What is the purpose of education?

by **Ivan** Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:50 am

First topic message reminder :

“Why, mummy?” “What’s that for, daddy?” How many parents feel like tearing their hair out when confronted by an endless stream of questions from a toddler, yet at the same time knowing they must satisfy the child’s natural curiosity? But what happens to that enquiring mind? How many adults question what's going on around them? Shouldn’t an important purpose of education be to prolong the natural curiosity of the child into adulthood?

I remember two teachers in particular from my schooldays. There was a brutal English teacher, who would hit you if you made the same spelling mistake twice. At least I don’t make many spelling mistakes. On the positive side, I remember a brilliant History teacher who taught you to question everything. He started by giving us the same news story as reported in ‘The Daily Mail’ and ‘The Guardian’, asking us to account for the differences, then he did the same with articles written by different historians on the same topic. He produced photographs (I remember in particular an Edwardian alley scene) and asked us to look for the unwitting testimony in them. His idea of education was to continually ask the question “Why?”

Writing in his blog, Mark Berthelemy has argued that schools today take children - who are literally "born learners" - and educate the ability to learn out of them, by forcing them through the sausage-machine that is our "education system". Lou McGill asks: “How can we expect people to be creative, if we expect them all to achieve certain set targets, and disparage certain areas of learning as less important than others?” Berthelemy went on to say that education should be “about encouraging the creative minds we're born with, and developing them - not stifling them”, and “looking out for injustice and not accepting it”.
http://www.learningconversations.co.uk/main/index.php/2011/02/09/what-is-the-purpose-of?blog=5

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, teachers were remunerated under a scheme known as “payment by results”, which politicians boasted would either be efficient or cheap. One inherent weakness in that arrangement was that teachers only taught children to the level of passing the test and failed to develop their full potential. But have we reverted to that system of teaching now? The introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988 brought with it a plethora of tests as children moved from one level to another. At a recent debate to launch Compass’ e-book ‘Education For the Good Society’, Leicester University lecturer Dr. Katy Layton-Jones spoke of the emergence of "a terrified generation" who had been brought up on education for the test and were frightened to engage with ideas.
http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=13891

Josie Fraser, a social and educational technologist, has argued that a fundamental purpose of education should be “to acknowledge the inevitability of change, celebrate the value of life as a thing in process, and promote an awareness of other ways of doing things - of discoveries yet to be made and solutions yet to be invented". She continued: “The purpose of education should be to expand expectations, not to confine them - to support our learners in understanding the impact they can have on their world".
http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6075468

Others will argue that the purpose of education is to provide what the economy needs. Some of us will reply that the best thing for the country is if as many people as possible achieve their potential and at the same time create something. Berthelemy concludes that the purpose of education in our current society is to become better than other people, but that instead it should be about achieving our individual potential. It should be about helping each other to find out what we are good at, and developing those skills/gifts/talents. Not to be better than someone else, but to be as good as we can get.

by tlttf Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:03 pm

An example of why Gove is right regarding the education system?

Lord Ashcroft commissioned a poll to coincide with the establishing of a permanent memorial to Bomber Command, which is to be dedicated and unveiled by the Queen in Green Park, London, on 28th June. The memorial honours the 55,573 men of Bomber Command who lost their lives during the Second World War. You’d think that knowledge of this might be part of the national consciousness, imbued through the fervent patriotism latent within our schools and inculcated through a history syllabus which focuses on our great island story...

Yet only just over two in five secondary school children know the Battle of Britain was fought in the air, according to Lord Ashcroft’s survey. Some 1,007 children aged 11-18 were interviewed face-to-face between 15-23 May 2012. The survey was conducted throughout Great Britain and the results are nationally representative. The research also shows that only one third of children know the Second World War began in 1939, while only one in five know what happened on D-Day.

The results of the survey highlight the importance of ensuring that current and future generations remember the sacrifices made by those who served Britain in time of war. Key findings include:

•Only 34% of children – including less than half (45%) of those aged 17-18 – knew the Second World War began in 1939. 39% knew it ended in 1945 (again including 45% of 17-18 year-olds).

•While 92% of children could correctly identify a picture of Churchill the insurance dog, only 62% correctly identified a photo of Sir Winston Churchill. •43% knew the Battle of Britain was fought in the air; 29% said it was fought on land, and 8% at sea. 20% said they did not know.

