[sunday blogfocus] children and other issues
Continued ... Chris Dillow writes of the cost of it all in the private versus state education debateLet's assume the average private school place costs £9777 a year. And let's say a parent decides to invest this money, and send their kid to state school instead. Then, assuming 11 years of investment at a real return of 2%, our parent could hand their child over £130,000 (with the obvious strings attached, natch) when it leaves school at 18. Wouldn't most kids prefer the £130,000 plus the state education to private education? So why do so many parents prefer private education? Is it really so superior to state education? Could it be that they regard education as a positional good, and one worth paying through the nose for? Are they paying to get their children social contacts rather than education per se? Or is the chance of a marginally better education really valuable in winner-take-all economies?
His readers hit back: You would be surprised how many parents "in the know" (often state school teachers who would defend the system in public and whose colleagues would be shocked at what they are doing) make such hard, expensive choices. We are unusually well-placed to make the comparison and trust us, it's worth the money - purely in educational terms. All the house-buyers who overpay to be in the catchment areas of the less bad state schools know the truth. Labour politicians who brave the wrath of their constituency parties to go private know it too, but it doesn't lead them to do anything about the bog-standard comps, does it? Posted by: Tom Paine October 09, 2006 at 03:03 PM
Always worth considering is the possibility that it's not just education-as-a-route-to-jobs that matters, but education as a desirable end in itself. Or even education so that your children can understand what the bloody hell your conversations with your spouse are about. Posted by: [the non-e-mailable] dearieme October 09, 2006 at 06:33 PM
In a good private school, one is educated, not merely trained to pass exams; and, as I have written many, many times before, pure academia is only a tiny part of those schools. It is the opportunities that one's gets outwith the classroom that one pays the money for, e.g. my 3 years weilding a welding torch, sculpting metal. Posted by: Devil's Kitchen October 10, 2006 at 09:09 AM
I definitely agree that in the sense of promoting intelligence and inquisitiveness private schooling is a waste of money. I feel the main reason it is sought after is that it places a family firmly within the upper-middle class and helps to keep it there. Posted by: Ben Philliskirk October 10, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Well to counter the fee paying school advocates, I went to state comprehensive (with mixed intake) and got a damn fine education and great coaching of sports teams, and a fine youth club. And came out with 10 O levels and 3 A levels, went on for degree, masters, PhD... now in a decent job that I enjoy. The main thing I notice about privately educated kids is they tend to have more confidence - but is that perhaps down to their parents more than the school? Posted by: angry economist October 10, 2006 at 04:07 PM
This is Ellee Seymour’s solution to the dilemma: With our education system failing so many of our young people, an excellent and affordable alternative is the more personal approach offered by Rudolph Steiner schools. Steiner believed that education should be designed to meet the changing needs of a child as they develop physically, mentally and emotionally. He believed that education should help a child to reach their full potential,he did not believe in pushing children towards goals that adults, or society in general, believed to be desirable.
Stephen Pollard weighs in on the topic of skills taught in schools: Someone called Mike Rush (Deputy Head of Stockwell Park High School) has just said this on the Today programme: In education we talk about giving children skills for life. I can't really think of a better skill than swimming. Hmmm. Let me think. Reading? Writing? Arithmetic? Even cooking?
Failing this, schools might follow the example of Byron Union School District, California, who ran a three-week indoctrination into the Islamic faith which was allowed to stand by the U. S. Supreme Court last week, according to Dymphna over at the Baron’s Gates Of Vienna. A California federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier ruled that such indoctrination was constitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on the other hand, held that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Children were instructed: “From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims.” Who needs Jihad?
Dave Hill thinks we aren’t looking in the right direction on this thing. He quotes Tim Gill [Oliver would turn in his grave if he weren’t so alive] on modern childhood: "What if, in our search for the key influences on children's lives, we are looking in completely the wrong place? The most profound change in the everyday social interactions of childhood is not the amount of time they are spending with their parents. It's the amount of time they are spending - or rather, not spending - with other children...if we sincerely want to improve the lives we offer to today's children, we have to restore to them at least a measure of the freedoms enjoyed by previous generations. To emancipate children, not further imprison them." The whole article is here.
Serf compares the lives of killers and children: What would be your definition of inhuman? To the EU, executing a person who has raped, murdered and otherwise wasted innocent life, is the height of inhumanity. To me, it seems like the logical thing to do. On the other hand, putting the political power of farming lobbies before the welfare of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. That is what I would call inhumane. It seems reasonable to regard the life of a defenceless child as more worthy than an evil taker of life. But then I am not as wise as the Eurocrats that rule our lives, so what would I know?
Neocon follows this with some ideas on criminals and children: Idea #1 - Anyone who murders an individual with dependent children, in addition to jail, should be forced to provide child support for said children in the same way a divorced parent would be obligated. If the homicidal individual was previously set free by the National Parole Board, said fiduciary duty will also be imposed on any & all moonbats who released the stipulated thug. If the miscreant in question can't come up with the cash, we confiscate all his possessions & put a lifetime "murderer lien" on anything he owns, or ever hopes to own, in this lifetime.
In other blogging news, DK refers to the moronic Zoe-Ann Phillips and how Iain Dale handled her idiocy with a great deal more diplomacy and calm than ‘your humble Devil would have afforded her’; Timmy really is elsewhere when it comes to spammers; Mr. E refers to that Sion Simon thing:[his] MP's "spoof" Webcameron video is possibly the twattiest thing you'll see this year; Johnathan speculates: I do not think that George Walden, former Conservative MP and minister, cares much for David Cameron; Vox considers good looks in politics: My mother once confessed that she worked as a volunteer on JFK's presidential campaign primarily because she thought he was so handsome; Oliver Kamm brings up the Scopes trial again: creationists secured legal victory at the price of national ridicule; Clive Davis gives the low-down on the Windsor Jihadis; Quinlan gets all arty with his Magritte computer; Melanie Phillips is chasing green witch hunters; Gavin has the Hamster’s crash video, if you can take it; the worthy gentlemen of The Select mention the word paraskavedekatriaphobic and only James Higham knows what it means [so he is wont to believe]; Reactionary Snob rails against amateur advocates in Edinburgh; Norman answers 20 questions and Tim Montgomerie continues to ignore me.
This Sunday we also mark-as-absent: L’Ombre and Stuart A.
His readers hit back: You would be surprised how many parents "in the know" (often state school teachers who would defend the system in public and whose colleagues would be shocked at what they are doing) make such hard, expensive choices. We are unusually well-placed to make the comparison and trust us, it's worth the money - purely in educational terms. All the house-buyers who overpay to be in the catchment areas of the less bad state schools know the truth. Labour politicians who brave the wrath of their constituency parties to go private know it too, but it doesn't lead them to do anything about the bog-standard comps, does it? Posted by: Tom Paine October 09, 2006 at 03:03 PM
Always worth considering is the possibility that it's not just education-as-a-route-to-jobs that matters, but education as a desirable end in itself. Or even education so that your children can understand what the bloody hell your conversations with your spouse are about. Posted by: [the non-e-mailable] dearieme October 09, 2006 at 06:33 PM
In a good private school, one is educated, not merely trained to pass exams; and, as I have written many, many times before, pure academia is only a tiny part of those schools. It is the opportunities that one's gets outwith the classroom that one pays the money for, e.g. my 3 years weilding a welding torch, sculpting metal. Posted by: Devil's Kitchen October 10, 2006 at 09:09 AM
I definitely agree that in the sense of promoting intelligence and inquisitiveness private schooling is a waste of money. I feel the main reason it is sought after is that it places a family firmly within the upper-middle class and helps to keep it there. Posted by: Ben Philliskirk October 10, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Well to counter the fee paying school advocates, I went to state comprehensive (with mixed intake) and got a damn fine education and great coaching of sports teams, and a fine youth club. And came out with 10 O levels and 3 A levels, went on for degree, masters, PhD... now in a decent job that I enjoy. The main thing I notice about privately educated kids is they tend to have more confidence - but is that perhaps down to their parents more than the school? Posted by: angry economist October 10, 2006 at 04:07 PM
This is Ellee Seymour’s solution to the dilemma: With our education system failing so many of our young people, an excellent and affordable alternative is the more personal approach offered by Rudolph Steiner schools. Steiner believed that education should be designed to meet the changing needs of a child as they develop physically, mentally and emotionally. He believed that education should help a child to reach their full potential,he did not believe in pushing children towards goals that adults, or society in general, believed to be desirable.
Stephen Pollard weighs in on the topic of skills taught in schools: Someone called Mike Rush (Deputy Head of Stockwell Park High School) has just said this on the Today programme: In education we talk about giving children skills for life. I can't really think of a better skill than swimming. Hmmm. Let me think. Reading? Writing? Arithmetic? Even cooking?
Failing this, schools might follow the example of Byron Union School District, California, who ran a three-week indoctrination into the Islamic faith which was allowed to stand by the U. S. Supreme Court last week, according to Dymphna over at the Baron’s Gates Of Vienna. A California federal trial court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier ruled that such indoctrination was constitutional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on the other hand, held that “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Children were instructed: “From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims.” Who needs Jihad?
