A parent's voice

Oflife

Lord of The Flies

C. Gee

Parents with computers and internet access should not send children to school.

Schools are where the alien invaders body-snatch. For the underclass, the only purpose in bricks-and-mortar schools is day care and to provide a rationale for social experimentation by the teaching fraternity in "closing the achievement gap". Soon the only subjects will be: Entitlements (Recognition and Filling Out Government Forms); Self-Esteem; Climate Change; Ethical Eating; Practical Sex and Population Control; Mandatory Voluntary Service (Compassion).

If you want grandchildren, do not send your children to school.

Sarah Kew

I couldn't agree more, but I am saddened to see that I am not the only parent who feels like this.

Andrew Old

Please don't blame the teachers for this sort of thing. We get bullied into implementing it. Some of us might convince ourselves it isn't nonsense or an insult to our professionalism, but most don't.

Norm

I remember a friends teenager proudly showing me her gold star essay which was littered with spelling mistakes. When I pointed this out she told me the teacher had said it doesn't matter as long as I (the teenager) understood what I was saying, hence we have text speak used in job applications which I immediately bin.

Lord Monkington-Smythe

Andrew Old (Old Andrew?) has it exactly right. I used to be a teacher, and speaking out against such new orthodoxies was unthinkable, if you wanted to progress. It is harsh to blame teachers for this, and I think if parents truly understood just how little power teachers have in schools, they would be utterly amazed.

I have an even greater respect for teachers since I left teaching, their work is hard and thankless.

Beer Moth

Andrew Old

Stop squealing and do what you think is right. You are part of a profession made up of intelligent people. How come you have allowed this idiocy to encroach on the education of children?

Richard

It is a pity this debate is so polarised, swinging between extremes. I can remember the very authoritarian methods used when I was at school. Children's voices were barely listened to at all, and corporal (violent) punishment was a frequent recourse. I don't want to go back to that, and I don't think it provided a good model of adult behaviour. And, yes, I do want my children to be taught about self-esteem, climate change, ethical eating and how to have an active sex life without risking unwanted pregnancy or sexually-transmitted diseases. I can't see anything other than benefit in any of that.

But on the other hand, I agree that adult authority has been undermined by the policies Melanie describes (assuming the lurid reports are not exaggerations). This undermining of authority would endanger the curriculum I have just mentioned, as well as more traditional academic values. And, yes, I do think those traditional academic disciplines have been too much watered-down.

I don't see any conflict between these different points, and I wish this debate did not fly so readily to polarised positions. Couldn't we have an educational system that respected children's viewpoints without giving-in to them, and addressed important social and ethical questions in a sophisticated and open way alongside - or within - the traditional academic disciplines?

Alex Bensky

We have similar practices over here and they are, unsurprisingly, a reflection of leftist ideology--people are naturally good and the only reason they do not act that way is because of social structures and institutions.

If the proper conditions are set every child will want to show up every day prepared for class and the child's naturally inquisitive mind will lead him to algebra or whatever. Every child is a potential Shakespeare or Mozart, waiting to be unleashed by a free and welcoming schoolroom.

Or, as the teachers of Norm's young friend do, you simply declare all that stuff like proper spelling and grammar is unimportant, that the school should produce nice personalities rather than capable people' self-expression is the overarching goal without much concern as to what the student has to express.

The public library of a nearby suburb (Detroit area) had an exhibition of local students' art on the theme of "I am special." Too bad; one of the things students ought to learn is that if they're lucky they'll be special to a few people but they aren't to most and they'd better learn how to deal with that.

Then again, trying to cram that into their little psyches might affect their self-esteem.

John Richardson

The parent above claims she was 'shocked' by the School Report her daughter received from the school when she was eleven (Year Six).
Was she shocked by the same school's reports at age eight, nine and ten ?
These would be in Years Three, Four and Five ?

Perhaps she was too busy to notice at the time ?
Too busy through all those years ?

(This reminds me of those people who dump their parent/s in a State Nursing Home and then turn up, after a few years/months and declare themselves 'shocked' at the condition of their beloved mother/father.)

She also explains she had just noticed, at age twelve, that her daughter could not use tens, hundreds and units.
Teaching this begins during the Year Three Syllabus; age seven/eight.
My goodness she must be a busy mum not to have noticed that !
Four or five years teaching with no progress.
No progress in an area of Numeracy 90% of children, even those with Special Educational Needs (Government designation, not mine), find simple, in my experience.

What did the daughter's father think of her progress ?

I'll bet he would be 'shocked' as well. Perhaps 'deeply shocked', who knows ?

Just wait until she/they realise what the Governments 'Inclusion' Policy has meant for their children's education (Oh that, shockingly, began in 1998).

Teachers like myself encounter this sort of self deceiving, self pitying...er...stuff...all the time. From certain 'busy' parents.
One wonders where she found the time to write to a Newspaper ?

God help the child, if He can find the time.

paul

Meanwhile... the Chinese, Indians,Singaporeans are churning out great science graduates etc required by the modern world. The ruination of a nation begins in the homes of its children. We are little more than a banana republic today. We deserve the government and teaching we get. One day someone will wake up and let teachers teach.. trouble is they have come through the same rubbish.

Jon_Boy

Paul

you are spot on how is there any hope when we have got to the point where todays teachers were taught within the same crumby system?

It all went wrong when we allowed politics and politiscised puseudo social scientific theories to control the education system.

