The Politics Thread

[William the White]

Hobo - my daughter attends a catholic secondary school in Bolton...her brother a primary feeder

Both schools are heaving with 'puters

JSL

Cos I really can't be arsed arguing the merits or otherwise of Grammar Schools, with folk who in many cases reaped the benefits now decide its shite

All sounds a bit anntaylorish to me

Why not? You'll only talk about its merits or otherwise with people that didn't go?

I went to grammar school. Then university. All my kids went to state comps, all went to uni (one starts next year). When we had selective education it was pretty much decided at the age of 11 whether you were going to higher education or not. Absurd and disgraceful. Says ex-grammar school boy cheeky enough to cruticise a system he benefited from.

I went to Grammar School and after a gap of 11 years went to University. All we've done by ridding the UK of Grammar Schools is remove an additional opportunity for kids from less well off families. We used to have Public Schools, and a two tier system for those who couldn't afford a private education, that was accessible by all. Now we just have Public Schools and "all the rest". If you're truly going to try and level the playing field, then you'd need to get rid of Public Schools as well - which quite frankly neither Government is going to do (and I'm not convinced should do either).

We should carry on pretending to be non-selective until the age of at least 65 with CEO's being voted in, by the Country at large on a referendum, because the rest of life, business and the real world is non-selective and works like that. (Honest, it really does).

Disagree with pretty much all of this - and i'd abolish public schools tomorrow, given a chance, in what would be a huge contribution to democracy... The 'grammar school' I went to is now a 'public school' - and that would be first on my list... Oh, yes...

But then people would just get private tutors in...

You angling for a job in the highly paid private sector?

Hey - my petticoats showing...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Disagree with pretty much all of this - and i'd abolish public schools tomorrow, given a chance, in what would be a huge contribution to democracy...

A draconian ban on groups of people getting together and offering education for sale would be a 'huge contribution to democracy'?

[William the White]

Disagree with pretty much all of this - and i'd abolish public schools tomorrow, given a chance, in what would be a huge contribution to democracy...

A draconian ban on groups of people getting together and offering education for sale would be a 'huge contribution to democracy'?

Of course. And obviously so. Why do you think not?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Disagree with pretty much all of this - and i'd abolish public schools tomorrow, given a chance, in what would be a huge contribution to democracy...

A draconian ban on groups of people getting together and offering education for sale would be a 'huge contribution to democracy'?

Of course. And obviously so. Why do you think not?

Well, yes, I believe people should be as free to spend their money on educating their children as they are on taking them on holiday or on nice cars to drive them around in.

But I can see that some people might pursue banning private education with various (misguided) aims - I'm just not sure what the direct link to 'democracy' is, unless you're just using that as a puff word that encapsulates all that you consider to be politically desirable.

[InsaneApache]

Education is too important to be left to politicians.

[Prufrock]

The point of education is to make sure we have an apporpriately skilled workforce for the future.

Surely given the increasing impact of IT in virtually all spheres of life, and the central role it plays in a wide variety of businesses, surely it is key to invest in IT teaching in schools to improve the standards?

No it isn't

It is and if it isn't it should be. Yes there are the side issues of making rounded people, with social skills, interests in knowledge etc etc.

But the main aim is to develop skills in people that can be used to serve the general good, in the future.

Otherwise whats the point of structured education? We could all just learn shit off the internet and wallow in our mud huts!

I find these discussions often very interesting. You and I tend fairly consistently to agree on how society could be improved. Where I feel we differ massively is what we think society is for. Children are not iron to be worked, or coal to be mined. People are not resources. The people do not exist to serve the nation, the nation exists to serve the people. Making rounded people, with social skills and interest in knowledge are not side issues, they are the only issue. They are what life is about. We work to pay bills. We pay taxes to pay for society. We have infrastructure and a social fabric so that collectively we are stronger, and have a safety net when things go wrong. Society is a fantastic thing, a thing that sets the human race apart, but it is pointless in itself. Life is about much more than that. Life is about our hobbies, our interests, the set of things we enjoy which no other person quite shares. To expand on Tango's point, if there is one time in our lives when we should be free to just enjoy life, to enjoy the things which interest us, then it is when we are children.

I went to a private school. I disagree with the system, but I make no apologies for my education, and I feel genuinley priveleged to have had the oppurtunity to see, read and discuss things I just wouldn't have had the chance to had I gone to a state school. Not everyone is the same. People are individuals and have different interests and tastes. My own experiences suggest a correlation between the things which interest us, and the things we are good at. Kids should be allowed to follow their interests, be they whatever. Some kids will have interests in literature, some art, some scientific thinking, some solving problems, most a combination of these and other interests. The education system should be about making as many oppurtunities as possible for each child to follow their interests. Their are arguments for different systems to acheive that, but for me that must always be the aim. That and to make sure they aren't a bunch of cold detached bastards with any ingenuity, romance and people skillz drilled out of them.

Life is too short to live without poetry.

[Prufrock]

Its an interesting point Pru, the "education for educations sake" one, and peculiarly a British (English even) outlook. If you ever get time, read a book by Len Deighton, entitled "Blood, Tears and Folly". It might surprise you to find it in a book about the origins of the Second World War, but he offers a detailed and scrutinous critique of the ethos of English Education in the 20th century. Despite all the propoganda thats been handed down to us from WW2, at the start we struggled to find competent people in many, many fields because of our outlook and attitude towards developing skills. The Germans, particularly, and most of the other belligerents certainly, had a far more sophisticated and organised education system that produced phenomenally skilled and educated people...in science, maths etc, not necessarily classics and philosophy.

Well worth a read, as I too tend to lean towards the making of rounded human beings. But its disabused me of a few sensibilities.

It is a book I have heard recommended before, though not for the reasons you do. It has always been on that vague list of books I kind of intend to think about reading, though I think I shall push it up there to at least check out. It is certainly an interesting point, as wars unfortunately do need winning, things need making, I just think it is depressing if that is the extent of our ambitions. That children are resources to be worked, and polished into a machine to continue society so they can breed their own litter of future workers. Life's sposed to be about much more than that. At least I hope it is.

What are the sensibilities you had which it checked?

[Worthy4England]

The point of education is to make sure we have an apporpriately skilled workforce for the future.

Surely given the increasing impact of IT in virtually all spheres of life, and the central role it plays in a wide variety of businesses, surely it is key to invest in IT teaching in schools to improve the standards?

No it isn't

It is and if it isn't it should be. Yes there are the side issues of making rounded people, with social skills, interests in knowledge etc etc.

But the main aim is to develop skills in people that can be used to serve the general good, in the future.

Otherwise whats the point of structured education? We could all just learn shit off the internet and wallow in our mud huts!

I find these discussions often very interesting. You and I tend fairly consistently to agree on how society could be improved. Where I feel we differ massively is what we think society is for. Children are not iron to be worked, or coal to be mined. People are not resources. The people do not exist to serve the nation, the nation exists to serve the people. Making rounded people, with social skills and interest in knowledge are not side issues, they are the only issue. They are what life is about. We work to pay bills. We pay taxes to pay for society. We have infrastructure and a social fabric so that collectively we are stronger, and have a safety net when things go wrong. Society is a fantastic thing, a thing that sets the human race apart, but it is pointless in itself. Life is about much more than that. Life is about our hobbies, our interests, the set of things we enjoy which no other person quite shares. To expand on Tango's point, if there is one time in our lives when we should be free to just enjoy life, to enjoy the things which interest us, then it is when we are children.

I went to a private school. I disagree with the system, but I make no apologies for my education, and I feel genuinley priveleged to have had the oppurtunity to see, read and discuss things I just wouldn't have had the chance to had I gone to a state school. Not everyone is the same. People are individuals and have different interests and tastes. My own experiences suggest a correlation between the things which interest us, and the things we are good at. Kids should be allowed to follow their interests, be they whatever. Some kids will have interests in literature, some art, some scientific thinking, some solving problems, most a combination of these and other interests. The education system should be about making as many oppurtunities as possible for each child to follow their interests. Their are arguments for different systems to acheive that, but for me that must always be the aim. That and to make sure they aren't a bunch of cold detached bastards with any ingenuity, romance and people skillz drilled out of them.

Life is too short to live without poetry.

There's much in here that I agree with Pru. Then there is the harsh reality of the "world after education". The focus on us as a society teaching kids to read, write and do sums isn't an opposing view to them being "well rounded", it's part of the view around "that's what helps pay the bills" when they're grown up. I do have a problem with the concept that we allow kids to follow their own interests if that's not likely to give them a means of supporting themselves when they come out of the educational system.

[BWFC_Insane]

The point of education is to make sure we have an apporpriately skilled workforce for the future.

Surely given the increasing impact of IT in virtually all spheres of life, and the central role it plays in a wide variety of businesses, surely it is key to invest in IT teaching in schools to improve the standards?

No it isn't

It is and if it isn't it should be. Yes there are the side issues of making rounded people, with social skills, interests in knowledge etc etc.

But the main aim is to develop skills in people that can be used to serve the general good, in the future.

Otherwise whats the point of structured education? We could all just learn shit off the internet and wallow in our mud huts!

I find these discussions often very interesting. You and I tend fairly consistently to agree on how society could be improved. Where I feel we differ massively is what we think society is for. Children are not iron to be worked, or coal to be mined. People are not resources. The people do not exist to serve the nation, the nation exists to serve the people. Making rounded people, with social skills and interest in knowledge are not side issues, they are the only issue. They are what life is about. We work to pay bills. We pay taxes to pay for society. We have infrastructure and a social fabric so that collectively we are stronger, and have a safety net when things go wrong. Society is a fantastic thing, a thing that sets the human race apart, but it is pointless in itself. Life is about much more than that. Life is about our hobbies, our interests, the set of things we enjoy which no other person quite shares. To expand on Tango's point, if there is one time in our lives when we should be free to just enjoy life, to enjoy the things which interest us, then it is when we are children.

I went to a private school. I disagree with the system, but I make no apologies for my education, and I feel genuinley priveleged to have had the oppurtunity to see, read and discuss things I just wouldn't have had the chance to had I gone to a state school. Not everyone is the same. People are individuals and have different interests and tastes. My own experiences suggest a correlation between the things which interest us, and the things we are good at. Kids should be allowed to follow their interests, be they whatever. Some kids will have interests in literature, some art, some scientific thinking, some solving problems, most a combination of these and other interests. The education system should be about making as many oppurtunities as possible for each child to follow their interests. Their are arguments for different systems to acheive that, but for me that must always be the aim. That and to make sure they aren't a bunch of cold detached bastards with any ingenuity, romance and people skillz drilled out of them.

Life is too short to live without poetry.

Pru thats a good post. I don't have an issue with having artists, and encouraging that.

But what I meant was not a dissection of science vs art. I was talking about schools main purpose being to prepare a workforce for the future. Now that work may be as varied as art, poetry and IT technicians but still by encouraging the various skills and by making sure they are prepared for whatever job they go into.

It is also educations job to make sure we have the right spread of people with the right skills.

A world full of poets and we'd be in the shite!

[ratbert]

A world full of poets and we'd be in the shite!

But someone has to teach poetry!

[Lord Kangana]

Its an interesting point Pru, the "education for educations sake" one, and peculiarly a British (English even) outlook. If you ever get time, read a book by Len Deighton, entitled "Blood, Tears and Folly". It might surprise you to find it in a book about the origins of the Second World War, but he offers a detailed and scrutinous critique of the ethos of English Education in the 20th century. Despite all the propoganda thats been handed down to us from WW2, at the start we struggled to find competent people in many, many fields because of our outlook and attitude towards developing skills. The Germans, particularly, and most of the other belligerents certainly, had a far more sophisticated and organised education system that produced phenomenally skilled and educated people...in science, maths etc, not necessarily classics and philosophy.

Well worth a read, as I too tend to lean towards the making of rounded human beings. But its disabused me of a few sensibilities.

It is a book I have heard recommended before, though not for the reasons you do. It has always been on that vague list of books I kind of intend to think about reading, though I think I shall push it up there to at least check out. It is certainly an interesting point, as wars unfortunately do need winning, things need making, I just think it is depressing if that is the extent of our ambitions. That children are resources to be worked, and polished into a machine to continue society so they can breed their own litter of future workers. Life's sposed to be about much more than that. At least I hope it is.

What are the sensibilities you had which it checked?

In short, the British economy and much more importantly the British people are held back by lack of useful and practical education. This suits many an unscrupulous employer who can keep wages low, and obviously means social mobility is restricted. It takes a little bit of a leap of faith to understand what he's getting at, but it makes a lot of sense. In a perverse way it restricts your options to not be a specialist.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Some kids will have interests in literature, some art, some scientific thinking, some solving problems, most a combination of these and other interests.

All I remember being interested in was getting off my mash and girls.

[Bruno]

Some kids will have interests in literature, some art, some scientific thinking, some solving problems, most a combination of these and other interests.

All I remember being interested in was getting off my mash and girls.

They should get out more and play some football

[Puskas]

Some kids will have interests in literature, some art, some scientific thinking, some solving problems, most a combination of these and other interests.

All I remember being interested in was getting off my mash and girls.

They should get out more and play some football

Who should? Girls?

[Bruno]

Read the emboldenised text

[Lord Kangana]

Shouldn't that be emboldened? If you're advocating football as an educational tool etc

[Puskas]

Read the emboldenised text

Oh yeah. Sorry. Went out last night. Drank some beer. Still not functioning absolutely correctly.

[Bruno]

Shouldn't that be emboldened? If you're advocating football as an educational tool etc

I prefer emboldenised, or embiggened.

[Puskas]

Shouldn't that be emboldened? If you're advocating football as an educational tool etc

I prefer emboldenised, or embiggened.

I think LK just likes to correctionise things.

[Bruno]

Shouldn't that be emboldened? If you're advocating football as an educational tool etc

I prefer emboldenised, or embiggened.

I think LK just likes to correctionise things.

You're getting it!