Owain wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:12 am, The Medway Handyman wrote:
All age ranges. Couples in their late 20's are frequent customers,
dunno what they have been teaching in schools.

textspeak with a work experience visit to the jobcentre, probably.

I had to restrain myself from hurling while listening to radio 4 last
night. Schools don't bother teaching woodwork, metalwork, chemistry,
physics, biology, the classics or modern languages. Apparently kids are now
(according to teachers) too thick to learn these subjects. Or there is fear
about exposing kids to "risk".

Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Steve Firth wrote:
Owain wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:12 am, The Medway Handyman wrote:
All age ranges. Couples in their late 20's are frequent customers,
dunno what they have been teaching in schools.
textspeak with a work experience visit to the jobcentre, probably.
I had to restrain myself from hurling while listening to radio 4 last
night. Schools don't bother teaching woodwork, metalwork, chemistry,
physics, biology, the classics or modern languages.

Excellent news. They'll *have* to employ old farts like me.

No, they wont. Because yo probably wouldn't pass all the tests they need
to make sure you are safe around children, don't clip them round the
ear, have taken all the relevant H & S exams blah vvblah.

The ability to actually teach anything is not considered a requirement
these days.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Steve Firth wrote:
Owain wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:12 am, The Medway Handyman wrote:
All age ranges. Couples in their late 20's are frequent customers,
dunno what they have been teaching in schools.

textspeak with a work experience visit to the jobcentre, probably.

I had to restrain myself from hurling while listening to radio 4 last
night. Schools don't bother teaching woodwork, metalwork, chemistry,
physics, biology, the classics or modern languages.

Excellent news. They'll *have* to employ old farts like me.

Yeah, and I forgot to finish my train of thought. Schools do, however, find
time in the curriculum for lessons in "emotional intelligence" where
children are taught, as a fact, that their bodies contain six different
types of energy each with a different colour.

I think our jobs are secure for the next few decades. After which, the UK
will be the B-ark of Europe.

On 14/03/2011 15:13 Steve Firth wrote:

Schools do, however, find
time in the curriculum for lessons in "emotional intelligence" where
children are taught, as a fact, that their bodies contain six different
types of energy each with a different colour.

No, schools are *told* to find...

Like they're told to do much of what a responsible parent should do. If
they didn't have to act as stand-in parents they might, just might, have
time to do what it used to say on the tin.

--
F

On Mar 14, 3:13*pm, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Steve Firth wrote:
Owain wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:12 am, The Medway Handyman *wrote:
All age ranges. *Couples in their late 20's are frequent customers,
dunno what they have been teaching in schools.

textspeak with a work experience visit to the jobcentre, probably.

I had to restrain myself from hurling while listening to radio 4 last
night. Schools don't bother teaching woodwork, metalwork, chemistry,
physics, biology, the classics or modern languages.

Excellent news. They'll *have* to employ old farts like me.

Yeah, and I forgot to finish my train of thought. Schools do, however, find
time in the curriculum for lessons in "emotional intelligence" where
children are taught, as a fact, that their bodies contain six different
types of energy each with a different colour.

Look up "brain gym".

MBQ

Steve Firth ) wibbled on Monday 14 March 2011 13:15:

Owain wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:12 am, The Medway Handyman wrote:
All age ranges. Couples in their late 20's are frequent customers,
dunno what they have been teaching in schools.

textspeak with a work experience visit to the jobcentre, probably.

I had to restrain myself from hurling while listening to radio 4 last
night. Schools don't bother teaching woodwork, metalwork, chemistry,
physics, biology, the classics or modern languages. Apparently kids are
now (according to teachers) too thick to learn these subjects. Or there is
fear about exposing kids to "risk".

Weird.

Our village primary school is doing very well on the 3Rs front.

Maths and reading are both streamed with several maths groups and a very
large number of reading levels which are progressed through.

Due to having tiny classes and not enough teachers, some years are merged -
which is very good for the kids as they are allowed to progress into the
next year's level if it suits them.[1]

This is the way it should be.

I see no evidence at primary level that *all* the kids are thick - there is
a wide band of ability but the bright ones are definately encouraged to go
for more advanced sets - and they are encouraged seperately by subject
without undue stress to perform.

As it seems to be the case that the stupid loony left "everyone must be
equally thick" approach is gone, at least officially, perhaps the next
generation will be better.

[1] Though there is a question of what happens in their last year - councils
still don't seem to like the idea of letting kids jump a year if they are
upto it.

