This is sub Saharan africa we are talking about where people go to the local witch doctor to get a potion based on body parts of albino's on the promise of wealth, success and power . You think they are going to believe that a mosquito bit causes Malaria?

Driving has never been safer because motor vehicles have never been safer and because structurally roads have never been safer. The last one means things like replacing intersections/crossroads with roundabouts where death rates drop 90% as a result.

On the other hand there are numerous cases of people being killed by txting on a phone, just Google it. Just because driving is safer now than ever before does not justify someone txting on a phone while driving.

Actually it is two different learning styles. One is visual aka "look and say", and the other is auditory aka phonics. But hey lets ignore the evidence that proves your personal beliefs are wrong. I could not give a toss about your links, and I have not read them because I don't need to because they are *WRONG*.

The first thing to understand about educational theorists is that they are a bunch of ideologically driven morons, who would not know what experimental design was if it came and bit them in the backside.

No it is not a case of being inordinately lucky. In my school someone who somehow managed to get stuck in a low-tier track but latter showed high tier competence would simply be moved up the sets.

Admittedly there was a cut of point to get into the fast maths and science classes because once they started curriculum coverage rates started diverging making moving into those sets basically impossible. The cut off point was at age 14 at the start of the school year in September. To not make the cut you would have had to show many years of poor educational attainment.

Note the fast maths and fast science where by invitation only and there where plenty that had the opportunity and chose to pass, because it was a lot hard work.

More utter rubbish from someone who has never experienced streaming in a comprehensive school in the United Kingdom. I went to my local school it took everyone of all abilities. The next nearest school in county (think state if you are in the USA) was 15 miles away as I grew up in rural Northumberland. Inside the school we where streamed on ability. You could and pupils did move up the sets if you either showed the ability. Conversely pupils that dropped out where moved down the sets.

The point is had my mathematics class just been picked at random then I would not have been able to get an extra qualification in Statistics. Similarly for my science classes.

Like I said degrading *MY* educational opportunities so that someone else might do better is utterly unacceptable. It is socialism at its utter worst.

The 11+ was abandoned in England 30 years ago (well 29 to be precise it was removed in 1976). The system never existed in Scotland.

There are still vestiges of the system remaining in various parts of the
Grammar schools. I was streamed in a Comprehensive school that had been a secondary modern under the 11+ system. Its exam results regularly exceeded those of its paired 500 year old Grammar school in the next town

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So basically you are talking out of your backside about a school system that was abandoned years before I ever got anywhere near an 11+ exam.

When it comes to learning to read in English at least there are several methods. My mother now retired who had a reputation of never letting a child leave her class unable to read (reception/ year one teacher) tells me that some children take to phonics and some to whole language/look and say.

The skill of a good teacher is to identify the method that works best for the individual child and use an appropriate reading scheme.

So while phonics on average works best, some children will never get it, and if you continue to force them to study phonics they will become failed readers where a switch to look and see is likely to have more success.

As such the claim that learning styles don't exist is disproved by the single example of where learning styles *DO* exist.

Any study that shows that is complete and utter total crap. I know that to be a fact from the education I personally received in the U.K. It would have been simply impossible for me to have achieved the qualifications I did aged 16 if I had been taught in mixed ability classes.

Explain to me how being grouped in maths class of clever students that where able to speed through the curriculum take the exam early and then speed through a Statistics O level ending up with two qualifications instead of one those in the "fast" maths class I did worse than if I had been in a mixed ability class and only done the standard mathematics O level? You can't it is utterly impossible for me to have done better being in a mixed ability class.

Repeat for a fast science class where instead of three hours a week for each of biology, chemistry and physics the clever students had the option of doing each in two hours a week and fitting another option in.

The result is that by streaming/tracking I was able to achieve 10 good O level results compared to the standard which was 8.

People who think that not streaming children results in better results for ALL children are in fact complete MORONS. Anyone who has done a study that proves that clearly failed to take a statistics qualification at some point because my *SINGLE* example disproves the cherished educational theory.

These are the sorts of MORONS that result in the William Tyndale scandal

https://www.tes.co.uk/article....

Yes I know all about this because my parents who where both teachers visited the school at my Aunt's request where she was a school manager.

Back when I was doing my O levels (last year that did them before they became GCSE) this was a widespread practice at good schools in England and Wales (Scotland has a completely different school system).

I can also clearly remember my school days *BEFORE* we hit the age where streaming was introduced. I remember being extremely frustrated at the slow pace of the lessons for years.

Clever children do better if they are streamed, and holding clever children back so they can pull other people back is completely unacceptable.

Funny because I spent my whole school career from about 11 onwards being what we called in the UK being "setted". I will now add that age 12 my parents split up. I will further add that I had no problems getting into top sets. I will also further add that children moved up and down in sets all the time.

I will further add that for my 'O' levels I was in the "fast" mathematics and "fast" science groups. That is in the space of ordinary maths lessons we studied for a normal Mathematics O level and the a Statistics O level. For the "fast" science instead of taking three science options for physics, chemistry and biology and getting three hours of lessons a week in each, we took it as a combined two options and had two hours in each subject a week, freeing up timetable space to take another option. I and many others where able to get 10 O level is this manner. Two years later my brother followed and got 10 GCSE's.

By not streaming children you are denying the right of clever children to achieve their potential. It is never acceptable to have an educational system that does this *EVER*.

How about streaming the pupils so that those of similar ability are grouped together for their classes. Ok it might not work at primary school level so much as these tend to be smaller often with only enough pupils for a single class per year. However even then you can arrange the class into groups of different abilities.

Hum, perhaps you might read the relevant manual page "man setleds"

Then perhaps you might read the following web page

http://martybugs.net/electroni...

In short you are just 100% plain wrong in your assertion. You could easily use three flashing LED's to indicate all sorts of error codes.

I have a New Scientist that is over 20 years old that talked about a Concorde replacement. The reckoned even back then you could go twice as far with twice as many passengers for the same cost. That's a quarter of the ticket price of Concorde.

What I never got about Concorde is why they didn't do trans Pacific flights with a fuel stop at say Honolulu where you land fill with fuel and take off again without disembarking the passengers. Still much quicker than a 747 and opening up potentially lucrative Los Angeles/San Francisco to Tokyo routes.

It is a problem and I think you will find adding electric motors to the landing gear is the solution. It is likely to make it's way to ordinary planes as well for exactly the same reason.

This isn't changing the rules. This is following the rules.

See my article in the ABA's Judges Journal about how judges had been bending the rules for the RIAA. "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigation". The Judges' Journal, Judicial Division of American Bar Association. Summer 2008 edition, Part 1 of The Judges Journals' 2-part series, "Access to Justice".