|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What stops you from joining the Green Party?
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I am sure Matt and his children's school also have the single agend of putting children's needs first. Why then, not just leave it to them?
For the reason I gave - I think that we need to connect schools with one another to share what they're doing.
Aren't schools capable of doing that for themselves, should they wish to do so?
I'm afraid what you describe sounds less like facilitating schools' development than imposing a one-size-fits-all model.
quote:
Also, what is the difference between anti religious seperatism and anti-religion?
Anti-religion is "I don't think faith schools should exist because there is no God". Anti-religious separatism is "faith schools exist, so there should be a way of connecting them to the general principles and governance structures of other schools." [/qb][/QUOTE]Isn't teaching the National Curriculum enough? Why go further?
[ 13. August 2013, 09:59: Message edited by: Cod ]
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It was in fact one which had been going its own little way for quite a few hundred years without the need for any regulation.
So it must have been doing something right then? So it might want to share that best practice with other schools, to help them improve?
Some here sound like they are in favour of a school being an island unto itself.
I was not talking about a school, but a particular self-contained sector of the body politic that had been pottering along quite happily.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Our school follows the National Curriculum. It is also part of a 'cluster' of other schools in southern Hampshire, so I'm not sure whence Orb is getting this idea of 'splendid isolation'. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because I would be concerned that they would be subjected to the LA's secular humanist agenda. I wouldn't want my kids' Catholic school subject to the diktat of the LA for that reason; it would over time destroy its unique Catholic ethos. Why do you want it subject to LA control?
I don't think LAs should have ANY agenda, beyond putting the needs of children first. I want private schools (faith or otherwise) under LA control because I want our school system to be less tiered and more equitable. Provision and practice can be shared much easier if all schools are governed under one overarching body.
quote:
It was the admissions policy aspect that disturbed me the most: whilst we do take non-Catholics, our local Catholic school exists primarily for the benefit of the local Catholic community. Same I would guess with most if not all Muslim faith schools.
I still do not see how this is "anti-religion". It's "anti-religious separatism", which I happen to be too. We need to move beyond this sectionalism which educates children according to tribes, classes and/or income levels.
I agree with all this. I'd abolish 'faith' schools and fee-paying schools and have all schools back under LA control because it's democratic.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
We need to move beyond this sectionalism which educates children according to tribes, classes and/or income levels.
Sounds to me like you want all children to be educated according to what your tribe thinks is best.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Leo, presumably then you are happy for the number of children being home-schooled to increase? Cos that's what'll happen.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.
Children do not 'belong' to their parents.
In Leoworld, it sounds like they belong to the state.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
They don't belong to the state either. Such totalitarian views deeply bother me.
[cp with Anglican't]
[ 13. August 2013, 13:56: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.
Children do not 'belong' to their parents.
So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught and anyone seeking to teach their children anything else should be arrested?
It all sounds very much like indoctrination to me.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Very Stalinist
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.
Children do not 'belong' to their parents.
So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught
Well, what specialist, graduate teachers want to teach them rather than an ignorant secretary of state like the current one.
What we currently have is indoctrination by a capitalist government.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ah, so you'd replace that with indoctrination of your socio-political credo, then? Thanks, but no.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mother Julian
Ship's librarian
# 11978
|
Posted
The educational policies of the Green Party, quoted by Orb above and amply critiqued by other shipmates, shocked me when I read them some time after joining the party. If I thought there was the remotest prospect of them being implemented I would campaign vigorously against both party and policies. I've remained a member because the big picture is minimising environmental damage in the UK, and the Green Party is currently the best vehicle to do this. All political parties are coalitions of interests and priorities, and all political parties make compromises to achieve at least part of their programme. Still can't help thinking Bristol Greens have scored a bit of an own goal in allowing themselves to be portrayed as anti- Bristol Rovers Football Club, though (I'm sure they're not in reality)
--------------------
The corn was orient and immortal wheat which never should be reaped, nor was ever sown.
Posts: 359 | From: the banks of the mighty River Mersey | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.
Children do not 'belong' to their parents.
So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught
Well, what specialist, graduate teachers want to teach them rather than an ignorant secretary of state like the current one.
What we currently have is indoctrination by a capitalist government.
I think what we need to acknowledge that there is no obvious single 'right' way to educate children, and so ISTM we need a system that allows different philosophies and approaches to coexist.
Centralising control in the hands of the LEA is not going to achieve that.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.
Children do not 'belong' to their parents.
So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught
Well, what specialist, graduate teachers want to teach them rather than an ignorant secretary of state like the current one.
And suppose the "specialist, graduate teachers" wanted to teach what Gove wants them to teach: you'd be okay with that, right? Because it's not what you want - it's what the experts want that counts, yeah? It's just that the "experts" du jour just so happen to agree with you and not Gove. No personal agenda. And the experts won't have an agenda or particular political slant themselves, so they naturally have more right to determine what's going to be taught to kids than the govenment or the parents do.
That about the sum of it?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Why I don't vote Green, as a rule?*
In Canada, that would be like voting for the Conservative party without actually voting for the Conservative Party. It's a weasel-out option.
*That being said, I once voted for Greens, provincially, because the NDP candidate was a total flake, and the thought of voting for him made me sick. Voting for a Liberal or a Tory (both centre-right parties) would make me vomit copiously. Even now, I still feel queasy about that Green vote, but the candidate was a sane, well-known man locally.
The Ontario Greens tend to have a more blue-green hue than the federal party (the first with an openly gay leader). That kind of mirrors the party constellations at each level, with Ontario having more "minor" parties on the right while the Dominion has more on the left. On the other hand, a fairly progressive friend (federally, he's a Bloquiste) voted for the provincial Greens consistently when living in Toronto Centre because it's the only party apart from the Communists to call for the abolition of separate schools.
The Green Party of Canada had a more red-green flavour in the 90s under Joan Russow, but IIRC her successor was seen as shifting to the right, and Russow herself quit for the New Democrats. I suspect May signals more of a pendulum swing back, despite the tendency among some of my activist friends to paint her as a rabid, green-eyed anti-choicer.
May, incidentally, was just interviewed by the Churchman. She confirms that she's given up on her priestly vocation as getting elected has shut the lid on her studies at Saint-Paul.
A friend in England voted Green the last time round, if I'm not mistaken despite their republicanism. I can't really fault him for realpolitik, since I'll probably vote for Québec solidaire in the next election.
[ 13. August 2013, 18:46: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I agree with all this. I'd abolish 'faith' schools and fee-paying schools and have all schools back under LA control because it's democratic.
Tangental, but how is "one size fits all" democratic?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think what we need to acknowledge that there is no obvious single 'right' way to educate children, and so ISTM we need a system that allows different philosophies and approaches to coexist.
Centralising control in the hands of the LEA is not going to achieve that.
Gove claims to be 'setting schools free' from local authority control, but in reality he is centralising even further. 'Free' schools and academies might have superficial freedom, but they are dependent on government permission and finance to exist, while at the same time strangling existing good schools because of the lack of sensible local planning to avoid duplication. Several 'free' schools have been set up in areas where there is already a surplus of school places.
The fallacy of saying 'one size doesn't fit all' is that a variety of types of school is not guaranteed to match the needs of children in the locality. Even on the much simpler 'eleven-plus' system, with only two types of (secondary) school, the lack of available places often meant that children who would have benefited from a grammar school education were denied it. It's all very well having a school 'for sporting excellence' in town A , and a 'science specialist' school in town B? Maybe OK if they are only 5 miles apart but if they're at opposite ends of the county it's not much use.
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried. Though where it has, and when the school is big enough, it is possible to cater for all sorts and conditions of pupils and provide a variety of staff personalities and expertise, that is impossible in a smaller school.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.
If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
The leader of the British Columbia Green Party has quit
Normally, I wouldn't bother posting something like this, but since we've already got the thread going, I thought it might be of interest.
As you can see from the comments, the BC Greens are dogged by the same accusation of vote-splitting on the left that dog other Greeen parties.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not mine.
Teachers'.
Like it was before 1988 and the national curriculum, kicked off by Jim Callaghan's 'secret garden of the curriculum' speech.
Again, thanks, but no. Mrs Cniht and I spend most of their waking hours in the company of our children. In elementary school, a schoolteacher has about 30 children in her class for maybe 6 hours a day - or a maximum of 12 minutes per day per child. Who do you think knows them best?
If the local school works for my kids, that's great. If it doesn't, I'll find alternative provision for them (and in fact I do - mine are homeschooled at the moment). I refuse to allow your opinion, or even your collective opinion, to override mine, where my children are concerned. They are my responsibility, and I will discharge that responsibility to the best of my ability, which includes if necessary protecting them from what you think is best for them.
And yes, it's nasty statist shit like this that completely exclude the UK green party from my consideration.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...
A friend in England voted Green the last time round, if I'm not mistaken despite their republicanism. I can't really fault him for realpolitik, since I'll probably vote for Québec solidaire in the next election. [/QB]
QS is by merger the heir of the late New Democratic Party of Québec, which the national party expelled in 1988 for holding separatist policy positions.
I describe QS as the modern-day Waffle in French.
The NDP has plans to relaunch a Quebec provincial party and there is constitutional provision in the National Party Constitution for a Québec wing competing for the National Assembly.
Québec has the most restrictive political donation limits in the world ($100/person/year) and grants generous government funding to parties in lieu. That's one reason for the multiplicity of parties in Québec but it will also make launching an NDP-Q easier.
I've got a job in the pipe in Montréal so I hope to be there for the NDP-Q's Founding Convention.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Angloid:
Go to the original Education Acts of 1944 and 1948.
If LEAs throughout the UK had (a) supplied the THREE tiers of schools - grammar, technical high and secondary modern - and then (b) made sure that transfers between the schools took place when required then the old system could have worked well.
In the few areas where there were the three tiers and a proper transfer mechanism the old system provided a means of social mobility - particularly in regards to university entrance - that we struggle for now.
As for a one-size-fits-all national curriculum: in the UK the national curriculum was never intended to be a gold standard: Keith Joseph's original idea was that the national curriculum should be the minimum acceptable standard for schools to achieve.
Unfortunately, having spent a lot of time - and strike days - trying to fight the introduction of the national curriculum the teaching unions then decided that it should be regarded as the pinnacle of achievement, thus lowering standards at a stroke.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think this is the place to rehearse what was wrong with Attlee's government. I'm just a little surprised that anyone would look back on a period of wartime deprivation and hardship (some of it necessary, yes, but tough nonetheless) and think 'let's use this as a model'. The fact that the Greens, apparently, do suggests to me that they should be kept away from power.
The only thing I know about the Attlee government is that it created the National health Service.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I describe QS as the modern-day Waffle in French.
Right up my alley!
quote:
The NDP has plans to relaunch a Quebec provincial party and there is constitutional provision in the National Party Constitution for a Québec wing competing for the National Assembly.
Good luck to them. The field is already overcrowded, with both the Greens and the new Union Citoyenne positioning themselves as the progressive federalist alternative to QS.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not mine.
Teachers'.
Like it was before 1988 and the national curriculum, kicked off by Jim Callaghan's 'secret garden of the curriculum' speech.
Again, thanks, but no. Mrs Cniht and I spend most of their waking hours in the company of our children. In elementary school, a schoolteacher has about 30 children in her class for maybe 6 hours a day - or a maximum of 12 minutes per day per child. Who do you think knows them best?
If the local school works for my kids, that's great. If it doesn't, I'll find alternative provision for them (and in fact I do - mine are homeschooled at the moment). I refuse to allow your opinion, or even your collective opinion, to override mine, where my children are concerned. They are my responsibility, and I will discharge that responsibility to the best of my ability, which includes if necessary protecting them from what you think is best for them.
And yes, it's nasty statist shit like this that completely exclude the UK green party from my consideration.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If LEAs throughout the UK had (a) supplied the THREE tiers of schools - grammar, technical high and secondary modern - and then (b) made sure that transfers between the schools took place when required then the old system could have worked well.
If! I wonder why that never happened.... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
In any case, that system implies 'three types' of children. There are far more than academic, technical and practical. What about artistic, for example?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No. I'd make that illegal.
Children do not 'belong' to their parents.
So basically, every child should be taught only what you want them to be taught
Well, what specialist, graduate teachers want to teach them rather than an ignorant secretary of state like the current one.
And suppose the "specialist, graduate teachers" wanted to teach what Gove wants them to teach: you'd be okay with that, right? Because it's not what you want - it's what the experts want that counts, yeah? It's just that the "experts" du jour just so happen to agree with you and not Gove. No personal agenda. And the experts won't have an agenda or particular political slant themselves, so they naturally have more right to determine what's going to be taught to kids than the govenment or the parents do.
That about the sum of it?
Very few specialists agree with Gove and very few would want to teach his pub quiz curriculum.
Any more than surgeons want advice from politicians about how to do brain surgery.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.
If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.
Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate and clone their children?
[ 14. August 2013, 10:46: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And suppose the "specialist, graduate teachers" wanted to teach what Gove wants them to teach: you'd be okay with that, right? Because it's not what you want - it's what the experts want that counts, yeah? It's just that the "experts" du jour just so happen to agree with you and not Gove. No personal agenda. And the experts won't have an agenda or particular political slant themselves, so they naturally have more right to determine what's going to be taught to kids than the govenment or the parents do.
That about the sum of it?
Very few specialists agree with Gove and very few would want to teach his pub quiz curriculum.
Any more than surgeons want advice from politicians about how to do brain surgery.
I'm sure. And now try answering my questions.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.
If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.
Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate and clone their children?
So it's the educational "experts" who have the exclusive right to "indoctrinate and clone" children?
Or perhaps - instead - it's because "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" and because "parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
[ 14. August 2013, 11:08: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate and clone their children?
They have every right. That's the whole point of life, isn't it? Replication?
Oh, it isn't? Someone should tell God and Darwin...
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.
If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.
Why should parents have the right to indoctrinate and clone their children?
If by 'indoctrinate and clone' our children you mean 'inculcate the same values and moral compass that we have' (fixed that for you, you see?), then, unless we are beating our kids up or abusing them in some other way, we have far more of a right to do this than the state does. They are our children, first and foremost, dammit!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leo, if parents don't have such a right does anyone, and if so, who and why? If no-one does, who has the right to set a curriculum? If it's the community at large, is this not the function Gove is exercising as Secretary of State for Education? After all, dislike the result though you and many others may, you would have to agree that the present UK Govt was formed by those who obtained a majority both of the votes and of the seats at the last election. Some hard but basic questions.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
GeeD, I don't disagree with your substantive point that the Government or parents are probably where the decisions for education should lie, but the current UK Government is a coalition. The Conservative party did not win the last election with enough of a majority to govern so formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. It is a bit moot as to whether the Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove does actually have an elected mandate for his ideological changes.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.
If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.
There are many countries where comprehensive state education is the norm and few people 'opt out' of it. Not because of dictatorial government policy but because it works, and people see that. The private school lobby in this country has managed to perpetuate class privilege, not by providing a better education (though in many ways it can, because of its lavish resources) but by ensuring its alumni keep hold on the levers of power.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
GeeD, I don't disagree with your substantive point that the Government or parents are probably where the decisions for education should lie, but the current UK Government is a coalition. The Conservative party did not win the last election with enough of a majority to govern so formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. It is a bit moot as to whether the Conservative Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove does actually have an elected mandate for his ideological changes.