•Only one third (34%) correctly said the Battle of Britain took place in the 1940s, and only 11% of these – about one in 27 of the whole sample – knew it happened in 1940.

•Only a fifth of children had some idea of what happened on D-Day. The most frequent answer was that it was the day the war ended.

•86% correctly said there had been two World Wars. One in twenty thought there had been three.

•Nearly a third (29%) were unable to give any unprompted explanation of why Britain had fought the Second World War. This included more than a fifth (21%) of those aged 17-18 and a quarter of those aged 15-16.

•89% correctly named Germany as an adversary in the Second World War. Only 15% named Japan unprompted. Nearly a quarter thought Britain ’s enemies had included Russia , France , China , the USA , Australia or New Zealand.

•Only 61% correctly named the USA as an ally of Britain ’s in the Second World War. One in ten thought our allies had included Italy, Germany or Japan.

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/most-young-people-do-not-know-battle-of.html

by Shirina Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:32 pm

If the British history curriculum is anything like ours, WWII is "glossed over" in favor of other things. Even though for America WWII was the most profound event in our history (aside from the American Revolution itself), very little emphasis is placed on it. When I taught US history to 7th graders, the textbook I was required to use didn't even discuss the war before Dec. 7th, 1941, so there is no prelude to America's involvement. Nor did it say anything about the Battle of Britain. It did, however, devote four entire pages to the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war as well as a considerable amount of space to discussing segregation and racism within the US military.

D-Day received a sentence or two. The Holocaust was summed up in a paragraph. If you were to read a US textbook, one might get the impression that WWII was actually fought against Japanese-Americans and blacks.

by Guest Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:04 am

Shirina wrote:
… there is no prelude to America's involvement. Nor did it say anything about the Battle of Britain.

D-Day received a sentence or two. The Holocaust was summed up in a paragraph.

In US History K-12 curricula, considerable attention is given to Cinco de Mayo, while little is given to the Battle of Britain or the Battle of the Atlantic.

I learned of D-Day by seeing the movie The Longest Day. I learned of the Holocaust by watching the movie Exodus. I learned of Operation Torch, the Sicily campaign, and Anzio from my aunt’s accounts. I learned of Midway, the Battle of the Coral Sea, the overall Pacific carrier war and fleet submarine war by faithfully watching Navy Log.

That’s some of the stuff not taught in formal K-12 classes “back in the day” that I learned on my own. But that’s a step up from details of the events of 15 September 1940 in the skies over southern England. That didn’t come my way until the 21st Century and the advent of The History Channel and The Military Channel.

Meanwhile, on 5 May 2013, here come the Cinco de Mayo decorations.

by Shirina Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:19 am

Meanwhile, on 5 May 2013, here come the Cinco de Mayo decorations.

That's because we live in the Estados Unidos, not the United States.

by oftenwrong Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:49 am

What's wrong with people wishing to feel proud of their nation? For a lot of the world's population, they have little else to celebrate.

Apart from that, anyone who defeated the French in battle can't be all bad.

by Shirina Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:43 pm

What's wrong with people wishing to feel proud of their nation?

Presumably, their nation is the United States. After all, isn't that why they came here? And if not ... why bother? Getting citizenship isn't easy and there are lots of people who would kiss American dirt if given the opportunity to live here despite all of its flaws. I think the problem with so much Mexican patriotism being displayed here in the US is that we citizens know beyond doubt that a substantial number of Mexicans have no real love for or loyalty toward the United States. They're only here to use up our resources at a time when many citizens are sinking into poverty and will need those resources, too.

In terms of education, well, when a history curriculum spends more time on Mexican independence than WWII, we've really lost the plot. I'm sure that, in a school district with a sizable Latino population, they can offer separate classes for Mexican history as an elective. I just don't think that much emphasis should be placed on foreign history in a US history class unless it somehow relates directly to US history. I dare say that the outcome of the Battle of Britain affected America far more than Mexican independence.

Apart from that, anyone who defeated the French in battle can't be all bad.

No argument. sunny

by ROB Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:32 pm

Winston Churchill, who in my opinion is the greatest hero of the 20th Century (and that’s saying a lot, as there were some serious giants in the preceding century), identified a select group of heroes as “the few.”

