Rowena Hopkins

The climate has changed dramatically over the eons but that said it has not changed as rapidly as it is doing presently. Spring flowers are blooming a full fortnight earlier in western Canada than they did 100 years ago. Some might say thats great because it means longers summers but in fact it just means that plant shoots emerge earlier than get wiped out by the frost. Changing climates do not guarantee a steady, predictable climate. In the past at times of dramatic climate change mass extinctions have occurred and the outcome is that the highly developed and specialised organisms are wiped out whilst those more adapted to more extreme conditions survive. Whilst we would like to consider ourselves clever enough to be in category two we are more likely to be in category one. If the temperature drops dramatically in the UK (which is likely to occur due to changing ocean circulation patterns) you will all freeze to death because the insulation of your homes is drastically inadequate, or if the temperature increases ever a few degrees the same thing will happen as happened in France in the summer- old people will be dying by the dozen due to the lack of air conditioning! Not so smart or adaptable are we?! The result will not be a world peopled by super smart humans but cockroaches or primitive molluscs. Global warming is also not an isolated issue. It is linked to over consumption and by anyones standards we CANNOT maintain the lifestyle we in developed countries have any longer. Quality of life should not be measured by whether we have the latest technology in our living room, but by whether we can breath the air and have time to spend with our children. We are being sold a life that does not benefit anyone bar a select rich few. Rowena

Hi Andy, The reason that I originally made a post on this particular forum was to raise awareness of the lack of politeness in certain postings. And that was it. I wanted people to know that some regular posters such as myself consider it important to behave in a mature and pleasant way when conducting debates even when being in complete disagreement with other forum members. The point that Ulrike has brought up I also happen to agree with though I wouldn't have said it relates to this particular thread... more the JFK one. That said, for most of us who just skim read the postings and topics its not so easy to identify where exactly our posting should go. For example, I made a posting realting to Obesity in Schools only to find that it had been discussed already! Certain topics and points of view do dominate the forum largely due to the amount of time that these people have. A similar thing has occurred in my own group website for returned teachers from Rwanda where the majority of the postings are my own and whilst I strive to make them as relevant as possible to other members, at times I am way off and get complaints. As a result I post a poll and ask forum members to vote on whether to include certain things and invariably my postings get removed or that topic avoided in future. In short, it is very difficult to please everyone and when you are trying your hardest its easy to get offended when people think you are way off, but its essential to step back and ask who the forum is for. If it if for you, then continue as before. If it is a public forum then its a good idea to listen to the public! I don't think anyone is trying to take control of the forum out of anyone elses hands we are simply expressing our opinions as politely as possible in the hope that they will be taken into account. I still check this forum as often as I have time to but I do get frustrated when topics such as Obesity in school are concluded in the space of 6 posts, whilst JFK goes on for ever! They are both VERY important issues but I would say that one has a closer link to education than the other. That said I enjoy most of the political debates and wouldn't want to see them go but I have to agree with Ulrike and say that what satrts off as an interesting general debate often ends up with a very narrow ( and anti certain americans) focus. It is not that these views should not be expressed, more that the people expressing them need to take into account that they post more frequently than others so their views do tend to take over a bit (like mine in my own forum). Sometimes its good to sit back a bit and listen to others and if postings slow down then add something to spice it up a little! That said, these views are purely my own and I am more than happy for you to disagree with me, politely! Rowena

Hi Adrian, the incidences I'm refering to involve people 'bashing' you rather than the other way round. I hope that is less ambiguous, Rowena

Andy, I am not refering to incidences of racism or sexual harassment, merely to the way people conduct themselves and the level of respect they show for each other and each others views. For example, I would not expect someone to describe my views as ‘ridiculous’, ‘poppy-cock’ or anything else of that nature. It is enough to say ‘I disagree’. We could also all do to avoid stereotyping based on contributors countries of origin or residence. Not everyone in the UK loves Tony Blair, so why assume that those in America adore George 'Dubya' Bush? Whilst I appreciate that there are processes in place in order to report postings of a defamatory or indecent nature this merely protects users against what is said, not how it is said. I have contacts who organise a children’s parliament and one of the rules of the parliament is to treat each other with respect. However, as one of the children pointed out, why don’t members of the ‘real’ parliament behave in the same way? I myself have not been ‘heckled’ on this forum, but I do feel uncomfortable for those who have, Sincerely, Rowena

