20 January 2002
Well, it’s good news for the consultants
First the good news: government ministers have realised that the main reason teachers are leaving the profession in droves is the appalling behaviour of a sizeable minority of pupils. Now the bad news: they are bringing in consultants to sort it out.
“An army of behaviour consultants”, no less, is going to be employed by local authorities to help schools tackle unruly children as part of a Government campaign to get to grips with secondary education.
In my experience, consultants in general do only one thing well: make money for themselves. I hope this is a different breed of consultant, but somehow I doubt it. I also doubt whether it will be one of the items listed by the county council when they ask us what we’d like to axe to keep our council tax down.
Perhaps even more annoying – the whole bad-behaviour problem has been created by successive governments. Over the past couple of decades teachers have been deprived of almost every method of imposing discipline.
They are not allowed to touch children for fear of being charged with assault, and now it seems they cannot put pupils in detention without some silly girl claiming she’s being victimised, and being given time on national television to explain that she “only broke school rules”, as if that didn’t matter.
Children can only learn if they can pay attention to what they’re being taught without the class being disrupted. Most children very much want to do this, and welcome quite strict rules that safeguard a learning environment.
But there will always be some – usually abetted by irresponsible parents – who feel that they have to be the centre of attention and can do what they like, shouting “You can’t touch me!” at any adult who tries to stop them.
The Government can tackle this quite easily by ditching the consultants and giving back to teachers the power to punish pupils – and with it the respect and discipline that are essential for both teaching and learning.
But like most organisations in a society that majors on abdication of responsibility, it will not take the simple step. It would rather spend money on clouding the issue.
The climate goes on changing
Few can doubt that if the disastrous 1953 floods had happened any time in the last five years, they would have been blamed on global warming.
Indeed, we are being warned – apparently with tongues firmly removed from cheeks – that if they do happen again, that will be the reason.
Why on earth should we believe this? It is quite clear that severe weather is random. This month, unexpected parts of Europe have experienced extremely cold conditions, as Norfolk did in 1963 – a winter I remember vividly, as I had to climb into the loft to break the ice on the water tank every day on my return from school.
I don’t quite remember the frigid winter of 1947, or the extensive Fen floods that followed. But they certainly happened, as did the massive Norwich flooding of 1912, and indeed 1878.
The sea had also broken through before, of course: at Horsey and elsewhere in February, 1938, and in 1805 and 1897.
Before this, records are less accessible and often non-existent. But the great British storm of November 1703, which carried with it “truly Biblical scenes of destruction”, killing 123 people on land and 8000 sailors, as well as destroying more than 400 windmills, is well documented.
Much more recently, there was the devastating non-hurricane of 1987.
What about rising sea levels? We all know that in Roman times, much more of Norfolk was under water than is the case now.
Sea levels do rise and fall, and we can’t do much about it. In the Middle Ages, it was generally reckoned to be warmer than it is now. The only predictable thing about weather is that we can’t predict it. The only safe thing you can say about climate change is that it does.
Now let this be a lesson to you ...
Mrs Hicks, the Mayor of Little London, near Corpusty, has announced new bylaws which she says will bring the parish in line with national trends.
In future, anyone carrying out a burglary in the area will receive a grant of up to £500 according to need. Muggers will get a severe talking to, and murderers will be put on probation. Arsonists will get a cooling-off period.
The penalty for speeding is meanwhile being raised to a minimum of a £5000 fine, with confiscation of the vehicle.
Where there is evidence that the driver is an expert, the offender can expect at least five years’ in jail. Mrs Hicks said critics of these moves were misinformed. She was merely changing the emphasis.
Activists infiltrate space-time
The Autonomous Republic of Hingham, near Norfolk, was on full alert last night after members of Greenpeace broke in and occupied a building formerly known as the Scout Hut.
Members of the attacking group painted the word DANGER on the roof of the building, which was believed to contain devices capable of distorting time and space.
Asked whether security should be tightened up, Professor V A R Scheinlich, the Hingham authority, said: “We were going to shoot them, but we had a vote, and 400 people were against it. We were still going to shoot them, but we decided they looked pretty silly on the roof, so we decided to leave them there.”
He said there was never any danger to the public – or at least, no more than usual.
If the brick fits, wear it
A man was taken to hospital in California last month after his head was split open by a brick.
Witnesses said foul play was not involved: the man was merely trying to see how high he could throw a brick, and since it was dark, he lost track of its flight and could not get out of the way when it came down on his head.
Please don’t be cynical. This actually happened. Police said alcohol appeared to be involved, but sources close to the incident reveal that it was research being carried out by a certain anti-motoring organisation.
Happily I can also publish the results of this research – the accident was caused by speed.
If the brick had been falling more slowly, there would have been no problem.