What's wrong with Britain 2012
Discussion
XCP said:
FOS is an abstract concept that is meaningless without education.
An educated elite debating FOS whilst excluding the majority is not really much removed from the slave owning democracy of the Greeks, or 18th century America for that matter.
Neither model should be aspired to in the 21st Century.
So is restricting speech better in your book?An educated elite debating FOS whilst excluding the majority is not really much removed from the slave owning democracy of the Greeks, or 18th century America for that matter.
Neither model should be aspired to in the 21st Century.
In my view, education is pretty well impossible without free speech, because without an open and uninhibited discourse it's impossible to advance our knowledge and understanding of the world around us in a meaningful way. You are restricted to following the narrative laid down by the rulers, and which they deem best suits their own ends.
Edited by AJS- on Friday 31st August 10:09
XCP said:
Agreed.
But I thought your stance was that FOS and Association were inalienable rights whereas education was not?
That is my stance. FOS costs nothing and only requires that the government (and others) do not use force or the threat of force to deter or prevent people from advancing their opinions. But I thought your stance was that FOS and Association were inalienable rights whereas education was not?
Giving people a "right" to an education necessitates a lot of other people carrying a lot of obligations. You can be entitled to an education, as you can be entitled to free health care, benefits and a pension, but they are only fleeting entitlements that change with the times. FOS, Association, religion, movement etc are barriers to how far the state may impose on the individual regardless of the changing values and requirements of the political climate at any one time.
Freedom of speech is massively important though in Britain at the moment it's freedom of speech....but watch what you say.
Education in this country should be a privilege rather than a right. To explain, in the 80's when I attended my comprehensive many of the lessons were spent watching teachers battle, sometimes physically, with other kids who didn't want to be there. The net effect of this was my learning being compromised.
Today people talk about moving to a "better area". This often means living somewhere where the schools are "better" Considering nowhere in Britain is without running water, gas, electricity nowhere is plagued by flesh eating insects or killer bees I conclude people MEAN that they want their kids to go to a school which is predominantly attended by other, well behaved kids.
Many of the teachers in rough state schools are more capable than those working in high achieving private schools. They have to be because many of them are up against it, teaching broken kids who are in the fast track to becoming broken adults. That is very sad. For me it's sadder that the kids who may WANT to learn and have potential, have their own chances ruined as they are lumbered with having the problem kids in close proximity to them.
The schools can't impose discipline by expelling or excluding as they need to. If they did some schools would swiftly have far fewer pupils.
We are gifted with a free education in this country. It should be considered a privelege rather than a right. Those who can't or won't embrace it should know that, after a short process, they won't be welcome anymore. Too much focus is placed on problem kids and not enough on those who could be doing better bar the behaviour of the few
Education in this country should be a privilege rather than a right. To explain, in the 80's when I attended my comprehensive many of the lessons were spent watching teachers battle, sometimes physically, with other kids who didn't want to be there. The net effect of this was my learning being compromised.
Today people talk about moving to a "better area". This often means living somewhere where the schools are "better" Considering nowhere in Britain is without running water, gas, electricity nowhere is plagued by flesh eating insects or killer bees I conclude people MEAN that they want their kids to go to a school which is predominantly attended by other, well behaved kids.
Many of the teachers in rough state schools are more capable than those working in high achieving private schools. They have to be because many of them are up against it, teaching broken kids who are in the fast track to becoming broken adults. That is very sad. For me it's sadder that the kids who may WANT to learn and have potential, have their own chances ruined as they are lumbered with having the problem kids in close proximity to them.
The schools can't impose discipline by expelling or excluding as they need to. If they did some schools would swiftly have far fewer pupils.
We are gifted with a free education in this country. It should be considered a privelege rather than a right. Those who can't or won't embrace it should know that, after a short process, they won't be welcome anymore. Too much focus is placed on problem kids and not enough on those who could be doing better bar the behaviour of the few
highway said:
Freedom of speech is massively important though in Britain at the moment it's freedom of speech....but watch what you say.