Dear all, I do not check this forum as often as many of you and perhaps that is why I have noticed a recent slide into pettiness and general fight picking. The main instances revolve around Adrian Dingle. I may not like all of this man's views and have argued against him in several debates, but I do not feel the need to pick a personal fight with him just because I see his name. I have also read several instances of effective 'name calling' by experienced members that have not been picked up on and yet have at times put me off contributing. It seems to be the case at present that if certain people even say 'hello' they are jumped up and down on, and yet others are allowed to be downright rude and because of who they are they get away with it. Could we all please refocus on the issues and not just use this as an opportunity to bash someone because we've had a bad day!? Take care, Rowena

You might be interested to know that in Canada rewards are being offered, by a mental health charity, to people who spot the use of offensive and degrading references to people with mental health problems in the media. The result has been two fold. A backlash by those in favour of 'free speech' who see nothing wrong with calling people 'nutters' 'mental' 'bonkers' or whatever, and increased awareness of mental health issues. I think its a great idea. Why is it bad to call someone a 'paki' or 'n' or 'spastic' but perfectly OK to laugh at the idea of someone being 'loopy'? It certainly provides opportunity to examine our prejudices. Rowena

I have to agree. I've not read a single word of the JFK debates, as interesting as they might be, because its all a bit lost on me. Even today there are three educational posts vs about 15 JFK ones! I, like many others I suspect, have only read the educational ones. Rowena

I'm sorry but I must disagree with Eeyores comment regarding poor voter turnout. It may well be the case that in the US people are so trusting of their leaders (because clearly if you aren't you are unpatriotic!) that they will passively sit there and allow anyone who fancies taking over the country to do just that, however, in the UK I have never voted for the party I genuinely belived in and instead voted against the party that I disliked the most. For example, I voted Labour when I was at university because I didn't want a conservative government again. I would much rather have voted Liberal or Green, but at that time and in that place I knew that it would have been a 'wasted vote'. The result of 'first past the post' elections is governments that no-one really believes in, but 'are better than the alternative'. That reason alone is enough to stop people voting because they know that their vote carries no weight, or worse, elects a party whose politics they don't believe in. Currently in Canada our choices lie between a Liberal government who are reeling from an embezzelment scandal, and a Conservative Opposition of total nutters! What is the point in voting for either of them?! The CBC have just screened a show called 'Screw the Vote' which is supposed to counter voter apathy in the young, however, even if it does get them excited about voting for five minutes, the minute they start to evaluate their options (fraudster vs fascist) we will be back to square one. In the words of a very wise man, "Don't vote, the Government will get in". Rowena

The Indian elections, as I understand it, were not without their troubles. Rioting resulted in very poor turn outs in some regions and in Lucknow where women were offered saris in return for their votes some women were trampled to death in the crush that ensued. That said, I was joyful to see the pleasentness with which the handover of power is being handled. I always breath a sign of relief when the elected party is allowed to step into its new role unimpeded. It was also wonderful to read interviews with the poor and uneducated who had strong views about who they would like to see in power and who they felt would be good for the country. They had a genuine belief thet their voted counted, which is more than I can say! I would like to add that Europe is hardly free of Megalomaniacs in politics. Take Italy...I could be here for days!! The trouble with America is that the outcome of an election, that very few Americans vote in and very few people even understand the politics of the people they are voting for, is a government that does not only control America but controls the world. For that reason alone it is essential that democracy prevails in as unflawed a form as possible. As an aside, a colleague from my college in Oxford is writing a paper on democracy at the moment regarding the fact that no modern country is democratic by the original definition of democracy. In order to be truely democratic people need to be selected at random from the population to preform tightly constrained roles in government. That way a true cross section of the population controls the country rather than those who have the money to get themselves noticed. Any comments on this idea!? Rowena

