I have been enjoying the annual 6 week holiday that my profession allows (well 5 and a half including considerable preparation time), but I digress into defending my holidays which is not my intention. During my holiday I have taken time to visit a number of places of interest, in my home town, in the countryside surrounding it and in London. Today I visited London for the third time in my holiday and was left pondering the topic of funding our cultural heritage.
I was mainly considering two alternative means of fundraising, both of which have led to the establishment or restoration of some wonderful attractions, but one of them sits with some unease in my conscience.
1. National Trust - a wonderful organisation which I ashamedly say I have been a member of for one year of my adult life, about 4 years ago. I will buy membership soon. Today I visited Sutton House in Hackney, and although I paid the very small fee of £2.90, I realise I should be helping to fund the wonderful work this organisation does.
It is not only what they do, it is sometimes what they prevent. A few years ago, when building the Brighton bypass, they reached Southwick Hill and proposed to cut through the middle of this fine example of nature, but the NT stood up and said "NO" and they had to tunnel. I could go on...
2. Heritage Lottery Fund. I am a long time hater of the National Lottery. It exists outside my consciousness for the most part, except for that brief reminder of the number from all 23 draws that evening just before the start of Match of the Day. A friend of mine once (rather unkindly but not entirely without accuracy) said the lottery was "a tax on the stupid." I prefer to say it is largely a tax on the poor. I do not wish to associate poverty with stupidity, far from it, which is why I tend to distance myself from the former comment.
Perhaps Jarvis Cocker sums it up best (perhaps leaning slightly to my friend's point of view):
Check your lucky numbers.
That much money could drag you under.
Oh, what's the point of being rich?
If you can't think what to do with it?
'Cos your so bleedin' thick?
(Pulp, Mis-shapes, from the album 'Different Class')
Anyway, my hatred of the lottery aside, I must confess before I go on that I did once buy a lottery ticket using the numbers I found on a slip of paper inside a 'bath bomb'. Random, and shameful. I matched no numbers.
I most detest the lottery because it takes from the poor, sells them an impossible dream and lines the pockets of fatcats. And quite often, large amounts of money in the hands of people not counselled in handling it, ruins lives, divides families and arouses envy, jealousy and resentment.
Having said that, the Heritage Lottery Fund has funded many projects I hold personally dear, including the building of a caving complex in our local Scout camp site, and many local and national museums and buildings. In this way, people are paying to help many positive projects off the ground, and society is benefitting.
But does this benefit outweigh the negatives? The fatcats take a large chunk, and those they fool are always left disappointed, either by not winning, or by the lack of satisfaction that winning ultimately provides. It is a tricky question that I haven't completely resolved in my own mind yet. There must be a better way.
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Sunday, 31 May 2009
Luke 12 v 16-21
I have been enjoying the wonders of half term this week, and have been preparing for school, and the other day I had to sort a BIG PILE of paper which had gradually accumulated in a variety of places. So I sought some entertainment during this time, and so watched Deal or No Deal, a good natured study of the effects of greed on everyday people.
When that finished, I sought alternative entertainment and came across a programme called 'DIVIDED' on ITV presented by former Tennis star Andrew Castle. The premise seemed simple enough, 3 strangers work together to answer simple questions that get progressively harder.
Let me explain the contestants.
1) Youngish woman, quite ambitious but intelligent too.
2) Middle aged woman, a little bit non-commital, not too sure, happy to follow others.
3) Middle aged man. Very annoying, shouts over people and always 'knows the answer'.
I will refer to them by number from now on.
The rules were: Each round had a set amount and they had 100m seconds to agree on an answer, during which time the amount they won trickled slowly down. If they answered wrongly, their amount was halved. 3 wrong answers=game over.
After each round they had to agree unanimously whether to carry on or 'bank' (Anne Robinson's lawyers be alerted) what they had won. After round three, annoying bloke 3) wanted out, but the other two, having only lost one life, wanted to carry on. He was furious about carrying on, but slightly less annoyed when they cleared round 4 and 5 and ended up with winnings of £115,000 to be shared equally.
Or so I thought.
No, the clever twist to this game was that they assigned 3 vastly differing amounts of money and each had to agree what they each would take.
I think the money was roughly split £69,000, 34,000, 11,000 or something similar. Each person had 15 seconds to declare what they wanted and why they deserved it.
Unsurprisingly, they all wanted the largest figure. I say unsurprisingly, but I actually thought that annoying twit 3) might say 'well yes I wanted out at £48,000, so you take the most, but no he insisted he had been the best player and deserved the money.
So what followed was... you guessed it... 100 seconds to decide allocation of funds during which time the money they had so brilliantly earned was whittered down.
Such a display of greed, pride and human desperation I haven't seen for a long time. A full blown shouting match, with annoying bloke 3) eventually pleading. In the end, worthy winner 1) said 'I'll take the smallest amount as long as he (3) doesn't get the most.
