OT - That'll teach 'em
badriya
I thought it very unlike education in the 50s. Mostly they seemed to
be just trying to make a sort of Big Brother type of entertainment
rather than do anything serious in the way of education or comparison
of standards then and now. Most teachers did not bully kids in that
way. Good teachers always knew kids have to feel comfortable to learn
well. They seemed to be choosing silly things the children had
supposedly done wrong to be able to punish them for it. I admit I
went to a day school not boarding school but can't think teachers
there were so different.
I did think one bit was interesting, the maths paper where few passed.
These were students who had just sat GCSEs and were predicted passes
A-C in Maths and the paper was 11-plus. They had problems with
multiplication and long division as they were used to using
calculators. I don't think it meant they were less intelligent than
kids then though. It was an unfair test as kids then got lots of
practise doing that kind of thing before the 11 plus and these kids
had none.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
Remember, amateurs built the Ark - Professionals built the Titanic
(Sig I saw and loved and nicked)
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>Did anyone watch this?
I did, and had a similar reaction to you, though I'm not personally
familiar with 50s teaching, so can't comment on the accuracy much. I
found it interesting but unpleasant and shan't bother again, not
finding the sight of adults bullying teenagers particularly
entertaining. The 11+ thing was interesting, and wasn't, I didn't
feel, supposed to suggest that the children were less intelligent now,
just that basic skills weren't being taught as a foundation anymore.
I thought Mr Vince the maths teacher was excellent, but most of the
other adults were caricatures.
I was very surprised when one boy said "I didn't know we'd be having
haircuts" -- why don't the people who volunteer for these things do
some basic research (or in this case, their parents) so they know
what's coming? Or is it, perhaps, that they are specifically *not*
told things and asked *not* to do any research? A haircut is a very
personal thing, and an invasion of one's person, to a certain extent.
Only a minor point, perhaps, but it made me wonder what else they
hadn't been told. Clearly "don't bring tuck" wasn't passed on. I
don't believe any child would have arrived at school in the 50s
without knowing well in advance what the rules were. Not telling in
this case was just to make humiliating the children an entertainment.
Bah!
Ooh, sorry, that seems to have turned into a rant! :o}
--
Cheers, Kimbo
Best of umra archive www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk/umra/
"May 6,000 strabismic telephone operators prance in your genitals.
oo-er, wrong newsgroup." Charles F Hankel -- Hapless FAQer on the Wirral peninsula. RIP.
badriya
wrote:
> I
>don't believe any child would have arrived at school in the 50s
>without knowing well in advance what the rules were. Not telling in
>this case was just to make humiliating the children an entertainment.
>Bah!
>
>Ooh, sorry, that seems to have turned into a rant! :o}
>--
Oh no, that is exactlyhow I felt. The teachers were caricatures,
acting for the camera,and the whole thing was designed for unpleasant
entertainment. In fact a poster on another newsgroup suggested the
programme would be useful as researchfor people intending to play at
'school-based' activities...
Jenny M Benson
<bad...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>I did think one bit was interesting, the maths paper where few passed.
I didn't see the programme (unfortch - meant to, but forgot!) but you
remind me of something I have often thought whenever this "to-day's
exams are so much easier to pass" claim comes out.
Why doesn't some newspaper editor (or similar) get a few of his
reporters (or similar) to work through a handful of exam papers from
both moddun times and olden tymes, each guinea pig taking the old *and*
new paper in each subject.
This, IMHO, would be the best way to get an accurate assessment of the
situation, especially if the guinea pigs were chosen for *not* having
taken GCSE's recently and for having a range of abilities.
--
Jenny
Paradise Island Barchap
I didn't catch the programme in the end (wofe did, but I haven't
debriefed her yet :-) ), but reading about it, I got the impression
the kids must have had some idea what to expect, and perhaps were
playing to the cameras as much as the teachers. Of course, the
unfairness would be that not being used to them, they would not
have known (fully) what the rules were, whereas the 50s kids
would have known the rules and known how to work round them
(e.g. how and where to hide "tuck", etc).
My 50s schooling was confined to primary school. I went to secondary
school at the beginning of the sixties, when it was still probably
much the same as in the 50s, and left at the end of the sixties, when
it had become quite different.
From what I have heard of schooling in the "good old days", pupils
would occasionally and collectively get their own back on bullying
teachers, sometimes in ways that would be quite shocking now.
Perhaps the bullies may yet be in for a shock.
Marjorie Clarke
"badriya" <bad...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uoi0jvo3s5gt7d552...@4ax.com...
> Did anyone watch this?
>
> I thought it very unlike education in the 50s. Most teachers did not
bully kids in that
> way.
If they're setting it in 1953, that's about when I started primary school,
so I'm a decade later, but yes, I thought it was a bit OTT. I don't believe
teachers were all such bullies. Where were all those ineffectual spinsters
who taught me in the 50s and 60s? Modern pupils would run rings round them.
If you ask me, it's the teachers that would be in tears having to teach
modern kids rather than vice versa.
> I did think one bit was interesting, the maths paper where few passed.
> These were students who had just sat GCSEs and were predicted passes
> A-C in Maths and the paper was 11-plus. They had problems with
> multiplication and long division as they were used to using
> calculators. I don't think it meant they were less intelligent than
> kids then though. It was an unfair test as kids then got lots of
> practise doing that kind of thing before the 11 plus and these kids
> had none.
I don't suppose it was meant to reflect intelligence, just the difference in
skills. But it shocks me that anyone capable of a grade 1 in GCSE can't work
out how to multipy and divide without a calculator.
At the same time, let's not forget that the 11-plus was not an equivalent to
Key Stage 2: the 11-plus was an exam that was *meant* to be failed by about
80% of the children. Most of those who failed it would probably never have
acquired the ability to pass it before they completed their education, as
they were being steered into non-academic paths.
Oh, and the girls' hairstyles: I don't remember ever seeing teenagers with
their hair in sticky-out pigtails, except at St Trinians. They'd have been
made to tie back long hair, but probably just with a bow at the nape of the
neck, or in a single plait. And I find it hard to believe they'd have been
denied simple toiletries like Nivea cream.
It's a pity, really, because it would have been a very good idea if they
hadn't overdone it.
--
Marjorie Clarke
an...@nildram.co.uk
wrote:
>I was very surprised when one boy said "I didn't know we'd be having
>haircuts" -- why don't the people who volunteer for these things do
>some basic research (or in this case, their parents) so they know
>what's coming? Or is it, perhaps, that they are specifically *not*
>told things and asked *not* to do any research? A haircut is a very
>personal thing, and an invasion of one's person, to a certain extent.
>Only a minor point, perhaps, but it made me wonder what else they
>hadn't been told. Clearly "don't bring tuck" wasn't passed on. I
>don't believe any child would have arrived at school in the 50s
>without knowing well in advance what the rules were. Not telling in
>this case was just to make humiliating the children an entertainment.
>Bah!
>
I think the haircut thing was more television than school. So far as I
recall not much notice was taken of haircuts in the fifties. That was
before the fashion for long hair (for boys) though, so perhaps it was
never an issue.
I can't see what they had against 'tuck' either. I was a day-boy but
the boarders all had their own (locked) box and were certainly allowed
to have things from home although there may have been limits.
The problem those kids have however is that they are not fifties kids
- they are 21st century kids acting. We're not told either what the
regime is when the cameras are turned off. I hope the ones that were
picked on had been properly briefed beforehand. I may have a nasty
suspicious mind but some of those scenes looked to me, if not
rehearsed, then at least 'pre-discussed'.
So far as the teachers were concerned, they shouted too much. I can
only remember one who made that much noise, and he was far nastier
than the headmaster on the screen. The maths one was much more as I
remember them and the masters that wanted to be unpleasant were
perfectly capable of being so without ever raising their voices.
--
Andy Minter
Paradise Island Barchap
> I think the haircut thing was more television than school. So far as I
> recall not much notice was taken of haircuts in the fifties. That was
> before the fashion for long hair (for boys) though, so perhaps it was
> never an issue.
> I can't see what they had against 'tuck' either. I was a day-boy but
> the boarders all had their own (locked) box and were certainly allowed
> to have things from home although there may have been limits.
I've just choogled and sweet rationing had only ended on 5 Feb 1953.
I presume this thing is supposed to be set after that.
Our school had boarders (I was a "daybug") and had a proper tuck-shop -
a proper brick-built edifice with a large hatch where you were served.
All very decadent I'm sure. As I say, I only knew it in the sixties,
but I'm sure the tuck shop had been there earlier.
> The problem those kids have however is that they are not fifties kids
> - they are 21st century kids acting. We're not told either what the
> regime is when the cameras are turned off. I hope the ones that were
> picked on had been properly briefed beforehand. I may have a nasty
> suspicious mind but some of those scenes looked to me, if not
> rehearsed, then at least 'pre-discussed'.
Perhaps this is all an entrance-test for drama school. Goes with the
"reality TV" territory, doesn't it.
> So far as the teachers were concerned, they shouted too much. I can
> only remember one who made that much noise, and he was far nastier
> than the headmaster on the screen. The maths one was much more as I
> remember them and the masters that wanted to be unpleasant were
> perfectly capable of being so without ever raising their voices.
Think "Professor Snape" in HP.
Paradise Island Barchap
>
> "badriya" <bad...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uoi0jvo3s5gt7d552...@4ax.com...
> > Did anyone watch this?
> >
> > I thought it very unlike education in the 50s. Most teachers did not
> bully kids in that
> > way.
>
> If they're setting it in 1953, that's about when I started primary school,
> so I'm a decade later, but yes, I thought it was a bit OTT. I don't believe
> teachers were all such bullies. Where were all those ineffectual spinsters
> who taught me in the 50s and 60s?
Oh. they've probably been whisked off their feet by Michael Caine
characters, let down their hair, raised their hemlines, learned to
smoke pot and slept around in what was left of the 60s and the 70s :-)
Marjorie Clarke
"Paradise Island Barchap" <mi...@ellwoods.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.56.0...@harris.CIS.rl.ac.uk...
Can't see it somehow. The ones I'm thinking about were approaching
retirement by the 60s; they wore gowns over tweed suits, and tended to have
false teeth, orthopaedic footwear and facial hair problems. I don't think
Michael Caine would have been interested.
But maybe they all had makeovers and found a new lease of life in their
declining years. It's a nice idea.
--
Marjorie Clarke
Fenny
I heard Paradise Island Barchap say...
> I've just choogled and sweet rationing had only ended on 5 Feb 1953.
> I presume this thing is supposed to be set after that.
>
> Our school had boarders (I was a "daybug") and had a proper tuck-shop -
> a proper brick-built edifice with a large hatch where you were served.
> All very decadent I'm sure. As I say, I only knew it in the sixties,
> but I'm sure the tuck shop had been there earlier.
>
fairly important part of boarding school life, as it allowed the kids to
eat something they actually liked and could use it as a method of
bartering. I can't imagine a boarding school that wouldn't have allowed
tuck to be brought at the beginning of term and sent regularly through
the term by fond relatives.
I shall have to remember to ask Pa whether he knew what the rules on
boarders' tuck were at his school, being only a day-boy. He left school
in 1953.
--
Fenny
Fictitious Facts of the Day - from a list by Andrew Burford
#225: Newcastle-upon-Tyne kept floating away until someone pointed out
that they didn't actually have to put all the buildings on the river
itself.
Fenny
> Why doesn't some newspaper editor (or similar) get a few of his
> reporters (or similar) to work through a handful of exam papers from
> both moddun times and olden tymes, each guinea pig taking the old *and*
> new paper in each subject.
>
calculators.
--
Fenny
Fictitious Facts of the Day - from a list by Andrew Burford
Linda Fox
allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk (Fenny) wrote:
>Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W uk.media.radio.archers,
>I heard Jenny M Benson say...
>> Why doesn't some newspaper editor (or similar) get a few of his
>> reporters (or similar) to work through a handful of exam papers from
>> both moddun times and olden tymes, each guinea pig taking the old *and*
>> new paper in each subject.
>>
>And do it under the conditions of the time, eg log tables or
>calculators.
They'd have to be sufficiently and equally in/experienced in both
sorts, though. I doubt whether a lot of today's GCSE candidates could
work from log tables
lff
Chris McMillan
Clarke <m...@springequinox.co.uk> writes
>
>"badriya" <bad...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:uoi0jvo3s5gt7d552...@4ax.com...
>> Did anyone watch this?
>>
>their hair in sticky-out pigtails,
>
Actually come to think of it, I had sticky out pigtails into the 1980s
if you can believe that. I never got my hair to grow the length I
wanted it.
>
>And I find it hard to believe they'd have been
>denied simple toiletries like Nivea cream.
>
embarrassed if you knew how infrequently we changed our underwear.
Apparently after I left my second school in 1969 the girls really got
uppitty and forced the teachers into allowing them to buy their own
tights so they could change them every day.
>
>It's a pity, really, because it would have been a very good idea if they
>hadn't overdone it.
Sadly I think for once you saw life as Toodles and I knew it. (I'm not
sure the boys suffered as much as we girls did because of course in the
60s we were a lot more aware of the outside world and wanted to be like
our sisters - OK I didn't have any but YSWIM.)
Sincerely Chris
--
Chris McMillan
reply to: chris.m...@ntlworld.com
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.mcmillan/
Chris McMillan
Paradise Island Barchap <mi...@ellwoods.org.uk> writes
>On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Kim Andrews wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:30:14 +0100, badriya <bad...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Did anyone watch this?
>>
Chris McMillan
<som...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:30:14 +0100, badriya <bad...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Did anyone watch this?
>
>I did, and had a similar reaction to you, though I'm not personally
>familiar with 50s teaching, so can't comment on the accuracy much. I
>found it interesting but unpleasant and shan't bother again, not
>finding the sight of adults bullying teenagers particularly
>entertaining.
>
for the first time some of you might have seen some of the things to
which some of us were subjected. The only thing in its mitigation was
that for of us we now know that all children is special schools were
being treated much the same. Comparatively worse than in day schools.
It was probably hoped that we'd not have the gumption to tell our
parents - well, they wouldn't believe us would they?
>
Hmm. I wonder whether my friends I'm going to stay with shortly thought
to record that for me.
> I
>don't believe any child would have arrived at school in the 50s
>without knowing well in advance what the rules were.
>
by any means, and it would have been the children who lost out.
>
> Not telling in
>this case was just to make humiliating the children an entertainment.
>
was best not to think at all.
>
I know for a fact that some people have actually blocked out memories of
their childhoods because of the way they were treated at boarding
school. They've told me this as adults. There is one person living here
who I have known since I was five years old, but she has great
difficulty in remembering how she is supposed to know me or Toodles who
also encountered her at the school he went to in a completely different
part of the country. I have a feeling her mother moved her around
several schools because of the way she was treated: and they were all
much of a bad muchness.
If anything were to come out of that sort of broadcast I'd say: remember
this is probably still going on: its the sort of thing at a guess that
catholic priests may be being accused of, or some of the court cases
from certain other types of schools one is hearing about (abuse of
children's cases).
Bah, no sadly, Kimbo.
Sincerely Chris
>Bah!
Chris McMillan
an...@nildram.co.uk writes
>the boarders all had their own (locked) box and were certainly allowed
>to have things from home although there may have been limits.
First school: tuck handed in on arrival. Never seen again as
individuals. Sweets in general put into dishes on tea table - which
would have amounted to one or two sweets per child. Though I'm
desperately trying to remember what happened to the milky bar which one
of my friends received in the post every Monday morning without fail.
(Its one of two things remembered by many of us to this day, even though
I personally haven't seen her since I left that school in 1963).
Second school. We each had a tuck box and we could put in what we
liked. I had long since given up on sweets and never used mine. But
then having only been allowed 6d or 9d a week for sweets for as long as
I could remember and then quite often not being able to eat them when I
wanted sort of took the shine off them.
Actually having a few pence (a shilling I think when I was 12) to go to
a shop and *choose* something was an event for me for at least a year
till I was allowed to leave school without adult supervision.
Sincerely Chris
badriya
wrote:
I got gcse maths (4thattempt) but don't think I can work from log
tables now and always hated them. I can do long division and
multiplication though.
badriya
<spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>In message <Pine.WNT.4.56.0...@harris.CIS.rl.ac.uk>,
>Paradise Island Barchap <mi...@ellwoods.org.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Kim Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 01:30:14 +0100, badriya <bad...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Did anyone watch this?
>>>
>Is this a series of some sort then?
>
>Sincerely Chris
I think there will be one next week too.
Marjorie Clarke
"Chris McMillan" <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:NkjHsPS6DWM$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
> >And I find it hard to believe they'd have been
> >denied simple toiletries like Nivea cream.
> >
> Oh yes they were. All I ever had was a deodorant.
AFAIR the only deodorants they'd have had access to in the 50s would have
been a little tin of cream that you smeared on - none of your fancy roll-ons
and sprays, which weren't really around until the 60s.
On the programme they were allowed one luxury (a bit like DID), and one girl
had difficulty choosing between her deodorant and her teddy. She chose
Teddy.
You'd think the staff would ahve a bit of a vested interest in encouraging
the use of deodorants in a group of teenagers who onoy bathed once a
week....
Actually that bit is totally believable. Even in the early 60s, in the home,
it was normal to have a weekly bath and hairwash. Anything more was a bit
OTT.
And you'd be
> embarrassed if you knew how infrequently we changed our underwear.
I doubt it. Daily changes were not the norm for home-based teenagers either.
Home laundry was still quite labour-intensive, and tights, when they came
in, too expensive for us to be able to afford more than one or two pairs. I
don't wish to disclose any more than this in a public forum, but I think the
bits about hygiene were spot-on.
Just thinking back, I think my first lightweight tights (as opposed to black
school ones) cost about ten bob in 1967. That's the equivalent of at least
£7 or £8 today. And that was the cheapest ones I could get.
> Apparently after I left my second school in 1969 the girls really got
> uppitty and forced the teachers into allowing them to buy their own
> tights so they could change them every day.
> >
> >It's a pity, really, because it would have been a very good idea if they
> >hadn't overdone it.
>
> Sadly I think for once you saw life as Toodles and I knew it. (I'm not
> sure the boys suffered as much as we girls did because of course in the
> 60s we were a lot more aware of the outside world and wanted to be like
> our sisters - OK I didn't have any but YSWIM.)
That's really sad, Chris, reading this and your other post on the subject. I
was kind of hoping it wasn't really like that.
--
Marjorie Clarke
Kim Andrews
(Googling in to clear up misunderstanding a.s.a.p. -- hope the
technology works!)
>
> Bah, no sadly, Kimbo.
Sorry Chris, but you seem to have totally misunderstood what I wrote.
I was very careful to say that I had no knowledge of the era and was
*not* commenting on the accuracy of the show. My rant, most
definitely, was about the modern concept of presenting such appalling
behaviour as *entertainment*. In no way did I dismiss the sort of
treatment you and your schoolmates were subjected to -- I most
certainly would not do so. On the contrary, I abhor the fact that
such experiences have here been trivialised to the level of Reality
TV, and *that's* what causes me to say "Bah!"... because if I really
got into my stride I'd say something a lot worse and wouldn't be very
umratic at all!
cheers
Kimbo
Jo Lonergan
<m...@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Chris McMillan" <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:NkjHsPS6DWM$Ew...@ntlworld.com...
>> >And I find it hard to believe they'd have been
>> >denied simple toiletries like Nivea cream.
>> >
>> Oh yes they were. All I ever had was a deodorant.
>
>AFAIR the only deodorants they'd have had access to in the 50s would have
>been a little tin of cream that you smeared on - none of your fancy roll-ons
>and sprays, which weren't really around until the 60s.
>
>On the programme they were allowed one luxury (a bit like DID), and one girl
>had difficulty choosing between her deodorant and her teddy. She chose
>Teddy.
>
>You'd think the staff would ahve a bit of a vested interest in encouraging
>the use of deodorants in a group of teenagers who onoy bathed once a
>week....
>
I remember well how, whenever we returned to our classrooms from any
form of games, having had about 3 minutes to change [1], the
succeeding teacher would go straight to the windows and open them all
wide.
--
Jo
[1] Showers? There weren't any, and I'm sure the very idea of our
taking our clothes off on school premises would have caused the
sisters to pass out in horror.
Jenny M Benson
<allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk> writes
>IANAschoolchild of the fifties, but I always thought that tuck was a
>fairly important part of boarding school life, as it allowed the kids
>to eat something they actually liked and could use it as a method of
>bartering. I can't imagine a boarding school that wouldn't have
>allowed tuck to be brought at the beginning of term and sent regularly
>through the term by fond relatives.
My bro *was* a boarding schoolchild of the fifties and he definitely had
tuck, taken to school in a purpose-built tuck box. It was replenished
at intervals throughout term.
My daughter, a boarding schoolchild of the 80's, endeared herself to all
her chums by taking whole trays of Pot Noodles for her tuck box (also
purpose-built), courtesy of my parents who had a Cash'n'Carry card.
--
Jenny
Paradise Island Barchap
Jenny M Benson
Clarke <m...@springequinox.co.uk> writes
>Actually that bit is totally believable. Even in the early 60s, in the
>home, it was normal to have a weekly bath and hairwash. Anything more
>was a bit OTT.
I believe that when National Assistance (or whatever it was called in
those days) was calculated, the expense of one bath per week was
included in working out how much the gong rate would be.
I don't know if that has changed in Moddun Times, but I have just been
told by an Occ Ther that Wrecsam Council consider "bathing is a very low
priority" and therefore won't fund any assistance with it.
--
Jenny
I'm a nutritional over-achiever.
Rosemary Miskin
allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk (Fenny) wrote:
> but I always thought that tuck was a
> fairly important part of boarding school life,
It was in very limited supply at my boarding school in the late
fifties/early sixties. We were allowed a small amount at start of term,
supplemented on twice-termly visits frm family and at half-term. No food
could be sent in, except for birthday parties.
It wasn't until the sixth form that we were allowed near a shop during term
- except for the Ascension Day outing which sometimes allowed for a little
shopping.
Rosemary
--
Rosemary Miskin ZFC LVI mis...@argonet.co.uk
Loughborough, UK http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/miskin
Andy Taylor
<allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk> writes
>Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W uk.media.radio.archers,
>I heard Jenny M Benson say...
>> Why doesn't some newspaper editor (or similar) get a few of his
>> reporters (or similar) to work through a handful of exam papers from
>> both moddun times and olden tymes, each guinea pig taking the old *and*
>> new paper in each subject.
>>
>And do it under the conditions of the time, eg log tables or
>calculators.
You can do the exam the children sat at the Channel 4 website. I got a
rather impressive 71/80 (smug grin).
--
Andy Taylor, FAQing about in Westfield, East Sussex
Witty quote removed by popular demand
badriya
<m...@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:
>And you'd be
>> embarrassed if you knew how infrequently we changed our underwear.
>
>I doubt it. Daily changes were not the norm for home-based teenagers either.
>Home laundry was still quite labour-intensive, and tights, when they came
>in, too expensive for us to be able to afford more than one or two pairs. I
>don't wish to disclose any more than this in a public forum, but I think the
>bits about hygiene were spot-on.
In the Chalet School they had to have a bath every morning.
badriya
<an...@azande.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <MPG.199b4f82c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Fenny
><allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk> writes
>>Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer ^W^W^W^W uk.media.radio.archers,
>>I heard Jenny M Benson say...
>>> Why doesn't some newspaper editor (or similar) get a few of his
>>> reporters (or similar) to work through a handful of exam papers from
>>> both moddun times and olden tymes, each guinea pig taking the old *and*
>>> new paper in each subject.
>>>
>>And do it under the conditions of the time, eg log tables or
>>calculators.
>
>You can do the exam the children sat at the Channel 4 website. I got a
>rather impressive 71/80 (smug grin).
