The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-05-2012, 06:39 AM   #1
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Well, yes. Because in order to effect mass education of the entire nation government is generally required to be involved.

I think it's really easy for us to question the necessity of mass education. But I also think it is important to remember that this was not simply imposed onto us from above. It is something which had to be fought for. The need for an educated workforce and the need for literacy as a life skill came before any serious government involvement. And when that involvement began it was highly controversial.

Speaking just for Britain, as I am less familiar with what was happening over in America at this time, the early moves to ensure educational opportunity to poorer families (education, incidently, being one of the areas that Adam Smith suggested was an appropriate place for government intervention and even if necessary provision) were something opposed by many on the right as being unnecessary, and likely to make for an unhappier (less obedient) and less settled workforce.

Polemic battles were fought against acts requiring parishes to ensure some sort of education provision was made available. Reading, it was suggested, bred insurrection and unhappiness in the lower orders. What need had they for such things? Theirs was not a world of literature, but of looms, ploughs, hammers and nails.

I have a lot of problems with the education system as it is. The idea of a massified and uniform approach to something as fluid and invidual as learning seems clunky and inadequate. And the insistence on attendance, coupled with sanctions against children and parents for non-compliance seems heavy handed. A one size fits all system is never going to answer the whole question of teaching and learning.

But. Wherever education is left to the private sector it fails or completely barrs the lowest economic strata. Where education is not mandated, gender inequality becomes much greater. It was only in my mother's generation that if a family had enough money to send one child to college and university they'd almost always choose the son, because girls left work when they got married. Without mandated education families forced to choose which children were educated would make a calculation based on many such factors. Such is the way of it in some countries now.

Parents are just people. They know their individual child better than anyone. But they are no more or less likely to make good decisions than anybody else.
__________________
Quote:
There's only so much punishment a man can take in pursuit of punani. - Sundae
http://sites.google.com/site/danispoetry/
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 10:25 AM   #2
Griff
still says videotape
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 26,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post

I have a lot of problems with the education system as it is. The idea of a massified and uniform approach to something as fluid and invidual as learning seems clunky and inadequate. And the insistence on attendance, coupled with sanctions against children and parents for non-compliance seems heavy handed. A one size fits all system is never going to answer the whole question of teaching and learning.

But. Wherever education is left to the private sector it fails or completely barrs the lowest economic strata. Where education is not mandated, gender inequality becomes much greater. It was only in my mother's generation that if a family had enough money to send one child to college and university they'd almost always choose the son, because girls left work when they got married. Without mandated education families forced to choose which children were educated would make a calculation based on many such factors. Such is the way of it in some countries now.
Heartily agree.

Quote:
Parents are just people. They know their individual child better than anyone. But they are no more or less likely to make good decisions than anybody else.
Heartily disagree. The say 10-20% of children our system fails today have those parents but they rest do not. Those kids were uneducated before and remain uneducated. Public ed gives them the opportunity but few take it.

The system as it is is inadequate for the needs of modern society. Its inflexibility is increasing at just the wrong time. I am in no way arguing for less funding, but I am arguing for more of an open system with more choice.
__________________
If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Griff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2012, 02:28 PM   #3
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff View Post
The system as it is is inadequate for the needs of modern society. Its inflexibility is increasing at just the wrong time. I am in no way arguing for less funding, but I am arguing for more of an open system with more choice.
What good is more choice? How to separate the failing schools from the better ones? Almost every time, the schools with the greatest problems have the most empty parking spaces on Parents-Teacher night.

85% of all problems are, without doubt, directly traceable to top management. That is the parents.

You can often predict the problem students. Observe their parents. Attitude and knowledge comes from top management.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:43 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.