Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Jacksgranda]

13 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

 

 

Without straying even further from the topic, I'll just quickly reply to this and I'll spoiler tag it so people can skip it.

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

It's fair to say Standard Grade needed refreshed (in the late 90s/early 2000s, SG Physics still had bits about how a black and white TV worked) but many teachers feel SG was a good qualification. Everyone found their level, Foundation, General or Credit and there was a decent structure in place. However there was the problem of pupils who got a Foundation or General finding their level in a subject capped as they couldn't cope with Highers. Intermediate 1 and 2 were partly brought in to try and offer people a progression in a subject (you could do Int 1 OR SG in a subject then do Int 2 before Higher as a "bridge" if you found the jump too high) but sadly there were loads of problems. The jump from Int 1 to Int 2 was far too high in some subjects, in some cases just as bad if not worse than the jump from SG to Higher. The qualification was also inequitable - Int 2 Physics was a lot harder than SG but in Maths it was the other way round, meaning the lower ability kids actually did Int 2 rather than SG and had to then make a huge leap if they wanted to do Higher Maths. It also led to some schools putting lots of Int 1 classes together of poorer ability or pupils with behaviour issues which meant they became a dumping ground. I think Intermediates were quite unpopular and the only benefit people saw was the introduction of Access level qualifications below that which meant that pupils who really struggled or were in Departments of Additional Support at least gained some qualifications. The Nationals are a bit of a hybrid but even in their short lifespan there have been changes in terms of internal assessment (which the government like as its cheaper than external assessment) and some course content. There has also been a shift towards National Progression Awards in some schools which means yet more course development and changing of timetable structures etc. In the Junior School, 5-14 was OK in theory but you're never going to get all Primary Schools covering all the experiences and outcomes especially in subject specific areas such as Science and Languages Languages which means a lot if S1 and S2 was covering work that should have been done in Primary. IMO, CfE has almost made this worse as a lot of Primary schools do more work on confidence and responsibility and the 4 "capactities" rather than the basics of Maths, English, Science and other core subjects. So the newer S1 and 2 pupils may be confident and know how to make a Power Point up and know about rights and so on (which are all good things, don't get me wrong) but can't count or read or write or are able to study or plan or work on their own or concentrate on one piece of work for more than about 10 minutes. On top of all the curricular things, behaviour management has totally changed to the idea of restorative practices (which doesn't work for a lot of pupils, but - I kid you not, when queried about one aspect of it at a meeting on my school, a depute said "Well, if you look at the study done in the Canadian Prison Service..." As you can imagine you could have heard the guffaws from down the corridor) and schools are almost forbidden from excluding pupils unless they do something so terrible they have no choice. So yeah, to answer your point, a lot of changes have been needed but they haven't always been managed in the best way and the pace of change has been very challenging with a new course to be written and assessed almost every year or 2 years for at least a decade.

 

Thanks, but I'm really not much the wiser! 

You should have just posted the bolded bit! 

[alta-pete]

16 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

 

 

Without straying even further from the topic, I'll just quickly reply to this and I'll spoiler tag it so people can skip it.

 

 

