Oh, and since he has two kids it's even less of an EIA, unless the own goal caused them to die of shame.

Just giving a student more attention doesn't automatically mean they're doing better and everyone else doing worse, and it doesn't automatically lead to the better students somehow missing out or getting held back. There's nothing inhibiting students from maximizing their potential, whatever that means. Making sure everyone passes the bar and gets a sound education is what school is about, not forcing everyone to know the same things regardless of their ability to learn. It's about giving everyone as similar an education as possible, which practically means as much personal freedom to pursue ones own goals.
Of course it would be better if there were more teachers and smaller classes. But the fact of the matter is that most kids who do well in school are doing well because they have their parents' and/or private tutors involved in their education, helping out at home and being active in the child's upbringing. You'd be surprised how even the playingfield is when it comes to talent.

There's simply no validity to the saying that putting extra effort in helping the students who have a harder time learning leads to the students having an easier time learning would somehow lose part of their intelligence or are robbed of education. To be more precise: what is it those gifted students are missing out on? Because I still don't really understand what it would mean for a school to "maximize each individual's potential". As you know, school is for teaching kids broad, basic, general and useful information, to give them an understanding of the world and their surroundings and get them in an environment where they get to interact and cooperate with others. In that regard there is no such thing as lowering the bar when it comes to making an effort to get as many kids as possible to pass. In that regard there is only teaching as many as possible what they need to learn, and actually have them learn it. In geography they need to know what continents are located where, major countries and capital cities etc. In music they need to have tried playing a couple of instruments, sung a couple of songs and learned the basics of music creation. By "maximizing their potential", would that mean making them memorize all countries and cities, make them compose music and become proficient in several instruments?
This doesn't mean that because one kid is done with its calculus and another isn't, that the first will sit on its behind until the second is done aswell. That's a ridiculus proposition and one which we all know isn't how schools work. There's advanced calculus, trigonometry and a host of other things for them to learn. But there are base skills that needs to be known by a student,
things that have been agreed upon by society that a student has to have a grasp of. That's why students struggling to learn them need to get extra help, not because they're raising hell and causing a ruckus.

I'd like to point you to a form of education called the "Montessori method", which has shown great potential and results thus far in preschools and gradeschools, and where the students are encouraged to learn by themselves by teachers changing the dynamics of the classroom aswell as have them take on a different role from the standard lecturer. It's shown that children can not only learn faster and more qualitatively by doing, but they're also improving their own knowledge by helping their friends and classmates learn. Your statement about forcing students to become assistant teachers is not only flat out wrong, it shows a lack of understanding of the subject.

There's also university, where people generally go to maximize their potential. That's where they narrow down their education to one or a couple of fields, and develop their personal interests and/or potential into a profession and hopefully a career.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'football, own goal, england, borat' to 'football, own goal, england, croatia, borat, paul robinson, goalie, bobble, 2006' - edited by kronosposeidon

I don't have a problem with religion being taught in public schools, but how the heck would it ever work? When would it be taught? Which religion? Surely there isn't enough funding to teach all religions present in a multi-cultural country (and classroom) like the USA, or any other. What constitutes as a religion? Fundamentally, I think it would be impossible to teach religion in the classroom without infringing on others beliefs and the idea of the separation of church and state.

If you want religion in the classroom, enroll your child in a private school like St. Mary's, or any other equivalent. That's what they're for.

And the fruitfly debate-if there ever was be a debate-is ridiculous. Either Palin is working with her writers to make political suicide-so she can break off and pursue her own goals-or her writers don't have a flipp'n clue what they are putting on paper. Clearly there has been no research or foresight in calling the fruitfly research a waste of resources.

Or, she actually knows the-what she would call "facts"-and believes it anyway, in which case she was born about 400 years too late.

Great defensive work!

Football works like this, what the ref thinks happened is considered to have happened. If the ref doesn't think the ball cross the line, it's not a goal (when a 3rd party interferes, it's a drop ball). In this case, the defending team shouldn't contest the drop ball and whoever was about to score should tap it in, but that rarely happens.

It has happened on occasion, last season in a minor English game a player had heart failure at half-time and the match was called off with his team (Leicester I think) losing 1-0 to Forest. When they replayed the whole match a few weeks later, his team stood still while the opposition goalkeeper walked the ball into their net to restore the score. Great sportsmanship, but it also shows how the ref has his hands tied in such matters. He can't demand this, he can't just say it's a goal, but if the two teams sort something out on the pitch, he won't stop them (unless it's some sort of match fixing, but I don't think this counted!)

There was an opposite incident last week, Reading "scored" against Watford according to the ref, however no one except the officials saw it. What happened is that the ball was in the box, near the goal (about where the inner, 6-yard box meets the goal line, if you know your stuff) on the assistant referee's side (assistant referee = linesman). For some reason this linesman thought it had crossed the goal line (it hadn't) between the posts (not even that close) and the ref, who's view may have been blocked, took his advice and awarded the goal. It was a hideous decision but it stands. In fact it went down as an Own Goal for some poor Watford defender who happened to have touched it last.

At a guess half the fans were confused until about 4 hours after the match when the news reports came through. The players must have been confused too, certainly no Reading player celebrated until after the ref had talked to his linesman and I'm sure all 11 of them would immediately admit it wasn't fair. They offered to replay the match but the FA said no, ref's decision is final. The ref got into a bit of trouble I believe, although the linesman who screwed up was running a Premiership line the next week so he's OK. The buck stops at the ref.

Love how the Japanese player accidentally cheered his own goal at first too. Sweet sweet *comedy, but it's *dark, especially because of what happened to Escobar.

Looks like he might have kicked it and it hit the other teams player and bounced in. At least it wasnt a direct kick into their own goal.

Yellow goalie is on the red team. He scored a pk goal (that's allowed).

Problem was that while marching back to his own goal and glad-handing everyone on the way the other team kicked the ball into his net (before he got into position to save it).

He was too slow!

To be a great own goal, it has to be a ball that wouldn't have gone in if the person hadn't touched it. This one fails that test.