Bluerose got 72. I got 35 but I got cross and stopped trying. I did
pass the 11 plus but had coaching and my kids had coaching too for
entrance exams. But I did IQ tests recently for an interview,
numerical reasoning and verbal reasoning ones. I got feedback:
VERBAL CRITICAL REASONING
The Verbal Critical Reasoning test assesses your ability to
critically evaluate complex verbal arguments. Compared to the
population of Graduates\Managers, your performance on the Verbal
Critical Reasoning test indicates that you have an exceptional
ability to critically evaluate complex written texts. Achieving a
score which is only obtained by the top 5% of Graduates\Managers,
demonstrates that your ability to accurately deduce the
logical consequences of an argument is well in excess of that of
most Graduates\Managers and managers.
NUMERICAL CRITICAL REASONING
The Numerical Critical Reasoning Test assesses a person's ability to
use numerical information which is presented in a tabular form in a
logical and rational way.
Your performance on the Numerical Critical Reasoning Test places you
'above average' when compared to the population of
Graduates\Managers. You have demonstrated a fairly good grasp of
numerical concepts and an ability to interpret numerical data which
is greater than that of many Graduates\Managers.
But I didn't get the job.
Gumrat
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:32:41 +0100, "Marjorie Clarke"
> <m...@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>And you'd be
>>
>>>embarrassed if you knew how infrequently we changed our underwear.
>>
>>I doubt it. Daily changes were not the norm for home-based teenagers either.
>>Home laundry was still quite labour-intensive, and tights, when they came
>>in, too expensive for us to be able to afford more than one or two pairs. I
>>don't wish to disclose any more than this in a public forum, but I think the
>>bits about hygiene were spot-on.
>
>
>
> In the Chalet School they had to have a bath every morning.
That'll have been a cold one, with added bromide?
All the best,
Anne, Gumrat.
Paradise Island Barchap
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:32:41 +0100, "Marjorie Clarke"
> <m...@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >And you'd be
> >> embarrassed if you knew how infrequently we changed our underwear.
> >
> >I doubt it. Daily changes were not the norm for home-based teenagers either.
> >Home laundry was still quite labour-intensive, and tights, when they came
> >in, too expensive for us to be able to afford more than one or two pairs. I
> >don't wish to disclose any more than this in a public forum, but I think the
> >bits about hygiene were spot-on.
>
>
> In the Chalet School they had to have a bath every morning.
Well even in "Prisoner, Cell Block H", the ladies had to have
a shower each morning.
Penny
>You can do the exam the children sat at the Channel 4 website. I got a
>rather impressive 71/80 (smug grin).
Wipe that grin off your face!
I got 77 :))
I wanna know which 3 I got wrong...
--
Penny
Laughter is the dance of the spirit and the music of the soul.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.bigwig.net/umra/nicks.html
K Richard W
Good Egg decided to tell uk.media.radio.archers that
>courtesy of my parents who had a Cash'n'Carry card
Is this related to the Egg card I have which my daughter used all the
way round Australia recently?
--
Kosmo Richard W
SNELLSS
Chris McMillan
Andrews <k...@foca.co.uk> writes
>Chris McMillan <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:<WHRxEzQw3VM$Ew...@ntlworld.com>...[...]
>
>(Googling in to clear up misunderstanding a.s.a.p. -- hope the
>technology works!)
>
>>
>> Bah, no sadly, Kimbo.
>
>Sorry Chris, but you seem to have totally misunderstood what I wrote.
>I was very careful to say that I had no knowledge of the era and was
>*not* commenting on the accuracy of the show.
I perhaps should not comment on that which I have not seen. Or perhaps
I am rather more wounded by memories than its fair to make umra know
about.
Sincerely Chris
Chris McMillan
Clarke <m...@springequinox.co.uk> writes
>
>was kind of hoping it wasn't really like that.
>
>
- but the results were far more severe. Some of hers were very
believable.
badriya
<spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>In message <e5a63fa2.03080...@posting.google.com>, Kim
>Andrews <k...@foca.co.uk> writes
>>Chris McMillan <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:<WHRxEzQw3VM$Ew...@ntlworld.com>...[...]
>>
>>(Googling in to clear up misunderstanding a.s.a.p. -- hope the
>>technology works!)
>>
>>>
>>> Bah, no sadly, Kimbo.
>>
>>Sorry Chris, but you seem to have totally misunderstood what I wrote.
>>I was very careful to say that I had no knowledge of the era and was
>>*not* commenting on the accuracy of the show.
>
>I perhaps should not comment on that which I have not seen. Or perhaps
>I am rather more wounded by memories than its fair to make umra know
>about.
>
>Sincerely Chris
No, I think it is fair to post about them. I really only know about
schools I went to and they were day schools and pleasant. I hope the
other kind of schools were very few.
Kim Andrews
<spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>In message <e5a63fa2.03080...@posting.google.com>, Kim
>Andrews <k...@foca.co.uk> writes
>>Chris McMillan <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:<WHRxEzQw3VM$Ew...@ntlworld.com>...[...]
>>
>>(Googling in to clear up misunderstanding a.s.a.p. -- hope the
>>technology works!)
>>
>>>
>>> Bah, no sadly, Kimbo.
>>
>>Sorry Chris, but you seem to have totally misunderstood what I wrote.
>>I was very careful to say that I had no knowledge of the era and was
>>*not* commenting on the accuracy of the show.
>
>I perhaps should not comment on that which I have not seen. Or perhaps
>I am rather more wounded by memories than its fair to make umra know
>about.
Not in the least Chris, I think you should post about anything that
moves you to do so, and clearly and understandably this is something
you feel strongly about. I was merely defending myself against the
accusation of dismissing your experiences as trivial or imagined or
whatever it was you thought you were correcting with "Bah, no sadly,
Kimbo". Again, my "bah" was directed at the TV makers for their
unpleasant conduct here, and I trust that's now clear.
If you wish to approach the programme makers and chastise *them* for
trivialising such an important matter and turning the horror that was
school-childhood for you and thousands of others like you, into an
"entertainment" I'll be all for it.
--
Cheers, Kimbo
Best of umra archive www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk/umra/
"May 6,000 strabismic telephone operators prance in your genitals.
oo-er, wrong newsgroup." Charles F Hankel -- Hapless FAQer on the Wirral peninsula. RIP.
Chris McMillan
<som...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:57:32 +0100, Chris McMillan
><spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>In message <e5a63fa2.03080...@posting.google.com>, Kim
>>Andrews <k...@foca.co.uk> writes
>>>Chris McMillan <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>news:<WHRxEzQw3VM$Ew...@ntlworld.com>...[...]
>>>
>>>(Googling in to clear up misunderstanding a.s.a.p. -- hope the
>>>technology works!)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bah, no sadly, Kimbo.
>>>
>trivialising such an important matter and turning the horror that was
>school-childhood for you and thousands of others like you, into an
>"entertainment" I'll be all for it.
Not without seeing it I couldn't and wouldn't. Whether any of my
friends could have brought themselves to watch it - or even record it
for me to watch next week I don't know yet.
badriya
<spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>In message <3f3b28bd...@News.Individual.NET>, Kim Andrews
><som...@hotmail.com> writes
>>On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:57:32 +0100, Chris McMillan
>><spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <e5a63fa2.03080...@posting.google.com>, Kim
>>>Andrews <k...@foca.co.uk> writes
>>>>Chris McMillan <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:<WHRxEzQw3VM$Ew...@ntlworld.com>...[...]
>>>>
>>>>(Googling in to clear up misunderstanding a.s.a.p. -- hope the
>>>>technology works!)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bah, no sadly, Kimbo.
>>>>
>>If you wish to approach the programme makers and chastise *them* for
>>trivialising such an important matter and turning the horror that was
>>school-childhood for you and thousands of others like you, into an
>>"entertainment" I'll be all for it.
>
>Not without seeing it I couldn't and wouldn't. Whether any of my
>friends could have brought themselves to watch it - or even record it
>for me to watch next week I don't know yet.
>
>Sincerely Chris
I can understand you might not want to watch it as it would bring back
those memories. But it does seem to me someone ought to complain
about the programme makers. Kim, do we have enough grounds to do so
since we felt it an unpleasant programme and have now heard how
serious the effect of that kind of school could be on vulnerable
children?
Kim Andrews
wrote:
> Kim, do we have enough grounds to do so
>since we felt it an unpleasant programme and have now heard how
>serious the effect of that kind of school could be on vulnerable
>children?
I think we'd be justified in each sending an email making the points
that have been discussed here, yes. I shall look for a suitable sized
tuit tomorrow.
Chris McMillan
<bad...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 18:53:15 +0100, Chris McMillan
><spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>In message <3f3b28bd...@News.Individual.NET>, Kim Andrews
>><som...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:57:32 +0100, Chris McMillan
>>><spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <e5a63fa2.03080...@posting.google.com>, Kim
>>>>Andrews <k...@foca.co.uk> writes
>>>>>Chris McMillan <spam...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:<WHRxEzQw3VM$Ew...@ntlworld.com>...[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>(Googling in to clear up misunderstanding a.s.a.p. -- hope the
>>>>>technology works!)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bah, no sadly, Kimbo.
>>>>>
>>>If you wish to approach the programme makers and chastise *them* for
>>>trivialising such an important matter and turning the horror that was
>>>school-childhood for you and thousands of others like you, into an
>>>"entertainment" I'll be all for it.
>>
>>Not without seeing it I couldn't and wouldn't. Whether any of my
>>friends could have brought themselves to watch it - or even record it
>>for me to watch next week I don't know yet.
>>
>>Sincerely Chris
>
>
>I can understand you might not want to watch it
>
on holiday.
badriya
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:11:13 +0100, badriya <bad...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> Kim, do we have enough grounds to do so
>>since we felt it an unpleasant programme and have now heard how
>>serious the effect of that kind of school could be on vulnerable
>>children?
>
>I think we'd be justified in each sending an email making the points
>that have been discussed here, yes. I shall look for a suitable sized
>tuit tomorrow.
OK I found my tuit. I washed the entrance floor, the table and chairs
on the balcony and balcony floor, went to the park user meeting and
then wrote this:
Dear Sirs
I'd like to complain about the above most unpleasant programme.
I thought it very unlike education in the 50s. Mostly they seemed to
be just trying to make a sort of Big Brother type of entertainment
rather than present anything serious in the way of comparing
conditions then and now.
Most teachers did not bully children in that way. Good teachers
always knew kids have to feel comfortable to learn. The teachers in
the programme seemed to be choosing silly things the children had
supposedly done wrong to be able to bully them. Then as now there
were always bad teachers who were bullies. The majority of teachers
were not. One of the worst aspects is that by presenting this as
entertainment you trivialise what was and still can be a very serious
matter.
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>
>OK I found my tuit.
And mine's just turned up too.
begin-->
Complaints Dept.
Channel 4 Television
124 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 2TX
August 12, 2003
Dear Sirs
Re: That'll Teach 'em
I notice that today the second episode of the above programme is
airing. Having watched the first programme with interest, I regret I
shall not be tuning in tonight.
There was a possibility here to make an interesting and informative
comparison of education in the two eras. Instead, what we have been
given is patently false and rehearsed behaviour and contrived
situations where the single aim appears to be to humiliate and
ridicule the children in the name of "entertainment".
The only adult seen to be behaving with any humanity appears to be Mr
Vince, the mathematics teacher, whose 11 plus test provided the only
meaningful insight of the whole show. For the rest, the bellowing and
bullying which takes place might well represent school life for
thousands of children of the fifties, but if it does it is heinous to
turn such behaviour into an entertainment for the titillation of the
masses. If the representation is accurate, it is tasteless and cruel
to reproduce it for laughs. If it is inaccurate, it is equally so;
there are no winning positions here.
Children who went to school in the fifties will have known the rules
and standards to which they would be subjected, and while discipline
might have been harsh, it would not have been surprising. The
children in the programme appeared to have had no warning about strict
standards of personal presentation (no toiletries, severe haircuts
etc.) and no warning about restrictions on personal belongings such as
tuck and toys. To what purpose was this kept from them, if not to
show their dismay and humiliation upon enforcement of the rules?
Exploring the difficulties that modern children have living within
such regimes would be valid, but springing the rules upon them
unawares serves no decent purpose.
I was under the impression that we adults, of which group I assume
Channel 4 management is a part, had a duty to protect our young. I am
at a loss to see how treating them as dancing bears fulfills that
duty.
<--end
badriya
>
>>
>>OK I found my tuit.
>
>And mine's just turned up too.
>
>begin-->
>Complaints Dept.
>Channel 4 Television
>124 Horseferry Road
>London SW1P 2TX
>
>August 12, 2003
>
>
>Dear Sirs
>
>Re: That'll Teach 'em
>
Excellently put! So you didn't watch tonight either. I was out but
someone just asked me if I saw it and said he thought it good. But he
is about 27 or 8 and didn't go to school then.
Vickey
--
Cybergypsy
BrritSki
>
>
> Excellently put! So you didn't watch tonight either. I was out but
> someone just asked me if I saw it and said he thought it good. But he
> is about 27 or 8 and didn't go to school then.
I did watch it and thought it was excellent. I understood your and Kim's
complaint and reconsidered my enjoyment of the first epi in the light of
those comments, and bore them in mind while watching last night.
There was one event last night with the "lost" letters, that if it WAS a
setup was disgraceful, but otherwise I didn't think that there was
anything done for the sake of entertainment per se. Are you sure you
weren't misunderstanding the silly face-in-camera shouting of the
"teacher" at the breaks and in other scene changes - he's not part of it
you know :).
I went to a Grammar school (non-boarding) as one of the youngest in my
year in 1958 and I find the programme very accurate except in one thing
- boys (not me) were (occasionally, not often) caned. Waife went to
Grammar school at the same time as me and lived in mortal fear of the
cane, despite never being naughty, but I think she was generally happy
at school. I never really worried about it as I wasn't bad either and
caning was rare, but I did hate the few detentions I got and the
impingement on my personal time. We were shouted at, but I didn't
consider it bullying, and neither do I consider the shouting in TT'E as
bullying either - they're not picking on 1 individual.
Yes some of it is a bit OTT, but I don't think it's being done for
effect, they are trying to change a lifetime of attitude in the kids and
have only a limited range of sanctions and time. I think there was a bit
less of it last night and there were also some interesting comments from
some of the kids re-thinking their attitudes and from the teachers about
what kids today have lost by not having clear boundaries and in not
being taught the foundations of e.g. grammar or music, sacrificed in the
search for "expression". It is interesting to see how quickly the kids
have adapted to the new discipline in less than a week.
While I think that things were a bit too rigid in my schooldays I am
lucky that I remember them as fairly happy. I'm glad some things have
changed, but I think we've now gone too far the other way. A few years
ago I was an Industrial Tutor at my kids' school (an excellent rural
comprehensive, Foundation school etc) and went in to the class-room a
few times. I was appalled. They NEVER shut up and listened and the
teacher didn't bat an eyelid. As I say this was a good school with
almost all the kids from good, middle-class homes. Incidentally, on one
of the ski trips I also went on, the kids (14+) were found with lots of
booze in their rooms - the trip leader went ballistic and had a good
shout at them all for several minutes. No different today for some
teachers !
Overall then, I think this programme is excellent and very interesting -
yes they shout a lot and are a bit OTT but I don't think it's gratuitous
and I think we're starting to get some interesting insights into what we
have lost/gained compared to 50 years ago. I think we'll get more of
this as the programme continues and that it will inform the debate about
dumbing down and standards.
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>anything done for the sake of entertainment per se. Are you sure you
>weren't misunderstanding the silly face-in-camera shouting of the
>"teacher" at the breaks and in other scene changes - he's not part of it
>you know :).
>
I might be a naive, sentimental old fool, but I'm not a bliddy idiot!
Yes, I was able to tell the difference between the staged jokey bits
and the rest of the programme. :o)
>consider it bullying, and neither do I consider the shouting in TT'E as
>bullying either - they're not picking on 1 individual.
They were when shouting at the lad for hiding sweets when he hadn't
been told he couldn't bring them, then hadn't been told that he'd be
subjected to personal-space searches, and hadn't been told that "using
your initiative" is a strictly late 20th Century innovation, and that
keeping your Mum's fruitcake is a hanging offence. And they were when
forcing a lad (a different one, I think, but can't remember what his
terrible crime was) to stand under a freezing cold shower.
>Yes some of it is a bit OTT, but I don't think it's being done for
>effect,
There we differ.
> they are trying to change a lifetime of attitude in the kids and
>have only a limited range of sanctions and time.
There was *no* possible reason for not telling the children in advance
what these sanctions were, and what rules they would be used to
enforce, other than our tittilation. I can see no way in which
suprising the students with restrictions adds to the validity of the
experiment.
> I think there was a bit
>less of it last night
Possibly, as I didn't watch.
>and there were also some interesting comments from
>some of the kids re-thinking their attitudes and from the teachers about
>what kids today have lost by not having clear boundaries and in not
>being taught the foundations of e.g. grammar or music, sacrificed in the
>search for "expression". It is interesting to see how quickly the kids
>have adapted to the new discipline in less than a week.
I think clear boundaries are essential and am all for discipline and
foundations. How these are explained and applied, and to what
purpose, are clearly important though.
>
>
>Overall then, I think this programme is excellent and very interesting -
>yes they shout a lot and are a bit OTT but I don't think it's gratuitous
>and I think we're starting to get some interesting insights into what we
>have lost/gained compared to 50 years ago.
Imagine how many more insights we could have got if the children were
informed and truly willing participants, rather than misguided TV
wannabees?
> I think we'll get more of
>this as the programme continues and that it will inform the debate about
>dumbing down and standards.
Possibly, and possibly I'll give it another go, but I'm not convinced
yet.
BrritSki
>
> >consider it bullying, and neither do I consider the shouting in TT'E as
> >bullying either - they're not picking on 1 individual.
>
> They were when shouting at the lad for hiding sweets when he hadn't
> been told he couldn't bring them, then hadn't been told that he'd be
> subjected to personal-space searches, and hadn't been told that "using
> your initiative" is a strictly late 20th Century innovation, and that
> keeping your Mum's fruitcake is a hanging offence.
Yes but that was still 1 incident, not repeated unustified incidents
picking on the same person, which is what would make it bullying IMO.
And we don't know what they were told beforehand - they were certainly
told (without shouting) that they had to hand over all their 2003-style
stuff, food etc and most did so. Others didn't and got caught and were
shouted at <shrug>.
> > they are trying to change a lifetime of attitude in the kids and
> >have only a limited range of sanctions and time.
>
> There was *no* possible reason for not telling the children in advance
> what these sanctions were, and what rules they would be used to
> enforce, other than our tittilation. I can see no way in which
> suprising the students with restrictions adds to the validity of the
> experiment.
You're making a big assumption there. We don't know what they were told
in advance. For example one of them said last week that he wasn't
expecting a haircut. Nobody else said that and I'm sure there'd have
been lots of protests if they were all getting a surprise. I think it
was more likely that they were all told and one of them hadn't noticed.
I think it's also likely (with less evidence) that they were told what
the rules and sanctions would be and they chose to either ignore and/or
not believe they would be enforced, just like they're not (mostly) at
home and at school today.
But even if they were surprised, they have a choice - accept the rules
(that they are told before there's any shouting or other sanctions) or
accept the punishment.
>
> > I think there was a bit
> >less of it last night
>
> Possibly, as I didn't watch.
Shame, as I think it had some interesting changes vs. the 1st prog. in
the way the kids were reacting and in what the teachers had to say about
now vs. then.
>
> I think clear boundaries are essential and am all for discipline and
> foundations. How these are explained and applied, and to what
> purpose, are clearly important though.
Absolutely agreed. I think one thing what is happening here is that the
kids are not expecting to be only told once and then get punished. They
usually get away with it for a long time these days before anything
happens.
> >
> >
> >Overall then, I think this programme is excellent and very interesting -
> >yes they shout a lot and are a bit OTT but I don't think it's gratuitous
> >and I think we're starting to get some interesting insights into what we
> >have lost/gained compared to 50 years ago.
>
> Imagine how many more insights we could have got if the children were
> informed and truly willing participants, rather than misguided TV
> wannabees?
I don't doubt that there is a large element of TV wannabeeism (isn't
that a Japanese radish ?) about it, but I don't think there's any
question that they are all truly willing participants, but we just don't
know about how well-informed they were (see above). It will be
interesting to see if C4 mention this if they deign to reply to you.
Cheers Rog
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>Kim Andrews wrote:
>
>Yes but that was still 1 incident, not repeated unustified incidents
I'm sorry, but I'm not prepared to spend the time it would take to go
through the whole show explaining everything I found offensive, and
didn't think it would be necessary. Okay, one more: were the children
told how important making their own beds was, were they shown the
technique previously (real children of the era would have *not* had
duvets), and was it necessary without warning to shred their efforts
on first attempt? Perhaps some schools *would* have been like that,
but in order to show us all possible entertainment, every opportunity
for being unpleasant is taken.
>picking on the same person, which is what would make it bullying IMO.
That you set an arbitrary number of one, and a number of times, before
you qualify something as bullying is your prerogative. What label
would you prefer for repeated unnecessary intimidating behaviour from
a controlling group of adults to the children in their care? If a
bunch of school kids were swaggering about the playground being
gratuitously and indescriminately unpleasant to all around them, I'd
call them bullies. I am perfectly prepared to be supplied with a
better term!
>And we don't know what they were told beforehand - they were certainly
>told (without shouting) that they had to hand over all their 2003-style
>stuff, food etc and most did so.
I don't think "beforehand" is the same as "after they arrived"!! Do
you believe that they were told they could bring no tuck, no toys, no
toiletries and that anything they did bring would be confiscated, and
they *all* still did it?
>Others didn't and got caught and were
>shouted at <shrug>.
As soon as there was the least excuse. Did no teacher in the 50s ever
just *say* "you were told to hand everything, you have done wrong,
here is your punishment"? They *all* bellowed and screamed and
behaved like toy soldiers? No? Then what reason is there for there
only being one single decent teacher visible in the whole of this
school's staff, if not to exaggerate for entertainment?
>> > they are trying to change a lifetime of attitude in the kids and
>> >have only a limited range of sanctions and time.
>>
>> There was *no* possible reason for not telling the children in advance
>> what these sanctions were, and what rules they would be used to
>> enforce, other than our tittilation. I can see no way in which
>> suprising the students with restrictions adds to the validity of the
>> experiment.
>
>You're making a big assumption there. We don't know what they were told
>in advance.
Yes I am, and no we don't. But as I said up there (waves arms vaguely
towards top of post) I find it difficult to the point of impossible to
believe that *knowing* the rules they would *all* bring bags full of
stuff they weren't allowed, or that nobody would say "ah well, I know
they told us but it was worth a go). Those girls having wiping their
make-up off and handing over toiletries were *not* saying "fair cop
guv" or "oh, so that's what you meant" they were saying "oh no, how
will I cope?"
> For example one of them said last week that he wasn't
>expecting a haircut. Nobody else said that and I'm sure there'd have
>been lots of protests if they were all getting a surprise. I think it
>was more likely that they were all told and one of them hadn't noticed.
I disagree. The girls certainly seemed shocked and surprised at the
pigtails nonsense, and more than one lad looked surprised to be under
the razor, even if we only heard one express it verbally.
>
>I think it's also likely (with less evidence) that they were told what
>the rules and sanctions would be and they chose to either ignore and/or
>not believe they would be enforced, just like they're not (mostly) at
>home and at school today.
We'll have to agree to differ then, because I don't believe that even
if this were the case, their parents wouldn't have explained the
reality to them (unless, of course, they were told not to, which
amounts to the same sort of ambush).
>
>But even if they were surprised, they have a choice - accept the rules
>(that they are told before there's any shouting or other sanctions) or
>accept the punishment.
Arrive shell-shocked and unprepared and immediately understand all the
implications? Yeah, right.
>> Possibly, as I didn't watch.
>
>Shame, as I think it had some interesting changes vs. the 1st prog. in
>the way the kids were reacting and in what the teachers had to say about
>now vs. then.
As I said, I might give it another go. Might not, life's too short
and all that!
>>
>> I think clear boundaries are essential and am all for discipline and
>> foundations. How these are explained and applied, and to what
>> purpose, are clearly important though.
>
>Absolutely agreed. I think one thing what is happening here is that the
>kids are not expecting to be only told once and then get punished. They
>usually get away with it for a long time these days before anything
>happens.
Yes, I think that's probably true. But was *that* spelled out to them
at all? I get the feeling, and you haven't convinced me otherwise I'm
afraid, that they've been thrown into this experiment like a bunch of
little furry dumb animals, and now we're supposed to watch them run
around in panic and say what larks!
>I don't doubt that there is a large element of TV wannabeeism (isn't
>that a Japanese radish ?)
It's certainly hot. ;o)
> about it, but I don't think there's any
>question that they are all truly willing participants, but we just don't
>know about how well-informed they were (see above).
I cannot for a second accept that anybody can be a "trully willing
participant" if they are ill-informed. They might think they are, but
at that age they don't necessarily have the judgement to recognise
what they're getting into and spot what they're not being told. If I
volunteered for an exercise in giving first aid, for example, and
after I'd arrived they said "did we mention the building will be on
fire", I'd not consider myself a trully willing participant in the
actual event. Without full knowledge, choice is meaningless. I say,
what a pompous sig line that would make! ;o)
>It will be
>interesting to see if C4 mention this if they deign to reply to you.
I'll let you know!
badriya
wrote:
>badriya wrote:
>>
>>
>> Excellently put! So you didn't watch tonight either. I was out but
>> someone just asked me if I saw it and said he thought it good. But he
>> is about 27 or 8 and didn't go to school then.
>
>I did watch it and thought it was excellent. I understood your and Kim's
>complaint and reconsidered my enjoyment of the first epi in the light of
>those comments, and bore them in mind while watching last night.
>
>There was one event last night with the "lost" letters, that if it WAS a
>setup was disgraceful, but otherwise I didn't think that there was
>anything done for the sake of entertainment per se. Are you sure you
>weren't misunderstanding the silly face-in-camera shouting of the
>"teacher" at the breaks and in other scene changes - he's not part of it
>you know :).
No, I really did think they were trying to find reasons to shout at
the kids. But it is possible that as you say it was the time limit
made them over do it and that it improved in the second programme and
more serious issues were developed. I'd have to see the second
programme to know, but I didn't particularly want to, having found the
first one unpleasant. Like you I was happy at school but am sure it
was nothing like the programme last week. It was a non-boarding
grammar.
>
>I went to a Grammar school (non-boarding) as one of the youngest in my
>year in 1958 and I find the programme very accurate except in one thing
>- boys (not me) were (occasionally, not often) caned. Waife went to
>Grammar school at the same time as me and lived in mortal fear of the
>cane, despite never being naughty, but I think she was generally happy
>at school. I never really worried about it as I wasn't bad either and
>caning was rare, but I did hate the few detentions I got and the
>impingement on my personal time. We were shouted at, but I didn't
>consider it bullying, and neither do I consider the shouting in TT'E as
>bullying either - they're not picking on 1 individual.
Vickey
--
Cybergypsy
Serena Blanchflower
wrote:
> Dear Sirs
>
> Re: That'll Teach 'em
Excellent letter. I'll be interested to hear what response you get - if
any.
--
Cheers, Serena
Sometimes I sits and thinks ... and sometimes I just sits. (Punch cartoon)
Serena Blanchflower
wrote:
> There was *no* possible reason for not telling the children in advance
> what these sanctions were, and what rules they would be used to
> enforce, other than our tittilation. I can see no way in which
> suprising the students with restrictions adds to the validity of the
> experiment.
I didn't watch either of the programs, so I can only comment based on
the reports which have been made here. Based on those though, I would
say that failing to tell the children the rules in advance actually
detracts considerably from any validity of the experiment.
The point of having strictly enforced boundaries is that the children
know what they can and can't do and understand the kind of sanctions
which will be imposed if they break the rules. This is very different
from having apparently random punishments inflicted on you for breaking
rules you never knew existed.
Jenny M Benson
writes
>(isn't that a Japanese radish ?)
I saw some "Italian mooli" in a greengrocer's shop in Chester the other
day.
Please can a cookrat tell me how I should have prepared/served it if I
had bought some.
Once I know that, I might get some next time.
--
Jenny
I'm a nutritional over-achiever.
Kim Andrews
<j...@cedarbank81.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <3F3A0FBD...@iname.com>, BrritSki <Brri...@iname.com>
>writes
>>(isn't that a Japanese radish ?)
>
>I saw some "Italian mooli" in a greengrocer's shop in Chester the other
>day.
>
>Please can a cookrat tell me how I should have prepared/served it if I
>had bought some.
I've never prepared it, but I believe shredded or grated raw for a
salad is a popular option.
Marjorie Clarke
"BrritSki" <Brri...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3F39EE93...@iname.com...
> I did watch it and thought it was excellent. I understood your and Kim's
> complaint and reconsidered my enjoyment of the first epi in the light of
> those comments, and bore them in mind while watching last night.
Yes, that was my feeling after seeing the second episode. It seems to be
settling down into something more worthwhile after the rather sensationalist
first part.
> I went to a Grammar school (non-boarding) as one of the youngest in my
> year in 1958 and I find the programme very accurate except in one thing
> - boys (not me) were (occasionally, not often) caned.
Same vintage as me then (grammar school 1959-66). All girls, so no cane,
but the cane was used in primary school before that (for both sexes), and in
the boys' grammar school.
>Waife went to
> Grammar school at the same time as me and lived in mortal fear of the
> cane, despite never being naughty
I was just scared of being told off and shouted at. Still am, really :-)
The bit that had me hooting with derision was the claim that grammar schools
in the 50s took a pride in the fitness and physique of their pupils. The
girls' grammar I attended had no facilities whatever for gym or games,
unless you count the netball court in the playground. We had to walk across
town to get to a gym or a tennis court or a hockey pitch, and we contrived
to spend most of our lesson just getting there and back.
>I think there was a bit
> less of it last night and there were also some interesting comments from
> some of the kids re-thinking their attitudes and from the teachers about
> what kids today have lost by not having clear boundaries and in not
> being taught the foundations of e.g. grammar or music, sacrificed in the
> search for "expression". It is interesting to see how quickly the kids
> have adapted to the new discipline in less than a week.
It's interesting to see how the same pattern emerges in various subject
areas - the kids have been allowed to get away with being sloppy and
careless, and not thinking about what they're doing. It just seems unfair to
me that such bright, capable young people are to be allowed (in today's
system) to leave school with all high-grade GCSEs and yet be lacking in very
basic numeracy and language skills. And I bet most of them can't read
musical notation, or sew on a button, or make an accurate pencil sketch of
something they see. Creativity can only develop fully when it's underpinned
by the basic skills, and it looks as though these skills are not being
taught in many areas.
> Overall then, I think this programme is excellent and very interesting -
> yes they shout a lot and are a bit OTT but I don't think it's gratuitous
> and I think we're starting to get some interesting insights into what we
> have lost/gained compared to 50 years ago. I think we'll get more of
> this as the programme continues and that it will inform the debate about
> dumbing down and standards.
Yes, I think so and I hope so.
--
Marjorie Clarke
Paradise Island Barchap
As already mentioned, I was in primary school in mainly the 50s (till 61
actually), and finished secondary in 68. Discipline was pretty
strict at the primary school, but we were never bullied. Discipline
started off strict at secondary school, but by 68, seemed very relaxed,
which ties in pretty well with the feel of the decade. We'd occasionally
been bullied, but not too much. The good teachers never bullied
anyone; the best of them never raised their voices (and also usually
had a good sense of humour). The minority of bullying or sour
teachers were universally loathed and reviled and the (vast majority)
of decent teachers were liked and/or loved. To equate strictness and
adherance to standards with bullying is a big mistake, IMHO. If you
are strict but fair, there is no need to bully, and if you are not
fair, no amount of bullying will achieve the desired result.
Marjorie Clarke
"Kim Andrews" <som...@hotmail.com> wrote
> They were when shouting at the lad for hiding sweets when he hadn't
> been told he couldn't bring them, then hadn't been told that he'd be
> subjected to personal-space searches, and hadn't been told that "using
> your initiative" is a strictly late 20th Century innovation, and that
> keeping your Mum's fruitcake is a hanging offence. .
It seems a bit pointless for us all to speculate on how much of a shock this
may or may not have been to the youngsters without knowing the facts: FWIW,
I find it difficult to believe they were told nothing beforehand, and easy
to conjecture that they'd still take a few chances even once they knew the
rules.
What really seems a bit odd ( you missed some more of this last night, Kim)
is the instances where they try to hold on to their possessions and
aspirations from 2002 and then the staff have to deal with it as if it was
1953. It's difficult to stay in character and discuss, say, the use of hair
gel (bad) versus Brylcreem (good), as hair gel didn't exist.
And the 21st century kids have extra problems because they want and miss
things their parents never knew. 16-year-olds of the early 50s just wanted
to look like adults. They didn't want to be "cool" or "sexy", they just
wanted a perm and a handbag like their Mum's, or Brylcreem and ciggies like
Dad. I don't know whether this was ever explained to the kids in the
programme. It does make it difficult to keep the role-play "in period", as
certain problems just wouldn't have arisen.
But I think, having seen the second part, that some really worthwhile issues
are being raised now, and there are signs that some of the young people are
beginning to appreciate certain aspects of the regime. And, of course, of
the one they left behind. I hope they'll give some airtime to reflecting on
this at the end - too often these time-travel and similar series just end
with the people changing their costume and walking away, without any
feedback or debate.
--
Marjorie Clarke
Steve Brooks
"Marjorie Clarke" wrote
<snip>
> The bit that had me hooting with derision was the claim that grammar
schools
> in the 50s took a pride in the fitness and physique of their pupils. The
> girls' grammar I attended had no facilities whatever for gym or games,
> unless you count the netball court in the playground. We had to walk
across
> town to get to a gym or a tennis court or a hockey pitch, and we contrived
> to spend most of our lesson just getting there and back.
As we all know a good walk is far better and safer exercise than any of
those dangerous team sports. And many schools have sold off their playing
fields over the last couple of decades. You went to a school which was 50
years ahead of its time.
--
SB
Kim Andrews
<m...@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It seems a bit pointless for us all to speculate on how much of a shock this
>may or may not have been to the youngsters without knowing the facts:
If lacking facts becomes the criterion for whether or not something
can be discussed, usenet will fold tomorrow! I thought what I was
doing was forming an opinion based on observation, and discussing my
conclusions with others of like-minded or opposing positions...
... but if you prefer to consider it pointless speculation that's fine
too. ;o)))
It does look as though I shall have to watch at least part of the show
next week to gain more insight, but like Vicky, I really don't want to
as I found the first so unpleasant. It will probably become
irrelevant as my "lousy memory, moral-outrage protection system" kicks
in, and I forget to put it on. ;o)
Marjorie Clarke
"Kim Andrews" <som...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f664b4c....@News.Individual.NET...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:16:48 +0100, "Marjorie Clarke"
> <m...@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >It seems a bit pointless for us all to speculate on how much of a shock
this
> >may or may not have been to the youngsters without knowing the facts:
>
> If lacking facts becomes the criterion for whether or not something
> can be discussed, usenet will fold tomorrow!
Good point. I think what I meant was it's not worth getting really heated
about something that's still in the realm of speculation. Save the flames
for something a bit meatier (I think my mind must be straying to BBQs in
this hot weather).
Anyway, let's see how next week's episode grabs us all....
--
Marjorie Clarke (Joint Form Captain, 5A. Prefect. Never Head Girl, though,
too lippy.)
K Richard W
decided to tell uk.media.radio.archers that
>They were when shouting at the lad for hiding sweets when he hadn't
>been told he couldn't bring them,
That was the only bit I saw and as it seemed to justify earlier comments
hereabouts I rather decided that the rest would not be worth watching.
--
Kosmo Richard W
SNELLSS
badriya
wrote:
>You're making a big assumption there. We don't know what they were told
>in advance. For example one of them said last week that he wasn't
>expecting a haircut. Nobody else said that and I'm sure there'd have
>been lots of protests if they were all getting a surprise. I think it
>was more likely that they were all told and one of them hadn't noticed.
I do remember boys being told off if their hair was too long, but this
was 60s. But girls did not have to wear pigtails. They certainly
wore their hair anyway they wanted to.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
badriya
wrote:
>>picking on the same person, which is what would make it bullying IMO.
They did pick on the girl who was reprimanded after the meal in the
first programme. They ha d decided she needed to be humiliated. I
didn't like the way the teachers discussed it and the head
congratulated himself on not breaking her. I think that was the phrase
used.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
badriya
<m...@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:
>The bit that had me hooting with derision was the claim that grammar schools
>in the 50s took a pride in the fitness and physique of their pupils. The
>girls' grammar I attended had no facilities whatever for gym or games,
>unless you count the netball court in the playground. We had to walk across
>town to get to a gym or a tennis court or a hockey pitch, and we contrived
>to spend most of our lesson just getting there and back.
I was at a grammar from 57-64 and we played hockey and netball. We
also had PE and went swimming. We had a sports field but had to
travel to it. Netball and gym were in school. We played volleyball
and tabletennis in the 6th form too and tennis in summer from the
first year. I hated most of those! I liked tennis and swimming.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
K Richard W
decided to tell uk.media.radio.archers that
>wore their hair anyway they wanted to.
At my grammar school in the late 60s the girls always disappeared before
Geography lessons and appeared with hair tied back to meet the (female)
teacher's insistence.
I cannot believe that teachers today would even try to enforce such a
rule.
badriya
wrote:
>It does look as though I shall have to watch at least part of the show
>next week to gain more insight, but like Vicky, I really don't want to
>as I found the first so unpleasant. It will probably become
>irrelevant as my "lousy memory, moral-outrage protection system" kicks
>in, and I forget to put it on. ;o)
I'm actually out next week, the theatre again with #2 daughter,
Regent's Park Open Air, Two Gentlemen of Verona, but I could record
the programme if I remember to.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
K Richard W
decided to tell uk.media.radio.archers that
I trust you have better luck than us. "High Society" got rained off
about 10 minutes from the end - so we don't know who ended up with whom
- it had been very entertaining up until then.
badriya
We saw all of it last Friday. But you can see the musical film or
the non-musical version which is Philadelphia Story.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
Jenny M Benson
<bad...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>I do remember boys being told off if their hair was too long, but this
>was 60s. But girls did not have to wear pigtails. They certainly wore
>their hair anyway they wanted to.
I didn't see the programme so don't know exactly what the incident was
that led to the comments here about pigtails, but I was at (private)
school in the 50's and girls there were definitely not allowed to wear
their hair any way they wanted to. Short hair was fine, but long hair
had to be "tied back" in some way - plaits, bunches or pony tail were
all acceptable. If hair was about shoulder length, you had to wear a
hair band - which had to be blue.
Also forbidden was the wearing of "peep-toe" sandals, coloured tights,
any item of uniform not of the regulation issue (bought from one
particular shop in Liverpool), the wearing of the beret when it had
*not* been raining when you left your house in the morning, not wearing
a hat (or beret where permitted) ... the list goes on.
Penny
scrawled in the dust...
We had to wear long hair restrained in some way, sticking-out bunches were
often seen. If you came to school with no way of tying back your hair you
had to go to the office for some bright pink treasury tape.
--
Penny
Laughter is the dance of the spirit and the music of the soul.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.bigwig.net/umra/nicks.html
Kim Andrews
wrote:
I shall have to indulge in major snippage as it's getting a bit (a
bit!) unwieldy...
>
>No it's not - I was making the point that EACH incident was separate -
>there wasn't a pattern of picking on 1 student and they weren't being
>horrible to everyone all the time. I agree that the overall behaviour of
>the teachers was hectoring (there's a better term :),
As you wish, but...
> you might even
>call it bullying, but I don't think any of the kids would have claimed
>to be bullied.
... it still struck me as bullying behaviour, whatever the view of the
youths on the receiving end might have been. I think hectoring is
rather too tame, but it's useful to see your view of it.
>Reading back through the thread it seems that we differ primarily on
>what the expectation was. You think that they were being surprised by
I think that's the main point, indeed.
>stuff, arrived shell-shocked etc. I don't and believe they would have
>been told beforehand (before they signed up for the programme) what the
>rules were. I thought the reaction to the pig-tails and haircuts were
>just reaction to it actually happening rather than them not knowing it
>was going to happen apart from that 1 boy who complained. But are we
Then we'll have to disagree. I have no problem with believing that
the programme makers might not have been as open and honest as they
could be for the sake of making a "better" TV show.
>even sure about that ? As we saw last night, some kids lie as easily as
Or didn't, in my case. ;o)
>breathing (the one who had the shower swore that he had not answered
>back to the teacher and again to the interviewer and then grinned when
>he was told it was on film).
Hold the front page, some children lie!!! ;o) I don't think they
formed instant conspiracies or that they're all such good actors
though, but there you go.
>
>I don't see how they could have had consent to go ahead with the
>programs without that knowledge unless it was the parents who consented
It depends what importance is put on the sort of information I suspect
was held back. And yes, I can believe that *some* parents would
consent to such surprises, but no, I agree it seems unlikely that all
would. I'm more inclined to suspect the TV folks of deviousness here.
>- and what does that make them if they kept their kids in the dark ? I
>don't believe that would have happened, but we won't know unless someone
>tells us for sure what actually happened. I had a look round the C4
>website on the prog. but couldn't find anything, although there are some
>interesting background articles.
They're not going to tell us the secrets of how they manipulated the
children, any more than they'll tell us when "ad lib" comedy shows are
rehearsed, quiz shows are rigged or any other little trade secrets
that are "none of our business".
>Secondly, they weren't surprised with arbitrary rules anyway. They were
>told about sweets and tuck and given an opportunity to hand things in. I
You seem to be convinced that "told when they arrived" is the same as
"explained well in advance". When a fifties child arrived at school
it will already have known most of what was going to happen to it,
because that was the culture of the day. Arriving from a 2003
environment and being told *now* hand it over, is not the same thing
at all. You seem to want to claim that they *were* warned, while using
events on-site as evidence!? We saw them being told they could not
keep tuck. At this point they were *ALREADY THERE* (ahem, scuse the
shouting, but I seem to be having trouble communicating this point)
;o)
>don't think everyone arrived with things btw.
Don't you? Why not? Did we see any children looking smug and saying
"you should have read the rule sheet?" I don't remember it.
> And maybe the rules for
>some things were ambiguous - if they said make-up wasn't allowed would
>everyone understand that included moisturiser, gel and deodorant ? Many
Probably not. Perhaps some rules were explained and were ambiguous...
given that the rules were being presented by expert adults for the
consumption of clueless children, in what way is that better?
>chose not to hand things in knowing the rule and as was shown last night
>are still hiding things. As an aside - if they were going for cheap
>confrontations the camera crew would have told the teachers when they
>raided the dorms after lights out where the tuck, deodorants and so on
>were hidden - they didn't.
At a rough guess, more difficult to film, more difficult to make look
convincing, and unnecessary when the kids were giving themselves away
so easily (a sure sign they didn't realise how serious it was).
>
>They were shown how to make the beds before they did it themselves,
>whether they were told how important it was I don't recall (I don't
>think it was mentioned),
I don't think so either. And I again got the impression they were
surprised at even having to do such things.
> but surely one of the points about 50's
>discipline was that you were told once and that was it ? Harsh maybe
>but that's the truth.
It's a part of the truth. But it doesn't justify the things I've been
complaining about. And yes, I accept totally that this is all based
on my assumptions, but my assumptions are based on the evidence *as I
saw it* and may well be valid. It would be nice if I thought there
was any chance of finding out either way, but dream on Kim!! ;o)
>
>but obviously you and Vicky reacted differently. That's a shame because
>you're missing some interesting points in the rest of the prog.
That sounds a little condescending, but I don't think you mean it that
way. In the end, we're discussing a bunch of people pretending to be
in a situation that 90% have never experienced in anyway and which has
huge elements of fakery, the reality of which hasn't existed for 50
years. Enjoyable though this discussion is, I don't think I shall
make the mistake of taking it too seriously! (Though I do take the
*situation* seriously enough to have complained about it to those
responsible, as you know)
>
>culture where everyone understood the rules and how far one could go. In
>this instance these rules had to be established and quickly or the point
>of the prog. would have been lost in chaos.
All the more reason for a thorough pre-briefing. ;o)
>The other teachers came over better in their teaching environments too
>and in to-camera pieces with no kids present.
Good. Is the headmaster still a prick, and the matron a
cardboard-cutout harridan? ;o)
>
>
>What do other umrats think, especially the teachers among you, about the
>programme ? All contributions and opinions welcome - although Kim and I
>are having a good war^Hbattle^Hdiscussion here, we're also exchanging
>friendly emails in the background too, so we're not really at each
>others throats :)
Sssshhhh... you'll ruin our street cred!!
BrritSki
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:15:25 +0100, BrritSki <Brri...@iname.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Kim Andrews wrote:
> >
> >Yes but that was still 1 incident, not repeated unustified incidents
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not prepared to spend the time it would take to go
> through the whole show explaining everything I found offensive, and
> didn't think it would be necessary.
No it's not - I was making the point that EACH incident was separate -
there wasn't a pattern of picking on 1 student and they weren't being
horrible to everyone all the time. I agree that the overall behaviour of
the teachers was hectoring (there's a better term :), you might even
call it bullying, but I don't think any of the kids would have claimed
to be bullied.
Reading back through the thread it seems that we differ primarily on
what the expectation was. You think that they were being surprised by
stuff, arrived shell-shocked etc. I don't and believe they would have
been told beforehand (before they signed up for the programme) what the
rules were. I thought the reaction to the pig-tails and haircuts were
just reaction to it actually happening rather than them not knowing it
was going to happen apart from that 1 boy who complained. But are we
even sure about that ? As we saw last night, some kids lie as easily as
breathing (the one who had the shower swore that he had not answered
back to the teacher and again to the interviewer and then grinned when
he was told it was on film).
I don't see how they could have had consent to go ahead with the
programs without that knowledge unless it was the parents who consented
- and what does that make them if they kept their kids in the dark ? I
don't believe that would have happened, but we won't know unless someone
tells us for sure what actually happened. I had a look round the C4
website on the prog. but couldn't find anything, although there are some
interesting background articles.
Secondly, they weren't surprised with arbitrary rules anyway. They were
told about sweets and tuck and given an opportunity to hand things in. I
don't think everyone arrived with things btw. And maybe the rules for
some things were ambiguous - if they said make-up wasn't allowed would
everyone understand that included moisturiser, gel and deodorant ? Many
chose not to hand things in knowing the rule and as was shown last night
are still hiding things. As an aside - if they were going for cheap
confrontations the camera crew would have told the teachers when they
raided the dorms after lights out where the tuck, deodorants and so on
were hidden - they didn't.
They were shown how to make the beds before they did it themselves,
whether they were told how important it was I don't recall (I don't
think it was mentioned), but surely one of the points about 50's
discipline was that you were told once and that was it ? Harsh maybe
but that's the truth.
Whether they were choosing to make things entertaining I don't know;
it's a difficult line and perhaps they went over it. They showed what, 5
incidents on the first day ? 3 more in yesterday's epi which covered
the rest of the first week. I don't think that is excessive personally,
but obviously you and Vicky reacted differently. That's a shame because
you're missing some interesting points in the rest of the prog.
The maths teacher still came over well, especially when teaching drill.
The lady english teacher also came over well but was still strict - she
didn't shout, as you suggested she stated the problem and then gave the
punishment, just as many/most 50's teachers did, but then they were in a
culture where everyone understood the rules and how far one could go. In
this instance these rules had to be established and quickly or the point
of the prog. would have been lost in chaos. The interesting thing is how
quickly the kids HAVE accepted the approach and are getting a glimmer of
how things were in some ways easier back then.
The other teachers came over better in their teaching environments too
and in to-camera pieces with no kids present.
Linda Fox
<richard....@whitbread.freeuk.com> wrote:
I saw The Fantasticks there about twelve years ago. Lovely evening all
through the show, though at the point where they sang the song "Soon
it's gonna rain" there was a distinct breeze with overtones of
impending moisture, which disappeared by the end of the song. I always
wondered how they managed to do that! :o)
lff
Kim Andrews
<m...@springequinox.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Good point. I think what I meant was it's not worth getting really heated
>about something that's still in the realm of speculation. Save the flames
>for something a bit meatier (I think my mind must be straying to BBQs in
>this hot weather).
Not even a slight glow here, let alone flames. If you mean the letter
to Channel 4, well if I'd let that wait until the series was finished
a) I'd have forgotten all about it and b) it wouldn't have looked like
much of a protest umpty-ump weeks late!
Linda Fox
wrote:
>What do other umrats think, especially the teachers among you, about the
>programme ? All contributions and opinions welcome - although Kim and I
>are having a good war^Hbattle^Hdiscussion here, we're also exchanging
>friendly emails in the background too, so we're not really at each
>others throats :)
I haven't been able to see either of the first two programmes, so I'm
very unsure about what the brief for the programme makers actually
was; but ISTM that if one of the motives behind it was to show how
very different school was in those days, and not just to show the
viewers, but to bring it home to the participating children -
otherwise why not just use actors? - then having the rules somehow
sprung on them (or not having them put to them emphatically
beforehand) is a very good way of bringing home to them quite
forcefully how much things have changed. After all, this is not a
whole new permanent way of life for these kids, is it? It's more or
less an educational game. And were they punished for infringements?
Some of the strictures which have disappeared nowadays would quite
likely have been caning offences, but judging by Brritski's earlier
comments, the "reality" didn't go that far.
As I say, I haven't yet seen any of this series, so my apologies if
I'm barking up entirely the wrong tree. But various umrats' objections
seem to fall into three different categories:
1) It wasn't really as bad as that (particularly the teachers'
demeanour) and is therefore a misrepresentation
2) It _was_ really bad and they are opening up old wounds, and
shouldn't be making light of it
3) These children had been manipulated into a situation where they
should have been briefed more meticulously, and were suffering
needlessly as a result.
I think the first two are quite valid complaints. Until I get to see
the rest of the series I'll reserve judgement on the third, but my
blind, uninformed gut reaction is that there may be a little confusion
here between real life and simulation.
lff
Bernard Earp
>
> While I think that things were a bit too rigid in my schooldays I am
> lucky that I remember them as fairly happy. I'm glad some things have
> changed, but I think we've now gone too far the other way. A few years
> ago I was an Industrial Tutor at my kids' school (an excellent rural
> comprehensive, Foundation school etc) and went in to the class-room a
> few times. I was appalled. They NEVER shut up and listened and the
> teacher didn't bat an eyelid. As I say this was a good school with
> almost all the kids from good, middle-class homes. Incidentally, on one
> of the ski trips I also went on, the kids (14+) were found with lots of
> booze in their rooms - the trip leader went ballistic and had a good
> shout at them all for several minutes. No different today for some
> teachers !
>
When I was 13 (45 years ago) and at a Secondary Modern we went on a School
trip to Spain and at meals in the hotel dinning room we ordered a bottle of
wine for one meal at my table and the teachers at their table did not
comment at all. What they did not know was that we won a lot of bottles of
booze at the funfair and took them back to the boys room which was in the
basement ( the teachers rooms were on the second floor as were the girls)
The fact that that was the holiday when I lost my virginity may have
coloured my memories but we did have a good time . Got back to the beach
one day after a solitary trip around the town and there was this large crowd
of pupils around something that the tide had washed in, I walked over and
asked one lad what the fuss was about. Without turning he said that a body
had been washed ashore and one of the teachers thought it was Bernards body
but it was hard to tell ( we later heard that the body had been in the sea
for three days) then the import of just who's voice had asked got through to
him . Quite a high pitched scream that lad had I remember
Bernard Earp
"K Richard W" <richard....@whitbread.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:bH+OHfAbvqO$Ew...@local.machine...
Bolton School who told me that on the last day of school , the day that they
would be given their certificates one girl turned up with her hair in corn
rows and was told by the girls section headmistress that she would either
had to take them all out and rearrange her hair into an acceptable style or
go home immediately in which case she would not be given her
certificates/diplomas. The girl said it had taken hours to get her hair
that way and was in tears as her friends helped her to get them all out
Stephen GC Tilley
Girls with long hair had to wear it in pigtails at my infants / junior school
(1952-59) I think it must have been part of the anti-nit regime.
--
Stephen Tilley :+: Ste...@Tilley.net
Without work life goes rotten.
But when work is soulless, life stifles and dies. - Albert Camus
Helen Deborah Vecht
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, I'm sure that I heard K Richard W say ...
> >
> >Waiting for Daff's Caff to re-open, badriya living at dragon's lair
> >decided to tell uk.media.radio.archers that
> >>They certainly
> >>wore their hair anyway they wanted to.
> >
> >At my grammar school in the late 60s the girls always disappeared before
> >Geography lessons and appeared with hair tied back to meet the (female)
> >teacher's insistence.
> >
> >I cannot believe that teachers today would even try to enforce such a
> >rule.
> Girls with long hair had to wear it in pigtails at my infants / junior
> school
> (1952-59) I think it must have been part of the anti-nit regime.
Long hair (>shoulder length) had to be tied back, at least for Science &
Games at my secondary (Girls' Grammar & Senior High) school. (1969-1976)
This was for safety, which I thought was eminently sensible. The same
rule applied to the boys. Any hair length was allowed, but was expected
to be 'clean, combed & tidy'. The head decided that as hair could not be
added at a whim, unlike jewellery, he wouldn't impose on the lads.
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
badriya
wrote:
>What do other umrats think, especially the teachers among you, about the
>programme ?
Well, I am a teacher but deliberately opted to teach adults as I don't
like having to keep order. I have taught 16-19 year olds and prefer
adults. Also the young people were the non-academically able group so
less motivated, which often means badly behaved. I don't think a
college is the same as school, particularly a boarding school, but
with anyone you are teaching they have to feel comfortable and relaxed
and interested to learn.
With adults learning basic skills, particularly those I give
additional learning support to or dyslexia support, the main
objective is to make them relax and stop worrying about any problems
they are having with the learning process and to find ways to help
them. My teaching is so far from what was happening on the programme
that it might be why I react very strongly to it.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
badriya
wrote:
> After all, this is not a
>whole new permanent way of life for these kids, is it? It's more or
>less an educational game. And were they punished for infringements?
>Some of the strictures which have disappeared nowadays would quite
>likely have been caning offences, but judging by Brritski's earlier
>comments, the "reality" didn't go that far.
They said at the start they would not cane anyone but there would be
other punishments. The head directed a male teacher to take one boy
and make him undress and stand under a cold shower for 3 minutes, not
to freeze completely but to be very uncomfortable.
The head talked to a girl who had been behaving in some way wrongly at
dinner. I can't remember what she did, perhaps Kim can. He said to
other teachers afterwards he didn't want to break her and stopped
because she had tears in her eyes.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
BrritSki
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:15:12 +0100, BrritSki <Brri...@iname.com>
> wrote:
>
> I shall have to indulge in major snippage
Me too.
> .... but it's useful to see your view of it.
Likewise
>
> Then we'll have to disagree. I have no problem with believing that
> the programme makers might not have been as open and honest as they
> could be for the sake of making a "better" TV show.
No neither do I. I also have no problem believing that kids were told
what to expect and didn't take any notice !
>
>
> They're not going to tell us the secrets of how they manipulated the
> children, any more than they'll tell us when "ad lib" comedy shows are
> rehearsed, quiz shows are rigged or any other little trade secrets
> that are "none of our business".
Probably true, but they might surprise us with a private letter...
although they told us BEFOREHAND to wait six weeks :)
>
> >Secondly, they weren't surprised with arbitrary rules anyway. They were
> >told about sweets and tuck and given an opportunity to hand things in. I
>
> You seem to be convinced that "told when they arrived" is the same as
> "explained well in advance". When a fifties child arrived at school
> it will already have known most of what was going to happen to it,
> because that was the culture of the day. Arriving from a 2003
> environment and being told *now* hand it over, is not the same thing
> at all. You seem to want to claim that they *were* warned, while using
> events on-site as evidence!? We saw them being told they could not
> keep tuck. At this point they were *ALREADY THERE* (ahem, scuse the
> shouting, but I seem to be having trouble communicating this point)
True, I'm confusing being surprised with arbitrary rules and being
surprised at punishment. I said the former but meant the latter above.
>
> >don't think everyone arrived with things btw.
>
> Don't you? Why not? Did we see any children looking smug and saying
> "you should have read the rule sheet?" I don't remember it.
No neither do I :(
>
> > And maybe the rules for
> >some things were ambiguous - if they said make-up wasn't allowed would
> >everyone understand that included moisturiser, gel and deodorant ? Many
>
> Probably not. Perhaps some rules were explained and were ambiguous...
> given that the rules were being presented by expert adults for the
> consumption of clueless children, in what way is that better?
It's not better, but it depends whether it was done deliberately to
confuse or not, and in the name of entertainment.
>
> >chose not to hand things in knowing the rule and as was shown last night
> >are still hiding things. As an aside - if they were going for cheap
> >confrontations the camera crew would have told the teachers when they
> >raided the dorms after lights out where the tuck, deodorants and so on
> >were hidden - they didn't.
>
> At a rough guess, more difficult to film, more difficult to make look
> convincing, and unnecessary when the kids were giving themselves away
> so easily (a sure sign they didn't realise how serious it was).
>
Yes but they weren't giving themselves away easily - they had several
stashes that only the crew knew about. They filmed the raid anyway so
wouldn't have been more difficult, and if you think the teachers are all
acting a part (or do you think they only hired sadists ? :) ), why would
they find it difficult to be convincing or even want to appear that way
?
The only thing I could think of was that it would have made the kids
less likely to confide in the camera if they'd realised what had
happened. I prefer to believe that they were not out to deliberately
confront and bully, but when things did happen, they would come down
hard just as would have happened in the '50s, at least some of the time.
>
> It's a part of the truth. But it doesn't justify the things I've been
> complaining about. And yes, I accept totally that this is all based
> on my assumptions, but my assumptions are based on the evidence *as I
> saw it* and may well be valid.
Agreed, and also applicable to my assumptions too :)
> >
> >but obviously you and Vicky reacted differently. That's a shame because
> >you're missing some interesting points in the rest of the prog.
>
> That sounds a little condescending, but I don't think you mean it that
Of course I did ! Stop being so girly !!! :)))
Seriously, no I didn't mean to condescend - I was genuinely surprised at
your reaction and it made me think about what I'd seen and re-evaluate
it. I didn't come into the thread until I'd watched the second epi.
keeping in mind your comments. Things like "patently false and rehearsed
behaviour and contrived situations where the single aim appears to be to
humiliate and ridicule the children in the name of "entertainment". just
weren't (IMO) supported by the second prog. and were a bit strong even
for the first (again IMO).
>
> >The other teachers came over better in their teaching environments too
> >and in to-camera pieces with no kids present.
>
> Good. Is the headmaster still a prick, and the matron a
> cardboard-cutout harridan? ;o)
> >
Yes and no. She showed a human side when one of the girls was in tears
having received no mail.
>
> Sssshhhh... you'll ruin our street cred!!
We've got any left ???
M...@mygaff0.demon.co.uk
Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> There was *no* possible reason for not telling the children in advance
>> what these sanctions were, and what rules they would be used to
>> enforce, other than our tittilation. I can see no way in which
>> suprising the students with restrictions adds to the validity of the
>> experiment.
>
>I didn't watch either of the programs, so I can only comment based on
>the reports which have been made here. Based on those though, I would
>say that failing to tell the children the rules in advance actually
>detracts considerably from any validity of the experiment.
>
>The point of having strictly enforced boundaries is that the children
>know what they can and can't do and understand the kind of sanctions
>which will be imposed if they break the rules. This is very different
>from having apparently random punishments inflicted on you for breaking
>rules you never knew existed.
>
Not having watched either programme (and therefore being totally
unqualified to comment, but this is umra) all I have to contribute is
briefing ATC cadets for camp (where they had daily room inspections).
The little nuggers were *told* what to expect - they still pushed the
boundaries (not that I necessarily deplore this) and they still (and
really) whinged when told "No, your room is a disgrace - you will *not*
be allowed to do "X, Y or Z"". IME, the gels got away with far more
than the chaps.
--
Min
So where are all the buffaloes?
Rosemary Miskin
<bad...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> But girls did not have to wear pigtails. They certainly
> wore their hair anyway they wanted to.
As I've said, I was at boarding school 1958-1964 and our hair was firmly
regulated: it either had to be short enough not to touch the collars of our
shirt-style blouses, or worn in plaits - bunches or pony-tails were only
allowed in the evening, when we were allowed to wear our own clothes. (Two
'suitable' outfits permitted each term, and never worn away from our
boarding-house)
Rosemary
--
Rosemary Miskin ZFC LVI mis...@argonet.co.uk
Loughborough, UK http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/miskin
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>> I shall have to indulge in major snippage
>
>Me too.
>
You thought *that* was major...
>> .... but it's useful to see your view of it.
>
>Likewise
Yep, and enjoyed reading it this time too, but I think we're just
repeating ourselves now. I don't really have much extra I can add to
support my (already over-stated!) view, so I shall shut up until a)
somebody comes up with something new or b) the next episode airs and
we have some new evidence to chew over. Interesting chat though, ta.
Kim Andrews
wrote:
>
>The head talked to a girl who had been behaving in some way wrongly at
>dinner. I can't remember what she did, perhaps Kim can.
She'd apparently been a bit too opinionated (we didn't see this) and
had been "showing off", which seemed to consist of pulling faces about
how bad she thought the food was. Bad manners, certainly. But I was
very uncomfortable about the zeal and glee expressed by the teachers
when discussing her punishment. This was one of those occasions when
I felt they were looking very false and rather rehearsed. I felt
they'd previously discussed how effective (for TV) a telling off and
keeping behind would be at dinner, and were looking for any excuse to
use the scene as rehearsed. This girl was the nearest they could
find, so they pounced.
> He said to
>other teachers afterwards he didn't want to break her and stopped
>because she had tears in her eyes.
Yes, wasn't he just *so* pleased with his oh so wonderful
consideration. Creep.
BrritSki
We had rugby and cross-country in winter and cricket, athletics and
tennis in the summer. Swimming all year round I think. One afternooon a
week for the whole year. 2 PE periods at other times of the week in the
gym. School had playing fields and tennis courts attached but these were
only used for the school teams. Rest of us were bussed to offsite
fields.
School had a very good rep. for rugby. I have fond memories of playing
rugby against David Duckham in a house match. I don't think I or anyone
else ever touched him, let alone tackled him :(
Gumrat
>> wasn't expecting a haircut. Nobody else said that and I'm sure
>> there'd have been lots of protests if they were all getting a
>> surprise. I think it was more likely that they were all told and
>> one of them hadn't noticed.
>
>
>
> I do remember boys being told off if their hair was too long, but
> certainly wore their hair anyway they wanted to.
>
seventies - pigtails themselves were not mandatory for girls, but hair
was clearly not allowed to be in one's face, so those of us with long
hair had to wear either plaits or a pony-tail/single plait well scraped
back from the face, often with an Alice-band to complete the ugly
effect. Maybe that was just my covent schooling.
I watched just a bit of the second programme (it clashes with TWW) and
wasn't in the least bit surprised or shocked by what I saw - it rang
true to what I would imagine happened during the Fifties, albeit as
compared to my day-schooling in the Sixties and Seventies. In one way,
it seems to me that life then was much easier, being more regimented,
as children didn't have to make as many decisions for themselves, the
rules were there and to be adhered to. Nowadays, I think children are
forced to grow up emotionally and physically much earlier and I pity
them for their lost childhoods (childrenhood?). I'm not saying it was
idyllic, by a long chalk, but it's certainly not so nowadays, either.
IYSWIM.
All the best,
Anne, Gumrat.
Carole Appleyard
Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>wrote:
>
>> There was *no* possible reason for not telling the children in advance
>> what these sanctions were, and what rules they would be used to
>> enforce, other than our tittilation. I can see no way in which
>> suprising the students with restrictions adds to the validity of the
>> experiment.
When I taught I was surprised by how many children _and their parents_
thought that rules did not apply to them. So if I specifically stated
that they were not to bring chocolate on a school trip (melts and is a
pain to clean up, bad for travel sickness) parents were quite capable of
complaining to me when I confiscated it until going home time.
>
>I didn't watch either of the programs, so I can only comment based on
>the reports which have been made here. Based on those though, I would
>say that failing to tell the children the rules in advance actually
>detracts considerably from any validity of the experiment.
>
We have watched the most recent programme and thought what a nice bunch
of YP they were. I think they seem to have a good idea what the
boundaries now are, but some are pushing at them.
>The point of having strictly enforced boundaries is that the children
>know what they can and can't do and understand the kind of sanctions
>which will be imposed if they break the rules. This is very different
>from having apparently random punishments inflicted on you for breaking
>rules you never knew existed.
>
At sons' school some parents refuse to allow their children to stay for
an after school detention. This does not help them understand sanctions
- and leads to much resentment.
--
Carole
Rosemary Miskin
<j...@cedarbank81.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Also forbidden was the wearing of "peep-toe" sandals, coloured tights,
our uniform included a particular shade of a particular make of stockings -
this was before tights were readily available. Shoes were of a particular
pair of designs - indoor and outdoor - and had to be brown.
badriya
wrote:
>> Good. Is the headmaster still a prick, and the matron a
>> cardboard-cutout harridan? ;o)
>> >
>Yes and no. She showed a human side when one of the girls was in tears
>having received no mail.
>>
Could it be that as the teachers are as unused to this situation as
the pupils they gave cariacature performances as they were unable to
naturally act strictly?
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
badriya
wrote:
>
>We had rugby and cross-country in winter and cricket, athletics and
>tennis in the summer.
Oh we had to run round the block every now and then, out on the street
in navy blue knickers and I hated that. And we had some cross-country
running and I hated that and managed to get out of it. The teacher
asked me if I "had a dicky ticker" and I said no I just got out of
breath. I think I got a black book for refusing to run round the
block one day. That meant they sent you to the headmaster who put
your name in a black book.
Our gym teacher was like Joyce Grenfell in St Trinians. She wore a
divided skirt all the time, so did we but not for running round in the
street, and she was hearty.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
badriya
<mis...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Qz+rKOE+orO$Ew...@cedarbank81.fsnet.co.uk>, Jenny M Benson
><j...@cedarbank81.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Also forbidden was the wearing of "peep-toe" sandals, coloured tights,
>
>our uniform included a particular shade of a particular make of stockings -
>this was before tights were readily available. Shoes were of a particular
>pair of designs - indoor and outdoor - and had to be brown.
>
>Rosemary
We lived next door to the school and I had wanted to go there from the
age of about 8, partly because I was lazy and could then leave home at
10 to 9 and be early, and partly because it was a good grammar school,
so getting the uniform was my badge of honour. The excitment had worn
off by the lower sixth and I sold my blazer to my cousin who joined
the school then. My mother was not amused.
Vicky
--
Cybergypsy
Paradise Island Barchap
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:50:16 +0100, BrritSki <Brri...@iname.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >We had rugby and cross-country in winter and cricket, athletics and
> >tennis in the summer.
>
> Oh we had to run round the block every now and then, out on the street
> in navy blue knickers and I hated that. And we had some cross-country
> running and I hated that and managed to get out of it. The teacher
> asked me if I "had a dicky ticker" and I said no I just got out of
> breath.
You'd not want to get caught with an attack of Spoonerism there, I'd
think.
> I think I got a black book for refusing to run round the
> block one day. That meant they sent you to the headmaster who put
> your name in a black book.
>
> Our gym teacher was like Joyce Grenfell in St Trinians. She wore a
> divided skirt all the time, so did we but not for running round in the
> street, and she was hearty.
"George....don't do that".
Paradise Island Barchap
> I must have started school in the sixties and was there till the mid
> seventies - pigtails themselves were not mandatory for girls, but hair
> was clearly not allowed to be in one's face, so those of us with long
> hair had to wear either plaits or a pony-tail/single plait well scraped
> back from the face, often with an Alice-band to complete the ugly
> effect. Maybe that was just my covent schooling.
>
> I watched just a bit of the second programme (it clashes with TWW) and
> wasn't in the least bit surprised or shocked by what I saw - it rang
> true to what I would imagine happened during the Fifties, albeit as
> compared to my day-schooling in the Sixties and Seventies. In one way,
> it seems to me that life then was much easier, being more regimented,
> as children didn't have to make as many decisions for themselves, the
> rules were there and to be adhered to. Nowadays, I think children are
> forced to grow up emotionally and physically much earlier and I pity
> them for their lost childhoods (childrenhood?). I'm not saying it was
> idyllic, by a long chalk, but it's certainly not so nowadays, either.
> IYSWIM.
I think we were incredibly lucky growing up in the 50s and 60s,
partly for the reasons you mention (essentially, a feeling of security)
and also because things _appeared_ to be improving all the time.
K Richard W
Family decided to tell uk.media.radio.archers that
>At sons' school some parents refuse to allow their children to stay for
>an after school detention. This does not help them understand sanctions
>- and leads to much resentment.
But in the 60's (and at a different grammar school to the one previously
mentioned) I was subjected to a detention the same day.
This was highly unfair - I had a 30 minute bus ride home and would
arrive home an hour late, which meant that my parents would be
exceptionally worried.
And without a mobile phone there was not way of letting them know (I was
either 11 or 12) but the teachers were incapable of recognising that
pupils travelled some distance. There was the time we were set homework
for completion the following day - so had to be done that night - which
entailed a visit to a library for a suitable reference book. I was
extremely peeved that the teacher could not discern what he had done
that was so unfair.
--
Kosmo Richard W
SNELLSS
Penny
scrawled in the dust...
>When I taught I was surprised by how many children _and their parents_
>thought that rules did not apply to them. So if I specifically stated
>that they were not to bring chocolate on a school trip (melts and is a
>pain to clean up, bad for travel sickness) parents were quite capable of
>complaining to me when I confiscated it until going home time.
You shouldn't have been surprised - look at all the drivers who don't think
the rules apply to them :(
IME (of writing letters to parents about trips and such) at least half the
parents never get the letters and half who do don't actually read them.
--
Penny
Laughter is the dance of the spirit and the music of the soul.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.bigwig.net/umra/nicks.html
Linda Fox
<mi...@ellwoods.org.uk> wrote:
>"George....don't do that".
Our newer, younger reception class teacher, who is only about 23, did
actually say that in class in front of me; she's never heard of the
Joyce Grenfell sketch, and wondered why I started giggling.
She _certainly_ knows the sketch now!
lff
Siderius Nuncius
Carole Appleyard wrote in message ...
>When I taught I was surprised by how many children _and their parents_
>thought that rules did not apply to them. So if I specifically stated
>that they were not to bring chocolate on a school trip (melts and is a
>pain to clean up, bad for travel sickness) parents were quite capable of
>complaining to me when I confiscated it until going home time.
<sigh>
Oh, how true. One can guarantee storms of applause from an audience of
parents if one takes a firm stance on good behaviour. And one can guarantee
that several of the applauders will create merry hell if the school takes
any disciplinary action against *their* child for misbehaviour.
And the other disturbing thing I noticed from a lot of kids was this: I
would say very clearly to a student something like "If you come into this
room again during break, I shall contact your home and keep you in
detention." They would then re-enter and be caught. "Right," say I, "
you're in detention and I'm going to ring your home. You were told exactly
what would happen". And the student would be genuinely shocked and say
"Yeah, but....." and then peter out in puzzled fury. Plainly the idea that
an adult would actually implement a threatened sanction was wholly alien to
them.
I blame these deuced horseless carriages. No good will come of them, you
mark my words.
--
Grumpy Old Sid
Shepherds Bush, West London
Neil Hopkins
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 23:20:33 +0100, Paradise Island Barchap
What was George doing?
--
neil h.
Anya : "I provide much needed sarcasm"
Xbox live : neil hopkins
BrritSki
>
> I blame these deuced horseless carriages. No good will come of them, you
> mark my words.
Absolutely - back to the Tilbury sez I !