GOF Chapter 3: The Invitation

[oryx_leucoryx]

This is the obligatory Dursley chapter, in which we are treated to the home life of this family and learn how inferior they are to wizard families.

Dudley takes up a whole side of the square kitchen table. Ahem, I doubt a square kitchen table (as opposed to a dining room table) was designed to seat 8 people, 2 on a side. His parents excuse away his teachers' accusations of bullying. As opposed to the Weasleys who never receive reports making such heinous accusations against the twins (we'll see the school does occasionally owl their parents, but I don't see any awareness that some of what the twins do is bullying behavior). (This starts the theme of parents dealing with wayward sons in this book.) Dudley is forced into a diet of fruit and vegetables rather than his favorites. From the descriptions we get of the food Harry eats at Hogwarts I get the feeling Harry's favorites are closer to Dudley's than to the health foods, nor does he limit his intake. But somehow Harry remains thin, regardless of whether he gets starved by Petunia or stuffed by Molly or the House-elves.

Changing the food choices of the entire family is a good thing! However adjusting Harry's serving size to Dudley's (perceived?) emotional needs isn't. I don't begrudge Harry for working around a diet he doesn't need, but then I also sympathize with Dudley who does. Changing eating habits of years is hard.
This is also the place to say Dudley must have grown up as an emotional wreck. Knowing that his parents were capable of such physical and emotional deprivation of someone in their care - what if he ever failed to please them? I think a big part of his misbehavior is both making sure his parents know he *isn't* Harry as well as wanting the reassurance that they still love him, no matter what anyone else thinks.

Of Harry's 4 sources of help only one sends food he appreciates. Odd that even Hagrid managed to send an edible birthday cake. But how edible is it (or any of the others) 3 weeks later?

Harry is surprised that the Weasleys wrote directly to the Dursleys. Vernon is embarrassed that they didn't know how many stamps to use. But really, how hard is it to find out? Didn't they go to the post office to buy the stamps? What does it say about the exchange rate between Galleons and pounds that a family so poor finds it reasonable to spend on so many stamps for one letter? Molly's letter sounds as if she is trying too hard to make the Quidditch World Cup sound special and to make Arthur sound important. And of course she doesn't have enough imagination to realize that sending a letter by owl isn't normal for the Dursleys.

Harry is offended on Molly's behalf when Vernon calls her 'dumpy'. Since Molly likes Harry nobody is allowed to notice she is overweight.

I must say that the scene where Harry threatens Vernon with Sirius looks a lot less humorous now that I have seen Harry enjoy torturing a man for punishment, and Sirius engaging in Muggle-baiting.

If I am correct in my understanding that Ron is claiming that he and Molly wrote their respective letters at about the same time, then I am impressed with the UK post. Molly's letter arrived on Saturday morning. Pig arrived the same morning. Considering the speed of owls elsewhere, it looks as though Ron's letter was sent earlier that morning. So a letter got delivered the morning it was sent?

I am less impressed with the Weasleys. They plan on taking Harry regardless of the Dursleys' consent. One could argue that eventually Molly and Arthur realized their sons were not exaggerating when they said Harry had been imprisoned and starved, but seeing how Arthur views the treatment of Muggles, both in this book and in COS, I doubt this made a difference.

Harry is happy specifically because Dudley is suffering and he isn't. The seeds of the bully of HBP and war criminal of DH.

Comments

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

I´m younger, too, and it was no calculators until the end of the secondary school... but I´m from another country, so it does not count, I guess.
Today, the children do use calculators (and usually don´t know how to count without them, at least the more advanced stuff), too, here. The less lazy ones still try to learn it, but lack the practice.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Hey, I'm from 'another country' too, or at least I was.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

It does count. One reason we had a huge uproar back in the 1970s (and possibly the latter 1960s, I'm going off of memory here) was that we were lagging behind other countries, especially Scandinavian countries, in overall test performance. Another big thing for school theory was the Yamaha method of arithmetic and math, that one where you raise and lower fingers as you calculate in your head. Montessori schools became very fashionable in the 1970s, too, though they existed before then.

The big concern in the 1960s was reading, as June pointed out. There were articles, discussions and books about why "Johnny" (an "everykid" sort of name) couldn't read, leading to examining other countries and their successes in teaching, leading to the 1970s, Modern Math, and nasty jokes about geography and Americans.

Now that the more overtly political uproar is corralled, what were schools like in other countries? Did your parents talk about the way schools went downhill? Were there all these discussions about how you should follow another country's lead because they did better on national test scores? Or, were we the only one?

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

There was a big downfall after the end of the Cold War here.
After the WWI, our system was very good. This survived after WWII, too, even if there were some stupid experiments - but our teachers still could concentrate on teaching, not on paperwork; when a child did wrong in the school, the parents usually punished him, not went after the teacher.
There was no problem with understanding of what you´ve read, we were used to find many layers of hidden sense in every text (and speech, too, sometimes). People were taught facts, and when you have enough facts, you can see the logical system behind them. (When you have good teachers, they can even show you this. But without facts in your memory, every logical system is hollow, inaplicable, you cannot see it how does it work.) There was big stress on the science, much less on humanities (Latin was not taught, or not everywhere, foreign languages quite poorly - they did not want people to be able to speak other languages. (But still, I started with Russian (obligatory first foreign language back then) in my 3th school year (10 y.o.), and with English only 2 years later; with elective Latin 5 years later; today I can speak 5 languages and read or understand some more - so, you see, if one really wanted, it was possible.) In math, we had group theory (is it the right term?) and I loved it, because it was logical.
In my times, it was 8 years in primary school, 4 years in secondary school, then maturity exam (still exists, but this year is changed, for worse, I fear - the old one was world literature + syntax and stylistics in your language - write a text (story, essay, description, article, usually; 4 themes; you don´t know any theme nor genre beforehand, you come to the class, they announce themes and genres for them, you have 3 hours and pen and paper, it has to be at least 3 pages long); the rest was oral exam only, so: world literature from Sumer to our times, and syntax of our language; 3 questions, you randomly pick one from the hat, you have 15 minutes for preparation, you answer; mathematics, 30 questions (the same - 15 minutes prep, then you answer), foreign language of choice (the same; text, history, literature, geography of the country; 30 questions) and one other subject of your choice (the same with time and questions). Then the uni.
You are studying everything up to the maturity exam, but you usually pick an elective courses for your subject of choice in the last year. (So, no dropping of subjects in secondary school.) (I´m speaking about gymnasiums here, the top of secondary schools. There are another types, too: technical (or practical?) schools with and without maturity exam; the stress is much more on practical courses there and it is hardly possible to go to uni from there, even if you may, the only legal requirement is to have the maturity exam and to pass tests. But the amount of theoretical studies is not so big in practical schools, so you don´t have requested knowledge and don´t pass the test.)
We were between the first 8 or so in international testes, especially in science.
After the Cold War it got worse, because somebody thought it would be better to let people discuss - without memorized facts, they did not have any grounds for making an opinion. There was a boom of gymnasiums - in my time, we had only 8 in my town, now there is 20 of them. Then the parents started to oppose the teachers - child is not lazy, but teacher is meeeeaaaaannnn - you can imagine that. So the standards got lower. Now, the children are like "if I can google it, I don´t have to remember it" - result? they don´t know which questions should they ask good old uncle Google, so they don´t get to relevant info...
The universities still insist on their standards, though, so plenty of students get kicked out after their first year.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

aaargh... 30 questions on literature and syntax... bad me.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Yes, and first forein language as 8 y.o., if you passed a test, otherwise 10 y.o.; second 10 y.o., only if you started your first two years later - I really should not write too quickly. :-(( I apologize.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Yes, and first forein language as 8 y.o., if you passed a test, otherwise 10 y.o.; second 10 y.o., only if you started your first two years later

Here in the states, students don't even learn English well, let alone fluency in a foreign language! :-P

It may have changed since I was in school, but back then the first opportunity to study a foreign language was in 7th grade (12 y.o.), and even then it was an elective and not a required subject.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Maybe it´s because our own language is pretty difficult itself (it is Czech, one of the most difficult Slavic languages because of its 7 cases and an enormous mount of exceptions). You have to understand basics of syntax to be any good in ortography. It is a small language, if you travel, you can hardly expect anybody will understand your language. So we were very much oriented to foreign languages. During the Austrian monarchy, every litterate person knew German, too (and people from gymnasiums and technical schools and seminars Latin and Ancient Greek). After WWI, it was French and English, a bit of German, as they are our neighbors (and Latin and Ancient Greek). After WWII, it was Russian (political reasons), then English (for science), French (for love of it; rarely)... German was hated, there were two generations who did not want to learn German for the bad memories it was bringing to their parents and grandparents. Nowadays, Russian is hated and our children learn English (everybody), then at least one, but better two other languages (German, Italian, Spanish, mostly).
It is different, when you speak a language which is not so world-wide spread as English. You simply have to learn, if you want to speak with anybody not-Czech.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Public schools didn't offer foreign languages until 7th grade where I lived, too. I went to a couple of private schools that taught Spanish from 1st grade (age: 6) on, but that didn't work out too well. It was in the general classroom so any new students to the class slowed the rest of the class down and made endless repetitions of things that were already taught.

Here in South Carolina now, the elementary schools offer a second language from about the third grade on (age 8 or so). In our district, each elementary school teaches a different language so if you want your child to learn a particular language that is not in your local school, you petition to have your child attend the school that offers it. I think the languages are Spanish, French and German but it's been a while since I checked.

That's because here, you now need a foreign language to a certain level of fluency to graduate from college. I don't know if this is the same in other states or not.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Yes. Two languages above the ones you are studying as your main subject in Faculty of Arts here. And Latin; if you study Latin as your main, then Ancient Greek; if you are lucky enough to study it as your main as well, they don´t have any more difficult stuff to throw at you. :-))

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

There was a big downfall after the end of the Cold War here.

Okay, I have the local news on on my TV, because here in New England we are having yet ANOTHER major winter storm.

And right when I started to read your post, the news reported on the many schools in the area that closed early because of the weather; but the reporter then went on to ask the question, "What happens when the kids get early dismissal?"

And the answer, demonstrated live on TV, was to play Wii! =:-o

And that, in a nutshell, sums up what is wrong with American schools in this day and age.

Back when *I* was in school, the answer to "What happens when the kids get early dismissal/have classes cancelled due to snow?" was WE DID HOMEWORK!

If we didn't have homework, or had finished, we might go out and play in the snow, if the storm wasn't too severe.

My parents were very strict when it came to watching TV; homework had to be finished before the television could even be turned on. Even then, if the weather wasn't too severe, we were expected to go outside to play. If it was too severe, then we could play with our dolls, or play a board game, or read a book. Only after we'd demonstrated that we'd already exhausted those options would the television be allowed to be turned on.

But on today's news report, the reporter bewailed the fact that with so many snow days this season so far, Connecticut schoolkids "don't know what to do when they aren't in school..."

(Begs the question of what they do with themselves during school vacations...)

Then the parents started to oppose the teachers - child is not lazy, but teacher is meeeeaaaaannnn

A similar thing here in the states...some time back it suddenly was decided that a child's feelings were more important than the child actually learning something, so teachers began to be discouraged to give failing grades or even low grades or any criticism, because it would make little Johnny or Janie "feel bad"...

In some school systems they stopped holding failing students back, they just passed them to the next higher grade even if they flunked, because keeping a failing student behind would adversely effect their self-esteem. I guess being in a class where they couldn't keep up with fellow students wouldn't also effect their self-esteem?

It was that debacle that probably led to the current standardized comprehensive tests every couple of grades, but as I've mentioned in another post, that has resulted in a system of "teaching to the test", and attitude of teachers and school systems that the only thing important is to have the most students pass the standardized tests, regardless of whether the students are actually learning anything or not.

[oryx_leucoryx]

In some school systems they stopped holding failing students back, they just passed them to the next higher grade even if they flunked, because keeping a failing student behind would adversely effect their self-esteem.

Actually the claim was (and still is) that holding students back caused them to drop out of school. Of course in a US highschool if one doesn't complete graduation requirements one stays an extra year anyway if one intends to graduate. And if a student has to repeat a class s/he didn't pass s/he is still learning with younger students.

In reality whether a student is promoted or held back, a student who already failed several courses needs more help than just repeating the same class. Do the schools have the manpower to provide this support?

In Israel in my day there were still the kids whose report card said 'the above mentioned will continue to the next grade, but not in our school' - ie they had the choice of repeating the year or finding a school that would take them in at their performance level. In my school, if a student failed one or two classes in a year s/he had to take a test on it at the end of summer vacation - so if they caught up during the summer they could continue with their year. But failing 3 classes or more or failing the repeat exams left the student with the choice to repeat the year or change schools.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Yes for the test, in front of three teachers. The same here.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

In reality whether a student is promoted or held back, a student who already failed several courses needs more help than just repeating the same class. Do the schools have the manpower to provide this support?

