# Reading > Write a Book Review >  It's Your Time You're Wasting by Frank Chalk

## LitNetIsGreat

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Your-Time-Yo...pr_product_top

I'm not usually one for reading accurate and depressing material in regards to the state of the lower end of the British schooling system (as I want escape from that, not to be reminded of it) however, I started reading this today and it is unbelievably spot on. 

In this book "Frank Chalk" writes of his own personal experiences in a low end state school which is completely representative of many failing schools across the country (of which there are many). He writes of his intention: 




> I started out as a nice liberal bloke who thought the best of everyone. I changed, over time. This book is dedicated to the good kids - there are plenty of them, but they're being slowly crushed by the bad - and several hundred thousand hard-working teachers, who do their best against the impossible odds created by our mad, politically-correct nightmare of an education system. It's a funny book - I hope - with a serious message; the time for talking is over. We need to sort our schools out now, before it really is too late.


It is a funny book there's no getting away from that. I passed this over to Mrs Neely to read a small section (the part where it takes a class of Y7s 40 minutes to stick a name tag in their books) and she was as cracked up as I was reading it. There are some highly amusing moments like this scattered throughout. Let's see, here's a small part of that episode:




> "What? Yes, _both_ names."
> Several groans.
> "OK, OK, your surname is fine. Just put your initial...WHAT THE...What are you doing?"
> Dale had just ripped up his label.
> "Look," I say in an icy voice, "it doesn't matter if you've put your initial first, your surname first, your first name first or even somebody else's name first. Whatever you have written is fine."
> I am approaching the end of my tether and the pile of remaining labels is getting very low now.
> We manage to get past "Teacher" with only two putting their form teacher by mistake, Chesney copying the word "Teacher" and Dale writing in the name of his favourite teacher. (That wasn't my name I can assure you.)
> Now the final hurdle: "OK, Only one more to do now."
> Glance at the watch again.
> Christ, there's only ten minutes of the lesson left!


Previous to this Frank had fallen into the rookie error of writing "YOUR NAME" on the board of which several students had of course done just that, and proceeded to write "YOUR NAME" on the front of their labels, complete rookie error, but always amusing. So there is plenty of humour in this book. (Also his depiction of the unholy grey land of the staffroom, with its heaps of dirty cups, out of date notices and piles of books is just so scarily descriptive). 

It is also of course deeply depressing and somewhat tragic that vast sways of children are being crushed by the modern educational system, as Frank pulls no punches in expressing, with his non-politically correct diatribes which have no doubt upset many of the 1 star reviewers on Amazon. It is however, in my opinion, a very accurate and honest depiction of the troubles currently inherent within lower end state schools. He is a obvious annoyance that I highlighted earlier:




> Teachers (against their will and better judgment, in the majority of cases) spend half their lessons dealing with kids with Special Needs and the kids who can't behave, while having to ignore the pleasant, well-behaved ones, who actually want to learn but who sit there quietly being ignored, with their hands up, as *their life-chances slowly ebb away*.


(My bold)

OK, so this sort of thing is "nothing new" this idea has been done before and well, but it is nevertheless, in my view, essential reading for those who dare take a peep into what honestly goes off in the lower end of British, and perhaps even American, school system. 

_It's Your Time You're Wasting: A Teacher's Tales of Classroom Hell_ by Frank Chalk.

5 gold stars and a peer assessed green tick.

----------


## Paulclem

Sounds familiar - and I was a Primary school teacher. 

Interestingly, my daughter has just come back from Japan after a school trip there. We consder our education system to be inferior to theirs, but the Head - who accompanied them on the trip - was surprised at just how much lesson time is wasted there with the kids learning little in each lesson, but making up for it by staying a school - compulsorily at clubs - till 7pm!!

She said it was chalk and talk for virtually the whole lesson, and sounds like the stuff we were forced to sit through 30 years ago and more. 

Good review by the way, although I'm not entirely sure which side of the fence you're on.... :Biggrinjester:

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Ha yes, I try to keep a biased opinion at all times...

It's really a great book. It has you laughing at sighing at the same time, I could share reams and reams of good stuff, if I had the time (I might post some tomorrow or the next day). 

That's an interesting thought about Japan and 7pm has me shaking with fear. I would like to put some money down that our inferior schools are more inferior than there's though...

----------


## Emil Miller

'I started out as a nice liberal bloke who thought the best of everyone.' 


With that attitude he was on a hiding to nothing.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> 'I started out as a nice liberal bloke who thought the best of everyone.' 
> 
> 
> With that attitude he was on a hiding to nothing.


He was, but he sure makes up for it believe me, the boot is well on the other foot now. Something tells me that you would very much agree with Mr Chalk.

----------


## cafolini

Children in school until 7 PM? That's insane. What for? Obviously they are learning the insanity over and over. They might turn out to be good kamikaze.

----------


## Emil Miller

> He was, but he sure makes up for it believe me, the boot is well on the other foot now. Something tells me that you would very much agree with Mr Chalk.


I have checked out several quotes from the book on the Google books site and he certainly lays it on the line. In saying that, there is nothing to surprise me about what he has to say, you've read my book and may recall the character of the teacher who tried the liberal path and learned the hard way.
*{edit}*
Youve let them in boys  youve allowed them to exploit democracy in the area where it is most vulnerable  its tolerance.

----------


## Vonny

That's really well said, Emil.

*{edit}*

I was told somewhat sarcastically a couple of weeks ago, something like, "You know, you're the youngest senior citizen I've ever seen."

----------


## Emil Miller

> That's really well said, Emil.
> 
> *{edit}*
> 
> I was told somewhat sarcastically a couple of weeks ago, something like, "You know, you're the youngest senior citizen I've ever seen."


That could mean you have a wise head on young shoulders.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

This book really just gets better and better, I have even found where my own somewhat pessimistic (realistic?) attitude comes from (though I didn't need a book to tell me that).




> Teachers only work in schools like ours for two reasons:
> 
> 1 They can't get a job anywhere else.
> 
> 2 They believe that they can improve the chances of the kids.
> 
> I always think the latter kind of teachers are very noble. After a bit, though, they usually go mad, or quit with stress, or become deeply cynical about everything.


Hmmm, that does sound familiar.

I just can't recommend this enough.

----------


## Emil Miller

> This book really just gets better and better, I have even found where my own somewhat pessimistic (realistic?) attitude comes from (though I didn't need a book to tell me that).
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, that does sound familiar.
> 
> I just can't recommend this enough.


This particular quote from the book might surprise some readers but it's no less than I would have expected:

Its a red letter day, too: the new set of science textbooks has 
finally arrived. 
This may not seem much to you but I feel like bringing in 
champagne to celebrate or asking the Head for a half days holiday. 
In the past, we have shared one dirty, dog-eared textbook between 
two or even three children and its a book which doesnt even cover 
the right topics for our syllabus. 
These new ones are written by the people who set the exam, so 
they must cover the relevant stuff. 
The Head of Department arrives carrying the books and hands 
them out to the kids, handling them with great reverence. 
These books are brand new, he intones solemnly, placing one 
neatly on my desk. They must be treated with great respect and care 
so that others may use them in the future. 
As he drones on, I examine one of the books. It has that pleasant 
smell of newly-printed paper and, like all modern textbooks, is a 
masterpiece of political correctness. It is chock-full of bright 
pictures of children from ethnic minority backgrounds doing science 
experiments and photographs of every kind of phenomena. Even the 
teachers are in wheelchairs. Any wrongdoing is illustrated by a white 
boy; here is one, foolishly sticking his fork into an electrical socket 
and being electrocuted. Heres another, drinking from a test tube. 
What I cannot find, to my mounting horror as I flip through the 
book, are any questions. 
Oh, bloody hell!Why are all modern textbooks in every subject full of 
photographs but devoid of questions? 
I also notice that, actually, it doesnt quite seem to cover the 
syllabus to which we have recently changed after the head of 
department assured us that it was the easiest one yet.

----------


## qimissung

Sounds like an interesting book! It actually sounds a great deal like the school I teach at, which is an inner city school.

I'm not sure I understand the references to his supposed liberality, though. I work with teachers, some of whom are conservative and some of whom are liberal. I have always considered myself somewhat liberal. What am I supposed to be learning about myself or my environment that would change my viewpoint?

I usually encounter principals who like their teachers to have a certain personality profile, like that of a general on the field of battle. I set boundaries, but I strive to help my students become actual readers and writers. It works, but there is not really a lot of support for that outlook, even when they think they do support it.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Sounds like an interesting book! It actually sounds a great deal like the school I teach at, which is an inner city school.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the references to his supposed liberality, though. I work with teachers, some of whom are conservative and some of whom are liberal. I have always considered myself somewhat liberal. What am I supposed to be learning about myself or my environment that would change my viewpoint?


Perhaps you should read the book.

----------


## Vonny

Qimi, I think the confusion is that what you and I call Liberal and Conservative is different from what they call liberal and conservative. All the time I fall into this, where I am conservative, however I'm not Conservative. I'm also not Liberal. 

In our country everything is so controlled by the C & L that many aren't able to think outside the box anymore.





> I usually encounter principals who like their teachers to have a certain personality profile, like that of a general on the field of battle. I set boundaries, but I strive to help my students become actual readers and writers. It works, but there is not really a lot of support for that outlook, even when they think they do support it.


I think I know what you're talking about but it's hard to describe. Everyone has to stay within certain social norms. The norms aren't what they used to be, the boot is on the other foot now, but they are just as strong as they used to be. We're supposed to be so free to be individuals, but we must conform. For instance, it's good to say that women should become doctors, but try saying that motherhood is a really good calling. I don't want to be a mother myself, in this world, but I wonder why if a woman wants to be more traditional, she's almost ridiculed in this world. There's many other examples, I don't know why I've just been rather focused on this one lately.

It's also admirable for kids to chew gum in school and blow a big bubble in your face and stick the gum everywhere, but try saying that perhaps kids shouldn't be allowed to chew gum in school and you're ostracized.

It's fine to say that women are better communicators than men, etc., etc., etc., but try saying that there's anything a man can do better than a woman.

Try saying that maybe the adults know more than the kids and see how far you get in your career! Try teaching kids not to be smart alecs!

----------


## Lokasenna

Sounds interesting! My mum would like that as well - that could well be a Christmas present this year.

It reminds me a bit of the Teacher's Diary that was published in _Private Eye_. It's a very controversial issue, and you'll have strident views on both sides of the fence...

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Sounds interesting! My mum would like that as well - that could well be a Christmas present this year.
> 
> It reminds me a bit of the Teacher's Diary that was published in _Private Eye_. It's a very controversial issue, and you'll have strident views on both sides of the fence...


Yes it is very much like that one, but a lot longer of course and more extreme and outspoken in places.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Sounds like an interesting book! It actually sounds a great deal like the school I teach at, which is an inner city school.
> 
> *I'm not sure I understand the references to his supposed liberality*, though. I work with teachers, some of whom are conservative and some of whom are liberal. I have always considered myself somewhat liberal. What am I supposed to be learning about myself or my environment that would change my viewpoint?
> 
> I usually encounter principals who like their teachers to have a certain personality profile, like that of a general on the field of battle. I set boundaries, but I strive to help my students become actual readers and writers. It works, but there is not really a lot of support for that outlook, even when they think they do support it.


Hi, I think this is the sort of liberal approach that Emil is referring to, as expressed wonderfully and very accurately below. (Please forgive the odd typo as I have touched typed this out and only had a short time to check it.) 




> Outside in the corridor, I can hear Wesley, a Year 11 pupil, arguing with Mr Jones bout his coursework. He has missed the deadline for handing it in and, for no obvious reason that I can discern, was given another week to complete it. Needless to say, he has still not finished the work and Mr Jones is telling him that tomorrow is absolutely his final chance.
> Theres an indignant screech from Wesley. 
> 
> Well, OK, then, says Mr Jones. Wednesday, since you've got football after school today.
> 
> This charade simply reinforces the idea that they can ignore all deadlines while we bend over backwards to accommodate them. As preparation for the world of work it is absurd.


This sort of thing is so typical, completely an everyday thing. I am currently working with some students who have not yet finished coursework started a year ago. It should have taken two weeks. Max.

Or take the approach when dealing with difficult behaviour:





> In common with many schools, we have a policy of Inclusion. This essentially means that not only will we take anyone, regardless of their impact on the rest of the kids, but also that we send a clear message to our persistent offenders: Do that again, and you wont be thrown out!
> Well that certainly teaches them a lesson.
> 
> As most children on the planet would give their right arm for the lifestyle and privileges our kids turn their noses up at, I refuse to fall into the apologies camp.
> 
> So many of our students (I find it so difficult to use that word without giggling) must be perplexed when, in later life, they are sacked from work for persistent lateness, petty theft, disobeying instructions and so on. After all, for the previous twelve years at school, this behaviour has been perfectly acceptable.
> 
> When Heads and SMT finally get round to chucking some brat our, usually after years of persistently appalling behaviour, culminating in something beyond the pale  they've murdered someone, say, or are using the maths classroom as the base for a drugs-and-prostitution racket  they have to get the support of the school governors.
> 
> ...


I can vouch that this is in no way exaggerated. This is absolutely typical policy. I wonder why there are problems in schools? Maybe we should invent a few new buzzwords or spent millions on new IT? Yes that'll do the trick...

----------


## Emil Miller

Yep,that's liberalism alright. Now lets contrast it with what happened to a couple of recalcitrant boys when I was at school.
Every Friday afternoon was a bad time for my class because we had a double maths lesson under Mr Geary, an ex-Irish international rugby player who stood no nonsense. One Friday, Mr Geary called the register and found that two boys, King and Calvally, were missing. The following week the same thing happened and when, after making enquiries, he discovered that they had simply decided that they weren't going to attend his lesson, he had them paraded in front of the class and then caned them.
The following Friday, King and Calvally attended the lesson.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

So, should we just separate all students, putting each in their own little homogenous group, all the time? Misbehaving kids . . . all of you in that room. Disabled . . . all of you in that room. Smart kids . . . in that room. That's the answer? Not all students should be in the same classroom. I agree that the idea of inclusion has gotten out of hand, but it can't go to the extreme in the other direction, either, because kids with disabilities deserve a "normal" class if they can handle it. A few outbursts by a kid with autism or Tourette's should not be enough to have that kid put in a "special" class. 

Though, I do get what "liberalism" is now, at least in the eyes of someone like Emil. If a poor choice is made, bad teaching practices occur, etc etc, it's liberalism. Letting a student turn in assignment late, constantly letting them get away with bad behavior--it's _poor teaching_, or poor teaching policy, not being a liberal. By the idea that this laxity and over-inclusion is a product of "liberalism," I guess separating all students, even different races and sexual orientations (after all, having all that heterogeny would be a distraction), or being ultra strict to students, not accepting _any_ excuse for late assignments, would be "conservatism." That's crap too. It's just the opposite end of the same bad-teaching spectrum.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

So it's the teachers' fault?

----------


## Drkshadow03

> So it's the teachers' fault?


It's both.

----------


## Vonny

The people whose fault it is don't spend their time off the battlefield reading books like this and writing to others, searching for an understanding or solution.

It's poor policy. It's collective values, or something. It's unfair to dump it on the teachers there in the trenches. 

But there's some who benefit from having these powerful children and illiterate masses, and everyone contentious so that no one can agree on anything, and that's why it won't get any better. (I think.)

Children need to be raised by their mothers until first grade. The problem is TV and advertising. Some TV is probably okay and necessary, in this world, because if you don't understand TV you are culturally illiterate, there is no culture apart from TV, but parents need to correct the twisted attitudes it presents. But parents aren't able to distinguish what is wrong with the way advertising is molding people, that being obnoxious isn't desirable, so parents can't teach their children. And then the job of mothering isn't really valued anymore. Both parents need to work so they can afford more larger screened TVs.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> So it's the teachers' fault?


You're going to have to clarify on what the teachers' fault is, because it could apply to multiple things in my post (unless you meant the whole of it). Reading over my post, I don't really see anywhere that is a veiled accusation of something being the teacher's fault, as I think I make it pretty clear what I feel is and isn't the teachers' fault (mostly pertaining to teaching methods and policy [which wouldn't be a single teacher's fault, but that of administration, which is a whole other issue, and also where I think labels like conservatism and liberalism could be better applied]). It's obviously the teacher's fault for being a crappy teacher, whether that crappiness is a product over laxity or over-strictness. 

Still, I'm wondering what the inclusion naysayers would like. How extreme do you want it to be? Should all classes be tailor-made for one particular type of student: a class for the smart kids, a class for the dumb kids, a class for all those in between, a class for the mildly mentally disabled, a class for the severely mentally disabled, etc. etc.? Or should there be a middle-ground?

----------


## Vonny

> It's obviously the teacher's fault for being a crappy teacher, whether that crappiness is a product over laxity or over-strictness.


Let a teacher try being overly strict, and they'll have parents, everyone coming down on them. There are a lot of pressures and constraints on teachers to perform a certain way.

For one thing class sizes are too large, and if students have very diverse needs, and many are unruly, it becomes more difficult for one teacher to do it all.

When my brother was in second grade he was determined to have a "mental block" and he simply couldn't learn in a regular classroom. When he was moved to "special education" into a small class where he was less stressed, he made rapid progress. The only problem was that he felt ashamed to be in special education. But he wouldn't have learned to read without special education, so I don't know if we're doing kids a favor by trying to make them all equal if they aren't.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Let a teacher try being overly strict, and they'll have parents, everyone coming down on them. There are a lot of pressures and constraints on teachers to perform a certain way.
> 
> For one thing class sizes are too large, and if students have very diverse needs, and many are unruly, it becomes more difficult for one teacher to do it all.
> 
> When my brother was in second grade he was determined to have a "mental block" and he simply couldn't learn in a regular classroom. When he was moved to "special education" into a small class where he was less stressed, he made rapid progress. The only problem was that he felt ashamed to be in special education. But he wouldn't have learned to read without special education, so I don't know if we're doing kids a favor by trying to make them all equal if they aren't.


Generally in special education, they're not separated from the main class for the whole day, but they get pulled to do one-on-one or small group learning for select subjects.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Still, I'm wondering what the inclusion naysayers would like. How extreme do you want it to be? Should all classes be tailor-made for one particular type of student: a class for the smart kids, a class for the dumb kids, a class for all those in between, a class for the mildly mentally disabled, a class for the severely mentally disabled, etc. etc.? Or should there be a middle-ground?


A healthy middle ground on inclusion would seem logical to me and Im sure some schools achieve this. However, the failing schools, the ones typical in this book, do not. You have to remember that inclusion policy was purely a cost saving exercise and nothing else. With swamped classes full of students, with such a diverse range of issues and problems, the result is that everyone fails together. This is because there is often a massive amount of time being wasted on trying to deal with poor behaviour at the loss of everyone else. The biggest loser ironically, is always the quiet student who causes no problems and always tries his or her best, these are allowed to slip through the net time and time again.

It would seem you are also taking about setting classes according to ability, which is not the same thing as inclusion. The question of do you set according to ability or do you have a range of abilities in the class is a hard choice and not one that I could fully be happy with either way. If you group according to ability what happens is that lower sets tend to get worse as they pull each other down. If you provide a mixed range of abilities is it better for the weaker students as they have better role models, in theory, but very difficult for the teacher to pitch across such a diverse range and difficult to keep the lesson to a fair pace or standard. So neither of them is really ideal to be honest and it is down to individual schools to choose between them or to try to reach some sort of compromise.




> It's both.


