Dave,

As you seem to be well into deck building, pop over to -
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking - and have a look at the thread "Friday
deck progress" and see what the yanks are up to with this 1200 square foot
one.

Tanner-'op

"Ping the Medway Handyman" sounds like a song.

Puff the Magic Dragon, anyone?

--
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
"Ping the Medway Handyman" sounds like a song.

Puff the Magic Dragon, anyone?

Played by the sea and frolicked in the autumn mists in the...

Who sung that song in the sixties then - there were many artists who sung it
but which group had the 'hit'?

Tanner-'op

"Tanner-'op" wrote in message
...
Adrian C wrote:
"Ping the Medway Handyman" sounds like a song.

Puff the Magic Dragon, anyone?

Played by the sea and frolicked in the autumn mists in the...

Who sung that song in the sixties then - there were many artists who sung
it but which group had the 'hit'?

Tanner-'op
Peter Paul and Mary?

On 2008-07-24 23:15:34 +0100, "Tanner-'op" said:

Adrian C wrote:
"Ping the Medway Handyman" sounds like a song.

Puff the Magic Dragon, anyone?

Played by the sea and frolicked in the autumn mists in the...

Who sung that song in the sixties then - there were many artists who sung it
but which group had the 'hit'?

Tanner-'op

Peter, Paul and Mary

not to mention Uncle Mac

TMC wrote:
"Tanner-'op" wrote in message
...
Adrian C wrote:
"Ping the Medway Handyman" sounds like a song.

Puff the Magic Dragon, anyone?

Played by the sea and frolicked in the autumn mists in the...

Who sung that song in the sixties then - there were many artists who
sung it but which group had the 'hit'?

Tanner-'op
Peter Paul and Mary?

Full marks - if that was done without searching the internet :-)

Many people have the false impression that it was the Seekers.


Tanner-'op

"Tanner-'op" wrote in message
...
TMC wrote:
"Tanner-'op" wrote in message
...
Adrian C wrote:
"Ping the Medway Handyman" sounds like a song.

Puff the Magic Dragon, anyone?

Played by the sea and frolicked in the autumn mists in the...

Who sung that song in the sixties then - there were many artists who
sung it but which group had the 'hit'?

Tanner-'op
Peter Paul and Mary?

Full marks - if that was done without searching the internet :-)

Many people have the false impression that it was the Seekers.

Same as "Leavin' On A Jet Plane", `EVERYBODY'S first answer would be The
Seekers or most probably The New Seekers. My son (5 years old) was doing a
project on travel and his teacher wanted a copy of "Leaving On A Jet Plane"
by the New Seekers to play to his class. I presented her with a copy by
Peter, Paul & Mary and also a version by John Denver to which she replied
"It's not the one I wanted but as nobody has got it, it will do!!" Later I
showed her my copy of the Guinness Book Of Hit Singles which showed no
record of the song by the (New) Seekers to be told "that is wrong as I KNOW
they sang it". To which I replied "Elvis probably sang Happy Birthday To
You, but not as a hit single!!"

Those who can, work, those that can't teach! My children are now in private
education, not just because of that episode by the way ;-)

Cheers

John

On 2008-07-25 00:32:21 +0100, "John" said:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach! My children are now in private
education, not just because of that episode by the way ;-)

Cheers

John

FWIW, I've seen the same scenario, except that with mine the state
school had created classes covering two age years and was using the
more able and older children to effectively provide teaching assistance
for the younger and less able ones and deliberately holding them back.
The low quality of teaching staff was already showing at that time
which was almost 20 years ago now. With our son, some three years
younger, there was never an attempt at using the state system - it was
clear that it's too badly broken.

One thing that I can tell you is that a private education for your
children is the best investment that you will ever make. Even if you
decide to return to the state system at age 11 or 13, you will have
made an enormous difference during the primary years where it matters
even more. The galling thing is having to pay twice, both payments
out of taxed income, but even with that I think it was still well worth
it.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 00:32:21 +0100, "John" said:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach! My children are now in
private
education, not just because of that episode by the way ;-)

Cheers

John

FWIW, I've seen the same scenario, except that with mine the state
school had created classes covering two age years and was using the
more able and older children to effectively provide teaching assistance
for the younger and less able ones and deliberately holding them back.
The low quality of teaching staff was already showing at that time which
was almost 20 years ago now. With our son, some three years younger,
there was never an attempt at using the state system - it was clear that
it's too badly broken.