Oh, yes, I appreciate that it is a coalition, which is why I said it was formed from those who had obtained a majority of votes and seats. Had it been a one party govt, I would have said something like "formed by the party which obtained a majority of seats" - that need not be the party which obtained a majority of votes. There have been many occasions in UK history where the party forming govt has only obtained a plurality of votes.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Leo, if parents don't have such a right does anyone, and if so, who and why? If no-one does, who has the right to set a curriculum? If it's the community at large, is this not the function Gove is exercising as Secretary of State for Education? After all, dislike the result though you and many others may, you would have to agree that the present UK Govt was formed by those who obtained a majority both of the votes and of the seats at the last election. Some hard but basic questions.
Much better is the SACRE model where four parties decide the syllabus - teachers, elected councillors, religious people.
Charles Clarke, former sec. of state for ed. reckoned this would be a good model to extent to all subjects.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Most MPs haven't even got the support of 50% of their electorate and a huge number are in safe seats which are very unlikely to change hands. Democracy isn't proper democracy without proportional voting systems.
If Ed Miliband put PR in the Labour 2015 manifesto, got into government, and changed the voting system (without a referendum - you don't seemingly need one to dismantle the welfare state), he would IMHO be the greatest Prime Minister of all time.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Comprehensive education, like socialism and Christianity, isn't so much an experiment that's failed, it's one that has never -universally - been tried.
If by "comprehensive education being universally tried" you mean the state completely controlling all child education in the country by imposing a prescribed model and/or pattern of state schools from which no child can be opted out, I can think of a good reason why it has never been universally tried. It would be horribly in violation of some pretty basic parental rights, and therefore politically disastrous. IMHO.
There are many countries where comprehensive state education is the norm and few people 'opt out' of it. Not because of dictatorial government policy but because it works, and people see that.
I'm not quite clear, Angloid: are you saying that parents ought or ought not to be free to make alternative provision for their children's education to the one the state prescribes? Is this a fundamental right of parents or not?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
And suppose the "specialist, graduate teachers" wanted to teach what Gove wants them to teach: you'd be okay with that, right? Because it's not what you want - it's what the experts want that counts, yeah? It's just that the "experts" du jour just so happen to agree with you and not Gove. No personal agenda. And the experts won't have an agenda or particular political slant themselves, so they naturally have more right to determine what's going to be taught to kids than the govenment or the parents do.
That about the sum of it?
Very few specialists agree with Gove and very few would want to teach his pub quiz curriculum.
Any more than surgeons want advice from politicians about how to do brain surgery.
I'm sure. And now try answering my questions.
That hectoring tone of yours again when i already have answered.
And perhaps you could say if you think surgeons and other professionals who are dedicated altruistically to their work should accept government dictat.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Much better is the SACRE model where four parties decide the syllabus - teachers, elected councillors, religious people.
Charles Clarke, former sec. of state for ed. reckoned this would be a good model to extent to all subjects.
That's three parties. Who is the fourth? And what are 'religious people'? Are you saying they should have control over the entire curriculum?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
in reply to Chesterbelloc: quote:
are you saying that parents ought or ought not to be free to make alternative provision for their children's education to the one the state prescribes? Is this a fundamental right of parents or not?
Parents have the right, and the duty, to see that their children are educated to certain standards. I don't think they have a right to settle for less, because the children's rights trump their own. Nor do I think it is right or just that people should buy positions of power, for themselves or their children, which is what private education amounts to.
[ 14. August 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Teaching a class of children and performing brain surgery aren't really comparable, are they?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leo, A few more questions, even though you've so far dodged most of my previous ones:
1. Who is the 4th party?
2. Who decides which teachers have a say? and
3. Who decides when there is disagreement?
As to Orb's post, I agree that first-past-the-post is an unsatisfactory electoral method. Either the preferential system used here for the lower houses, or some sort of multi-member electorates along German lines would be much better. IIRC, the parties forming the present UK govt together obtained a majority of votes overall.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
