I made an abortive attempt at this topic last night in, I'm told, the wrong forum, with the wrong title, with a misleading original post and with no hint that I was being either philosophic or political. As if I ever would. Rather than uncivilly distract that thread from its current preoccupations, I'll try again here.
This is a discussion of the philosophical basis for, and political argument related to, the public funding of education.
In the US, Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand (who have I left out that posts here?) education between a specified minimum and maximum age is compulsory.
Some families haven't the means to pay for this compulsory education and our systems currently deal with this by funding the full education costs of all children participating in the state system from taxation.
All families in these countries have the right to educate their children outside of the state system, without state contribution.
The thread is a call for reasoning rather than opinion. Unreasoned opinion is the bane of the television age.
Could society run just as well without compulsory education across this whole age group? Or across all ages? Taxation would drop markedly. Some children would find no access to education at all outside of the compulsory years (which is true now anyway). Where does society's best interest lie, and why? What reason underlies current state funding? What changes if the law imposing compulsory education were abolished? Who would suffer? Who would gain? Where does the advantage of the majority lie? Should we seek the advantage of the majority?
Does the question relate more to social engineering than to education itself?
Should public education be funded?
Should public education be funded?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
georgie girl
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:38 pm
Should public education be funded?
Interesting question ... Hmmmmm:yh_think
definately relates to social engineering.. but im a marxist at heart and as such v. paranoid (nietzschen soul)
Public education is just that, for the public good and like all public goods is not necessarily an individual good. It has to be funded by taxation because, from a Uk perspective, it is designed as part of the welfare state and is central in breeding new workers and compliance into the social system, it is for this reason that it is funded.. but it doesn't necessarily have to be funded...
yours gg fighting little person syndrome (dogmatic impluses, makes for vgood dictators)
definately relates to social engineering.. but im a marxist at heart and as such v. paranoid (nietzschen soul)
Public education is just that, for the public good and like all public goods is not necessarily an individual good. It has to be funded by taxation because, from a Uk perspective, it is designed as part of the welfare state and is central in breeding new workers and compliance into the social system, it is for this reason that it is funded.. but it doesn't necessarily have to be funded...
yours gg fighting little person syndrome (dogmatic impluses, makes for vgood dictators)
Should public education be funded?
I don't much like "breeding new workers and compliance into the social system". I breed, you breed, governments can only encourage us to breed.
I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are.
If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere?
We're discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us?
I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving.
Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other?
I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are.
If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere?
We're discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us?
I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving.
Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Should public education be funded?
spot wrote: I don't much like "breeding new workers and compliance into the social system". I breed, you breed, governments can only encourage us to breed.
I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are.
If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere?
We're discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us?
I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving.
Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other?
There are pros and cons to advancing the age limit of government sponsored schooling.
Pros: It would make it easier for those who want to go to college, to attend. Many students in the U.S. cannot afford college, and must either take out loans, work during their schooling, or work for several years to save up for it. Many choose to pursue college at a later age in their life, giving them a delayed start in their field of choice.
Cons: Taxation rates would go up, but maybe it would equalize the various colleges. They vary from state to state, and the system might become more organized.
It would better prepare a larger number of people for the workforce, with skills that are needed in this technological age, with specialization being a key ingredient of job placement.
I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are.
If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere?
We're discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us?
I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving.
Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other?
There are pros and cons to advancing the age limit of government sponsored schooling.
Pros: It would make it easier for those who want to go to college, to attend. Many students in the U.S. cannot afford college, and must either take out loans, work during their schooling, or work for several years to save up for it. Many choose to pursue college at a later age in their life, giving them a delayed start in their field of choice.
Cons: Taxation rates would go up, but maybe it would equalize the various colleges. They vary from state to state, and the system might become more organized.
It would better prepare a larger number of people for the workforce, with skills that are needed in this technological age, with specialization being a key ingredient of job placement.
Should public education be funded?
spot wrote:
Could society run just as well without compulsory education across this whole age group?