Adrian, What can I say?! Sorry, I should encourage my students to give answers that the examiners expect them to give in order to be more 'in the spirit of the exam'. You forget that whilst examiners may enjoy setting questions very few students out there enjoy taking them, so I can't imagine what 'the spirit of the exam' might be! Perhaps in a perfect world where our said copper coin sat in splendid isolation for several hundred years then the only coating on the coin might be copper oxide, but in the real world I suspect that there might be a few skin cells on there, perhaps even some oil, grease, bacteria and goodness knows what else. Certainly in Biology we refuse to place coins on agar plates to grow micro-organisms for fear that all sorts of nasty lurgies might be bred. This suggests that there is more than just copper oxide encrusting our coins and that the students who wrote 'dirt' (lacking the necessary vocabulary at the age of 11 to describe dead skins cells and oils in detail) were every bit as right as the few kids who wrote 'copper oxide'. Copper Oxide may well have been what the examiner was looking for and there is no doubt that some might be some to be found on said coin, but that does not mean that it is completely impossible to find 'dirt' there also. Moving away from this particular instance - just because a child cannot read an examiners mind and has not chosen the answer that the examer had hoped for, does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, and being forced to mark the answers as such and then explain to the students that whilst they were perfectly correct, their answer was supposedly wrong and I would have to dock them precious marks as a result is not a pleasant task. Surely Chemistry of all things is supposed to be about the real world? Rowena

I have to say that, as a Chemistry teacher, much of chemistry teaching and examining in NOT about straightforward factual recall, and this is the reason that so many students fail chemistry so horrendoursly and consider it to be the most difficult subject of all. Example. One chemistry practical involved heating a piece of copper metal in a bunsen burner flame. After some time the copper became coated with black copper oxide. We wrote balanced equations on the board showing that the copper reacted with oxygen in the air to produce copper oxide. We dicussed why this happened and why we used the flame. All well and good. In the exam the students were shown a picture of a new copper penny and an old copper penny and asked to suggest the identity of the black coating on the old penny. 70% of the students replied 'dirt'. The examiners wanted them to say 'copper oxide'. So, we have two choices. 1. We teach the students EVERY SINGLE possible exam question scenario to make sure that all bases are covered, so in the weeks before the exam I should at some point have specifically told them the 'fact' that the coating you find on old copper coins is copper oxide. 2. We teach them how to figure things out, relate events involving similar things, apply logic etc etc I would opt for number 2, but its hard work and even harder work when the rest of the school (including the science deparment) are teaching individual unrelated facts to be stored in a big pile in their overflowing brains. I think we'd all be doing each other a huge favour if we did teach skills as well as the required basic facts, it can ony help. And I did actually think that dirt was a pretty sensible answer.... but sadly it wasn't on the list of acceptable answers. Rowena

The conference that I am involved in organising at the moment has the theme of Education for the 21st century and whilst peace, global and spritual education are large aspects of the conference there will also be discussions and talks about making education relevant and appopriate. I think this ties in with your questions to some extent. So the link below is for the Council for Global Education http://www.globaleducation.org/ and this one is for City montessori school in Lucknow India. The worlds largest school which has won awards for its peace mandate and promotion of the belief that there is more to education than 'lernin' stuff'. http://www.cmseducation.org/ this link is for the conference, but as you can see the details about the latest one are not up there yet http://www.globaleducationconference.org/ I will be posting more on the conference when the website is up and running to give others the opportunity of attending. Rowena

Even within established universities standards are changing. For example, when I graduated from Oxford in 1997 only three Geology students gained firsts (out of a class of 30). Last year 10 students gained firsts (out of the same class size). It could be that students are miraculously becoming brighter, or it could be that tradionally a higher percentage of students gained firsts in Chemistry and physics and so the Earth Sciences applications were dwindling so they changed the grade boundaries to redress the balance. The message they are now sending is 'come and study Earth sciences and you are more likely to get a first', and I think that message is being sent out by other universities too. Rowena

Here in Canada there is no school uniform, something which I did think that I would find very confusing but I have yet to find any difficultly distinguishing the students from the teachers. For one thing the teachers are invariably very unfashionable and for another they dress far more tidily! I used to believe that a lack of uniform would indeed stigmatise the less well off students but having seen students in class here I have no idea who is better off then who. They all look equally disreputable! In fact I saw more evidence of status symbols (stupid tiny handbags replacing pencilcases and ridiculous footwear) in British school than I have seen over here. And the best bit is that unless they bare so much flesh as to be indecent, its not my problem! Long gone are the days of trying to decide whether to confiscate a ring or not because its large, but flat.... The kids that try to push the rules to their limits know the rules better than we do, so why waste time fighting them? They are going to spend the rest of their lives conforming, let them rebel now in a way which is extremely harmless and allows us to worry about more important things. One of the best acts of rebellion I've seen here is a group of young men deciding to wear suits to school in order to be 'different'. If its not dangerous or pornographic, then what's the harm in it? Rowena

DfID (department for international development) and CIDA (Canadian international development association) and many other development organisatios spend silly amounts of money each year sending teachers over to developing countries to 'help'. Those teachers return home feeling that either They were no help at all They helped some people but not many They did help but that the experience benefitted them more than the people that they were sent to help That they perform a more important task when they return home, in the form of advocacy work and awareness raising I would probably place myself in the third category and I would argue that, if that is the case, then surely it would make more sense to bring teachers from developing countries over to the UK or Canada, or wherever becasue that way the money spent would surely benefit the right people and any advocacy work can be done by the teachers from the developing country and not well meaning white folks. Sadly, there is little/no funding available for that kind of thing and if people want to do this they have to hold fundraisers in their schools. The reason being that for DfID or CIDA to fund anything, that funding must benefit the British or the Canadian economy. Even as an advocacy worker if I were to apply for some money from CIDA to put together some worksheets about global education I MUST include evidence of the good work that CIDA is doing in international development. I could almost accept that if I were applying for funding from Shell, which after all is a business, but CIDA funds come from the tax payer and are supposed to be spent on altruistic projects not on promoting the Canadian government. Am I just being cynical, or is current 'development education' developing the wrong countries? Rowena

Ah yes, I did look for any other posts about obesity before posting this one but I must have got distracted by the problems in Alabama schools! Still, the last time the discussion didn't really get very far and I'm sure there there is more to be said about the issue.... particularly with respect to what can be done, rather than just noticing that there is a problem and that it is wide spread. Personally I'd be interested to hear if any schools have installed healthy eating vending machines and whether they had any success with them. Rowena

People in developed countries are getting fatter and most alarmingly kids are getting fattest the most rapidly. Now there is nothing wrong with having a bit of puppy fat but what can we do when kids are becoming so obese that they risk having a heart attack by the ages of 30? I believe that significant change needs to be made in the following areas Physical education school dinners modes of transport to and from schools promoting a healthy lifestyle through science education and food technology building 20 story schools with no elevators(!?!) Not selling off our playing fields to build housing estates having healthy food in the school vending machines I'm sure that there are many more (please feel free to add to this short list) and I would love to hear about any initiatives that are taking place in your schools and their success rates.

Last year I found myself once again teaching a biology topic at KS3 entitled 'nutrition and health'. I decided that this was a wonderful opportunity to ask students to examine their own lifestyles particularly bearing in mind that obesity is becoming a huge (no pun intended) issue for the younger generation. However, I was advised against asking the students to keep a 'food and exercise' diary because it would stigmatise those from less affluent backgrounds who were not able to eat well. I disagreed but in the end compromised by comparing the lifestyle of a 'typical' British student to that of a 'typical' Rwandan student. Needless to say the fat content of a british diet was considerably more than that of a Rwandan whilst the time spent exercising was considerably less. During the class discussion it became apparent that the less well off students who often ate skittles or mars bars for breakfast exercised less due to having access to satelite TV and many computer games....leading me to ask why, if the parents can afford satelite TV, why can they feed their kids veggies and fruit?'. So, my question is, do we grab the bull by the horns and teach kids how to look after their health at the risk of temporarily making them feel bad about themselves, or do we sit back and allow them to die early due to ignorance? OK, so the question is biased and you can tell what my answer is but I love to hear some other views. Rowena

Hmmm, I wonder what use 'the market' has for historians, or sociologists, philosophers, or an abundance of musicians...... but wouldn't the world be a dull place if it was peopled solely by engineers and dentists?! I like to think that curricula are designed with more in mind than filling factories with willing workers. Promoting social harmony for example... but perhaps we need less of that because economies so often thrive during times of conflict. ... A world driven purely by market forces would surely be a dismal place, Rowena

Do you think we can have an option for 'in the ether' or perhaps the opportunity to have more than one vote? I live in Canada and do some ESL tutoring here but the majority of my work is now done online for organisations in India, Iceland and Rwanda! Rowena