There are poor teachers, and believe me Frank Chalk does not forget about those, just as there are poor workers in every section of every society. However to lay the blame solely, or even anything more than the slightest part at the hands of the teacher, is ludicrous, just as it would be to lay the problems of crime in society at the hands of the police.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> A healthy middle ground on inclusion would seem logical to me and Im sure some schools achieve this. However, the failing schools, the ones typical in this book, do not. You have to remember that inclusion policy was purely a cost saving exercise and nothing else. With swamped classes full of students, with such a diverse range of issues and problems, the result is that everyone fails together. This is because there is often a massive amount of time being wasted on trying to deal with poor behaviour at the loss of everyone else. The biggest loser ironically, is always the quiet student who causes no problems and always tries his or her best, these are allowed to slip through the net time and time again.
> 
> It would seem you are also taking about setting classes according to ability, which is not the same thing as inclusion. The question of do you set according to ability or do you have a range of abilities in the class is a hard choice and not one that I could fully be happy with either way. If you group according to ability what happens is that lower sets tend to get worse as they pull each other down. If you provide a mixed range of abilities is it better for the weaker students as they have better role models, in theory, but very difficult for the teacher to pitch across such a diverse range and difficult to keep the lesson to a fair pace or standard. So neither of them is really ideal to be honest and it is down to individual schools to choose between them or to try to reach some sort of compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> There are poor teachers, and believe me Frank Chalk does not forget about those, just as there are poor workers in every section of every society. However to lay the blame solely, or even anything more than the slightest part at the hands of the teacher, is ludicrous, just as it would be to lay the problems of crime in society at the hands of the police.


Pretty much agree with everything here. And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think I ever said the blame should solely be laid on teachers.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> There are poor teachers, and believe me Frank Chalk does not forget about those, just as there are poor workers in every section of every society. However to lay the blame solely, or even anything more than the slightest part at the hands of the teacher, is ludicrous, just as it would be to lay the problems of crime in society at the hands of the police.


Well, a really good teacher can turn around a difficult student's behavior and academic performance. I recognize, too, that teachers often take the bulk of the blame in society, which is often unfair given that there are some real problem students in schools. As an interesting aside to the political dimensions of this discussion, in many of the discussions about "Why our schools are failing" variety that I've seen in newspapers and on politic blogs it's always the conservatives whining about poor teachers and performance. The reason our schools stink and our students aren't learning is because of terrible teachers and the Unions that protect them, tends to be the conservative view. So I think a few of the commenters were right to point out that it doesn't always fall down neatly along political lines.

I'd also point out that inclusion/special education doesn't automatically equate to bad behavior. There are high academic performing students with atrocious behavior; meanwhile there are plenty of special education students who are well behaved students.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Pretty much agree with everything here. And, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think I ever said the blame should solely be laid on teachers.


No, I think I was mistaken with with thing you said about poor teachers previously or I didn't read it right.




> Well, a really good teacher can turn around a difficult student's behavior and academic performance. I recognize, too, that teachers often take the bulk of the blame in society, which is often unfair given that there are some real problem students in schools. As an interesting aside to the political dimensions of this discussion, in many of the discussions about "Why our schools are failing" variety that I've seen in newspapers and on politic blogs it's always the conservatives whining about poor teachers and performance. The reason our schools stink and our students aren't learning is because of terrible teachers and the Unions that protect them, tends to be the conservative view. So I think a few of the commenters were right to point out that it doesn't always fall down neatly along political lines.
> 
> I'd also point out that inclusion/special education doesn't automatically equate to bad behavior. There are high academic performing students with atrocious behavior; meanwhile there are plenty of special education students who are well behaved students.


Yes there are always those amazing teachers that just have an incredible presence in whose classes you can hear a pin drop. (This is also covered in the book). There are one or two of these in every school, real gems. These are well above the norm though. The political aspect is complex and goes beyond any particular ideology yes.

Yes definitely SEN often doesn't equate to bad behaviour. SEN is such a wide and complex issue that behaviour is only one fraction of it and often not related at all. The problem with inclusion in this context is that often the SEN students do not get the attention they need and deserve because the class teacher is too busy trying to deal with poor behaviour. The problem is not with the heavily dyslexic, the partially blind student, the aspergers student, the student with the reading age of 4, the one who speaks no English (all in the same class + 25 others) but that behaviour and the sheer gravity of the situation often prevents the teacher from working effectively. It is just not practical at that point. It is also not fair to expect a teacher to suddenly become an expert in all these different issues with no training. There is some focused SEN help in most schools though, but it is often just not enough.

I take the point that behaviour is not automatically linked to high/low achievement, their are some sods in top sets for sure, but generally it is the disaffected students, the ones in the lower groups who cause the most problems. To be fair, many of these students just aren't benefiting from a one size fits all policy (more money saving perhaps?). I'm not excusing atrocious behaviour mind.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Well it appear that Frank Chalk is back with a second book, which seems to be a mix of more anecdotes and rants, good stuff! The book is called _Education, My Part in its Downfall_ (which obviously plays with the Spike Miligan book, _Hitler, My Part in his Downfall_).

Anyway, in the early part of the book there is another rant against inclusion policy which I thought I would put up, considering the points raised towards the end of this thread:




> There are a couple of kids in this class who can barely read and Nathan is one of them. Coban, I believe is the other. Sometimes they have a support teacher to help them, but other times they dont for reasons that are never made clear. However, even when a support teacher is timetabled for them, half the time they dont turn up and the only explanation given usually involves some mysterious meeting with the Educational Welfare Officer (a complete loon) or the childs parents (ditto). It is a total lottery and unfortunately today we have lost.
> 
> Nathan, work with Lewis and Tyrone
> Im working on my own
> But you cant read the instructions Nathan!
> Course I can!
> Before I can puzzle this one out, Coban throws a pen I have given him across the room. Nobody wants to work with him and he is frustrated because he never really knows what is going on. (Imagine sitting in a lesson where all the notes are written in Mandarin Chinese).
> 
> Someone outside the teaching profession might suggest that we should remove the likes of Coban and Nathan, put them in a class together and teach them to read, persevering until they can do so. However like most schools we follow the holy doctrine of Inclusion, which insists that these two do the same lessons as everyone else. It is utter madness.
> ...


That's really quite true. You should really be asking questions why, after 12 years of education, thousands of students leave barely able to read and spell their own names. You have got to love the never ending polices that try everything but common sense. Brilliant. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Vonny

I wonder how much of the behavior is due to parents? 

Do you think that the behavioral issues in our schools is directly a result of the fact that parents have abdicated their role in properly disciplining their children, while insisting at the same time upon removing the ability of teachers and school administrator to act appropriately in their place? 

And I wonder if... as a result we have a generation of students who do not learn discipline at home, and who know that teachers can't do anything to them at school?


As I ponder it more, I think parents are to blame.

----------


## Emil Miller

This book is obviously written from the perspective of a teacher working in the UK, and others may have a different experience in their respective countries, but it does highlight a major problem that cannot be covered up by 'statistics ' or the self-deception of those who think that it was always like this. It wasn't.
The main problem is a lack of discipline and this is as a direct result of the post WW11 attitude inculcated by the 'We're the masters now', idiots that took over the UK in 1945. Dismantling the existing system was what they were about in the name of a spurious equality, and the result is what we have now.
Abandoning discipline in schools tends to lead to undisciplined adults with the results that are obvious for anyone to see, and those responsible will keep dreaming up various 'excuses' rather than admit that they were, and still are, wrong. 
Until we return to a disciplinary system, there will be no respite from many of the problems afflicting the population as a whole.

----------


## Vonny

An elderly lady I know, in her 80s, told me that when she was a little girl, parents _always_ took the side of the teachers. There was no point in ever trying to convince your parents that the teacher was wrong. And then, one of the worst things about getting into trouble and getting thrashed in school was that when you went home and your parents found out that you'd been in trouble in school, they would thrash you _again_ when you got home.

And what some teachers used to do when kids talked in class - is they would pick up these old-fashioned chalk board erasers and just hurl them at the kids' heads. Some of the old-maid school teachers had really good aim and could hit right in the face. If you didn't want to be clobbered hard in the face you didn't talk in class.

This lady also told me that her mother made her kneed bread every day after school for one hour, and she _hated_ it. She says, though, that she's glad now her mother made her do it.

----------


## Emil Miller

> An elderly lady I know, in her 80s, told me that when she was a little girl, parents _always_ took the side of the teachers. There was no point in ever trying to convince your parents that the teacher was wrong. And then, one of the worst things about getting into trouble and getting thrashed in school was that when you went home and your parents found out that you'd been in trouble in school, they would thrash you _again_ when you got home.
> 
> And what some teachers used to do when kids talked in class - is they would pick up these old-fashioned chalk board erasers and just hurl them at the kids' heads. Some of the old-maid school teachers had really good aim and could hit right in the face. If you didn't want to be clobbered hard in the face you didn't talk in class.
> 
> This lady also told me that her mother made her kneed bread every day after school for one hour, and she _hated_ it. She says, though, that she's glad now her mother made her do it.


Get ready for the usual suspects in denial, who weren't even born then, to tell you that the old lady is wrong, before producing the usual statistics and telling you that she was wearing rose-tinted glasses.
Here's an example based on my own experience. When I was about nine-years-old, a Mr Bassnet, who lived close by, complained to my parents that I had been making a noise outside his house and had taunted him when he remonstrated. My parents made me apologise before kicking me indoors and forbidding me to go out for the rest of the day; I never annoyed Mr Basnett again.

----------


## Scheherazade

In old days, _of course_ teachers were seen as absolute symbols of authority and knowledge: simply because they were so. Teachers were among the lucky few who actually went to school (beyond the elementary stage) and acquired some "knoweldge" and, in most cases, parents felt they had to trust the teachers' judgement.

However, things have - luckily - changed. Now, parents have expectations and are able to ask questions. This is not to say, of course, that there are some who take advantage of this opportunity or even abuse the system but, looking at the bigger picture, I think it is great that teachers are accountable and challenged in this way too. 

Generalised statements placing the blame on teachers, parents or students without any fair justification or merely based on examples from half a century ago are nothing but... generalised statements lacking persuasion... Especially if they are coming from those who have no parenting or teaching experiences.

Education of a child (or an adult, for that matter) should not be under sole control of a teacher and all parties involved (student, teacher, institution, parents etc) should have a say in the matter.

----------


## Lokasenna

> In old days, _of course_ teachers were seen as absolute symbol of authority and knowledge simply because they were so. Teachers were among those who actually went to school (beyond the elementary stage) and acquired some "knoweldge" and, in most cases, parents felt they had to trust the teachers' judgement.
> 
> However, things have - luckily - changed. Now, parents have expectations and are able to ask questions. This is not to say, of course, that there are some who take advantage of it or even abuse the system at times but, looking at the bigger picture, I think it is great that teachers are accountable and challenged in this way too. 
> 
> Generalised statements placing the blame on teachers, parents or students without any fair justification or based on examples from half a century ago are nothing but... generalised statements lacking persuasion... Especially if they are coming from those who who have no parenting or teaching experiences.
> 
> Education of a child (or an adult, for that matter) should not be under sole control of a teacher and all parties involved (student, teacher, institution, parents...) should have a say in the matter.


A family friend of ours is a supply teacher, and she has some pretty horrific stories about parents involving themselves in the education process. She says, though I don't know whether she is exaggerating, that some teachers are extremely reluctant to hand out (justified) detentions and poor marks, as the parents will often turn up at the school and have a slanging match with them.

It's true that parents should have expectations, but it is also true that they should be reasonable, and the parents should not be undermining the authority of the teacher.

----------


## Scheherazade

> A family friend of ours is a supply teacher, and she has some pretty horrific stories about parents involving themselves in the education process. She says, though I don't know whether she is exaggerating, that some teachers are extremely reluctant to hand out (justified) detentions and poor marks, as the parents will often turn up at the school and have a slanging match with them.
> 
> It's true that parents should have expectations, but it is also true that they should be reasonable, and the parents should not be undermining the authority of the teacher.


This usually happens when there are no clear guidelines for objection processes. Schools should have procedures in place for students and parents to express their grievances; do you want your child to be at the mercy of a teacher without the assurance that you will be able to ask questions and understand why your child has been given detention? That does not necessarily mean that you always think your child does no wrong or that you are against your child receiving such "punishment". Parents _need_ to know what has happened to be able to deal with it.

Having said that, there are of course those who step on the boundaries but we cannot let those few give all the parents a bad name. Just like we do not wish to blacken the teaching profession all together because of some bad apples.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Thankfully I don't have to deal much with parents myself, but in my experience and observation if you have parental support you have half a chance, if you don't, you have none. If a parent has not bothered to installed clear boundaries of right and wrong from an early age then they will not listen to a teacher.

The main problem in schools of this type, the ones that Frank is talking about and representative of thousands across the country, is clearly behaviour and a general lack of common sense as expressed. Work ethic is also a big problem in the bottom half schools, where the hand out culture is all to evident and highly detrimental.

The third major problem (though in a way they are all linked of course) is the entertainment Vs education debate. It is not enough to educate today. (In fact a good teacher who tries to carry out tried and tested methods of learning is likely to get side-lined and will certainly get low OFSTED rating during observation, thus threatening their careers.) This is not helped by the modern instant gratification culture, which is shortening attention spans and modern policy, which simply feeds into this because it is easier than dealing with the issues involved.

I was amazed the other day when I flipped through a typical text book that was ten years old. I couldn't believe the size of the extracts for standard comprehension exercises, some were as long as 5 or 6 pages in length! Flip through a modern text book of similar style and you will find this reduced to 1 page, 2 _at the most_ and often just one paragraph, all of which will include dramatic images and never ever plain text. Even this is too much for today's students, and cries of "I'm not reading _all_ that" are all too common.

Last week at my school Y11s took mock exams in English. I asked about 11 or 12 of them afterwards how they had got on. Now what do you expect they said? Too hard, too easy, OK but struggled on question 4? Ran out of time? This is what I foolishly expected. No. "It was boring" was the response of just about all of them. It was boring? It was an exam what did they expect? One even seriously asked me if they could have music playing next time to make it more interesting. I'm not joking.

I don't really blame them because, teachers following policy, are forced to do everything except dress as bananas in order to entertain and not educate, in order to "engage" students' interests and compete with X-Boxes and other instant gratification devices. Now, I'm all for stimulating and exciting lessons of course, but some things just have to be learned and the real world is not all singing and dancing, some things are "boring" but necessary or involve hard work and dedication. But then schools of this type, just do not aim to prepare children for life in the real world at all. Of this they do a good job.

----------


## Emil Miller

> In old days, _of course_ teachers were seen as absolute symbols of authority and knowledge: simply because they were so. Teachers were among the lucky few who actually went to school (beyond the elementary stage) and acquired some "knoweldge" and, in most cases, parents felt they had to trust the teachers' judgement.


Yes, they had gained knowledge of teaching, which was their function , but beyond that, they were also skilled in their individual subjects. All of my teachers were university graduates and knew their respective disciplines thoroughly. That was why parents felt they could trust in their judgement but it isn't true that the parents had no other recourse, because in cases where something needed to be discussed about an individual's conduct, parents were invited by the school's headmaster to discuss the issue.

----------


## cafolini

I think there is a lot of exaggeration as to the lack of instruction at school, as well as the lack of ability of the parents to dialogue with teachers and correct problems. Of course those who are in what I call the paranoid express will disagree with me. But I think the school system is better than ever, more flexible than ever and injecting knowledge more than ever. Discipline is no longer an issue as it should have never been. The most important thing in a person's life is motivation and that cannot be taught one way or the other, least of all imposed. And most likely, under the current programs, that's what flourishes a lot more in the long run.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> I think there is a lot of exaggeration as to the lack of instruction at school, as well as the lack of ability of the parents to dialogue with teachers and correct problems. Of course those who are in what I call the paranoid express will disagree with me. But I think the school system is better than ever, more flexible than ever and injecting knowledge more than ever. Discipline is no longer an issue as it should have never been. The most important thing in a person's life is motivation and that cannot be taught one way or the other, least of all imposed. And most likely, under the current programs, that's what flourishes a lot more in the long run.


With that I can tell you haven't been inside one of UK's 'sink' schools in the last 10-15 years. Either that or you set school policy - or both!

Believe me there is no exaggeration, all the horror stories you read about here are for real, I wish it were otherwise.

Discipline is essential in education and life in general. If you haven't got the discipline to start then you have got no hope, you might as well preach to the wall.

Motivation is essential, as I said above, agreed. Most of this comes from parents who instil this in their child, which brings us back to the parents again and the area in which they live. 

Granted there are some great schools out there for which the system is fine. I've been to them and seen them myself. I once taught a class of Y8s and it was like I'd been transported to a different planet, a different universe and not just 5 miles the other side of town (where the life expectancy is *8 years* higher!)

No, if I was you I'd read the book if you want to know what it's like without stepping into class. It's much safer.

----------


## cafolini

Of course you are going to have places where poverty drives and you have problems based on that. But the people in those places never had a chance before and they have to evolve.
I think motivation comes long before discipline. The latter is a matter of training.
Even the toughest guys in the US Armed Forces will tell you. You don't become a Seal through discipline. They'll tell you that they can only make it if they are highly motivated first, not later. Yet, looking at the results, people most often think that the discipline comes first. You see it in every sphere. People try and try to get motivated through discipline. They fail miserably.

----------


## stlukesguild

Previous to this Frank had fallen into the rookie error of writing "YOUR NAME" on the board of which several students had of course done just that, and proceeded to write "YOUR NAME" on the front of their labels, complete rookie error, but always amusing.

I almost spit my coffee out reading this. :Smilielol5:  So American students aren't the only ones this dumb. I cannot tell you how often I have told the class... repeatedly... "Put your name in the upper right hand corner of your painting"... and then I wrote "Your Name" on my example on the board in the appropriate place, turning again to the students and telling them... repeatedly... "Now don't write the words "Your Name" but rather Dionte or Lakesha or Debresha or whatever your name is." I'll even tell them how some student in every class... in spite of all my instructions... will write "Your Name" on their paper, and they all laugh at how stupid this sounds... and yet invariably one or two kids in every class will still put nothing but "Your Name" at the top of the paper and with 40 students in a room and only 40 minutes (subtracting the 5 minutes to settle down... if I'm lucky, and the 5 minutes to clean up) I simply cannot write all of their names for them.

I don't know how I missed this thread until now. I'll be browsing over the next day or so.

 :Wave:

----------


## mal4mac

> Last week at my school Y11s took mock exams in English. I asked about 11 or 12 of them afterwards how they had got on. Now what do you expect they said? Too hard, too easy, OK but struggled on question 4? Ran out of time? This is what I foolishly expected. No. "It was boring" was the response of just about all of them. It was boring? It was an exam what did they expect?...


I used to find exams an interesting challenge. Perhaps teachers shouldn't tacitly agree with students that exams are inherently boring.

Did you ask them why they found the exam boring? Was it too hard for them? Instead of admitting their lack of capability did they sublimate their discomfort? Or was the exam just too easy? Or were they just parroting a sad mantra? 

Why not get them to write an essay - "Why I find exams boring"/"Why I find exams interesting"?

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Oh yes Stluke's the "Your Name" thing is certainly not only to be found in American schools. Last week we spent 20 minutes trying to get a class of Y10s (14/15 year olds) to write their name on the right-hand side of a piece of paper and the title in the middle - total nightmare - "no Shaney, that's the left hand-side, the right-hand side" etc, etc followed by the title mantra of "the title's on the board, the title's on the board" etc, etc, typical day...




> I used to find exams an interesting challenge. Perhaps teachers shouldn't tacitly agree with students that exams are inherently boring.
> 
> Did you ask them why they found the exam boring? Was it too hard for them? Instead of admitting their lack of capability did they sublimate their discomfort? Or was the exam just too easy? Or were they just parroting a sad mantra? 
> 
> Why not get them to write an essay - "Why I find exams boring"/"Why I find exams interesting"?


I believe they were bored because they had to read a whole article (4/5 paragraphs in length) about the environment. In short, they just don't like reading anything because it is deemed to be "boring".

The exam wasn't too easy and most of them didn't answer all the questions, so there's no sublimation going on.

I think they just miss the purpose of exams which is to test them, not to entertain. Most kids think that everything is there to entertain so they often get confused. Teachers didn't tacitly agree with the boring bit. Getting them to write an essay is a bad idea because that involves writing, so it is no, no. They don't like writing either. Writing is boring.

----------


## cafolini

Well, the kids are smart and courteous. As they write, your rigth hand is their left. They mean to please the teacher.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Well, the kids are smart and courteous. As they write, your rigth hand is their left. They mean to please the teacher.


Yep, it could be that or...

I've finished the second Frank Chalk book which was just more of the same from the first, but still very good.

I've downloaded a sample of another similar type, about a teacher in a top school who quits his job, lives in a camper van and then goes on supply in rough schools for the 'experience'.  :Out:  Yes that is what I'm thinking.

----------


## stlukesguild

Teachers only work in schools like ours for two reasons:

1 They can't get a job anywhere else.

2 They believe that they can improve the chances of the kids.

I always think the latter kind of teachers are very noble. After a bit, though, they usually go mad, or quit with stress, or become deeply cynical about everything.

I can only nod my head in agreement. I've worked with at least 3 teachers over the last few years who I can only describe as having serious mental issues. Beyond these I know of one who had her entire class jump a student and another who had a second grader receive oral sex in her class without ever noticing. One of the most insane took his class to a ball game without any proper parental (or school) release forms. When it was time to go he was so much into the game he told the kids to catch the bus home. :Frown2: 

So many who really know and love their subject and have a passion for teaching and seriously want to make a change become burned out and cynical after years of dealing with the same insanity... more from parents, administration, education reform "experts", and politicians than the kids.

qimissung- Sounds like an interesting book! It actually sounds a great deal like the school I teach at, which is an inner city school.

I'm not sure I understand the references to his supposed liberality, though. I work with teachers, some of whom are conservative and some of whom are liberal. I have always considered myself somewhat liberal. What am I supposed to be learning about myself or my environment that would change my viewpoint?

I think that what Neely refers to is the fact that many teachers enter the field with noble ideals of correcting inequalities in society through education of those students most in need. After some time in the system dealing with incompetent coworkers, continual educational reform "experts", gutless and/or vindictive, administrators horrible parents, and politicians who speak continually of "accountability" but never apply this term to parents, administrators, the education experts, the students, or their own incompetent meddling many teachers become rather cynical and start to agree with conservative individuals like Brian. 

I find the entire question interesting in light of one of the most enlightening books I have read on education: E.D. Hirsch in his book, *The Schools We Need (and why we don't have them)*. Hirsch' book addressed many of the problems with Progressive/Liberal teaching methods.. Hirsch was a great champion of the truly Liberal idea of public education... the notion that *all children should be given an equal access to the quality education needed to succeed in our society*... an idea one would hope that everyone... regardless of political leaning, is on board with. Hirsch noticed that a great many of the liberal/progressive educational strategies (such as the "feel-good/no losers" approach, the failure to hold students responsible for their behavior, the extremes of Inclusion, and the avoidance of memorization of objective "facts") actually had the exact opposite effect... especially in the poor schools which needed education the most. Hirsch discovered that the Italian politician and theorist, Antonio Gramsci (imprisoned by Mussolini) had recognized the problem of progressive education as early as the 1930s:

_"The new concept of Schooling is in its Romatic phase (ala Rousseau) in which the replacement of "mechanical" by "natural" methods has become unhealthily exaggerated... Previously pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order... The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new aspect of school is being advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences, but crystallize them in Chinese complexities."_

The "Romantic"/progressive/liberal concepts of schooling avoid the learning of "facts" because it is feared these will perpetuate stereotypes... the notion that one writer, one artist, one historical personage is more important than another. This was seen as unacceptable to educational progressives as "Multiculturalism" and "Egalitarianism" became the catch-phrases of the day. Egalitarianism is behind the push for the extremes of Inclusion as well as the refusal to hold students responsible for their actions. This, in the US, is then combined with the lack of any real federal or national standards resulting in a system in which almost every school has its own curriculum... makes its own choices about what books to read and what facts to present. When this is further combined with No Child Left Behind which has resulted in schools focusing more upon teaching strategies for taking tests as a means of grabbing the needed scores as opposed to actually teaching a curriculum that is aligned with what the student will be tested upon, the result is an absolute mess in which we cannot be certain that a child in this school at this age will be expected to have mastered the same knowledge and skills as a student in another school just around the block... let alone across the country. Such an approach to teaching is surely not conducive to developing critical thinking, either. Indeed, if anything, one can imagine it would lead to a deal of frustration, cynicism... and even the increased occurrences of cheating. After all... if schools spend more time trying to cheat the system than teach facts and skills, these facts and skills surely must not be something of the greatest importance.

Hirsch recognized that in order to succeed in education and in our society one must accumulate a certain agreed upon body of knowledge. One cannot master reading... let alone "higher order thinking skills" such as analysis, comparison, synthesis, etc... without a body of concrete facts. Progressive educators argue that a curriculum based upon such facts is inherently bound to be racist, sexist, nationalistic. The problem is that the alternative handicaps those very students it claims to assist. The reality is that public education is not the end-all/be-all. Once a student has mastered certain facts, reading, math, etc... he or she is certainly free... and more important, able to branch out and explore other alternative ideas and voices... and certainly higher education should be expected to offer just that. At present, however, higher education needs to begin at a remedial level... teaching many of the basic skills and body of knowledge that should have been mastered in elementary and secondary school.

Hirsch's own schools have show impressive results... but in many ways they have the same advantages of any other elite private school or charter school in that his schools are able to "cherry pick" students. We are still faced with the reality of dealing with students of vastly differing abilities as well as the problems of discipline and continual interruption of the educational process. Only recently in the US the government as part of the No Child Left Behind initiative has actually polled students with questions about what they likes of disliked about their schools. Invariably the issues of constant disruption, chaos, concerns about their personal safety, anxieties as a result of on-going name-calling and fights are major factors in the Conditions of Learning ratings of a majority of urban schools. 

One of the most obvious causes of the problems with schools as they are run today is the manner in which they are still based upon the grossly outdated "Industrial Model" first imposed nearly a century ago (or probably longer in Europe). The industrial model assumes that all students learn (or should learn) in the same way, at the same speed and at the same age. Students are socially promoted in the belief that preserving their fragile egos is more important than placing them at the appropriate learning level. Thus we get 8th graders reading at a 1st grade level. Ability tracking was done away with in the name of Egalitarianism... with the results that resulted when separate schools for Black and White students were done away with: all students are thrown together and allowed to sink as a whole. Ability tracking was wrong when the bright students were given the best education while the slowest students were given a crap education in the assumption that they won't amount to anything anyway. If we do away with the very idea of the industrial model... the notion that all students will learn in the same way (we know some are aural learners, some need to read to learn, some need to see examples, some need hands on) at the same speed and the same age, and instead we treat each as an individual... moving on at their own speed... we would likely see far better results. This system was not unlike that employed in the 19th century in the one-room schoolhouses where older students helped the younger. 

Of course such an individualized approach to education would be far more expensive... demanding more individualized attention to each student's goals and needs... and in spite of all the talk of politicians, education remains of minor importance. There is still too much of a stigma attached to education: It's "woman's work"... "It involves kids"... thus it can't be taken seriously... it's just child's play... anyone could do it. We hear these comments all the time. If "If can teach my kids right from wrong..." or "If that private school that get's to cherry pick the best behaved, the brightest, and the most motivated students does so well on the tests why can't you get the same results...? In a room of 40 students... 10 of whom are coded "special education", 5 of whom have serious behavioral disabilities, another 4 or 5 of whom should be coded as having the same disabilities... but the psychologists are a year or two behind on assessments. Why can't you get them motivated about algebra or grammar or art or history when 99% are living below the federal poverty level and will have their only meals of the day as part of the free breakfast and lunch program. Any number of whom will walk to school past gangs-bangers, crack-heads, whores, child-abusers drunkards and boarded up houses.... if they don't live with the same gang-bangers, crack-heads, whores, child-abusers and drunkards.

But of course this is all just exaggeration. The schools are better than they ever have been. Discipline is no longer an issue. 

And who was it mocking the ignorant religious "fools" for their adhering to fantasies? :Frown2: 

In old days, of course teachers were seen as absolute symbols of authority and knowledge: simply because they were so. Teachers were among the lucky few who actually went to school (beyond the elementary stage) and acquired some "knoweldge" and, in most cases, parents felt they had to trust the teachers' judgement.

However, things have - luckily - changed. Now, parents have expectations and are able to ask questions. This is not to say, of course, that there are some who take advantage of this opportunity or even abuse the system but, looking at the bigger picture, I think it is great that teachers are accountable and challenged in this way too. 

Why do I get the feeling that:

A. Sher has been teaching for less than 5 years... or...

b. Scher teaches at a nice cozy suburban school.


Of course I could be wrong... but from my experience the whole question of "accountability" is about laying the whole blame upon the teachers and avoiding the accountability of the parents, the administrators, the community (who repeatedly reject taxes needed to fund schools while passing levies to fund new sports stadiums), the education "experts", and the politicians.

----------


## mortalterror

Fatcat teachers and their commie unions spoiling our kids. That's why we all need too homeschool our children.

----------


## stlukesguild

Are you still stuck working at Taco Bell?

----------


## Vonny

> Are you still stuck working at Taco Bell?


If he is, he has job security, because fast food and liquor store jobs aren't going anywhere.


I don't know why but I keep envisioning Neely like this  :Banana:  before he reaches retirement. I can't get it out of my head!

----------


## Emil Miller

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1089323I think that what Neely refers to is the fact that many teachers enter the field with noble ideals of correcting inequalities in society through education of those students most in need. After some time in the system dealing with incompetent coworkers, continual educational reform "experts", gutless and/or vindictive, administrators horrible parents, and politicians who speak continually of "accountability" but never apply this term to parents, administrators, the education experts, the students, or their own incompetent meddling many teachers become rather cynical and start to agree with conservative individuals like Brian.[/QUOTE]

If conservative individuals had stood up to the 'progressive tendency', which also included many teachers, and held their ground, the horrendous faults that you and Neely have highlighted would never have come to pass. In a contest where liberalism versus conservatism in schools, or anywhere else for that matter, it's obvious that there really is _no_ contest: if by conservatism we mean commonsense backed by discipline.
I recall an instance when, as a schoolchild, I and the rest of the class were given new exercise books and asked to print our name on the front. Every child in the class printed his name on the front and I'm pretty sure that would have been the response in schools throughout the land. 
Educational reform, as with reform in general, is an ongoing thing, but at the point where it produces the opposite result to that intended, it should be rejected for the nonsense that it is.

----------


## Vonny

> In old days, of course teachers were seen as absolute symbols of authority and knowledge: simply because they were so. Teachers were among the lucky few who actually went to school (beyond the elementary stage) and acquired some "knoweldge" and, in most cases, *parents felt they had to trust the teachers' judgement.*


I've been debating whether to say this or not.

In the old days, parents worried that their child would miss out on a whipping, not that they would be whipped when they didn't deserve it.

Regarding that last part that I bolded:

Kids didn't used to be coddled and pampered and protected, and all that. That kind of thinking was foreign to folks long ago.

When my mom was a little girl, she once stayed later than she was supposed to at a friend's home. My grandmother went to bring her home and took the switch, and my mom said every time her foot touched the ground my grandmother wrapped the switch around her legs. 

But my mom says that at least grandma didn't "cut the blood out" the way my great-grandmother always did when she took the switch to my grandmother.

And there's a very long tradition in my family of children behaving in church.

It's funny that now there has to be daycare in churches because the kids can't be expected to sit in the pews next to their parents. In the old days the kids sat through church. It only took one encounter with the switch and then they sat like little angels right through the service. (Now I'm not necessarily advocating this, I'm just saying that this is how it worked.)

----------


## cafolini

> Yep, it could be that or...
> 
> I've finished the second Frank Chalk book which was just more of the same from the first, but still very good.
> 
> I've downloaded a sample of another similar type, about a teacher in a top school who quits his job, lives in a camper van and then goes on supply in rough schools for the 'experience'.  Yes that is what I'm thinking.


Interesting observation.

----------


## Seasider

@ Emil Miller
"The main problem is a lack of discipline and this is as a direct result of the post WW11 attitude inculcated by the 'We're the masters now', idiots that took over the UK in 1945. Dismantling the existing system was what they were about in the name of a spurious equality, and the result is what we have now."

The man who said "We are the Masters now." was Sir Hartley Shawcross, Attorney General in the post- war Labour Government. It was said in a debate on the subject of Trade Unions. He admitted that it was a mistake to say it. He did not stay in the Labour Party but went to the Lords as a cross-bencher, though his nickname was Sir Shortly Floorcross!

Free Secondary education was not introduced into England & Wales until 1902 administered by Local Education Authorities. Between this and the 1944 Education Act, approximately 75000 children from the age cohort would have a Grammar School place while the other 225000 would go to an Elementary School where the leaving age was not even 14 until 1921. 

These children would have no chance at all to take the Matriculation Certificate which was essential for Higher Education. 

The goal of Elementary schools was Literacy not Education. And if some schools now, for reasons discussed above, don't manage even that for every child... that is nothing to do with the 1944 Act.

The 1944 Act wasn't perfect but it gave the opportunity for bright working class children to be admitted to a Grammar School and proceed to Matriculation and University...and all free of charge!! Personally I thank my lucky stars for being born at a time to take advantage of it. My mother, born 1910, who was as bright and promising as I was,was forced to leave school at 13 to look after 6 siblings and her father after her mother died. 

The equality of opportunity which was established by the Act was in no sense _a spurious equality_  It established an equality, which though limited, replaced a system where there was none at all.

----------


## Emil Miller

> @ Emil Miller
> "The main problem is a lack of discipline and this is as a direct result of the post WW11 attitude inculcated by the 'We're the masters now', idiots that took over the UK in 1945. Dismantling the existing system was what they were about in the name of a spurious equality, and the result is what we have now."
> 
> The man who said "We are the Masters now" who was Sir Hartley Shawcross, Attorney General in the post- war Labour Government. It was said in a debate on the subject of Trade Unions. He admitted that it was a mistake to say it. He did not stay in the Labour Party but went to the Lords as a cross-bencher, though his nickname was Sir Shortly Floorcross!
> 
> Free Secondary education was not introduced into England & Wales until 1902 administered by Local Education Authorities. Between this and the 1944 Education Act, approximately 75000 children from the age cohort would have a Grammar School place while the other 225000 would go to an Elementary School where the leaving age was not even 14 until 1921. 
> 
> These children would have no chance at all to take the Matriculation Certificate which was essential for Higher Education. 
> 
> ...


I am aware that it was Sir Hartley Shawcross who said it, in fact he features as Britain's Attorney General and chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials in my book Pro Bono Publico. Interestingly, it was reported in Hansard that he was supposed to have said: "We are the masters at the moment and shall be for some considerable time." This was disputed by a member who was actually sitting behind him when he said it.
The 1944 Education Act was introduced by a Conservative Education Minister R.A.Butler with the principal intention of providing increased numbers of grammar school places for children than had previously been the case. 
As I have said, it was _after 1945_ that a Labour government began the process of loosening the constraints that would eventually lead to the abandonment of those very grammar schools that Rab Butler had engendered and replacing them with what we have now; all in the name of a spurious equality.
You were indeed fortunate in going to a grammar school before they were destroyed by Labour politicians. There's not much chance of able children going to them now. Incidentally, education at any level is never 'free', somebody has to pay for it in one form or another.

----------


## Seasider

> As I have said, it was after 1945 that a Labour government began the process of loosening the constraints that would eventually lead to the abandonment of those very grammar schools that Rab Butler had engendered and replacing them with what we have now; all in the name of a spurious equality.
> You were indeed fortunate in going to a grammar school before they were destroyed by Labour politicians. There's not much chance of able children going to them now. Incidentally, education at any level is never 'free', somebody has to pay for it in one form or another.


The 1944 Education Act was passed by a Coalition Government, not Rab Butler on his own, and was implemented from '45 by Ellen Wilkinson, the first Labour Minister of Education
There was no Labour Government to change the system between 1951 and 1964.

The Comprehensive School movement was not piloted by a group of doctrinaire Labour MPs, but by parents and teachers of all political stripes who recognised the essential unfairness of the prevailing system. Some LEAs had 10% Grammar School places, others 30+%. There were many more Boys' GSs than Girls'. So your gender and your location. not your intelligence, determined whether you had the privilege of a Grammar School education.

What happens in schools now, pace Frank Chalk and others, is to do with the particular social, economic, cultural and political conditions of the 21st Century in Britain...not the Post-War Government who gave us The National Health Service, Free Education from Infant schools to University and National Insurance.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

But even so, at least the old grammar school system allowed some students from poorer backgrounds to get to the top universities. Now there is virtually no chance of even a very bright student who attends one of these types of comprehensives getting there. It is a fact that there were more state school students attending Oxford or Cambridge in the 1970s than there are today. As Frank says for "99% of people nowadays their future is sealed from the moment they are born." So much for social mobity, what a joke.

The problem is that *all* parties do not support a return to the old system, as Frank highlights:




> None of the main parties agree with me - David Willets, the current Universities Minister declard in 2007 that the Conservatives will not support any kind of academic selection. He forgot to mention the fact that he was lucky enough to be able to go to a Grammar school himself (and sent his own chldren to privatre schools).
> 
> David Cameron, who was fortunate enough to be educated at Eton, rushed to enthusiastically support him. Nick Clegg (who attended the exclusive Westminster School) [both of which cost around £10,000 per term] has declared that he also opposes selection in schools.
> 
> On the other side of the house, Ed Balls says that Grammar Schools are responsible for making pupils feel like failures. I think that crap comprehensive schools wher you can just muck about all day and not learn anything are far more likely to make their pupils feel like failures (a few years after they leave with no qualifications).
> 
> Ed forgets to mention that he was sufficiently privileged to have parents who could afford to send him to a nice public school in Nottingham where he recieved an excellent education which enabled him to get to Oxford University.


The bottom line is that these comprehensives are failing. The two tier system was not perfect for sure, but what we have now in the state sector (of bottom schools) is failure for all; students and teachers alike.

----------


## Emil Miller

> The 1944 Education Act was passed by a Coalition Government, not Rab Butler on his own, and was implemented from '45 by Ellen Wilkinson, the first Labour Minister of Education
> There was no Labour Government to change the system between 1951 and 1964.
> 
> The Comprehensive School movement was not piloted by a group of doctrinaire Labour MPs, but by parents and teachers of all political stripes who recognised the essential unfairness of the prevailing system. Some LEAs had 10% Grammar School places, others 30+%. There were many more Boys' GSs than Girls'. So your gender and your location. not your intelligence, determined whether you had the privilege of a Grammar School education.
> 
> What happens in schools now, pace Frank Chalk and others, is to do with the particular social, economic, cultural and political conditions of the 21st Century in Britain...not the Post-War Government who gave us The National Health Service, Free Education from Infant schools to University and National Insurance.


There was a lot of controversy surrounding comprehensive education when it was mooted and it remained controversial until it was implemented and it still does.
Here's what Wikipedia says:
Circular 10/65 is a Government circular issued in 1965 by the Department of Education and Science (DES) requesting Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales to begin converting their secondary schools to the Comprehensive System. For most of England and Wales, it marked the abolition of the old grammar schools and secondary moderns, and the Eleven Plus examination. Circular 10/65 was the initiative of recently appointed Education Secretary Anthony Crosland; it is sometimes called the Crosland Circular. It reflected the Labour government's view that the existing Tripartite System of education was flawed, and had to be replaced with comprehensive schools, which had been increasing in number over the previous sixteen years.

That comprehensive education was the product of politicians is beyond doubt, here's what happened in relation to the Crosland Circular.

During the Circular's drafting, there was a debate in Whitehall over how strongly worded the Circular ought to be. Secondary education was not under the direct control of the DES, and all changes had to be implemented by the local authorities. Those firmly in favour of the comprehensive system believed that the Circular should convert all schools into comprehensives. Those preferring to preserve the balance of power between the DES and LEAs thought that the word should be "request". 
Upon release in July 1965 [1], the Circular used the word "request". In practice, the DES used its financial muscle to make opposition to the change harder. Local authorities relied on the central government to pay for the large number of new schools made necessary by the post-war baby boom. *The DES refused to pay for any new secondary school which was not a comprehensive. As a result, a number of LEAs otherwise supporting the tripartite system, such as Bromley and Surrey, found it necessary to go comprehensive.*
Within days of the election of a Conservative government in June 1970, the new education minister Margaret Thatcher withdrew the Circular. The replacement, Circular 10/70, allowed each authority to decide its own policy.

As for doctrinaire politicians here's the well-known infamous quote from Anthony Crosland, then Secretary of State for Education. You may choose to believe Roy Hattersley's denial but I wouldn't.

_In her biography published in 1982, Susan Crosland claimed her husband had told her "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every ****ing grammar school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland", although close associates such as Roy Hattersley have doubted that the quotation is genuine. The outcome has been a source of controversy ever since._

Frank Chalk's book highlights problems that have been ongoing well before the 21st century.

----------


## OrphanPip

I think you exaggerate how bad things are to an extent. I went to a public school that was ranked 26th out of 27 English language schools in Montreal, the only one behind us was the one servicing the Mohawk reserve. I managed to receive a reasonable quality education and attend the top ranked life science university in Canada, and a top 20 internationally. 

There is a problem with the idea of getting rid of the "egalitarian" principles, which is can we really trust the ability of the system to accurately predict the ability of students? The difficulty with tailoring education to the needs of individual students is, like stlukes said, the issue of cost. The likely end result is that the system will just reinforce social inequalities and funnel privileges towards children already coming from better environments, because that would be the most cost effective use of funds. 

One thing we should probably consider is why Canada (3rd in reading, 5th in math and science) and Australia (5th, 9th, and 15th), which are culturally very similar to the US (14th, 25th, 17th) and UK (20th, 22nd, 11th), rank higher in international performance. We have a comprehensive school system, and teacher's unions, so why do we not have the same systemic education problems? How is the education system in the US and UK differing from that in Canada, or other top performers for public schools like South Korea and Finland.

----------


## Emil Miller

> I think you exaggerate how bad things are to an extent. I went to a public school that was ranked 26th out of 27 English language schools in Montreal, the only one behind us was the one servicing the Mohawk reserve. I managed to receive a reasonable quality education and attend the top ranked life science university in Canada, and a top 20 internationally. 
> 
> There is a problem with the idea of getting rid of the "egalitarian" principles, which is can we really trust the ability of the system to accurately predict the ability of students? The difficulty with tailoring education to the needs of individual students is, like stlukes said, the issue of cost. The likely end result is that the system will just reinforce social inequalities and funnel privileges towards children already coming from better environments, because that would be the most cost effective use of funds. 
> 
> One thing we should probably consider is why Canada and Australia, which are culturally very similar to the US and UK, rank so much higher in international performance. We have a comprehensive school system, and teacher's unions, so why do we not have the same systemic education problems?


Well tell it to Frank Chalk, he's the guy with the direct experience of the problem which has been consistently highlighted in the UK media for many years. I've no doubt that some UK comprehensive schools function well enough under the comprehensive system but the fact that there are many that don't shows that it is no panacea. Whether Australia or Canada find the system congenial has no correlation in UK terms where the density of population and cultural mix is far greater than either. This has much to do with immigration policies pursued by British politicians that have had a noticeably greater effect on the UK than that of many other countries.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I love it. StLukes makes a wonderfully sensical, coherent argument, and this is Emil's recap: Conservatives GOOD, Liberals BAD.  :FRlol:

----------


## Seasider

> As for doctrinaire politicians here's the well-known infamous quote from Anthony Crosland, then Secretary of State for Education. You may choose to believe Roy Hattersley's denial but I wouldn't.
> 
> _In her biography published in 1982, Susan Crosland claimed her husband had told her "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every ****ing grammar school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland", although close associates such as Roy Hattersley have doubted that the quotation is genuine. The outcome has been a source of controversy ever since._


I'm afraid I don't regard hearsay, and second-hand hearsay at that, as having any place in a serious argument. 

Inner city schools have all kinds of reasons for failure. Like all Comprehensives they are neighbourhood schools and conditions will reflect that. Neighbourhoods marked by poverty, urban decay, crime, unemployment, lack of aspiration etc will import these conditions into schools. And teachers, however good they are cannot be a panacea for all ills. 
This Government is edging towards the opinion that the problem may be solved not by any improvement in social conditions but by Discipline and Latin!!! Academies?? Watch this space!

----------


## stlukesguild

I think you exaggerate how bad things are to an extent. I went to a public school that was ranked 26th out of 27 English language schools in Montreal, the only one behind us was the one servicing the Mohawk reserve. I managed to receive a reasonable quality education and attend the top ranked life science university in Canada, and a top 20 internationally. 

I cannot speak for Neely, but I will state that there is no need for exaggeration in my instance... and as bad as these conditions may be, I have heard from teachers at other schools in the same district... or other large urban districts... where the conditions were even worse. 

I should not that I do not expect that the conditions I or Neely speak of are commonplace in public schools across the nation. My own personal experience of public schools in a middle-class suburban district was quite different. The conditions for learning at this school... and I would surmise at a majority of the public schools in the middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods is quite good. The scoring of the American Schools is being dragged down predominantly by the poor urban and rural schools. 

Pip raises a good question of why there is this disparity in scores between US and UK schools on one hand and Canadian schools on the other hand, considering that the demographics are largely equal. I will not attempt to speak to the British schools, knowing nothing of them or the demographics first hand. I will, however, look at the issue from the US perspective. According to available numbers the Canadian minority population (16.2%) consists of aboriginal or First Nations (3.8%), Asian (7.9%), Black (2.5%) and a remaining mixed minority population of (1.9%). By way of contrast the US minority population consists of a minority population of 36.3%. Of these the largest groups are Hispanic (16.3%), Black/African-American (12.6%), and Asian (4.8%). 

The Asian population, which makes up Canada's largest minority group, has historically been very supportive of education and very solid in terms of family structure. The Black population in the United States has had a long adversarial relationship with education, owing, no doubt, much to slavery and racism... but also to poverty and the failure of the Black American families. In many of the poor Black communities single-family homes... usually headed by a woman... are the reality in 90%+ of the instances. The Hispanic population as a whole has been no less successful in supporting education of their children in the US. 

Much of this ties over to poverty. The Black and Hispanic communities are continually ranked among the poorest in the US. The US poverty rate as a whole is over 15%. The Canadian poverty rate lies somewhere between a a little under 5% (according to Conservative polls) and a little over 10% (according to liberal polls). If we estimate that the reality lies somewhere in between and split the difference we find that the US poverty rate stands at double that of Canada.

If we look at Norway we find a rather homogeneous culture. The largest non-European minority is that of Pakistanis who account for a mere .7% of the population. This homogeneous character carries over into language and religion as well. Looking at poverty, the percentage of Norwegians living at or below the poverty rate is estimated at 4.3%.

One can certainly use such data to help explain the disparity between school scores in the US, Canada, and Norway when we recognize that poverty is one of the largest indicators for academic success and that the populations most susceptible to poverty in the US are the Black and Hispanic populations who both have a long history of distrust and lack of support for public education. 

Of course there are undoubtedly other factors as well, including the homogeneity of the culture as a whole, the structure of the school systems, the Federal support (or lack thereof) for national standards for both students and the education of teachers, the degree of respect for education and educators, etc...

The great problem now faced by public education as a whole in the US is that the notion once almost universally held that *all children should be given an equal access to the quality education needed to succeed in our society* is challenged by those of conservative views such as MortalTerror who are willing to throw the majority of the urban and poor rural student population into the trash heap because the education of these students has become "too expensive". If public education were eliminated in the US tomorrow and replaced by for-profit private schools the quality of education in most middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods would not change much. In the rural schools and urban schools where the costs of education are far greater due to increases in violence and need for security, increases in needs for special services to deal with large populations of developmental, emotional, behavioral, and physical handicaps (directly tied to poverty), increases in needs for psychological services to deal with increased abuse (sexual, physical, emotional, alcohol/drugs), etc... the quality of education would decline drastically... as can be seen in the scores of private charter schools which have opened in urban neighborhoods. The results will be a further level of locking children into the economic state that they were born in, and an increase in the divide between the rich and the poor... something that is already carrying over into the colleges and universities in the US.

If we, as a society, are to decide that it is OK to write off large portions of the population figuring that the strongest will survive, no matter what the conditions are, and the rest simply aren't worth the cost, we should consider the long-term economic ramifications of such a policy. The continued education of the poor urban and rural populations is indeed expensive, and a great many students within these schools continue to fail in spite of the best efforts of teachers, parents, administrators, and other forms of intervention. What, however, will be the cost of supporting the whole of this population on Welfare and Food Stamps, and subsidized housing, and free health-care (to say nothing of prison) if we write the population as a whole off assuring that they will largely be unemployable in today's economy? This was a possibility 50 years ago when the student who couldn't read beyond a 4th grade level dropped out in the 8th grade and yet was assured of a good job working in the booming American industrial market. This is no longer the reality... and if we recognize that we now live in an global market where we need to be able to increasingly be able to compete with the "hungry" and driven populations of China, India, South America, Korea, etc... then we need to take the education of the entire population seriously and stop all the political games.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Whether Australia or Canada find the system congenial has no correlation in UK terms where the density of population and cultural mix is far greater than either. This has much to do with immigration policies pursued by British politicians that have had a noticeably greater effect on the UK than that of many other countries.


While there is certainly a greater population density in the UK (although most of Canada's population is packed in large urban centres, like the US), Canada is actually more ethnically diverse than the UK, and it also has the highest immigration rate, per capita, in the developed world. Of course, we don't have the history of slavery or problems with illegal immigration like the US, which is very likely the most diverse population in the West.

Issues of ethnicity do tie into problems of systemic poverty, but blaming the immigrants doesn't seem like an adequate explanation, just like blaming the system doesn't seem to work quite well when the same basic aspects of the system work in other places. The focus should be on pragmatic examination of ways to improve performance and help deal with the systemic problems that make the system work in one place and not in another.

In Quebec, the public system snaps the poor kids up quickly, they get integrated into the national daycare program from as early as 3, where there is the beginnings of an education program. A big problem with systemic poverty is that a great deal of a child's cognitive development happens way before they ever end up in a classroom with a teacher. There's so much more at play than any ideological bogeyman of "liberalism" in the schools.

----------


## cafolini

> I think you exaggerate how bad things are to an extent. I went to a public school that was ranked 26th out of 27 English language schools in Montreal, the only one behind us was the one servicing the Mohawk reserve. I managed to receive a reasonable quality education and attend the top ranked life science university in Canada, and a top 20 internationally. 
> 
> I cannot speak for Neely, but I will state that there is no need for exaggeration in my instance... and as bad as these conditions may be, I have heard from teachers at other schools in the same district... or other large urban districts... where the conditions were even worse. 
> 
> I should not that I do not expect that the conditions I or Neely speak of are commonplace in public schools across the nation. My own personal experience of public schools in a middle-class suburban district was quite different. The conditions for learning at this school... and I would surmise at a majority of the public schools in the middle-class and wealthy neighborhoods is quite good. The scoring of the American Schools is being dragged down predominantly by the poor urban and rural schools. 
> 
> Pip raises a good question of why there is this disparity in scores between US and UK schools on one hand and Canadian schools on the other hand, considering that the demographics are largely equal. I will not attempt to speak to the British schools, knowing nothing of them or the demographics first hand. I will, however, look at the issue from the US perspective. According to available numbers the Canadian minority population (16.2%) consists of aboriginal or First Nations (3.8%), Asian (7.9%), Black (2.5%) and a remaining mixed minority population of (1.9%). By way of contrast the US minority population consists of a minority population of 36.3%. Of these the largest groups are Hispanic (16.3%), Black/African-American (12.6%), and Asian (4.8%). 
> 
> The Asian population, which makes up Canada's largest minority group, has historically been very supportive of education and very solid in terms of family structure. The Black population in the United States has had a long adversarial relationship with education, owing, no doubt, much to slavery and racism... but also to poverty and the failure of the Black American families. In many of the poor Black communities single-family homes... usually headed by a woman... are the reality in 90%+ of the instances. The Hispanic population as a whole has been no less successful in supporting education of their children in the US. 
> ...


Frankly, I don't think you understand the American system and the richness of the human resources we have here. And what is poverty measured by? When an American tells you poverty is 15%, it is measured by what we consider poverty level, not by any international standard, which in the first place does not occur beyond the propaganda machine. The poorest hispanic in America has an effective standard of life 7 to 10 times better than in any Spanish country. The poorest black has a standard tens of times better than in any African nation. It's not for nothing that the petitions for resident visas to come to America are hundreds of times higher than for the rest of the world. And it will continue to be so.

----------


## qimissung

[QUOTE=Vonny;1085488]Qimi, I think the confusion is that what you and I call Liberal and Conservative is different from what they call liberal and conservative. All the time I fall into this, where I am conservative, however I'm not Conservative. I'm also not Liberal. 

In our country everything is so controlled by the C & L that many aren't able to think outside the box anymore.
QUOTE]

Thanks, Vonny, to you and Stlukes for clearing up the conservative/liberal question. I think we do the whole question of how to deal with our schools and particularly our low-performing schools a disservice when we divide the issues and solutions into liberal or conservative camps. For one thing you've immediately decided that some things will work on not based solely on whoever thought them up, which is ridiculous in itself. Secondly, when we do that we demonize whole portions of humanity who have committed the sin of not thinking as we do, which is also ridiculous.

I'm afraid, Emil, much as we might want to bring back the good old days of caning recalcitrant students, that those days are gone for good. There are things that can be done that would be effective, if only....we'd be practical and ask questions:

Is it truly supportive?

Does it really help?

Is this really working?

The qualifiers are really necessary, I think.

I just started reading "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (I realize I'm probably the last person in the Northern Hemisphere to do so, but there it is) and I skipped ahead to the chapter titled "What Makes a Perfect Parent" and found this:

"...school choice barely mattered at all.It is true that the Chicago students who entered the school choice lottery were more likely to graduate than the students who didn't-which seems to suggest that school choice does make a difference. But that's an illusion. The proof is in this comparison: the students who won the lottery and went to a "better" school did no better than equivalent students who lost the lottery and were left behind."

What did seem to help a significant portion of the students it goes on to say, was having a technical school or career academy, something I have long wished for at our school, which has systematically been doing away with these classes for the last ten years. I wondered if in wishing for this I was shortchanging our students, but I still feel that such programs would help, provided it is the students choice to go into them. In the United States they could still go on to get a higher education if they wanted too later. 

Unfortunately, in Texas at any rate, we are striving to have one hundred per cent of our students go to college. Against their will, usually. Honoring what these young adults want is never encouraged. They are simply enrolled in classes and handed a schedule. If they passed the state-mandated test they may find themselves in AP classes from which they cannot withdraw unless they bring their parent or guardian to see the counselor.

In high schools, also, the principal is paid according to the number of students enrolled. For a long time that meant that we took any kid, even those not any longer welcome in other districts.

And as far as teachers mollycoddleing the students, it seemed to me that it was the administrators who did not back up the teachers that often caused the problems. The other day I had a student who wanted to leave the room. I told her no; she walked out anyway. I was furious and planning to write a referral. She came back and pretty much demanded re-entry. Finally the assitant principal came and explained the situation to me. All that trouble could have been saved if he'd only bothered to write me a note or her a pass.

Yesterday the same student told me again that her doctor told her she shouldn't carry a notebook for health reasons. I told her I would have to see a note from her doctor before I would accept that. Then she told me she had to leave early again. I told her that the asst. principal had told me that that was in effect only through last week. Guess what? She walked out again.

Of course I went back to the assistant principal. He told her what he told me and said he hoped I would write a referral. It was such a relief. The last principal we had took the students side over the teachers.

----------


## stlukesguild

Frankly, I don't think you understand the American system and the richness of the human resources we have here. And what is poverty measured by? When an American tells you poverty is 15%, it is measured by what we consider poverty level, not by any international standard, which in the first place does not occur beyond the propaganda machine. The poorest hispanic in America has an effective standard of life 7 to 10 times better than in any Spanish country. The poorest black has a standard tens of times better than in any African nation. It's not for nothing that the petitions for resident visas to come to America are hundreds of times higher than for the rest of the world. And it will continue to be so.

And your grasp of the reality of American poverty is based on what? How many years of first hand experience in the poor neighborhoods of urban America? Or perhaps a couple years of college that have led you to think you are an expert in everything?

Yes the standard of living of the average American living beneath the poverty level is undoubtedly far greater than that of the child living on the streets in the Sao Paolo or a great majority in war-torn Somalia so we should just tell that to the America child who relies upon the free lunch programs at his public schools for the only meals he will have this week because it's the end of the month and Mom is out of money until the first of the month and her Welfare and Food Stamps arrive. The fact that he or she has to walk past drug-dealers, crack heads, whores, gang-bangers, and boarded up houses to a decapitated school built in 1903 with one bathroom in the basement, inadequate heating, and no air-conditioning in the summer months is OK because... hell it could be worse. he or she could be living in Afghanistan.

 :Patriot:

----------


## Vonny

> In Quebec, the public system snaps the poor kids up quickly, they get integrated into the national daycare program from as early as 3, where there is the beginnings of an education program. *A big problem with systemic poverty is that a great deal of a child's cognitive development happens way before they ever end up in a classroom with a teacher.* There's so much more at play than any ideological bogeyman of "liberalism" in the schools.


I think this is it, right here: The battle is won or lost LONG before the child begins first grade.

And Qimissung, I'm not in on the conservative/liberal debate. Are Emil and Stlukes on opposite side of that? Because both of them make sense to me. I can even see Mortalterror's point, homeschool if you can.

Qimissung, who is paying for all of those kids to go to college who don't want to go? Are they forced to take out loans? And then there are not many jobs anymore for people who do graduate from college. You certainly don't want to major in Education!

----------


## Seasider

Reading all the posts on this thread encouraged me to go back to the book which I had downloaded earlier this year.

I was reminded that Frank Chalk claims to be a Supply Teacher...one who substitutes in cases of staff absence.

I have held both permanent positions and done supply work and it was my experience that however much the teacher disliked the latter, this was exceeded by how much pupils disliked having constant changes of teachers. 

When I was training I was made aware of the necessity of forming a relationship with your pupils and being consistent in what you expected and and what you rejected. Pupils preferred certainties of routine and rules and reacted badly to arbitrary changes, which might only be in operation for a day, or even a lesson.

I went back into Supply Teaching for 18 months after 20 years in Higher Ed and I could not believe how hard and stressful it was when compared with my earlier experiences.

What struck me was the fact that the class did not like having to get used to someone else just for a couple of days, and demonstrated this by hostility and often rudeness. 

My discomfiture was not helped by some established teachers speculating on why I was having difficulties with Class X or Y, while he/she found them no trouble at all!

Of course this one aspect does not explain or excuse bad behaviour. The reasons for much of it have been cogently argued by previous posters. But I think it is disingenuous of Chalk to lay the blame solely on the pupils.

And apart from that a book about quiet, well behaved, hard working pupils and happy fulfilled teachers would never have achieved the sales of the two books he has written,which may have enabled him to leave the classroom behind.

----------


## cafolini

> Frankly, I don't think you understand the American system and the richness of the human resources we have here. And what is poverty measured by? When an American tells you poverty is 15%, it is measured by what we consider poverty level, not by any international standard, which in the first place does not occur beyond the propaganda machine. The poorest hispanic in America has an effective standard of life 7 to 10 times better than in any Spanish country. The poorest black has a standard tens of times better than in any African nation. It's not for nothing that the petitions for resident visas to come to America are hundreds of times higher than for the rest of the world. And it will continue to be so.
> 
> And your grasp of the reality of American poverty is based on what? How many years of first hand experience in the poor neighborhoods of urban America? Or perhaps a couple years of college that have led you to think you are an expert in everything?
> 
> Yes the standard of living of the average American living beneath the poverty level is undoubtedly far greater than that of the child living on the streets in the Sao Paolo or a great majority in war-torn Somalia so we should just tell that to the America child who relies upon the free lunch programs at his public schools for the only meals he will have this week because it's the end of the month and Mom is out of money until the first of the month and her Welfare and Food Stamps arrive. The fact that he or she has to walk past drug-dealers, crack heads, whores, gang-bangers, and boarded up houses to a decapitated school built in 1903 with one bathroom in the basement, inadequate heating, and no air-conditioning in the summer months is OK because... hell it could be worse. he or she could be living in Afghanistan.


There are disagreements of all kinds in America regarding poverty level and how to establish canons. The point is that this idea of international standards is false. There are none other than the ones established by propaganda machines and do not and cannot occur.
Considering the amount of services and the assistance the poor people get in the actual three-dimensional experience of America, makes them many times richer than in most countries in the world.
Of course we have a lot of mongers that think otherwise. But that has always been the case in America while in the reality of everyday experience we have overcome the warnings for catastrophe with actual progress in all spheres. And people ask: "What are you talking about? Even your own Americans tell you that you are in crisis, in deep trouble."
This is true. Complete freedom of speech in America (and we want to keep it that way and we will) causes a certain havoc in the media which has no actual empirical foundation. It has always been that way and will continue to be so. Our resources are so far ahead of the times that the rest of the world cannot understand their outreaching capabilities. And the meaning of money is being redefined constantly. Behind the scene of the mongers from the GOP (and many are not mongers) our so-called CRISIS is a Pistachio Parfait. Have fun. A salute from the land of the free and the home of the brave.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Reading all the posts on this thread encouraged me to go back to the book which I had downloaded earlier this year.
> 
> I was reminded that Frank Chalk claims to be a Supply Teacher...one who substitutes in cases of staff absence.
> 
> I have held both permanent positions and done supply work and it was my experience that however much the teacher disliked the latter, this was exceeded by how much pupils disliked having constant changes of teachers. 
> 
> When I was training I was made aware of the necessity of forming a relationship with your pupils and being consistent in what you expected and and what you rejected. Pupils preferred certainties of routine and rules and reacted badly to arbitrary changes, which might only be in operation for a day, or even a lesson.
> 
> I went back into Supply Teaching for 18 months after 20 years in Higher Ed and I could not believe how hard and stressful it was when compared with my earlier experiences.
> ...


It is a fair point. Certainly it is harder doing supply work and covering absent teachers, it brings out the worse in students as they see it as a free lesson and think that they can get away with things they otherwise wouldnt. I did this for five years myself. However, the sort of behaviour he describes is not exaggerated and even very experienced teachers have lessons like he describes in this book all the time. Last week I was working with one of these and we had to get rid of 5 students from a class of 17 just to function somewhat normally. So its not just supply who get the brunt end of it all the time, just perhaps more often. 

Chalk doesnt lay the blame solely on the pupils, perhaps Ive mainly focused on that, but he doesnt do that. In his books he points to other factors including the lack of support from above, social and economic circumstances, poor teaching, the comprehensive system, the hippy buzz methods and so on, so he definitely doesnt lay the blame solely at their door, though there is never any excuse for poor behaviour as you say.




> A salute from the land of the free and the home of the brave.


Oh dear! The Queen says Hello.

----------


## cafolini

> Oh dear! The Queen says Hello.


The Queen is eternal gossip in the UK. Most likely it is Thatcher from Faulklands. You entreprenourial weasels can sell the house of lords to Australia. I know you hate being small brothers, but look at the price of the English pound. We are doing a good job. Aren't we? And didn't we pay attention when you closed Gaddafi's embassy? Euro for Europeans and Catholics with Big Imaginary Bang in the shores of the Cam. Don't abandon Newton, please. We honor you. Be good. :Leaving:

----------


## Emil Miller

> I'm afraid I don't regard hearsay, and second-hand hearsay at that, as having any place in a serious argument. 
> 
> Inner city schools have all kinds of reasons for failure. Like all Comprehensives they are neighbourhood schools and conditions will reflect that. Neighbourhoods marked by poverty, urban decay, crime, unemployment, lack of aspiration etc will import these conditions into schools. And teachers, however good they are cannot be a panacea for all ills. 
> This Government is edging towards the opinion that the problem may be solved not by any improvement in social conditions but by Discipline and Latin!!! Academies?? Watch this space!


Before WW11, neighbourhoods were marked by poverty, urban decay and unemployment to a greater degree than today -I won't say lack of aspiration because it's not a thing that can be meaningfully measured and punitive sentencing tended top keep crime relatively low- and yet I have a photograph taken in 1939 showing the class of an inner city school. The pupils are all sitting behind desks with a well-dressed teacher standing at the back. There is no sign of hooliganism and the boys, all from working class families who were living through hard times according to the man who originally owned the photo, look relatively relaxed. Post-war improvements in social conditions don't seem to have had the effect that you claim for them, so perhaps the opinion that the government is edging towards is correct.
And now abideth discipline, Latin, academies; but the greatest of these is discipline.

----------


## Seasider

One piece of hearsay and one photograph...not much of a case.

In 1939 the School leaving Age was 14 so the age group which most people find the most troublesome were not in school but at work if they could get it.

The Thirties is a decade supposedly dominated by poverty, social deprivation and so on, but in fact there were many areas outside the older industrial conurbations where new industries were springing up and unemployment was not the norm...the motor industry in Luton, Bedford and Oxford were examples of this as was the construction industry. The Thirties was also a great period of house building, the development of the suburbs and road building did provide employment for working class boys. and for girls there was still the opportunity of domestic service.

So the profile of the school population in the Thirties is very different to that which exists today. So comparisons of behaviour and attainment then and now are not comparing like with like.

----------


## Vonny

> Originally Posted by Vonny
> 
> 
> Qimi, I think the confusion is that what you and I call Liberal and Conservative is different from what they call liberal and conservative. All the time I fall into this, where I am conservative, however I'm not Conservative. I'm also not Liberal. 
> 
> In our country everything is so controlled by the C & L that many aren't able to think outside the box anymore.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Vonny, to you and Stlukes for clearing up the conservative/liberal question. I think we do the whole question of how to deal with our schools and particularly our low-performing schools a disservice when we divide the issues and solutions into liberal or conservative camps. For one thing you've immediately decided that some things will work on not based solely on whoever thought them up, which is ridiculous in itself. Secondly, when we do that we demonize whole portions of humanity who have committed the sin of not thinking as we do, which is also ridiculous.
> ...


Qimissung, I have a few questions. For one thing, I've often thought that some type of on-the-job training should be a part of high school. And I think a tech school or vocational training or career academy would be a great thing. However, one problem with this is that if you train people to be electricians or plumbers, or to do manicures, there isn't enough demand for these service jobs to give everyone work. 

The other thing is that all of these career colleges are a big scam right now. They charge horrendous fees and the education isn't quality. People graduate and can't find employment, and then the have a ton of school loan debt that they can't even get out from under through bankruptcy.

And then, on a separate issue, when you have an insolent and arrogant teenager, who will lie to a teacher, or defiantly walk out of the room - basically, all this is is a complete lack of respect - something has gone wrong in the development of that individual. Even if you can get the principle or authorities to force that child to do something at a certain time, there's something going on in that child's logic that is going to doom her/him to failure, don't you think?

One other question Qimissung, have you read the Little House books? I'd like to ask Stlukes this question, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he hasn't read them, which has left a large gap in his education. (I intend that comment with some humor, but not sarcasm.)

Going into my own personal experience again... own brain is formed differently. I would not consider being defiant to a teacher, or boss or doctor, or anyone like that -- unless I thought it through intellectually and there was some reason to do that -- it isn't a part of my nature. The reason for this is that after my father left, my brothers raised me. I was left at home with my brothers and we had no babysitter. And I knew that if I back-talked them or tried to throw my weight around, they would stomp me. They would absolutely stomp me into the ground.

----------


## cafolini

What was the effect of the stomping?

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> What was the effect of the stomping?


A child would learn to never do it again...though even correct behaviour management would do that, instead now we have no boundaries and seem puzzled when things get out of hand.




> And apart from that a book about quiet, well behaved, hard working pupils and happy fulfilled teachers would never have achieved the sales of the two books he has written,which may have enabled him to leave the classroom behind.


Yes I know, I bet there are teachers/classroom assistants up and down the country kicking themselves, including me! Come to think of it, Frank McCourt wrote an interesting one based in his experiences in American schools in his book _Teacher Man_, which is also an interesting read and not too dissimilar to Frank Chalks own accounts. Someone has always got there before you.

----------


## Vonny

The effect of the stomping was that I learned to respect authority figures. As an adult I will question them, etc., but I'm not insolent and arrogant. My brothers were whipped with a belt, or garden hose. I once saw my dad hit my brother Mark in the nose and blood ran down his face. Mark works today and has never been in trouble with the law. My brothers had to obey and respect my dad, and today Mark has a very difficult boss that he gets along with fine.

I read all of Frank McCourt's books. He grew up in the worst possible conditions, something like Laura Ingalls Wilder, and both he and Laura had a great, insatiable thirst for learning and literature. Frank was very disappointed with trying to teach, and he finally worked into the job at Stuyvesant High School where he was able to do some good.

I don't want to diminish at all what Stlukes was saying about the conditions under which kids in big urban cities live. I honestly don't think I could live there at all. I would rather be dead. But there are people who live in very deprived and desperate circumstances who still want to study and learn.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> But there are people who live in very deprived and desperate circumstances who still want to study and learn.


Absolutely, and therein lies the most frustrating aspect of all; watching these students fail, or be failed, constantly by the schools they are trapped in. A teacher who works in schools such as the one Frank describes will see thousands of these types ignored and forgotten in the desperate fight to control unruly behaviour. At least under the old grammar system these had a chance to escape into a decent school with decent future prospects, instead of being lumped into the nearest comprehensive madhouse.

----------


## cafolini

> Absolutely, and therein lies the most frustrating aspect of all; watching these students fail, or be failed, constantly by the schools they are trapped in. A teacher who works in schools such as the one Frank describes will see thousands of these types ignored and forgotten in the desperate fight to control unruly behaviour. At least under the old grammar system these had a chance to escape into a decent school with decent future prospects, instead of being lumped into the nearest comprehensive madhouse.


It is not true that those schools fail the good students.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> It is not true that those schools fail the good students.


Really? I bow to your extensive knowledge and forget what I see happening every single day.

----------


## stlukesguild

cafolini- It is not true that those schools fail the good students.

Neely- Really? I bow to your extensive knowledge and forget what I see happening every single day.

This article seems quite apropos:

http://thecollegevoice.org/2011/11/0...-biggest-flaw/

 :Cornut:

----------


## cafolini

> cafolini- It is not true that those schools fail the good students.
> 
> Neely- Really? I bow to your extensive knowledge and forget what I see happening every single day.
> 
> This article seems quite apropos:
> 
> http://thecollegevoice.org/2011/11/0...-biggest-flaw/


For every article you find that says that, you find another one that says exactly the opposite, but it's logical that people pay far more attention to bad predictions than good ones. I do not see it your way. As a matter of fact, I see this generation as the brightest ever by far. And that idea that America is doomed is pure propaganda machine. We'll have to wait and see who's correct. But how long do we have to wait? What you are saying has now been heard for over 20 years. Well, we'll see. I give you 20 more.

And please don't make yawn by telling me that I think I'm an expert at everything simply because your expert's interpretation does not coincide with mine.

----------


## Vonny

> *And please don't make yawn*


Have the predictions already come to pass? Why is it that so many interesting threads have to be closed because of lack of civility? Is brightness even the important thing for making a civilization function?

----------


## cafolini

> Have the predictions already come to pass? Why is it that so many interesting threads have to be closed because of lack of civility? Is brightness even the important thing for making a civilization function?


You could be right. Not necessarily. Could it be civil stomping?

----------


## Vonny

> You could be right. Not necessarily. Could it be civil stomping?


If you watch the movie _An Unfinished Life_ with Robert Redford you'll see an example of a grandfather effectively disciplining his granddaughter without the stomping. I think what he taught the little girl was more important maybe than reading or writing.

Thank you for acknowledging that I could be right.

----------


## Emil Miller

> One piece of hearsay and one photograph...not much of a case.
> 
> In 1939 the School leaving Age was 14 so the age group which most people find the most troublesome were not in school but at work if they could get it.
> 
> The Thirties is a decade supposedly dominated by poverty, social deprivation and so on, but in fact there were many areas outside the older industrial conurbations where new industries were springing up and unemployment was not the norm...the motor industry in Luton, Bedford and Oxford were examples of this as was the construction industry. The Thirties was also a great period of house building, the development of the suburbs and road building did provide employment for working class boys. and for girls there was still the opportunity of domestic service.
> 
> So the profile of the school population in the Thirties is very different to that which exists today. So comparisons of behaviour and attainment then and now are not comparing like with like.


This sub-forum has a history of participants in denial of empirical evidence but if you don't accept what I have posted in this regard, what about Neely's and St Lukesguild or even your own:

_"I went back into Supply Teaching for 18 months after 20 years in Higher Ed and I could not believe how hard and stressful it was when compared with my earlier experiences.
What struck me was the fact that the class did not like having to get used to someone else just for a couple of days, and demonstrated this by hostility and often rudeness."_

What do you think had happened during those twenty years? Why should pupils be allowed to be hostile and rude to any teacher? When they are in school they should be controlled by whatever means necessary; making excuses for bad behaviour merely encourages it and adds to the problem.
Some teachers might find it useful to build up a relationship with their pupils but it should be one of respect and where it is lacking they should be disciplined by the teacher is in charge. 
I know that it isn't like that now, but it should be if we are going to escape the blackboard jungle that is the fate of many comprehensive schools. The alternative is for liberals to carry on in pursuit of their wishful thinking with its correlated self-deception and stay where we are now.

----------


## Drkshadow03

Can someone please define liberal education policies versus conservative education policies with concrete examples, particularly a handful of them?

----------


## qimissung

Thank you for asking that question, Drkshadow. 

I personally don't think that,in America at least, that the educational system is a product of either the conservatives or the liberals. At the moment, if anything,it is laboring under the "No Child Left Behind" policies instituted by the Bush administration. According to the New York Times :

_"The current No Child Left Behind law requires that test scores increase in every school every year, to meet the requirement that 100 percent of students reach proficiency by 2014. According to a new research report, 31,737 of the 98,916 schools missed the laws testing goals in 2009, vastly more than any level of government can help to improve."_

It's a law that was passed with the backing of both parties, but it doesn't seem like it's working, either. Probably because it is quite punitive.

Anyway, the full article is below, as is an article from Wikipedia explaining the law for those folks from other countries who may not know much about it.

School reform is a hot topic here in the states. I'm not sure that I think that schools in general are in such bad shape. Schools in urban areas, though, are not doing well. The problems are myriad. They do require a lot of support that they simply do not get, and then when they don't perform well they are punished; not necessarily a recipe for success, n'est pas?


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refere...act/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

----------


## Mr.lucifer

When you guys talk about discipline, you mean the authoritative style, not the authoritarian style, right?

----------


## stlukesguild

Can someone please define liberal education policies versus conservative education policies with concrete examples, particularly a handful of them?

OK... some Liberal/Progressive policies would include pressuring teachers not to mark student's papers with red ink as it might damage their precious egos. Emphasizing the achievements of minorities at the expense of learning about the major historical/cultural figures necessary for a child to succeed in today's society (And no, this is not an anti-multiculturalism diatribe. I am fully for exploring the achievements of all cultures, races, genders... but we shouldn't be spending more time [in the US] studying about Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks than Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.) Elimination of phonic for whole language immersion. Eliminating ability tracking. Attempting to enforce an illusion of egalitarianism by taking inclusion to the extreme. Social promotion championed again as a means of avoiding damage to the student's fragile ego. Refusal to enforce expectation for student behavior or hold students accountable.

On the Conservative side we have the push for the inclusion of prayer and religion in the classroom. We have the attempt to eliminate ESL is the belief that all children should learn English of go home. We have the push to eliminate nearly all reference to the achievements of cultures beyond European/Americans. We have the push to eliminate thinking that challenges conservative ideas regarding sex, birth control, evolution, history, etc... We have the push to enforce positive views of Capitalism, American military intervention, etc... as opposed to encouraging students to explore all sides of a given debate and come to their own conclusion.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Can someone please define liberal education policies versus conservative education policies with concrete examples, particularly a handful of them?
> 
> OK... some Liberal/Progressive policies would include pressuring teachers not to mark student's papers with red ink as it might damage their precious egos. Emphasizing the achievements of minorities at the expense of learning about the major historical/cultural figures necessary for a child to succeed in today's society (And no, this is not an anti-multiculturalism diatribe. I am fully for exploring the achievements of all cultures, races, genders... but we shouldn't be spending more time [in the US] studying about Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks than Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.) Elimination of phonic for whole language immersion. Eliminating ability tracking. Attempting to enforce an illusion of egalitarianism by taking inclusion to the extreme. Social promotion championed again as a means of avoiding damage to the student's fragile ego. Refusal to enforce expectation for student behavior or hold students accountable.
> 
> On the Conservative side we have the push for the inclusion of prayer and religion in the classroom. We have the attempt to eliminate ESL is the belief that all children should learn English of go home. We have the push to eliminate nearly all reference to the achievements of cultures beyond European/Americans. We have the push to eliminate thinking that challenges conservative ideas regarding sex, birth control, evolution, history, etc... We have the push to enforce positive views of Capitalism, American military intervention, etc... as opposed to encouraging students to explore all sides of a given debate and come to their own conclusion.


Thats a fair summing up of both sides of the political extreme (substitute British equivalents and it approaches the same thing). I do wonder though, if by liberalism here we could also take it to mean the general movement towards liberal social attitudes regardless of which party is actually in power. Im talking about the general cultural underpinning of liberal ideas resulting in such things as the focus on rights over responsibility, the suing culture and the politically correct mind-set. Regardless of which party is actually in power it seems as though this mentality has permeated its way into society at large and therefore of course the schools and other education establishments.

Each political party might try to steer its own way towards its own ideology, but the reality is that its a slow moving process with only minor alterations in policy from one side to the next with each successive change in government. For example you might hear Conservative rhetoric of rote learning of the Kings and Queens or more power for teachers to discipline misbehaving students, but the reality is only minor slow changes to policy (which will be changed back again next government) if that, if its not just empty rhetoric to win votes. 

Personally, as Ive said, easily the most obvious sore thumb of a problem in schools is poor behaviour. There are other problems, as I have commented upon, but this is right at the top of the list. Again, Im talking about the schools that Frank talks about, the sort of school that I work in and similar schools around it, not those high middle/top of the state school league tables which are excelling all the time. I suspect that there are many reasons for poor behaviour, but certainly the cultural liberalist attitudes, if you can call it that, are evident. 

For example, last week one lad ran out of class and down the corridor. I called out to him and he ignored me. He continued to run down the corridor eventually stopping at the door to another class and began to shout at someone inside, a friend I expect. I walked over to him and tried to get him to come away from the door and back where he is supposed to be as he was disrupting the class. He ignored me. I told him repeatedly to come away from the door, getting progressively louder and he continued to completely ignore me. It an attempt to get his attention, and an error on my part, nudged his bag with my finger and thumb. He immediately turned around and said Oi, thats assault. Do that again and Ill sue you. He then turned his back on me and continued to shout into the door. He eventually came away in his own time, but refused to come back to class and instead ran off in the opposite direction for an early dinner. I didnt bother to report the incident because it is so minor that I wouldnt have any backing to keep him inside for 5 minutes or similar punishment (not lines because that is now illegal as it is deemed to be against human rights - seriously). I only mention it to highlight his first reaction upon my nudging his bag which was one of his rights and the ingrained suing mind-set at the complete disregard to his own responsibilities in following simple instructions from a member of staff.

In the same week, a particular student (who has been on his last chance in the school for the last two years) had completely disrupted a lesson for the last 30 minutes by calling out and shouting at the teacher in such a rude and aggressive manner he was to be ejected from class. He refused to go. The general policy when this happens to send for on-call and hope they can move the student on and into another class (so that they can disrupt that one as well usually). This can take 10-15 minutes though as there is only one person on on-call and they are busy! So in an attempt not to have to waste another 10 minutes of everybody elses time (especially the good kids who want to learn, the ones really being failed by the system as I said before) I mistakenly picked up his pen (probably borrowed from us) and his book and tried to move him. He shouted at me Oi you, get your dirty hands of my property or Ill sue you and this fu*king school. I didnt return his book but tried again to move him out, mildly remonstrating about his use of language. Fortunately, on-call was surprisingly quick and arrived after about 5 minutes and he eventually agreed to leave with him. If he hadnt we would have had to move the entire class out and found a different room because that is the policy. Of course, most of the lesson was now ruined anyway, as usually happens because there are 5 or 6 of students of that nature in that class, but the point is he immediately leaped to the idea of suing, his rights, totally oblivious to anything he should be doing.

Replies like these are very common from students. It is an almost instantaneous reply from a lot of them and evident of the liberalist cultural attitudes found in schools and in society generally.

----------


## Alexander III

> cafolini- It is not true that those schools fail the good students.
> 
> Neely- Really? I bow to your extensive knowledge and forget what I see happening every single day.
> 
> This article seems quite apropos:
> 
> http://thecollegevoice.org/2011/11/0...-biggest-flaw/


I must disagree with you one one count. I find it somewhat frustrating to hear all older men and women, in the world on the internet, looking at my generation and saying we are doomed and stuff in a similar vein.

I am sorry but I am extremley proud of my generation. And really my generation is still young. Sure we are not going off to war like our grandparents or are not reinventing an new prosperous system like our parents, but I am proud of us.

I talk to my people, and I see a passionate dessire for life, I see people who I am proud of.

How on earth could I not love my generation when a few guys a 4ish years older than me produce this song and my generation responds to it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNy8llTLvuA&ob=av2n

----------


## Vonny

> That’s a fair summing up of both sides of the political extreme (substitute British equivalents and it is approaches the same thing). I do wonder though, if by liberalism here we could also take it to mean the general movement towards liberal social attitudes regardless of which party is actually in power. I’m talking about the general cultural underpinning of liberal ideas resulting in such things as the focus on rights over responsibility, the suing culture and the politically correct mind-set. Regardless of which party is actually in power it seems as though this mentality has permeated its way into society at large and therefore of course the schools and other education establishments.
> 
> Each political party might try to steer its own way towards its own ideology, but the reality is that it’s a slow moving process with only minor alterations in policy from one side to the next with each successive change in government. For example you might hear Conservative rhetoric of “rote learning of the Kings and Queens” or “more power for teachers to discipline misbehaving students”, but the reality is only minor slow changes to policy (which will be changed back again next government) if that, if it’s not just empty rhetoric to win votes. 
> 
> Personally, as I’ve said, easily the most obvious sore thumb of a problem in schools is poor behaviour. There are other problems, as I have commented upon, but this is right at the top of the list. Again, I’m talking about the schools that Frank talks about, the sort of school that I work in and similar schools around it, not those high middle/top of the state school league tables which are excelling all the time. I suspect that there are many reasons for poor behaviour, but certainly the cultural liberalist attitudes, if you can call it that, are evident. 
> 
> For example, last week one lad ran out of class and down the corridor. I called out to him and he ignored me. He continued to run down the corridor eventually stopping at the door to another class and began to shout at someone inside, a friend I expect. I walked over to him and tried to get him to come away from the door and back where he is supposed to be as he was disrupting the class. He ignored me. I told him repeatedly to come away from the door, getting progressively louder and he continued to completely ignore me. It an attempt to get his attention, and an error on my part, nudged his bag with my finger and thumb. He immediately turned around and said “Oi, that’s assault. Do that again and I’ll sue you”. He then turned his back on me and continued to shout into the door. He eventually came away in his own time, but refused to come back to class and instead ran off in the opposite direction for an early dinner. I didn’t bother to report the incident because it is so minor that I wouldn’t have any backing to keep him inside for 5 minutes or similar punishment (not lines because that is now illegal as it is deemed to be against human rights - seriously). I only mention it to highlight his first reaction upon my nudging his bag which was one of his rights and the ingrained suing mind-set at the complete disregard to his own responsibilities in following simple instructions from a member of staff.
> 
> In the same week, a particular student (who has been on his “last chance” in the school for the last two years) had completely disrupted a lesson for the last 30 minutes by calling out and shouting at the teacher in such a rude and aggressive manner he was to be ejected from class. He refused to go. The general policy when this happens to send for on-call and hope they can move the student on and into another class (so that they can disrupt that one as well usually). This can take 10-15 minutes though as there is only one person on on-call and they are busy! So in an attempt not to have to waste another 10 minutes of everybody else’s time (especially the good kids who want to learn, the ones really being failed by the system as I said before) I mistakenly picked up his pen (probably borrowed from us) and his book and tried to move him. He shouted at me “Oi you, get your dirty hands of my property or I’ll sue you and this fu*king school”. I didn’t return his book but tried again to move him out, mildly remonstrating about his use of language. Fortunately, on-call was surprisingly quick and arrived after about 5 minutes and he eventually agreed to leave with him. If he hadn’t we would have had to move the entire class out and found a different room because that is the policy. Of course, most of the lesson was now ruined anyway, as usually happens because there are 5 or 6 of students of that nature in that class, but the point is he immediately leaped to the idea of suing, his rights, totally oblivious to anything he should be doing.
> ...


It's a disgrace. I have a lot of trouble being around most people of my generation, and the younger ones are even more difficult.

----------


## cafolini

> I must disagree with you one one count. I find it somewhat frustrating to hear all older men and women, in the world on the internet, looking at my generation and saying we are doomed and stuff in a similar vein.
> 
> I am sorry but I am extremley proud of my generation. And really my generation is still young. Sure we are not going off to war like our grandparents or are not reinventing an new prosperous system like our parents, but I am proud of us.
> 
> I talk to my people, and I see a passionate dessire for life, I see people who I am proud of.
> 
> How on earth could I not love my generation when a few guys a 4ish years older than me produce this song and my generation responds to it
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNy8llTLvuA&ob=av2n


Well, that's precisely what The Cave lyrics are saying. Good points. This generation is the sharpest in summary. Of course, the freedom necessary for progress causes petty issues greatly exaggerated by mongers.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Of course we must not fall into the mistake of judging an entire generation with the same green pen (the older or the younger generation!) and recognise that the generation Vs generation debate is a recurring theme as old as time. The 60s generation had their own obvious song too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594WLzzb3JI 

Rather, my thoughts are drawn from my own experiences about teaching after years in education and with listening and learning from a variety of people within all walks of life. I can understand that this is not good enough for some people though, and that vacant notions of “freedoms” or other buzz words are much more definitive.

----------


## B. Laumness

> I am sorry but I am extremley proud of my generation.


Why?

Although I can understand that everybody believes their generation is the brightest, the sharpest, in one word the best, its worrying to see such a lack of critical thinking towards todays world. There are those who are capable of critical thinking, who developed a historical sense, and who know that our time is far from being the best; and there are people who never imagined that todays world is a world where they are alienated by different powers, where their life has lost meaning, where they are less and less human. There are those who despise todays world, and there are the fools who enjoy their time. Im not old, Im thirty, but already when I was in high school, I could see that most of the teenagers were dumb, ugly, boring, and that very few were worthy of friendship. As a teacher, I could see that the young people were dumber than ever, imprisoned in values they think liberating. I dont lose hope in the youth, though: they are our only chance.

----------


## cafolini

> Why?
> 
> Although I can understand that everybody believes their generation is the brightest, the sharpest, in one word the best, its worrying to see such a lack of critical thinking towards todays world. There are those who are capable of critical thinking, who developed a historical sense, and who know that our time is far from being the best; and there are people who never imagined that todays world is a world where they are alienated by different powers, where their life has lost meaning, where they are less and less human. There are those who despise todays world, and there are the fools who enjoy their time. Im not old, Im thirty, but already when I was in high school, I could see that most of the teenagers were dumb, ugly, boring, and that very few were worthy of friendship. As a teacher, I could see that the young people were dumber than ever, imprisoned in values they think liberating. I dont lose hope in the youth, though: they are our only chance.


Ha! Ridiculous. If you were to put into practice what you are saying in the classroom, you could never be a teacher, which I suspect you are not. 
Now, tell me, how could you have so much hope for the dumb, ugly, boring, unworthy of friendship. You seem bitterer than raw cocoa and arsenic.

----------


## B. Laumness

I was a teacher during five years. I changed job, luckily.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Why?
> 
> Although I can understand that everybody believes their generation is the brightest, the sharpest, in one word the best, its worrying to see such a lack of critical thinking towards todays world. There are those who are capable of critical thinking, who developed a historical sense, and who know that our time is far from being the best; and there are people who never imagined that todays world is a world where they are alienated by different powers, where their life has lost meaning, where they are less and less human. There are those who despise todays world, and there are the fools who enjoy their time. Im not old, Im thirty, but already when I was in high school, I could see that most of the teenagers were dumb, ugly, boring, and that very few were worthy of friendship. As a teacher, I could see that the young people were dumber than ever, imprisoned in values they think liberating. I dont lose hope in the youth, though: they are our only chance.


When teenagers say they are brighter than preceding generations, the only sensible thing to do is to smile indulgently and continue doing the cryptic crossword puzzle that you know they could never finish. As for critical thinking, there is in fact a superfluity of it in the form form of educational theories that are often simply hot air that have nothing to do with the real requirements of teaching: which is why the book under discussion makes a refreshing change by telling it as it is.
I would disagree that all teenagers are dumb, ugly and boring; after all, there are some very pretty girls out there, but the boys are, for the most part, beyond redemption. The values that they think liberating are those of the 'stupid' elder generation who are making a nice living by selling the younger generation all kinds of rubbish and telling them that it's different from what the older generation likes. There's nothing new in this of course, it's been going on since the 1950s, but it's amusing how they can be tricked into buying things that they 'must have' before the next 'must have' item rolls off the production line.

----------


## B. Laumness

Of course, there are still intelligent and pretty young people. Fortunately. (I wrote "most of the teenagers": "most of" means "la plupart", does it?)

I agree, Emil, the problem is not new, even though its consequences are more visible today.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Of course, there are still intelligent and pretty young people. Fortunately. (I wrote "most of the teenagers": "most of" means "la plupart", does it?)
> 
> I agree, Emil, the problem is not new, even though its consequences are more visible today.


Sorry, I misread your post. Yes, "most of" does mean "la plupart".

----------


## Vonny

> When teenagers say they are brighter than preceding generations, the only sensible thing to do is to smile indulgently and continue doing the cryptic crossword puzzle that you know they could never finish.



 :FRlol:  This is very funny. I don't know why other people get all  :Mad:  I'm not a teen, but I'm one of the ones who can't do the crossword puzzle, and I don't have Emil's sharp wit, either. So what? It doesn't make me less of a person, but if I was voting in his country, I'd ask his advice and appreciate that he has some to give me.

----------


## Emil Miller

> This is very funny. I don't know why other people get all  I'm not a teen, but I'm one of the ones who can't do the crossword puzzle, and I don't have Emil's sharp wit, either. So what? It doesn't make me less of a person, but if I was voting in his country, I'd ask his advice and appreciate that he has some to give me.


The only advice I would give in such an instance would be to read my novel Pro Bono Publico, even though _both_ of the parties that shared power during the period concerned are given very short shrift. That which is the rule today was caused by the misrule of yesterday.

----------


## Vonny

> The only advice I would give in such an instance would be to read my novel Pro Bono Publico, even though _both_ of the parties that shared power during the period concerned are given very short shrift. That which is the rule today was caused by the misrule of yesterday.


I'll do that Emil, and then I'll review it on your book review thread.  :Smile:  I've been looking forward to reading it.

----------


## stlukesguild

Of course we must not fall into the mistake of judging an entire generation with the same green pen (the older or the younger generation!) and recognise that the generation Vs generation debate is a recurring theme as old as time. The 60s generation had their own obvious song too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594WLzzb3JI 

Of course the Who were quite a bit before "my generation"... and it might also be noted that they also "grew up" to a certain extent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q

While we're on this theme, I would think a better song for Alex might have been:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxYGOSSj9A0 :Cornut: 

Rather, my thoughts are drawn from my own experiences about teaching after years in education and with listening and learning from a variety of people within all walks of life. I can understand that this is not good enough for some people though, and that vacant notions of freedoms or other buzz words are much more definitive.

Agreed.

I can understand that everybody believes their generation is the brightest, the sharpest, in one word the best...

Of course. Such an egocentric view is a common developmental stage of most adolescents... one that most begin to outgrow as they further develop their critical thinking abilities.

The values that they think liberating are those of the 'stupid' elder generation who are making a nice living by selling the younger generation all kinds of rubbish and telling them that it's different from what the older generation likes. There's nothing new in this of course, it's been going on since the 1950s, but it's amusing how they can be tricked into buying things that they 'must have' before the next 'must have' item rolls off the production line.

I largely agree... but I would suggest that the general stupidity or gullibility of each subsequent generation goes back well before to 1950s. Indeed, I would surprised if you could prove that any generation was more or less "exceptional" (for better or worse) than the previous.

----------


## Vonny

> I largely agree... but I would suggest that the general stupidity or gullibility of each subsequent generation goes back well before to 1950s. Indeed, I would surprised if you could prove that any generation was more or less "exceptional" (for better or worse) than the previous.


Well, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone more spoiled than my mother.

However, it would certainly be interesting to see this generation go through WWII, with the rationing, and so forth. What if people today had to work in fields picking cotton? That would be something to see! 

How many of today's feminists would be strong enough for the pioneer life? Could they walk from the East Coast to the West Coast, 20 miles per day, while pregnant, and pray that they camp by a source of water in case the baby comes along that night, then bury another child with cholera along the trail and get up and take off again the next day? What about the "individualists" today whose principles it would violate if they ate a bite of meat? How would they have fared as pioneers? (And I'm saying this as one who couldn't have survived - I know.)

----------


## Seasider

_The values that they think liberating are those of the 'stupid' elder generation who are making a nice living by selling the younger generation all kinds of rubbish and telling them that it's different from what the older generation likes. There's nothing new in this of course, it's been going on since the 1950s, but it's amusing how they can be tricked into buying things that they 'must have' before the next 'must have' item rolls off the production line.
_
This kind of "stupidity" is called Capitalism. The endless need to buy and go on buying... stimulated by manufactured obsolescence, changes in fashion or styles, poor quality materials etc.
I once saw a film called _The Man in the White Suit_ where a material that never wore out was invented but then was forcibly removed from the market because it threatened the livelihoods of everyone involved in the textile industry.

----------


## Emil Miller

> I largely agree... but I would suggest that the general stupidity or gullibility of each subsequent generation goes back well before to 1950s. Indeed, I would surprised if you could prove that any generation was more or less "exceptional" (for better or worse) than the previous.


Yes, the so-called generation gap goes back much further, but I chose the 1950s as a notable point in the exploitation of youthful ignorance because that was the decade of the most profitable creation in the ad man's box 'The Teenager': prior to which, disposable income, such as it was, rested in the hands of the older generation. With the advent of the 50s this situation took a sudden change on account of the post-war boom in the USA which also impacted on other countries, and so the media-fostered teenager, a word whose etymology predates the 1950s but was not in common use, was heavily promoted and has been constantly encouraged and used by the business community ever since.

----------


## Seasider

In the last decade or so it is children who have been increasingly targeted. Their skilled use of pester power and their advert- encouraged familiarity with expensive brands deliver their parents up to the altar of consumerism.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> In the last decade or so it is children who have been increasingly targeted. Their skilled use of pester power and their advert- encouraged familiarity with expensive brands deliver their parents up to the altar of consumerism.


Yes indeed, don't get me started on advertising!

----------


## Emil Miller

> I'll do that Emil, and then I'll review it on your book review thread.  I've been looking forward to reading it.


That would be nice and it would be another review to add to Neely's, but I don't know if you would enjoy a novel which is primarily historical in content and, although the themes have a general application, is set within the context of English life since WW11. However, the story does move between various countries because of the UK's international status and it also attempts to throw some light on the arcane legal system in England.
You might care to check it out on Amazon if you haven't done so already.

----------


## OrphanPip

Well clearly the solution is just to stop reproducing, I'm doing my part.

----------


## Alexander III

> Why?
> 
> Im not old, Im thirty, but already when I was in high school, I could see that most of the teenagers were dumb, ugly, boring, and that very few were worthy of friendship. As a teacher, I could see that the young people were dumber than ever, imprisoned in values they think liberating. I dont lose hope in the youth, though: they are our only chance.



I do not think my generation is the best, for that (amongst the west) I reserve that honor to those born in the 1780'-90's.

But I am proud of my generation. You saw everyone as dumb,ugly and boring? have you considered that the problem might stem from you? I strugle agianst bouts where everyone is boring and dumb and ugly, but I make sure not to get lost in my ego and I try hard to look on it without my dam self ruining everything, and I assure you I am proud of my generation.

Look to be honest at the age of 19, I have been to more countries that 95% of peopel will ever vistit in their lifetime. And I dont know, but I see something which makes me proud, especialy in my generation. It is always a strugle against the ego which seeks to drown you and the world with you, but if you stay afloat there is somethign to see. And , there are studpid people, and dumb and ignorant and selfceneterd, but by dam, they have all cried at one point in their lives, they have all felt as I ahve felt at somepoitn in mylife, more so my generation, and beacuse of that, I could never condem any.

----------


## Alexander III

> Yes indeed, don't get me started on advertising!


Look, we are all part of society because it has benefits which we enjoy, and we must tolerate it's lack of benifts. Advertising comes with consumer goods. If you dont like advertising, stop buying things. Ofcourse you can't do that, so instead of complainign about the drawback of advertising remember how hard your life would be if you couldnt buy things anymore. Instead of getting choleric at each advertisment, be gratefulle everytime you buy something, that is is there for you to buy.

But if you really can't tolerate advertising, stop buying things.

----------


## Emil Miller

> In the last decade or so it is children who have been increasingly targeted. Their skilled use of pester power and their advert- encouraged familiarity with expensive brands deliver their parents up to the altar of consumerism.


Children are targeted, as witness the rows of sweets lined up at supermarket checkouts, but then so are teenage girls who are tempted by the 'celebrity' magazines also stacked at the checkouts. They do, however, provide a break from the boredom of waiting while one reads that: 'Justin Dumps Charline', 'My Drug Hell by Melinda' and 'I'm 25% Gay says Brad' etc etc.
Still, never mind, they'll grow out of it.

----------


## cafolini

> Why?
> 
> Although I can understand that everybody believes their generation is the brightest, the sharpest, in one word the best, its worrying to see such a lack of critical thinking towards todays world. There are those who are capable of critical thinking, who developed a historical sense, and who know that our time is far from being the best; and there are people who never imagined that todays world is a world where they are alienated by different powers, where their life has lost meaning, where they are less and less human. There are those who despise todays world, and there are the fools who enjoy their time. Im not old, Im thirty, but already when I was in high school, I could see that most of the teenagers were dumb, ugly, boring, and that very few were worthy of friendship. As a teacher, I could see that the young people were dumber than ever, imprisoned in values they think liberating. I dont lose hope in the youth, though: they are our only chance.


I'm proud not only of my generation but of the subsequent generations of almost the entire 20th century because they managed to explore, discover and divulge more science and more useful technology than in all of history put together. And it has nothing to do with lack of critical thinking. On the contrary. There has been more critical thinking in the second half of the 20th century up to today than in all of history put together. There have been much better writers, more variety, more brain use and expansion, more evolution than in all of history put together. Let those who can see appreciate it. The rest will be recycled whether they like it or not. The stagnant mongers of the end of the world, the apocalyptic, etc., etc. and etc., no longer stand a chance to spoil what we have going on.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Look, we are all part of society because it has benefits which we enjoy, and we must tolerate it's lack of benifts. Advertising comes with consumer goods. If you dont like advertising, stop buying things. Ofcourse you can't do that, so instead of complainign about the drawback of advertising remember how hard your life would be if you couldnt buy things anymore. Instead of getting choleric at each advertisment, be gratefulle everytime you buy something, that is is there for you to buy.
> 
> But if you really can't tolerate advertising, stop buying things.


Why do we need advertising in order to buy something? Your argument makes no sense. I want a beer I'll go into a pub. I need a present Ill go online. I dont need a fat man constantly screaming in my face in order to try to sell me car insurance at every turn. If I want insurance Ill get it.

This is without even getting in the morality of advertising which is abhorrent at best.

----------


## Alexander III

> I'm proud not only of my generation but of the subsequent generations of almost the entire 20th century because they managed to explore, discover and divulge more science and more useful technology than in all of history put together. And it has nothing to do with lack of critical thinking. On the contrary. There has been more critical thinking in the second half of the 20th century up to today than in all of history put together. There have been much better writers, more variety, more brain use and expansion, more evolution than in all of history put together. Let those who can see appreciate it. The rest will be recycled whether they like it or not. The stagnant mongers of the end of the world, the apocalyptic, etc., etc. and etc., no longer stand a chance to spoil what we have going on.


I agree with you in pride for my generation, but not with the rest to be honest.

I do not give a fig for "critical thinking" and discovering "technology and science better than the rest" - I mean sure those are great things but progress does not make me proud. I feel pride not in the progress but in people who can live and feel like all other men before them, in those who do not think of the future, or the present; those for whom eternity is their playing feild. If that makes sense.

----------


## Alexander III

> Why do we need advertising in order to buy something? Your argument makes no sense. I want a beer I'll go into a pub. I need a present Ill go online. I dont need a fat man constantly screaming in my face in order to try to sell me car insurance at every turn. If I want insurance Ill get it.
> 
> This is without even getting in the morality of advertising which is abhorrent at best.


But thats is what I am saying, we choose to live in society and it has pros and cons. You being able to walk to the pub and buy a beer is a pro. Having men realize that you need that beer, and having them realize that they must convince you to buy their beer instead of anothers beer, is a con which will always come with that pro.

I mean even before curency there was still advertising. There was a clever farmer who realized that he needed "you" to trade your crops for his sheep isntead of anothers sheep and so he advertised.

You cant have consumer goods without advertising. And as the mediums and technology involved in augmenting consumer goods, and giving your more choice and lower prices increase, so to will the advertising technology increase.

Sure we have way more advertising now than in the 1920's, but nowadays a man living in scotland can buy new zealand lamb everyday, something which was impossible or only for the super rich, in the 1920's

----------


## Vonny

> That would be nice and it would be another review to add to Neely's, but I don't know if you would enjoy a novel which is primarily historical in content and, although the themes have a general application, is set within the context of English life since WW11. However, the story does move between various countries because of the UK's international status and it also attempts to throw some light on the arcane legal system in England.
> You might care to check it out on Amazon if you haven't done so already.


hehe, Are you worried about a review that says, "It's good, but it doesn't measure up to _Charlotte's Web_."?




> Well clearly the solution is just to stop reproducing, I'm doing my part.


Same here. The worst problem we have is too many people.




> And I dont know, but I see something which makes me proud, especialy in my generation. It is always a strugle against the ego which seeks to drown you and the world with you, but if you stay afloat there is somethign to see. And , there are studpid people, and dumb and ignorant and selfceneterd, but by dam, they have all cried at one point in their lives, they have all felt as I ahve felt at somepoitn in mylife, more so my generation, and beacuse of that, I could never condem any.


Two points. 1) whatever belongs to us, we tend to hold closely, no matter how awful it is. As an analogy: I have some terrible, terrible memories from my childhood, but some of my memories I relive at times and almost get a sense of comfort from them. I asked I counselor why this is, and she said it's because those memories are _mine_, they are _my stuff_, and I survived those times. A lot of the comfort to me is that I went through it and I'm in a "better place" now. Still, I wouldn't wish those experiences on another child. 2) If this generation is a disaster, it's not because the people are inherently deficient. Even if a child is born addicted to crack, we have sympathy for the child. The same 3rd grader who cusses his teacher, and refuses to do his homework, would have been respectful if he'd been in a classroom in 1950, so we do have compassion for them. And they are going to suffer from their "dog eat dog" world, and not being able to write their own names, and that is sad. If life ever becomes real again, and they have to endure privations, they are going to _really_ struggle, and they'll probably eat each other, which is sad.




> Look, we are all part of society because it has benefits which we enjoy, and we must tolerate it's lack of benifts. Advertising comes with consumer goods. If you dont like advertising, stop buying things. Ofcourse you can't do that, so instead of complainign about the drawback of advertising remember how hard your life would be if you couldnt buy things anymore. Instead of getting choleric at each advertisment, be gratefulle everytime you buy something, that is is there for you to buy.
> 
> But if you really can't tolerate advertising, stop buying things.


Because I enjoy this computer doesn't mean that its production didn't fill the ocean with a toxic chemical that will result in the extinction of whales. If I could give up this computer now and save the whales, would I do it? In a heartbeat! If I give up my computer, will it save the whales? Nope, because there are too many people in this world who do not care about whales. Even if every person who cares gave up all of their consumer goods today, it would not change the fate of the world, that it's headed for, one bit. It's possible that if all the people who cared gave up everything we could hold off the inevitable for two weeks maybe, but devastation is still going to come. Therefore, we might as well use all the styrofoam cups we want and toss them in the street. Because this world is too full of people who don't care at all, and think it's cute and funny to destroy everything.

And the whales will all die, which breaks my heart. But I have to live and make use of what's available to me, the life that I've been given, and I'm thankful for what I have - my computer. It allows me contact with the world without having to listen to the many "confused" (how can I say it politely?) and loud, strident voices in it.

Plus, you can't kill off the entire environment, without taking down people as well. Even the rich.

And advertising is taking down kids, changing their brain chemistry and corrupting their values. Just because it isn't going away doesn't make it good.

It's great we can get New Zealand lamb, but you can't buy a piece of halibut now that isn't full of mercury. And before long there won't be a fish left in the ocean at all.

----------


## Alexander III

> Two points. 1) whatever belongs to us, we tend to hold closely, no matter how awful it is. As an analogy: I have some terrible, terrible memories from my childhood, but some of my memories I relive at times and almost get a sense of comfort from them. I asked I counselor why this is, and she said it's because those memories are _mine_, they are _my stuff_, and I survived those times. A lot of the comfort to me is that I went through it and I'm in a "better place" now. Still, I wouldn't wish those experiences on another child. 
> 
> Because I enjoy this computer doesn't mean that its production didn't fill the ocean with a toxic chemical that will result in the extinction of whales.


1) that does account for many, but not all- what about a man like Heathcliff, who's only satisfaction war burning down everything he held dear?

2) ok sorry to play this card, but I have seen a lot more of the world and of people than you, and you seem far to pessimistic, I mean maybe it is like that in your town, but how can you say your town is representative of your state, or even country or world when all you know is your town?

3) If your cared more about the wales than your enjoyment from this computer you would not have bought one, simple and plain and honest.

I am against the way they raise chickes in farms, so I only buy free range eggs. I am sure I could use your argument and say well il buy any eggs afterall one person buying free range eggs wont solve the problem. But I actualy do care about this problem, and I dont care if it is just me I shall never buy anything but free range eggs - and if your truley cared about the wales more than the enjoyment from your computer then you would not buy one.

To be honest I care about whales, but do I care about them enough not to buy a computer? No. At least be honest, and dont be a hypocrite.

----------


## Vonny

> 1) that does account for many, but not all- what about a man like Heathcliff, who's only satisfaction war burning down everything he held dear?
> 
> 2) ok sorry to play this card, but I have seen a lot more of the world and of people than you, and you seem far to pessimistic, I mean maybe it is like that in your town, but how can you say your town is representative of your state, or even country or world when all you know is your town?
> 
> 3) If your cared more about the wales than your enjoyment from this computer you would not have bought one, simple and plain and honest.
> 
> I am against the way they raise chickes in farms, so I only buy free range eggs. I am sure I could use your argument and say well il buy any eggs afterall one person buying free range eggs wont solve the problem. But I actualy do care about this problem, and I dont care if it is just me I shall never buy anything but free range eggs - and if your truley cared about the wales more than the enjoyment from your computer then you would not buy one.
> 
> To be honest I care about whales, but do I care about them enough not to buy a computer? No. At least be honest, and dont be a hypocrite.


I buy free range eggs because it does have a direct effect on a chicken. But not buying a computer is not going to change one thing in this world. I do limit my impact on this world, but if I wanted to save it I'd have to commit suicide because it's impossible to live without an impact today. We don't have the world we once did, you live with what you have or you don't live. Most animal species that I cherish will go extinct in my lifetime and there's not one thing I can do to change that, because there are very strong forces, that are not about individual people, that are going to make sure of it.

And I care much more for whales than I do a computer. It's like I tell my mother, "I know my own heart. You are not going to convince me that I'm rotten, because I know I'm not."

----------


## Emil Miller

[QUOTE=Vonny;1090873]hehe, Are you worried about a review that says, "It's good, but it doesn't measure up to [I]Charlotte's Web/I]."?/QUOTE]

Charlotte's Web is almost certainly more enjoyable but I don't think it's as informative, and whereas Charlotte's Web is sometimes read by adults as well as children, Pro Bono Publico is strictly for grown ups.

----------


## Vonny

> Originally Posted by Vonny
> 
> 
> hehe, Are you worried about a review that says, "It's good, but it doesn't measure up to Charlotte's Web."?
> 
> 
> Charlotte's Web is almost certainly more enjoyable but I don't think it's as informative, and whereas Charlotte's Web is sometimes read by adults as well as children, Pro Bono Publico is strictly for grown ups.


Okay, your book is for me then, you've got my review coming!

----------


## Emil Miller

> Okay, your book is for me then, you've got my review coming!


May I give you a small word of advice? Please don't judge the book on the first couple of chapters, which are designed to set the scene for what follows. I think you will find that it gets more interesting from a character perspective as it progresses; at least that's what it sets out to do.
Your opinion will be very welcome and I'm sure from some of your previous posts that the general tenor of the book will find you in agreement with some of the situations that occur as the story develops, although I hope the ending isn't too distressing for you.

----------


## Vonny

> May I give you a small word of advice? Please don't judge the book on the first couple of chapters, which are designed to set the scene for what follows. I think you will find that it gets more interesting from a character perspective as it progresses; at least that's what it sets out to do.
> Your opinion will be very welcome and I'm sure from some of your previous posts that the general tenor of the book will find you in agreement with some of the situations that occur as the story develops, although I hope the ending isn't too distressing for you.


Usually, the only material that I find distressing is if it's gratuitous, or if someone is saying or doing something that _I know_ they are doing _on purpose_ to try to distress _me_, and I'm sure your book doesn't fit either of those categories.


I think the changes in society can be traced to about 1920 and a man named Edward Bernays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

The BBC showed this documentary in 2002, this link is to part one: http://www.archive.org/details/AdaCu...uryoftheSelf_0

The documentary is long, in four parts. I've only watched the first half hour or so, myself, but it was enough to understand what's happened to us. Even the first 2 minutes explains a lot.

Edward Bernays did things like... he figured out how to use the women's liberation movement to start women smoking and sell them cigarettes. He made a news story (more effective than advertising) which was fake news actually, and put cigarettes into the hands of suffragettes and made public smoking acceptable for women.

He realized that the masses could be more effectively controlled under a democracy than by putting people under marital law, by using propaganda (advertising) which he called public relations, and by making consumers of them. He used his cousin Sigmond Freud's ideas. If people are obsessed with satisfying their instinctual drives by trying to buy things they don't need, it keeps them busy so they aren't a threat to those in power.

And then people are obsessed with being their own unique individual selves now. Men and women pull apart from each other, children pull from adults. It used to be that children took pride in being a useful member of their family. When I was 5 years-old, my job was to set the dinner table, and that made me feel necessary. Making kids work builds their self-confidence and not just their egos. But most parents want kids to be free to pursue their own goals, to be "free spirits."

And we worship youth so that the mothers want to model after the children, instead of the other way around. And children learn from other children, both in school where there are so many kids the teacher is lost, and from child celebrities and advertising. Children ought to be with adults some of the time, learning from adults, not solely learning from other children. Well - can't remember how much of this was from Edward Bernays.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Usually, the only material that I find distressing is if it's gratuitous, or if someone is saying or doing something that _I know_ they are doing _on purpose_ to try to distress _me_, and I'm sure your book doesn't fit either of those categories.


No, the violent ending to my book is in no way gratuitous. In fact it's intended to sum up the whole sequence of events and the last sentence is the final blow that puts it all into perspective.
Your information about Edward Bernays is interesting and in line with what I have long been aware of, but it's worth remembering that the BBC, whose documentary on Bernays you mention, is itself a pretty subversive organisation that ironically uses similar methods to those of Bernays in pursuit of its liberal agenda. It's not for nothing that George Orwell named room 101 after an actual room in the BBC's Broadcasting House.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Why?
> 
> Although I can understand that everybody believes their generation is the brightest, the sharpest, in one word the best, its worrying to see such a lack of critical thinking towards todays world. There are those who are capable of critical thinking, who developed a historical sense, and who know that our time is far from being the best; and there are people who never imagined that todays world is a world where they are alienated by different powers, where their life has lost meaning, where they are less and less human. There are those who despise todays world, and there are the fools who enjoy their time. Im not old, Im thirty, but already when I was in high school, I could see that most of the teenagers were dumb, ugly, boring, and that very few were worthy of friendship. As a teacher, I could see that the young people were dumber than ever, imprisoned in values they think liberating. I dont lose hope in the youth, though: they are our only chance.





> Of course, there are still intelligent and pretty young people. Fortunately. (I wrote "most of the teenagers": "most of" means "la plupart", does it?)
> 
> I agree, Emil, the problem is not new, even though its consequences are more visible today.


What does the prettiness or ugliness of students have to do with _anything_? You just sound like that stuck up smart kid who turned his nose up at everyone.


You ever notice how every generation is so much worse than the previous one, yet society still progresses? Hmmmmm. I wonder how that could be? It seems there are a couple options. One is that each generation is indeed worse than the last, and society progresses anyways. The other would seem to be that everyone looks at their own past with rose-colored glasses. My childhood was great! School was a ton of fun! I wasn't mean to my teachers! Therefore, our generations was so much better! My dad went to school in the seventies (one of those better generations, you know), and students could leave whenever they wanted, students smoked pot in the stadium while they should've been in class, and students were just as, if not more, disrespectful to the teachers. I'm sure he's just misremembering, though, because our generation is _so much_ worse.

----------


## B. Laumness

> What does the prettiness or ugliness of students have to do with _anything_? You just sound like that stuck up smart kid who turned his nose up at everyone.
> 
> 
> You ever notice how every generation is so much worse than the previous one, yet society still progresses? Hmmmmm. I wonder how that could be? It seems there are a couple options. One is that each generation is indeed worse than the last, and society progresses anyways. The other would seem to be that everyone looks at their own past with rose-colored glasses. My childhood was great! School was a ton of fun! I wasn't mean to my teachers! Therefore, our generations was so much better! My dad went to school in the seventies (one of those better generations, you know), and students could leave whenever they wanted, students smoked pot in the stadium while they should've been in class, and students were just as, if not more, disrespectful to the teachers. I'm sure he's just misremembering, though, because our generation is _so much_ worse.


A quick reply, because its not easy for me to express my thoughts in English, and because a forum on the Internet is not the adequate place to express such thoughts, which would take hundreds of pages.

Prettiness or ugliness is not entirely natural. The problem is rather to see how the society and a given way of living affect the prettiness. A lack of physical activity has an effect upon the body. Working the whole day sat on a chair, spending many hours before a screen, eating too much, that does not help to make the body beautiful. No wonder there are so many obese individuals in our modern society. A fat body is never pretty. But prettiness is also in the face and the eyes. If a melancholic face has charm, an empty face and vacant eyes are not attractive. I see everywhere gloomy and dull persons because of their work and of entertainment. Through the eyes I can see intelligence, but through the eyes of a guy who spent many hours on a video game I see stupidity. The stupidity of social products makes the people ugly. 

The society progresses? Are you living in a cellar? You are 150 years behind the times. How can one still believe in the progress after the 20th century? Any serious intellectual considers now this idea to be obsolete. But perhaps you believe that the technological society is marvellous and that comfort is a great ideal. I dont care about the perfection of a tool if this tool does not make the life better. What do I mean by a better life? Certainly not a comfortable life in which I would possess objects, but in which my being would remain empty. There are values much more important than money, labour, and comfort. There are noble values that have disappeared, but who were essential and are still essential for me, such as reason, rigour, passion, self control, and freedom; everything that stimulates sensitivity, imagination, and critical thinking; everything that strengthens my being. Does the Machine strengthen my being if I work chained to it, doing repetitive and mind-numbing tasks? Does the Money enlarge my spirit and allow me to respect a great ideal such as justice? Its a known truth: today, Money is the dominant value. In the past, the things were different. In the Middle Ages, it was despicable to be rich and not to give to poor people. Before the reign of the Bourgeois, Money was not a goal in itself. How could a capitalist understand there exists different ways of thinking and living? He is so small, a very small man.

I dont reason in years, I reason in centuries. Im not nostalgic of the seventies or eighties. Im not conservative either. I just look around me and in myself, and I try to understand the truth of every thing, every evolution, every ideology. Everything is stuff for thinking, for philosophical wonderment. I listen to the radio and I hear a stupid song, but of course the record is sold and loved by millions of people. Why? How is it possible? Thinking about the causes and the consequences of such a phenomenon can lead you far in the understanding of the modern society. When you have this kind of attitude towards everything, you become very sceptical towards the so-called progress. You discern the alienating and dehumanizing forces that rule the world. You see that the life loses meaning, beauty, and greatness. All these problems are very real for me who learnt to love the noble European ideals, and who everyday struggle against those powers that undermine a better life, that make more and more impossible a better life. The medical progress will allow us to live more a hundred years? No interest when you have a ****ty life.

It wont be useless to refer to philosophers, essayists and writers who expressed these thoughts better than I do in my poor English. Read Schopenhauer, Leopardi, Baudelaire, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Lewis Mumford, Christopher Lasch, Guy Debord, Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Ellul, etc. Ive seen you read _Notes from the underground_: do you remember what the author said about the crystal palace? Read Hannad Arendt, read what she said about tradition, knowledge and authority: it would be a good point for this topic about the education. Will you follow my suggestions? Or are you going to say that I sound like a child? Its true there are neither learners nor teachers on a forum. The Internet is a marvellous progress for the importance and the meaning given to the speech...

----------


## Drkshadow03

> In the Middle Ages, it was despicable to be rich and not to give to poor people. Before the reign of the Bourgeois, Money was not a goal in itself. How could a capitalist understand there exists different ways of thinking and living? He is so small, a very small man.


Ah, those glorious Middle Ages where it was despicable to be rich, a time when any impoverished viking who needed some money and women only had to come and steal it from the unsuspecting peasantry (no hand-outs for them!), a time when Noble landlords could help the indigent in a true act of social welfare by impressing them to work their land and exploiting their labor in exchange for protection much like the mafia does today. And instead of that crude lethal injection of our times they had such humane ways of dealing with criminals!

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Prettiness or ugliness is not entirely natural. The problem is rather to see how the society and a given way of living affect the prettiness. A lack of physical activity has an effect upon the body. Working the whole day sat on a chair, spending many hours before a screen, eating too much, that does not help to make the body beautiful. No wonder there are so many obese individuals in our modern society. A fat body is never pretty. But prettiness is also in the face and the eyes. If a melancholic face has charm, an empty face and vacant eyes are not attractive. I see everywhere gloomy and dull persons because of their work and of entertainment. Through the eyes I can see intelligence, but through the eyes of a guy who spent many hours on a video game I see stupidity. The stupidity of social products makes the people ugly.


I was in France about 6 weeks ago for the first time. If I noticed you were from there, I would have probably understood better, because Paris, at least, seemed to be jam-packed with miserable, depressed, smoking, moping people who looked to be one step away from killing themselves. It's not a good look, I agree.



> The society progresses? Are you living in a cellar? You are 150 years behind the times. How can one still believe in the progress after the 20th century? Any serious intellectual considers now this idea to be obsolete. But perhaps you believe that the technological society is marvellous and that comfort is a great ideal. I don’t care about the perfection of a tool if this tool does not make the life better. What do I mean by a better life? Certainly not a comfortable life in which I would possess objects, but in which my being would remain empty. There are values much more important than money, labour, and comfort. There are noble values that have disappeared, but who were essential and are still essential for me, such as reason, rigour, passion, self control, and freedom; everything that stimulates sensitivity, imagination, and critical thinking; everything that strengthens my being. Does the Machine strengthen my being if I work chained to it, doing repetitive and mind-numbing tasks? Does the Money enlarge my spirit and allow me to respect a great ideal such as justice? It’s a known truth: today, Money is the dominant value. In the past, the things were different. In the Middle Ages, it was despicable to be rich and not to give to poor people. Before the reign of the Bourgeois, Money was not a goal in itself. How could a capitalist understand there exists different ways of thinking and living? He is so small, a very small man.


Man, you put a lot of words in my mouth there, didn't you? I'm from America, so OF COURSE I'm a dirty capitalist. Did it ever occur to you that when I said "progress" I didn't mean technologically or commercially? No, it didn't. You just jumped to your arrogant stereotypes. 

I mean progress in terms of medicine and social issues (racism, the acceptance of gays, the acceptance of different religions, etc.). And I will even throw in technological advances, too. As far as I know, this idea that technology is dumbing down our society and turning everyone into zombies is not supported by fact, but by largely anecdotal evidence, i.e., the good ol' days.



> I don’t reason in years, I reason in centuries. I’m not nostalgic of the seventies or eighties. I’m not conservative either. I just look around me and in myself, and I try to understand the truth of every thing, every evolution, every ideology. Everything is stuff for thinking, for philosophical wonderment. I listen to the radio and I hear a stupid song, but of course the record is sold and loved by millions of people. Why? How is it possible? Thinking about the causes and the consequences of such a phenomenon can lead you far in the understanding of the modern society. When you have this kind of attitude towards everything, you become very sceptical towards the so-called progress. You discern the alienating and dehumanizing forces that rule the world. You see that the life loses meaning, beauty, and greatness. All these problems are very real for me who learnt to love the noble European ideals, and who everyday struggle against those powers that undermine a better life, that make more and more impossible a better life. The medical progress will allow us to live more a hundred years? No interest when you have a ****ty life.


Oh, I get it. Since you're a nihilistic, miserable human being, everyone else must be too. Since you don't want to live longer, no one else does. If only everyone could be as intelligent and insightful as you, to realize how horrible the world is.

I'm not an optimist by any means, but I have no time for that overly-pessimistic, whiny attitude. 



> It won’t be useless to refer to philosophers, essayists and writers who expressed these thoughts better than I do in my poor English. Read Schopenhauer, Leopardi, Baudelaire, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Lewis Mumford, Christopher Lasch, Guy Debord, Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Ellul, etc. I’ve seen you read _Notes from the underground_: do you remember what the author said about the “crystal palace”? Read Hannad Arendt, read what she said about tradition, knowledge and authority: it would be a good point for this topic about the education. Will you follow my suggestions? Or are you going to say that I sound like a child? It’s true there are neither learners nor teachers on a forum. The Internet is a marvellous progress for the importance and the meaning given to the speech...


Why would I say you sound like a child?

If reading all that stuff will make me think the way you do, I'm not sure I want to.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Prettiness or ugliness is not entirely natural. The problem is rather to see how the society and a given way of living affect the prettiness. A lack of physical activity has an effect upon the body. Working the whole day sat on a chair, spending many hours before a screen, eating too much, that does not help to make the body beautiful. No wonder there are so many obese individuals in our modern society. A fat body is never pretty. But prettiness is also in the face and the eyes. If a melancholic face has charm, an empty face and vacant eyes are not attractive. I see everywhere gloomy and dull persons because of their work and of entertainment. Through the eyes I can see intelligence, but through the eyes of a guy who spent many hours on a video game I see stupidity. The stupidity of social products makes the people ugly.


Oh boy, where to start. First, we have an issue here of myopic classism, you assume that everyone has access to the same quality food, that all children have the same opportunities. What can a child do about their diet if all their parents can afford is Kraft maccoroni and cheese every day of the week. Where do they get the money to participate in sports activities, which are not so readily available in dense urban setting without the expensive infrastructure of organized sports. Maybe it is not even safe for them to play outside. Not to mention the nonsense of assuming video games make children stupid, or are any less valuable as a form of entertainment as any other. 




> The society progresses? Are you living in a cellar? You are 150 years behind the times. How can one still believe in the progress after the 20th century? Any serious intellectual considers now this idea to be obsolete. But perhaps you believe that the technological society is marvellous and that comfort is a great ideal. I don’t care about the perfection of a tool if this tool does not make the life better. What do I mean by a better life? Certainly not a comfortable life in which I would possess objects, but in which my being would remain empty. There are values much more important than money, labour, and comfort. There are noble values that have disappeared, but who were essential and are still essential for me, such as reason, rigour, passion, self control, and freedom; everything that stimulates sensitivity, imagination, and critical thinking; everything that strengthens my being. Does the Machine strengthen my being if I work chained to it, doing repetitive and mind-numbing tasks? Does the Money enlarge my spirit and allow me to respect a great ideal such as justice? It’s a known truth: today, Money is the dominant value. In the past, the things were different. In the Middle Ages, it was despicable to be rich and not to give to poor people. Before the reign of the Bourgeois, Money was not a goal in itself. How could a capitalist understand there exists different ways of thinking and living? He is so small, a very small man.


Again, as myopic as the views you are criticizing. Things do get better, you are doing the exact same thing Mutatis is doing, you are arguing for the superiority of one time over another, it doesn't matter when they are placed relative to each other temporally, but there is no difference in MM saying this time is the best of all times and you insisting that the Middle Ages were better. I certainly think this time is much better for me than any other time in history. As a gay man I am acutely aware of how much more opportunity I have today than has ever existed for people like me before. It is also nothing more than idealistic primitivism to assume that people who lived in the past were better off. Prior to the 19th century most societies were rife with infectious disease, murder, rape, and injustice. It is easy to lament the pedestrian woes of the 21st century if you want to selective ignore how bad other times have been. It seems absurd to present regressive conceptions of history as an alternative to progressive ideas.




> I don’t reason in years, I reason in centuries. I’m not nostalgic of the seventies or eighties. I’m not conservative either. I just look around me and in myself, and I try to understand the truth of every thing, every evolution, every ideology. Everything is stuff for thinking, for philosophical wonderment. I listen to the radio and I hear a stupid song, but of course the record is sold and loved by millions of people. Why? How is it possible? Thinking about the causes and the consequences of such a phenomenon can lead you far in the understanding of the modern society. When you have this kind of attitude towards everything, you become very sceptical towards the so-called progress. You discern the alienating and dehumanizing forces that rule the world. You see that the life loses meaning, beauty, and greatness. All these problems are very real for me who learnt to love the noble European ideals, and who everyday struggle against those powers that undermine a better life, that make more and more impossible a better life. The medical progress will allow us to live more a hundred years? No interest when you have a ****ty life.


Bull****, lots of ****ty art has been popular in the past, it's not a new phenomena, the only new phenomena is the greater capacity for choice and the larger audience. Marxist influenced post-structuralism does little to impress me. Despite your pseudo-gnostic claims to the revelatory powers of these observations, they do nothing to address real issues of how people are oppressed under any system, and they aren't actually providing any useful critiques. In fact, they are self-defeating by their very conception, they make no positive claims and offer no solutions. Critiquing the assumptions behind capitalism, or Hegelian historiography doesn't provide any arguments for an alternative. How would we do anything about the "capitalist system" without harming people or setting up different, and likely worse, systems of oppression. Drk rightly points out that the indentured serf was hardly more humanized than the modern human being, at least I have the freedom to change occupations and to change my residence at choice, and I can't be abused with impunity by some **** with a fancy name, whatever idealistic, biased literature about noblesse oblige says. 

Post-modernist thought is useless, problems of practicality should be addressed with practical solutions. If we have agreed upon goals, providing the most opportunity for as many children as possible, then we should address how to achieve that in terms of methods and funding rather than worrying about the epistemology of the question of public education.

----------


## B. Laumness

> Ah, those glorious Middle Ages where it was despicable to be rich, a time when any impoverished viking who needed some money and women only had to come and steal it from the unsuspecting peasantry (no hand-outs for them!), a time when Noble landlords could help the indigent in a true act of social welfare by impressing them to work their land and exploiting their labor in exchange for protection much like the mafia does today. And instead of that crude lethal injection of our times they had such humane ways of dealing with criminals!


You missed the point. I was talking about money as a value, in a moral sense. Cupidity was a sin for the Christians. Thats the reason why the Church forbade during many centuries lending money with an interest rate. The dominant, exclusive value was not money for the Romans and the Greeks either. During the Antiquity, there were pre-Bourgeois mentalities only or almost in Tyre, a city not very glorious for its arts and its laws

Now youre allowed to say Im a Marxist Catholic fundamentalist.


MM, stay in your cellar. Youre used to blindness. And me, wretched man, Ill remain in my hut, smoking, drinking, and praying for the end!


Pip, what you said that is correct in many cases:



> What can a child do about their diet if all their parents can afford is Kraft maccoroni and cheese every day of the week. Where do they get the money to participate in sports activities, which are not so readily available in dense urban setting without the expensive infrastructure of organized sports. Maybe it is not even safe for them to play outside.


For the rest, you misread and draw groundless interpretations. I never affirmed that the Middle Ages were a better time. I said I was neither nostalgic nor conservative, did I? Besides, you should understand that I cant say everything in a few lines, moreover in English. I offer no solutions, no alternatives? Do you expect to read a treatise on this forum? Did you think I could make all the necessary nuances and give all the perspectives in a small post?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Oh, please, what a cop-out. You can speak English just fine (you seem to be able to craft arrogant insults with complete ease, though maybe that's a French thing), and you can say a lot more by typing a lot less--just cut out all your extraneous BS. And others draw groundless interpretations?  :FRlol:  You're the one who insinuated I'm a dirty, low-life capitalist based simply on my saying society has progressed. 

And, maybe I've given the wrong impression. I'm not saying the current generation is the best generation ever, just that there's no reason to think it's so much worse than previous generations.

----------


## B. Laumness

Don’t feel personally offended. It was not my intention at all. Your remark was a pretext for general considerations.

And yes, English is a difficulty for me, since I try to think in a foreign language, which means a limited vocabulary, etc.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Well, then you have my apologies, also. Still, you're English seems better than most Americans.

----------


## Seasider

@ Mutatis Mutandi

your English...The English you speak.
you're English...you are English.

Sorry if it was a typo, but in a thread that is all about standards of education/attainment etc, I thought it was necessary to point it out.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

:FRlol:  I hope you'll trust me when I say I _do_ know the difference. Just a typo . . . I seem to do that a lot with "your" and "you're," for some reason.

----------


## Seasider

I meant no offence. It's a pity spell-check can't pick up grammatical errors as well as spelling mistakes.

----------


## frank chalk

Hello everybody, I'm Frank Chalk and I've just been directed to this thread about my 2 books "It's Your Time Your Wasting" and its sequel "Education: My Part in its Downfall". If any of you have any questions, I'd be quite happy to answer them.

By the way, the quote "I used to be a liberal guy who thought the best of everyone" was actually made up by my publishers, i'm afraid. It's worth bearing in mind that what's actually published isn't always exactly what the author wrote. (Unless you self publish of course, which is what I did with the sequel).

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Hi Frank, 

It's amazing how people stumble upon things on the internet really, you'd have thought such a thread would have been buried years ago. Maybe I should have used an assumed name as well, as slagging of the school system doesn't go down well generally does it? (Hi boss you're doing a great job.  :Thumbs Up: ) 

Do you still work in education or have you escaped?

----------


## frank chalk

Hi Neely, I got out of teaching and now run a business. I keep a blog of my witterings at frankchalk.blogspot.co.uk

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

Thanks for the link, I've had a quick read and your blog looks pretty good, I'll have a further read tomorrow.

Glad you managed to survive the supply and find life beyond. 

I recommend your book to many of my colleagues at the time. I remember us laughing over coffee at break as they quoted you back to me - the kid with the personal target of not to 'verbally abuse teachers', or the non-uniform day where the girls come as 'prostitutes' and countless others. It was pee your pants time. Even the other day I was in a class and one of the 'learning objectives' displayed on the board was "I don't swear, level 3" brilliant!  :Santasmile:  It's like working in some sort of surreal pantomime sometimes. Of course it is shocking but if you don't laugh you go mad.

----------


## stlukesguild

Neely! It sounds like my school. I've actually gone from bad to worse... if that is at all possible. The greatest pleasure I get now from teaching involves the classes of Autism students I have who are far better behaved, far more willing to learn... and in a great many instances outperform the "normal" students... often those years older than them. 

I don't know about the system in the UK but in the US the absurdity of teaching in the inner-city is combined with a clear strategy to destroy public education as a whole and replace it with a privatized system without unions and teachers earning half of what they now earn. This is underway in the large urban districts because they are easy to target due to poor scores, the unions tend to be the strongest due to the sheer number of employees, and it is simply logical: take out the biggest school systems first, and the surrounding systems crumble like dominoes. Right now there is what can be only defined as a concerted effort to make teaching an absolutely horrible profession through every-increasing and absurd requirements, inane class sizes, lack of any support for teachers... and for quite some time now, a virtual vilification of teachers by the press and politicians. 

As warped as it sounds, the school shootings in Connecticut actually served to take pressure off the teachers as both the press and politicians found it difficult to vilify the profession after the example of teachers who died in the line of duty... attempting to protect their children. Yet just two years ago... when the state tried to outlaw unions and collective bargaining for all public employees (teachers, police, fire, sanitation, doctors& nurses in state facilities, etc...) all the ads calling for support for public workers included images of firemen and police... but no teachers... because it was recognized that we were actually a liability to the cause. I am seriously looking to get out of the profession myself.

----------


## qimissung

> Neely! It sounds like my school. I've actually gone from bad to worse... if that is at all possible. The greatest pleasure I get now from teaching involves the classes of Autism students I have who are far better behaved, far more willing to learn... and in a great many instances outperform the "normal" students... often those years older than them. 
> 
> I don't know about the system in the UK but in the US the absurdity of teaching in the inner-city is combined with a clear strategy to destroy public education as a whole and replace it with a privatized system without unions and teachers earning half of what they now earn. This is underway in the large urban districts because they are easy to target due to poor scores, the unions tend to be the strongest due to the sheer number of employees, and it is simply logical: take out the biggest school systems first, and the surrounding systems crumble like dominoes. Right now there is what can be only defined as a concerted effort to make teaching an absolutely horrible profession through every-increasing and absurd requirements, inane class sizes, lack of any support for teachers... and for quite some time now, a virtual vilification of teachers by the press and politicians. 
> 
> As warped as it sounds, the school shootings in Connecticut actually served to take pressure off the teachers as both the press and politicians found it difficult to vilify the profession after the example of teachers who died in the line of duty... attempting to protect their children. Yet just two years ago... when the state tried to outlaw unions and collective bargaining for all public employees (teachers, police, fire, sanitation, doctors& nurses in state facilities, etc...) all the ads calling for support for public workers included images of firemen and police... but no teachers... because it was recognized that we were actually a liability to the cause. I am seriously looking to get out of the profession myself.


It's sad, isn't it? I remember a time when I liked teaching, but that profession has been entirely subsumed in this culture of hate. It's like working for zombies. They walk slow and look human, but the goal is to destroy.

----------


## cafolini

> It's sad, isn't it? I remember a time when I liked teaching, but that profession has been entirely subsumed in this culture of hate. It's like working for zombies. They walk slow and look human, but the goal is to destroy.


So you had too much hate to be a teacher? I'm not surprised. I have read you.

----------


## LitNetIsGreat

> Neely! It sounds like my school. I've actually gone from bad to worse... if that is at all possible. The greatest pleasure I get now from teaching involves the classes of Autism students I have who are far better behaved, far more willing to learn... and in a great many instances outperform the "normal" students... often those years older than them. 
> 
> I don't know about the system in the UK but in the US the absurdity of teaching in the inner-city is combined with a clear strategy to destroy public education as a whole and replace it with a privatized system without unions and teachers earning half of what they now earn. This is underway in the large urban districts because they are easy to target due to poor scores, the unions tend to be the strongest due to the sheer number of employees, and it is simply logical: take out the biggest school systems first, and the surrounding systems crumble like dominoes. Right now there is what can be only defined as a concerted effort to make teaching an absolutely horrible profession through every-increasing and absurd requirements, inane class sizes, lack of any support for teachers... and for quite some time now, a virtual vilification of teachers by the press and politicians. 
> 
> As warped as it sounds, the school shootings in Connecticut actually served to take pressure off the teachers as both the press and politicians found it difficult to vilify the profession after the example of teachers who died in the line of duty... attempting to protect their children. Yet just two years ago... when the state tried to outlaw unions and collective bargaining for all public employees (teachers, police, fire, sanitation, doctors& nurses in state facilities, etc...) all the ads calling for support for public workers included images of firemen and police... but no teachers... because it was recognized that we were actually a liability to the cause. I am seriously looking to get out of the profession myself.


Yes thats a pretty close description of the strategy against teachers and public sector workers here in the UK, only not quite as bad as you have you there. The vilification tactics sound about right but the attack on pay has been limited to an attack on pensions and freezing pay rises at the moment  work longer, pay more, get less, but with the shift to privatisation models theyve not managed to reduce pay so drastically and we still have union representations, for what thats worth. 

Meanwhile the pressure on teaching standards and target hitting increases. I heard the other day that teacher suicides are up 80%. That doesnt really surprise me. The amount of NQTs I have seen come in fresh and full of energy and enthusiasm only to be reduced to anti-depressants, sleeping pills etc, if they dont just manage to leave, is all too common. There are lots of problems but it feels like teachers are struck between behaviour (the mammoth in the room) and having to meet impossible standards - I think the famous line from the education minister sums that one up I want all schools to be above average.  :Sosp:

----------