No.
I dropped out of high school because I hated it. I thought it was boring, but the main reason ironically enough, was due to the fact that I had chosen to attend a career center for my junior and senior year only to find out that the courses were practically 8th and 9th grade material. I found them rather dull, and after enrolling into a landscape design course I had found out that all we did throughout the year was actually grounds maintenance for the school. After asking to go back to my original high school they said that I could not, so I decided to drop out, and made an average of about $14 hour.(Greasing racks in which bricks are to be placed in for cross country hauling - absolute grunt work - but I loved it....made alot)
Morale of the story is, I didnt really desire an education at that time being young. Now, however, I would like to enroll in college courses for extended knowledge on building high performance engines. Make it mandatory absolutely - they will thank you when its all said and done, and will regret it upon neglecting their ability to learn as I have.
Could society run just as well without compulsory education across this whole age group?
No.
I dropped out of high school because I hated it. I thought it was boring, but the main reason ironically enough, was due to the fact that I had chosen to attend a career center for my junior and senior year only to find out that the courses were practically 8th and 9th grade material. I found them rather dull, and after enrolling into a landscape design course I had found out that all we did throughout the year was actually grounds maintenance for the school. After asking to go back to my original high school they said that I could not, so I decided to drop out, and made an average of about $14 hour.(Greasing racks in which bricks are to be placed in for cross country hauling - absolute grunt work - but I loved it....made alot)
Morale of the story is, I didnt really desire an education at that time being young. Now, however, I would like to enroll in college courses for extended knowledge on building high performance engines. Make it mandatory absolutely - they will thank you when its all said and done, and will regret it upon neglecting their ability to learn as I have.
-
georgie girl
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:38 pm
Should public education be funded?
Bear with my quoting technique it is work in progress.. really sorry its horrible i know .. will try harder
spot wrote: I don't much like "breeding new workers and compliance into the social system". I breed, you breed, governments can only encourage us to breed.
Compulsory is hardly encouragement
I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are.
We only have to think about the history taught at schools kinda whitewashes whole empire built on slave trade.. me I went to Welsh school therefore had welsh history lessons.. increasingly schools are more informative but propaganda is implicit in system..
If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere?
Implicit..
how success is measured is important here, for example we have a flexible labour market children apathetic to education are more likely to accept this, maybe its good for the economy to have different degrees of education, even the most disadvantaged education (huge generalization here, im not saying working class kids get working jobs... i havent)..
subsveriant to whom the state or the market? to me state is the market, societies are definately subserviant to the market... rampant consumerism has to begin somewhere and the market ethos is now a part of how the state provides education
Being bolshier in the past makes it no less relevent to social control issues today
We're discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us?
Have opinions here but as I know more about UK and generalizations are dodgy at best of time will stick here... at guess though Id say yes.
I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving.
Engineering a fair start may benefit more from alleviating inequality, poverty.. Uk has extremely high rate of illiteracy how much of that do you think is located in the upper echlons of society.... so I would say competition does begin at birth not at school leaving..
Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other?
This shows how cultural and 'state breeding' it is, choice begins here only for those who have it those who are unable (economically or otherwise) to progress further have to leave school, economically viable fodder perhaps?
yours gg Oh God Im off again
spot wrote: I don't much like "breeding new workers and compliance into the social system". I breed, you breed, governments can only encourage us to breed.
Compulsory is hardly encouragement
I've never found the state school system to be biased toward civics, though I accept that these classes did start on a compulsory basis this decade. I've no idea how informative or propagandist they are.
We only have to think about the history taught at schools kinda whitewashes whole empire built on slave trade.. me I went to Welsh school therefore had welsh history lessons.. increasingly schools are more informative but propaganda is implicit in system..
If you think that state schooling currently exists to socialize children into a lifetime of subservience then I note firstly, they're not being hugely successful now, secondly they've been even bolshier in the past and thirdly they were set up initially for very different and explicit reasons. Is it an unwritten underlying assumption of government that this is what state education is for, or is it published anywhere?
