I imagine most teachers would be rather insulted by your oft-repeated notion that they're not constantly trying to enthuse the children in their estimable care or indeed furnish them with the skills they need. I know I am. You really have no idea how tough it is (and yes, I know you've "been in schools").
Ha ha, another sly dig, implying that "schools" have somehow jealously guarded "the material" like Masons or something. Teachers want childen to access as much learning as possible - it's their job. The material might be out there, however, but the skillful, face-to-face delivery by trained professionals is slightly different to subject matter they deliver. Schools provide a wealth of vital pastoral care and PSHE that no amount of on-line learning can give.
But getting back to "The Problem" (making the horse drink). You're looking at it all from completely the wrong angle. The way to make the horse drink is to treat it with respect. To make the horse beileve that by drinking it will benefit the horse. The horse needs to believe in the people who took it to water and it needs to know that they believe in him. It needs to have mummy and daddy horses who feel valued by society, who have self-respect and purpose to life, who don't feel hoodwinked and patronised, abandoned and demonised and so who then pass on a postive message about society and education to their little baby horse. When all that's in place, the horse might finally get a bit of a thirst on.
I'm not trying to belittle the role of teachers, but I do hear an awful lot that they are limited because of the constraints of the curriculum. It's very difficult to teach something that isn't strictly included in the curriculum, and the exams that come at the end of the curriculum.
I'm not sure the system helps in that regard. The second part isn't a dig at teachers or schools, merely an observation that the days when learning stopped when you graduate from school or university are over. Today it's merely the beginning, not the end.
Sadly it's been all too rare in my professional life to meet colleagues that had a love of learning and developed their skills every day. Of course, that isn't simply the fault of schools at all, but it's a competitive world out there, and I think maintaining your knowledge is key.
The world of the horse you describe sounds a very sad one. May I ask? There seems a lot of anger and bitterness displayed in some of these kind of threads, whether against Thatcher or the modern government or whoever. Do you think that gets passed on to the younger generation? That the system is out to get them, that they're looked down on and so on? It's just that the world you describe makes it sound as though we live on different planets. It isn't one I recognise at all, and I come from a working class background too.
Perhaps we could tax the super-rich, cancel Trident and go after the multi-nationals to raise the extra money. Perhaps we could enforce the Living Wage. Maybe we could close all manner of tax loopholes. Possibly, we could outlaw zero-hours contracts. Just a thought.
No arguments from me there. As was discussed earlier, it's about priorities I guess, and I'd have no qualms with corporate welfare being slashed or Trident, as you say. Sadly government is awash with rent seeking, and the lobbying industry is vast.
You really are something else. Did it never occur to you that "free healthcare for all" and "free education for all" are somewhat undermined by the concurrent availability of private education and private healthcare?
If that isn't private enterprise undermining equality by selling "queue jumping" to the better off, I don't know what is.
I don't think so. As I've said previously, all that matters to me is that the quality of service at the end of it is really high. Who provides it is irrelevant. The RSA for instance run a couple of academies, and I'd imagine that the quality is very high. Are they private or are they state?
I'm not sure it's helpful to think in terms of state = good, private = bad. It limits our thinking and acceptance that there may be things each can learn from the other, much in the same way that Labour = good, Tories = bad (or vice versa) does.
Thank you, Milton Friedman.
I'd have thought you'd be opposed to that. I mean it's basically a gift to those who own property isn't it and a tax on those that have savings or low incomes.
