Ukip And The Bnp

[Chinahand]

Interesting - my main experience on the otherside of the desks was as a teaching assistant in a US university, but I think the experience holds reasonably generally.

 

Learning things is difficult. It takes effort. American university students, surly 14 year olds, and hyperactive 5 year olds don't really like this.

 

They want to be able to submit their essays late, get a mark even when the dog eats it and all be given 4.0 grades (an A for non-yanks).

 

Part of the skill of learning is teaching people the discipline to apply themselves. I shudder what to think my primary age child would do if he was allowed to manage his own education - quite definitely he wouldn't be as literate as he is now - mainly down to me and the missus sitting him down, under protest every evening to read about Biff and Chip.

 

Kids nowadays have more choice in curriculum than ever before - units, options, streaming etc has opened up one size fits all rote learning into a way to allow kids to get the basics and then move into areas they feel they are best at.

 

Obviously as kids have little experience of what is for the best others are going to have a BIG say in this - parents, teachers etc, but as ever you are all about things being enforced and stiffling. LDV that is just so much rhetoric - it turns people off and then what else do you have to contribute to the debate - "the system is oppressive we need anarchism".

 

Great - tell me how that will increase kids knowledge of the wider world - bet you can't.

[Bananaman]

But from what I see in many aspects of schooling,

 

Where do you see this?

 

Has it come from your own imagination?

[VinnieK]

But from what I see in many aspects of schooling, they are not given much control over managing their own education, i.e. what they learn and how they learn it for example. The current method in which education is enforced would appear to stifle creativity.

 

What is the advantage, to either society or the individual, in allowing pupils control over their own education, other than allowing them the opportunity to fuck it all up nice and early in their lives?

 

Would such a scheme really encourage creativity? Can you adequately define creativity and its context in order to say with certainty that the current system stifles it whilst yours would encourage it? I'll admit that there are flaws with the current educational system, in that it does sometimes favour rote learning, but creativity in thought is something that pupils can and arguably should be developing all by themselves.

[Bananaman]

Part of the skill of learning is teaching people the discipline to apply themselves.

 

Not sure if it is still called it but in my day it was called Guided Learning and you had so many Guided Learning Hours per week or per day. The rest was down to you and the resources at hand.

 

When it was introduced to the FE college I was at, we had a right cock of lecturer who kept going on and on and on about how it can't possibly work and the man from the ministry giving us staff the talk, made quite a nice analogy.

 

You pay a Driving instructor to teach you how to drive, you certainly won't pay him to learn the Highway Code for you!

[VinnieK]

Interesting - my main experience on the otherside of the desks was as a teaching assistant in a US university, but I think the experience holds reasonably generally.

 

Learning things is difficult. It takes effort. American university students, surly 14 year olds, and hyperactive 5 year olds don't really like this.

 

They want to be able to submit their essays late, get a mark even when the dog eats it and all be given 4.0 grades (an A for non-yanks).

 

My experience working as an associate tutor in the U.K. is much the same. Given the chance fresh undergrads will do little, arse about in seminars, then spend an hour trying to tease answers to the assignments from you via a scatterbomb of questions (three or four of which will, when answered, suffice to give away the answer they want). Typically, very few will stroke their chins, order a glass of port in the student bar and set about musing the transcendental until enlightenment and inspiration strikes.

 

LDV, I can't help but wonder, do your opinions on education reflect any experience greater than having once been a pupil at school, or are they something you read on the internet and decided were true one day?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV, I can't help but wonder, do your opinions on education reflect any experience greater than having once been a pupil at school, or are they something you read on the internet and decided were true one day?

 

No, though I do not personally see how a much experience is especially relevant given that I have been to school and university. Because all I am saying is that schooling appears to be a restrictive environment for learning. From what I remember from the latter-half of secondary school for example and the ideas that seem to be instilled in people going through education is that your potential for employment is what it all hinges upon.

[VinnieK]

I do not personally see how a much experience is especially relevant given that I have been to school and university.

 

Because the limited experiences of one person, viewing everything from one of a number of possible perspectives, might not provide a sufficient basis to build an ideological view that extends to the entire education system?

 

Because all I am saying is that schooling appears to be a restrictive environment for learning.

 

And it is, in a certain sense. The issue you're ignoring is whether or not that restriction has a good reason behind it - your argument kind of boils down to taking

 

"restriction = stifling = bad"

 

"creativity (whatever that is) = good"

 

as initial assumptions and going from there.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Because the limited experiences of one person, viewing everything from one of a number of possible perspectives, might not provide a sufficient basis to build an ideological view that extends to the entire education system?

 

No, it might not. But in terms of stating that process and content of learning is not directed by Learner I thought I was referring to something factual and not something based on opinion.

 

And it is, in a certain sense. The issue you're ignoring is whether or not that restriction has a good reason behind it - your argument kind of boils down to taking

 

Well yes, and I am saying that it appears that it is significantly based upon the development of a standard education to prepare people for the needs of the workplace. Do you think I am wrong in this?

 

"restriction = stifling = bad"

 

"creativity (whatever that is) = good"

 

as initial assumptions and going from there.

 

Well yes. All I meant by creativity is the process of Learner directing the learning themselves and the assumption that the results of this direction would lead to a better chance of those people being able to generate new ideas and concepts, as their minds as less restricted by the guidelines set down in schools.

[VinnieK]

No, it might not. But in terms of stating that process and content of learning is not directed by Learner I thought I was referring to something factual and not something based on opinion.

 

You did a little more than merely state an observation:

 

"I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks in current society is that education is so geared towards preparing people for the workplace and not fostering their true talents and desires that people have a limited education".

 

That's what I'm referring to when I say an ideological point of view.

 

Well yes. All I meant by creativity is the process of Learner directing the learning themselves and the assumption that the results of this direction would lead to a better chance of those people being able to generate new ideas and concepts, as their minds as less restricted by the guidelines set down in schools.

 

But that is a massive assumption to make. One of the biggest flaws is that you assume that new ideas and concepts are better encouraged by a free structured education in which the pupil is in control of things, you don't consider the possibility that in order to generate anything new a person first needs a thorough and meaningful (i.e. non technical) knowledge of both the schools of thought that have preceded them and the methods behind this material, and that this might require a more regimented and structured approach to education.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But that is a massive assumption to make. One of the biggest flaws is that you assume that new ideas and concepts are better encouraged by a free structured education in which the pupil is in control of things, you don't consider the possibility that in order to generate anything new a person first needs a thorough and meaningful (i.e. non technical) knowledge of both the schools of thought that have preceded them and the methods behind this material, and that this might require a more regimented and structured approach to education.

 

And that makes sense because a structureless education would in my mind seem to make the process of learning difficult. But, for example, why can't the pupil decide that they study the subjects they wish, to the extent that they wish, even meaning they drop or spend less time on other subjects? Would someone's personal desires and talents be better satisfied by taking such an approach. I tend to think they would.

[VinnieK]

why can't the pupil decide that they study the subjects they wish, to the extent that they wish, even meaning they drop or spend less time on other subjects?

 

Because in many cases (I'd argue the majority) a person's tastes and talents aren't fully developed by the time they're in school, or sometimes even after it. In other words, they're not in a position to make that decision. And even were that not the case, why not expose them to other material which they may not be interested in at that specific time, but which might prove useful and/or interesting later in life?

 

Would someone's personal desires and talents be better satisfied by taking such an approach. I tend to think they would.

 

Is the approach that fulfills a person's desires automatically the best one?

[Whimsy]

every evening to read about Biff and Chip.

 

Ah, Biff and Chip. How are those young scallywags doing? What's their latest adventure...?

[The Voice of Reason]

VoR - I did not insult you by calling you a cretin. That was merely stating a fact .

 

 

Is that really the best you can do?

 

That's the sort of riposte you might expect from a 14 year old smartarse in the playground.

 

You'll have to seriously improve your debating skills better if you really expect me to enter into a grown up discussion with you.

And you, VoR, will have to improve yours if you wish to succesfully conceal the fact that you and your views have been comprehensively rubbished. BTW - on your proficiency in English, "improve your debating skills better"?????

 

Evil Goblin, may I respectfully suggest you return to your jousting with your friend Peejay and his mates on "Your Say" on Isle of Man Online.

 

It's on a level you may feel more comfortable with. (Perhaps you can come back when you've learnt the art of debate?)

 

A self declared winner is not really a winner at all! That's your first lesson, you can have it for free.

[cheesemonster2005]

I think one of the biggest stumbling blocks in current society is that education is so geared towards preparing people for the workplace and not fostering their true talents and desires that people have a limited education

 

Go on, you'll have to explain this one to me

 

Basically he's saying that schools only teach so students can pass exams and the exams only exist so that people can find jobs. Education seems to be for employment reasons only and not for gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I'm not sure what is best but it is shocking how limited some people's knowledge of the world is - they can touch type and make comments in business meetings but they have no understanding of the world, of people, etc..

[cheesemonster2005]

At the risk of inducing catatonia in Keyboarder I'll have a go.

 

LDV - Education is about destroying imagination and creativity, and forcing children into the drudgery of capitalist exploitation.

 

Teacher - we wish children to gain the skills to enable them to be able to contribute to society It is impossible for the curiculum to provide everything a child requires, the emphasis has to be on giving the child the skills so they can provide for themselves. They are taught the basic skills of literacy, and numeracy and then exposed to the sciences, humanities and arts to give them the basic knowlegde so that they can then know how to further increase their knowledge in areas important to them. Creativity and imagination are seen as vital skills and these are encouraged in such areas as creative writing, literature, art, design and science - especially in younger children play is seen as a vital creative tool. Practical hands on learning is encouraged over rote learning as this is better able to give the children the ability to apply their learning beyond the classroom. etc etc.

 

Which parts of my simplified scheme do you wish to do away with LDV - and which parts of it oppress?

 

But from what I see in many aspects of schooling, they are not given much control over managing their own education, i.e. what they learn and how they learn it for example. The current method in which education is enforced would appear to stifle creativity.

 

Good point but do we really think that students (I'm refering to children here and not adult learners) know what is best for them and know what they really want? If I was asked about managing my own education when I was 12 years old I would probably have ditched "boring" subjects like English, Math and Biology right away.