Without “the few”, I might not be here. That’s not drama; that’s a simple conclusion, based upon a decent knowledge and understanding of history. Last time I checked, there were few Mexican nationals amongst “the few” to whom I owe my existence.

Shall I go on? Okay, I shall, for a quick moment.

Had Britain not survived until 7 December 1941, “a date which shall live in infamy” wouldn’t mean doodley-squat today. How did Britain survive, “if necessary, for years, if necessary, alone?” Here’s a hint: The citizens of a certain sovereign nation, independent of UK rule since 1867 (de facto), eleven plus souls strong, took it upon themselves to create a navy virtually from scratch, to ensure that enough freighters got through lurking U-boat wolf packs to allow Britain to keep fighting. In fact, in 1945, at war’s end, these then-twelve million strong citizens of a great nation possessed the world’s third largest navy, some nine hundred plus fighting vessels that secured victory in the western combat area of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Not a peep about this awesome sacrifice and accomplishment in public school K-12 US History curricula. Last time I checked, “na’ar” Mexican national volunteered for service aboard any of those nine hundred plus warships.

by Shirina Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:50 pm

these then-twelve million strong citizens of a great nation possessed the world’s third largest navy

Something you might find interesting, Rock:

Was the RCN ever the 3rd largest navy?

by ROB Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:34 am

Shirina,

First things first. My bad about the number of RCN warships; I was confusing that number with ninety thousand plus, the number serving in the Royal Canadian Navy at war’s end.

Second things second. I despise PDF files; they frustrate the fire out of me.

That being said, that PDF file contains interesting information about the RCN. Two left field questions: Since the “French” fleet spent a good portion of time holed up in North Africa, why in the world is France on the list? And Sweden didn’t even come to mind.

The linked Canadian source provided below presents a different view as to the RCN’s rank at war’s end than that presented by the PDF file. What’s your view as to the difference? Serious question.

Royal Canadian Navy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History, 1910–1968

At the outbreak of the Second World War, the Navy had 11 combat vessels, 145 officers and 1,674 men.^[4] During the Second World War, the Royal Canadian Navy expanded enormously, ultimately gaining responsibility for the entire Northwest Atlantic theatre of war. By the end of the war, the RCN had become the third-largest navy in the world after the United States Navy and the Royal Navy. During the Battle of the Atlantic, the RCN sank 27 U-boats and sank or captured 42 enemy surface vessels, while successfully completing 25,343 merchant crossings. The navy lost 24 ships and 1,797 sailors in the war.^[5]

Retrieved 27 June 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy#1910.E2.80.931968

4. Schull, Joseph. Far Distant Ships: An Official Account of Canadian Naval Operations in World War II. Ottawa: King's Printer, 1952 – reprinted by Stoddart Publishing, Toronto, 1987, p. 1. ISBN 0-7737-2160-6.
5. Schull, Joseph, p.430-1

by Shirina Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:44 am

Since the “French” fleet spent a good portion of time holed up in North Africa, why in the world is France on the list?

Well, the French did have a sizable fleet during the war, which is the reason why Churchill sent the RN to sink French ships to keep them out of the hands of the Nazis. The Richilieu and Jean Bart were not ships to sneeze at, and the Dunkerque and Strasborg were very good battlecruisers. Plus the French had some WWI dreadnoughts lying around. The Richilieu actually served in the Pacific, if I remember right.

What’s your view as to the difference? Serious question.

Personally, I think there is some bias. Most fleets, no matter how large, are simply not taken seriously if they have no battleships; fleet carriers and some heavy cruisers also helps. If you have a fleet of 500 minelayers, sub chasers, and corvettes, it won't be highly regarded as a "serious" naval power. The Canadians, the Dutch, the Australians, even the Indians and Polish, had some fine ships and crews ... but without battleships, cruisers with 8 inch guns, and a carrier or two, they get overlooked.

In addition, the Battle of the Atlantic itself, where the Canadians did most of their fighting, is ... well, I don't want to say "ignored," but let's face it: U-boats sinking merchant ships just isn't as glamorous as big fleet battles like Midway, Leyte Gulf, or Coral Sea. So many small ships fought and so many were sunk that there's not much interest. But when a battleship goes down like the Hood or Yamato, that's big stuff.

