The broom cupboard 2 - just for when we get briefly stranded without a staffroom

[TheHoneyBadger]

I'll pop a link in the old one so you know where to find safe haven. I have tried to clear out some space by getting rid of the ohp and vcr trolley and gin is hidden behind the sick sand bucket.

I mean this kind of answers your query

www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/ask_about_english/071231/

but not really the wedding bit. It's like using the passive voice but , I agree. I would probably make that active and say ' they sat me next to that awful Hector at the wedding' if that was what I meant. But it is v common non standard English and not a criminal offence in speech. In writing , very different!

Hopefully my answer helped you nod off...

I say the 'I've went' thing she mentions but would never write it!

Passive! Yes that for me is the difference but I will almost accept it is not right. If I am ever at a wedding again it will probably come back into my head!
In my favour I can "do" fewer/less, affect/effect, and all apostrophes.

I was seated is more correct but I was sat is fine because it's passive tense. At a wedding. By the hosts. Not I was sat eating my lunch. You wouldn't say I was worked on my reports tonight. I was skipped down the street. I was talked to my best friend.

But, yes, I was sat and stood are becoming more widespread and not just an error in one place.

Our kids write "would of" - of course they do. I don't think that's regional. It's because in almost all accents, "would've" sounds like "would of". But at least we don't have to battle I done, you was, needs gone, I've went...

I think I notice more children use incorrect verbs which are more to.do with not being fully matured. I mean, things that toddlers would say when they're figuring out regular and irregular verbs. So, I heard (and corrected, in a corridor!) "I brang" today. But that's not an "our area" thing, it's a stunted language development thing. I think.

Oh dear, a school near me has really messed up. Students were coming in in PE kits on PE days because changing rooms closed.

At some point recently girls -and only girls- were told they had to wear a skirt or trousers over their shorts. And then , just to compound it a bit, they were told skirts had to be knee length and were detained and isolated if they weren't.

This school has a female head.

That's ridiculous.

Although what's also ridiculous: we are a school doing PE kit on PE days. PE skirts are very short. We're not saying they have to wear anything over them, obviously. But it makes a mockery of the other three data a week when they're wearing regulation knee length uniform skirt and we have to tell them to roll them down all the time.

Loving all the grammar chat as I am a grammar pedant...

My favourite is grown adults who say "pacific" when they mean "specific" (one of our SLT..... ) and all children who say "Can I have a toilet?" One of our infant teachers has a model toilet which he gives to them if they say this, they look bemused of course, but it gives a certain sense of satisfaction. He is very nice about it and reminds the child what they ought to say.

Was talking to my DC about "things we'd like to keep after Covid" and going to school dressed in games kit, rather than getting changed in nasty school changing rooms, is something they'd like to carry on. True for me too, in primary, although dressing/undressing independently is a skill so many littlies don't have. But it's lovely to actually have a PE lesson or Forest school session which doesn't consist mainly of seeing children's bottoms (and memorably, naked willy dancing from one Bob).

A few years ago, at my DD's school, the head informed the girls that their skirts needed to be at least knee length because it was 'distracting' for the male staff if they weren't! This was a middle school. The oldest pupils there were 13.

My grammar bugbears are less/fewer and confusion between the floor and the ground, as well as could of/should of/would of etc.

Well, in a surprise move our unventilated and cramped changing rooms are fully open..

Our school are still getting changed for PE. I think we have more changing facilities than most schools which makes it easier to keep the "bubbles" separate. I do think that if they were all wearing their pe kits all the time we'd have to ask the girls to cover up a bit more though. Not because we're happier seeing boys legs, but because the girls PE kit is so much more exposing than the boys. It's an incredibly sexist PE kit in my school. Boys wear shorts that are nearly down to their knees. Girls wear skorts that skim their crotch. The old netball skirts used to be so much longer and more appropriate for wearing outside of an exercising situation. I have suggested that leggings would be far more appropriate for PE several times but I'm obviously overruled.

I wondered why it had all gone quiet on the previous thread!

I'm definitely worse at grammar than I used to be, and was about to respond to @HercwasanEnemyofEducation:

What's wrong with I was sat?

Had the most lovely Latin teacher (Mrs Butler), and I loved all the rules around grammar , they sit nicely with my rigid views. Then I realised I don't remember many of the rules! Here goes:

Present simple: I sit
Present continuous: I am sitting

Perfect (Past simple?): I sat
Imperfect (Past continuous?): I was sitting

Pluperfect (Past perfect?): I had sat

... now I'm googling future tenses...

When we were doing PE kit on PE days right at the start, one of my Y10s was wearing a skort so short you could see bum cheeks. I know that it’s supposedly not feminist to tell girls to cover up but I really didn’t want to see bum cheeks in my lesson and was glad when the kit policy was ditched. What can a school do in that situation that won’t provoke outrage? It was an official school skort, but it was probably bought in Y7.

Thanks for the I was sat chat. Would 'I was sitting...' be ok? Or for the wedding 'the seating plan had me sat next to...'?
I'm the generation that was never taught grammar, I only know it from reading.