However, by the time they had agreed this (over a minute it took them), the combined winnings had gone from £115,000 to about £28,000.
I would have said: Let's all keep in touch and write cheques to each other making sure we all get the same eventually' and quickly agreed whatever to keep the money high, but maybe this isn't allowed, or they are just plain dumb.
The whole thing deflated the whole point of the show, seeing all their hard work destroyed by their personal greed. It reminded me of this story Jesus told:
The land of a rich man produced plentifully and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?'
And he said, 'I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.'
But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'
So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich towards God.
When that finished, I sought alternative entertainment and came across a programme called 'DIVIDED' on ITV presented by former Tennis star Andrew Castle. The premise seemed simple enough, 3 strangers work together to answer simple questions that get progressively harder.
Let me explain the contestants.
1) Youngish woman, quite ambitious but intelligent too.
2) Middle aged woman, a little bit non-commital, not too sure, happy to follow others.
3) Middle aged man. Very annoying, shouts over people and always 'knows the answer'.
I will refer to them by number from now on.
The rules were: Each round had a set amount and they had 100m seconds to agree on an answer, during which time the amount they won trickled slowly down. If they answered wrongly, their amount was halved. 3 wrong answers=game over.
After each round they had to agree unanimously whether to carry on or 'bank' (Anne Robinson's lawyers be alerted) what they had won. After round three, annoying bloke 3) wanted out, but the other two, having only lost one life, wanted to carry on. He was furious about carrying on, but slightly less annoyed when they cleared round 4 and 5 and ended up with winnings of £115,000 to be shared equally.
Or so I thought.
No, the clever twist to this game was that they assigned 3 vastly differing amounts of money and each had to agree what they each would take.
I think the money was roughly split £69,000, 34,000, 11,000 or something similar. Each person had 15 seconds to declare what they wanted and why they deserved it.
Unsurprisingly, they all wanted the largest figure. I say unsurprisingly, but I actually thought that annoying twit 3) might say 'well yes I wanted out at £48,000, so you take the most, but no he insisted he had been the best player and deserved the money.
So what followed was... you guessed it... 100 seconds to decide allocation of funds during which time the money they had so brilliantly earned was whittered down.
Such a display of greed, pride and human desperation I haven't seen for a long time. A full blown shouting match, with annoying bloke 3) eventually pleading. In the end, worthy winner 1) said 'I'll take the smallest amount as long as he (3) doesn't get the most.
However, by the time they had agreed this (over a minute it took them), the combined winnings had gone from £115,000 to about £28,000.
I would have said: Let's all keep in touch and write cheques to each other making sure we all get the same eventually' and quickly agreed whatever to keep the money high, but maybe this isn't allowed, or they are just plain dumb.
The whole thing deflated the whole point of the show, seeing all their hard work destroyed by their personal greed. It reminded me of this story Jesus told:
The land of a rich man produced plentifully and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?'
And he said, 'I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.'
But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'
So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich towards God.
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Job!
Today I was offered a permanent job in my current school starting in September! I am a very happy bunny!
Friday, 8 May 2009
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Ticket check pondering....
How do ticket staff on trains know which customers are new to the train and so therefore haven't had their tickets checked?
Do they have special contact lenses which make people appear in different colours according to their ticket checking status?
Do they notice some form of subconscious behaviour or body language in those who haven't had the opportunity to flash the orange and yellow striped wonder?
Do they just have a very strong photographic memory?
Or do they just rely on good natured, honest commuters freely getting out their tickets when they call 'aaaannnnyy unchecked tickets please'...
Maybe the last reason is true because the commuters think one of the other reasons is true. Hmmm...
Do they have special contact lenses which make people appear in different colours according to their ticket checking status?
Do they notice some form of subconscious behaviour or body language in those who haven't had the opportunity to flash the orange and yellow striped wonder?
Do they just have a very strong photographic memory?
Or do they just rely on good natured, honest commuters freely getting out their tickets when they call 'aaaannnnyy unchecked tickets please'...
Maybe the last reason is true because the commuters think one of the other reasons is true. Hmmm...
Sunday, 8 March 2009
Heads, Shoulders, Knees and.... BANG!
I have just returned from my first ever school residential trip. After dozens of similar experiences in Scouting, this was unusual as it involved 31 little people I know in a more formal way from 8.50 to 3.25 every day. So in many ways, I have a deeper relationship with them, knowing them as learners and spending most of my time with them.
My class are a wonderfully behaved class, and there were no problems. There were, however, some highly amusing moments. We had two P.E. student teachers assisting us with the trip, and the moment one of them received a cross in the area in Thursday's pre-breakfast early morning game of footie, only to slip and fall on their buttocks was darn funny. He was a Spurs fan so it was doubly so.
The children undertook raft building from materials including planks of wood, rope and large empty plastic water containers. I oversaw two different groups doing it, and out of the 4 rafts built, one actually managed to stay together. The first session's two rafts though collapsed upon impact with the water, leaving the captains of such unseaworthy vessel to complete the relay race by swimming and dragging 9 large barrels through the pool.
Unfortunately, the school's photo policy forbids me uploading any school photos on the web, so you'll have to use your imagination.
Low ropes was widely agreed to be one of the most fun activities, with the 'squeeze check' (a safety procedure to check Karibenas were locked properly) providing a few giggles from staff. The first session was hampered by a brief and bizarre burst of soft hail that arrived without the usual noise, but was sufficient to make the equipment mildly more hazardous and meant the zip wire couldn't be used. Fortunately, I returned to this activity with another group the following evening and despite the dark, it was even more fun, and I got to ride the zip wire.
Twice.
Confessional time - I have given up chocolate for Lent but alas I succumed on three occasions - chocolate flapjack, pain au chocolat and a massive great big chocolate cake a Teaching Assistant made which was brought up as a 'treat' by the headteacher. I'm back on track now though and haven't touched chocolate since the breakfast pain au chocolat on Friday morning. Yum.
The highlight of my trip, however, was my debut at the wonderful sport of skiing. The fact that a few of my class admitted to having done "6 or 7" week long skiing trips in their 10 short years on this earth gives you some idea of the affluence of my charges' families. Anyway, the first session on Thursday was ok, the instructor was very attractive, and I think this managed to get me through the pain of large ski boots squeezing all the life out of my poor unsuspecting feet. The first session was with a bunch of beginners like myself, and we laboriously walked sideways up a hill to amble gently down, and in some cases crash spectacularly.
One child actually managed to jump out of his skis when attempting his first 'jump'. He jumped forward not straight up, and flew head first towards the cactus-like surface. He bounced though, and was laughing, so that was ok.
Another child, when attempting to sing 'heads shoulders knees and toes' on his descent showed his anatomical knowledge to be sadly lacking, and did it all in the wrong order, leading to a succession of jokes about getting the body parts in the wrong order, led by me of course. When child pointed to their backside and said 'mouth', I couldn't stop the words "Really? No wonder your breath smells so bad!" slipping out, and I instantly regretted it as one of my brighter charges fell about laughing, and then proceeded to explain to everyone what I had said. Oh dear.
On the subject of backsides, one of my girls referred to it as her 'derrierre' (sic) which I found very funny, and when another child asked what on earth she was talking about, she said (in the plummiest voice you can imagine x 3000) 'My bottom'. I was in stitches.
And finally, the moment I share with you my biggest embarrassment of the trip. Well, during my second skiing lesson, with a much more able group, I decided to ski down from a short distance up, but could not prevent a decidedly left bias to my directional movement. No matter what I did, I could not alter my course which ended with a rather spectacular collision with the session instructor, knocking her clean off her skis.
I kid you not. See you at Easter!
My class are a wonderfully behaved class, and there were no problems. There were, however, some highly amusing moments. We had two P.E. student teachers assisting us with the trip, and the moment one of them received a cross in the area in Thursday's pre-breakfast early morning game of footie, only to slip and fall on their buttocks was darn funny. He was a Spurs fan so it was doubly so.
The children undertook raft building from materials including planks of wood, rope and large empty plastic water containers. I oversaw two different groups doing it, and out of the 4 rafts built, one actually managed to stay together. The first session's two rafts though collapsed upon impact with the water, leaving the captains of such unseaworthy vessel to complete the relay race by swimming and dragging 9 large barrels through the pool.
Unfortunately, the school's photo policy forbids me uploading any school photos on the web, so you'll have to use your imagination.
Low ropes was widely agreed to be one of the most fun activities, with the 'squeeze check' (a safety procedure to check Karibenas were locked properly) providing a few giggles from staff. The first session was hampered by a brief and bizarre burst of soft hail that arrived without the usual noise, but was sufficient to make the equipment mildly more hazardous and meant the zip wire couldn't be used. Fortunately, I returned to this activity with another group the following evening and despite the dark, it was even more fun, and I got to ride the zip wire.
Twice.
Confessional time - I have given up chocolate for Lent but alas I succumed on three occasions - chocolate flapjack, pain au chocolat and a massive great big chocolate cake a Teaching Assistant made which was brought up as a 'treat' by the headteacher. I'm back on track now though and haven't touched chocolate since the breakfast pain au chocolat on Friday morning. Yum.
The highlight of my trip, however, was my debut at the wonderful sport of skiing. The fact that a few of my class admitted to having done "6 or 7" week long skiing trips in their 10 short years on this earth gives you some idea of the affluence of my charges' families. Anyway, the first session on Thursday was ok, the instructor was very attractive, and I think this managed to get me through the pain of large ski boots squeezing all the life out of my poor unsuspecting feet. The first session was with a bunch of beginners like myself, and we laboriously walked sideways up a hill to amble gently down, and in some cases crash spectacularly.
One child actually managed to jump out of his skis when attempting his first 'jump'. He jumped forward not straight up, and flew head first towards the cactus-like surface. He bounced though, and was laughing, so that was ok.
Another child, when attempting to sing 'heads shoulders knees and toes' on his descent showed his anatomical knowledge to be sadly lacking, and did it all in the wrong order, leading to a succession of jokes about getting the body parts in the wrong order, led by me of course. When child pointed to their backside and said 'mouth', I couldn't stop the words "Really? No wonder your breath smells so bad!" slipping out, and I instantly regretted it as one of my brighter charges fell about laughing, and then proceeded to explain to everyone what I had said. Oh dear.
On the subject of backsides, one of my girls referred to it as her 'derrierre' (sic) which I found very funny, and when another child asked what on earth she was talking about, she said (in the plummiest voice you can imagine x 3000) 'My bottom'. I was in stitches.
And finally, the moment I share with you my biggest embarrassment of the trip. Well, during my second skiing lesson, with a much more able group, I decided to ski down from a short distance up, but could not prevent a decidedly left bias to my directional movement. No matter what I did, I could not alter my course which ended with a rather spectacular collision with the session instructor, knocking her clean off her skis.
I kid you not. See you at Easter!
Friday, 9 January 2009
Innocence and guesswork
This week I had to give my class a reading and spelling age test.
The reading test involves 86 sentences, each with a word missing and 5 possible alternatives.
Now this starts very easy and gets progressively more difficult.
For example:
Question 1: She could _______ him with the computer.
Make help jump water ship.
Question 85: Fortunately, her regular _________, which were an essential part of the covert operation, had not been detected.
assignations, adieus, infatuations, coagulations, mastications
N.B. This is a test for 9-10 year olds!!
Anyway, I decided to use the commute home to complete some marking, and one or two ‘wrong’ guesses from some of my pupils made me laugh out loud.
A few examples of the combination of childhood ignorance and innocence and slightly unfortunate guesswork: (I have included correct answers in brackets).
In a park, children play on sweets (swings)
When you stand in the sunshine, you can often see your oblong on the ground. (Shadow).
We sometimes dream when we are away. […with the fairies…???] (asleep)
They spilt the milk and had to wipe the roof. (floor)
The hottest season of the year is holiday! (Summer)
The drum is one of the oldest mathematical instruments. (musical)
The farmer destroyed her fields into 8 equal parts. (divided).
A clarinet is a musical experiment. (instrument)
Switzerland is a momentous country. (Mountainous).
The boy observed his opposition in the shop window. (Reflection).
Dolphins are said to be inescapable creatures. (intelligent).
There were plans for the assassination of the children of London at the outbreak of war. (evacuation)
The rebels wanted to overthrow the government by starting a redemption. (revolution).
The doctor made a correct ambulance. (diagnosis).
The elephants regularly renovated themselves with water (doused).
It was common before Victorian times for drinking water to be purified by domestic waste and industrial effluence. (contaminated).
The reading test involves 86 sentences, each with a word missing and 5 possible alternatives.
Now this starts very easy and gets progressively more difficult.
For example:
Question 1: She could _______ him with the computer.
Make help jump water ship.
Question 85: Fortunately, her regular _________, which were an essential part of the covert operation, had not been detected.
assignations, adieus, infatuations, coagulations, mastications
N.B. This is a test for 9-10 year olds!!
Anyway, I decided to use the commute home to complete some marking, and one or two ‘wrong’ guesses from some of my pupils made me laugh out loud.
A few examples of the combination of childhood ignorance and innocence and slightly unfortunate guesswork: (I have included correct answers in brackets).
In a park, children play on sweets (swings)
When you stand in the sunshine, you can often see your oblong on the ground. (Shadow).
We sometimes dream when we are away. […with the fairies…???] (asleep)
They spilt the milk and had to wipe the roof. (floor)
The hottest season of the year is holiday! (Summer)
The drum is one of the oldest mathematical instruments. (musical)
The farmer destroyed her fields into 8 equal parts. (divided).
A clarinet is a musical experiment. (instrument)
Switzerland is a momentous country. (Mountainous).
The boy observed his opposition in the shop window. (Reflection).
Dolphins are said to be inescapable creatures. (intelligent).
There were plans for the assassination of the children of London at the outbreak of war. (evacuation)
The rebels wanted to overthrow the government by starting a redemption. (revolution).
The doctor made a correct ambulance. (diagnosis).
The elephants regularly renovated themselves with water (doused).
It was common before Victorian times for drinking water to be purified by domestic waste and industrial effluence. (contaminated).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
