
I got an A* in Geography GCSE I will have you know.
The Norman Conquest should be studied in Key Stage 2 I believe, ie ages 7-11
Although under the new White Paper the national curriculum would of course be abolished, as one of its goals is to academise every school.
Depends which bit, Edmund the Confessor and his death and key consequences are certainly KS3.
I don't have a problem with the principles of academies but I do think they should have to do the National Curriculum, certainly at least until 14 and not just English and Maths, Science and Religious Studies as now. Though I think most largely follow it.
In any case it will only happen for all schools if the Tories are re elected. Personally I would have a few more grammar schools rather than make all schools academies
Why? What makes you think a third rate SPAD or drunken civil servant like, well, most of the DfE will know better what works for the children in my school and what will help them learn than I do?
As it ensures all children across the country have had the opportunity to acquire the same key knowledge before they leave school. How that is taught is then up to teachers.
It was of course the Thatcher Government which first introduced a National Curriculum with the Education Reform Act 1988
Yes, and it was a stupid reform. And still is. Who defines what 'key knowledge' is? Why? Is it the same for a private school in Kent as an inner-city school in Manchester?
For nine years I have worked in academies or private schools and paid precisely zero attention to the national curriculum. And bizarrely, despite my disdain for exams and cynicism towards the whole system, my students' results are among the best in the country.
Now, is that a coincidence, or is it because one size doesn't fit anybody and it's not smart to enforce it as such?
I know which my money's on.
~ No, it ensures every pupil at least studied English, Maths, History, Science, RS, IT, Geography, some arts and PE ie the core elements of education and the key elements within those areas until 14.
The fact you were good at teaching one particular subject within that just makes you a good teacher in one school. Other teachers will be good, average or mediocre. However it does at least ensure every pupil has the opportunity to study the core subjects
I don't think you quite understand the point of the National Curriculum. You could say everybody had to study those subjects without rigorously prescribing what topics to do within them. But the latter is what it does.
To be fair, it makes sense in some subjects. In science and maths you can make a good case for saying that some concepts depend on others and once you map those out you have something that looks pretty prescriptive but is sensible because it just works. The stuff the QCA (late New Labour?) did for science is better than anything I've seen since, to be honest.
The humanities are definitely different.
And immediately then we're back to one size doesn't fit all.
This is a definite theme now. Turkish food is terrible. Way worse than, say, Germany or Holland (the worst in western Europe)
It’s down there with a middle income African country or somewhere like Oman
It is shite. In Erdogan’s gleaming Istanbul airport at their flashy Italian restaurant I ordered the Caprese salad. It came as cold sliced tomato with weird tasteless frigid bits of cheese, and chopped lettuce. That was it. No dressing, no nothing, No oil, no pepper, no salt. Zero. No pesto or basil. Disgusting
Not only was it dreadfully bad, the staff had no idea WHY it was bad, when I politely queried
It was like eating in an eerie, hallucinated version of 70s Britain, yet in a huge sparkly airport
In Sanliurfa the Head of Regional Culture and Tourism took me to a celebrated restaurant for their famous liver kebab. It was nice bits of liver, in a kebab, with an OK sauce. That was it. You could eat it in Camden at 3am after a big night and think Hmm, decent fast food. And they were trying to show off???
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
I think there is a chess club at my school. I know there is a bridge club because I was briefly put in charge of it: a massive mistake, but I was able to offload it onto an incoming teacher who can actually play bridge and enjoys it.
Edit: just checked, and yes there is a chess club.
That's good. So it does continue at least in some places, although probably not in every school.
I'm guessing yours is not a bad one...
It does depend on getting a reasonably enthusiastic member of staff to help organise it, and that can be a real problem in many schools.
Chess is one of the cheaper options though, so I suspect there is more than you might think.
One pound per set in Poundland.
I haven't been able to revive chess club since the pandemic, which I'm quite sad about because it was great fun.
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
Various things make it harder to do stuff in school.
One is the sense in some schools that squeezing out more exam results is the only thing, and time running or attending a chess club is time not doing after school revision with Year 11. It's not universal- Thing 1 has got involved in all sorts of eccentric interests at her local comp, but that's not as common as it should be.
More generally, clubs happen less than N years ago. We also don't trust teenagers to be out on their own as much, perhaps due to a dear of traffic and perverts.
But it's definitely a shame.
(And since everyone else has banged on about Sunak, it's foolish politics and if he wanted to give the money to Winchester, he'd have been wise to do it anonymously. And if he wanted to do the most good per pound in education, donating to local comps, or Uni outreach would have done a lot more. In terms of grades, state schools generally do fine. It's the social capital, showing what's possible and how to get there, that's the challenge.)
We are trying to get as many pupils as possible involved in at least one extra-curricular activity at school, but it can be hard to get teachers to run things outside of normal school hours or at lunch and break times, given how much else we need to do.
That's the other thing. Having short, staggered lunch breaks makes clubs harder. Here's a good piece on some of the pressures that have caused that;
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
I think there is a chess club at my school. I know there is a bridge club because I was briefly put in charge of it: a massive mistake, but I was able to offload it onto an incoming teacher who can actually play bridge and enjoys it.
Edit: just checked, and yes there is a chess club.
That's good. So it does continue at least in some places, although probably not in every school.
I'm guessing yours is not a bad one...
It does depend on getting a reasonably enthusiastic member of staff to help organise it, and that can be a real problem in many schools.
Chess is one of the cheaper options though, so I suspect there is more than you might think.
One pound per set in Poundland.
I haven't been able to revive chess club since the pandemic, which I'm quite sad about because it was great fun.
I was covering a Y7 registration a few days ago and some of them were playing chess on their iPads, which surprised me.
I’m eating the Toblerone from my minibar, because the food in Izmir is so bad
Why stay there? Only an hour down the road to Selcuk to see Ephesus. Perfectly good restaurants there.
Off to Ephesus tomorrow for the day
I made the rookie error of booking a cheap 5 star room on Booking.com - non refundable. I’m stuck here. It just never occurred to me the city would be this grim and the food this shit. It’s a big Mediterranean city, Just haul out some fish and grill it FFS and serve it with chips and a slice of lemon. Seems beyond them. It really is the UK in about 1975
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*) thi WTF are they actually teaching them
Where did Battle of Hastings take place, exactly? Believe it's still an open question!