Implicit..
how success is measured is important here, for example we have a flexible labour market children apathetic to education are more likely to accept this, maybe its good for the economy to have different degrees of education, even the most disadvantaged education (huge generalization here, im not saying working class kids get working jobs... i havent)..
subsveriant to whom the state or the market? to me state is the market, societies are definately subserviant to the market... rampant consumerism has to begin somewhere and the market ethos is now a part of how the state provides education
Being bolshier in the past makes it no less relevent to social control issues today
We're discussing state schooling across all the countries in the original post. Is socializing children into a lifetime of subservience the desired end result in the US etc. as well as the UK, or is it just us?
Have opinions here but as I know more about UK and generalizations are dodgy at best of time will stick here... at guess though Id say yes.
I'm prepared to believe the governments when they say they're trying to socially engineer a fair start for all children regardless of the income of their parents. Without state education, competition would begin at birth. Under the state education system, competition begins at school-leaving.
Engineering a fair start may benefit more from alleviating inequality, poverty.. Uk has extremely high rate of illiteracy how much of that do you think is located in the upper echlons of society.... so I would say competition does begin at birth not at school leaving..
Is there any reason why it should be that age and no other?
This shows how cultural and 'state breeding' it is, choice begins here only for those who have it those who are unable (economically or otherwise) to progress further have to leave school, economically viable fodder perhaps?
yours gg Oh God Im off again
Should public education be funded?
chonsigirl wrote: It would better prepare a larger number of people for the workforce, with skills that are needed in this technological age, with specialization being a key ingredient of job placement.That would be true of state funding of college or university education only if it increased the proportion of children who stayed on to take a course and qualify.
In England the government pays all but a flat rate $5000 a year of university tuition costs (we don't have a "college" concept here as part of tertiary education). Last year in Britain 493,111 students applied for 390,000 places, out of a total population of 800,000 school leavers. I have no idea how that proportion compares with other countries.
If it were true that the tax spent on tertiary education was more than recouped by higher earnings over the lifetime of the graduate, and that the more graduates the higher the earning potential of the population measured on the world market, then the national economy benefits from such taxation costs. I think it's reasonable to assume that the investment does pay on that timescale, to the state as well as to the student.
Is the same true of tax money spent on earlier education? My own opinion is that not demanding compulsory education would tie parents to bringing up those unschooled children during the day, and the loss to the economy of their labor would be greater than the cost of the missing education. Do please criticize that as harshly as you can, especially if it's demonstrably false.
In England the government pays all but a flat rate $5000 a year of university tuition costs (we don't have a "college" concept here as part of tertiary education). Last year in Britain 493,111 students applied for 390,000 places, out of a total population of 800,000 school leavers. I have no idea how that proportion compares with other countries.
If it were true that the tax spent on tertiary education was more than recouped by higher earnings over the lifetime of the graduate, and that the more graduates the higher the earning potential of the population measured on the world market, then the national economy benefits from such taxation costs. I think it's reasonable to assume that the investment does pay on that timescale, to the state as well as to the student.
Is the same true of tax money spent on earlier education? My own opinion is that not demanding compulsory education would tie parents to bringing up those unschooled children during the day, and the loss to the economy of their labor would be greater than the cost of the missing education. Do please criticize that as harshly as you can, especially if it's demonstrably false.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Should public education be funded?
spot wrote: That would be true of state funding of college or university education only if it increased the proportion of children who stayed on to take a course and qualify.
In England the government pays all but a flat rate $5000 a year of university tuition costs (we don't have a "college" concept here as part of tertiary education). Last year in Britain 493,111 students applied for 390,000 places, out of a total population of 800,000 school leavers. I have no idea how that proportion compares with other countries.
If it were true that the tax spent on tertitary education was more than recoupled by higher earnings over the lifetime of the graduate, and that the more graduates the higher the earning potential of the population meansured on the world market, then the national economy benefits from such taxation costs. I think it's reasonable to assume that the investment does pay on that timescale, to the state as well as to the student.
