sujets tombés cette année

[kocco]

comment dit on développement durable en anglais ? (c'est pas lasting devlopment ken meme) et que mettriez vous en place

[Roussette]

je me propose de lancer un post avec les sujets tombés cette année en anglais

aider moi a le completer au fur et a mesure de vos passage a l'oraux

- Rowley Douglas on the gifts of the Greeks : http://news.bbc.co.uk

- la grippe Aviaire

- Les cantine scolaire

- la telephone portable a l'ecole : The time Aout 2004

- l'ouragan Katrina

- choix du sapin de Noël : vrai ou artificiel ? Arguments pour/contre ? Enjeux économiques/environnementaux (extrait du Guardian website)

moi je passe mercredi matin a etiolles je v ous tiendrais au courrant

bonne revision

+ questions sur développement durable / protection environnement / ce que je ferais avec une classe pour les sensibiliser ...

Tété je crois qu'on s'est vues et même qu'on s'est parlées

Tu étais convoquée à quelle heure?

[lolo1991]

tu te souviens de quand date l'article????

Bonjour,

Je viens de passer l'anglais à Anthony, j'ai aussi eu les sapins de noels : faut il mieux acheter des sapins en plastic qui durent plusieurs années ou de vrais sapins ?

les questions qui ont suivi étaient de l'ordre :

que feriez avec votre classe pour noel metteriez vous un sapin?

Comment présenteriez vous noel : sous entendu sans parler de religion.......

quelles sont les autre traditions que l'on peut fêter à l'école : Halloween, mother's day....

voilà pour moi c'est fini l'anglais

bon courage à ceux qui vont suivre

LOLO

1ere tentative au CNED

academie de Versailles

[tété95]

je me propose de lancer un post avec les sujets tombés cette année en anglais

aider moi a le completer au fur et a mesure de vos passage a l'oraux

- Rowley Douglas on the gifts of the Greeks : http://news.bbc.co.uk

- la grippe Aviaire

- Les cantine scolaire

- la telephone portable a l'ecole : The time Aout 2004

- l'ouragan Katrina

- choix du sapin de Noël : vrai ou artificiel ? Arguments pour/contre ? Enjeux économiques/environnementaux (extrait du Guardian website)

moi je passe mercredi matin a etiolles je v ous tiendrais au courrant

bonne revision

+ questions sur développement durable / protection environnement / ce que je ferais avec une classe pour les sensibiliser ...

Tété je crois qu'on s'est vues et même qu'on s'est parlées

Tu étais convoquée à quelle heure?

13:25 / 3ème voie Versailles / je suis grande, brune, cheveux courts, en jupe

Assise devant UP2 / salle prépa 21

Voilou, peux pas être plus précise je crois !

Et toi, qui es-tu ?

[London Lullaby]

tu te souviens de quand date l'article????

Je suis aussi tombée sur ce sujet, l'article datait de décembre 2005, le 6 il me semble...

Juste un petit mot à ceux qui sont pas encore passés : ne paniquez pas sur les questions d'ordre pédagogiques, du genre "comment aborderiez-vous ce problème (environnement, Noel, ou tout autre !) en classe ?" : ce n'est que mon opinion, mais j'ai pas l'impression qu'il y ait de réponse vraie ou fausse, mais que ces questions ne sont que des prétextes pour parler, proposer son point de vue. N'oublions pas que ce n'est pas l'OP qu'on passe, mais l'épreuve de langue ! Donc si on est pas capable de trouver beaucoup d'idées, ou des idées bien brillantes, pour aborder les questions dont il est question dans l'article de journal, je pense pas que ce soit rédibitoire !

Bon courage à tous !!

[tété95]

comment dit on développement durable en anglais ? (c'est pas lasting devlopment ken meme) et que mettriez vous en place

développement durable = long-lasting development

Mise en place :

- films genre "planète blanche"

- visite de déchetterie

[Roussette]

13:25 / 3ème voie Versailles / je suis grande, brune, cheveux courts, en jupe

Assise devant UP2 / salle prépa 21

Voilou, peux pas être plus précise je crois !

Et toi, qui es-tu ?

Je t'ai répondu en MP

c'est trop fort!