As a woman who is not affraid of a good debate I would like to make it clear that my reasons for not contributing to every single forum on a daily basis can be classified as follows. a) I actually have other things to do with my time! Some issues are completely lost on me - such as the whole JFK thing. I have no opinions on the matter as it all happened so long ago and I'm a little more wrapped up in current events. c) I enjoy bashing the keys on issues that I do feel strongly about but, like Maggie, I also like to sit back and read the views of others. I would like to add that I love computers and online discussions because of their sexless/ageless nature which allows me to feel more equal than I would in a room full of people debating the same subjects. For one thing, I'm able to get a word in edgeways and my voice doesn't sound ridiculously high pitched and child-like compared to the men! Rowena

I certainly agree that separate muslim schools is not the answer, but surely by banning the hijab in main stream schools muslim girls are being driven into separate muslim schools. Whether the hijab is a symbol of equality or oppression we have to accept that a huge number of muslim girls either have to wear them or choose to. By telling them that they are not allowed to you are either denying them the rights that the rest of us enjoy (freedom of religion) or putting them in greater danger. At least if óppressed' girls are in main stream school an eye can be kept on their well being, if they are taken out of the public eye then who knows what will happen to them and what kind of education they will get. Integration will certainly not be the result. By banning the hijab in school we are oppressing the oppressed and not the oppressor. Its as if the French Government want the problem to become invisible so that they no longer have to face it on a daily basis. Rowena

I think that it is more important that science is interesting. To a sad Chemistry geek such as myself, interesting might mean challenging, fun, or simply something that makes you go 'ooh!'. To most kids interesting simply means 'fun'. Bear in mind that the average attension span is 20 minutes and if you need to rattle on at them for longer than that the chances are it needs to be fun or you are talking to thin air...plus a handful of geeks. Rowena

I am not an expert on Islam but Muslim friends have led me to understand that the faith of Islam in no way disciminates against women. In fact some of the basic 'rules' of islam which in a modern society could well be considered discriminatory were in fact put into place either to protect women, to provided them with a more equal standing or as a response to health issues. Please correct me if you feel that I am wrong but I see the hijab as something that has the potential to emancipate women not subjugate them. The hijab takes away issues of beauty. Beautiful people are often considered to be more intellegent interesting people and they command more attention in the classroom and the workplace. Women spend an inordinate ammount of time making themselve appear more beautiful in order to gain that attention - I should know! Take the issue of beauty and indeed sexuality away and all women are equal. Take the pressure to be beautiful away and women can focus on 'more important' things such as academic acheivement. Electronic communication works in the same way. When you read this you are reading my words and listening to my arguement and not staring at my breasts! Of course you could argue that in that case men should also all dress the same, but the fact of the matter is that ugly men are taken as seriously as beautiful ones...perhaps more so! Men and women are different and society needs to accept that, in order to understand that, as women, we do not need or want to be treated like men, because we are not men. We simply want to be taken seriously as women and communicating via the internet allows that to happen.... the hijab technically should have the same result. Ultimately I think this arguement boils down to what we consider to be 'normal'. My Grandmother did not wear trousers or jewelery for 50 years because she was married to a methodist. Did anyone notice? Of course not becasue she looked 'normal'. The Plymouth Brethrin stand out with their headscarves and long skirts which are designed to 'cover their modesty' but when long skirts and headscarfs came into fashion a few years ago they temporarily became 'normal'. Were the hijab the fashion statement of the season then maybe we would be making less of a fuss about whether they should be worn or not. Why does this appear to be an issue about women? Becasue men don't usually wear chothes that expost their chests, legs or middles and so men can stop wearing their cultural atire, dress in western clothes and still remain modest. Turbans are one exception to this rule, surely if all religious symbols in schools are banned then this would ammount to discrimination against men! Secularism is only important when trying to cope with overbearing powerful religious organisations. It can be a threat to minorities. Were I in their position my reaction might well be to take myself off to a school where I CAN dress how I choose and wear my hijab or my turban.... but surely that will lead to REDUCED integration not enhanced. Alienating minorities is not a solution to societies problems. They will simply take thier lifestyles, arranged marriages etc etc out of main stream society to where, when women rights are suppressed by etremists, they cannot seek help. Certainly at a time like this when Muslims the world over are feeling very vulnerable we are not helping them to feel welcome in our society. Rowena

In North America the native americans struggle to maintain their ways of life. They have limitations placed on thier lifestyle by environmental rules that some would argue have only had to be brought in as a result of 'immigrant' activities. However in this case the immigrants are the dominant power and frankly I see no concessions being made to the indigenous peoples ways of life. But I guess thats different because these immigrants are white and Christian!