In terms of fleet size, it just depends on who is doing the counting. Some historians don't count amphibious ships like LSTs, others won't count anything below a certain tonnage, ships below a certain gun caliber, coastal vessels, ships on loan from another nation, whether the ship was crewed by the same nation as the flag it flies (British sailors manning Canadian ships, for instance), and it also depends on what time frame given that Canada rapidly demobilized its navy after VE-Day. Canada will have a lot more ships in its navy on VE-Day than it did on VJ-Day.

So there's really no right or wrong answer. Thus saying Canada had the 3rd largest navy in 1945 is neither wrong nor right. It just depends on who you ask and what you read.

by oftenwrong Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:02 am

RockOnBrother wrote:

....
Not a peep about this awesome sacrifice and accomplishment in public school K-12 US History curricula. Last time I checked, “na’ar” Mexican national volunteered for service aboard any of those nine hundred plus warships.

Not clear what point you're trying to make there, RoB.

"On December 7, 1941, when the Empire of Japan attacked the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, many sailors with Hispanic surnames were among those who perished. When the United States officially entered World War II, Hispanic Americans were among the many American citizens who joined the ranks of the Navy as volunteers or through the draft. Of the Hispanics who served actively in the European and Pacific Theatres of war, five would eventually earn the rank of Rear Admiral and above."

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

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:15 am

Shirina wrote:
Personally, I think there is some bias. Most fleets, no matter how large, are simply not taken seriously if they have no battleships; fleet carriers and some heavy cruisers…

I take your point about the capital ship bias. Also, curiosity compels research into Richelieu’s Pacific service. Whatever I find, I’ll post on this thread.

The bias is misleading; when a nation is involved in war at sea, it needs vessels designed to defeat the threats it faces. Those “itsy-bitsy” U-boats damned near “sunk” the island that stood alone. I’ve certainly no claim to expertise regarding Britain’s natural resources, but it seems to me that she’s coal-rich and everything-else-poor. Isolate her, and she dies.

Canadians, responding unselfishly to the needs of their British brothers, created the navy Britain needed to stay afloat until the sleeping giant had been fully awakened. To accomplish this, the RCN geared up exactly as it should have done, putting to sea, among other craft deployed “for the purpose”, uncomfortable itsy-bitsy corvettes to destroy U-boats. But why did RCN northwest Atlantic sailors need comfortable lodgings at sea? They were relatively close to home, as one can see by looking at the Great Circle route from the US (number one Western allies war materials supplier) and Canada (number two Western allies war materials supplier) to the UK.

Unlike their USN counterparts in the Pacific Ocean and their RN counterparts in the Indian Ocean, they weren’t require to endure long deployments far away from home facing an adversary possessed of one of the mightiest navies the world had ever experienced. Their enemy was hiding in the dark North Atlantic; even when surfaced, U-boats were hard to see, particularly at night, and especially during night surface attacks when viewed head on. And whether taken out by a small caliber deck gun, a torpedo, or a broadside from a battlewagon’s battery of 15” or 16” cannons, a sunk ship is a sunk ship, and sailors are going to die.

I wonder what might have happened if there had been no RCN participation in WWII?

by Guest Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:49 am

oftenwrong wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:

....
Not a peep about this awesome sacrifice and accomplishment in public school K-12 US History curricula. Last time I checked, “na’ar” Mexican national volunteered for service aboard any of those nine hundred plus warships.
Not clear what point you're trying to make there, RoB.

I’m “trying to make” no point “there”, Oftenwrong. I’m stating what I know as of 27 June 2012; to the best of my knowledge, “na’ar” (as in “no”, “zero”, “nada”) Mexican national volunteered to serve aboard RCN warships during WWII.

oftenwrong wrote:
"On December 7, 1941, when the Empire of Japan attacked the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, many sailors with Hispanic surnames were among those who perished. When the United States officially entered World War II, Hispanic Americans were among the many American citizens who joined the ranks of the Navy as volunteers or through the draft. Of the Hispanics who served actively in the European and Pacific Theatres of war, five would eventually earn the rank of Rear Admiral and above."

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

Please read carefully the emboldened, underlined text below, which you’ve accurately quoted in your post of 27 June 2012 at 10:02, and note the difference between the emboldened, underlined text posted by me below and the emboldened, underlined text posted by you above.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Not a peep about this awesome sacrifice and accomplishment in public school K-12 US History curricula. Last time I checked, “na’ar” Mexican national volunteered for service aboard any of those nine hundred plus warships.