"Battle of Hastings took place somewhere near Hastings, Kent. Bunch of obnoxious foreigners invaded, conquered and despoiled Britain. Until Brexit that is."
According to tradition - which I have never seen seriously challenged - it took place on Senlac Hill, and the altar of Battle Abbey which was founded within the lifetime of Odo of Bayeux was placed on the spot where Harold's body was found.
I have an old school atlas (1892) which has maps of famous battles. It has a map of the "Battle of Senlac".
The Wikipedia entry has a very good summary of this (and why "Senlac Hill" is a misnomer).
[It took place] between two hills – Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south. The area was heavily wooded, with a marsh nearby.[79] The name traditionally given to the battle is unusual – there were several settlements much closer to the battlefield than Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle called it the battle "at the hoary apple tree". Within 40 years, the battle was described by the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis as "Senlac",[n] a Norman-French adaptation of the Old English word "Sandlacu", which means "sandy water".[o] This may have been the name of the stream that crosses the battlefield.[p] The battle was already being referred to as "bellum Hasestingas" or "Battle of Hastings" by 1086, in the Domesday Book.[83]
Is it just me or is it just a bit weird to go after banning the celebrity people who advertise the betting companies rather than the betting ads themselves? It feels somewhat odd. "Yes by all means advertise these services, all good, its all legal and above board, just don't use anyone who might be well known by the young peeps, nosiree".
It feels more binary to me - either gambling ads = bad, or gambling ads = fine. But apparently it's gambling ads = fine IF AND ONLY IF no-one recognises the plonker in the ad actually advertising it?
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
Various things make it harder to do stuff in school.
One is the sense in some schools that squeezing out more exam results is the only thing, and time running or attending a chess club is time not doing after school revision with Year 11. It's not universal- Thing 1 has got involved in all sorts of eccentric interests at her local comp, but that's not as common as it should be.
More generally, clubs happen less than N years ago. We also don't trust teenagers to be out on their own as much, perhaps due to a dear of traffic and perverts.
But it's definitely a shame.
(And since everyone else has banged on about Sunak, it's foolish politics and if he wanted to give the money to Winchester, he'd have been wise to do it anonymously. And if he wanted to do the most good per pound in education, donating to local comps, or Uni outreach would have done a lot more. In terms of grades, state schools generally do fine. It's the social capital, showing what's possible and how to get there, that's the challenge.)
We are trying to get as many pupils as possible involved in at least one extra-curricular activity at school, but it can be hard to get teachers to run things outside of normal school hours or at lunch and break times, given how much else we need to do.
That's the other thing. Having short, staggered lunch breaks makes clubs harder. Here's a good piece on some of the pressures that have caused that;
I don't actually doubt that Winchester will spend the money on matters that they consider worthy. The criticism is that it's a peculiar priority in our society to give them a large sum when there are so many other obvious needs at home and abroad.
Since it's his money, he is of course entitled to give it to anyone he likes, or indeed to spend it on riotous living. However, in his position he also has a responsibility to show leadership and set an example of reasonable priorities. That will apply even more if, in due course, he become Prime Minister.
You don’t know how much he gives to charity (neither do I)
Let’s say it’s £1m per year. Over 10 years - the period the 100k was given - it would mean that 1% of his charitable giving was to his old school.
Is that an example of “reasonable priorities”?
It might well be, and I wouldn't claim the right to judge. And it's good of him that he gives anything to anyone - not everyone does.
My point is just that it's a pity that he only choose to tell us about the money he's given a public school, and it suggests a lack of political judgment and leadership. If he told us that he's giving £1 million/year to various charities helping desperate people at home and abroad, and £10,000/year to Winchester, I think it would have been wiser. It's not a hanging offence, just (arguably) a slip.
He hasn't chosen to tell us about anything. This is a scoop based on a one line entry in a list on pages 70-90 of an incredibly obscure school magazine 3 years out of date. Someone who dislikes him a lot has put a great deal of work into discrediting him, and it has worked.
Fair enough then - I see no reason to criticise him for that.
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
I’m eating the Toblerone from my minibar, because the food in Izmir is so bad
Why stay there? Only an hour down the road to Selcuk to see Ephesus. Perfectly good restaurants there.
Off to Ephesus tomorrow for the day
I made the rookie error of booking a cheap 5 star room on Booking.com - non refundable. I’m stuck here. It just never occurred to me the city would be this grim and the food this shit. It’s a big Mediterranean city, Just haul out some fish and grill it FFS and serve it with chips and a slice of lemon. Seems beyond them. It really is the UK in about 1975
Trick is to avoid anywhere which thinks it is catering to Westerners. This rules out anywhere in West Turkey and anywhere that serves alcohol, but you get delicious fried meat and salad and ludicrously sweet baklava and stuff, and those little glasses of tea
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
My own attitude, is that school is largely about socialisation, and a weird performance for the (normally absent) ofsted Inspectors (more evidence of this earlier in the thread).
I take the responsibility of passing on knowledge about history to my son myself. I am sure that the school will just trot out a load of woke ideology anyway the way things are going, when it comes to history. He can already explain the difference between prehistory and history. We do a different period every other night, last night we were looking at Sargon of Akkad. Some of the books you can buy are brilliant. We've also been learning how to fight, so going through Karate and Wing Chun moves, which he loves. Much of history is about war. Kids are so much fun.
My theory is, that if all this is entrenched at age 5, then he won't forget it when he goes through his teenage rebellion and delinquency.
Fuck “Black History Month” which seems to be Every fucking Month
How about “Basic British History Year” when they spend just one year - just one - giving them the absolute fundamentals of why we are the nation we are
Ice Age Doggerland Beaker People Bronze Age Stonehenge Celts Romans Anglo Saxons Hastings Normans Anglo-Normans Tudors Golden Age of Elizabeth, Gloriana! Civil War Protestants win, but Restoration Enlightenment, Scottish Union Industrial Revolution Empire More Empire Still more empire First World War Depression WW2 yay heroes Decline End of Empire Beatles, the Pill, winter of discontent Thatcher, the Saviour
Seriously, Do each one every week. For a year
That gives you the total basics. The mental map. Then, if you drearily insist, go back to the fucking Woke bollox
Why not teach non European literature, art and music as well as black history month.
Let’s revel in the world not Western Europe.
I said, specifically, just ONE YEAR. Age about 14 or 15, so they can understand it
Is it so unreasonable to ask British kids to spend ONE YEAR of their history education learning the history of Britain, so bright kids like my older daughter will know what the Battle of Hastings actually was, and when, and why?
