Clearly, anyone who thinks school closures are doing great harm to children is just playing politics. That's why publications on the right, such as NPR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the New Yorker, The Atlantic, and CBS News have all chimed in to support it.

If I finish all of the physics a lesson or two before the end of term, I like to use those spare lessons to do something fun. For the last 12 years I have done a boys vs girls engineering challenge and the girls nearly always win. Here is why...

So, my experience of this is normally allowing 5 or so classes do this activity in any given year, always with the same set up and always with me observing just how it goes. In total I must now have observed the experiment about 60 times.

To be clear I am all for students choosing their own teams and such and I am aware of the false dichotomy of the situation. But generally due to sports, boarding houses etc my crew are quite used to boys as one gang and girls as another.

The activity is bridge building. Two tables are set apart and each team must bridge the gap using only paper, string and 4 clamp stands. The bridge must have a roadway and each will be tested to destruction at the end with weights.

So, I split the class - girls vs boys. The rules are clear. They can't interfere with each other's bridges and they can't test their own bridge. They have about 45 minutes to build something. Let me tell you what then normally happens...

What does it take to sustain screwiness in the way the world works? Mostly, it's just good people, trying their best to get us to a better place... within constraints which pretty much preclude us actually getting anywhere! A case in point with

These authors come across as hugely committed to something we might all agree upon: improving young people's experiences of physical education through better school-based-interventions. Sounds great? Agreed, & pretty much everything about their study models best practice 🥳

Sadly, established "best practice" involves further embedding the medicalisation of PE as if it should be about the potential contribution of physical activity to everything from quality of life, self-perception & cognition to the likelyhood of becoming healthy & active adults 🤯

We're reminded of the Chief Medical Officer's "recommended guidelines of 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day for healthy growth and development" 👇 This is a focus on what we can easily measure (generic) rather than on what we might value (individual).

We get recognition that PE "is not merely an opportunity for children to engage in PA" but that's linked to its role in "the development of knowledge & skills to foster their PA engagement throughout life" - so further focus on health outcomes. A long way from @meaningfulPE 🙄

Given @GavinWilliamson failure to apologise this week for 'last-minute' decisions on schools policy during the pandemic, we thought it might be useful to put to together one handy thread of every U-turn from the @educationgovuk since April last

Free school meals will come up a lot in this thread, but here is the first governmental U-turn before the Easter Holidays. (2/43) #FSM

.@educationgovuk then decided not to fund #FSM in the following half-term break, they changed their minds after a public outcry.

Taking a break from #FSM, we head straight into the #Alevels2020 exams debacle, with Scotland’s grade U-turn putting pressure on the @educationgovuk (4/43)

Ministers in Westminster were determined not to U-turn

with all good intentions, the result is not very useful: "Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and .. 1/

... are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.” 2/

one of mistakes I think the consensus model made is that it has too much circular bootstrapping. Something is predatory because what we do not find predatory is not. E.g. the point about transparency. Just check how "transparent" some major publishers are in @RetractionWatch. 3/

the "best editorial and publication practices" turns out to focus on same basic agreements, mostly among publishers, and not really about doing quality science. It's an administrative rule. 4/

"Aggressive, indiscriminate solicitation" is also a rule really hard to apply. Elsevier repeatedly breaks this rule, and other more traditional publishers do too, tho at a lower frequency. Do the authors want to claim Elsevier is a predatory publisher? 5/