One thing that I can tell you is that a private education for your
children is the best investment that you will ever make. Even if you
decide to return to the state system at age 11 or 13, you will have
made an enormous difference during the primary years where it matters
even more. The galling thing is having to pay twice, both payments
out of taxed income, but even with that I think it was still well worth it.




IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system
they're in.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 00:32:21 +0100, "John" said:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach! My children are now in
private
education, not just because of that episode by the way ;-)


FWIW, I've seen the same scenario, except that with mine the state
school had created classes covering two age years and was using the
more able and older children to effectively provide teaching assistance
for the younger and less able ones and deliberately holding them back.

Yep same happened with ours. It meant that the kids did pretty well in
the class during the first year - arguably better than if they'd all
been a single-year age group - but they just coasted during the second year.

The reason for it happening, at least in our case, was the fact that the
school was growing overall, but not at a rate which would, on
financial grounds, justify changing the number of classes per year from
2 to 3; therefore they implemented the split-year system effectively
making it 2.5 classes per year. Not that I'm defending the practice,
but you can see how it happened.

David

On 24 Jul, 23:01, Adrian C wrote:
"Ping the Medway Handyman" sounds like a song.

Puff the Magic Dragon, anyone?

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=13503#522515 may be more
on-topic...

In article ,
stuart noble writes:
IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system
they're in.

I thought all kids sailed through their A levels nowadays?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system
they're in.

I thought all kids sailed through their A levels nowadays?


No point in private education on academic grounds then.

On 2008-07-25 08:26:38 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 00:32:21 +0100, "John" said:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach! My children are now in private
education, not just because of that episode by the way ;-)

Cheers

John

FWIW, I've seen the same scenario, except that with mine the state
school had created classes covering two age years and was using the
more able and older children to effectively provide teaching assistance
for the younger and less able ones and deliberately holding them back.
The low quality of teaching staff was already showing at that time
which was almost 20 years ago now. With our son, some three years
younger, there was never an attempt at using the state system - it was
clear that it's too badly broken.

One thing that I can tell you is that a private education for your
children is the best investment that you will ever make. Even if you
decide to return to the state system at age 11 or 13, you will have
made an enormous difference during the primary years where it matters
even more. The galling thing is having to pay twice, both payments
out of taxed income, but even with that I think it was still well worth
it.




IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system they're in.

Despite, but not because of the state system. This is chalk and cheese.

On 2008-07-25 09:41:44 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system they're in.

I thought all kids sailed through their A levels nowadays?


No point in private education on academic grounds then.

Depends on how many A levels and also the impact with university
entrance grades (they adjust accordngly), plus of course choice of
universities and the possibility of scholarships and bursaries.

Secondly, education is not about imparting information in order to pass
exams. That's training and is for monkeys. Education is about
discovering how to go about learning - finding, sifting and
assimilating appropriate information for the tasks at hand. By virtue
of the different ethic and much better teacher pupil ratio, this most
important aspect of education can be facilitated in the independent
sector. The state is unable to do this because it wants to treat
everybody in the same way regardless of suitability.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 09:41:44 +0100, stuart noble
said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system
they're in.

I thought all kids sailed through their A levels nowadays?


No point in private education on academic grounds then.

Depends on how many A levels and also the impact with university
entrance grades (they adjust accordngly), plus of course choice of
universities and the possibility of scholarships and bursaries.

Secondly, education is not about imparting information in order to pass
exams. That's training and is for monkeys. Education is about
discovering how to go about learning - finding, sifting and assimilating
appropriate information for the tasks at hand. By virtue of the
different ethic and much better teacher pupil ratio, this most important
aspect of education can be facilitated in the independent sector.
The state is unable to do this because it wants to treat everybody in
the same way regardless of suitability.




Separating children at primary school age is truly wicked, and is more
about their ambitious parents than the welfare of the child.

On 2008-07-25 12:37:23 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 09:41:44 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system they're in.

I thought all kids sailed through their A levels nowadays?


No point in private education on academic grounds then.

Depends on how many A levels and also the impact with university
entrance grades (they adjust accordngly), plus of course choice of
universities and the possibility of scholarships and bursaries.

Secondly, education is not about imparting information in order to pass
exams. That's training and is for monkeys. Education is about
discovering how to go about learning - finding, sifting and
assimilating appropriate information for the tasks at hand. By virtue
of the different ethic and much better teacher pupil ratio, this most
important aspect of education can be facilitated in the independent
sector. The state is unable to do this because it wants to treat
everybody in the same way regardless of suitability.




Separating children at primary school age is truly wicked, and is more
about their ambitious parents than the welfare of the child.

They aren't separated. In fact, when my children moved to private
school, they ended up with a far wider circle of friends in terms of
different cultures, abilities and geographies than ever they had at the
local state school. The latter was very inward looking to the "local
community" with its limited vision of the world.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 12:37:23 +0100, stuart noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 09:41:44 +0100, stuart noble
said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system
they're in.

I thought all kids sailed through their A levels nowadays?


No point in private education on academic grounds then.

Depends on how many A levels and also the impact with university
entrance grades (they adjust accordngly), plus of course choice of
universities and the possibility of scholarships and bursaries.

Secondly, education is not about imparting information in order to
pass exams. That's training and is for monkeys. Education is
about discovering how to go about learning - finding, sifting and
assimilating appropriate information for the tasks at hand. By
virtue of the different ethic and much better teacher pupil ratio,
this most important aspect of education can be facilitated in the
independent sector. The state is unable to do this because it
wants to treat everybody in the same way regardless of suitability.




Separating children at primary school age is truly wicked, and is more
about their ambitious parents than the welfare of the child.

They aren't separated. In fact, when my children moved to private
school, they ended up with a far wider circle of friends in terms of
different cultures, abilities and geographies than ever they had at the
local state school. The latter was very inward looking to the "local
community" with its limited vision of the world.

They're separated from the kids round the corner who don't happen to
have as much money. I suppose "local community" smacks of society, or
some other deviant notion.

On 2008-07-25 16:46:38 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 12:37:23 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-25 09:41:44 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
stuart noble writes:
IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system they're in.

I thought all kids sailed through their A levels nowadays?


No point in private education on academic grounds then.

Depends on how many A levels and also the impact with university
entrance grades (they adjust accordngly), plus of course choice of
universities and the possibility of scholarships and bursaries.

Secondly, education is not about imparting information in order to pass
exams. That's training and is for monkeys. Education is about
discovering how to go about learning - finding, sifting and
assimilating appropriate information for the tasks at hand. By virtue
of the different ethic and much better teacher pupil ratio, this most
important aspect of education can be facilitated in the independent
sector. The state is unable to do this because it wants to treat
everybody in the same way regardless of suitability.




Separating children at primary school age is truly wicked, and is more
about their ambitious parents than the welfare of the child.

They aren't separated. In fact, when my children moved to private
school, they ended up with a far wider circle of friends in terms of
different cultures, abilities and geographies than ever they had at the
local state school. The latter was very inward looking to the "local
community" with its limited vision of the world.

They're separated from the kids round the corner who don't happen to
have as much money.

Actually there were numerous children whose parents were not well off
and who received part or full bursaries at the school attended by my
children. Secondly, there were parents who impoverished themselves
in various ways because they put the welfare of their children and
payment of fees as a higher priority than spending money on themselves
or their house. I think that it's spectacularly wicked that they
should have to do this out of taxed income in addition to paying for a
state system that has failed their children.

I suppose "local community" smacks of society, or some other deviant notion.

My children had and still have a number of friends locally as well as
those from farther afield who they met in school. The local friends
had no issue with their going to a different school since there are
several state and independent schools in the area anyway. None of
the children, regardless of school, had the hang ups that you seem to
imply. So rather than having a circle that was limited to the
narrowness of friends around the corner, they had and have that plus
others with parents ranging from artists to farmers, transport workers
to university professors and diplomats to well known pop stars.
Interestingly, they still communicate with them by email and meeting
several years later. The separation comes from the notion of
limiting the scope and having the limited horizons of the local
environment.

The deviant notion is that of the public sector organisers of education
who would seek to limit the scope to grow of the children and that of
those who believe that this is the right thing to do for the benefit of
"society". None of this.

Curiously, some people still seem to be unable to differentiate between
situation A being different to situation B vs. situation A being
perceived to be better than situation B. Sadly, this muddled thinking
permeates all through the state education system to the point where it
is dumbed down in an attempt to make A = B in all respects. The
National Curriculum is one of the worst examples of that. A=B will
never be achieved and should never be achieved and is highly
deleterious to the children themselves and in the medium to long term
the ability of our country to compete on the world stage.

On 2008-07-25 18:14:40 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:26:38 +0100 Stuart noble wrote :

IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system
they're in.

And ISTR Princess Diana got just one GCSE despite a no expense
spared private education

Probably, which demonstrates that you can't *buy* education in itself,
you can only buy the opportunity for education. If the child is
unable to use the opportunity, it doesn't achieve anything.

Conversely, one can say that providing opportunity by virtue of access
to facilities and low teacherupil ratio can facilitate education and
learning.

I can still vividly remember my first days at primary school and indeed
each of the teachers of my primary years. All of this was in the state
sector. The teachers were essentially facilitators. Some
children were interested in sports and were encouraged in that; others
in natural history which became a great vehicle for learning some
science in a real way. Others showed aptitudes in maths or english
and were suitably encouraged in those directions. There weren't the
hangups about selection at 11 that there became later through political
interference. The point was that the children were encouraged to
learn as opposed to being taught.

Some years later, during my secondary years, the comprehensive system
began to be introduced. There was an almost immediate demise in
motivation among teachers with the more able ones across a wide range
of disciplines moving to schools still having selection (not all
grammar I might add) and to the independent sector.
I was fortunate in the sense that I had left the system before head
teachers had become politicians and the major damage of the
comprehensive system was in place.

I was able to go through university when that still had the approach of
facilitating learning.

Nowadays, in both schools and the new "universities" we have what are
basically training programs. Training does not equal education and it
most certainly doesn't equal learning or the ability to learn.

In essence, for more than a generation now, the politicians have been
comprehensively wrecking any semblance of education that we had.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:26:38 +0100 Stuart noble wrote :

IME bright kids will sail through their A levels, whatever system
they're in.

And ISTR Princess Diana got just one GCSE despite a no expense
spared private education

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

They're separated from the kids round the corner who don't happen to
have as much money.

Actually there were numerous children whose parents were not well off
and who received part or full bursaries at the school attended by my
children. Secondly, there were parents who impoverished themselves in
various ways because they put the welfare of their children and payment
of fees as a higher priority than spending money on themselves or their
house. I think that it's spectacularly wicked that they should have
to do this out of taxed income in addition to paying for a state system
that has failed their children.

What's wrong with all kids going to their local primary school? The
state system will always fail if the bright kids, able teachers, and
pushy parents aren't part of it. The end game with private education is
always social division.

On 2008-07-25 19:42:57 +0100, stuart noble said:


They're separated from the kids round the corner who don't happen to
have as much money.

Actually there were numerous children whose parents were not well off
and who received part or full bursaries at the school attended by my
children. Secondly, there were parents who impoverished themselves
in various ways because they put the welfare of their children and
payment of fees as a higher priority than spending money on themselves
or their house. I think that it's spectacularly wicked that they
should have to do this out of taxed income in addition to paying for a
state system that has failed their children.

What's wrong with all kids going to their local primary school?

I explained that earlier in the thread. Our local one was grouping 5
and 6 year olds together and expecting the 6 year olds who had
completed set work to help out with the 5 year olds and those who
hadn't. For my daughter, who at the time had a reading age of 8+, a
maturity to match and should have been in the year ahead, this was
intensely frustrating. Children aren't stupid. One afternoon she
came home and announced that she felt that she was being used (her
exact words). We tackled the school about the year combining
issue and they came out with some BS about it being local policy. I
checked. It wasn't. We then attempted to get her moved to the
year above. That was also declined because of "local policy". Again it
wasn't. Given the state of affairs, an unwillingness to correct it
and being lied to, the decision in terms of the principle to move them
to an independent school became rather easy. The financial aspect
was rather more difficult at the time and a lot was sacrificed. When
it became my son's turn, there wasn't really a second thought about the
principle but the financial aspect was even harder and lasted for many
years. I don't begrudge a penny or a second of it.




The state system will always fail if the bright kids, able teachers,
and pushy parents aren't part of it.

Well... this is falling into the trap of assuming that educational
success is aligned with academic ability. I don't think that it is
and it's the mistake made by the majority of people. The important
points about education are identifying suitability for the individual
and matching their education so that *they* achieve it. The true
measure of success is how well that matching is achieved. For some
people it will be academic subjects, for others it will be different
things. Both are valuable to the individuals concerned.

Yet, we have a public education system that perpetuates the myth that
success in education equates to success in academic subjects. It
even has the parents believing that and proceeds to try to deliver on
that agenda. Of course the whole thing is a farce because it can't
be achieved without reducing academic standards or creating subjects in
which every child can succeed.

When I went to school we had bright kids academically and they (we)
were encouraged to succeed, even including additional work if we wanted
it. Those who wanted to play sports or do crafts were encouraged to do
that. We certainly had able teachers who were willing to put in the
extra work if the children wanted it, and we certainly had pushy
parents. The difference was that they encouraged their children in
the areas in which they could excel rather than banging square pegs
into round holes.

I've described what happened with my own children a generation later.
The academically able children were not encouraged but used, the
teachers were not that great and certainly didn't have the level of
commitment and pushy parents were not welcome.

I tried very hard to get it to work, but to no avail.


The end game with private education is always social division.


The end game is to facilitate more options in education for the child
who is willing to make use of it, put in the work and stretch
themselves. It doesn't guarantee any kind of privilege or meal
ticket, contrary to popular belief.
I already explained that my children were able to make a far broader
circle of friends than they ever could have done at the state school.
I would argue in respect of social division that the boot is on the
other foot. The state system is doing that by attempting, without
success to create homogeneity. The outcome is that they are creating a
new generation of disillusioned school leavers. It is that that is
socially divisive.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:488a2eef@qaanaaq...
On 2008-07-25 19:42:57 +0100, stuart noble
said:


They're separated from the kids round the corner who don't happen to
have as much money.

Actually there were numerous children whose parents were not well off
and who received part or full bursaries at the school attended by my
children. Secondly, there were parents who impoverished themselves in
various ways because they put the welfare of their children and payment
of fees as a higher priority than spending money on themselves or their
house. I think that it's spectacularly wicked that they should have
to do this out of taxed income in addition to paying for a state system
that has failed their children.

What's wrong with all kids going to their local primary school?

I explained that earlier in the thread. Our local one was grouping 5
and 6 year olds together

so what?
even in a school that "doesn't" do that there can be a years difference in
the age

and expecting the 6 year olds who had completed set work to help out with
the 5 year olds and those who hadn't.

they learn from that.

For my daughter, who at the time had a reading age of 8+, a maturity to
match and should have been in the year ahead, this was intensely
frustrating. Children aren't stupid.

No, parents are though.

One afternoon she came home and announced that she felt that she was being
used (her exact words). We tackled the school about the year
combining issue and they came out with some BS about it being local
policy. I checked. It wasn't. We then attempted to get her moved
to the year above.

She is a child, let her be a child!

That was also declined because of "local policy". Again it wasn't.
Given the state of affairs, an unwillingness to correct it and being lied
to, the decision in terms of the principle to move them to an independent
school became rather easy. The financial aspect was rather more
difficult at the time and a lot was sacrificed. When it became my son's
turn, there wasn't really a second thought about the principle but the
financial aspect was even harder and lasted for many years. I don't
begrudge a penny or a second of it.

Most people here think you are a bit strange, this just adds to the
evidence.

On 2008-07-25 22:23:56 +0100, "dennis@home"
said:



"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:488a2eef@qaanaaq...
On 2008-07-25 19:42:57 +0100, stuart noble said:


They're separated from the kids round the corner who don't happen to
have as much money.

Actually there were numerous children whose parents were not well off
and who received part or full bursaries at the school attended by my
children. Secondly, there were parents who impoverished themselves
in various ways because they put the welfare of their children and
payment of fees as a higher priority than spending money on themselves
or their house. I think that it's spectacularly wicked that they
should have to do this out of taxed income in addition to paying for a
state system that has failed their children.

What's wrong with all kids going to their local primary school?

I explained that earlier in the thread. Our local one was grouping 5
and 6 year olds together

so what?

So it's not appropriate or acceptable to do this.


even in a school that "doesn't" do that there can be a years difference
in the age

Yes but not two and not an exectation that some children will be
compromising their own potential in order to accommodate a wrongly
conceived experiment that was not working.




and expecting the 6 year olds who had completed set work to help out
with the 5 year olds and those who hadn't.

they learn from that.

Oh sure they will. Predominantly that the education system is not
meeting their needs, or for that matter those who are on the receiving
end of a 7 year old "teacher".



For my daughter, who at the time had a reading age of 8+, a maturity to
match and should have been in the year ahead, this was intensely
frustrating. Children aren't stupid.

No, parents are though.

For tolerating this, yes I agree.


One afternoon she came home and announced that she felt that she was
being used (her exact words). We tackled the school about the
year combining issue and they came out with some BS about it being
local policy. I checked. It wasn't. We then attempted to get
her moved to the year above.

She is a child, let her be a child!

.... and continue to see her coming home daily frustrated that she
hadn't achieved anything and was being forced to use books and
materials that she had picked up for herself at home a year earlier?
I couldn't be that cruel. The school had no compunction about that.