Spend the rest of time teaching them the latest Woke piffle, if necessary
Ditto Geography. Spend one year making them look at maps and list capital cities and understand where the big rivers are, etc. One year giving them a mental map
FFS my older daughter is doing brilliantly at Geography and she cannot place most countries on a map
If they are too dim to absorb all this, faith enough. We should at least try
The only reason I know anything about my history is because a _brilliant_ primary 4/5 teacher would take her lunch breaks and read and talk about history with interested pupils. 100s, 1000s of years of history told to us by an engaged, literate teacher who cared about our education.
I remember pretty much zero from our actual 'history' lessons. Other than the teacher was lucky to escape with a warning after locking a pupil in a cupboard and shouting at them so hard their ear bled.
Said teacher went on to become a Conservative MP oddly enough.
But that one teacher who gave up her time to _actually_ educate us has coloured my view of schooling ever since. I owe her a great debt.
My kid is in year 3 (at a regular state primary); so far since Year 1 they've done a good overview of the Plague & Great Fire, Egypt, Sumeria, Hellenic Greece and Roman Britain, and some bronze age China. She's also learned some palaeontology and the history of antiquarianism and the roots of history and archaelology in Britain.
At home just in the normal course of things we've talked about mesolithic/neolithic transition through to bronze age, iron age and roman Britain at one end, plenty of the Tudors (thanks to Horrible HIstories which is excellent), Kings & Queens, French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (mainly when visiting France), C17th-C18th slave trade, the World Wars (through her grandparents' and great grandparents' perspective), and the Ukraine conflict has given us a way in to talking about the Cold War and post-colonial conflict.
I'm actually quite impressed with what the school does and how well it covers the material at the right level, and encourages them to engage with sources to learn "facts" and "perspectives" and the beginning of historiography, rather than just rote learning.
Pretty much the same experience here (also yr 3). The school does an excellent coverage of history (then again, the little 'un is interested in that sort of thing).
They built Tudor houses out of cardboard in year 1 and then burnt them in a 'great fire' outside. For Egypt, they 'mummified' a piece of fruit. Yes, it's all silly, but they're young kids.
I think he's getting a better education at his age than I did - though TBF I barely remember what I learnt in school aged 7...
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
We want more faith schools too like your RC Comprehensive for your children.
Choice not one size fits all, whether academies, free schools, faith schools, some grammar schools, technical schools etc.
Not only bog standard comprehensives you have no alternative but to send your children to if of only average income or less
I’m eating the Toblerone from my minibar, because the food in Izmir is so bad
Why stay there? Only an hour down the road to Selcuk to see Ephesus. Perfectly good restaurants there.
Off to Ephesus tomorrow for the day
I made the rookie error of booking a cheap 5 star room on Booking.com - non refundable. I’m stuck here. It just never occurred to me the city would be this grim and the food this shit. It’s a big Mediterranean city, Just haul out some fish and grill it FFS and serve it with chips and a slice of lemon. Seems beyond them. It really is the UK in about 1975
Trick is to avoid anywhere which thinks it is catering to Westerners. This rules out anywhere in West Turkey and anywhere that serves alcohol, but you get delicious fried meat and salad and ludicrously sweet baklava and stuff, and those little glasses of tea
Ah, yes
I love the baklava and I love the tea!
They do those brilliantly. And I’m not being snarky
A tulip glass of lightly sugared black Turkish tea, on a hot day, is wonderfully refreshing. Almost like a drug. I had a few when we went to see Karahan Tepe with the penis pillars at the weekend. 28C in the desert and yet the tea was way better than a cold lager. Delish. Likewise an absurdly sweet tranche of baklava, freshly made - it is divine
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
We want more faith schools too like your RC Comprehensive for your children.
Choice not one size fits all, whether academies, free schools, faith schools, some grammar schools, technical schools etc.
Not only bog standard comprehensives you have no alternative but to send your children to if of only average income or less
On the contrary. There aren't enough schools for all faiths. You do that at home with your children - the ultimate parental choice. Don't expect the state to subsidise that choice.
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
As a timetable writer that sounds like a nightmare!
My first encounter with Winchester was when I was at school. At the age of about 12 or 13 I was reasonably good at chess, but when I got to public school there was no tradition of playing chess, and few of the boys played much. Then one of the masters decided he'd start a chess club, so a few of us met for a few times and played each other. The standard was not very high!
Then it was decided we'd form a team and play other schools. As the least bad of the bunch, I was appointed captain. Unfortunately our first match was against Winchester.
In the event, playing against a group of really smart boys who played regularly and who had quite a culture of chess-playing, it was what I think would technically be known as an absolute rout. I did manage to hold my opponent, the opposing captain, to a draw on one of the games, which saved a bit of face for me at least, but otherwise it was carnage.
Our team disbanded shortly afterwards and the chess club fell into desuetude...
Two of the candidates from the recent Apprentice series:- A: I used to play chess for my county B: I'm good at chess too A: What's your favourite opening? B: Never mind
I used to play chess at a state school (one which did have a chess playing culture) and we got to the semi-finals of the national competition (sponsored by the Times then), losing to one of the public schools (just). The public school had brought in a GM or IM (can't remember which) to do some training...
I also played in the local leagues and there were lots of yoof then, including one team made up pretty much of one chess playing family.
These days, none. Are they all just playing video games, or is there also no time for such things at school any more?
I think there is a chess club at my school. I know there is a bridge club because I was briefly put in charge of it: a massive mistake, but I was able to offload it onto an incoming teacher who can actually play bridge and enjoys it.
Edit: just checked, and yes there is a chess club.
That's good. So it does continue at least in some places, although probably not in every school.
I'm guessing yours is not a bad one...
It does depend on getting a reasonably enthusiastic member of staff to help organise it, and that can be a real problem in many schools.
Chess is one of the cheaper options though, so I suspect there is more than you might think.
One pound per set in Poundland.
I haven't been able to revive chess club since the pandemic, which I'm quite sad about because it was great fun.
I was covering a Y7 registration a few days ago and some of them were playing chess on their iPads, which surprised me.
Pre-covid, there was a thriving Chess club at my daughter's primary. They're trying to get it going again. The dirty secret is that chess is a really good game, at any level of ability.
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
We want more faith schools too like your RC Comprehensive for your children.
Choice not one size fits all, whether academies, free schools, faith schools, some grammar schools, technical schools etc.