Of course, a lot also depends on how good the teachers are - we are lucky
like that - but at least a deliberate set of handcuffs seems to have been
removed.

--
Tim Watts

Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Steve Firth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-14, Steve Firth wrote:
Owain wrote:
On Mar 14, 8:12 am, The Medway Handyman wrote:
All age ranges. Couples in their late 20's are frequent customers,
dunno what they have been teaching in schools.

textspeak with a work experience visit to the jobcentre, probably.

I had to restrain myself from hurling while listening to radio 4 last
night. Schools don't bother teaching woodwork, metalwork, chemistry,
physics, biology, the classics or modern languages.

Excellent news. They'll *have* to employ old farts like me.

Yeah, and I forgot to finish my train of thought. Schools do, however, find
time in the curriculum for lessons in "emotional intelligence" where
children are taught, as a fact, that their bodies contain six different
types of energy each with a different colour.

Aaaeeeeiiiiii!!!!!!!!

Yes, it's impressively ****e isn't it? I assume that Duhg Bollen was the
former Labour Education Minister.

On 14/03/2011 16:39 Owain wrote:

Have schools stopped teaching children to use cutlery, wipe their
noses, and not drop litter as well?

Of course in my day they didn't teach that either; we were expected to
know that before we went to school.

Precisely. And add manners in too!

--
F

In article ,
news@nowhere says...
Have schools stopped teaching children to use cutlery, wipe their
noses, and not drop litter as well?

Of course in my day they didn't teach that either; we were expected to
know that before we went to school.

Precisely. And add manners in too!

Trouble is that many kids /don't/ come to school already knowing that. I
see it every day at school - children who've been housed and fed but not
much more. If even in Year 3 you're still struggling to get them to sit
on a chair or tie their shoelaces [1] then really the parents aren't
doing their bit.

[1] 25 in a class, 30 seconds per child to do up their laces (if you're
lucky and they're cooperating) and there's nearly quarter of an hour
gone.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Tim Watts wrote:
Maths and reading are both streamed with several maths groups and a very
large number of reading levels which are progressed through.
....
I see no evidence at primary level that *all* the kids are thick - there is
a wide band of ability but the bright ones are definately encouraged to go
for more advanced sets - and they are encouraged seperately by subject
without undue stress to perform.

Talking about secondaries rather than primaries, but that's why
I don't like the "small school" concept. Small classes yes, but
small schools no. With a large enough school the spread of kids'
abilities gives sufficient numbers to have classes of similar
abilities.
If there's only 60 kids per year you're forced to have classes
containing 50% of the ability range.

Additionally, if you're a one-in-a-hundred oddball like I was, in a
school of 2000 pupils there'll be three or four others like you in
your year group.

JGH

In article 0c7ffb0b-4966-45cd-9610-
,
says...
[1] 25 in a class, 30 seconds per child to do up their laces (if you're
lucky and they're cooperating) and there's nearly quarter of an hour
gone.

And what the other 24 are getting up to at the time ...


You don't want to know.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Owain wrote:
On Mar 14, 1:15 pm, Steve Firth wrote:
I had to restrain myself from hurling while listening to radio 4 last
night. Schools don't bother teaching woodwork, metalwork, chemistry,
physics, biology, the classics or modern languages. Apparently kids
are now (according to teachers) too thick to learn these subjects.
Or there is fear about exposing kids to "risk".

Have schools stopped teaching children to use cutlery, wipe their
noses, and not drop litter as well?

Of course in my day they didn't teach that either; we were expected to
know that before we went to school.


And there is me getting a bollocking because a few weeks ago the girlfriends
lad (along with ever other children in his class) were asked to stand up and
tell the class what they had done over the weekend.

The words "Adam let me drive his car" caused a bit of a stir. I have let him
change gears when sat in the passenger seat for a while now but as the roads
were quiet I let him sit on my knee (no rude comments please) and do the
steering and the gears.

--
Adam

On 14/03/2011 21:45 Skipweasel wrote:

Trouble is that many kids /don't/ come to school already knowing that. I
see it every day at school - children who've been housed and fed but not
much more. If even in Year 3 you're still struggling to get them to sit
on a chair or tie their shoelaces [1] then really the parents aren't
doing their bit.

[1] 25 in a class, 30 seconds per child to do up their laces (if you're
lucky and they're cooperating) and there's nearly quarter of an hour
gone.

Tell me about it. On second thoughts, don't. Primary school deputy head
for ~25 years: BTDTGTTS. Now enjoying early retirement!

