Do you ever read something and just know it has to be a spoof. No matter where you read it, you just cannot believe that such concentrated stupidity exists.

I just had one of those moments after reading this.

Teachers say no-one should ‘fail’

“Deferred success” should replace the idea of failure for low-achieving pupils, a teachers’ organisation will hear at its annual conference.

The Professional Association of Teachers will be told next week the label of failure could undermine children’s enthusiasm for school.

What ‘enthusiasm for school’? If I recall correctly, very few of the people in my school had any of this ‘enthusiasm’ thing. They turned up because they had to.

But thats not the issue. Talk about taking the whole “it’s not the winning that matters” concept far too far.

Teacher 1: Our students are failing left, right and centre! We need a new plan of action! Something new, novel, and sure to work!
Teacher 2: What, like new teaching methods? Rewarding those who do better than we thought they should? Streaming pupils according to their ability? Improving the standard of teaching?
Teacher 1: Fuck no. That requires effort and thought. No, we’ll just go through the dictionary and score out the word ‘failure’. If the concept of failure doesn’t exist, then nobody can fail! Everybody is a success! Result!

So, in honour of this new thought process, IDQCT is pleased to reveal the beginnings of this new dictionary, as suggested by the Professional Association of Teachers:

  • failure deferred success
  • poverty delayed richness
  • hunger deferred fatness
  • work interruption of idleness
  • suspension of privacy and personal freedom National ID Cards
  • profane slang valid teaching methods
  • laziness deferred effort
  • very, very bad doubleplusungood
  • Govt screws up Comrade Ogilvy succeeds
  • really stupid idea Professional Association of Teachers policy

Oh, and on that last one, they’ve also got this gem to ponder:

Wesley Paxton, a member of the association’s council, is supporting the motion – as he argues for a system that “tops up” rather than fails.

“If you engage a builder to build a 5-foot wall and he only does it 4′ 9″, you fetch him back.

“You don’t demolish it and make him start all over again – he simply lays another course of bricks to ‘top it up’.

“But failing an exam – especially if it involves repeating an entire year – does demolish and make you start again,” said Mr Paxton.

“There is no virtue in doing anything twice in the pursuit of ‘academic rigour’,” he said.

Elsewhere we applaud those who persevere, like marathon contestants who take days to complete. It’s time we made the word ‘fail’ redundant and replaced it with ‘please do a bit more’.”

Err, to complete you analogy, sir, you need to take it into the next race. Sure, someone may take days to complete the marathon, but their result should still be considered in the context of the race they started. Under your new system, if another race had started on the same course, the runner could end up winning, because he crossed the line before any of the others.

“You don’t demolish it and make him start all over again – he simply lays another course of bricks to ‘top it up’.

You fucking do if they built the thing wrong to start with. “I wanted a wall, you built a patio! Start over, ya daft twat!”

Same holds for the PAT. Start over, ya daft twat!

6 thoughts on “Newspeak

  1. Perhaps they are onto somthing – we should remove all words with negative connetations, that way they won’t be able to brag to their friends about being not plus-good.

    Good, that motion is passed, now on to the second motion of the NUT conference….

    Happy slapping. Oh… oh bugger

  2. Pingback: I didn’t quite catch that… » Annoying, maybe, but not bad

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>