How teaching should be done. Weaving in and out of the broad history lesson narrative, he keeps engagement high. He touches on English language, science, economics and even political science. Brilliant. DoE should be completely reformed.
I’m a reasonably well seasoned historian, I’ve not been to university because the debt scares me but I have travelled the county in my car and visited many historical sites and read plenty of books but David’s talking to these simpletons is quite soothing. History can be mentally taxing at times and sometimes it’s nice listening to easy history....like listening to a war veteran, it’s nice but noting intellectual.
I ‘have’ been to university, visited historical sites and also read plenty of books, but I must say- your summation of the students listening to Dr Starkey is simply unfair… To call the young class members ‘simpletons’ is indubitably wrong, and is a pompous lack of respect. Having watched the full clip, the kids are full of enthusiasm, engagement and often correct answers to DS’s somewhat vague questioning. You should be inspired that- considering your love of history- there are more people willing to learn and possibly continue the legacy that Dr Starkey tries to imprint… Shame on you for turning your nose up at general historic education. History is not ‘mentally taxing’ whatsoever. It merely takes an avenue of logical thinking and open thought.
Yes, that's how my mother washed our clothes back in the fifties! Hard work! The copper tub was in the back yard, heated by firewood. She had to boil my dad's greasy motor-mechanic overalls to get them clean. But she didn't need to go to a gym for a workout.
Starkey is interesting and engages the children well. But!!!! what on earth is going on that a girl can sit on a boy, and he has his hand between her thighs during the lesson????
Im only 34yr old yet I was brought up with a coal fire downstairs and one upstairs. I lived in Northern Ireland as a child though. Putting the slack on the fire was my Job as a youngin. I bet people dont have a clue what Im on about. Starkey is a good man.
You and me would be the last generation remembers a coal-powered heater in developed countries. In the late 90s, I vividly remember my mum of using actual coal to heat up the house. My younger brother never saw one in his life as my family got rid of the coal fire heating system. The primary school still had one when I just enrolled, but it also got placed with a gas heating system in the next Winter.
The pupils have a mental age of about ten, and Starkey is pitching his presentation at that level. But they are almost adults. If they had not wasted their lives to date, they would be capable of discussing the industrial revolution with knowledge and authority.
Agreed. The John Lennon glasses Islington commie types who run Channel Four thought this show would prove that comprehensive schools are a miracle and that these cheesy scumbags can somehow be changed. That's the New Labour fantasy- reward the plebs and punish the bright/enterprising
The "cheesy scum bags "seem to have been changed. The Tories have been in power ten years but haven't changed schools. How are plebs being rewarded and bright punished?
This Teacher is amazing, I wish we had Teachers like him here in the states. The English are truly a lot better at lot things, especially education then we here in a America.
Sucking on a lollipop reduces aggression and can aid concentration. The police sometimes (not sure if they still do) hand them out outside some of the rougher nightclubs in the UK.
Starkey says in another video that this is a group of pupils who didn't pass 5 or more GCSEs. Frankly, their contributions are somewhat better (and keener) than I expected. But this was 8 years ago, and something tells me things haven't exactly improved in the interim. Donnybrook makes a good point about American public schools. The particularly bad ones usually have something in common with each other, but given the delicate sensibilities of your typical Channel 4 viewer, I won't point out what that is (but "why I stopped teaching"-type videos elsewhere on RU-vid make it abundantly clear, and somehow I don't think all those people are making it up).
They are students that have been ejected from or rejected by normal schools for behaviour problems. This is an experiment to see if a different style of teaching, by celebrity professionals would help or get through to them.
David goes on about how hard women had to work back in those days. True, but their husbands' jobs were were even harder, heavier and far more dangerous. To provide for their families most men have cheerfully worked in such difficult jobs - and many still do - motivated by love for their wives and children.
Remember, while women were laboring in their homes, men were (and most still are) working in hard, dirty, dangerous jobs in workshops, factories, mines or farms.