  Hide contents

It's fair to say Standard Grade needed refreshed (in the late 90s/early 2000s, SG Physics still had bits about how a black and white TV worked) but many teachers feel SG was a good qualification. Everyone found their level, Foundation, General or Credit and there was a decent structure in place. However there was the problem of pupils who got a Foundation or General finding their level in a subject capped as they couldn't cope with Highers. Intermediate 1 and 2 were partly brought in to try and offer people a progression in a subject (you could do Int 1 OR SG in a subject then do Int 2 before Higher as a "bridge" if you found the jump too high) but sadly there were loads of problems. The jump from Int 1 to Int 2 was far too high in some subjects, in some cases just as bad if not worse than the jump from SG to Higher. The qualification was also inequitable - Int 2 Physics was a lot harder than SG but in Maths it was the other way round, meaning the lower ability kids actually did Int 2 rather than SG and had to then make a huge leap if they wanted to do Higher Maths. It also led to some schools putting lots of Int 1 classes together of poorer ability or pupils with behaviour issues which meant they became a dumping ground. I think Intermediates were quite unpopular and the only benefit people saw was the introduction of Access level qualifications below that which meant that pupils who really struggled or were in Departments of Additional Support at least gained some qualifications. The Nationals are a bit of a hybrid but even in their short lifespan there have been changes in terms of internal assessment (which the government like as its cheaper than external assessment) and some course content. There has also been a shift towards National Progression Awards in some schools which means yet more course development and changing of timetable structures etc. In the Junior School, 5-14 was OK in theory but you're never going to get all Primary Schools covering all the experiences and outcomes especially in subject specific areas such as Science and Languages Languages which means a lot if S1 and S2 was covering work that should have been done in Primary. IMO, CfE has almost made this worse as a lot of Primary schools do more work on confidence and responsibility and the 4 "capactities" rather than the basics of Maths, English, Science and other core subjects. So the newer S1 and 2 pupils may be confident and know how to make a Power Point up and know about rights and so on (which are all good things, don't get me wrong) but can't count or read or write or are able to study or plan or work on their own or concentrate on one piece of work for more than about 10 minutes. On top of all the curricular things, behaviour management has totally changed to the idea of restorative practices (which doesn't work for a lot of pupils, but - I kid you not, when queried about one aspect of it at a meeting on my school, a depute said "Well, if you look at the study done in the Canadian Prison Service..." As you can imagine you could have heard the guffaws from down the corridor) and schools are almost forbidden from excluding pupils unless they do something so terrible they have no choice. So yeah, to answer your point, a lot of changes have been needed but they haven't always been managed in the best way and the pace of change has been very challenging with a new course to be written and assessed almost every year or 2 years for at least a decade.

 

Please tell me you aren't a teacher of English!

[Wee Willie]

22 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

Some political debates can get very virulent.

[D.A.F.C]

Does anyone actually believe the Government are still listening to the scientists and the medical experts at this point, like they claim they are doing?

The same scientists who u-turned on everything they advised?
I'd ignore them as well tbh.

Mass gatherings, herd immunity, no face masks and testing is pointless apparently.

Oh no, actually they're all important. Oops 100,000 deaths. My bad.

[Gordon EF]

1 hour ago, MixuFruit said:

a silver lining.

 

 

[D.A.F.C]

Jennie Harries yesterday basically telling people to stop being scared and return to work said it all. She’s done and said whatever has been expected of her.

Shes a liar.

[craigkillie]

57 minutes ago, Steven W said:

I've merely repeated what I saw on TV this morning and posted a link to a report on it from the Irish Times. I'm guessing you never saw the piece this morning, but chap mentioned several times that he didn't think that children were able to spread the virus. 

As I said, this allied with the Swiss study is of significance I'd have thought. You seem to be quite dismissive of it.

The point is that you don't have a clue about this guy's credentials, what this study is about or what the results actually say, but you've decided that it should "have an enormous bearing on how we proceed with this".

[Mark Connolly]

42 minutes ago, madwullie said:

Bets for what Swinney is going to say today? 

I reckon he'll go down the We would like to open normally and we're not ruling that out, but there is a high chance we won't be able to so that needs to be planned for. 

It's easier to plan for 2m etc and open normally than open normally then try to change. That's basically what we have right now and everyone agrees that's a shit show

It's an opportunity to have a contingency plan in place should there be a second wave in the autumn, or, more likely, in case anything like this ever happens again.

They were massively caught out with the "we're either in school or we're not approach", so schools and councils having multiple different models planned and available is surely a good thing, even if it is just business as usual in August, or by the October week at the latest.

I'd hope he'd say something along the lines of "We hope to be as close to the usual model as possible in August, but just in case... ", but he won't.

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

It's an opportunity to have a contingency plan in place should there be a second wave in the autumn, or, more likely, in case anything like this ever happens again.

They were massively caught out with the "we're either in school or we're not approach", so schools and councils having multiple different models planned and available is surely a good thing, even if it is just business as usual in August, or by the October week at the latest.

I'd hope he'd say something along the lines of "We hope to be as close to the usual model as possible in August, but just in case... ", but he won't.

So much better than having "multiple similar models" in my experience.

[Steven W]

4 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The point is that you don't have a clue about this guy's credentials, what this study is about or what the results actually say, but you've decided that it should "have an enormous bearing on how we proceed with this".

Whit?

He's from Belfast Uni. He wasn't some boy they'd dragged off the street. 

Jeezo...

[craigkillie]

Just now, Steven W said:

Whit?

He's from Belfast Uni. He wasn't some boy they'd dragged off the street. 

Jeezo...

Working for a university doesn't automatically make you an expert on everything. Source: I work at a university.

[Mark Connolly]

8 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

So much better than having "multiple similar models" in my experience.

You would not survive in my office then.

Endless meetings where 5 people put forward the same idea worded slightly differently, yet none of them realise.

[The Moonster]

25 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

The same scientists who u-turned on everything they advised?
I'd ignore them as well tbh.

Mass gatherings, herd immunity, no face masks and testing is pointless apparently.

Oh no, actually they're all important. Oops 100,000 deaths. My bad.

Yeah, a couple of scientists have demolished their reputation to help toe a political party line so lets just ignore every scientist in the world.

[Steven W]

39 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Working for a university doesn't automatically make you an expert on everything. Source: I work at a university.

Posting on a football forum doesn't automatically make you an expert on everything. Source: I post on a football forum.

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, Musketeer Gripweed said:

Does anyone actually believe the Government are still listening to the scientists and the medical experts at this point, like they claim they are doing?

I believe they are. But it will be along the lines of what level of risk they deem acceptable rather than what carries the least / no risk.

I believe it was the European WHO guy from (I think) Denmark who said that every decision made in coming out of lockdown is politically driven. There is no better way to highlight this than looking at the contrasting approaches of WM & SG. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by Todd_is_God

[alta-pete]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I believe they are. But it will be along the lines of what level of risk they deem acceptable rather than what carries the least / no risk.

I believe it was the European WHO guy from (I think) Denmark who said that every decision made in coming out of lockdown is politically driven. There is no better way to highlight this than looking at the contrasting approaches of WM & SG. 

It is being widely quoted that Boris's announcement at lunchtime brings the four nations back onto the same path.

It was only a day or so ago that Nicola was saying relaxing the 2m rule was 'reckless'. Today she says she's is 'looking at all options'.

I said from the start of this that she had little material room for manoeuvre and when big calls are being made, so its been proven.

[vikingTON]

As sure as night falls day, the media's newly resident scientist of doom pops with another 'well, accccccctually' hot take:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/22/pandemic-zero-coronavirus-britain

Now, you may well be convinced by her ideal world, public health argument but this:

Quote

The public needs to be convinced that the short-term pain is worth it, including continued physical distancing from others, use of face masks when distancing is not possible, and putting aside short-term self-interest for a few more months.

demonstrates that she is actually living in cloud cuckoo land. No government of any stripe is going to convince the public to endure just 'a few more months' of this pish. No idea where she thinks the money is going to come from to keep this going either, which is why listening to The Science alone is really not the best policy. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by vikingTON

[D.A.F.C]

Yeah, a couple of scientists have demolished their reputation to help toe a political party line so lets just ignore every scientist in the world.

Did I say that? Said the opposite, they've got all of that wrong.

[dirty dingus]

1 hour ago, mizfit said:

 

 

Jennie Harries yesterday basically telling people to stop being scared and return to work said it all. She’s done and said whatever has been expected of her.

 

 

Jenny Harries is a government mouthpiece

When the UK stopped tesing folk she infered the WHO advice to ‘test, test, test’ wasn’t applicable to the U.K. and was intended for developing countries.

Jenny Harries said this week that “there comes a point in a pandemic where that is not an appropriate intervention” and that Britain had always planned to focus on testing those who were admitted to hospital.

Dr Jenny Harries told the Commons Health Select Committee that “if we had unlimited capacity we would have done differently”.

So instead of standing up as a doctor and giving facts she spun a lie for the governments lack of preparedness .

[D.A.F.C]

Jenny Harries is a government mouthpiece
When the UK stopped tesing folk she infered the WHO advice to ‘test, test, test’ wasn’t applicable to the U.K. and was intended for developing countries.
Jenny Harries said this week that “there comes a point in a pandemic where that is not an appropriate intervention” and that Britain had always planned to focus on testing those who were admitted to hospital.
Dr Jenny Harries told the Commons Health Select Committee that “if we had unlimited capacity we would have done differently”.
So instead of standing up as a doctor and giving facts she spun a lie for the governments lack of preparedness .

Really dont get why she would lie, it's not like she can get promoted or advance as shes already at the top.
The whole world of politics is filled with liars now who flip flop between what they say within hours without even flinching.
The entire process has been amateurish from the start. Just admit we weren't setup to cope rather than lying about scientific advice. For their political future they let people mingle in large crowds. Some have died as a result.