Education in this country should be a privilege rather than a right. To explain, in the 80's when I attended my comprehensive many of the lessons were spent watching teachers battle, sometimes physically, with other kids who didn't want to be there. The net effect of this was my learning being compromised.
Today people talk about moving to a "better area". This often means living somewhere where the schools are "better" Considering nowhere in Britain is without running water, gas, electricity nowhere is plagued by flesh eating insects or killer bees I conclude people MEAN that they want their kids to go to a school which is predominantly attended by other, well behaved kids.
Many of the teachers in rough state schools are more capable than those working in high achieving private schools. They have to be because many of them are up against it, teaching broken kids who are in the fast track to becoming broken adults. That is very sad. For me it's sadder that the kids who may WANT to learn and have potential, have their own chances ruined as they are lumbered with having the problem kids in close proximity to them.
The schools can't impose discipline by expelling or excluding as they need to. If they did some schools would swiftly have far fewer pupils.
We are gifted with a free education in this country. It should be considered a privelege rather than a right. Those who can't or won't embrace it should know that, after a short process, they won't be welcome anymore. Too much focus is placed on problem kids and not enough on those who could be doing better bar the behaviour of the few
The problem, which you have correctly highlighted here, boils down to the limited range of skills taught and nurtured in our schools.Education in this country should be a privilege rather than a right. To explain, in the 80's when I attended my comprehensive many of the lessons were spent watching teachers battle, sometimes physically, with other kids who didn't want to be there. The net effect of this was my learning being compromised.
Today people talk about moving to a "better area". This often means living somewhere where the schools are "better" Considering nowhere in Britain is without running water, gas, electricity nowhere is plagued by flesh eating insects or killer bees I conclude people MEAN that they want their kids to go to a school which is predominantly attended by other, well behaved kids.
Many of the teachers in rough state schools are more capable than those working in high achieving private schools. They have to be because many of them are up against it, teaching broken kids who are in the fast track to becoming broken adults. That is very sad. For me it's sadder that the kids who may WANT to learn and have potential, have their own chances ruined as they are lumbered with having the problem kids in close proximity to them.
The schools can't impose discipline by expelling or excluding as they need to. If they did some schools would swiftly have far fewer pupils.
We are gifted with a free education in this country. It should be considered a privelege rather than a right. Those who can't or won't embrace it should know that, after a short process, they won't be welcome anymore. Too much focus is placed on problem kids and not enough on those who could be doing better bar the behaviour of the few
'Selection' is a dirty word in this country, mainly because we didn't do it properly and ended up with an 'us and them' situation with grammar schools and everyone else.
What we should have done (and should still do) is teach a very broad range of skills and subjects in schools, with much more vocational focus, possibly with schools pooling resources. At the moment we're taking all the kids and trying to hurl them down a fast-track to university academia.
Think about it - at the moment you do GCSEs, which lead to A-levels, which lead to a degree, which leads to a particular kind of employment.
If your skills aren't in academic subjects, you're screwed.
IMO we should have hands-on, practical GCSE subjects too, leading to college courses, leading to apprenticeships, with academic grade-equivalence across the board.
It's no good continuing to try and convince ourselves that a kid who's learning style is clearly kinaesthetic and whose skills are in the physical, mechanical world will somehow find it in himself to sit down and study a Shakespeare play, or patiently sit and participate in a lesson on the Tudors.
I remember trying to teach one kid Romeo & Juliet. He could barely sit still, he was throwing paper aeroplanes, and although he could read and write he just wasn't bothered about most of his lessons. As a result he spent an awful lot of time in detention.
However, he owned a scrambler bike, which he was fully capable of stripping down and rebuilding after a weekend's competition. When I taught him he was 14. I couldn't do that now aged 28. So why on earth can't he do lessons in car and motorcycle mechanics? He could be a straight-A student in mechanics, but under the current educational setup, because he's not academic, he's deemed a bad kid and thrown on the scrapheap.
I encountered so many kids like this during my brief teaching career. Always the same story - hopeless at the school subjects, usually some real passion, interest, hobby, something requiring real skill outside school that had a lot of relevance to the world of work but no real connection to anything that could be done inside school. As a result they're written off as bad kids.