The modern feminist of today with their trendy anti men rhetoric conveniently forgets this. It wasn't that women weren't allowed to work as many of them claim, it's just most jobs were generally unsafe for men, never mind for women, or involved back breaking laborious work with heavy loads (e.g. construction, 50 years ago you were expected to be able to carry 100lb loads, today health and safety won't let you carry more than 25lb). Generally the only safe work a woman could do (and I stress safe in that it was probably anything but, just the least dangerous work around) was as a housewife, a maidservant for a richer family, or as a washer woman, breaking up old rope etc. etc. Starkey hits the nail on the head in this video, very little changed after the vote for both men and women. What changed it for women was the advent of cheap technology and the replacement of the old manufacturing economy with safe, secure office jobs and a service economy. Even today men continue to go in large numbers to the more dangerous yet better paid jobs that remain, 90% of all workplace fatalities and injuries are still men. Just as the video showed, most of the girls in the class said they'd choose to stay at home rather than work if they could, with only a few of the outliers disagreeing. People haven't changed, the workplace and technology has.
+Arsène Lupin ("Did that british old man just say 'play soccer'? that man is an amerifat imposter!") The nickname "soccer" actually originated in the public schools of England... "soccer" is to "asSOCiation football" what "rugger" is to "RUGby union".
It was a weird experience that I watched vcr-recorded anime with my kids...my mum did not throw them away since she wanted me to suffer the pain of seeing my children watching a TV all day. My wife and I enjoyed it, but unfortunately my kids got bored and quickly shifted their attention to their ipads. They don't watch a TV. They spend their time on their ipads.
1918….Emiline Pankhurst in 1918 for middle class married women but Sylvia Pankhurst was in 1928 in the people’s representation vote for working class men and women
Interesting fact. The girl now plays Lola in Eastenders. Starkey gave her a tour of Cambridge University and thought she was clever enough to go to university, but she decided to go to acting school and became an actress.
years ago people thought that the gains made from tech progress would be spent on having extra time on one's hands and investing that in more good things. In the end the benefits were squandered on modern systems which produce generations like this.
Agreed. My daughter is six years old and can already grasp most of the concepts that Starkey is teaching these simpletons. The girls in the class would be much better suited to beautician/service industry jobs and the lads would do well to get themselves a trade
Things did not change immediately after WWII. My family did not know what a washing machine was until 1952 when we moved from Fulham to Hainault in Essex and at that time we also got a very small refrigerator, more like bar refrigerator in size. Yes, things have certainly changed and in the main for the better. If the changes had not taken place women would still be chattels chained to housework. Finally, again Mr. Starkey is wrong. Mr. Hoover did not invent the vacuum cleaner. It was invented in 1901independently by British engineer Hubert Cecil Booth and American inventor David T. Kenney. Once more he has shown he has not conducted good research and presented of incorrect facts.
I think the message is lost on you. He did state that it wasn't until the late 50s early 60s that most homes started getting whitegoods like washing machines. He didn't say Hoover invented the vacuum cleaner, he is saying he mass produced it so that it became a product that even the working classes could afford, and it became so popular that the mans name became a verb. No incorrect facts here, just your poor comprehension skills.
Soccer was actually a British colonialism in the early days of football. It comes from the term "association football" which came from the first written rules of football. It took many stages to reach soccer but you can see where the term comes from the the word "association".
yeah, that struck me too. Shouldn't surprise you that he's gay. He has a problem with established norms of society. And the part of the story he isn't telling is that many studies exist where an overwhelming majority women of the 20s-50s were actually quite happy and content with their role. Most said they felt very fulfilled, loved and appreciated. The left is a huge pack of liars telling the big lie. That's what they do. That's why we are seeing such a dramatic pushback against these feminists among women. The left are losing bad and their message is getting thrown back in their faces. People see the truth now.