[kocco]

merci pour la réponse, j'étais pas loin

je panique vraiment, parce que je n'ai pas pu réviser trop l'anglais cette année , et meme si ça ne compte que coef 1 , ce qu'ils ont l'air d'attendre de nous équivaut quasiment à une discussion d'oral pro en anglais, et vu mon niveau c mal parti, mais bon je vais faire de mon mieux,

bon courage à vous

[Solea]

A Saint Germain cet après-midi:

- Un peu avant moi: les sapins de Noel

- Mon sujet:

"Taking the Kids, Guided by Gut And Guesswork" extrait du NY Time (impossible de le visionner en, ligne, il faut payer)

Quel films ciné choisir pour nos enfants? Eliminer les films avec des scènes violentes ou sexuelles, est ce suffisant? (en gros)

Le jury ne m'a posé que des questions sur le texte et m'a demandé d'approfondir. Pas de question perso, pas de rapport avec la classe.

[sewerinne]

A Saint Germain cet après-midi:

- Un peu avant moi: les sapins de Noel

- Mon sujet:

"Taking the Kids, Guided by Gut And Guesswork" extrait du NY Time (impossible de le visionner en, ligne, il faut payer)

Quel films ciné choisir pour nos enfants? Eliminer les films avec des scènes violentes ou sexuelles, est ce suffisant? (en gros)

Le jury ne m'a posé que des questions sur le texte et m'a demandé d'approfondir. Pas de question perso, pas de rapport avec la classe.

Même texte,

Jury très sympathique.

Beaucoup de choses à dire mais le vocabulaire m'a manqué

J'ai parlé de mon expérience et du fait que le midi nous diffusions des films aux enfants.

Ils m'ont demandé si nous faisions des discussions après les films. Malheureusement non !

Demain la course et comme dirait ma grand mère, quand on n'a pas de tête, faut avoir des jambes :P

good luck !

[Solea]

Bonne chance pour la course!

Moi aussi j'ai manqué de vocabulaire (dans le genre "tel film est sorti au cinéma"...)

[marcuse]

Ca doit être cet article, mais quel passage ont-ils choisi?

Taking the Kids, Guided by Gut and Guesswork

By A. O. SCOTT

Published: December 16, 2005

For some time now, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of my day job, I have been moonlighting as an unpaid parenting consultant, on perpetual call to deal with a rather specialized but nonetheless urgent concern. Movie reviews are written for - and despite occasional appearances to the contrary, by - grown-ups, which means they don't always contain the information some adult readers want most. And so, through phone calls, e-mail and occasional grocery-store checkout-line buttonholing, I am continually tapped for what my friends and acquaintances seem to believe will be expert advice. Can I take my 10-year-old to "King Kong"? they want to know. Will my daughter like "The Chronicles of Narnia"? Should I bring the kids along to see "The Squid and the Whale"?

Well, nobody has really asked the last one, though I can imagine situations in which a family viewing of that brutally funny divorce drama might be beneficial, even therapeutic. (On the other hand, if you went in thinking it was a cartoon about lovable aquatic creatures you'd be in for a bit of a shock.) But the answers I come up with tend, in any case, to be frustratingly equivocal. Is a given movie appropriate for your children? It depends - on you and on your children, as much as on the movie. How easily are they scared or disturbed? Do they like being scared or disturbed? What are you comfortable explaining to them, or declining to explain? How do you feel about implicit sex, explicit violence, coarse language, crude humor, egregious cuteness, gratuitous pop-culture references, talking lions or giant monkeys? Would you rather spend money on a babysitter or on popcorn and neon Gummi Worms?

These are complicated questions, and it is not surprising that the ratings by the Motion Picture Association of America, which vaguely suggest guidance and offer strong caution, are not much help. They can give some clues about language, violence, sexual themes and on-screen drug use, but the ratings cannot possibly predict how words, scenes and images will interact with the tastes and sensitivities of young viewers. The only time my 6-year-old daughter has been driven from a movie in terror was by "The Brothers Grimm" last summer, when she could not stand the sight of a child being eaten by a horse. But just a few weeks earlier she had been completely unfazed by the beastly punishments visited on the nasty children in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." Nor was she unduly shaken by the death of a boy in "The River," Jean Renoir's leisurely 1951 masterpiece, which she saw on DVD and promptly proclaimed her second-favorite movie of all time, after "Charlie."

And of course the ratings contain no warnings about stupidity, cynicism or reliance on cliché, attributes that many parents - this one, at least - find as offensive as naughty words, "intense action sequences" or "thematic elements," whatever those are.

In other words, you're on your own. But of course, especially at this time of year, you are also eager to take your children - or someone else's children; or, so help me, the child inside you - to the movies. Child-accompanied moviegoing is, after all, a normative and nearly universal cultural activity. These days the titles that rule the box office are those with cross-generational appeal, the ones adults do not simply endure for the sake of the kids, but also enjoy themselves. The old Hollywood promise of entertainment for everyone survives in the holiday multiplexes, kept alive by the likes of Harry Potter, Chicken Little, Aslan the Lion, King Kong and their brethren.

But are they really for everyone? As I said, it depends. And what about those movies that, while not made specifically for children, might nonetheless interest them? If your child loves musicals, should you risk "The Producers," with its leering jokes, or "Rent," with its characters confronting AIDS and heroin addiction at the top of their lungs? How do you weigh the touchiness of that subject matter against the spirit of the movie, which celebrates not just youthful bohemianism but also the values of friendship and loyalty? As for "The Producers," how do you separate its silly high spirits from its vulgar depictions of women and gay men?

In the end, these questions have less to do with morality than with taste. Neither "Rent" nor "The Producers" is particularly good, partly because each is based on sources that are less than first-rate. But sincere bad art can sometimes be a steppingstone to the appreciation of better examples. A path might be traced, via the Netflix queue or the cast album CD bins, from "Rent," through "Fame" and "Hair," back to "West Side Story" and, for that matter, "La Bohème," the distant inspiration for "Rent." A homeopathic antidote to the creaky naughtiness of "The Producers" can be found in, well, "The Producers" - the one from 1968, with Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel and many fewer songs. From there, you might proceed, with all due caution, through the Mel Brooks filmography and "The 2000-Year-Old Man," which may constitute his surest claim on immortality.

But in the meantime, like it or not, there are other movies to see. It is in the nature of heavily marketed pop-culture monsters like "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," "The Chronicles of Narnia" "Chicken Little" and "King Kong" to seem irresistible. The faces of their heroes stare out from every billboard and passing bus, and it is unlikely that they will do your children any serious harm. Still, it should be possible to exercise some discrimination, and to uphold the parental responsibility of being gatekeeper, protector and, if need be, censor.

My own parental instinct, I should confess, is toward permissiveness, but also toward mediation and a certain didacticism. I don't mind taking my children to movies that may be over their heads or otherwise age-inappropriate, as long as they are willing to endure some discussion afterward. And I've found that the postviewing conversation of children tends to gravitate toward the parts that scared or bothered them, as well as toward the catchphrases and eye-catching set pieces.

After I took my 9-year-old and a friend of his to "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" last spring, for example, they kept coming back to the awful final battle, in which Anakin Skywalker's limbs are severed and his face horribly burned. This was a more intimate kind of violence than they were used to encountering, and they needed to make sense of its place in the movie's narrative. They were disturbed as well as fascinated, and what fascinated me was how seriously they took the scene, which is a grisly confirmation of Anakin's transformation into Darth Vader and a punishment for his allegiance to the dark side. In some ways I wish that George Lucas and I had spared them such a gruesome spectacle, but at the same time their reaction to it confirmed the integrity of Mr. Lucas's story.

I'm less certain about the violence in "King Kong," whose abundant visual pleasures I would nonetheless not want to forbid my son from experiencing. In this case it is not the fate of Kong, or of the supporting characters who meet their ends on Skull Island, but rather the casual mayhem visited on extras, many of them computer generated. When Kong escapes from the Manhattan theater where he has been on display, he rampages through Times Square, grabbing blond women he thinks might be Naomi Watts's character, Ann Darrow, and flinging them aside when they turn out not to be. There is something unthinkingly cruel about this. Surely these innocents would be badly injured or worse, but the movie is not concerned with them.

And the audience is not supposed to be, either, which bothers me, especially because violence without visible consequences - what is meant by "action sequences" in the ratings advisories - is generally viewed as innocuous. But such action blunts rather than engages the sensitivities of viewers and trivializes emotion.

The easy deployment of sentiment has a similar effect. No animated film these days is complete without a moment of scripted uplift and reconciliation, which more often than not seems inserted so parents can be reassured that the spectacle is justified by a lesson. "Chicken Little," for instance, is stuffed full of treacly father-son reconciliation and preachy nostrums about believing in yourself, which would work better if we hadn't heard them already in "Madagascar" and "Robots" and if they had any organic connection to anything else in this lumpy stew of a movie. But these films, full of therapeutic talking points, leave parents and children with very little to talk about, except which instantly obsolete merchandising tie-ins should turn up in Christmas stockings.