I think part of the problem here is the teaching unions and the profession itself. It sees the world very much through a feminised, middle-class, academic template, and anything that falls outside of this is deemed irrelevant. This kid's passion for motorbikes was written off by passive-aggressive, mumsy, patronising teachers as some overly macho, boyish fad that had no place in school.
And this is partly the problem. Through feminised eyes, boys are all either mad, bad or sad. If they push boundaries and do daring things, they're 'mad'. If they act up because nothing at school interests them, they're 'bad' and if they have a deep interest in something the teachers may not understand - science, for example - they're 'sad'. And let's face it, it's largely boys that are the problem here.
We need to stop seeing the notion of 'selection' as a point of separation where an 'elite' are identified and removed from the rest of society, and start tailoring education around more than one type of person. At the moment the comprehensives are trying to give everyone a grammar-school education and it's not working for anyone who isn't going on to do A-levels followed by university.
I was academic. I loved and still love literature, history, physics and languages. As a result I did quite well out of the comprehensive system as I went on to do A-levels, then went to university for a degree, then later did a Postgraduate Diploma, all of which has helped me to get into a career where such things are important. However, a lot of the people I went to school with have struggled to work out what they're good at and how they can turn it into a career. If you know you're going to be an electrician or a plumber, you should be learning these skills starting with the basics at GCSE age, not cramming it all in during that 16-18 window.
These skills need respecting. Under the old regime I would have got into Grammar school and been considered part of some academic 'elite', but it overlooks the fact that I don't know where to start if my washing machine breaks down, and I've had to learn car maintenance from owner's clubs and Haynes manuals. In my eyes, the people who can repair, redesign and engineer these kinds of things are another kind of elite, the engineering elite, which should be offered the same kind of respect.
Tellingly, in other countries including Italy and Germany, the title of 'Engineer' is roughly equal to 'Doctor', so Italian engineers will have 'Ing.' on their driving licences and bank cards rather than Mr/Ms/Mrs.
AJS- said:
That is my stance. FOS costs nothing and only requires that the government (and others) do not use force or the threat of force to deter or prevent people from advancing their opinions.
Giving people a "right" to an education necessitates a lot of other people carrying a lot of obligations. You can be entitled to an education, as you can be entitled to free health care, benefits and a pension, but they are only fleeting entitlements that change with the times. FOS, Association, religion, movement etc are barriers to how far the state may impose on the individual regardless of the changing values and requirements of the political climate at any one time.
So you would be happy with an educated elite, and to hell with the rest? ( which, arguably ,is not far from what we have now)Giving people a "right" to an education necessitates a lot of other people carrying a lot of obligations. You can be entitled to an education, as you can be entitled to free health care, benefits and a pension, but they are only fleeting entitlements that change with the times. FOS, Association, religion, movement etc are barriers to how far the state may impose on the individual regardless of the changing values and requirements of the political climate at any one time.
Excellent points made by Twincam16.
The practical skills ideas particualrly strike a chord for me both personally (I'm a graduate engineer) but also for friends I had at school. One such could not leave school quick enough, but has spent the last 10 years or so successfully running an MOT & repair garage of which he is the proud owner. I reckon he;d have got where he is a lot quicker, caused a lot less bother and generated a good chunk more GDP if the system had nurtured his talents.
I also find it apalling that competitive sports have been emasculated. In my school years, there were a number of contemporaries who lacked any academic or artistic skills whose 'kudos' stemmed from their sporting prowess. Shame the non-reporting of scores and dumbing-down of competition will no longer allow such students their chance to shine.
As for female teachers, I don't think they are the problem per-se as much as their dominance of the profession. In the same was as banks could be said to have had too much testosterone, I think teaching suffers from a surfeit of balls.
The practical skills ideas particualrly strike a chord for me both personally (I'm a graduate engineer) but also for friends I had at school. One such could not leave school quick enough, but has spent the last 10 years or so successfully running an MOT & repair garage of which he is the proud owner. I reckon he;d have got where he is a lot quicker, caused a lot less bother and generated a good chunk more GDP if the system had nurtured his talents.
I also find it apalling that competitive sports have been emasculated. In my school years, there were a number of contemporaries who lacked any academic or artistic skills whose 'kudos' stemmed from their sporting prowess. Shame the non-reporting of scores and dumbing-down of competition will no longer allow such students their chance to shine.
As for female teachers, I don't think they are the problem per-se as much as their dominance of the profession. In the same was as banks could be said to have had too much testosterone, I think teaching suffers from a surfeit of balls.
highway said:
We are gifted with a free education in this country. It should be considered a privelege rather than a right. Those who can't or won't embrace it should know that, after a short process, they won't be welcome anymore. Too much focus is placed on problem kids and not enough on those who could be doing better bar the behaviour of the few
It isn't gifted it is enforced If kids don't want to be a school then why force them?
Push them to do something but don't force them to go to school as they merely drag the whole school down
thinfourth2 said:
highway said:
We are gifted with a free education in this country. It should be considered a privelege rather than a right. Those who can't or won't embrace it should know that, after a short process, they won't be welcome anymore. Too much focus is placed on problem kids and not enough on those who could be doing better bar the behaviour of the few
It isn't gifted it is enforced If kids don't want to be a school then why force them?
Push them to do something but don't force them to go to school as they merely drag the whole school down
Think about what an uneducated kid who doesn't want to - and doesn't have to - go to school will do. Raise hell or do bugger-all, because they won'thave the skills to do anything at all. Then who'll be paying for it? That's right - us.
Twincam16 said:
The problem, which you have correctly highlighted here, boils down to the limited range of skills taught and nurtured in our schools.
'Selection' is a dirty word in this country, mainly because we didn't do it properly and ended up with an 'us and them' situation with grammar schools and everyone else.
What we should have done (and should still do) is teach a very broad range of skills and subjects in schools, with much more vocational focus, possibly with schools pooling resources. At the moment we're taking all the kids and trying to hurl them down a fast-track to university academia.
Think about it - at the moment you do GCSEs, which lead to A-levels, which lead to a degree, which leads to a particular kind of employment.
If your skills aren't in academic subjects, you're screwed.
IMO we should have hands-on, practical GCSE subjects too, leading to college courses, leading to apprenticeships, with academic grade-equivalence across the board.
It's no good continuing to try and convince ourselves that a kid who's learning style is clearly kinaesthetic and whose skills are in the physical, mechanical world will somehow find it in himself to sit down and study a Shakespeare play, or patiently sit and participate in a lesson on the Tudors.
I remember trying to teach one kid Romeo & Juliet. He could barely sit still, he was throwing paper aeroplanes, and although he could read and write he just wasn't bothered about most of his lessons. As a result he spent an awful lot of time in detention.
However, he owned a scrambler bike, which he was fully capable of stripping down and rebuilding after a weekend's competition. When I taught him he was 14. I couldn't do that now aged 28. So why on earth can't he do lessons in car and motorcycle mechanics? He could be a straight-A student in mechanics, but under the current educational setup, because he's not academic, he's deemed a bad kid and thrown on the scrapheap.
I encountered so many kids like this during my brief teaching career. Always the same story - hopeless at the school subjects, usually some real passion, interest, hobby, something requiring real skill outside school that had a lot of relevance to the world of work but no real connection to anything that could be done inside school. As a result they're written off as bad kids.
I think part of the problem here is the teaching unions and the profession itself. It sees the world very much through a feminised, middle-class, academic template, and anything that falls outside of this is deemed irrelevant. This kid's passion for motorbikes was written off by passive-aggressive, mumsy, patronising teachers as some overly macho, boyish fad that had no place in school.
And this is partly the problem. Through feminised eyes, boys are all either mad, bad or sad. If they push boundaries and do daring things, they're 'mad'. If they act up because nothing at school interests them, they're 'bad' and if they have a deep interest in something the teachers may not understand - science, for example - they're 'sad'. And let's face it, it's largely boys that are the problem here.
We need to stop seeing the notion of 'selection' as a point of separation where an 'elite' are identified and removed from the rest of society, and start tailoring education around more than one type of person. At the moment the comprehensives are trying to give everyone a grammar-school education and it's not working for anyone who isn't going on to do A-levels followed by university.
I was academic. I loved and still love literature, history, physics and languages. As a result I did quite well out of the comprehensive system as I went on to do A-levels, then went to university for a degree, then later did a Postgraduate Diploma, all of which has helped me to get into a career where such things are important. However, a lot of the people I went to school with have struggled to work out what they're good at and how they can turn it into a career. If you know you're going to be an electrician or a plumber, you should be learning these skills starting with the basics at GCSE age, not cramming it all in during that 16-18 window.
These skills need respecting. Under the old regime I would have got into Grammar school and been considered part of some academic 'elite', but it overlooks the fact that I don't know where to start if my washing machine breaks down, and I've had to learn car maintenance from owner's clubs and Haynes manuals. In my eyes, the people who can repair, redesign and engineer these kinds of things are another kind of elite, the engineering elite, which should be offered the same kind of respect.
Tellingly, in other countries including Italy and Germany, the title of 'Engineer' is roughly equal to 'Doctor', so Italian engineers will have 'Ing.' on their driving licences and bank cards rather than Mr/Ms/Mrs.
To be fair, at my partners school they've just got 2 whole new rooms kitted out with really good quality hair styling equipment and in the other room, nail and other beauty therapy paraphernalia. The textiles and cooking classes (during and out of hours) are thriving and so are the music and arts classes. 'Selection' is a dirty word in this country, mainly because we didn't do it properly and ended up with an 'us and them' situation with grammar schools and everyone else.
What we should have done (and should still do) is teach a very broad range of skills and subjects in schools, with much more vocational focus, possibly with schools pooling resources. At the moment we're taking all the kids and trying to hurl them down a fast-track to university academia.
Think about it - at the moment you do GCSEs, which lead to A-levels, which lead to a degree, which leads to a particular kind of employment.
If your skills aren't in academic subjects, you're screwed.
IMO we should have hands-on, practical GCSE subjects too, leading to college courses, leading to apprenticeships, with academic grade-equivalence across the board.
It's no good continuing to try and convince ourselves that a kid who's learning style is clearly kinaesthetic and whose skills are in the physical, mechanical world will somehow find it in himself to sit down and study a Shakespeare play, or patiently sit and participate in a lesson on the Tudors.
I remember trying to teach one kid Romeo & Juliet. He could barely sit still, he was throwing paper aeroplanes, and although he could read and write he just wasn't bothered about most of his lessons. As a result he spent an awful lot of time in detention.
However, he owned a scrambler bike, which he was fully capable of stripping down and rebuilding after a weekend's competition. When I taught him he was 14. I couldn't do that now aged 28. So why on earth can't he do lessons in car and motorcycle mechanics? He could be a straight-A student in mechanics, but under the current educational setup, because he's not academic, he's deemed a bad kid and thrown on the scrapheap.
I encountered so many kids like this during my brief teaching career. Always the same story - hopeless at the school subjects, usually some real passion, interest, hobby, something requiring real skill outside school that had a lot of relevance to the world of work but no real connection to anything that could be done inside school. As a result they're written off as bad kids.
I think part of the problem here is the teaching unions and the profession itself. It sees the world very much through a feminised, middle-class, academic template, and anything that falls outside of this is deemed irrelevant. This kid's passion for motorbikes was written off by passive-aggressive, mumsy, patronising teachers as some overly macho, boyish fad that had no place in school.
And this is partly the problem. Through feminised eyes, boys are all either mad, bad or sad. If they push boundaries and do daring things, they're 'mad'. If they act up because nothing at school interests them, they're 'bad' and if they have a deep interest in something the teachers may not understand - science, for example - they're 'sad'. And let's face it, it's largely boys that are the problem here.
We need to stop seeing the notion of 'selection' as a point of separation where an 'elite' are identified and removed from the rest of society, and start tailoring education around more than one type of person. At the moment the comprehensives are trying to give everyone a grammar-school education and it's not working for anyone who isn't going on to do A-levels followed by university.