The Marxist ledt always seeks control and unelected authority through control of the media schools and universities.

C. Gee

Paul:

-"One day someone will wake up and let teachers teach.. trouble is they have come through the same rubbish."

There is no reason for the professionalizaton of teaching. The standard two-year dip.ed. - or whatever - courses are hilarious. Half-baked sociological "studies" (with a distinct political agenda) give rise to pedagogic theories which support diminishing emphasis on content, and increasing emphasis on emotional and political "metrics". In other words, a dip. ed. - or whatever- qualifies the teacher in being an agent of societal change, not in teaching a subject.

If parents want their children to know something, they should find people who know something to teach it to their children.

The internet makes this possible. Why be stuck with a trained know-nothing at a local school for a year or more, when you can seek experts in their fields, all over the world? Why not approach a Singaporean mathematician for on-line lessons?

Yes, some people can explain better than others. Discard the ones that can't explain, find the ones that can. Between the free market and the new technology, we can liberate the mind from the prison-school with its professional warders.

John Richardson:

Year-by-year, step-by-step curricula are also archaic. No need to match children by age. No need to have subjects divided into weekly steps. No need to have "subjects", as offered today.

I agree that busy parents are foolish to complain about lack of progress when they have deposited their children in the hands of professionals.

One can see the temptation to have the state mandate a license for parents. The logical and efficient extension of this spirit of professionalism is that parent licenses should only be granted to teachers.

Baron

Richard:

So what has your dribble of ‘I do want my children to be taught about self-esteem, climate change, ethical eating and how to have an active sex life without risking unwanted pregnancy or sexually-transmitted diseases’ led to, ha?

A serious lack of discipline in classrooms, despairing teachers, bullying that leads to suicide, hike in obesity never seen in this country before, the inability of a fifth of school leavers to read and count properly, a belief in a theory that was ‘proven’ by twisting raw data and ignoring justified criticism, a level of teen-age pregnancies that beats virtually every country in the world….And that’s just for the starters.

Has it ever crossed your pseudo-liberal brain that although your aims may indeed be noble, heart warming and worthwhile, the tools of achieving them, devised by human soul engineers of your ilk, are totally inimical to human nature?

John Richardson

'Richard'

Why would you want your children to be lied to, handed over to adults who want to talk about sex to them them and to have a distorted, permanently, self obsessed ego ,nurtured within ?

What have they ever done to you ?

_________________________________
C. Gee

You are correct about basically correct about the curricula.
I was pointing out how long the 'concerned parent' had had to figure out what was happening in her own child's academic life.

Richard

Baron:

Referring to opinions you disagree with as 'dribble' is an example of the uncouthness that sets in all too rapidly once basic tenets of respect and courtesy have been undermined by trendy education methods.

You offer no evidence at all that the trends you deplore (let's leave climate change out of it - I can deplore the others with you) result from discussion of these subjects in schools. Just to take one example - are you suggesting that the rate of teenage pregnancies would fall if we gave children less information about contraception?

C. Gee

Richard:

I shall obtrude myself in your debate with Baron.

Much to the consternation of the left, there is evidence that "abstinence" teaching lowers pregnancy rates. For those who want their children to enjoy an active sex-life (as you do), it should be pointed out that it is only abstinence from vaginal/penile intercourse that prevents pregnancy. You will be relieved to hear that other forms of sexual gratification are promoted by schools, persuaded by the liberal idea that gratification is "healthy" in any form. Venereal disease is not healthy - but that is where condoms can come in. The question is, has the incidence of teen sexually transmitted disease diminished with more information about prophylactics?

Baron

Richard:

OK, I apologize for the dribble. It just drove me mad to hear your dreamlike curriculum of what schools are supposed to teach. In my book, schools are here to teach mostly the three basic R’s, in a way that stimulates the young minds, pushes them to explore, makes them eager to acquire knowledge to the best of their abilities. That’s it. That’s what schools were, and should be for.

Have no idea whether teen-age pregnancies would fall if the schools didn’t touch the subject. My point is simpler, and I answered it above. Schools should stick to equipping children with the tools of learning (mostly), and not brainwashing them with what’s currently in vogue.

In part, our society got messed up because institutions that had been perfected for decades, if not centuries, have morphed into something quite different by the dreamers of your ilk. Schools teach about sex, diets, global warming and stuff; the Armed Forces no longer destroy the enemy (kill or capture), but keep peace watched over by lawyers; the police fill in paper forms and kick people for their views rather than catch criminals, those in charge stopped governing the country and instead tell us what to eat and not to smoke….

John Richardson

'Richard'

(...somewhat sorry to but in but...)

I thought it was a universally recognised fact, after so many years of progressive experimentation to provide data, that; the more sexual education/instruction, at an earlier age the MORE sexual activity, pregnancy and abortion you get.*
Usually, I simply assume that those who spin the 'information/accessibility' line are liars and toxic, destructive social elements. They usually are. They recognise the facts but simply lie about them.
Though I do not discern that sort of hate filled, misanthropic, progressive bile from your posts.

Therefore, I'll assume that you honestly, despite all surrounding contemporary evidence, do actually believe that early sex education/instruction does NOT lead to early sexual activity.

Look into it honestly & be prepared for a shock.

STDs amongst the young I know less about, other than that they are rising & the highest in Western Europe I think.

Marcos Gonzalez

John Richardson, i agree with you the busy parents are shocked because they been busy doing other things, Paul the Chinese and Indian kids and other immigrants even asylum seekers are doing better in schools because their parents are involve and teach them at home, their culture is different, the British liberal parents are different they don't want to watch the kids and they don't want to do extra work with them at home they prefer taking them museums or entertainment parks, they leave everything to the poor teachers, school education is not enough they should check the kids work from year one and don't leave it until they are year six just before they go to secondary school
Helloooo!

marya b

Well I think we've reached the stage where parents should ignore the State that ignores them. Let us make game of that which makes as much of us.

Those of us who are already well-educated should get together and set up our own schools: as communal 'home schooling' projects.

We could teach Maths, English (Language and Literature), Geography, History (British first, foreign where applicable), Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and even French or German. RI would be nice too, though I refuse to submit children of mine to the foreign guff. Sports and gyms are no longer confined to schools; there are clubs for that sort of thing.

Those of us with teaching experience could help those with expertise in other subjects to develop syllabi and tests. I don't know about anyone else, but I still have my old exam. papers: which contain fair guidelines of what was required when British education was at the top of the world.... Where we couldn't provide the necessary, we could probably afford to bring in some professionals to help us with pedagogy - like those who retired early because they refused to participate in the public mess.

So let's pool our resources, thumb our noses at the foreigners, and get on with developing our own interests to the best of our not inconsiderable abiliities.

There's no reason to put up with the authoritarianism; and every reason to buck it.

And I bet others in the community would soon be lining up for admission...

If enough of us could make this work, we could eventually start withholding some of our taxes, since we'd be diverting the money to the purposes in our own way.

Richard

Thanks, Baron. Perhaps I was being over-sensitive. I had thought that this time the wolf-pack might not descend upon me, as I was trying to say that I think both sides of this debate understand important truths, and I can't see why those truths need be so incompatible.

Self-esteem taught carefully does not lead to infantile egotism - which I believe is usually evidence of a panic resulting from loss of self-esteem. The old teaching methods were too bullying and too indifferent to children's feelings of humiliation and vulnerability; too full of one set of certainties. The new teaching methods, as described at the NAS/UWT conference, are too flattering and too indifferent to the need to challenge young people using intellectual and ethical rigour; too full of another set. Why must we endlessly go from one extreme to the other?

That's what I wanted to ask.

John Richardson: you probably know more data on this than I do, but isn't it a correlation between sex-education and teenage pregnancy, not a causal effect? You aren't suggesting, are you, that sex-education in schools is the main cause of the sexualisation of children and the increase in pregnancies and STDs? Isn't it rather that sex-education correlates with increased teenage sexual activity because it is essentially a response to it? Perhaps it isn't a very effective response, generally, but I find it hard to believe - or see from the data I know - that it isn't better than nothing. Around me I see a popular culture that promotes sex constantly - 'raunch culture' they call it. It's there in advertising, music, films, celebrity-culture, tabloid journalism, TV - aggressive, humiliating and coercive. My children are going to go out into that world. At least I want them to be well-informed. If you have a plausible idea for putting that genie back into the bottle, let me know. If not, I can't see that sex-education which encourages them to understand the advantages and risks of all kinds of behaviour can be other than protective - though perhaps it is only a flimsy protection.

The hostility here to this kind of education seems to come from a fear that children will be exposed to propaganda - that is, to the zealous and exclusive promotion of ideas that people here disagree with. That isn't what I am recommending. But I do think children should be presented with free and wide-ranging debate. Intellectual freedom should be the first educational principle; rigour in argument the second. Lessons on sexual behaviour should indeed include discussion of the advantages of abstinence, and frankness about the risks, emotional, physical and economic, of early sexual activity. Critique of 'raunch culture' should come into that. But it would be unrealistic to make abstinence the only sanctioned option. If teenagers are going to have sex, at least they should be helped to understand it.

Incidentally, I cannot understand how anyone who seriously wants to reduce the number of abortions can be opposed to explicit and thorough education about contraception.

Similarly, with climate change, the answer cannot be to ignore the subject. I disagree with most people here about the weight that can be given to the sceptical case, but I certainly think scepticism should be included in the curriculum. Children looking at this subject should be presented with the full debate, and encouraged to see it as a continuing debate as well as an urgent one.

Ethical eating, too - how exactly is education in this supposed to be responsible for the obesity epidemic? Nothing to do with fast food and sedentary leisure pursuits, then.

To engage with all these things, we need teachers who are authoritative AND sensitive to children's feelings; passionate about their academic disciplines AND willing to reach out to children without much academic knowledge; challenging AND reassuring; willing to criticise popular culture AND to see the role it has in people's lives.

I wasn't very good at this when I did my two years in a London comprehensive in the 1980s. I was uptight and reactionary. And I was partly right, but only partly.

Dog Snob

Richard

'Ethical eating'? Can't we just aim for common sense and moderation?

Tim Carpenter LPUK

This can be solved by the breaking up of the de facto State monopoly over education.

No, not the Tory mechanism that replaces one with another, but making schools, all state schools, independent.

Should those schools wish to get State voucher funding (via the parents), they should deliver numerate and literate children (as in critical reasoning and the ability to express themselves coherently and put a case) but the rest of pedagogy and curriculum should be up to the parents and schools to sort out.

I am sure most Heads will discard the bad and keep the good. Innovation will spread organically and bad ideas will be abandoned.

Pushy parents will indirectly help the children of those who are not.

New providers will come in - not via the corruption-magnet sphincter of the desk of the Tory Secretary of State - and provide surplus capacity, so allowing the worst schools to be threatened with literally empty desks.

Will it be perfect? No, certainly not, but it will far more efficient at sifting the wheat from the chaff than our current monopolistic, centrally controlled system.

john robert

I would not let any of my children be exposed to the Marxist dogmatic education that comes out of state schools. its just fortunate that I can afford other alternatives

John Richardson

Hello Richard,

Thank you for your considered response.
You have explained your position in respect of many different areas of a child's life (and more besides).
A few thoughts.

Children are children and everything is different.
The usual rules of human society do not apply.
It is a fundamental error to think of children as fully autonomous, little adults.
For example, to 'present children with a free and wide ranging debate' though obviously well intentioned, is actually disastrous for the children.
As children, they do not require of us a menu of choices, totally bereft of morality....
Let's look at a few choices, off the top of my head, the (utterly liberal = utterly degenerate MSM) world would present to them

1) Peter Tachel explained on 'Hard Talk' with Tim Sebastian a few years ago that 'he had friends who had been in sexual relationships with grown men, from the age of eleven and they suffered no harm...'
Peter Tachel is regarded by the MSM an a normal man.

2) I saw a MSM colour supplement a couple of years ago with a young, attractive German couple. They were 'fighting for their love against a bigoted world'.
They were brother and sister.

3) Channel Four has broadcast at least twice a TV programme that 'deals sensitively' with the 'issue' of people who develop sexual relationships with their pets/animals.

4) Last summers Daily Mail had a professional, glamorous photograph of a young girl. Full of self confidence and pride. The story was about her three abortions before she had left school. Very 'supportive' text, she was the typical 'hero/victim' the MSM creates.
The year before, an attractive blond in the same newspaper explained how her ten abortions were all accidents & that she felt no shame whatsoever etc etc.

5) Same newspaper (18months ago I think) reported how a mother who telephone the Police because of the 'cottaging' on the path outside her house (she was picking her small daughter up from school, so early afternoon) was told by the Police to take a different route home if she or her small daughter did not like it.....

The above will all be fairly easy to confirm if anyone should wish.
None of the above is really age restricted information, not in this progressive country. So children are 'informed' about these choices....

The reality is that those who have accepted a 'tolerant, enlightened, modern, progressive' agenda have either woken up to find themselves neck deep in filth and blood...or they have not yet woken up.
Where does the above 'progression' terminate ?

Who will call a halt, draw a line in the sand say enough is enough ?
For your daughter (three years old if I recall ?) NO-ONE but you.
Your GOD given duty is to protect her from the World and it's 'free and wide ranging debate'.
Not to expose her to the most active, energetic,driven, vocal and determined elements in society ie Mr P.T.
These will always 'drive policy' create 'initiatives' etc etc.
It is their nature to...

Choices ?
Yes of course choices decide outcomes.
Obviously the choice of free, no questions asked abortion leads to more....
The choice of very cheap 24 hr drinking leads to more.....
The choice of generous Welfare provision from age 16 leads to .....
So the choices presented by sex instruction classes will always mean.....

The 'progressive forces' know this, this is why they are so determined to separate children from parents and then offer them choices.

What practical advice ?

Well that Genie will go back you know. For your young daughter it has not yet been released.
Here is the answer.
Ready ?

THROW OUT YOUR TELEVISION.

Think of the Fee you will save.
It does not inform you (for goodness sake look how the AGW propaganda has worked, though the Earth has gotten colder for 15 years consecutively). Is it really entertaining ?

Children are different. With the TV disabled, your daughter will not miss it. Why not try DVDs of 'Trumpton' or 'Camberwick Green' for a treat on the PC.

Children are different & you can control the choices. It will not be easy but why should it be easy to be a real father ?
In time you will find other parents who have quietly come to the same conclusions and made similar sacrifices for their children.
Not for their own 'freedom'.

You have the PAOWEEER.

If you try, good luck.
If you do not........

Dixon

How does the country keep functioning? I mean, jet engines are still crossing the skies above us, organs are still being exchanged and the recipients living to tell, the British sattelite industry is still one of the most prosperous and our nuclear submarines continue to sail without an aquatic Chernobyl ( something which neither Russian nor US navies can boast ). These things are being accomplished by generations of people who have grown up in the era of the very socialistic schemes of education discussed here. It seems to me that there are only five explanations:
1) All these technical accomplishments are facilitated by immigrants.
2)All engineers, surgeons, etc are from public-school, where said regimes do not apply.
3) The picture of British education being painted here only applies in isolated cases.
4) Its a load of tripe.
5) A mixture of the above.

I think its "5" but caution the following: "1" to "3" are also valid in some measure and "4" is also partly true. In other words folks, lets not get so carried away on the back of a few anecdotal tales.

Dixon

I think Flanders and Swann summed up the entire length and breadth of "ethical eating": "Eating people is bad".
Other than that, eat what you like.

What a ridiculous phrase "ethical eating" is and what an indication of the decadence of our society that it propogates such notions in a world where malnutrition remains a widespread reality and growing.

John Thomas

Richard (7 Apr)don't be fooled ("I do want my children to be taught about ... how to have an active sex life without risking unwanted pregnancy or sexually-transmitted diseases.") No sex education, of the kind you refer to, is ever going to prevent illness and misery, of one kind or another, that's not it's purpose; the actual purpose of the sexualisation of children, at the hands, of recent governments, is quite the opposite, namely the destruction of traditional values and society (the Neathergate revelations showed the same motivations behind increased immigration and "multiculturalism"). The victims of "sex education" ("victim" is the mot juste), the children, are just expendable cannon-fodder in the culture wars; they will definitely suffer.

just Louise

I lay claim to being perhaps the earliest casualty of the foolish leftist mindset thinking that has led since the 1970s to this ludicrous situation in the classroom, and the accompanying concept concept that "all must have prizes"!
I was (and like to think that I still am) "a good drawer", and every week since starting primary school I'd basked in the glory of a gold star each Friday afternoon for mt "artwork", which I was then called upon to display proudly to my more artistically challenged classmates. None of them seemed to resent this, no more than I resented the fact that most of them were far better at gym than I was!
Each week it was the same until, at the age of about nine, I entered the class of 20-something Miss Ash, who was straight out of training college. To my chagrin and astonishment, she told the class that from now on little Louise would not be awarded any more gold stars for art "because she's naturally good at drawing and it's not fair on the rest of you".
That was back in the 1950s!
Clearly, Miss Ash was in the vanguard of the "educational" revolution!

Richard

I took the term 'ethical eating' from the list of educational topics C. Gee presented as if they were self-evidently absurd. I don't believe they are absurd (apart from the first one in the list), and I've been trying to explain why.

'Ethical eating' presumably means eating food, as far as possible, that was produced without unnecessary cruelty to animals, or harm to the ecosystem, or unfairness to workers (including British farmers). This doesn't seem silly or wrong to me; quite the reverse. Why it should be regarded as an improper or dangerous topic to discuss with children is quite beyond me.

The trouble with the term 'common sense' is that one person's common sense is another's controversial opinion.

I really don't know what to do with John Richardson's list of examples, as I can't see what they have to do with the kind of sex-education I was defending. Most of them concern sexual behaviour that in Britain and most countries is against the law, and I would not want sex-education to present them in a favourable way. I don't believe that it does. Part of sex-education is to teach children to be aware of the danger of abuse, and to recognise possible signs of this danger. Another part is to inform children about the laws relating to these things. This is protection. None of the behaviours exemplified here is a recent invention. They all existed long before there was sex-education.

What is difficult, I concede, is the question of how far, and at what age, children can be treated as capable of engaging with complex moral questions. That's a matter for contingent judgement on the part of parents and teachers - it's all about the particular context. My own frustration with contemporary educational trends is mainly about 'dumbing-down'. I lament the demand that everything should be 'accessible', and the refusal to credit children with tacit intelligence that can engage with complexity - the refusal to challenge and stimulate them intellectually. That seems to me to be the worst contemporary trend. It denies potential.

John Richardson

'Richard'

What difference does the Law make if the State refuses to impose the Law ?

All the examples I give above are taken from real life.
This is happening now. Regardless of 'the Law'.

As Mr Thomas suggests, in such a State, sex education/instruction is rather like Race & Cultural Studies in Germany circa 1940.
I agree that the provision of abortions for underage schoolgirls must involve the breaking of the Law.
Yet, they are provided, as you know, without even parents being informed....

You will remember that 'senior Police Officer' explaining it was not a priority to prosecute underage sex ?
Look how the State enforces the Law regarding illegal immigration (or stealing money through an 'expenses' system or...).

To 'present something in a favourable way' is simply to remove any moral dimension. Especially if that presentation is performed by someone in a trusted position of authority in a SCHOOL CLASSROOM.

(I did not cite it as I have less information, but the same situation exists when 'informing' children about drugs. The reality is that 'harm reduction' quickly leads to clean needles. Or for the purposes of this debate, 'How to put on a condom, should you so choose..').

All of the examples I cite are real life examples of what happens when a moral dimension is removed.
They are what inevitably results from the notion that procreation 'free' sexual activity is a healthy, normal leisure activity. There are no boundaries after that.

The discussions between parent and children and Teachers regarding what individual children should know and when will not happen.
There is not time. There are no shared parameters or often, shared values.
Would you want your daughter to listen to what I regard as normal or decent ?

Informed children are not magically protected by knowledge.
Protected children are protected.
Only Justice will protect children from abuse when it inevitably occurs.
Yet, as you know, the State does not believe in punitive, preventative incarceration. Instead, 'We have to live with them sooner or later' is the mantra. Always sooner.

So, who should tell children the facts of life.
Their parents.

Either that or a progressive, modern value free State.
Allied to the MSM and the television. See above

Dog Snob

Richard

Of course common sense is subjective, but we have to arrive at some common understanding of it surely? Just as we do with ethics.

C. Gee

Dixon:

The teaching of mathematics and natural science was the last to fall to ideological imperatives of equal outcomes. Now science is fast becoming subsumed by environmentalism (climate change), the latest incarnation of egalitarianism. 'Science studies', like 'Gender Studies', or any other 'Studies' are all offshoots of sociology and overtly political.

As school science becomes politics in other guises, the number of recruits into the hard sciences decreases. In addition, the market incentives for technological innovation are being distorted. Big Tech, like Big Pharma and Big Oil is being coopted - if not taken over - by Big Gov. Big Gov is putting more and more funding behind climate science. This will also move university science faculties away from the hard sciences. I would not be too sanguine about the continued blessings of tech knowledge and competence.

Interesting that you should use the example of nukes as evidence of continuing competency in science. The Cold War saw enormous government pushes for weaponry. In the USSR, the only subjects not subject to communist propaganda were maths and science - but then the science was for strengthening the state. China too has left the teaching of the hard sciences untainted by equality of outcomes. The cleverest are rewarded with government jobs, and the science has to result in demonstrable technological success.

Weapons innovation might still be a goal for Russia and China. The US and Europe are looking to control CO2. The East is producing rocket-scientists, the West is producing weather-watchers.

By the way, in North Korea now, and in Red China in the past, people eat people. Cannibalism is ethical, it seems, during times of government-induced starvation.

-But as long as the kids have no hang-ups about sex, and are discouraged from procreating, getting fat and leaving carbon footprints, the schools will have fulfilled their purpose.

Dixon

Richard: "'Ethical eating' presumably means eating food, as far as possible, that was produced without unnecessary cruelty to animals, or harm to the ecosystem, or unfairness to workers (including British farmers). This doesn't seem silly or wrong to me; quite the reverse. Why it should be regarded as an improper or dangerous topic to discuss with children is quite beyond me."

These are patently POLITICAL questions, as are any that express single frame ideologies. Would you think it OK to teach "New Labour Ethics" or "Conservative Party Morality"? No! Thought not. So why do you think its OK to teach "Green Party Ideology"?

Thats just for starters. But leaves aside the philosophical incompetence implied by the phrase "ethical eating". Ethics is about fair conduct between humans. The extension of it to non-human species is a howler of the first order. It is isomorhic woth the mediaeval practice of putting animals on trial for such "crimes" as eating crops they werent entitled to. In celebrated cases, flocks of birds and swarms of insects were found guilty of causing damage to agriculture. These attempts to extend moral precepts from the human into the non-human sphere were no more idiotic than "ethical eating". Which is to say, the latter is very idiotic indeed.

Dixon

C.Gee...yes, pretty much so. Inded, I have myself mentioned here in the past the curious backwatd slide of aerospace "research". That engineers in the 1950's could design, build and routinely operate a piloted spaceplane ( the X15 ) that could travel at mach 6 to 50 miles altitude whilst today, NASA's big ambition is to build a six foot toy able to travel at mach 5 for thirty seconds in a downward direction! I have also mentioned before the curious fact that until it was cancelled ( provisionally, at least ) by Obama, the Constellation program to put US astronauts back on the moon was centred around use of the very same Pratt & Witney J2 rocket engine that was used THE FIRST TIME in project Apollo, designed fifty years ago and up-dated as the J2X, by the original engineers, literally brought out of retirement for the job!

In a nutshell, nobody today builds things like the X15, the SR71 or the XB70, and its open to question as to whether anyone could?

What the hell is happening? Indeed, maybe the latter considerations are evidence contrary to my earlier stated case.

Osred

I never realised, before we had kids, just how much work we would have to do to make up for the inadequacies of state education. The 2 major (and well known) problems are the environment (what type of kids are dominant/what type of atmosphere the place has), and the national curriculum.

You can, and we did, move hundreds of miles away from the violent, transient multicultural sink that was our only choice. We are stuck however with the curriculum which asks so little of today's children. Furthermore, it has strayed into unashamed indoctrination in the fields of, for e.g. Climate Change and Fairtrade. The way to get good marks is to parrot the accepted wisdom and to ignore contrary views and evidence.

It has reached the stage where a child can get detention for holding to the anti-AGW position in front of a convinced activist teacher (my son! - very proud).

Richard

Dixon:

Aren't you willing to admit the possibility of a form of teaching that would present ethical questions to students without insisting on any particular answer? Such teaching would - and does - encourage students to debate these questions. It would seek to acquaint them with a range of positions that can be taken, and to identify and discuss the main objections to all positions. Therefore it would not be Conservative, Labour or Green, but would explore all those viewpoints. Your alternative seems to be that all topics of ethical debate should be left out of education - suppressed, in other words. Do you think that wish to suppress isn't itself political? Excluding all ethical questions from education would impoverish education, reducing it to technical training.

The question of how we should treat animals is an ethical question concerning human conduct, to be debated between human beings. It is a question for each human conscience. Raising these questions does not necessarily entail treating animals as moral agents or participants in a moral contract. How to treat animals rightly is a moral question for human beings.

kirsty

Fantastic! Amen. Auntie to a bright 9 year old. Cant help him with counting either!? Back to 'You WILL be educated.' Re-introduction of the uniform did wonders, within a year, at my old school.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

The leftist destroyed this country children are not allow to be clever anymore the teachers are obsess about equality, the head teachers the government everyone is, the left are so twisted and they want to twist everyone else life, I notice they are against uniform, against improvement against discipline, against civilization, if we don't stop the lefties now it will be too late and Britain wouldn't be only broken society but broken ghetto society

Tom Hannah

C. Gee (April 7th, 2010 1:38am) is so right. We need to ask ourselves whether we need a teaching profession.

Roger C

Osred
You can, and we did, move hundreds of miles away from the violent, transient multicultural sink that was our only choice. We are stuck however with the curriculum which asks so little of today's children. Furthermore, it has strayed into unashamed indoctrination in the fields of, for e.g. Climate Change and Fairtrade. The way to get good marks is to parrot the accepted wisdom and to ignore contrary views and evidence.

It has reached the stage where a child can get detention for holding to the anti-AGW position in front of a convinced activist teacher (my son! - very proud).

All my sons have been home schooled and all are at least 2 years ahead of their peers. The eldest is at Oxford and his younger brother at Sandhurst. We expect similar results fron the other four.
Quite frankly we have always been appalled at the standards within state schools but they do seem to have hit a new low.
The debate on here re ethical eating as a subject is a prime example.
During a conversation with some of my 14 year old sons friends who attend state school one announced that ethical eating and fairtrade was of prime importance. My son was the only one to ask "for who".
He was the only one to demonstrate that such policies whilst helping the poor of other countries generate wealth actually make the people of this country poorer by increasing the cost of food. Whilst not disputing the good aims of fairtrade it appears that the state schools teach the policy of happy agreement but not original thought.
Isaac had to explain to them how increasing the prices paid to third world countries decreases the living standards of people, especially the poor, in this country. For as their standard of living increases ours will decline due to the increase in prices that follow.
Thinking through a problem or debate is just not done in most state schools today. Lamentable but true

Henrietta Shoemaker

My friend was looking a secondary school for her child, she is so close to have a nervous break down, she been paying a lot of tax all her life, the state schools are about 50 minutes by bus in a bad poor neighborhood their is one or two close by but when she looked the school catalog she only saw pictures of little girls dress up like batman, she asked someone what is this all about? is this a private muslim school no they said it is state school they have to cover up their hair because of their believe, she been some muslim countries before where school children didn't wear those kind of things, she also looked the private schools those schools they give the children difficult exams and you have to be an investor banker or some kind of rich person to afford it, it is crazy here I been many countries in the world poor third world countries or rich countries where children walk to school with out seeing drug dealers, bimps or other freaks, I don't know what happened to the British schools I think they let in so many unuseful people to the country who don't respect the British value

R Bucknall

Spot on Melanie. As a retired teacher I entirely agree with you. The trouble is many teachers also agree with you but have to follow the "guidelines" set out by this government with no reference to common sense. The pupils now have to be taught skills rather than facts, and whilst skills are important, how can they acquire these skills if they have no factual basis on which to use them?

Osred

RE:Roger C
April 10th, 2010 12:22am.

I admire folk like yourself who have the time and/or ability to home school. Unfortunately, my own rubbish (state) education precludes that*. My wife's skills also are not those of a teacher and so we are stuck with the state. We despair when seeing how those educated at public school increase the gap year over their state competitors and so have tried to apply a couple of simple ideas of mine (which start well before school age) to try to make up for this to a small degree. I cant teach a broad range of subjects but I've tried to foster or develop in them a type of mental capacity and agility which their school (which is very good by state standards) wont pursue.

We might not reach the heady heights of Oxbridge or Sandhurst but we should do ok!

* My school was like that described by a London comic where the careers master asks his class what they want to be.

Comic sticks his hand up and says "I want to be a van driver Sir" Teacher says, "A van driver Smith? You dreamer. Look, you're the guy who puts the stuff in the back of the van for the driver"

Caza

'....teachers are now complaining about the very situation they have deliberately contributed to....' as a teacher in the sixth form - not quite the same category but still, I feel I must point out that teachers 'teach' and act under the direction of a head or principal. That head or principal will be fearful of ofsted's latest agenda which at present as I understand it regards the 'student voice' and 'safeguarding' as areas contributory to 'limiting grades' in inspections. What this means is that no matter how well teachers teach, no matter how well students (or these days 'learners') learn, the school can only obtain a 'satisfactory' grade 3 if the safeguarding/voice issue is deemed inadequate. Labour's 'egalitarianism' agenda now trumps all matters of academic excellence. Teachers in the state sector are employed by the government and this teacher has not 'deliberately' contributed to the situation in hand, nor have many others I daresay.

C. Gee

R. Bucknall:

On skills v. facts:
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
A little training is even more scary.

Mr. Mabutoh Afunfa

R Bucknall, I don't think the British kids learn in school skills not traditional ones at least maybe they teach how to use the computers, when I see other European kids for example the Polish kids are skillful good in measurement and do better job working skillful jobs like tailoring, book binding, wood working, bricklaying etc.

Verity

Richard of the hard left writes: "Couldn't we have an educational system that respected children's viewpoints without giving-in to them,...".

Children don't have "viewpoints". They are not experienced enough in the world and dealing with events and other people to have "viewpoints". They're children, for God's sake! Any "viewpoints" they have are a direct reflection of the "viewpoints" they have heard in their home.

Richard, no offence, but if you'd been paying more attention to what the teacher was saying in front of the class and thinking less about your "viewpoints", you would, at this stage of life, know that there is no sane rationale for hyphenating "giving in".

Richard

Verity,

I'm a bit bemused by being called 'hard left'. I've met a lot of people much further and harder left than I am, and I disagree with them about a lot. I would describe the view I'm expressing here as liberal-conservative, in that I am attempting to combine a rather old-fashioned academic curriculum and principle of the teacher's authority with a willingness to engage children with important contemporary questions that will matter in their lives, and to treat them as intelligent, sensitive individuals.

Your very reductive account of children's viewpoints - that they simply reproduce their parents' views - simply seems untrue to me. That is not my experience of children, as a parent and a teacher. At least by the time they reach early teenage, they have complex viewpoints, upon which their parents are an important influence but not the only one. many of them define themselves against their parents' views. Children often have strong feelings and opinions about some of the questions we have discussed here. And they have very complicated stories to tell about their own lives. Intellectual education means helping them connect these stories with intellectual traditions and disciplines, so that they can begin to think critically, about their own views and other people's. Critical thinking is essential to the continuation of a democratic society and to the development of an individual's intellectual and emotional potential, don't you think? It is certainly essential to the spirit of this blog. And the main reason why I protest against being called 'hard left' is that the kind of teaching I am defending here is open to the discussion and analysis of all views. As I said to Dixon, it is teaching that examines important questions without insisting on any particular answer.

Your point about the hyphen is interesting. To 'give in' is a compound verb, and the hyphen I used was to indicate that. I think either way is probably acceptable.

Holly

Growing up,certain neighbours were known to tell our parents of our behaviour and we would get a 'good hiding'(massively exaggerated term)usually a slap on the legs & bed until the next day..no tea.The police would take us home if they thought we were playing too far away from our homes,usually over a mile..Another good hiding for bringing the police to the door.
The rule/law makers were more than likely raised the same & vowed to stop this 'abuse' of children.
What tosh! We knew who's houses to steer clear of until mischief
night..tying the bin lid to the door handle,knocking & running away was a favourite.
ASBO'S all round?
These'perceived'drastic measures
at the time,taught us respect,
how we where expected to behave while out by ourselves and to respect our neighbours and police.
We,including you,were taught respect so we would grow into the adults we are today.
Would you ever have answered your teacher back in class?
Would you have swore in front of your parents,let alone at them?
Of course not.I wouldn't dare!
Would you have ever dreamt of hurting someone,or hitting someone too old or too young to defend themselves,or shooting/
stabbing someone?
Things like this would never cross our minds.
We misunderstood the lessons we were learning,but they taught us how to be respectful adults.
Civil to others,empathy,
consideration and good manners.
We have betrayed a generation by giving the children all the power and making the parents powerless.
Personally I think we were more respected.Our parents believed these lessons would make us better adults..nicer people..
more considerate,friendly,
empathic adults.They respected us enough to want us to grow up to be valued members of society
I believe they were right.

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

So many children these days.... no guidance from home.... no guidance from school....

Experiential learning by its consequences to the self, has its benefits, but there are things that children/adolescents need guidance about....e.g...teenage pregnancy and drugs can affect you for life.....

.....and morality which lays the rules of right and wrong(a good stepping stone is that there are other people to consider in this life other than yourself)....

Morality is the rock on which a civilised society is based and which is refined by the learning of manners.

Finally, a standard level of competence academically-to read, to spell, to write a grammatically correct sentence, and to be able to add up would be useful...(Britian, America and Australia have become demonstrably dumbed down)

So....

Parents that Parent and
Teachers that Teach... Now Recruiting !

The sad thing....

I had to state the obvious...

hadrian

As a retired teacher of many years standing I can only say the teaching profession is to a large extent its own very worst enemy. It is saturated with a left wing, humanistic, socialistic ethos that has created indisciplined chaos in the classroom and looks on hard work and genuine standards of excellence as things unutterable. Referring to pupils as 'students' is just the latest, very silly symptom of this self crippling trend.
Having seen it all in both class and staff room I have next to no sympathy, except for young entrants fed into this madness.

John.

How about starting again using tried and tested methods that used to result in virtually all school-leavers being able to read, write, do maths, think critically and do something meaningful and useful in the world outside? Sitting behind desks, in rows, in front of a blackboard and respecting (and fearing) the teacher enough to pay attention to what was said would be an indispensable start. Ridiculous, recently introduced subjects should be eliminated and very young children given the essential basic skills upon which all future learning depends - and which are hardly given at all now. They need to learn to read phonically, to spell correctly, to learn English grammar, to learn British history, to learn geography, to become acquainted with Bible stories and the Classical myths, to learn multiplication tables and how to divide, add and subtract. Without all this there is no basis for moral or intelligent behaviour. More effective than any citizenship or sex education, for people of my generation, was learning by example from our teachers, from the Bible and from history, both ancient and modern. If we had done something particularly unacceptable we were caned, we knew we had deserved it and we accepted it as just punishment. I see nothing wrong with that especially as most school leavers didn't take drugs, have abortions or get into ugly fights in those days. Our education had given us standards that we felt it incumbent on us

to live up to as a matter of self-respect and honour. Is it really not possible to establish a few schools on these lines so as to provide an example of what is possible? Such schools require far less finance than trendy new kinds of schools.

Caza

Hadrian, we in our college now find the word 'learner' rather than the traditional 'student' being used. I sympathise. I also totally agree with your comments, the 'left' has such a stranglehold on the teaching profession. I remember being quite 'stitched into this mode of thinking' myself, and can only say that a number of things brought me to my senses (Melanie's book being one of them) and cannot imagine adopting those sentiments again. My colleagues however, take some persuading to 'think differently', even though they are deeply frustrated with the situation, I guess they'll keep voting for the same old claptrap. They'll be sorry when Labour scrap A levels and force the diploma (From 100% academic to 25% academic experience)upon them, but it'll be too late. That's when I'll be 'off'!