--
F

jgharston ) wibbled on Monday 14 March 2011 22:01:

Tim Watts wrote:
Maths and reading are both streamed with several maths groups and a very
large number of reading levels which are progressed through.
...
I see no evidence at primary level that *all* the kids are thick - there
is a wide band of ability but the bright ones are definately encouraged
to go for more advanced sets - and they are encouraged seperately by
subject without undue stress to perform.

Talking about secondaries rather than primaries, but that's why
I don't like the "small school" concept. Small classes yes, but
small schools no. With a large enough school the spread of kids'
abilities gives sufficient numbers to have classes of similar
abilities.
If there's only 60 kids per year you're forced to have classes
containing 50% of the ability range.

Additionally, if you're a one-in-a-hundred oddball like I was, in a
school of 2000 pupils there'll be three or four others like you in
your year group.

JGH


Our school is rather at the extreme - it is so small that per-capita funding
means they are mising a couple of teachers - so my daughter is in year 2,
but in a y2/y3 combined class (ie they cannot even make one class per year
on average).

That's excellent at the moment as the kids can "float" across a single set
of levels spanning both years - but such an arrangement is inherently
limited in how long it can go on for.

We're also lucky because our area is rural and civilised so the teachers
don't have to contend with crap so can devote their entire time to actually
teaching.

Something I find a little weird (in a good way) though is the fact that
every class has a teacher and a TA - great for more attention per pupil, but
weird considering how in my day a teacher could run a 30 strong class of
virtually tots single handed day in day out. Mind you - we were rooted to
our desks in neat little rows bar the leaky-roof-bucket - sod all of the
interactive stuff they get to do now.

Anyone remember the "Alpha" and "Beta" maths books? Every lesson I remember
was pretty much 10 minutes of teaching and the rest was working your way
through those books. And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course

--
Tim Watts

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:01:03 -0700 (PDT), jgharston wrote:

Maths and reading are both streamed with several maths groups and
a
very large number of reading levels which are progressed through.
....
I see no evidence at primary level that *all* the kids are thick -

there is a wide band of ability but the bright ones are definately

encouraged to go for more advanced sets - and they are encouraged
seperately by subject without undue stress to perform.

Sounds very much like our primary school combined years the lot.

If there's only 60 kids per year you're forced to have classes
containing 50% of the ability range.

60 per year! 60 is about half of our secondary schools total pupil
numbers, 5 years (no sixth form). Doesn't seem to hold anyone back,
consistently above the national average for the 3 Rs and gets good
exam results. Bright kids will be put into exams when they are ready
not when the year they happen to be in "does exams".

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:01:03 -0700 (PDT), jgharston wrote:

Maths and reading are both streamed with several maths groups and
a
very large number of reading levels which are progressed through.
....
I see no evidence at primary level that *all* the kids are thick -

there is a wide band of ability but the bright ones are definately

encouraged to go for more advanced sets - and they are encouraged
seperately by subject without undue stress to perform.

Sounds very much like our primary school combined years the lot.

If there's only 60 kids per year you're forced to have classes
containing 50% of the ability range.

60 per year! 60 is about half of our secondary schools total pupil
numbers, 5 years (no sixth form). Doesn't seem to hold anyone back,
consistently above the national average for the 3 Rs and gets good
exam results. Bright kids will be put into exams when they are ready
not when the year they happen to be in "does exams".

What really counts is the size of the class. At my first school, class
size was about 10-15. One class per year. That meant that while most of
the class got on with the standard stuff, one or two bright ones got to
wander off alone, and extra time was spent on the nearly hopeless cases.


The next school but one, classes were in the high 20's. Personal
attention simply was almost nonexistent.

In article , says...
And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course


Bandagraph?

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Skipweasel ) wibbled on Tuesday 15 March
2011 08:20:

In article , says...
And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course


Bandagraph?


Yep - lovely blue-purple ink - almost unreadable.

--
Tim Watts

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:20:35 -0000, Skipweasel
wrote:

In article , says...
And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course


Bandagraph?

Van de Graaf.

--
Frank Erskine

In article , says...
And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course


Bandagraph?


Yep - lovely blue-purple ink - almost unreadable.


Still damp from the alcohol.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Frank Erskine
saying something like:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:20:35 -0000, Skipweasel
wrote:

In article , says...
And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course


Bandagraph?

Van de Graaf.

Theme One.

In article ,
says...
And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course
Bandagraph?
Yep - lovely blue-purple ink - almost unreadable.
Still damp from the alcohol.
"Roeneo" (OSLT) copiers spring to mind...

Nah, that was a stencil system. Wax coated blanks, typed good and hard
with a typewriter which cut through the wax allowing ink to pass through
onto the paper. Wrapped round a drum with ink inside and whirl the
handle round and round.

The ones I'm thinking of were spirit duplicators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_duplicator

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In article ,
says...
Bandagraph?

Van de Graaf.

Theme One.
Eye Level (Van der Valk)

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:58:15 +0000, Skipweasel wrote:

In article ,
says...
Bandagraph?

Van de Graaf.

Theme One.
Eye Level (Van der Valk)

Number 1 in the charts In last week of September, 1973.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 16:53:14 +0000, Skipweasel wrote:

The ones I'm thinking of were spirit duplicators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_duplicator

Mnnn, yes, the smell of Meths ... takes me back
(you can keep your Madeleines :-))



--
John Stumbles

In article ,
says...
The ones I'm thinking of were spirit duplicators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_duplicator

Mnnn, yes, the smell of Meths ... takes me back
(you can keep your Madeleines :-))


Thanks, Marcel. waves

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In article , says...
Eye Level (Van der Valk)

Number 1 in the charts In last week of September, 1973.

I really hope you had to go and look that up.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

Skipweasel wrote:
In article , says...
Eye Level (Van der Valk)
Number 1 in the charts In last week of September, 1973.

I really hope you had to go and look that up.

I stumbled on a site, which of all the most useless irrelevant things,
will tell you what was No 1 on your original 0th birthday.

All I can say, if my mother was listening to it as she gave birth, it
probably explains everything.

Skipweasel wrote:
In article , says...
Eye Level (Van der Valk)
Number 1 in the charts In last week of September, 1973.

I really hope you had to go and look that up.

I didn't.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Skipweasel wrote:
In article , says...
Eye Level (Van der Valk)
Number 1 in the charts In last week of September, 1973.

I really hope you had to go and look that up.

I stumbled on a site, which of all the most useless irrelevant things,
will tell you what was No 1 on your original 0th birthday.

All I can say, if my mother was listening to it as she gave birth, it
probably explains everything.

A link occasionally used by wedding reception disc jockeys.

For a twist, check what was number one 9 months before....

What *really* got your parents going.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:17:08 +0000, Skipweasel wrote:

In article , says...
Eye Level (Van der Valk)

Number 1 in the charts In last week of September, 1973.

I really hope you had to go and look that up.

I'm afraid I didn't. I was driving off to Essex Uni to start my Master's,
stopped for lunch in Sydenham, and just remember that it was the end of
the 'top 10' show at 1 p.m. when I finished lunch.

Memory is a strange thing.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 14/03/11 23:30, Tim Watts wrote:
Anyone remember the "Alpha" and "Beta" maths books? Every lesson I remember
was pretty much 10 minutes of teaching and the rest was working your way
through those books. And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course

Ah, yes, it all comes back to me...


--
djc

djc wrote:
On 14/03/11 23:30, Tim Watts wrote:
Anyone remember the "Alpha" and "Beta" maths books? Every lesson I remember
was pretty much 10 minutes of teaching and the rest was working your way
through those books. And sniffing the bandoliered handouts of course

Ah, yes, it all comes back to me...


I thought it was the games mistress' bicycle
saddle..

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:17:08 +0000, Skipweasel wrote:

In article , says...
Eye Level (Van der Valk)

Number 1 in the charts In last week of September, 1973.

I really hope you had to go and look that up.

I'm afraid I didn't. I was driving off to Essex Uni to start my Master's,
stopped for lunch in Sydenham, and just remember that it was the end of
the 'top 10' show at 1 p.m. when I finished lunch.

Memory is a strange thing.

Don't

I was putting a new rear subframe on the old mini I'd bought, which was
going to give me the freedom of a new life at uni ...

--
geoff

In article , says...
The ones I'm thinking of were spirit duplicators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_duplicator

Banda?


That's them. Always called Bandagraphs when I was a kid, but that may
just have been one person in the school.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On Mar 14, 11:30*pm, Tim Watts wrote:
jgharston ) wibbled on Monday 14 March 2011

Something I find a little weird (in a good way) though is the fact that
every class has a teacher and a TA

SWMBOs school, infants, has a teacher and two TAs in every class due
to the kids who need 1:1 attention.

MBQ