We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Iain Duncan-Smith relaunched the Conservative Party yesterday, announcing that a future Conservative government would abolish tuition fees. Of course, political parties have to reach out to those outside their traditional supporters. But IDS is going about it the wrong way.
Margaret Thatcher got lots of people living on council estates to vote for her. It was not by being left-wing, but by applying her free-market principles to make their lifes better. By giving them the option to buy their houses from the state, she helped them to rise up the ladder of economic prosperity. By allowing parents to have a say in which state school their children could go to, power was taken away from government bureaucrats, enabling parents to take their children to away from failing schools. Her strategy for getting non-Conservatives to vote Conservative was entirely consistent with her principles. Voters believed her policies because they saw their consistency.
By simply adopting socialist policies – and moving the Tories to the left of Labour – IDS is alienating his core support. But worse, he is unlikely to gain the votes of those who support his policies anyway. There aren’t many Old Labour opponents of tuition fees that are going to jump ship and vote Tory. They are much more likely to vote Lib Dem, a rather more convincing party of socialism.
A wondrous row has erupted between two fat, middle-aged, uncouth, bearded geazers, one of them the British Minister of Education, and the other the Chairman of Chelsea Football Club. Mr Clarke is plugging a scheme to get sports clubs to help out with teaching the 3Rs to recalcitrant youth, and Mr Bates’ Chelsea are the only football club not to be cooperating. Mr Clarke slagged off Bates, and now Bates has been slagging off Clarke, pointing out that the British state education system is appalling and getting worse and he, Mr Clarke, should see to it instead of attacking defenceless football clubs.
I have dealt with some of the boring educational angles of this story in another place, but the interesting aspect is that Mr Clarke has now said that he wants West Ham to beat Chelsea in their forthcoming and crucial Premiership clash tomorrow. Or, to put it another way, he wants Liverpool and Newcastle (rather than Chelsea) to qualify for the European Champion’s League next year, and even more controversially, Mr Clarke supports West Ham in their desperate effort to avoid relegation, and accordingly he must favour the idea of one of the clubs above West Ham, such as Bolton, Leeds, or Fulham, getting relegated from the Premier League instead. Bolton, did you get that? I can’t remember a Cabinet Minister wading into sport like this. Supporting your own team in a new-laddish, post-modern sort of way is one thing, but to mix this kind of thing with serious politics is new, surely, and frankly rather unsavoury.
Since Ken Bates is making trouble for a politician, we here presumably all now support Chelsea against the abominable West Hamsters and the even more abominable West Ham support Clarke. And that’s quite aside from the Samizdata HQ being in Chelsea, and David Carr already being a Chelsea season ticket holder. I’m a Spurs man myself, that is to say, for the benefit of Americans, a supporter of Tottenham Hotspur. But Spurs are never involved either in trying to get into Europe or in being relegated because they come eleventh in the Premiership every year. Very dull. So by now I don’t care what they do tomorrow and am happy to swing into line behind Chelsea also. I’ll be keeping a close eye on the Chelsea game tomorrow and keep everyone posted. Go you … Chels?
I’ve recently been writing at my Education Blog about the noted educator and educational theorist Maria Montessori.
Montessori recommended what for her time must have been a most unusual kind of object for young children to play with. She disapproved, it would seem, of the kind of complicated toys and dolls which, then as now, many parents get for their children. Instead she recommended abstract objects. What she had in mind was that children should not be overwhelmed with excessive amounts of information. Too little information, and children get bored. But too much causes them to switch off, in sensory self defence. That was her attitude. So, instead of dolls and train sets and woolly animals, she prescribed plain geometrical objects and matching sets of things like rods all the same size but of different colours, or rods all of the same colour but of different lengths. Or Montessori children may be presented with a set of identical sized blocks which different textures on their surfaces, like the different surfaces of different grades of sandpaper.
Whether by coincidence or by cause and effect, the Montessorian view of childhood objects has in recent decades made remarkable headway. Look into a child’s nursery or playpen now, and you will see all manner of geometrical shapes and blocks and wheels and surfaces. Felt covered cubes. Wooden zig-zaggy things to put in zig-zaggy shaped holes. Lots of different colours and consistencies of plastic. And so on.
The point I want to make here has nothing to do with the educational wisdom or otherwise of surrounding small children with such objects. No, I want to offer a theory about Modern Art, or rather, a theory about the (to many) extraordinary popularity of Modern Art. By “Modern Art” I of course mean abstract art – art that is not “of” anything, but is merely itself. → Continue reading: A conjecture concerning children’s toys and the current popularity of Modern Art
Since Samizdata, along with the rest of the Anglosphere, seems to be in us-Brits-great-or-what? mode today, please permit me to mention here that over on my Education Blog, I did a piece about the British Army as a teaching organisation, based on a conversation with a friend who is a captain in it. If what you’re now thinking is: “Wow, those Brits, how do they do it?”, well, I think this little piece goes some way towards answering that question.
At the centre of the piece is an accronym: EDIP. This stands for: Explain, Demonstrate, Immitate, Practice.
The other key principle “embedded” – to use this month’s mot du jour – in British Army practice is that the best way to learn something is to teach it. Quite junior officers start the “high powered” bit of their army careers by instructing at Sandhurst, and Sergeants and Corporals do most of the day-to-day training of the soldiers. At the end of it the soldiers may not be completely in command of what they’re doing, but the men who’ve been teaching them have it ingrained into them. Soldiering can be taught, and so can leadership, and this is how.
The thing I remember most vividly about that conversation was, well, how vivid it was. The question “Education – How about that then? – How does the army go about doing that?” is just about the best way for a civilian like me to get inside the head of a soldier that I could possibly have picked. “So, what’s it like killing people?” is useless by comparison. (a) It’s insulting. It makes it sound like that’s the thing they most like doing. (b) Half of them don’t know. (c) Those that do have no way of really telling you. And above all (d) they don’t want to talk about it. But asking them about how they teach is, as I said in my original piece, like taking the cork out of a shaken champagne bottle.
I want to do a lot more pieces like this one, about actual teachers and how they set about it, for my Education Blog, but so far have only done one more, about my friend Sean Gabb. So if any Samizdata readers are doing any teaching, of any sort, in the London area or near offer, and of a sort they wouldn’t mind me sitting in on and/or writing about (I promise to accentuate the positive – almost all teachers are doing some good things), please get in touch.
What do you think these are?
feg – jes – vok – gop – ruch – dez – thob – cag – shug – wiss – miff – sleck
Words that used to exist, but which have fallen out of use? Words that ought to exist, to describe things that exist, but now have no word attached to them so that we can talk about them? Douglas Adams produced a little book called The Meaning of Liffe, or something similar, full of such concepts, with suggested words to describe them. “Pimlico – the pool of stale beer into which the barman deposits your change” etc. etc. Ruch – to vomit or cough violently, while still trying to rush for a bus or appointment. Sleck – to refrain so ostentatiously from performing one’s duties that even very, very posh people, who hardly do any work themselves, notice. And miff? Well, isn’t that a word already? Are we not “miffed” if things don’t happen as we wish? So miff must be the verb of that, surely. And “gop” is the Republicans, isn’t it?
sprell – creld – splind – fland – blim – flut – smez – shrid – sprund – shrong – brost – flamp
Still don’t know? Clue: it’s to do with learning to read. These “words” are to be found on page 17 of the latest Newsletter, No. 50, from the Reading Reform Foundation. → Continue reading: “… doilible … snoiggal … wacespink … disclorping … thription .. illarptacture …”
Natalie Solent links to a typical education story from education.guardian.co.uk.
A six-year-old boy has become one of the youngest children to be permanently excluded from school, following an 18-month reign of terror that left some of his classmates psychologically traumatised.
The boy was thrown out of Ashton Vale primary school in Ashton, Bristol, after worried parents wrote a letter to governors demanding his removal. They reported him urinating on fellow pupils, stamping on children’s heads and scratching classmates’ faces. One parent claims he bullied her son to such an extent he needed speech therapy, while another victim began wetting the bed through fear. However, his father, a BBC technician, yesterday blamed the school for exacerbating his son’s bad behaviour and not acting quickly enough. “I think they’ve gone the wrong way about it,” he said. “At home he’s as good as gold.”
What’s this? The Guardian making a BBC employee look like an idiot?
He did, however, admit that his son had been given “more than enough chances” and had “taken it too far” at the school. “He’s always been naughty. He fights everyone all the time but doesn’t know when to stop – he just carries on.”
The boy was known as a trouble-maker at nursery, but the frequency of violent incidents has risen steadily and he has been suspended numerous times.
His father fears his unusual domestic environment may have had an effect on Troy’s behaviour. He has split from boy’s mother, but they still share the same home, despite the fact she is now expecting a baby with her new boyfriend, who lives in the Birmingham area.
Yes, that doesn’t sound good.
But to get more serious, here’s what Natalie says about this boy’s expulsion. → Continue reading: Including Troy and excluding Troy – Britain’s current education policy
Julius Blumfeld, a home educator himself, believes that it may be a while before the right to home educate in Britain is seriously eroded. (“Ask me again in ten years time.”) But I recommend also this rumination by Michael Peach about the future of home education in Britain, and on how to defend it. Says Peach:
Currently in England, although most Local Education Authorities would like you to think otherwise, we are pretty free to educate our children as we see fit. School is not compulsory, there is no legal obligation to inform the LEA of your decision to take your children out of school, you don’t have to let LEA representatives into your home, you do not have to let them see any of your child’s work, and you do not have to complete a pile of forms just to satisfy them that you are doing a good job (A statement of educational philosophy should suffice). From what I can tell we currently enjoy probably the most freedom in this regard anywhere in the western world.
So far so good, in other words. Which is also pretty much what Blumfeld had said:
At the moment, home education in the U.K. is off the Government’s radar. It’s just a quirky thing for a small minority. It’s nothing to worry about and it’s not worth bothering with.
But as Blumfeld had gone on to say:
… as more parents home educate their children, it will become increasingly visible. And as that happens, the pressure will grow for the State to “do something” about “the problem” of home education. The pressure will come from the teaching unions (whose monopoly it threatens). It will come from the Department of Education (always on the lookout for a new “initiative”). It will come from the Press (all it will take is one scare story about a home educated ten year old who hasn’t yet learned to read). And it will come from Brussels (home education is illegal in many European countries so why should it be legal here?).
As I say, Blumfeld preceded that by saying that in in ten years time things may have changed, and home-education might have become a “libertarian issue”, i.e. a political battleground.
Ten years? Peach thinks that things may be about to get nasty a lot more quickly than that. → Continue reading: The British home-education debate – is it about to hot up?
The famous cartoon mouse is far too busy making money for the Disney company to waste his time on a BSc in “Golf-Course Management” or “Decision-Making”. However, higher education minister Margaret Hodge has finally noticed the proliferation of ridiculously silly publically-funded university courses, identified them as “Mickey Mouse Degrees” and promised to solve the problem!
Even the Guardian can’t resist making fun:
“There are the apparent oxymorons – turfgrass science, amenity horticulture, surf and beach management and the BSc from Luton University in decision-making, which begs the cheap but irresistible observation, how did those on the course manage to make the decision to take it in the first place?”
But has New Labour got some right ideas for once? Have they finally decided that market forces and the education system should meet?
“…students themselves will ensure that what is offered by universities not just meets their aspirations but also meets labour market needs,” [Margaret Hodge] told a seminar in London organised by the Institute for Public Policy Research”
Well, no. Because actually, it shouldn’t actually be any of their business what universities do, because they shouldn’t be funding them in the first place, whereupon students would be obliged to be much more careful in their choice of how to spend their first three years after school than they are now. Perhaps some might even not go to university at all! But that would be a terrible blow to the government’s Ten-Year-Plan to keep as many young able-bodied people as possible well away from the workplace:
“The Government remained committed to its target of higher education for 50 per cent of under-30s by 2010.”
Actually, all the government is doing about their embarrassing joke-degree problem is trying to ban more things. This isn’t going to help. Anyone can ban things if they use enough coercion: but the real answer is to make those libertarian economic reforms and then just watch the students abandon ship as the daft degrees suffer a slow and painful death… Madonna studies, feminist ice-skating theory, cross-dressing, nail varnish and citizenship, and all their loyal leftie practitioners disappearing down the post-communist rabbit-hole once and for all.
But don’t hold your breath just yet. Not until you have a proper PhD in Underwater Oxygen Management first, at least.
Bill Clinton is the favourite candidate for the office of Chancellor of Oxford University. He is facing growing opposition from dons who fear that his election would endanger the reputation of the institution and the virtue of its undergraduates.
The arguments against his candidacy are many and varied:
- The former President of the United States would harm “the dignity of the office” as Mr Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes, including his affair with Monica Lewinsky, render him unsuitable for such a prestigious post
- His lies on oath about the Lewinsky affair and his decision to award presidential pardons to a number of well-connected criminals just before he left office in January 2001 should disqualify him from the role.
- Mr Clinton’s patchy academic record hasn’t been particularly distinguished in any field – he went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar in 1968 but failed to complete his degree and his extensive commitments in America.
Mark Almond, a fellow of Oriel College and a lecturer in 20th-century history, added that Mr Clinton would face “endless allegations of sexual scandal”.
“There’s bound to be trouble…We need a woman chancellor, not a womanising chancellor.”
As far as I know, the main argument for is Mr Clinton’s fundraising abilities. Since leaving office he has embarked on a series of lucrative foreign tours, giving lectures for a reputed £1,200 a minute. Oxford University being starved of state funds and facing transatlantic competition for its academics, grossly underpaid in the British academia, is desparate for more cash. And I suppose some dons are reasoning – if he brings more money, sod the dignity of the office or the potential damage it may do to the university’s image.
I can see how that happened – during my university days we came to appreciate the unique tutorial system at Oxford that the government has been threatening to scrap as it is five times more expensive per student than the usual seminar/lecture style of university education. Both Oxford and Cambridge are constantly under attack for their allegedly ‘elitist’ admissions policies and forced to fulfill quotas for students from ‘state’ schools.
I do have a problem with Clinton being the next Chancellor of Oxford University. I also want the university to raise enough funds to continue in its distinguished tradition, without the need to force change because of a lack of them. However, there must be better candidates for the post, both morally and academically more accomplished as well as able to attract sufficient funds for this ancient institution.
At the heart of almost all ‘redistributive’ statism lies the idea that it is perfectly okay to take money from one person, backed by the threat of state violence, in order to give it to other people deemed more worthy of that money. The ‘worthy’ people are those who have managed to make the political process work in their favour in some manner, such as students in Britain.
People like Will Straw, son of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, call education a ‘public good’ and thus sees that as ample justification for the National Union of Students demanding that students like himself have their education paid for by money taken from others… and yet is not the opening of a corner shop or supermarket a ‘public good’ as well? It offers not just needed products but also employment. Is not almost any lawful economic activity between two willing parties a ‘public good’ for much the same reason, as it generates wealth and satisfies needs?
Yet unlike education funded by theft, these other activities involve only consensual relationships and private capital allocated with private insights and information… If I buy a product or open a shop, it is because I think it is in my interests. However I am not going to use force to extort people into buying products at my shop or acquire things by violent robbery.
Although Will Straw may think it is in my interests for him to be educated, I happen to disagree. However he is quite prepared to have the state use force to compel me to provide for his education. Like most who feed at the public trough, he casually accepts the morality of the proxy violence of the state provided it benefits him.
There are some actual ‘public goods’ in the sense Will Straw uses the word, such as defence, the prevention of crime and perhaps discouraging communicable diseases, but those are really the only legitimate role of state… for the likes of Will Straw to think something like his personal education is something that compares to those true ‘public goods’ is strange thinking indeed, for it violates the true public good of the prevention of crime: he would have the state rob me for his benefit.
It has just gone midnight here in the UK and so I will begin by extending my very best wishes to all our readers for a happy, healthy and prosperous New year. Sadly, I suspect it will not be peaceful.
However, there is some good news to be had. The BBC TV teletext news service (no link, sorry) is reporting the result of a nationwide survey of parents the result of which is that a relatively whopping thirty one percent are considering home-schooling. The reason given was the growing disillusionment with the current education system.
Since this is not the kind of news the BBC would wish to propogandise about, it may just be an accurate reflection on the way Britain is moving on this issue.
Just who is being protected here? Just what benefit is being bestowed upon our society? What good can possibly be derived from a ruling like this?
“A mother-of-two has been jailed for failing to prevent her daughters from playing truant from school.
The Brighton woman was sentenced to seven days in prison and is only the second parent in the country to be jailed because her children skipped lessons.”
Why incarcerate this woman for the ‘refusenik’ behaviour of her children? I presume it’s because the state takes the view that threatening the liberty of parents will oblige them to become more coercive and bullying towards their own offspring in order that they may toe the educational establishment line. How degraded and immoral is that? I am reminded of the late Philip Larkin’s injunction:
“Man hands on misery to man
It deepens like a coastal shelf
Get out, as early as you can
And don’t have any kids yourself”
The once misanthropically gloomy Larkin begins to sound more and more like a pragmatist.
This woman has been sent to jail because education for children is compulsory and the state is the monopoly provider. Sadly, this paradigm is now a fixture of just about all Western societies but has anybody thought to ask the children themselves if this process is something that they either want or need? Clearly, the two little girls in question were fed up with being forced to traipse day after day to a draughty, municipal building and sat at a desk while a low-grade public servant with halitosis and a short temper drones at them about the French Revolution. Or Algorithms. Or something.
I am at a loss to understand how these two children, or the society of which they are a part, have anything to gain from being forced back into a situation where they are likely to be nothing except sullen and resentful prisoners? Very few people take the view that forcing human beings to work in state-owned factories on government-mandated projects will be in any way beneficial yet nearly everybody is entrenched in the dogmatic belief that doing the very same thing to human beings under the age of 18 will be nothing but beneficial.
This is an orthodoxy to which I once held myself: education is good, but children don’t realise this. Therefore prescribed and generally agreed packages of learning must be forced on them for their own good. Is this true? I must confess that I have no ready alternatives available nor any glib answers on what parents should do instead. But I do know that I am increasingly unsettled by noxious enforcements of the kind reported above and by the quiet, persuasive ideas of people like Alice Bachini.
Compulsory education is about compulsion not education. It is a received wisdom to which I am finding it increasingly difficult to subscribe and which I believe should be revisited and re-examined at a systemic level.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
