Do knowledge-rich curriculums cause mental health problems? by superwoman @daisychristo.bsky.social
Key takeaways: Beware of using simple correlations as causalities and make comparisons with comparable data!
Question answer: No, they don't.
open.substack.com/pub/daisychr...
Have I interpreted the final lists correctly, in that you suspect Hampshire and the two Sussexes will be left with NOC?
Today I've learned that in French, the Hogwarts sorting hat is called the 'Choixpeau', and I'm delighted!
It's gradually worked its way down, via hubs. 🙄
"School food is the UK’s most important restaurant chain. From September, during term-time schools will provide two-thirds of a child’s daily diet - a massive opportunity to improve health at scale."
This from Jamie Oliver highlights the absurdity of it all really, doesn't it?
Is there any responsibility that can't just be parked at the door of schools?
The government also wants every school to appoint a lead governor to be responsible for school food, as well as asking every school to publish their food policy and menus online.
Oh good. Another new thing to publish online.
And finally a solution to that constant problem of having so many volunteers for governance and not having enough for them to do... Oh hang on...
🙄
Yes this makes more sense to me. I can see having them on display for regular practice of them
I think at 5 I'd worry less about the spelling altogether and let them focus on some of those other basics first
To be fair, my experience is more based on unfamiliar second language vocabulary rather than early writing so I'm open to persuasion
I'd prefer them to be available but not displayed: encourage having a go first then checking if needed. If they're always available, why learn them?
Doesn't displaying trickier words reduce the likelihood of them learning them? 🤔
My experience is that if you ask most children, they've no idea what's on the displays!
You think they learn through displays?
I'm a fan of 'put it up and leave it up' argument
I love a "working wall"
But by that, I mean ordering that laminated lined and squared backing paper and just sticking it up to be used as needed.
Oh wow.
Mind you, like you say, there are probably worse!
The incomprehension is, though, perfectly understandable.
Why are we expecting this of primary teachers?
Robert Jenrick Did you know our big museums are taking money from hardworking families to give cut price deals to those on benefits? Imagine a family coughing up a whacking £108 to go to London Zoo and finding out a chunk of that goes to offer an 80% discount to another family on welfare. It's completely unfair. Reform UK will stop it. Benefit cuts Cost for a family of four to visit London tourist attractions at standard rates, and if one adult is a benefit recipient and so entitled to cheap Universal Credit tickets
Increasingly clear that Reform view anyone on benefits as undeserving. Might as well reintroduce the Victorian workhouse and stop beating about the bush
I don't think your confused understanding of source validity is helping your argument - nor progressing the discussion.
Have a good day.
If rather be thought a fool based on following the evidence, than be one who eschews it.
You are the same as the anti-vaxxers and witch-hunters.
I would if it countered all the other evidence, yes.
And that is entirely the argument that deserves dismissal. If you think that your recollection of something your aunt said carries the same weight as reams of evidence by "posh millennial researchers" then your argument deserves to be laughed at, let alone dismissed.
The substance of your argument is that someone is wrong because your aunt said something different.
That isn't an argument, and it isn't to do with sex. It's to do with basic tenets of accuracy.
I'm dismissive of people who accuse others - outright - of being wrong, without evidence.
Other users might put their argument that it 'sounds more natural' or similar, but you dismissed a perfectly reasonable point because you heard your aunt say something else. Your argument deserves dismissing.
It does when pretty much all of the secondary sources come to the same conclusion.
Where was I rude?
It does indeed sound like it makes more sense, and its current use is near universal now, I'd say.
But that doesn't make the OP wrong as claimed
Indeed. I favour academic research, studious compilation of the history of language, and reputable sources over tales of old ladies. But each to his own, eh?
😂
Actually he specialises in "false etymologies", but no doubt he would have renounced his life works, had he met your aunt
Honestly... I've tried. But she's firmly of the view that her own grandmother's knowledge of the more recent version fully refutes any attested knowledge.