Comments on: Definitions of education.

By: Gill

Gill — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:35:57 +0000

Oh thanks! I had one of those funny twilight ‘did I really type that?’ moments then

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:21:19 +0000

Put your comment back Gill. We moved the blog to a new server last night and it got lost in translation.

By: Clare

Clare — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:00:29 +0000

The NC is not only prescriptive but also restrictive, which is one of its biggest drawbacks IMHO. My brother, who has aspergers, failed miserably in his attempts to learn French at school because he couldn’t see the point of it. Since then he has taught himself Russian - enough Russian that he is now living in Russia with his Russian wife whom he met on the internet. So mainstream school had him down as someone who would never do well in life because he didn’t want to learn a language he would never use. He’s proved beyond a doubt he is capable of learning anything he’s interested in…it’s just bad luck they don’t teach Russian at school! Sorry…got a bit long-winded there…I just feel strongly that my children should be allowed to study whatever ’subject’ they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want as that’s when the real learning will take place.

By: Lin

Lin — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:15:39 +0000

“(although I’d like to know what they are going to do with the children who have children of their own during that time)”

Very good point, I was just thinking over the weekend that it was legal to get married at 16 (with PC) but you’d still have to go to school.

Another random thought is who is going to get punished if these children do not go to school? Their parents, their husbands or wives or the little whipper-snappers themselves?

By: Gill

Gill — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:33:33 +0000

I left a comment here & it’s gone!

By: Allie

Allie — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:44:42 +0000

It was originally to keep children out of the labour market - and childhood just seems to keep extending, doesn’t it? Perhaps more accurately it was to provide childcare for the children who had been excluded from the labour market.
When I put it like that I always feel a bit like I’m calling for the return of children to the mills and pits. I’m not, by the way.
I think the govt would say is was about realising individual potential, building our future prosperity and apple pie - or something…

By: Gill

Gill — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:59:23 +0000

I’m inclined to agree with Gatto’s view that the idea is to deliberately dumb us down and produce more obedient sheep for easier herding.

Raising the leaving age to 18 gives that bit more opportunity & power for that I suppose, just in case the person by 16 had any silly ideas about thinking for themselves or growing up and being independent or anything.

I actually haven’t seen or heard a strong argument for raising the leaving age. They’ve stopped bothering to even pretend to justify this stuff now, haven’t they? They know we have no choice but to accept it.
We know we have no choice but to accept it.

And while I’m on my soapbox..

Blair’s signing this, even though he’s apparently aware that two thirds of us are against it? I’m just wondering why they still bother holding elections of any kind anywhere. Maybe it just proves that the school system is doing its job.

By: t-bird

t-bird — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:16:53 +0000

point of mass education? easy. To produce lots of maleable, easy to order about workers for the Factories that keep us Great (but are all closing down…)