This open letter created a false dichotomy in the schools debate, pitting MH against safety. Thread..

https://t.co/iKGVXcI76Y

@theAliceRoberts @MaryBoustedNEU @ReicherStephen @SusanMichie @alansteinoxford

We are saddened that the signatories of the letter do not appear to have channelled their energy into encouraging innovation in distance learning and support which could serve to bolster children's mental health in order to limit some of harms caused by isolation.
That the potential for the Internet to be used as a "fantastic communications tool" and provide "a creative and visual style of learning" affording "a positive and interactive experience" as identified by @ProfTanya in the Byron Review has not been celebrated is a travesty.
The report identified the internet to be a platform for children and young people to "express themselves and keep in touch" and is "a fantastic place to meet people and find support, friendship and happiness".

https://t.co/Zk7NfW0fK5
When we consider that internet based interventions such as iCBT are now well established psychological practice, it is a great sadness that the expertise of professionals in this field has not been channelled toward helping craft a recovery curriculum children desperately need
The DfE could also have been more helpful in acknowledging discussion and nuanced debate on the true needs of children, rather than ploughing on with a "business as usual" curriculum.

https://t.co/ve1ndPOaHi
This is why our 5 Point Plan, issued in advance of the partial closure, included a call for reduction and reorganisation of the curriculum for at least 2 years.

https://t.co/5iOxZMeZbK
We must stop pretending we can have business as usual, and and demand the very best strategies we can to limit ALL harms to our children.

We must treat children as people, not as an academic football between disciplines.

@IndependentSage gets this right.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Education

Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!

Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵


What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”

Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff

People also found this comparison helpful:

Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?

Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words

Another common #question:

What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”

As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie

Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"

As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.