Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

The O Level was never designed as a universal school-leaving qualification. In Britain, where it originated, it was intended for roughly the top 20% of pupils on the academic grammar school track. The remaining 80% followed vocational and technical pathways. Yet Zimbabwe persists with the fiction that every child...

71,549 просмотров • 15 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

We've just been passed the BBC's response to a complaint after Good Morning Scotland concealed an academic's links to Labour during an interview about the winter fuel payment and a warning from Age Scotland. We've reproduced the complaint and response below. We've also included the full interview. There's something untoward at play here. The complaint: Good Morning Scotland conducted an interview with professor June Andrews. The interview centred around the cut to the winter fuel payment and had been prompted by criticism by Age Scotland of the UK Labour Govt's decision to cut the benefit. The charity had claimed that cutting the benefit would see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. The interview was conducted by Laura Maxwell who introduced the academic as follows "Well Professor June Andrews is an expert in the care of older people." The academic challenged Age Scotland's claims and backed Labour's decision to cut the benefit. Professor Andrews views were later used on the programme to challenge Scottish Govt minister Ivan McKee. The academic was presented as someone with no political allegiances or viewpoints. This was far from the truth. Professor June Andrews is a Labour supporter and party activist who makes no attempt to hide her political allegiance. A quick glance at her social media profile - publicly available at the time of the interview - makes this clear, with post after post promoting tweets from senior Labour party figures. The academic tweeted an image during the recent general election campaign showing her with other Labour party activists as they campaigned for Labour candidate Gregor Poynton. Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines states 'We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased. Appropriate information about their affiliations, funding and particular viewpoints should be made available to the audience, when relevant to the context.' Professor June Andrews was far from unbiased. Good Morning Scotland should have told listeners that the academic was a Labour party activist and supporter. In failing to do so the programme breached Section 4.3.12 of the BBC Guidelines. A public apology is merited. The response: We note your comments regarding Good Morning Scotland on 28 October and the interview with Prof June Andrews. As you mention, Prof Andrews was introduced as an “an expert in the care of older people” and was being interviewed for her view in this capacity, following Age Scotland’s claim that the cutting of the universal winter fuel benefit for pensioners will see more old people admitted to hospital with hypothermia. Prof Andrews, given her area of expertise, has been a contributor on a number of occasions to items regarding the care of older people and was again introduced in this context, with a range of views on the subject heard within the wider programme – this included hearing directly from Scottish Government minister Ivan McKee, as you say. While we wouldn’t agree with a suggestion that simply holding any political views was a requisite for such an introduction, given the capacity in which Prof Andrews was invited onto the programme to speak, we would suggest that the conveyance to listeners of any political views that a contributor may hold is not limited to how a guest is introduced; for example, there is the opportunity within the line of questioning and by any political points being scrutinised and challenged – accepting that, in a live interview, in keeping the interview and programme on track, it isn’t always possible to challenge a guest on every point they’ve made and that it may be a subsequent interview or similar piece of our output that provides for other views and points to be put across. We note your call for a public apology but don’t believe it is merited here. We would, however, remind our teams of the merit of identifying and challenging, there and then, political points made during interviews. Thank you again for getting in touch.

MSM Monitor

28,722 просмотров • 1 год назад

Texas has now crossed a serious line. Through HB 1605, passed in the last session, championed by TEA Commissioner #MikeMorath, Governor Greg Abbott, Representative Brad Buckley, Senator Brandon Creighton and others on both sides of the asile, the state is explicitly establishing a mandated “canon of literature” for every student K through 12. That word canon matters. Canon is not an academic term. It is a value laden term rooted in authority, belief, and the power to declare what is foundational truth. This is not about teaching students how to read across genres. The state’s own testimony confirms the intent is to create a shared body of works all students are expected to read, understand, and internalize as foundational knowledge. That is a shift away from academic skill development and toward shaping values, beliefs, and behaviors. When the state becomes the arbiter of what is canon, it assumes authority over truth itself. And when that canon begins to include biblical references embedded in a state owned and mandated curriculum, the question must be asked plainly. Is the state now defining its own religious canon? This is not about faith. It is about government power, coercion, and the constitutional danger of the state deciding what our children must believe, rather than what they must learn. The Bible is sacred scripture. It is not a tool of the state. And it should never be filtered, excerpted, reframed, or repackaged by a government agency.

Alice

53,782 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

IN THE LABOUR PARTY - NO GODFATHERS. - NO COMPROMISES. - ONLY THE PEOPLE MATTER. Barr. Julius Abure, National Chairman of the Labour Party, has drawn a bold line in the sand: Nigeria must break free from recycled politics and criminal godfatherism. The Labour Party is not built on backroom deals, political puppetry, or the influence of moneybags. It is built on ideology, integrity, and the unshakable power of the people. While others talk change, the Labour Party proved it during the 2022 and 2023 general elections. We did not just challenge the system, we shook it. Nigeria’s biggest political cancer is godfatherism, a system that trades competence for obedience, integrity for loyalty, and national progress for personal gain. As Barr. Abure rightly states, godfathers do not raise leaders; they manufacture yes-men, installed to be controlled, manipulated, and used as conduits to loot public resources. The Labour Party has rejected this rot, completely and unapologetically. Here, merit beats money. Character beats connection. The people beat the elite. And history has already recorded it: in the 2023 elections, the Labour Party made the impossible possible. An Okada rider and a bus conductor were both elected into the House of Representatives. That was not luck; that was a revolution at the ballot box. The Labour Party is not for a few; it is for artisans, workers, youths, market women, farmers, the poor, the forgotten, and the fed-up majority who are done with suffering and ready to take back their country. Barr. Julius Abure’s call is loud and clear: Join the Labour Party. Take power back. Let’s make Nigeria work. Because this is not just a party: THIS IS A MOVEMENT. THIS IS THE PEOPLE’S FIGHT. THIS IS THE LABOUR PARTY. By: Hon. Amb. AJU Elumelu-James (Special Adviser to the Labour Party National Chairman, Barrister Julius Abure, on Media and Strategic Communication.)🖊️ LabourPartyNG Hon. Amb. AJU Elumelu AJU Global Media AJU2KOBO

Barr. Julius Abure

12,061 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Our country is sitting on top of a very big mess that we must confront as citizens. Our country has never had an O Level pass rate above about 33% in the last 40 years. Forty years of failure. That means roughly 67% or more of learners who sit for O Level examinations fail to obtain five O Levels including English language in a single sitting. That is the society we live in, a society where the majority of those who sit for the most basic secondary school examination fail to meet the minimum benchmark. If that reality does not shock right thinking people, nothing will. Imagine what this attached ZBC report is saying, that ten schools did not produce a single O Level pass. Not even one learner managing five subjects including English. Yet we go around repeating the comforting myth and falsehood that we are highly educated and highly literate. Sadly, the truth is far more uncomfortable. We are not. And this failure is not just about examination statistics. It reflects itself in how we think, how we engage with each other in public discourse, how easily misinformation spreads, how leaders manipulate citizens, how we tolerate mediocrity, and how public resources are looted with little resistance from society. A country where the majority of its young people cannot meet the basic threshold of secondary education is a country sitting on a social, economic and political time bomb. It is profoundly sad, and unless we confront it honestly, it will continue to shape the quality of leadership, governance, and citizenship for generations to come. One of the most discomforting aspects of this crisis is that the very few learners who manage to pass O Level are the ones who proceed to A Level. From that already small group, those who pass A Level and make it to university are even fewer. And what happens to most of them? The moment they graduate and an opportunity presents itself, they leave the country. They go to South Africa, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, or anywhere else that offers them a future. The only ones who tend to remain are those who already come from comfortable families or have nowhere to go or no means to use to leave. What this means in practice is that a large proportion of the people who have managed to succeed academically in our system end up living and working outside the country. The society is therefore left with a shrinking pool of highly trained professionals, researchers, engineers, doctors, and thinkers who could otherwise contribute to rebuilding the country. What does that say about the state of our country, when the very people who have managed to succeed within it feel that their only real future lies somewhere else? Here are the pass rates of other countries that use education systems similar to ours, to show just how badly we have performed. Singapore — 94.2%  Britain (UK) — 97.5% Ghana — 79% Nigeria — 79% Seychelles — 82% Mauritius — 70%

Hopewell Chin’ono

43,442 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад