Ban the word Minibea**S

Mr Mag00 · #1 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 11:13 AM

I cannot even bring myself to type it!!!

Why oh Why do they/you(?) use it, as a word it doesn't exist, it has no logical meaning, look it up in the dictionary!!!!!!!!!!Mini and beast.

we dont teach children to spell incorrectly and incorrect mathematics so

WHY

do we teach ecology and natural history so badly to children and then expect them to relearn it all in biology/science gcse in later schooling, no wonder thay are put off!!

I am very serious about this, I discuss this with all my teachers and the more experienced (shall we say) agree. i will get flamed for this next statement, but i stand by it! part of the problem is there are a lack of science graduates in teaching and in particular teaching ages 5-11. The majority are arts/english also a shortage of male role models. I have yet to have visited or taught a group that has more than 1 male (if any) and doesnt contain a squeamish teacher. How can you hold the childrens' attention when there is a squealing member of staff in close proximity!!!!

There is a school of teaching that has come from the States

which Disneyfies(C) everything, children dont understand why insects have 6 legs when 'bugslife' or 'ants' only have 4 'ITS A MOVIE !!' and has created a whole new nomenclature for bugs, all invertes are bugs to them

which has been making its way into our schooling it's called 'mothership earth' or some other such claptrap.

I have encountered this on a number of occassions and it is truely toe curling. its is all dumbed down and becomes very very cuddly, well the truth is, it's not like that out there, everything is part of a food chain and children need to understand how the planet operates. A result of this is teachers questioning why i am explaining to children the correct terminology, names etc WT*!!!

Please please, get it right from the start 2+2 isn't 5 until you get to keystage3, then re-educate them to 2+2=4!! So why do it with ecology?
A heart felt plea. Don't dumb down to the children, they do understand.

'If you're gonna do it, do it right'

Thank you.

honeybee · #2 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 12:37 PM

Calm....

I've never used the term.

I get my daughter (only a toddler) to hold the worms and centipedes when she's helping me in the garden. They other kids all say "Yuk" and run away, they're so detached from nature, that makes me sick. In my opinion it's the insects and things that help make the world go round and people shouldnt be disgusted by them. Took the sprog to a farm yesterday and a chicken had escaped and was getting caught up in the wire trying to get to the other chickens. Their stupid mother was saying, "don't touch it, it might peck you" so before it injured itself I went and picked it up. I'm sure they'll happily munch on their McNuggets though. Some kids I used to look after were terrified of spiders because their mother was hysterical about them, I soon had them picking them up and we always gave the spiders names and said hello to them!

speckled wood · #3 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 02:57 PM

Although outside scope of this string a term I detest is people saying "Train" Station nstead of Railway Station, I always think that this is something that a two three year old child would say. so much of the "modern" grammar to me is nothing more than baby talk.

Another term used out of context is that we have courses (even natural history courses) that are called "workshops", to me a "workshop" is something on the scale of the old railway works at Crewe or Swindon. Why can't we just call these courses them training sessions or courses?

Regarding the detachment from nature, I think mine and others comments yesterday about blackberries sums it up.

Alan · #4 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 03:29 PM

Well it seems these days teachers are often expected to cover a general area of subjects and not just specialize in one. Or if they do specialize, they are required to cover other classes and areas too. Maybe as has been said, there's not enough from the sciences coming through.

I don’t think the statement about not enough men involved is particularly controversial. It would be nice if there were an equal amount of both sexes teaching in schools, but as there isn’t, it just becomes a fact.

As far as the squeamish ones go, fair enough if they are meant to teach biology or similar. But as I said, many are required to cover other subjects.

You could always guarantee a ‘suitable’ candidate for ‘squeamish’ subjects by a simple test on the initial post interview or shortlist:

Just line all the candidates up, open the window, chuck a bucket of maggots or spiders in the air, and the one who jumps out the window last, gets the job!

vipper · #5 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mag00

There is a school of teaching that has come from the States

which Disneyfies(C) everything, children dont understand why insects have 6 legs when 'bugslife' or 'ants' only have 4 'ITS A MOVIE !!' and has created a whole new nomenclature for bugs, all invertes are bugs to them

which has been making its way into our schooling it's called 'mothership earth' or some other such claptrap.

Excuse me I am off to get my axe.

Nothing gets my goat more than genericanisation of our culture, except genericanisation leading to ignorance in our people.

wildone · #6 (**permalink**) 05-09-2006, 07:41 PM

I'm sorry but I do not understand the word 'genericanisation'. I cannot find it in my dictionary and even Google failed to recognise it. Please explain what it is supposed to mean.