I was academic. I loved and still love literature, history, physics and languages. As a result I did quite well out of the comprehensive system as I went on to do A-levels, then went to university for a degree, then later did a Postgraduate Diploma, all of which has helped me to get into a career where such things are important. However, a lot of the people I went to school with have struggled to work out what they're good at and how they can turn it into a career. If you know you're going to be an electrician or a plumber, you should be learning these skills starting with the basics at GCSE age, not cramming it all in during that 16-18 window.
These skills need respecting. Under the old regime I would have got into Grammar school and been considered part of some academic 'elite', but it overlooks the fact that I don't know where to start if my washing machine breaks down, and I've had to learn car maintenance from owner's clubs and Haynes manuals. In my eyes, the people who can repair, redesign and engineer these kinds of things are another kind of elite, the engineering elite, which should be offered the same kind of respect.
Tellingly, in other countries including Italy and Germany, the title of 'Engineer' is roughly equal to 'Doctor', so Italian engineers will have 'Ing.' on their driving licences and bank cards rather than Mr/Ms/Mrs.
It's not just the governments fault, or the schools for choosing subjects this way. Quite often it's from the parents, who would prefer their child gets an E in Maths, rather than a C in Music as they feel it is more "valuable" or somehow "worth more".
Unfortunately, I think there may be plans to introduce a Baccalaureate style of education again. Not sure if Gove is still going ahead with it, but it was spoken of and I really don't think this would be healthy for schools. It'll just help sway schools and parents into thinking, the old fashioned school subjects are somehow better for them.
Digga said:
Excellent points made by Twincam16.
The practical skills ideas particualrly strike a chord for me both personally (I'm a graduate engineer) but also for friends I had at school. One such could not leave school quick enough, but has spent the last 10 years or so successfully running an MOT & repair garage of which he is the proud owner. I reckon he;d have got where he is a lot quicker, caused a lot less bother and generated a good chunk more GDP if the system had nurtured his talents.
I also find it apalling that competitive sports have been emasculated. In my school years, there were a number of contemporaries who lacked any academic or artistic skills whose 'kudos' stemmed from their sporting prowess. Shame the non-reporting of scores and dumbing-down of competition will no longer allow such students their chance to shine.
As for female teachers, I don't think they are the problem per-se as much as their dominance of the profession. In the same was as banks could be said to have had too much testosterone, I think teaching suffers from a surfeit of balls.
As for school sport, IMO every year group should have a whole afternoon off to pursue a sport, as per university.The practical skills ideas particualrly strike a chord for me both personally (I'm a graduate engineer) but also for friends I had at school. One such could not leave school quick enough, but has spent the last 10 years or so successfully running an MOT & repair garage of which he is the proud owner. I reckon he;d have got where he is a lot quicker, caused a lot less bother and generated a good chunk more GDP if the system had nurtured his talents.
I also find it apalling that competitive sports have been emasculated. In my school years, there were a number of contemporaries who lacked any academic or artistic skills whose 'kudos' stemmed from their sporting prowess. Shame the non-reporting of scores and dumbing-down of competition will no longer allow such students their chance to shine.
As for female teachers, I don't think they are the problem per-se as much as their dominance of the profession. In the same was as banks could be said to have had too much testosterone, I think teaching suffers from a surfeit of balls.
Universities take Wednesday afternoons off so they can play sport at the same time, either training or playing each other.
It wouldn't take a great leap of the imagination to give one year group per day the afternoon off to play sport. Year 7 on Mondays, Year 8 on Tuesdays, Year 9 on Wednesdays, Year 10 on Thursdays and Year 11 on Fridays.
Schools in local areas could pool resources so that kids could have the opportunity to try out, train for and play competitively, a sport that suits their body type.
Because at the moment, once again, our curriculum is too restricted and disconnected from primary school. At primary school, we got to do all manner of sports from swimming and cross-country running to football, cricket and track & field events. In fact pretty much the only thing we didn't do was rugby.
However, by the time we got to secondary school, it was just one sport per year group per term, and just as you were getting into it you'd move on to something else. I was always crap at football, basketball and athletics - I preferred hockey, cricket, badminton and tennis (so in retrospect it appears I liked hitting things, still play badminton actually) - so why should I have had to endure football every bloody winter? In accordance with the national curriculum I apparently had to prove I was good at all these various games, but this seems to miss the point of sport - we're not all built for the same things. You wouldn't say to Chris Hoy 'well a record haul of cycling golds is all very well, Chris, but it seems you're not very good at football', because it's just not his thing.
Sport is IMO absolutely vital. Finding a sport you're good at will give you something to enjoy and keep you fit for life. The fitter you are, the keener you will be in looking after your health, and as a result you'll work off frustration, keep a clearer head, think faster, work better in a team and have more respect for others.
It's also big business. OK, so not everyone may go on to be a Premiership footballer and we shoudn't stoke that myth, but there are lots of jobs in sport, and other less well-known sports to make a career out of.
SpeedMattersNot said:
To be fair, at my partners school they've just got 2 whole new rooms kitted out with really good quality hair styling equipment and in the other room, nail and other beauty therapy paraphernalia. The textiles and cooking classes (during and out of hours) are thriving and so are the music and arts classes.
Is it a girls' school? A lot of schools have that, and as a result non-academic girls find themselves working in the fashion and beauty industries. Tellingly, many of our parades of shops in working-class areas are full of hair salons and nail bars, and female working-class unemployment, although high, is nowhere near as high as male, mainly because women can find this kind of work easily even if it is part-time.SpeedMattersNot said:
Unfortunately, I think there may be plans to introduce a Baccalaureate style of education again. Not sure if Gove is still going ahead with it, but it was spoken of and I really don't think this would be healthy for schools. It'll just help sway schools and parents into thinking, the old fashioned school subjects are somehow better for them.
It's an interesting conundrum, that, simply because when I was at school everyone did what's now referred to as the EBacc regardless of how academic you were. Wasn't anything special, it just was what it was. I think if you're clearly academic and will go on to 6th Form College and University it can be quite handy.However, that highlights another problem - resit culture. IMO all secondary schools and 6th Form Colleges should be separated - physically if possible - and access to 6th Form only 'granted' as a result of a university-style 'offer' based on a set of GCSEs. At the moment you get kids just going straight from doing their GCSEs to doing their A-levels having not actually got the grades they would have needed, resitting GCSEs while doing their A-levels at the same time. Also, you get schools deliberately choosing exam boards to get the best pass rates, only to find the kids who got a B in GCSE English in something that looks more like Media Studies then attempting to take on A-level English, which points more towards university-level literary analysis, in which they will flounder pathetically.
Twincam16 said:
I was always crap at football, basketball and athletics - I preferred hockey, cricket, badminton and tennis (so in retrospect it appears I liked hitting things, still play badminton actually) - so why should I have had to endure football every bloody winter? In accordance with the national curriculum I apparently had to prove I was good at all these various games, but this seems to miss the point of sport - we're not all built for the same things.
That was the problem at my school - you either did Rugby or Cricket. I was half-decent at athletics but had to endure several winters of standing around on a muddy pitch hiding from the ball before they let me into the athletics squad. And that was only after i spent a year training in the local park (avoiding dog s
t) to get an acceptable time on a trial day. F8ck whingin' kids have everything nowadays .. but complain about everything!XCP said:
AJS- said:
That is my stance. FOS costs nothing and only requires that the government (and others) do not use force or the threat of force to deter or prevent people from advancing their opinions.
Giving people a "right" to an education necessitates a lot of other people carrying a lot of obligations. You can be entitled to an education, as you can be entitled to free health care, benefits and a pension, but they are only fleeting entitlements that change with the times. FOS, Association, religion, movement etc are barriers to how far the state may impose on the individual regardless of the changing values and requirements of the political climate at any one time.
So you would be happy with an educated elite, and to hell with the rest? ( which, arguably ,is not far from what we have now)Giving people a "right" to an education necessitates a lot of other people carrying a lot of obligations. You can be entitled to an education, as you can be entitled to free health care, benefits and a pension, but they are only fleeting entitlements that change with the times. FOS, Association, religion, movement etc are barriers to how far the state may impose on the individual regardless of the changing values and requirements of the political climate at any one time.
I'd be happiest if everyone was well fed and watered, educated and provided for, and also had the right to think, speak and associate freely without having to run it by others first.
Alas we live in an imperfect world. There are children of millionaires who will inherit nothing, and there are children of drug addicts who will be millionaires. Of course neither are typical, and most children will emulate their parents to a lesser or greater degree.
I would be happy with a society that allowed people to be what they want to be and express it as they see fit. IF they choose to be drug addled fools then that is their choice. If they choose to be bigoted
hate filled morons then that is their choice. So be it. They can put their opinion forward and the audience can accept or reject it as they see fit.
That doesn't require universal state education.
Twincam16 said:
I remember trying to teach one kid Romeo & Juliet. He could barely sit still, he was throwing paper aeroplanes, and although he could read and write he just wasn't bothered about most of his lessons. As a result he spent an awful lot of time in detention.
However, he owned a scrambler bike, which he was fully capable of stripping down and rebuilding after a weekend's competition. When I taught him he was 14. I couldn't do that now aged 28. So why on earth can't he do lessons in car and motorcycle mechanics? He could be a straight-A student in mechanics, but under the current educational setup, because he's not academic, he's deemed a bad kid and thrown on the scrapheap.
However, he owned a scrambler bike, which he was fully capable of stripping down and rebuilding after a weekend's competition. When I taught him he was 14. I couldn't do that now aged 28. So why on earth can't he do lessons in car and motorcycle mechanics? He could be a straight-A student in mechanics, but under the current educational setup, because he's not academic, he's deemed a bad kid and thrown on the scrapheap.
That kid was me. It did not help that my parents took me 300 miles north and placed me into a rough Northern town when I was 9 years old - School was a miserable time being bullied, withdrawn and not interested unless offered practical tasks which were minimal. I had a motorbike from a very early age and bought a classic car when I was 15 - rebuilding it with my dad for when I passed my test. I was never on the same wave length as the education authority wanted me to conform to.
After school i was lucky and got into an engineering college and eventually onto a Modern Apprentiship scheme with a great company who financially supported me. By 25 I had my own company with a very healthy Turnover.
I have met many great engineers over the years, Many who are dyslexic and hopeless academics, who have felt failed by the education system. The system did provide at an earlier level with regards to reading, writing, mathematics etc but as you go to Comprehensive and develop as an Adult the fact you want to take engines apart, make tools, design systems is alien to the authorities and academic teachers.
I was lucky with good parents but do wonder how many kids out there are failed by the education system that would make great engineers with the correct guidance and help.
SpeedMattersNot said:
highway said:
Its all cool and the gang to have 7 kids (as in the above example) IF YOU are paying for them yourself. Why should I or anyone else pay for someone elses children?
If you cant afford them dont have them. We stopped at one for that reason.
Without going into details about said family, what do you suggest people who arn't as intelligent as you do?If you cant afford them dont have them. We stopped at one for that reason.
These people are actually being incentivised not to work.
I had to move my 86 year old relative from a once pleasant council estate because of the low life that the council kept moving into the estate.
Crack heads over the road and alcoholics down the road knocking her up at 3 and 4 in the morning for a laugh or just banging on her door at various hours of the night until she was too scared to go to bed! Then I find out that they get weekly payments for their habits be it drugs or alcohol as well as benefits, free electrical goods motability allowance/cars!! Oh I forgot they have 5 kids as well - nice.
This cannot be right! They have never worked and I was told by them that they had no bloody intention of even looking for work. One night the scum bag male decided to piss through her letter box. I made a personal visit to him the next morning to "put him straight". He did not even come near her house after our little discussion.
She and her husband (now deceased) worked hard to be able to buy their council house and she ended up in an absolute S*** hole through no fault of hers.
There is a lot wrong with this country - yes there is and one wonders where to start I suppose.
Well lets start with these low life's and work from there!
Still no political will to address any of these real life issues. I suspect because those creating legislation aren't living in conventional locations. I don't want right wing or left wing, I want some sense shown, encouraged and enforced. I want a fair society which is patently not what we have at the moment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff