Opinions like this are based on the 'fixed pie' fallacy even though its not said explicitly.
The argument is that she's 'taken so much and she's only 'giving back' a tiny portion.
But that's nonsense. Most of her wealth is in share value, no one'handed' her that money, nor did she 'take' it.
She created it out of thin air by running a profitable business which then takes on a value of its own.
When we say that a business person 'made' money, its often literally. Their net worth is not made up if other peoples money which they took / earned / stole, and then kept like Scrooge McCarthy Duck, the MADE it. It didn't exist, then it came into existence (at least one paper) and they are the reason why that happened.
And when you realise that, the world changes. Rich people didn't TAKE money, they MADE it, and when they give some away they're not 'giving back' what they took,they're sharing the wealth the created.
Hot takes like this one are just the outbursts of ungrateful snotty nosed kids for whom EVERYTHING would still not be enough.
The government who put a tax on independent school fees is not to blame for dividing people and creating class wars, it's the 'right wing' people who object to it who are to blame.
Whatever you think of the tax, this a great example of doublethink.
This is one reason why it’s so critical for teachers to have a mental model of how learning happens. When you know for example that the overwhelming consensus of cognitive psychologists is that knowledge deeply encoded in long-term memory & readily accessible facilitates higher order thinking you should be instantly skeptical of, say, Boaler-esque research claiming to have found the opposite. You don’t have to dismiss it out of hand but your first reaction should be: that is very surprising & goes against consensus. Let me look closer…
If you have something to say, say it.
If you don’t like what someone else has said, criticise it or ignore it.
However, criticising the *way* someone says something—they’re too strident, flippant etc—is pointless and adds nothing.
@JamesMelville@sequi_simon How can you think critically without the knowledge required to think with? Better to teach kids to know things, and then teach them how to use those things.
When using the Concrete->Pictorial->Abstract model for teaching math, the abstract stage is not optional. It is the goal.
Concrete and pictorial representations are there to support the transition, not to replace symbolic fluency.
This is the kind of academic posturing which turns literacy into everything except the ability to actually read. By inflating “literacy rights” into a lofty catalogue of entitlements about identity, participation, and democracy, these statements displace the one right that should be non‑negotiable: that children leave school able to read accurately, fluently, and with understanding.
https://t.co/cR3PSgs0zg
@greg_ashman Thanks for the quick reply. It’s a form of project based learning. XP Trust schools in the UK are based around their philosophy. They boast seemingly great results for low socioeconomic students.
Teaching reading for pleasure is like teaching driving for pleasure. If you can’t drive, it’s no fun at all. Function precedes appreciation, and competence precedes confidence.
No, but I recycle them very well.
I also have Cognitive Load Theory: A Little Guide for Teachers.
Again, available at all good retailers. Get your copy now.