Most likely not, just like they don't have the manpower to deal with especially bright students, so the curriculum ends up being geared to the lowest-common-denominator.

When I was in high school there was a girl in my class, she was actually in the same homeroom as me, and it wasn't until either late in our sophomore year or early in our junior year that it dawned on us that while this girl was in our freshman year when we started, no one could remember her ever attending the junior high we'd come from...

At first we passed it off that she had transferred from another school, but sometime around the end of our sophomore or beginning of our junior year, it came out that this girl had been held back AT LEAST THREE TIMES, and that she was actually 20 y.o.! I actually thought it was a false, nasty rumor, but the girl herself one day confirmed it.

We were 15-16 y.o., here was this girl who was 4-5 years older than us, and the school system just kept holding her back.

I actually liked this girl, she was very nice, and while not a brilliant scholar, she didn't come off to me as being particularly stupid, so I don't know what the problem was that resulted in her being held back year-after-year. The girl herself was somewhat vague when asked about it (but I suspect a lot of that was due to embarrassment), but I think that at least one or two of the times was due to family/personal problems, she may have had some sort of learning disability also.

By the time she was my classmate, she managed to get mostly C's with one or two D's, but that was enough to pass her on to the next grade, and she graduated with us...we were 17/18 y.o, she was like 23...

But I really give her credit -- legally she could have dropped out of school at the age of 16, so even though she may have been learning-disabled, even tho she had to work hard just to get C's and D's, she cared enough about getting a high school diploma to stick it out long after she could have bailed...

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I keep thinking that students should be held back much earlier than they are when there's a problem. It's easier to learn when you're only behind by a semester or a year than it is to catch up later on down the line. But, those kids need their self-esteem boosted as June said, so off they go, swamped and overwhelmed by new stuff that needs the basics that were never learned properly. This lack of a sufficient base goes on year after year because the problem wasn't addressed when it first popped up.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

But, those kids need their self-esteem boosted as June said, so off they go, swamped and overwhelmed by new stuff that needs the basics that were never learned properly. This lack of a sufficient base goes on year after year because the problem wasn't addressed when it first popped up.

And IMHO I don't think society is doing these kids any favors, because at some time in their future every one of these kids will need to get a job, and their employer won't be giving them a pass in performance reviews in the name of the employee's self-esteem...

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

Yes. Exactly. "You want to go out? Show me your homework! Is it really all? What about xxx? Show me your notebook! Do you know what is... Ah, I see you haven´t washed the dishes... you don´t want to go out so badly, do you?"
Man, I hated my mum... But she *was* right.
I fear it´s going to be "teaching to the tests" with the new maturity exam... I can only hope the teachers will be clever enough to find some way around this drive... They say: "The good teachers were teaching at their best under any Minister, the lazy ones were doing their minimum every time, what will change now?"
Still, there is more of the good ones than of the lazy ones, so we can hope.
But still, I fear...
I am a strict one, myself. And you know what? The children love it. They cry, of course, "it´s too much and this and that", but then, they go to another class and say: "Phew, we have poor grades sometimes, yes, we do, but our C is three times more worthy than your A!" - and they know they are right...
So much for the precious self-esteem. :-)) If you know something, your self-esteem has roots. Otherwise, it´s hollow. They do feel the difference.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

My house back when I was in school:

Me: "I'm bored!"

Parent: "Study. Or, you could clean the living room (meaning heavy cleaning) or take the dog for a walk or help with dinner (rarely, we had a small kitchen) or read a book or go help (lady next door)..."

I'm a pretty good student. I get good marks. Sometimes I feel like they're give-aways. Maybe I'm just really good in those subjects, I don't know. I do know that I could never get top marks in one teacher's classes, and I had her for two semesters. She's an older teacher and she grades hard. She isn't mean or callous, she just expects excellence. I worked my tail off and only got a 'B' but, these 'B's I got from her were hard-won and valuable. A lot more worthy than a give-away A. :)

[oryx_leucoryx]