That was also declined because of "local policy". Again it wasn't.
Given the state of affairs, an unwillingness to correct it and being
lied to, the decision in terms of the principle to move them to an
independent school became rather easy. The financial aspect was
rather more difficult at the time and a lot was sacrificed. When it
became my son's turn, there wasn't really a second thought about the
principle but the financial aspect was even harder and lasted for many
years. I don't begrudge a penny or a second of it.

Most people here think you are a bit strange, this just adds to the evidence.




Really? So what would you have done? Sat back, done nothing and
accepted the lying?


If providing a proper education for my children because the state has
demonstrated itself to be incompetent at doing so, then I am happy to
be thought of as strange. Far better that than to be considered to
be part of a muddled thinking crowd for the sake of expediency. This
is something that I have never done and never will do. It's not the
easy way, for a multitude of reasons, but it works well. I really
don't care what other people think about that - they can make their own
decisions to the degree to whcih they are capable of independent
thought.

On 2008-07-25 22:32:31 +0100, Owain said:

stuart noble wrote:
Separating children at primary school age is truly wicked, and is more
about their ambitious parents than the welfare of the child.

Is separating on grounds of ability or aptitude more or less wicked
than on the grounds of the parents' religious beliefs?

Owain

We make choices all the time. This is a choice. The real question
is whether we are going to do so for ourselves or let others do it for
us.

Tanner-'op wrote:
Dave,

As you seem to be well into deck building, pop over to -
alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking - and have a look at the thread
"Friday deck progress" and see what the yanks are up to with this
1200 square foot one.

Big bugger! Few decks in the UK are like this IME, not just the size, but
the height.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

and expecting the 6 year olds who had completed set work to help out
with the 5 year olds and those who hadn't.

they learn from that.

Most kids like teaching others. It's a natural instinct to give the
stragglers a hand, just as those who are more physical help the boffins
to skip and do handstands. It's the beginnings of SOCIETY!

For my daughter, who at the time had a reading age of 8+, a maturity
to match and should have been in the year ahead, this was intensely
frustrating. Children aren't stupid.

No, parents are though.

The parents should perhaps have told her that she wasn't the centre of
the universe. It's the main lesson they learn at primary school.

On 2008-07-26 08:40:01 +0100, stuart noble said:


and expecting the 6 year olds who had completed set work to help out
with the 5 year olds and those who hadn't.

they learn from that.

Most kids like teaching others.

To a point. It is not appropriate when it's deleterious to their own
advancement. I should add that there were numerous complaints from
parents and a number of children were moved by their parents.

I understand that some time later, the head teacher resigned from
teaching and the arrangement was terminated.


It's a natural instinct to give the stragglers a hand, just as those
who are more physical help the boffins to skip and do handstands.

Within reason this is true. It is not reasonable when those with an
ability in a direction (any direction) are held back, not by their
peers but by the deliberate mismanagement of those entrusted with
helping with part of their education. Notice that I used the
expression "helping with". I'm not even suggesting the
subcontracting of education to the teachers. The first responsible
party in terms of educational development is the child themselves, the
second is the parents and the third is the teachers and the school.
In our cases, the first and second of these was working extremely well
but the state system and in particular the politically motivated
actions of certain individuals were falling way short. For that
reason, after much trying to persuade the third element to do its job
properly and failing miserably, the decision was taken to replace.
It was undoubtedly the correct decision.




It's the beginnings of SOCIETY!

No it's the beginnings of making dumbing down acceptable at the expense
of the able individual.



For my daughter, who at the time had a reading age of 8+, a maturity to
match and should have been in the year ahead, this was intensely
frustrating. Children aren't stupid.

No, parents are though.

The parents should perhaps have told her that she wasn't the centre of
the universe.

The parents did and do, not that this was ever an issue in the first place.

It's the main lesson they learn at primary school.

If that's the main lesson that you or a school feels that it should be
delivering, we are in even worse trouble than I thought.

The main lesson that should be learnt at primary school is how to go
and find out about things for yourself and how to process and use that
information. Schools should not be imposing artificial boundaries
around learning in order to make the less able feel more able. That
is cruel for all concerned apart from those in the middle who will not
notice a difference. It should all be about pursuit of excellence,
keeping in mind that excellence is achieved in different ways for
different people.