Not only bog standard comprehensives you have no alternative but to send your children to if of only average income or less
On the contrary. There aren't enough schools for all faiths. You do that at home with your children - the ultimate parental choice. Don't expect the state to subsidise that choice.
There are enough schools for people of faith. If you wish to convert that is up to you but faith schools are generally better than the average state school and I of course not only want them to continue but see more of them.
That is why I am a conservative who believes in parental choice unlike you
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
We want more faith schools too like your RC Comprehensive for your children.
Choice not one size fits all, whether academies, free schools, faith schools, some grammar schools, technical schools etc.
Not only bog standard comprehensives you have no alternative but to send your children to if of only average income or less
No comprehensive should be "bog standard". They should all be excellent.
I shouldn't have mentioned that my children went to an RC school (they, nor me are Catholic by the way). I fell into your faith school trap. Damn and blast!
This is a definite theme now. Turkish food is terrible. Way worse than, say, Germany or Holland (the worst in western Europe)
It’s down there with a middle income African country or somewhere like Oman
It is shite. In Erdogan’s gleaming Istanbul airport at their flashy Italian restaurant I ordered the Caprese salad. It came as cold sliced tomato with weird tasteless frigid bits of cheese, and chopped lettuce. That was it. No dressing, no nothing, No oil, no pepper, no salt. Zero. No pesto or basil. Disgusting
Not only was it dreadfully bad, the staff had no idea WHY it was bad, when I politely queried
It was like eating in an eerie, hallucinated version of 70s Britain, yet in a huge sparkly airport
In Sanliurfa the Head of Regional Culture and Tourism took me to a celebrated restaurant for their famous liver kebab. It was nice bits of liver, in a kebab, with an OK sauce. That was it. You could eat it in Camden at 3am after a big night and think Hmm, decent fast food. And they were trying to show off???
UGHHHHHHH
I haven't eaten in Turkey, but I was surprised at how bad the food was in Copenhagen (2018). What's the story with putting massive dollops of butter onto everything?
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
Bravo, especially the streaming by subject.
It didn't last the distance. It is now a very ordinary academy. Hey, someone, somewhere will be making a shitload of money as CEO of the academy group, so all is fine, the students probably not so much.
I’m eating the Toblerone from my minibar, because the food in Izmir is so bad
Why stay there? Only an hour down the road to Selcuk to see Ephesus. Perfectly good restaurants there.
Off to Ephesus tomorrow for the day
I made the rookie error of booking a cheap 5 star room on Booking.com - non refundable. I’m stuck here. It just never occurred to me the city would be this grim and the food this shit. It’s a big Mediterranean city, Just haul out some fish and grill it FFS and serve it with chips and a slice of lemon. Seems beyond them. It really is the UK in about 1975
Trick is to avoid anywhere which thinks it is catering to Westerners. This rules out anywhere in West Turkey and anywhere that serves alcohol, but you get delicious fried meat and salad and ludicrously sweet baklava and stuff, and those little glasses of tea
Ah, yes
I love the baklava and I love the tea!
They do those brilliantly. And I’m not being snarky
A tulip glass of lightly sugared black Turkish tea, on a hot day, is wonderfully refreshing. Almost like a drug. I had a few when we went to see Karahan Tepe with the penis pillars at the weekend. 28C in the desert and yet the tea was way better than a cold lager. Delish. Likewise an absurdly sweet tranche of baklava, freshly made - it is divine
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
We want more faith schools too like your RC Comprehensive for your children.
Choice not one size fits all, whether academies, free schools, faith schools, some grammar schools, technical schools etc.
Not only bog standard comprehensives you have no alternative but to send your children to if of only average income or less
No comprehensive should be "bog standard". They should all be excellent.
I shouldn't have mentioned that my children went to an RC school (they, nor me are Catholic by the way). I fell into your faith school trap. Damn and blast!
What a ludicrous statement. You may as well say 'no supermarkets should be bog standard. They should all be excellent.'
The only way you get to excellence is consumer choice. Applies to education as much as business. Otherwise if there was no choice of supermarket, every supermarket would look like an Asda or Morrisons on a bad day
I don't know how they got into an RC school without being Catholic. Most faith schools require at least a minimum level of church attendance to get in '
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
Bravo, especially the streaming by subject.
It didn't last the distance. It is now a very ordinary academy. Hey, someone, somewhere will be making a shitload of money as CEO of the academy group, so all is fine, the students probably not so much.
This is a definite theme now. Turkish food is terrible. Way worse than, say, Germany or Holland (the worst in western Europe)
It’s down there with a middle income African country or somewhere like Oman
It is shite. In Erdogan’s gleaming Istanbul airport at their flashy Italian restaurant I ordered the Caprese salad. It came as cold sliced tomato with weird tasteless frigid bits of cheese, and chopped lettuce. That was it. No dressing, no nothing, No oil, no pepper, no salt. Zero. No pesto or basil. Disgusting
Not only was it dreadfully bad, the staff had no idea WHY it was bad, when I politely queried
It was like eating in an eerie, hallucinated version of 70s Britain, yet in a huge sparkly airport
In Sanliurfa the Head of Regional Culture and Tourism took me to a celebrated restaurant for their famous liver kebab. It was nice bits of liver, in a kebab, with an OK sauce. That was it. You could eat it in Camden at 3am after a big night and think Hmm, decent fast food. And they were trying to show off???
UGHHHHHHH
I haven't eaten in Turkey, but I was surprised at how bad the food was in Copenhagen (2018). What's the story with putting massive dollops of butter onto everything?
Possibly a different thing, but they tend to serve “whipped butter” with breakfast instead of actual butter which is pretty gross. Butter and milk whipped up in a mixer.
Although my abiding memory of that city is that a “twin room” is just the same as a “double room”. One platform, two sets of bedding. I like my friends, but really…
This is a definite theme now. Turkish food is terrible. Way worse than, say, Germany or Holland (the worst in western Europe)
It’s down there with a middle income African country or somewhere like Oman
It is shite. In Erdogan’s gleaming Istanbul airport at their flashy Italian restaurant I ordered the Caprese salad. It came as cold sliced tomato with weird tasteless frigid bits of cheese, and chopped lettuce. That was it. No dressing, no nothing, No oil, no pepper, no salt. Zero. No pesto or basil. Disgusting
Not only was it dreadfully bad, the staff had no idea WHY it was bad, when I politely queried
It was like eating in an eerie, hallucinated version of 70s Britain, yet in a huge sparkly airport
In Sanliurfa the Head of Regional Culture and Tourism took me to a celebrated restaurant for their famous liver kebab. It was nice bits of liver, in a kebab, with an OK sauce. That was it. You could eat it in Camden at 3am after a big night and think Hmm, decent fast food. And they were trying to show off???
UGHHHHHHH
I haven't eaten in Turkey, but I was surprised at how bad the food was in Copenhagen (2018). What's the story with putting massive dollops of butter onto everything?
But Copenhagen has some truly wonderful restaurants. They are horrendously expensive, true. But there is good food to be had there.
This is a definite theme now. Turkish food is terrible. Way worse than, say, Germany or Holland (the worst in western Europe)
It’s down there with a middle income African country or somewhere like Oman
It is shite. In Erdogan’s gleaming Istanbul airport at their flashy Italian restaurant I ordered the Caprese salad. It came as cold sliced tomato with weird tasteless frigid bits of cheese, and chopped lettuce. That was it. No dressing, no nothing, No oil, no pepper, no salt. Zero. No pesto or basil. Disgusting
Not only was it dreadfully bad, the staff had no idea WHY it was bad, when I politely queried
It was like eating in an eerie, hallucinated version of 70s Britain, yet in a huge sparkly airport
In Sanliurfa the Head of Regional Culture and Tourism took me to a celebrated restaurant for their famous liver kebab. It was nice bits of liver, in a kebab, with an OK sauce. That was it. You could eat it in Camden at 3am after a big night and think Hmm, decent fast food. And they were trying to show off???
UGHHHHHHH
I haven't eaten in Turkey, but I was surprised at how bad the food was in Copenhagen (2018). What's the story with putting massive dollops of butter onto everything?
Objectively, it's commendable. Yet it is focussed very much on buttressing the private education system.
Subjectively, it's a disaster, as it reminds the rest of the UK just how much money the Chancellor has to spare. (And how much tax relief was involved, too?)
Objectively.. is it? Donating money to a cause depends on the worthiness of that cause. Private schools are engines for concentrating the quality of services and delivering them mostly to those who can pay.
Yes, I know that bursaries exist and the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in, but it's still a system of intentional and intense stratification that benefits the extremely wealthy. It obviously right up HYUFD's street but if you asked me (I know, I know) I could find much better things to do with a spare £100k.
"...the poor but brilliant gold ticket winner can get in..."
This is a modern version of the Distressed Gentlefolk* charity. Sure, in theory it's open to anybody but in reality only a very small subset of society, usually with the right connections, would ever have the wherewithal to apply, let alone be successful. It's a sham.
(*I am probably being unfair to that charity, now sensibly renamed 'Elizabeth Finn Care'.)
Not so. The recipients of these bursaries are not secret poshos down on their luck, they are the real deal. And quite often getting a shit time from everybody else for their failure to be posh, secretly or otherwise, but that's another story.
Just exactly how do Winchester, Eton, etc. publicise these bursaries in your average sink estate?
no idea. Talent scouts?
Let me help you: They don't.
Let me help you: you don’t know what you are talking about. Not only do they have very active outreach programmes helping schools and sharing resources they actively promote bursaries and scholarships around the country because funnily enough they actually do want to recruit very bright and able students as it benefits everyone at the school and, if cynical, the reputation of the school when these bright kids get access to places they wouldn’t otherwise and go on to do great things.
All the major public schools support inner city clubs - Winchester for example supports the Crown and Manor club in London where they arrange exchanges, tutorial help, resources, money and time for kids from some of the shittiest unfortunate backgrounds because funnily enough all public school people aren’t entitled wankers.
The people aren’t, the institutions are selfish greedy fucks. Winchester is worth 400 million. What the fuck, And they want to be charities? UGH
Take their charitable status away
Just one of the many stupidities of what Sunak has done is he has ensured - if this story gains traction (Ukraine might save him) - is that every Tory will now be asked to justify Sunak’s 100k to Winchester. Because he is CoE they will have to defend him, but it will be very awkward, and it will sound like MaxPB’s strangulated nonsense. They won’t thank him for this
That charitable status helps them fund scholarships and bursaries and providing sports and arts facilities to share with the local community too
I think you've put the cart before the horse there. As a retired teacher from the independent sector I was aware that the charitable status had been around for many years before the advent of large numbers of scholarships. The development of scholarships etc appeared as a way championed by ISI to justify and retain the charitable status already in place. The main reason for the charitable status was to be let off paying the rates, which was usually enormous. The school still had to pay VAT on the usual items.
Rate relief has been abolished for private schools in Scotland - came into force this month AIUI. Now treated the same as state schools in that respect.
And the private schools will thus offer fewer scholarships and become even more the preserve of the rich.
Great job Sturgeon!
My kids former school is cutting back on teaching staff and places despite having a waiting list as a result.
We had a child or children at that school for 20 years. The change was remarkable. Originally dominated by old school money and inherited wealth it, over time it became dominated by people paying their fees from income in despair of the collapse of the state system. The ethos changed too. Originally a place you went to make friends of the clique that would see you alright and get a place for you it became focused on results. Those paying the fees from their hard earned want their kids in Russell group unis with a ticket to the professions.
It would be sad if it slipped back.
I fully understand why parents would want to buy their kids 'a ticket to the professions' but surely you must see how intrinsically unfair the opportunity to buy such tickets is and how poorly it serves the professions?
It is unfair yes. But I am not so sure it’s bad for the professions. They need people who have had a useful and thorough education and that is becoming increasingly rare in Scotland.
Also, England. My older daughter just aced her mock GCSEs at her supposedly Outstanding north London comp, but I recently discovered she has no idea what the Battle of Hastings is or was or what it meant or how it worked or anything, and she also has no idea whether Iran is north, south, east or west of Russia (and she is doing Geography and got the equivalent of an A*)
WTF are they actually teaching them
Do we know that Hyufd isn't her Geography teacher!
I got an A* in Geography GCSE I will have you know.
And so I should jolly well hope, young HY. Absolutely everybody gets an A* in Geography GCSE. That is Conservative policy, innit?
This is a definite theme now. Turkish food is terrible. Way worse than, say, Germany or Holland (the worst in western Europe)
It’s down there with a middle income African country or somewhere like Oman
It is shite. In Erdogan’s gleaming Istanbul airport at their flashy Italian restaurant I ordered the Caprese salad. It came as cold sliced tomato with weird tasteless frigid bits of cheese, and chopped lettuce. That was it. No dressing, no nothing, No oil, no pepper, no salt. Zero. No pesto or basil. Disgusting
Not only was it dreadfully bad, the staff had no idea WHY it was bad, when I politely queried
It was like eating in an eerie, hallucinated version of 70s Britain, yet in a huge sparkly airport
In Sanliurfa the Head of Regional Culture and Tourism took me to a celebrated restaurant for their famous liver kebab. It was nice bits of liver, in a kebab, with an OK sauce. That was it. You could eat it in Camden at 3am after a big night and think Hmm, decent fast food. And they were trying to show off???
UGHHHHHHH
I haven't eaten in Turkey, but I was surprised at how bad the food was in Copenhagen (2018). What's the story with putting massive dollops of butter onto everything?
Posh Danish food is now world class. But everything beneath is still catching up (in Denmark)
Germany, Holland and the rest of Scandi are notably behind.
Britain is no longer the laggard, you can now eat better in the UK than most European countries (and certainly most countries around the world)
Spain, Italy and France are still superior to the UK. Tho Britain is edging France because of our better world cuisine, and insane French attachment to the Great Tradition
Nonetheless I’d have those three in the European Superleague, and Britain at the top of the next division, ahead of Greece and Portugal
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
We want more faith schools too like your RC Comprehensive for your children.
Choice not one size fits all, whether academies, free schools, faith schools, some grammar schools, technical schools etc.
Not only bog standard comprehensives you have no alternative but to send your children to if of only average income or less
No comprehensive should be "bog standard". They should all be excellent.
I shouldn't have mentioned that my children went to an RC school (they, nor me are Catholic by the way). I fell into your faith school trap. Damn and blast!
What a ludicrous statement. You may as well say 'no supermarkets should be bog standard. They should all be excellent.'
The only way you get to excellence is consumer choice. Applies to education as much as business. Otherwise if there was no choice of supermarket, every supermarket would look like an Asda or Morrisons on a bad day
I don't know how they got into an RC school without being Catholic. Most faith schools require at least a minimum level of church attendance to get in '
None taken!
Supermarkets are not funded out of the public purse for the future benefit of the nation. If they are poor they wither and die. With publicly funded schools it doesn't quite work like that.
And I didn't furtively pretend to be the Pope to get them in. The school knew I was a godless heathen.
I’m eating the Toblerone from my minibar, because the food in Izmir is so bad
Why stay there? Only an hour down the road to Selcuk to see Ephesus. Perfectly good restaurants there.
Off to Ephesus tomorrow for the day
I made the rookie error of booking a cheap 5 star room on Booking.com - non refundable. I’m stuck here. It just never occurred to me the city would be this grim and the food this shit. It’s a big Mediterranean city, Just haul out some fish and grill it FFS and serve it with chips and a slice of lemon. Seems beyond them. It really is the UK in about 1975
Trick is to avoid anywhere which thinks it is catering to Westerners. This rules out anywhere in West Turkey and anywhere that serves alcohol, but you get delicious fried meat and salad and ludicrously sweet baklava and stuff, and those little glasses of tea
Ah, yes
I love the baklava and I love the tea!
They do those brilliantly. And I’m not being snarky
A tulip glass of lightly sugared black Turkish tea, on a hot day, is wonderfully refreshing. Almost like a drug. I had a few when we went to see Karahan Tepe with the penis pillars at the weekend. 28C in the desert and yet the tea was way better than a cold lager. Delish. Likewise an absurdly sweet tranche of baklava, freshly made - it is divine
It’s just everything else that sucks
When in Istanbul, I went on a food day on the Asian side. Its quite a hipster district there and we ate great stuff all day, even lamb Intestine kebab.
I’m eating the Toblerone from my minibar, because the food in Izmir is so bad
Why stay there? Only an hour down the road to Selcuk to see Ephesus. Perfectly good restaurants there.
Or push on to Kusadasi for some wonderful seafront fish restaurants.
But the sea is right here. I can view it from my hotel
I do wonder if the terrible inflation crisis is making yer generally mediocre Turkish food much worse than normal
Turkish food is never great, It has always been overrated by its fans (like Lebanese). I’ve been here too many times and been sorely disappointed.
But this is a new level of dire
I liked Ephesus, but was more impressed at looking down on the River Menderes (Maiandros in Greek) and twigging the origin of the English verb.
Any recommendations of how to do Ephesus? 3 hours enough? Avoid local bars? Take a flask of arak?
These days my culture ceiling runs at about 60-90 minutes, and I was in Ephesus a long while ago. So perhaps not the person to ask.
I think the Library is the main thing, and the museum and amphitheatre. Then the rest is just wandering around to breath in the scale of things. You will probably have seen way better ruins. But it is nice to sit down with a Turkish tea or coffee and take in the surroundings.
One single hoi-sin duck wrap from Marks and Spencer (price, £4?) would be better than any dish I have had in Turkey in five days, having eaten in every kinda place from 5 star hotel restaurants to airport trattorias to recommended authentic local kebab shops
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
We want more faith schools too like your RC Comprehensive for your children.
Choice not one size fits all, whether academies, free schools, faith schools, some grammar schools, technical schools etc.
Not only bog standard comprehensives you have no alternative but to send your children to if of only average income or less
No comprehensive should be "bog standard". They should all be excellent.
I shouldn't have mentioned that my children went to an RC school (they, nor me are Catholic by the way). I fell into your faith school trap. Damn and blast!
What a ludicrous statement. You may as well say 'no supermarkets should be bog standard. They should all be excellent.'
The only way you get to excellence is consumer choice. Applies to education as much as business. Otherwise if there was no choice of supermarket, every supermarket would look like an Asda or Morrisons on a bad day
I don't know how they got into an RC school without being Catholic. Most faith schools require at least a minimum level of church attendance to get in '
None taken!
Supermarkets are not funded out of the public purse for the future benefit of the nation. If they are poor they wither and die. With publicly funded schools it doesn't quite work like that.
And I didn't furtively pretend to be the Pope to get them in. The school knew I was a godless heathen.
If state schools are inadequate they get rebranded as academies, if private schools are inadequate they go out of business.
Either way, they do not go on as before.
Sounds an unusual faith school anyway. The C of E faith school in Loughton for example awards points based on weekly church attendance. The more you attend, the more points you get regardless of how close you live to the school in the district. That is normally standard for most faith schools, C of E or RC. It gets 81% A* to C GCSE grades or the new points equivalent.
Rishi's star falls further as he donates £100, 000 to Winchester School
He has astonished me and Boris needs to move him on
So out of touch
"The donations fund bursaries for children whose parents would not otherwise be able to send them there."
I would have thought as a Conservative leaning voter you would be board with rich people donating so those fortunate can have access to top level education?
From my side of the political divide, a Chancellor properly funding a state system benefitting all children, rather than a private tax dodging bursary for one or two social climbers would be more appropriate.
Let's all laugh at 12 year old working class children, and call them names. Hurrah!
The chances are they won't be "gifted" children from a sink estate in Scunthorpe anyway, but less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
But I see your point, like Basil Fawlty said, "no riff-raff".
No. you are simply wrong. I was at one of these schools, I had friends who were on these bursaries, and they were not less well off middle class wannabe high rollers from the Home Counties.
I went to a provincial grammar school (granted, over 40 years ago) and the council house kids were looked down upon, and that was by both teachers and students. Fortunately for me, I was not from a council estate, so I was fine.
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
Or a 'comprehensive education, to make up for their comprehensive education' as Sir Humphrey and Jim Hacker promised!
I have told you many times before that prior to Ledbury Grammar School I went to an excellent High School. The rounded quality of the teaching, by enthusiastic, generally young teachers, enthused students into achieving excellent grades and several students in my year finished up with Oxford or Cambridge degrees and very impressive careers ( not me!). For example one became a British High Commissioner and another a keyboard player in the biggest band of the 1980s.
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
As a timetable writer that sounds like a nightmare!
I did acknowledge your concern. I suspect ample resources were probably the key. It was a very long time ago.
Comments
For nine years I have worked in academies or private schools and paid precisely zero attention to the national curriculum. And bizarrely, despite my disdain for exams and cynicism towards the whole system, my students' results are among the best in the country.
Now, is that a coincidence, or is it because one size doesn't fit anybody and it's not smart to enforce it as such?
I know which my money's on.
Edit: just checked, and yes there is a chess club.
He's been told that after reforms and a ton of money it is the finest military machine in the world.
But actually, it's a shit fuck of conscripts, corrupt quartermasters, alcoholic generals and under trained tank commanders.
My point is just that it's a pity that he only choose to tell us about the money he's given a public school, and it suggests a lack of political judgment and leadership. If he told us that he's giving £1 million/year to various charities helping desperate people at home and abroad, and £10,000/year to Winchester, I think it would have been wiser. It's not a hanging offence, just (arguably) a slip.
I remember pretty much zero from our actual 'history' lessons. Other than the teacher was lucky to escape with a warning after locking a pupil in a cupboard and shouting at them so hard their ear bled.
Said teacher went on to become a Conservative MP oddly enough.
But that one teacher who gave up her time to _actually_ educate us has coloured my view of schooling ever since. I owe her a great debt.
You know what to do.
Incidentally I wonder what Kasparov's status is in Russia now? Whether he could be a powerful figure post-Putin.
And there are times when I will say "you need to say this for the exam, but it's actually not really like that".
I go back to my original point. A well funded, well managed non-selective state school system for all those who want to achieve, would be my preference. Quite how one arrives at that point is for smarter people than me.
'I will teach you how to do blind source work. It is as much use in actually doing history as a stone pen, but it may be of use to you in other fields and you can always forget it when writing your dissertations.'
And "First World War" covers one of his fuck ups?
But I am not sure why you stipulate 'not written in a European language'. Does being written in English, French or Spanish make the literature less African or Latin American or whatever?
LAB: 42% (+5)
CON: 36% (+1)
LDM: 9% (=)
GRN: 4% (-1)
REF: 3% (-2)
SNP: 3% (-3)
Via @RedfieldWilton, On 3 April,
Changes w/ 27 March.
Whomp whomp
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1511382917712429056
The new A-level is actually a step backwards in that regard, as in the old one you at least had to use them to answer a meaningful question. Now you just have to say 'how useful' they are to somebody answering a specified question. Which strikes me as rather meaningless.
You don't even have to compare them and consider which might offer most utility where they differ (which is actually an important skill).
The only good thing is that in the original specification you were expected to know inordinate amounts of background detail. Of material you had never seen before. Which would not be provided by the exam board. And you would be marked down for not mentioning it...
Fortunately, that was one of two things that a near-riot by Cambridge university forced a rethink on. Now, you are not expected to know anything beyond what's in the label the exam board provide.
If it had been a guardian scoop then he would have had that info.
If the BBC then Jamie Angus who is BBC “Senior Controller of News Output and Commissioning”.
So not necessarily a hatchet job “Blue on Blue” but possibly an old Wykehamist journo remembering it or seeing it in an old boys magazine.
One is the sense in some schools that squeezing out more exam results is the only thing, and time running or attending a chess club is time not doing after school revision with Year 11. It's not universal- Thing 1 has got involved in all sorts of eccentric interests at her local comp, but that's not as common as it should be.
More generally, clubs happen less than N years ago. We also don't trust teenagers to be out on their own as much, perhaps due to a dear of traffic and perverts.
But it's definitely a shame.
(And since everyone else has banged on about Sunak, it's foolish politics and if he wanted to give the money to Winchester, he'd have been wise to do it anonymously. And if he wanted to do the most good per pound in education, donating to local comps, or Uni outreach would have done a lot more. In terms of grades, state schools generally do fine. It's the social capital, showing what's possible and how to get there, that's the challenge.)
At home just in the normal course of things we've talked about mesolithic/neolithic transition through to bronze age, iron age and roman Britain at one end, plenty of the Tudors (thanks to Horrible HIstories which is excellent), Kings & Queens, French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (mainly when visiting France), C17th-C18th slave trade, the World Wars (through her grandparents' and great grandparents' perspective), and the Ukraine conflict has given us a way in to talking about the Cold War and post-colonial conflict.
I'm actually quite impressed with what the school does and how well it covers the material at the right level, and encourages them to engage with sources to learn "facts" and "perspectives" and the beginning of historiography, rather than just rote learning.
No, it ensures every pupil at least studied English, Maths, History, Science, RS, IT, Geography, some arts and PE ie the core elements of education and the key elements within those areas until 14.