One thing that complicates the comparison over time is that in many countries secondary school systems became accessible to a broader population. As in ioanna's example - gymnasium schools changing from a school for the top students to a school for a larger fraction of the students. The same happened in Israel in the 70s - earlier to enter an academic-type highschool a student had to pass an exam, and then either pay for schooling or qualify for a scholarship. Students who didn't enter these schools attended technical schools (which also existed at several levels) or entered an apprenticeship program where they learned one day a week and worked the rest. Then the secondary school system was reformed (more than once) resulting in a much larger segment of the population entering academic highschools (and the various technical and trade schools offering programs that combined preparation for matriculation exams with professional studies; apprenticeship programs were canceled). So one reason for the apparent drop in standards is that schools became less selective.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I think that's happened here, too. We have more jobs and careers related to more academic type work than manual labor or craftsmanship any more so more kids are encouraged to go on to the academic high schools and then to college. My second-born, who is bright, wanted to become a beautician so she went to a trade tech high school. When we moved to a small town, she didn't have that option and ended up dropping out. A lot of kids struggle with schooling because they really would rather do something than sit and read more school books. Talk about boosting self-esteem, there's nothing in excelling academically if you would rather become a craftsman or hands-on worker. Doing something well, crafting it, gives a lot of pleasure to a lot of people. The problem is in getting a job. Some jobs have gone overseas and some have gone the way of the buggy whip - they just aren't necessary any more. So, the fall-back is more academic schooling, which just devalues the schooling. Like ioanna said, it's a pride in achieving. A lot of kids would like to be proud of something else but that's all that's on offer.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Wow. That's some schooling! I agree that having facts helps people to make more informed decisions. Nowadays it all seems to be about feelings and their validation.

Back when I was in school, we began electives in junior high (or middle) school. They were supposed to be something we were interested in that would lead to a career. Our school offered several different types of English classes so, even though English was a required subject, we could take classes on creative writing, film, literature, or grammar. All the English elective courses insisted on proper grammar and spelling. We could take different types of math classes, too, from the basics for people like me who just never could understand numbers, to more specialized courses like geometry and triginometry. I can't really say what sorts of math courses were offered, though, since I only took the basic courses.

In my college, for undergraduate work, we're expected to have a well-rounded education. A bachelor degree in science would have the student taking more math courses but that student would also need background in the humanities. Humanities students need more courses in their particular field of study such as sociology but still need two science courses that include a lab. The language taken influences the history and geography courses a student will take. I took Arabic so I took a geography course on the Middle East.

One thing I've noticed in my master's course is that we read articles that sometimes offer a false dichotomy and everyone in class discussion goes along with the articles' conclusions based on this dichotomy. Everything is "either/or" and there is no other option until someone proposes one. Critical thinking, knowing how to objectively look at arguments and consider possible alternatives, seems to be lacking.

[ioanna-ioannina.livejournal.com]

I´ll speak about my Faculty of Arts here, but the same goes for all the University, mutatis mutandis.
In the first cycle of studies (for Bc., even if in some subjects, there is no Bc., only MA., because with Bc. only, you would be of no use - for example my classical philology); so in the first cycle you are studying your subject plus two or three all-faculty courses. (For Latin it is: all morhphology, syntax, history of literature, ancient history, mythology, 10 authors to read (this means, for the exam, you get a text, no vocabulary, you directly start to translate and explain who, when, why), ancient philosophy, history of art (classical archaeology, basics); the all-faculty courses are history of philosophy from Greeks to the present time, Latin (if your subject is Latin, you skip this, as you already know much more, but you have to do Ancient Greek) and two semestres of an exercise of your choice.
You have from two to three years. Then you do the exam for Bc. (even if you won´t get the title, the exam is still there). Half of your year drops, they end as nothing.
The second cycle is more variable. You have to study some core things - historical grammar (evolution of Latin), medieval Latin, Roman law, stylistics, rhetorics, metrics. Next 10 or so authors to read. You have to pick from things like: papyrology, history of writing (from Linear A to Garamond :-)) ), drama, reading of Vulgata, you get the picture; and you have to pick I believe 8 courses from outside of your Institute (usually from the same Faculty, but you can go anywhere in the same Uni). And the two languages, and if you want to teach, teaching courses.
Then the MA exam, and you can go and teach "femina, feminae, feminae" in the secondary school. :-))

I agree, not everybody can be a craftsman, either. It is an art of its own, if done properly. But you know, it´s the @#@! money - it´s less expensive to move the premises, say, to China, and not think about your children and the future. Grrrr.