Noel you seem to think that what ever the government in this country does, is right. Anyway I've just read your post again and the answers to it are contained in my previous posts. Pick the bones out of them.Originally Posted by noel
Noel you seem to think that what ever the government in this country does, is right. Anyway I've just read your post again and the answers to it are contained in my previous posts. Pick the bones out of them.
Is "back to basics" a slogan or an initiative?
But on a serious note, I can't think of a win-win way to sort out education. You either have all the potentially more disruptive kids together, in which case they'll never find anyone able to teach them. Or you mix them with the more academic kids who generally are more interested in getting a decent education. In which case you hinder the bright kids.
The answer is probably somewhere in between, which is what we have now (some private schools, some streaming in state schools).
and here's another example.
I went to a primary school called Western in Stacksteads. A huge stone school that had 2 buildings, 3 school yards.
Knocked down about 30 years ago and turned in to bungalows aimed at retired folk.
It used to look after around 110 kids in the Primary + around 40 kids in the nursery.
It could have catered for 300 - 400 and had a fully equipped Gym, Woodwork Room - it was used by Rossendale College for what we called Night School in the 70s.
The neighbouring School was Tunstead Cof E which was a similarly big stone school, that needed some work done on it - no nursery, but approx 200 kids there. It was also knocked down and made way for housing.
The CofE school had better lobbying organisation - so when both schools were knocked down, the new school was built on the new site as Holy Trinity CoE Stacksteads.
Capacity - around 200 - work that one out!!!
But to get to my main point - when I was at Primary School at Western - only 5 kids were on free school meals.
When my kids were at school at Holy Trinity in the 90s, 68% were on free school meals.
Now before anyone jumps up and down I am not trying to stigmatise people who take free school meals - but it does give a guide.
1. Society has been allowed to go down the pan.
2. Too many people sit on their jacksy and send their kids to school to get rid of them so they can watch Jeremy Kyle in peace.
3. The schools get a constantly spiralling down calibre of intake and have done so for 30 years.
4. The quality of the teachers has similarly spiralled.
Teachers - I'm not picking on you all before again you jump on me!
Conclusion - any solution to the education system is prone to failure unless it is all tied in with a total reform of the welfare and social system so that bone idle good-for-nothings are not rewarded for being lazy and breeding.
I have in the past wondered how I'm viewed on this forum, based on the arguments I've put forward. That's very enlightening, thanks CL.
I disagree. Moreover, your original assertion was flawed based on arguments previously stated in my posts prior to the ones you're now talking about.
I think the problem with the type of parents you're talking about is that they don't send their kids to school.
That's a good point witton. The downward spiral was bound to happen though, by allowing the government more and more power over our lives. Now people don't know how to think without an order from the government.Just look at Noel.
Anyway when people give up their freedom to the state, the consequences have to be a gradual decline in educational standards. After all those in power don't want anyone answering back.
All education should be private. People shouldn't allow the state to dictate how their children are educated. That is a private matter.
You just wait CL, until Gordon Brown tells me I should be offended. Then you'll be sorry.
Step 1. All schools made private.
Step 2. School band together to maintain standards and curriculum (these form regional LEAs and a national supervising body).
Step 3. Parents demand more say in how schools are run.
Step 4. Government bows to public pressure so creates ministry in charge of overseeing education.
And we're back where we started. Thanks CL.
If I was a parent, which I don't want to be, I wouldn't let my child near a state school. I'd educate them at home myself. I'd achieve far more in 2hours than some schools achieve in a week or a month.
Of course I don't want the stress, because I'd have the state kicking my front door in(in the nicest possible way), demanding to know why MY kids aren't being indoctrinated in one of their mauling grounds.
That's a hell of an assumption to make. What about the political spectrum? What about sexuality? etc, etc, etc Hardly anything in life is as simple as good and evil or black and white. There are simply too many variables and permutations in the human condition to be so simplistic. Shades of grey aren't unacceptable, more often than not they're the most rational, compassionate and embracing stance to take.
I totally accept that Biara's decision could be interpreted as hypocritical but, I don't think you'd find many parents who'd put their own moral/political beliefs ahead of the long term welfare of their children. You could even argue that to do so would be selfish and immoral. This is an example of a variable making a black and white judgment impossible. An action that may seem immoral/wrong from one angle can easily appear moral/right from another. Also chucking around accusations of being a "wimp" etc is just petty , personal and beneath the debating standards that you like to credit yourself with.
The whole point of debating is to conduct a reasoned and impersonal discussion presenting valid evidence and informed argument. If someone succeeds in that then you should be gracious enough to concede points and, if necessary, change your own viewpoint. However, and I think this is why you manage to rub so many people up the wrong way on this forum rather than your often interesting/controversial opinions, you don't do this.
You tend to adopt a "fingers in ears loudly saying la, la, la" stone-walling approach, refusing to answer specific questions, not citing valid sources but instead resorting to circumstantial evidence, strange irrelevant analogies and subjective personal experience. This is why discussions involving you often become personal, it's nothing to do with your debating skill as you don't debate.
Come on, play the game properly and in the right spirit. You're obviously not stupid and the sort of nonsense with LD, The Heathens, me at times etc that we've all witnessed should be beneath you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote