Gove : Bring Back 'Old Fashioned' Punishments

[boyfriday]

I think it is a fantastic idea.

 

..until it's one of your kids getting thrashed by an over zealous teacher for having a crafty fag behind the bike sheds.

 

---------- Post added 03-02-2014 at 15:49 ----------

 

Kids essentially get their education for free (I know, I know, adults pay for it out of taxation). Give something for free and it's not valued. We plead with kids to behave and stay in education, to work hard, to apply themselves. We give the message that they're doing it for us.

 

That's a very good point and I believe a similar mindset exists with the NHS.

[aliceBB]

..until it's one of your kids getting thrashed by an over zealous teacher for having a crafty fag behind the bike sheds.

 

If he has any? The people most keen on thrashings are often the socially and emotionally inept; although plenty of socially inept people do end up having kids, it is hard to believe they love them in the same way that someone would who is appalled by the thought of inflicting pain on them 'to teach them a lesson'.

 

Controversial, I appreciate. Perhaps different parents mean different things by 'love'.

 

---------- Post added 03-02-2014 at 16:54 ----------

 

 

That's a very good point and I believe a similar mindset exists with the NHS.

 

Yes, I've often wondered whether doctors surgeries and A & E depts would empty overnight if they made people pay for the consultation, then allow them to claim it back if the doctor who treated them felt the visit was medically necessary. Bureaucratic and expensive though?

 

If that applied in schools, kids could get a free education unless they started demanding an unreasonable amount of staff time for poor behaviour - at that point their parents could be fined. That would work, I reckon. Soon sort 'em out.

[boyfriday]

I'm more inclined to the self-reliance end of the self-reliance - interdependency continuum in society. Too much interdependence and things start to break (as they are doing), people become weak and dependent on others, which is no good for the individual or for society at large.

In an ideological way I agree with you, but living in a civilised society not only has responsibilities/consequences for the malingerer but for the rest of us too.

In the natural world, there are serious consequences for not applying yourself full to the business of thriving and surviving. Creatures in the natural world, are out of necessity, fit for purpose on a level few humans achieve, whereas, in the human realm, it's like (to use an analogy) being in a rowing boat, everyone has an oar, but nobody really tries all that hard because they know someone else will take up the slack. Thus, we foster and encourage all kinds of ineptitude and dysfunction, as there are no real consequences for taking the ****.

 

But do we want to live in the 'natural (survival of the fittest) world'?

 

Everyone's situation is different, I've known rich people fall on hard times and the offspring of delinquents attend red brick universities. Most of us believe in equality and fair play and it's still possible to thrive through hard work, support a welfare state whilst insulating yourself from the indolent by where you choose to live. Your proposal makes the indolent desperate and on a purely selfish level Im sure you don't want them knocking on your door in the dark of the night.

[salsafan]

If he has any? The people most keen on thrashings are often the socially and emotionally inept; although plenty of socially inept people do end up having kids, it is hard to believe they love them in the same way that someone would who is appalled by the thought of inflicting pain on them 'to teach them a lesson'.

 

Controversial, I appreciate. Perhaps different parents mean different things by 'love'..........

This is actually not love. This is more "survival instinct". We know what parents can be like. Sometimes quite competitive.

 

What Gove said in the newspaper is indeed an extension of his own childhood experience once again. Which is what I was saying before about how others actually do not SEE the real life situation and take in all angles before sprouting good old rubbish which is nonsensical at its best of times. We can only really put forward our own experiences, but really can we not put forward a good old suggestion which actually works and is credible ?

 

But at the same time, the sentiment before his words is actually one of a main concern for all those in education, are educators, and parents alike. There is indeed a BIG drop in standard, and in the results. Even if a child can past the exams for exam sake, they cannot find the life skills to excel themselves outside of school, and they lack social skills.

 

Any person should indeed be both intelligent and empathetic.

 

You mentioned that some kids wear the trashing as a badge of honor. But that is not true. What the kid is learning is social skills and self preservation. If they cannot compete, what the child then do is to use his empathy skill to laugh this off. That is why they suddenly let go of learning, and try to become the fool instead in order to compensate for their own shortcomings. Rather than to ask for more work to excel their own weaknesses. I wondered how many teacher can see through this kind of facade and still bring out the best of the child, rather than to actually follow strict rules for the sake of rules? Are they and can they too have this kind of innate ability to see beyond the child's own foolishness and see a future for the child ?

[boyfriday]

Yes, I've often wondered whether doctors surgeries and A & E depts would empty overnight if they made people pay for the consultation, then allow them to claim it back if the doctor who treated them felt the visit was medically necessary. Bureaucratic and expensive though?

 

If that applied in schools, kids could get a free education unless they started demanding an unreasonable amount of staff time for poor behaviour - at that point their parents could be fined. That would work, I reckon. Soon sort 'em out.

 

I met a retired Swedish couple on holiday who told me how wonderful their health system was. The male had chronic health issues and he had to pay 200 krona to initially access treatment, thereafter it was 'free'. It had the effect of reminding citizens the service had value. Whether or not it would work here I don't know.

[salsafan]

....

 

But do we want to live in the 'natural (survival of the fittest) world'?

 

...

I cannot speak for others, but I certainly don't.

 

You can only but see a great example of a brilliant mind like Stephen Hawkins. He still has shortcomings too on his personal life and his own personal affairs. He gave up on his own wife and he gave up on learning social skills and relationship skills as it conflicts with his own technical and brilliant mind. Now in his old age, he is making up this weakness by focusing on his personal life, than his work alone.

 

I do not believe that man alone can and want to be an island. So yes, social skills and empathy skills are still necessary as well as intelligence.

[aliceBB]

I do not believe that man alone can and want to be an island. So yes, social skills and empathy skills are still necessary as well as intelligence.

 

It is difficult to disagree with that, but you are still being rather contrary.

 

On the one hand, you are claiming that educational standards have fallen dramatically (since when? How are they to be measured? Evidence?)

 

On the other you seem to be saying that the young need social skills and empathy as well as intelligence. That is clearly down to (i) their genetic inheritance and (ii) the way they have been brought up (or down) by their parents; it is not something teachers can significantly affect if the foundations have not been properly laid at home.

 

Then you say that Michael Gove is wrong but he nonetheless has the best interests of everyone, including teachers, at heart.

 

At that point, I began to lose the will to live...

[salsafan]

It is difficult to disagree with that, but you are still being rather contrary.

 

On the one hand, you are claiming that educational standards have fallen dramatically (since when? How are they to be measured? Evidence?)

Surely an "education" is actually to enable a child to get on in life and secure himself a job. Do you or do you not agree with this ?

 

If you do not agree with this, then we do have a bigger issue at hand, BECAUSE, most HR departments now confess that they have an issue in "training" young people to get them working and fit into the workplace already. So you have to ask yourself, why this is the case. If the HR department of a company state this, and you as an educator in a school complains that it is the fault of the parent and the system. Then WHO is actually to blame when a child fail to secure himself or herself in a school ? Who ? Surely, if each party did their job right, and actually gave 100% to their role and be effective, then nobody would be let down ?

 

I am not using A level scores for comparison, even though the educational standard uses such measures to do so. I also realised that the scoring system DID drop before, especially in the years that I went to college. I know that they also utilise a distributive curve which enables a drawn out curve regardless.. So it means that Year 2011's standards can differ to that of Year 2013's standard. I also noticed that nobody drew a comparative analysis over previous years and do a distribution that way. As the measurable condition have shifted and changed already, so how and why would it ever be the same comparatively ? Everybody tick their boxes and we all go home. But the point is, those who have moved on in life, and into those companies still set that standard of which they are used to, and hence the most innovative of companies and the highly valued ones who still gain a standing in their respective industry will and still invest in the knowledge of their employees.

 

On the other you seem to be saying that the young need social skills and empathy as well as intelligence. That is clearly down to (i) their genetic inheritance and (ii) the way they have been brought up (or down) by their parents; it is not something teachers can significantly affect if the foundations have not been properly laid at home.

It is both. To say that a child is not affected by his educational environment is completely wrong. A teacher should work with the parent, and not see the role as merely one of a job. Which I know that many do in this day and age too. But it certainly was not done so before.

 

My parents revere and see my teachers as God. Their words on my development has such a high impact. I was given more work to do to bring my standard up, and they will indeed make sure I did those in order to know that I am developing at the correct rate and understanding, and I get distracted less by doing other fluffy things.

 

This is the thing. In Asia, children are still groom to think that an education is a ticket to a better life. Here in the UK, people see an education as a hindrance to life. Why is that attitude so different ?

 

Then you say that Michael Gove is wrong but he nonetheless has the best interests of everyone, including teachers, at heart.

 

At that point, I began to lose the will to live...

Let's be clear here. Your role as a teacher differ to his role as an MP. He is an MP for goodness sake. What does he know about teaching ? Shouldn't you be the better judge of how the education works rather than him ? He is stating his experience in life, but does he know that his way will work for all children across this country ? I can even assume safely that the answer will be a "no". He doesn't know those children, and he isn't a child psychologist and he doesn't know what makes children learn. Educators are. BUT... should the standard and the method of teaching changes in order to increase the statistics to be better just for the sake of producing better educational statistics but in effect the child still cannot slowly turn into a decent worker when coming to the stage of employee at 18 ?

 

Surely as adults, we are all responsible for our effective roles that we play in society ? His heart and his sentiments may be well and just, but his actions and words are quite a bit nonsensical in the context of the day. To be fair. I understand where he is coming from. As I am from a certain culture, the disciplining and the caning was done at home, and not in my school. Whereas he possibly went to a school and in his generation, his school did the caning, and his school controlled his development and not his own parents. Maybe that is the difference here.

 

It is a tad dramatic to say that you are losing the will to live because we are talking about a currents affair subject which affects all.... Come on... When it comes to the topic of education, I am a bit of an activist, I will admit this much.

[aliceBB]

It is a tad dramatic to say that you are losing the will to live because we are talking about a currents affair subject which affects all.... Come on... When it comes to the topic of education, I am a bit of an activist, I will admit this much.

I am not losing the will to live because of the topic of conversation - I started it!

 

I just find the way you spray contradictory statements and ideas at me rather confusing and difficult to follow. I feel as though I am being subjected to some kind of mental punishment. (I am still recovering from an operation, though. Perhaps that explains it).

 

I do appreciate your attempts to add to the discussion, needless to say.

[Waldo]

In an ideological way I agree with you, but living in a civilised society not only has responsibilities/consequences for the malingerer but for the rest of us too.

 

Yep, like waves from a stone dropped in to a pond, the actions of each individual affect us all, which is why people should always have opportunity to choose a better path for themselves and have a real stake in society.

 

But do we want to live in the 'natural (survival of the fittest) world'?

 

I think 'survival of the fittest' can have negative connotations; which I do not encourage. We are social creatures; and I think we're happiest when everyone else around us is happy too (and fulfilled and meeting the challenges that life throws their way, i.e. 'upping their game').

 

I'd like to live in a society that rewards intelligence, integrity, applying yourself to education and self-development; a society that doesn't reward self-pity, sloth, ineptitude, inefficiency etc. Which, to be honest, through my eyes, I look around and see a lot of dysfunction in the way we do things.

 

Everyone's situation is different, I've known rich people fall on hard times and the offspring of delinquents attend red brick universities. Most of us believe in equality and fair play and it's still possible to thrive through hard work, support a welfare state whilst insulating yourself from the indolent by where you choose to live. Your proposal makes the indolent desperate and on a purely selfish level Im sure you don't want them knocking on your door in the dark of the night.

 

I believe in equality and fair play too. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of giving the indolent a few crumbs from the table, just to stop them revolting. I don't want people to live with that frame of mind, I want people to be heroic and grasp the opportunity to improve matters for themselves; and we need to put plenty of opportunity out there for people to do just that.

 

Ultimately though, I feel people should have the freedom to choose for themselves, and if they choose dysfunction (when they could have chose otherwise) then I'm not sure we really do them any favours by shielding them from the natural consequences of dysfunction.

 

How would they learn not to be dysfunctional, if you stop them from feeling the pain of the consequences of their own actions?