Dave Hill thinks we aren’t looking in the right direction on this thing. He quotes Tim Gill [Oliver would turn in his grave if he weren’t so alive] on modern childhood: "What if, in our search for the key influences on children's lives, we are looking in completely the wrong place? The most profound change in the everyday social interactions of childhood is not the amount of time they are spending with their parents. It's the amount of time they are spending - or rather, not spending - with other children...if we sincerely want to improve the lives we offer to today's children, we have to restore to them at least a measure of the freedoms enjoyed by previous generations. To emancipate children, not further imprison them." The whole article is here.
Serf compares the lives of killers and children: What would be your definition of inhuman? To the EU, executing a person who has raped, murdered and otherwise wasted innocent life, is the height of inhumanity. To me, it seems like the logical thing to do. On the other hand, putting the political power of farming lobbies before the welfare of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. That is what I would call inhumane. It seems reasonable to regard the life of a defenceless child as more worthy than an evil taker of life. But then I am not as wise as the Eurocrats that rule our lives, so what would I know?
Neocon follows this with some ideas on criminals and children: Idea #1 - Anyone who murders an individual with dependent children, in addition to jail, should be forced to provide child support for said children in the same way a divorced parent would be obligated. If the homicidal individual was previously set free by the National Parole Board, said fiduciary duty will also be imposed on any & all moonbats who released the stipulated thug. If the miscreant in question can't come up with the cash, we confiscate all his possessions & put a lifetime "murderer lien" on anything he owns, or ever hopes to own, in this lifetime.
In other blogging news, DK refers to the moronic Zoe-Ann Phillips and how Iain Dale handled her idiocy with a great deal more diplomacy and calm than ‘your humble Devil would have afforded her’; Timmy really is elsewhere when it comes to spammers; Mr. E refers to that Sion Simon thing:[his] MP's "spoof" Webcameron video is possibly the twattiest thing you'll see this year; Johnathan speculates: I do not think that George Walden, former Conservative MP and minister, cares much for David Cameron; Vox considers good looks in politics: My mother once confessed that she worked as a volunteer on JFK's presidential campaign primarily because she thought he was so handsome; Oliver Kamm brings up the Scopes trial again: creationists secured legal victory at the price of national ridicule; Clive Davis gives the low-down on the Windsor Jihadis; Quinlan gets all arty with his Magritte computer; Melanie Phillips is chasing green witch hunters; Gavin has the Hamster’s crash video, if you can take it; the worthy gentlemen of The Select mention the word paraskavedekatriaphobic and only James Higham knows what it means [so he is wont to believe]; Reactionary Snob rails against amateur advocates in Edinburgh; Norman answers 20 questions and Tim Montgomerie continues to ignore me.
This Sunday we also mark-as-absent: L’Ombre and Stuart A.
Late note: The reader will not be aware of it but Bryan's paragraph has caused absolute mayhem with Blogger. It wiped out Chris Dillow, it wiped out Dave Hill and now the recalcitrant Bryan is relegated to the end of the piece where he can wreak no more havoc:
Bryan Appleyard noted the ingenious way parents were defeating the healthy eating push in order to keep their school age darlings supplied with junk: Parents at the Rawmarsh Comprehensive School have been feeding their children through the fencing. Apparently, their little tykes would not eat the healthy school food and the caring, if terrifying, matriarchs were simply providing the deep fried curry they crave. This inspired mixed feelings in me - warm ones because it provided further evidence, if any were needed, that there is really no chance we shall ever become Scandinavian; cold ones in that I feared for the zit-spattered,artery-clogged future of these Yorkshire butterballs. [I think it was the link which caused the problem - check my mainpage sidebar for Bryan's site]
posted by James Higham @ 21:12
3 Comments
3 Comments:
What an impressive round up of so many perspectives on education. Yes, I am impressed with the Steiner philosophy. I just wonder why everything we do has to be analysed constantly, producing results that create new conerns for parents and Government. Aren't the best lessons learnt outside the classroom anyway? I regard my role as a mother to bring up my sons to stand on their own two feet, to be independent, confident and true to themselves. I also encourage them to forge good friendships and be loyal. I do maintain that parenting is the most challenging job in the world, but it also reaps huge rewards, lots of laughs - and expense. But that's another story. And I'm not complaining, just broke!
"The Select mention the word "
Tsk... "The Select" is a collective noun so takes the 3rd Person singular. 3/10 must try harder and should try to avoid accompanying obvious howlers with bragging.
;-)
Ellee - ah, the expense! P-G - your comment is not in the least sesquipedalian and the slap on the wrist is sequaciously accepted.
Post a Comment
<< Home