Is the same true of tax money spent on earlier education? My own opinion is that not demanding compulsory education would tie parents to bringing up those unschooled children during the day, and the loss to the economy of their labor would be greater than the cost of the missing education. Do please criticize that as harshly as you can, especially if it's demonstrably false.
You have the advantage of the government paying for college, there is only the form of grants and scholarships here, and they are difficult to obtain. The numbers of college openings look more equitable there then here also, but I would have to pull up numbers for comparisson. I know for example, my daughter and I split her college expenses, they run $10,000+ per year for a state college. In one year, when she wants to attend graduate studies, they will increase by 50%. We do not opt for loans but pay for it yearly. I want her to have a good start in life.
Tax money spent on early education on an economic analysis would be as you described. Although I do not consider schools as day care centers, and only providing education as a secondary priority. Alas, it is looked upon that way at times. Since rising costs require usually both adults in the household to work for income, the need will increase for more specialized workers, and there should be an increase in college graduates to fill these postions as time progresses.
*off topic*
How did Georgie do that to the quotes?
In England the government pays all but a flat rate $5000 a year of university tuition costs (we don't have a "college" concept here as part of tertiary education). Last year in Britain 493,111 students applied for 390,000 places, out of a total population of 800,000 school leavers. I have no idea how that proportion compares with other countries.
If it were true that the tax spent on tertitary education was more than recoupled by higher earnings over the lifetime of the graduate, and that the more graduates the higher the earning potential of the population meansured on the world market, then the national economy benefits from such taxation costs. I think it's reasonable to assume that the investment does pay on that timescale, to the state as well as to the student.
Is the same true of tax money spent on earlier education? My own opinion is that not demanding compulsory education would tie parents to bringing up those unschooled children during the day, and the loss to the economy of their labor would be greater than the cost of the missing education. Do please criticize that as harshly as you can, especially if it's demonstrably false.
You have the advantage of the government paying for college, there is only the form of grants and scholarships here, and they are difficult to obtain. The numbers of college openings look more equitable there then here also, but I would have to pull up numbers for comparisson. I know for example, my daughter and I split her college expenses, they run $10,000+ per year for a state college. In one year, when she wants to attend graduate studies, they will increase by 50%. We do not opt for loans but pay for it yearly. I want her to have a good start in life.
Tax money spent on early education on an economic analysis would be as you described. Although I do not consider schools as day care centers, and only providing education as a secondary priority. Alas, it is looked upon that way at times. Since rising costs require usually both adults in the household to work for income, the need will increase for more specialized workers, and there should be an increase in college graduates to fill these postions as time progresses.
*off topic*
How did Georgie do that to the quotes?
Should public education be funded?
spot wrote: My own opinion is that not demanding compulsory education would tie parents to bringing up those unschooled children during the day, and the loss to the economy of their labor would be greater than the cost of the missing education.
I agree, although I think the amount of parents being forced to educate their children would have to be significantly higher than that of the unemployment rate. Having said that, I think the affect of such would vary from region to region. IMO of course.
I agree, although I think the amount of parents being forced to educate their children would have to be significantly higher than that of the unemployment rate. Having said that, I think the affect of such would vary from region to region. IMO of course.
Should public education be funded?
chonsigirl wrote: *off topic*
How did Georgie do that to the quotes?*off topic* I could tell you but, believe me, we'd all have to shoot you afterwards.
I'll take Georgie aside at some point and bring her back... different.
How did Georgie do that to the quotes?*off topic* I could tell you but, believe me, we'd all have to shoot you afterwards.
