The laughingly named ‘skills-based curriculum’ was a joke, so it’s no surprise Labour wants it re-instated. It often allows ignorant teachers with poor subject knowledge – usually badly educated – to grandstand at the expense of pupils. These preen as “outstanding teachers” but their results tell a different story, as does a quick conversation about their supposed specialism. Non-teachers would be astounded how many are teaching with virtually no knowledge, love or ability for their subject. I know of a Head of English at my old school who’d never heard of T. S. Eliot – I was asked, were they male or female?
Roughly half of my 18 years teaching English in a comprehensive was spent under the disastrous ‘skills-based’ regime. I was constantly admonished for “too much teacher talk” and told “we don’t want the sage on the stage but a guide on the side”. I avowedly rejected this – with frequent run-ins – but they couldn’t fire me since I got good results. And I knew a lot about my subject, always dripping it into lessons. Most but not all of my colleagues were badly read and cowardly. If I sound arrogant, I don’t care: I’ve the scars from so many battles that it’s the only way if one is the sole non left-liberal in such a monoculture. Too many have acquiesced for too long.
Payback was in lesson observations, which (until Gove’s changes) involved teachers prancing around like speed-taking stand-ups, rather than teaching. Supposedly, pupils needed to self-educate through ‘Assessment for Learning’. In reality, most hated the cringe-worthy approach: endless group work; role playing; peer-assessment; self-assessment; et al. They wanted their teachers to TEACH. In particular, individual writing skills were always neglected.
After about 2014, someone noticed that hardly any pupils could think for themselves, or express themselves verbally, let alone on the page. Posters and trivia like that don’t help in exams. Nor do silly gimmicks involving handing out playing cards, sweets and traffic light hats. These got gushing praise from the useless Ofsted inspectors, but short-changed pupils in what really mattered – their education.
Small surprise if the party of indoctrination and trans-activism reverts to this. One look at David Lammy – our leading Tudor numerologist, with his Mastermind slot claiming Henry VII succeeded Henry VIII – shows that poor educational standards and Labour are synonymous.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Net Zero was simply waved through parliament without a single question asked by any politician of any major party as to the cost/benefit, and that comes as no surprise as the cost is estimated to be about one and a half trillion. The last 3 prime Ministers have since committed the country to Net Zero with not the slightest clue how it can be achieved. So we leap straight into the unknown at a time of energy insecurity, astronomical price rises and a cost of living disaster, and there has been NO DEBATE. The public were NEVER consulted. This is being done by diktat for ideological purposes and it would terrify people should they realise that this could collapse the UK economy by costing astronomical sums for no real benefit to people. Government have NEVER explained to the public why they think this is necessary, apart from the usual soundbites about “saving the planet” and thinking about “our children and grandchildren etc etc.
Just like all the COVID, measures then.
Waved through with no thought, no scrutiny.
Boris Johnson’s cheese and wine though, that really got them engaged.
Our MPs, they can be relied on to focus on the small meaningless stuff they understand and ignore the big important things the poor dolts can’t wrap their useless little brains around.
Shaking the mammaries at midnight in Westminster – beyond the pale, immoral, unsightly, disgusting.
2.5 years of fascistic rolling LDs, terror, stabbing, diapering, totalitarian force, SADS, LD murders, record suicides, Nuremberg code binned – no reaction.
Fav footie team loses – braveheart reaction. Willing to fight and die.
Freedom gone – agrees and cites ‘science’. Goes back to NetShitz.
Great post, late on. deserves many upticks.
Trouble is with a referendum – can you imagine what the campaign would be like? The lies, the doom-mongering, the threats?
Having said that, anything which threatens to hold these charlatans to account has my support.
Meanwhile my next car will be petrol/diesel – anyone who falls for the electric car hype deserves what they get – doesn’t stand a minute’s scrutiny.
They will just ignore the result anyway – look at the last one.
Yes lies, doom-mongering just like Brexit, but most important those numerous scientists, engineers, economists who challenge the whole Climagheddon narrative would for the first time be able to speak publicly and refute those lies and computer model predictions and be the reported in the MSM, even the on the BBC.
Another poll around next March will see vastly different results when the Winter fuel bills land and people realise that ‘net zero’ means the government simply steals our money as we are trying to stay warm in our homes.
Meanwhile:
China To Double Coal-Fired Power Plant Capacity… Aims to Avoid European, U.S. Blunders
Imposing Net Zero policy on everyone is collectivism, regardless of whether the decision is made by a technocrat or a popular majority.
Neither makes it right.
Good point, though I suppose you could see all government policy as collectivist to an extent (which is why I tend to think government should do as little as possible).
If a referendum were held, the Government and the ‘scientists’ would have to publish their evidence that:
1) Shows Earth’s temperatures increasing at a rate significantly beyond the small incremental increases seen over the last few thousand years post-Ice Age.
2) Current and predicted temperatures are ‘unprecedented’.
3) Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the unique or dominant driver of changes in the Earth’s heat budget.
4) Evidence that predicted temperatures will lead to catastrophic change in the climate system.
5) The proportion of global warming/climate change caused by Human activity v natural causes.
(Computer models not allowed.)
Since they have no evidence to show that, and evidence from observation refutes all their claims, it is unlikely a referendum ever will be undertaken. .
If Nett Zero was the answer (to what? I don’t know..). Then the simple fact is that we can’t declare this unilaterally and have any effect other than showing a tiny reduction in the global sense. It is a reduction that other nations are already more than replacing by their decisions to continue using fossil fuels in increasing amounts, so we are in effect sacrificing our housing, our transport, our economies and our progress for nothing at all.
However, none of this means that there will be a proper discussion. Evidence will be over-ruled by feelings, rhetoric and propaganda, and any referendum will come down hard on ‘Carry on to Nett Zero’. What a ‘carry on’ indeed…
I hear Greta Thunberg is suing her government because they have not gone as far as she wanted to save the planet. Its incredible that someone who has never held a proper job and no I don’t think her role as a self appointed climate ambassador is a proper job. Someone has been paying her a wage as she is now worth around $1m which is insulting to those who actually do work for a living.
Thunturd the border line retarded half wit is in many ways the perfect spokesclown for the climategeddon cult.
Well something tells me that no mainstream party will offer this unless somehow they are looking for a way out of commitments given, but it seems like they are too wedded to it for that. Or perhaps if they feel there are a lot of votes to be won or lost – I suppose it could be a good campaigning plank for a right of centre party looking to take votes from the Tories.
I’m not sure a referendum is appropriate though. With Brexit, I think there was a legitimate question of how we saw the political future of our nation, and its sovereignty. You could have an opinion on it based on your vision. Not sure the same can be said for Net Zero, which should be a much more empirical question.
Our salvation will not arrive via the ballot box.
I agree – I have lost all faith in our parliament and government’s representatives.
Referendums are usually won by the group which has more success in getting its members to vote. And the group of climate hysterics will doubtlessly have a high turnout. This is also simply not a legitimate question for such a vote: Do you want humans to stop using fire to generate heat in the UK to save the planet? [*] is just idiocy and not something one can have an informed opinion on. Maybe fire will kill us all one day. The ancestors of today’s climate warriors have certainly been preaching about this since the neolithic. But without fire, we’ll certainly all die earlier.
[*] Yes, this is really this general. Fire is an exothermic reaction turning carbon contained in some material, eg, coal or wood, into gaseous carbon dioxide.
“it would damage public trust…”
He’s having a giraffe, right?
He is with his apt surname opposite to us who will be Skidding less not more ! Tw-t !
I’d rather we followed the Swiss and have a referendum for all really important government decisions as we can no longer trust our government’s decisions any longer.
I wouldn’t trust a referendum on Net Zero any further than I could toss the caber like Geoff Capes. In this day and age, any attempt at trying to gain a mandate from the people is bound to be riven with faults and corruption so that TPTB get the result they want. If it is shown that 51% of people want us to continue down the NZ route then that will amount to a landslide, definitive decision if we are to use the original Brexit referendum as the model and we’ll all be locked into something that will ruin our country and our lives. Who gets to define the parameters of such a referendum? Who gets to make sure it is fair and above board? How is it done even? Furthermore, will there be TV debates with climate alarmists vs real climate scientists because then we can get to see the real meat and potatoes of the arguments and the paper tigers of the alarmists.
Whatever happens, even if a noticable and genuine number of humanity voted in any referendum reliable or otherwise, it would be pre-empted by a mass lies and propaganda programme via the puppet MSM who have discovered just how easily the opinions of the masses can be manipulated. Following which the good old (lets be generous) 80-20 rule would present itself yet again. 80% sheeple, 20% the rest.
It’s f-cking insane is what it is ! We are under siege from all angles , Neil Oliver made a point about tptb want open borders ( they all signed up to stuff in Morroco don’t forget ,T. May wielded our pen that day ) with digital ID for everyone & no distinction between a multi generational ancestral uk family & an air filled boat load of newcomers !!..
Only 44%?? It just goes to show that the majority of those surveyed are totally dim. As for Skidmore, his name brings to mind those skidmarks seen in the undergarments of those whose personal hygiene was not of the highest quality.
And does the advertiser pushing solar panels on here really believe this audience is the best one for their products?!! Their media buyer is either incompetent or having a laugh!
They have no mandate for Net Zero since every Party “offers” the same policy. However a Referendum will never be held and if it was, by the time the BBC and Global Institutions pushing the policy pile in with their blatant propaganda, it could well be lost.
Best to make it very, very clear to your MP (and regardless of your other political opinions) that you won’t vote for a Party which is pursuing Net Zero.
That’s what I’ve done.