If providing a proper education for my children because the state has
demonstrated itself to be incompetent at doing so, then I am happy to be
thought of as strange. Far better that than to be considered to be
part of a muddled thinking crowd for the sake of expediency. This is
something that I have never done and never will do. It's not the easy
way, for a multitude of reasons, but it works well. I really don't
care what other people think about that - they can make their own
decisions to the degree to whcih they are capable of independent thought.

I was almost happy with that till the last bit. Get over the fact that
it's possible to disagree with you and still be capable of independent
thought.

I had lunch with a friend from primary school this week whose general
views are not dissimilar to yours. He scraped his fingers to the bone,
said he did it all for the children blah blah, but of course it's a lie.
He's just competitive by nature, he can't help it. He was like it in the
playground 50 years ago, and he still is.

We all take a gamble with our kids. My two went to their first choice
unis from the local comprehensive, so I can afford to be smug about it.
Given that there would have been no sacrifice on my part, I'd have
looked very silly had it all gone wrong, but I have a strong conviction
that you're who you are long before you set foot in school.

Borrrring!

It's the beginnings of SOCIETY!

No it's the beginnings of making dumbing down acceptable at the expense
of the able individual.



Can you skip? I always envied the kids that could. I'd swap that for A
level French any day.

On 2008-07-26 10:11:20 +0100, stuart noble said:


If providing a proper education for my children because the state has
demonstrated itself to be incompetent at doing so, then I am happy to
be thought of as strange. Far better that than to be considered to
be part of a muddled thinking crowd for the sake of expediency. This
is something that I have never done and never will do. It's not the
easy way, for a multitude of reasons, but it works well. I really
don't care what other people think about that - they can make their own
decisions to the degree to whcih they are capable of independent
thought.

I was almost happy with that till the last bit. Get over the fact that
it's possible to disagree with you and still be capable of independent
thought.

I've never thought that. Independent thought is the essence of the
individual. The wheels come off of that wagon once one says
that it should be an aim that everybody travels on the same train or
accepts that it should be the status quo. Independent thought is
about looking at the potential of the individual, not the mass and not
accepting that things have to be the same for everybody.




I had lunch with a friend from primary school this week whose general
views are not dissimilar to yours. He scraped his fingers to the bone,
said he did it all for the children blah blah, but of course it's a lie.

I think that that's a big assumption.


He's just competitive by nature, he can't help it. He was like it in
the playground 50 years ago, and he still is.

There's a difference between being an individual and being competitive.
Of course, sometimes they overlap, but it isn't the case that
people with an individual outlook are necessarily competitive or the
other way round.

For myself, I prefer to paddle my own canoe and also to set a very high
standard for myself. A byproduct of that has often been to achieve a
better outcome than that of others around me. However, and I think the
point is important, I don't tend often to think in terms of how can I
achieve a goal by the detriment of others. Often that doesn't work
and others play that game anyway. I've always found it more effective
in terms of achieving objectives, to stand on my own merits. Those
are absolutes whereas competition, as most people understand it, is
relative.





We all take a gamble with our kids. My two went to their first choice
unis from the local comprehensive, so I can afford to be smug about it.

Indeed.




Given that there would have been no sacrifice on my part, I'd have
looked very silly had it all gone wrong, but I have a strong conviction
that you're who you are long before you set foot in school.


I completely agree, which is why I positioned the school and teachers
as the third component of education and not the first or even second.

On 2008-07-26 10:53:41 +0100, stuart noble said:



It's the beginnings of SOCIETY!

No it's the beginnings of making dumbing down acceptable at the expense
of the able individual.



Can you skip?

I have done.


I always envied the kids that could.

I can understand that. I was never particularly interested in sports
other than swimming and cycling etc. Team games bored me and still
bore me to tears whether it's participation or spectator.

I'd swap that for A level French any day.

In the sense of not being able to achieve something that one really
wanted to achieve, then I can completely understand. I have not had
too many of those, fortunately, and have got over them.

I try in my mind to compare today's situation with what I remember
of my childhood. Things certainly seem very different, but it's
very hard for me to tell how much of this is because my outlook on
life has inevitably changed as I've become more politically aware
with age, and more aware of a wider society than I would have been
a primary school.

In the 1960's and 1970's, my parents were both councillors (at
different levels of local government and in different areas from
each other), and both served as school governors (different
schools). Neither were in the least bit policital though, and I'm
sure would have had the interests of the relevant groups (local
area they represented, and kids education respectively) as their
primary concerns.

Thinking back to the end of that period, I recall my mother
(then chairman of the school governors) becoming increasingly
frustrated at policial parties pushing their staff onto the
governing bodies with no knowledge of education at all to
force party agendas on the schools, rather than considering
each issue on its own merits within the education framework.
Sometime in the early 1980's (I don't recall exactly when),
mum gave up being a school governor as it had turned into
polictics, not running schools. She switched her time to
working on boards of charities, well away from politics
again.

I often hear politicians say they went into politics because
they wanted to improve peoples' lives, and in many cases I
can believe that. I think it all goes horribly wrong when
party politics then overtake their original intentions,
and they turn into the same mold as fanatical religious
groups with no capability for individual thought.
Party politics should probably be outlawed -- it's called
a cartel when the same thing happens between commercial
organisations.

Going back to education, the teacher/parent/child relationship,
the other change I can see is the attitude of parents to
education and schools. When I was at school in the 60's and
70's, if you got into trouble at school, you prayed that
your parents wouldn't find out as you would get into much
worse trouble at home. By the 1980's, that had significantly
changed in that many parents no longer respected and trusted
schools. If you got into trouble at school and you told your
parents, in many cases they'd turn up at the school threatening
violence against the staff, which was completely unheard of
and unimaginable in my school days. Of course, with lack of
parental respect, a school is never going to have their kids
respect either.

Don't know what this has got to do with DIY, but there you go!

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 25/07/2008 00:32 John wrote:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach!

As someone who retired after 35 years teaching, the last 24 as a primary
deputy head, I couldn't agree with you less.

There are lousy teachers, just as there are lousy plumbers,
electricians, bankers, Prime Ministers, whatever...

--
F

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:34:58 +0100, F wrote:

On 25/07/2008 00:32 John wrote:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach!

As someone who retired after 35 years teaching, the last 24 as a primary
deputy head, I couldn't agree with you less.

There are lousy teachers, just as there are lousy plumbers,
electricians, bankers, Prime Ministers, whatever...

A misquote of George Bernard Shaw's "those who can, do: those who can't,
teach". But he did have an aversion to formal education anyway!

Don.

Cerberus . wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:34:58 +0100, F wrote:

On 25/07/2008 00:32 John wrote:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach!
As someone who retired after 35 years teaching, the last 24 as a primary
deputy head, I couldn't agree with you less.

There are lousy teachers, just as there are lousy plumbers,
electricians, bankers, Prime Ministers, whatever...

A misquote of George Bernard Shaw's "those who can, do: those who can't,
teach". But he did have an aversion to formal education anyway!

And who added, "and those who can't teach, teach teachers"?

David

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:56:26 +0100, Lobster wrote:

Cerberus . wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:34:58 +0100, F wrote:

On 25/07/2008 00:32 John wrote:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach!
As someone who retired after 35 years teaching, the last 24 as a primary
deputy head, I couldn't agree with you less.

There are lousy teachers, just as there are lousy plumbers,
electricians, bankers, Prime Ministers, whatever...

A misquote of George Bernard Shaw's "those who can, do: those who can't,
teach". But he did have an aversion to formal education anyway!

And who added, "and those who can't teach, teach teachers"?

David

Laurence J. Peter, Peter's Quotations: Ideas for our Time (1977)

Don.

Lobster wrote in message
...
Cerberus . wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:34:58 +0100, F wrote:

On 25/07/2008 00:32 John wrote:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach!
As someone who retired after 35 years teaching, the last 24 as a
primary
deputy head, I couldn't agree with you less.

There are lousy teachers, just as there are lousy plumbers,
electricians, bankers, Prime Ministers, whatever...

A misquote of George Bernard Shaw's "those who can, do: those who can't,
teach". But he did have an aversion to formal education anyway!

And who added, "and those who can't teach, teach teachers"?


I always thought it was
"those who can, do"
"those who can't, teach"
"and those who can't teach, write about it"


-

Mark wrote:
Lobster wrote in message
...
Cerberus . wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:34:58 +0100, F wrote:

On 25/07/2008 00:32 John wrote:

Those who can, work, those that can't teach!
As someone who retired after 35 years teaching, the last 24 as a
primary
deputy head, I couldn't agree with you less.

There are lousy teachers, just as there are lousy plumbers,
electricians, bankers, Prime Ministers, whatever...
A misquote of George Bernard Shaw's "those who can, do: those who can't,
teach". But he did have an aversion to formal education anyway!
And who added, "and those who can't teach, teach teachers"?


I always thought it was
"those who can, do"
"those who can't, teach"
"and those who can't teach, write about it"

Needs updating.

"and those who can't write, post to Usenet." :-)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org