I'll take Georgie aside at some point and bring her back... different.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should public education be funded?
i was pretty horrified to discover a couple of weeks ago that a girl who works at a factory where she sits & watches caps being put on bottles 8 hours a day is paid £2 more per hour than me, i spent a long time in the education system to get my trade 
Should public education be funded?
georgie girl wrote: We only have to think about the history taught at schools kinda whitewashes whole empire built on slave trade.. me I went to Welsh school therefore had welsh history lessons.. increasingly schools are more informative but propaganda is implicit in system..I'm not sure you're right. The current consultation document which will be reviewed in November was mentioned in the Independent on Friday... The decision to stress the importance of teaching about the British Empire in history lessons is also likely be controversial. Traditionalists often argue that its importance has been downgraded in the curriculum in favour of world history. Lord Skidelsky said: "Pupils should take in the narrative sweep of British history. They should be taught the highlights: Magna Carta, the Armada, the Civil War and Glorious Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, the two World Wars and the rise and fall of the British Empire. The history of our country explains so much about our attitudes to the continent of Europe today." The focus on the British Empire, spelt out for the first time as a compulsory element, could answer criticism from ethnic minority groups who say the current curriculum neglects the part they have played in the UK's history. The proposed guidelines say pupils should study "how the past has helped to shape the identities, shared cultures, values and attitudes in Britain today.
That doesn't sound like a whitewash to me. I've seen earlier versions taught over the last decade and they didn't seem wildly gung-ho and pith helmet.
georgie girl wrote: maybe its good for the economy to have different degrees of education, even the most disadvantaged education (huge generalization here, im not saying working class kids get working jobs... i havent)..Chonsi had this notion too, that there's alternative qualifications for the early school-leavers and the high-flyers. Living here you'll know that those days disappeared before you were born. If you ask what keeps any child from a university course of her choice, it's inspired teaching and a lack of extreme intellectual impairment. Most kids are easily bright enough - to the extent that as they go from primary school (where they were excited by schoolwork) to secondary school (where they're down the pecking order and pretty well ignored a lot of the time) they drop back in measurable attainment for years. Bad schooling which allows that is plain wicked but commonplace. The issue of available jobs at the far end is outside of discussing school provision. At least a good education allows for a productive unemployment!
georgie girl wrote: Engineering a fair start may benefit more from alleviating inequality, poverty.. Uk has extremely high rate of illiteracy how much of that do you think is located in the upper echlons of society.... so I would say competition does begin at birth not at school leaving..
There's so many definitions of illiteracy - the New Statesman had a paragraph a couple of years back saying Seven million can't read The government pledged up to GBP400m for a project to tackle the high rate of illiteracy in England and Wales. The UK's illiteracy rate, currently at 24 per cent, is worse than any other major industrial nation except Ireland and Poland and maybe they're right in terms of how many couldn't pass a GCSE in English over grade D. Last month's "Training and Coaching Magazine" has this in it:
Learn Direct estimates there are seven million people in the UK who are illiterate inasmuch as they have great difficulty in reading and writing everyday material, such as timetables. But that need be no bar to success, as proved by many professional footballers.
The core literacy issue for companies is that of grammar and spelling. Anecdotal evidence, such as Bradford University giving students lists of proof readers and John Prescott's squeeze Tracey Temple spelling busy as bizzi, indicates this problem is growing. I've met many people who say they were not taught grammar at school and need to learn it in the workplace.
The boss of media training company PMA, which last month ran a roadshow in several university towns, including Cambridge, told me standards of grammar and spelling displayed by students "are depressingly low". And these are students who want to pursue a media career.
That doesn't sound like a whitewash to me. I've seen earlier versions taught over the last decade and they didn't seem wildly gung-ho and pith helmet.
georgie girl wrote: maybe its good for the economy to have different degrees of education, even the most disadvantaged education (huge generalization here, im not saying working class kids get working jobs... i havent)..Chonsi had this notion too, that there's alternative qualifications for the early school-leavers and the high-flyers. Living here you'll know that those days disappeared before you were born. If you ask what keeps any child from a university course of her choice, it's inspired teaching and a lack of extreme intellectual impairment. Most kids are easily bright enough - to the extent that as they go from primary school (where they were excited by schoolwork) to secondary school (where they're down the pecking order and pretty well ignored a lot of the time) they drop back in measurable attainment for years. Bad schooling which allows that is plain wicked but commonplace. The issue of available jobs at the far end is outside of discussing school provision. At least a good education allows for a productive unemployment!
georgie girl wrote: Engineering a fair start may benefit more from alleviating inequality, poverty.. Uk has extremely high rate of illiteracy how much of that do you think is located in the upper echlons of society.... so I would say competition does begin at birth not at school leaving..
There's so many definitions of illiteracy - the New Statesman had a paragraph a couple of years back saying Seven million can't read The government pledged up to GBP400m for a project to tackle the high rate of illiteracy in England and Wales. The UK's illiteracy rate, currently at 24 per cent, is worse than any other major industrial nation except Ireland and Poland and maybe they're right in terms of how many couldn't pass a GCSE in English over grade D. Last month's "Training and Coaching Magazine" has this in it:
Learn Direct estimates there are seven million people in the UK who are illiterate inasmuch as they have great difficulty in reading and writing everyday material, such as timetables. But that need be no bar to success, as proved by many professional footballers.
The core literacy issue for companies is that of grammar and spelling. Anecdotal evidence, such as Bradford University giving students lists of proof readers and John Prescott's squeeze Tracey Temple spelling busy as bizzi, indicates this problem is growing. I've met many people who say they were not taught grammar at school and need to learn it in the workplace.
The boss of media training company PMA, which last month ran a roadshow in several university towns, including Cambridge, told me standards of grammar and spelling displayed by students "are depressingly low". And these are students who want to pursue a media career.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should public education be funded?
chonsigirl wrote: Tax money spent on early education on an economic analysis would be as you described. Although I do not consider schools as day care centers, and only providing education as a secondary priority. Alas, it is looked upon that way at times. Since rising costs require usually both adults in the household to work for income, the need will increase for more specialized workers, and there should be an increase in college graduates to fill these postions as time progresses.What I'm quite sure is that, on purely economic considerations, cutting the lowest scholastic ability 30% of children out of the state school system entirely would have a minimal effect on the economy of the country were it not for that additional aspect of day-care. The reason why it would be inequitable is that it leaves those children dependent on either their parents' ability to pay for private schooling, or stuck at the bottom of the employment market for all time. That division in outcomes depending on the parents' ability to pay is what I tried to raise earlier as shifting the moment when poverty becomes an inherited characteristic from school-leaving to birth. All that currently offers a chance out of the cycle, now, is this socially engineered free state education.
What I've described there is a half-way house. The extreme is to take just the academically-tested best 10% of children whose parents haven't the resources for private education and scholarship them, at which point the state can abandon compulsory education and leave the free market to cater for whatever demand for education there is among the remainder of the population. Again this shifts the ability to claw out of intergenerational poverty harder for many children, but leaves the state in no way damaged economically.
How do we continue to sell the idea that education has inherent value when so many children apparently despise it? Without that "inherent value" argument, I see some of these nasty scenarios arriving a few years down the line.
What I've described there is a half-way house. The extreme is to take just the academically-tested best 10% of children whose parents haven't the resources for private education and scholarship them, at which point the state can abandon compulsory education and leave the free market to cater for whatever demand for education there is among the remainder of the population. Again this shifts the ability to claw out of intergenerational poverty harder for many children, but leaves the state in no way damaged economically.
How do we continue to sell the idea that education has inherent value when so many children apparently despise it? Without that "inherent value" argument, I see some of these nasty scenarios arriving a few years down the line.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should public education be funded?
Knowledge is power. In the past our ruling classes used to object to educating lesser classes as it tended to give them ideas above their station and make them more likely to rebel. We would never have had an industrial revolution without the educational infrastructure (however flawed) that produced the engineers and sciebtists that made it possible. If you look at all the technological change of the last two hundred years it has not come from societies that didn't have the basic assumption that at least a primary education was essential. Interestingly enough they also educated girls as well.
In a technological age you can't afford to have an uneducated population. There is maybe a case for reducing the emphasis on academic subjects ( too many don't understand what careers like engineering are actually all about) and giving equal parity to practical ones. Some kids just can't cope at all but then maybe the flaw is in the early stages of education. (My wife, a teacher, has a 1st year class where 28% of them can't read adequately to cope with secondary school. Social inclusion policies mean the "special classes" they would once have been in are no longer funded, as a result kids with all sorts of kids with social and learning problems are not being given the help they once did and the rest suffer as she deals with the disruptive ones. Yet teachers get blamed for falling standards)
posted by spot
Could society run just as well without compulsory education across this whole age group? Or across all ages? Taxation would drop markedly. Some children would find no access to education at all outside of the compulsory years (which is true now anyway). Where does society's best interest lie, and why? What reason underlies current state funding? What changes if the law imposing compulsory education were abolished? Who would suffer? Who would gain? Where does the advantage of the majority lie? Should we seek the advantage of the majority?
Does the question relate more to social engineering than to education itself?
No it wouldn't. The long term consequences of such a change would turn the UK in to a thirld world country in two generations. Ignorance and prejudice go hand in hand and society would fragment in to the have and have nots )not that I am sugeesting we don't have that now in some ways) on a scale that will make the UK a very nasty place to live in. Taxes wouldn't fall they would rise as the cost of state benefits rockets due to unemployment caused by high tech industry moving abroad and the inability to compete with the far east and eastern europe.
Such a change in policy would be a nightmare. What is the function if govt if not to provide for the people who elected it. If they don't take care of such a basic as education why bother with govt at all. Those who advocate such a change should just send their kids to public school and be grateful thay can afford to.
Incidentally don't forget that scotland and england have different education systems. (ours is better but I freely admit to considerable bias) You are getting education reforms thanks to scottish MP's voting in support for reforms that don't affect us and that would have no chance of being accepted. The opposition to such changes would be enormous.
David Cameron does have a point about the West Lothian question.
In a technological age you can't afford to have an uneducated population. There is maybe a case for reducing the emphasis on academic subjects ( too many don't understand what careers like engineering are actually all about) and giving equal parity to practical ones. Some kids just can't cope at all but then maybe the flaw is in the early stages of education. (My wife, a teacher, has a 1st year class where 28% of them can't read adequately to cope with secondary school. Social inclusion policies mean the "special classes" they would once have been in are no longer funded, as a result kids with all sorts of kids with social and learning problems are not being given the help they once did and the rest suffer as she deals with the disruptive ones. Yet teachers get blamed for falling standards)
posted by spot
Could society run just as well without compulsory education across this whole age group? Or across all ages? Taxation would drop markedly. Some children would find no access to education at all outside of the compulsory years (which is true now anyway). Where does society's best interest lie, and why? What reason underlies current state funding? What changes if the law imposing compulsory education were abolished? Who would suffer? Who would gain? Where does the advantage of the majority lie? Should we seek the advantage of the majority?
Does the question relate more to social engineering than to education itself?
No it wouldn't. The long term consequences of such a change would turn the UK in to a thirld world country in two generations. Ignorance and prejudice go hand in hand and society would fragment in to the have and have nots )not that I am sugeesting we don't have that now in some ways) on a scale that will make the UK a very nasty place to live in. Taxes wouldn't fall they would rise as the cost of state benefits rockets due to unemployment caused by high tech industry moving abroad and the inability to compete with the far east and eastern europe.
Such a change in policy would be a nightmare. What is the function if govt if not to provide for the people who elected it. If they don't take care of such a basic as education why bother with govt at all. Those who advocate such a change should just send their kids to public school and be grateful thay can afford to.
Incidentally don't forget that scotland and england have different education systems. (ours is better but I freely admit to considerable bias) You are getting education reforms thanks to scottish MP's voting in support for reforms that don't affect us and that would have no chance of being accepted. The opposition to such changes would be enormous.
David Cameron does have a point about the West Lothian question.