PE kits on PE days here but y10 have decided they have PE every day. No one noticed for 2 weeks!

We have staff who email 'could of' and nobbers who try and use 'whom' or 'from myself' and make no sense. My emails aren't uber intellectual sounding but the words are used correctly.

Is it sexist or comfortable though?

We had these awful athletics shorts at school that came in when I was there and I hated them as they were literally Bridget Jones knickers (so shaving was required as much as anything). But the issue there was really my own fragile self esteeem . The athletic girls thought of them as comfortable for running and stretching.

We should have had a choice in hindsight.

So actually shorts for girls have become longer since my day. I really don't have a problem with the shorts the girls wear but also agree they could wear leggings, trackie bottoms etc.

I have always thought skirts for sport are ridiculous. What is that even about?? I am amazed professional sportswomen still wear them in netball , hockey and tennis.

I don’t know the difference between program and programme. Computer program, TV programme yes, but government program(me)? I take pot luck. I’ve looked it up but it never sticks.

Yuck, Herc! I loathe the misuse of 'myself' - as in 'Please send a reply to myself as soon as possible.'

I don't think I've ever seen a misuse of 'whom' - other than glaring omissions when it should have been used.

I think the bum cheek thing can be handled if it is also applied to boys and the conversation surrounds it clearly being too small.

We equally had a problem with our boys and a very long (eventually successful) campaign to allow sixth form boys to wear shorts in hot weather. Hilariously, their hairy legs were deemed distracting !

Grammar , I could happily spend some time on this if I didn't have a mountain of marking to do this weekend!

learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/english-grammar-reference/present-perfect

It’s hard to argue uniform policy ‘also applies to boys’ when it is clearly aimed at girls. I’ve never seen a boy in PE shorts that show their bum cheeks. No crop tops/low cut tops in sixth form is another one that would apply to boys but is never an issue with boys.

I feel sorry for men who are attacked for sexism when they say it makes them feel uncomfortable when I don’t want to see it either.

We have issues though occasionally with boys with low rise trousers showing their waistbands of their underpants.

There is no easy solution . The bum cheek thing is separate issue but a girl's knees and lower thighs really should not be 'a distraction'.

I am a hypocrite though as I tut at short skirts and low cut tops. Part of it is envy that they clearly are comfortable with their bodies.

The bum cheeks I'd have challenged one to one with the student and said its not appropriate to be able to see anyone's bum cheeks whether boy or girl. I've said this to girls in short skirts as well. It's not sexist to point out we don't want to see intimate parts of students bodies. I'd say the same to a boy with their trousers round their bum (remember those days).

We have leggings for PE so generally avoid the shorts issue. PE skirts feel very out dated.

I could lose myself in that grammar site for quite a long time. Unfortunately I also have a stack of marking and a load of unnecessary updating to do with my subject folder (primary, so naturally the subject I lead has no connection with my qualifications, experience or personal preference )

DH is at work today so I said I'd try and get through as much as I could while he was out so that we can attempt to have a weekend of sorts. Unfortunately, so far I've had a lie in and faffed around on my phone.

The word distraction shouldn't be used at all. That makes it sexist.

You can challenge skirt length as "school policy says it should be xx cm above the knee, your skirt is clearly outside policy so please sort it".

I always thought skirts for sports was because the shorts women/girls were expected to wear are so short and revealing. The skirt covers it when your shorts ride up and expose more flesh than anyone wants to flash. The skorts at my school are like those old athletic shorts/knickers, with a tiny skirt attached. When I was at school, we had the gym knickers for indoor PE/gym/dance, then put netball skirts on over the top for outdoor games. I think the problem I have with our PE kit is the lack of choice for girls to be able to cover up a bit more. The boys have long shorts, or jogging bottoms that fit them (they come in a range of waist sizes/leg lengths that are common in teenage male bodies). The girls get tiny skorts, or jogging bottoms that don't fit properly (because they're "unisex" and really designed for male rather than female bodies). Lots of the girls want something else, but school are insistent that the skorts are the equivalent of the shorts, despite the 6 inch difference in length.

I have a display in my classroom explaining the past continuous. It hasn't made the slightest bit of difference, though I do point at it fairly regularly when I correct pupils. I especially like the fact that one of the correct examples is I was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar when I met you During the recent Gordon Elliott / dead horse story I realised that 'was sat' is probably become accepted shudder as so many media outlets wrote that 'he was sat'. Even the Guardian and the BBC did it.

Our Head of Maths had a habit of sending emails containing the phrase Please may you... I put up with it for a long time before I cracked and gently told her it was incorrect. Turns out she thought 'may' was more polite.

Unfortunately, so far I've had a lie in and faffed around on my phone. Me too! I've got tons to do. Mostly writing year 12 reports, using the test they did yesterday to inform my comments. I did at least mark the tests last night. Now I need to come up with 10 ways to say "they are doing really badly and need to put significantly more effort in".