Search results for:

Some truth in that.

I'll take it, East tomorrow or early through Town?

The Doctor's coffee is legendary...

That would be Rob, in his 'Gay Bons'.

.

Someone who looked alot like Spaghoops and actually said "hey Steve" as he crossed Coldharbour Lane but he was wearing baby blue Raybans which the real 'hoops would never do.

Fake Hoopenger? In Jeckle 'Bans...

The Fixie-Skider and the pro-Peleton at LMNH, Tour starts, RAY!

You Gorgeous Man!
HB P (0r DJ).

Question rather than suggestion from me at this point:

A key question for me is how seriously to take the assessment and awarding of 'level 2'.

The stated requirement is "The trainee should be able to demonstrate the outcomes below consistently".
In reality most of the primary school pupils I teach don't consistently look before crossing a road as a pedestrian, let alone consistently deliver the level 2 outcomes.

Different age groups are at different levels of development - levels of spatial awareness and moving from a world of play to a more 'adult' understanding of life.

So, what percentage of year 5 pupils doing level two in a) the autumn term and b) the summer term would be reasonably expected to pass level 2?

And similarly for year 6?

To what extent do existing providers award level 2 for having attended the full course rather than for demonstrating a good understanding? Is that a better approach for the 'National Standard'?

How about when most of a group muddle their way to a kind of level 2 status but there's a kid who has learning difficulties and works hard but consistently cocks things up that you nurture through the course. Do you not give them level 2, or do you discuss with their teacher whether it would be more appropriate to award level 2 so they're seen to have achieved as their peers have done while making it clear to the school that they aren't consistent really?

Should level 2 be about making good steps towards understanding on-road cycling or a test of competence (like a mini driving test). Most of the kids I teach don't have competence to ride on the road after a four session course.

If it's a test of competence who's checking the instructors aren't fudging the awarding of level 2. If it's not then it doesn't much matter.

For me the rule of thumb is; if these were my own kids would I believe that they are going to behave safely and be able to consistently deliver the outcomes? If not I fail at level two, otherwise I have put my name to a lie about someone's child's safety and could potentially be a contributory factor in that child's death. The work we do is a very serious business and if we don't take it seriously I don't think we should do it at all.

Jayloo, elegantly drifting past me (I was a builderger) on Lambert this morning, 'Morning lady, go set some boundries with the agenda-less...

Happy Birthday Duder!

I worship you Dude.

Ow.

Goodnight.

Sleep well sweet prince.

Hope you enjoyed a mad adventure Mate.

Should be on the high 300s?
Just five short hours to go Mate...

Go Hippy!

Hope he's managing to eat...

Fuckin' do it Mate!

A married batchelor?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdSy0TAhsjA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdSy0TAhsjA[/ame
]

6th Aug, Garage...

You Fucking brutes! I am in awe.

I really think the World is a poorer place for his passing...

As I read it Digger if you call someone a waste of resources you are suggesting the world would be better off without them. Are you sure it's me that got caught up in the argument?

That's as you read it WW, there are many resources wasted all the time, I'm really not about to presume on the basis of an internet post that he should be expelled from the planet and now I'm caught up in your argument.

Mendacious? There are many people who believe Thatcher did great things for peace and freedom. Whether you agree or not is not the point. They will be offended by the glee that is expressed when Thatcher dies just in the way other people are offended by apparent satisfaction that Haw has died.

Yes, you are right there WW, but those people of whom you speak aren't good or intelligent people are they now?

I will assume this is satire.

Please don't.

Do you ever find WW that you get caught up in the argument and lose sight of the point?

Mendacious? There are many people who believe Thatcher did great things for peace and freedom. Whether you agree or not is not the point. They will be offended by the glee that is expressed when Thatcher dies just in the way other people are offended by apparent satisfaction that Haw has died.

Yes, you are right there WW, but those people of whom you speak aren't good or intelligent people are they now?