The fact you were good at teaching one particular subject within that just makes you a good teacher in one school. Other teachers will be good, average or mediocre. However it does at least ensure every pupil has the opportunity to study the core subjects
I'm guessing yours is not a bad one...
(Sorry to harp but that was FUNNY)
The humanities are definitely different.
Chess is one of the cheaper options though, so I suspect there is more than you might think.
It’s down there with a middle income African country or somewhere like Oman
It is shite. In Erdogan’s gleaming Istanbul airport at their flashy Italian restaurant I ordered the Caprese salad. It came as cold sliced tomato with weird tasteless frigid bits of cheese, and chopped lettuce. That was it. No dressing, no nothing, No oil, no pepper, no salt. Zero. No pesto or basil. Disgusting
Not only was it dreadfully bad, the staff had no idea WHY it was bad, when I politely queried
It was like eating in an eerie, hallucinated version of 70s Britain, yet in a huge sparkly airport
In Sanliurfa the Head of Regional Culture and Tourism took me to a celebrated restaurant for their famous liver kebab. It was nice bits of liver, in a kebab, with an OK sauce. That was it. You could eat it in Camden at 3am after a big night and think Hmm, decent fast food. And they were trying to show off???
UGHHHHHHH
I haven't been able to revive chess club since the pandemic, which I'm quite sad about because it was great fun.
I don’t have the energy to say anything more, I need sleep!
And I will be going to bed as well. Good night all.
https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/schools-white-paper-why-enforcing-325-hour-school-week-will-lead-longer-lunchtimes
(The other factor, the slightly dirty secret, is that a shorter lunch break gives less time for teenagers to be naughty.)
I made the rookie error of booking a cheap 5 star room on Booking.com - non refundable. I’m stuck here. It just never occurred to me the city would be this grim and the food this shit. It’s a big Mediterranean city, Just haul out some fish and grill it FFS and serve it with chips and a slice of lemon. Seems beyond them. It really is the UK in about 1975
[It took place] between two hills – Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south. The area was heavily wooded, with a marsh nearby.[79] The name traditionally given to the battle is unusual – there were several settlements much closer to the battlefield than Hastings. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle called it the battle "at the hoary apple tree". Within 40 years, the battle was described by the Anglo-Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis as "Senlac",[n] a Norman-French adaptation of the Old English word "Sandlacu", which means "sandy water".[o] This may have been the name of the stream that crosses the battlefield.[p] The battle was already being referred to as "bellum Hasestingas" or "Battle of Hastings" by 1086, in the Domesday Book.[83]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings#Background_and_location
Is it just me or is it just a bit weird to go after banning the celebrity people who advertise the betting companies rather than the betting ads themselves? It feels somewhat odd. "Yes by all means advertise these services, all good, its all legal and above board, just don't use anyone who might be well known by the young peeps, nosiree".
It feels more binary to me - either gambling ads = bad, or gambling ads = fine. But apparently it's gambling ads = fine IF AND ONLY IF no-one recognises the plonker in the ad actually advertising it?
So why did it work? It was the early days of comprehensive education so it was properly funded. The teachers were motivated, and in turn motivated the students. All subjects were streamed by subject. So kids who were good at Maths were in set one for Maths, equally if they were poor at English they would have been in set 7 for English (a logistical nightmare, no doubt).
My children also went to an excellent RC Comprehensive School too. It was well funded and the teachers were motivated.
They built Tudor houses out of cardboard in year 1 and then burnt them in a 'great fire' outside. For Egypt, they 'mummified' a piece of fruit. Yes, it's all silly, but they're young kids.
I think he's getting a better education at his age than I did - though TBF I barely remember what I learnt in school aged 7...
I do wonder if the terrible inflation crisis is making yer generally mediocre Turkish food much worse than normal
Turkish food is never great, It has always been overrated by its fans (like Lebanese). I’ve been here too many times and been sorely disappointed.
But this is a new level of dire
Choice not one size fits all, whether academies, free schools, faith schools, some grammar schools, technical schools etc.
Not only bog standard comprehensives you have no alternative but to send your children to if of only average income or less
I love the baklava and I love the tea!
They do those brilliantly. And I’m not being snarky
A tulip glass of lightly sugared black Turkish tea, on a hot day, is wonderfully refreshing. Almost like a drug. I had a few when we went to see Karahan Tepe with the penis pillars at the weekend. 28C in the desert and yet the tea was way better than a cold lager. Delish. Likewise an absurdly sweet tranche of baklava, freshly made - it is divine
It’s just everything else that sucks
That is why I am a conservative who believes in parental choice unlike you
I shouldn't have mentioned that my children went to an RC school (they, nor me are Catholic by the way). I fell into your faith school trap. Damn and blast!
A friend's father won a competition for a Toblerone slogan in the 60s.
"The peak of perfection from all angles" was his winning entry.
The only way you get to excellence is consumer choice. Applies to education as much as business. Otherwise if there was no choice of supermarket, every supermarket would look like an Asda or Morrisons on a bad day
I don't know how they got into an RC school without being Catholic. Most faith schools require at least a minimum level of church attendance to get in
'
Although my abiding memory of that city is that a “twin room” is just the same as a “double room”. One platform, two sets of bedding. I like my friends, but really…
Germany, Holland and the rest of Scandi are notably behind.
Britain is no longer the laggard, you can now eat better in the UK than most European countries (and certainly most countries around the world)
Spain, Italy and France are still superior to the UK. Tho Britain is edging France because of our better world cuisine, and insane French attachment to the Great Tradition
Nonetheless I’d have those three in the European Superleague, and Britain at the top of the next division, ahead of Greece and Portugal
Supermarkets are not funded out of the public purse for the future benefit of the nation. If they are poor they wither and die. With publicly funded schools it doesn't quite work like that.
And I didn't furtively pretend to be the Pope to get them in. The school knew I was a godless heathen.
I think the Library is the main thing, and the museum and amphitheatre. Then the rest is just wandering around to breath in the scale of things. You will probably have seen way better ruins. But it is nice to sit down with a Turkish tea or coffee and take in the surroundings.
Either way, they do not go on as before.
Sounds an unusual faith school anyway. The C of E faith school in Loughton for example awards points based on weekly church attendance. The more you attend, the more points you get regardless of how close you live to the school in the district. That is normally standard for most faith schools, C of E or RC. It gets 81% A* to C GCSE grades or the new points equivalent.