I speak explicitly of Mexican nationals.Your source speaks implicitly of United States citizens and United States nationals.

by tlttf Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:21 am

Not to be pedantic but why should a Mexican national volunteer to serve on board an American national warship?

by Shirina Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:56 am

Not to be pedantic but why should a Mexican national volunteer to serve on board an American national warship?

Actually, it would be a pretty good deal for a Mexican national. You get good and free health care. You can get money for college. You get free training to take with you into the private sector. You never have to worry about where your next meal is coming from or when it's going to be. You will always get a paycheck and you won't be laid off (even getting "fired" would be hard). And, since you are provided with food, clothing, and shelter, you can either generate a very nice savings account or send almost all of your pay back to your family in Mexico. You may even earn your citizenship. Plus, in the US Navy, you're far less likely to end up in a body bag.

Compare that with the opportunities available to a peasant in Mexico or an illegal day-laborer in the US.

by oftenwrong Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:00 am

So the purpose of education is to get a job in a foreign navy.

Live and learn.

by Guest Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:35 am

oftenwrong wrote:
So the purpose of education is to get a job in a foreign navy.

No.

by Guest Sat Aug 04, 2012 2:39 am

tlttf wrote:
Not to be pedantic but why should a Mexican national volunteer to serve on board an American national warship?

Four questions:

Why should a Canadian national volunteer to serve on a British warcraft?
Why should a Polish national volunteer to serve on a British warcraft?
Why should a Norwegian national volunteer to serve on board a British warcraft?
Why should an American national volunteer to serve on a British warcraft?

One answer:

To save the world.

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”

Winston Churchill, 20 August 1940

One might check out the nationalities of “the few.”

by oftenwrong Sat Aug 04, 2012 12:25 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few”

Winston Churchill, 20 August 1940

One might check out the nationalities of “the few.”

The irony is that with Britain's current Immigration policy, by no means all of those heroic volunteers would now be admitted to our shores.

by **astradt1** Sat Aug 04, 2012 1:31 pm

The irony is that with Britain's current Immigration policy, by no means all of those heroic volunteers would now be admitted to our shores.

Or been allowed to stay on completion of that service.....even if they came from a commonwealth country!!!!!

by Boudica Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:37 pm

I've always thought that the basic purpose of education is to equip our young people with the requisite skills and knowledge to accomplish their goals.

I imagine this is regarded as somewhat naive by many members of the forum. Maybe I should have said that the basic purpose of education should be to equip young people with the requisite skills and knowledge...blah, blah, blah.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:19 pm

A little green man arriving from outer space in his UFO might suppose that our State Education system was designed to separate Leaders from the Led.

by boatlady Sun Oct 21, 2012 6:23 pm

There was at least one school in Yorkshire in the 1970's where secondary schools' kids' career advice was 'you are factory fodder'

by snowyflake Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:43 pm

There was at least one school in Yorkshire in the 1970's where secondary schools' kids' career advice was 'you are factory fodder

If that is true, then it is a govt adenda designed to keep the poor paying taxes so the rich can continue to live in the style they have become accustomed to........bloody bastards.

I have no faith in goverment, business or religon who seem to be different manifestations of the same evil. Please, World, wake up to each other and look after each other. Love one another...in the real sense.

by Boudica Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:53 pm

boatlady wrote:There was at least one school in Yorkshire in the 1970's where secondary schools' kids' career advice was 'you are factory fodder'

That's astonishing. Most of the schools in my area of Yorkshire told the boys they'd be miners.

by Guest Sun Oct 28, 2012 1:15 am

This is an area in which the UK is in need of lessons from the US. It’s not perfect, but crap like that which was shoveled down El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz’s throat is no longer tolerated in any public educational jurisdiction in the United States.

I am a Black American and a Black Texan, born with a wooden spoon in my mouth, pushed by high school counselors into applying to Stanford (or Yale, or Harvard) because of my SAT scores, and expected to hone my intellectual capacities throughout my lifetime. No doors were ever closed to me because of modest birth. Now skin color… but my generation dealt with that one.

It amazed me that the island which gifted the world with William Wilberforce remains lily white within its halls of power while both of its North American children have enjoyed a Black Chief of State. Perhaps it’s time for all “wooden spooners” encamped upon that island of bitter weeds to “let the people know, this ain’t no time to be slow.”

(For God's Sake) Give More Power to the People - The Chi-Lites
https://www.youtube.com/v/qEwMaeN2x-c

by tlttf Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:05 am

What utter drivel, those that want to succeed and have the ability are able to move into whatever circles they choose. Isn't it time to take self responsibility a bit more seriously. We certainly need no lessons from America.

by oftenwrong Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:24 pm

"We certainly need no lessons from America."

Though Britons have been assiduous in adopting American customs.

In the last twenty years, Guy Fawkes has become eclipsed by Halloween.

by **Ivan** Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:55 pm

What utter drivel, those that want to succeed and have the ability are able to move into whatever circles they choose.....We certainly need no lessons from America.

tlttf. Firstly, please show a little more respect for our security manager, who does a great deal of work behind the scenes helping to keep this forum safe from the hackers and other malcontents who ruined our first forum. The breach of security in mid-August was down to the carelessness of me and someone who was a moderator at the time, not him. I did offer my resignation to the other staff, and I expect some of you are sad that they didn’t accept it.

Secondly, you’ll be surprised that I agree with you in one respect! We don’t need lessons from the USA on social mobility, the country which has the worst record on that in the developed world. As Ed Miliband said in a speech to the Sutton Trust in May this year: “If you want ‘The American Dream’ – go to Finland.”

However, we have the second worst record on social mobility, and the trebling of university tuition fees by this rancid coalition will only make things worse. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland have the highest rates of social mobility and are among the most equal of developed nations.

http://classonline.org.uk/docs/Why_Inequality_Matters.pdf

by Shirina Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:40 pm

The only thing you'll learn from America is Social Darwinism ... not social mobility.

by Guest Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:32 am

Shirina wrote:
The only thing you'll learn from America is Social Darwinism ... not social mobility.

Not so.

I am a Black American. I am a Black Texan. I am a mongrel. My ancestors survived the Middle Passage. My ancestors survived the Trail Of Tears. My ancestors survived the Irish Potato Famine. Via first-person testimony, I have come to know the words of two Black American slave ancestors. Through first-person experience, I have come to know “Jim Crow” and his little brother Billy (crypto-racism).

My United States of America has much to teach the world. “He who has an ear, let him hear.”

Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men… are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

United States Constitution, Amendment 14, Paragraph 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Brown v. Board of Education
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which allowed state-sponsored segregation. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9–0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+)

347 U.S. 483

Argued December 9, 1952

Reargued December 8, 1953

Decided May 17, 1954

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS*

Full text of Brown v. Board of Education (click here)
http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html

“And the walls came a-tumblin’ down.”

by Boudica Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:15 pm

In all honesty, I find racism nauseating.

However, I look at the way education in the UK is increasingly readjusted to favour boys and wonder what the hell is going on!

by oftenwrong Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:23 am

The point about Racism is its absolute pointlessness. It is illogical. One may object to a person who is lazy or dirty, noisy or aggressive, but it makes no sense to worry about their different choice of clothing or diet.

As to bias in education, there is probably a case to be made for social engineering for the benefit of the Nation generally. Boys tend to waste a lot of time trying to impress others, so left to their own devices they will fall behind educationally against girls of similar age. Unless there is some kind of compensation applied in school, the result will be numbers of unemployable layabouts with little to do apart from causing trouble.

Call it self-defence if you like.

by ROB Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:31 am

The preponderance of research findings strongly suggests that K-12 public and private education inherently “favors” female learners. This inherent female bias tends to discourage male learners as evidenced by certain measurable phenomena. I wonder if the boy learners whose “names” are on Ebola and HIV-AIDS were so discouraged by anti-male learning environments that they dropped out of high school prior to finishing medical school, internship, residency, and accepting research positions at the Center for Disease Control?

We almost missed out on the General Theory of Relativity and the long sought answer as to how gravity works. Thank God that its discoverer wasn’t so exhausted by his important work at the Swiss Patent Office that he couldn’t think.

by methought Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:38 pm

The preponderance of research findings strongly suggests that K-12 public and private education inherently “favors” female learners.

My view is that this is because females are reared to be compliant, and the education system sausage machine rewards compliance.

My view therefore is that it doesn't prepare children for a range of roles in adulthood. If you do well academically you become a pen-pusher. It doesn't develop the skills some people gain from informal or extra-curricular activities.

I would like to see a new emphasis on team playing, on applying skills as a small group, to complete a scientific experiment, bake a cake, write and produce a play, solve a mathematical theorem, or play team sports, with no gender segregation and swapping roles around.

All children should get the opportunity to lead, to follow, to contribute, because teams don't just need leaders they need followers, creative thinkers, and patient problem solvers as well.

Sport still values the 'goal attack' more than the 'defender' at the back, and boys sports are expected to make boys more macho, rather than teach them respect for the range of skills needed to make a successful team.

My big bug-bear is the segregation of sport at age 11, if not before. My girls went to a small school where one Kiwi parent had been under 14's rugby trainer in New Zealand, and he trained his daughter and son equally, so girls mixed in with the boys. We had mixed netball teams, parents and children together, since a couple of families had lived in Oz where netball is a televised sport played by men as much as by women. The school football teams included boys and girls mixed together.

It felt like my girls were being shut down when they got to secondary school.

We also had karate classes led by a chap who had adults and children all in together. The black belts taught the lower belts and learners, and they were aged from 7, 13, 17 (2 x Olympic team members) and adult. We all learned discipline, speed and control. A side effect of the segregation of sport is bullying. The girls in school get 10 minutes to fix their make-up while the boys get yelled at for wanting to gel their hair at the end of sports lessons.

The world of work requires team players, and a range of skills which schools don't provide.

League tables give status to bright kids, yet teaching a slow learner to get the requisite literacy and numeracy can be rewarding for the dedicated teacher, and infinitely more so for the slow or dyslexic learner.

Education should be about learning, using a range of approaches, not about status and one on one competition.

by tlttf Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:24 am

Weird world, however working class kids going to uni has risen by 10% since the uni fees dilemma. Does this mean the system is working and balancing out the rich/poor syndrome?

by **Ivan** Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:57 am

Attempts to get poor students to university 'failing'

"Attempts to encourage children from poorer homes to go to university have failed, according to a study. The proportion of people from middle-class backgrounds with degrees has increased twice as fast as among less well-off groups, says the report."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17203551

by bobby Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:33 am

Yeah and there was even a guitar playing Mex in the dirty Dozen Laughing

by tlttf Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:03 am

From that Bastion of leftfooting politics "The Mirror", what the labour will bring to the table if they get their hands on schools in the future

'Work experience' for five-year-olds: Labour plans factory and office visits and employer talks to tackle skills shortage
23 Jan 2013 00:00

Stephen Twigg wants to bring in “work discovery” schemes consisting of factory and office visits and talks from employers
Proposals: Stephen Twigg Proposals: Stephen Twigg
Getty

Children should be offered “work experience” at five to help address the country’s skill shortage, Labour will say today.

Shadow Education Secretary Stephen Twigg wants to bring in “work discovery” schemes consisting of factory and office visits and talks from employers.

The 'work-ready' programmes for youngsters will also see talks by leading employers to inspire children at an early age about the world of work.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-plans-to-give-five-year-olds-work-1550341

Yep, bring back the good old days lads, you'll get my vote. bounce

by Shirina Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:45 am

I don't see anything there about actually putting 5 year-olds to work in factories and offices. I mean - what could they do? Taking tours of factories and offices, listening to talks from working people - I don't see anything wrong with that, and it may cultivate a strong work ethic for when these kids get old enough to work. This equates to fewer people on benefits later in life. I would think the right-wingers would love a plan like this.

Unlike some proposals I've seen coming from the right-wingers here in the US that wish to abolish ALL child labor laws and actually put children to work. Essentially this is just pandering to Big Business who could begin firing all of the higher paid unskilled adult workers in order to bring in children who, by federal law, are not required to be paid minimum wage if they are below the age of 14 (if I remember correctly). In other words, the right-wingers wanted to make it legal for desperate parents to pimp their children to business interests.

by boatlady Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:51 am

Another effect will be to give children more information about work than they would get from family members - might even encourage some social mobility, via children becoming motivated to gain qualifications that will enable them to join occupations that their parents can't aspire to.
Can see why the right wing might see that as a bad thing.

by Sponsored content