title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Scholars will have better access to artefacts, and more opportunities for study and collaboration, if they are stored in the west If the Rosetta Stone had not been taken by the British in 1801, the deciphering of the ancient hieroglyphic language of the ancient Egyptian civilizations would have been near impossible. The British Museum is within just hours, and in some cases minutes, of such world-renowned institutions as Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, and Edinburgh. The scientific research that occurs in stable developed countries and scientifically excelling countries is of the highest degree, and parallels to this high level of study are simply non-existent in many underdeveloped countries. | |
Returning artefacts to their original locations would in the past have been an unfeasible project simply because of the risk of transporting everything. Now, however, transport is much quicker and easier and we have improved technology to make the transit less damaging to the artefact; for instance, temperature-controlled containers. | |
Artefacts often have unique religious and cultural connections with the place from where they were taken, but none for those who view them in museum cases. To the descendants of their creators it is offensive to see aspects of their spirituality displayed for the entertainment of foreigners. Meanings may have accumulated around artefacts, but their true significance is rooted in its origins. | |
The temporal linking argument itself cannot be disputed, but the idea that this is what gets parents invested can again be questioned, as noted above. | |
Collaborative Approach In order for a child’s misbehaviour to be successfully remedied, the child must receive a consistent message on what is appropriate both at home and at school. In many instances parents may condone behaviour that schools and teacher find unacceptable. In other instances, professionals at schools can aid parents in targeting specific behaviours to work on in a specific order in a program that integrates the child’s behaviour at both school and home. Moreover, uniform and consistent rewards and negative reinforcements from school and home are tremendously useful for helping rehabilitate a child’s behaviour. [1] When initiating such programs, the major problem is often that the parents give in and do not adhere to the agreed upon program, which serves to teach the child that unacceptable behaviour is sometimes condonable. It’s understandable that parents, who must be with the children a majority of the time, sometimes may find it easier to simply give in and pacify the child and inadvertently award destructive behaviour. Therefore, a system of parental investment, as proposed here, will ensure that the parents have something riding on sticking to a disciplinary program as well, which ultimately aids the child. In the case of parents being penalized for criminal offenses by children, one can modify this argument to fit by noting that often juvenile facilities will use schools as part of a behavioural modification program, therefore the consistency noted above is still critical. [1] Robinson, Virginia, ‘Bridging the gap between school and home’, Raising Achievement Update, July 2008, | |
Authority aversion is a good counterargument here. (see op argument 4) | |
Individual Responsibility The philosophy underling the proposition is one in which the child is not solely responsible for his or her own behaviour. Even if the threats of parental punishment and involvement are successful in the short term in modifying a child’s behaviour, the long term sequlae is that the child’s good behaviour is predicated not on an understanding of the consequence of their behaviour and a consideration of their own long term interests, but merely out of fear and external consequences. In the long run, instilling this message is likely to lead to future misbehaviour as the external punishments, in this case imposed on the parents, fall away. Once the child reaches an age at which the parents cannot be punished or the child does not care about parental punishment, building an ethic around such external consequences will fail to deter the child from misbehaviour. (See argument 4) | |
Parental Incentives Addressing the behavioural problems of children requires active parental participation. However, in many cases, parents are either not fully aware of their children’s problems, or more importantly, delay the active disciplining of their children. This is critical, as for the cycle of negative and positive reinforcement to be effective in behaviour modification, there must be a temporal link between misbehaviour and any potential punishment. In a desire to avoid future fines, or whatever the penalty the parents face, there is an active incentive to not only intervene in the child’s misbehaviour, but also to do so in a timely way, which is the most proven way to change children’s behaviour. Moreover, if there is any tendency for parents to overlook or avoid the problems of chronically unruly children, this serves as an impetus for keeping up with discipline notices and paying attention to the child’s infractions. A lack of parental involvement has for example regularly been cited as being partially to blame for the riots in the UK during August 2011. [1] [1] Gentleman, Amelia, ‘UK riots: ‘Being liberal is fine, but we need to be given the right to parent’’, guardian.co.uk, 10 August 2011, | |
The danger for abuse argument from the opposition side is a good counterargument. Moreover, one might analyse the probabilities that this particular incentive will be a tipping point in the case of marginal parents (the ones that are not already fully involved in their children’s discipline for whom this might be the tipping point). Most caring parents will already be quite invested and do the best they can because they care for their child. Those who do lapse likely have some sort of structural familial problems, whether they hold many jobs and work very hard to keep the family going, or are simply bad parents. In these cases, is this likely to be the factor that changes these parents’ behaviours? Unlikely. | |
Children are too young to internalize and understand broad philosophies of responsibility. A small child refrains from stealing a cookie out of fear of being caught, not out of some grand regard for a morally just universe in which his actions must be scrutinized. Later on, as the child gets older, his/her understanding can mature. | |
The “unjust” argument is a good counter. One could cite some neurobiology evidence that lack of discipline is due to complex cognitive deficits that manifest through delayed brain development even in otherwise normal seeming children, which belies the “parental responsibility/failure” view. To start with, cognitive deficits can be caused by genetic factors or other things which started before birth, and can stop children being able to function normally. [1] [1] Tynan, W. Douglas, ‘Cognitive Deficits’, Medscape Reference, 3 June 2013, | |
Children Held Accountable Often, children who have been trapped in a cycle of lack of discipline and disciplinary problems tend not to care about their punishment. [1] Detention may be seen as a welcome respite from classes, and other punishments over time may cease to make an impression on the child. After all, there is only so much that an institution can do to discipline a child. Using this mechanism opens up a far more effective repertoire of discipline. More importantly, while the child may cease to regard any punishments handed down on him or her, often there will still be a desire to avoid actively harming the parents, which occurs under this system. [2] The argument also extends in the case of criminal punishments. In the psychology of a child, he or she may not fully internalize the effects on their future a shoplifting arrest may have. However, the thought of their parents being punished in such an offense may lead to the deterrence necessary to prevent such actions. In effect, the argument is that when punishments to the child him or herself fail to act as a deterrent, the child seeing punishments imposed on the parents as a result of his or her actions may reinvigorate the deterrent effect. In addition, this allows an extra tool in the teacher’s arsenal, and the mere thought of perhaps “triggering” a parental punishment may help bring some children into line. [1] Pawel, Jody Johnston, ‘Child Abuse of Discipline: What is the Difference?’, Parent’s Toolshop, [2] ‘Mother jailed for girls’ truancy’, 2002, | |
Parental Responsibility In most cases, in which the child is not subject to some sort of constitutional problem (genetic condition or otherwise), the disruptive behaviour of a child is a reflection of in adequate parental intervention over time. A normal child under normal circumstances should be expected to conform to behavioural expectations, and the failure to do so represents a partial inadequate job by the parents. The result is a cost that is transmitted to society. Children that are disruptive in school or in society via the criminal justice system cost the system extra money either in school resources and time or judicial-police resources as well as in the more obvious costs such as fixing vandalism and graffiti. [1] Even worse; if a student drops out as a result of his discipline problems the cost to society has been estimated as $232,000-388,000. [2] Given that the parent is in part to blame for failing to control the child’s behaviour, in the time during which the parent is the primary custodian of the child, it is fair to pass on a measure of this cost to the parent. [1] Batten, George, ‘The Main Cause of School Budget Problems is School Discipline’, School Discipline Made Easy, [2] Hymel, Shelley, and Henderson, Natalie Rocke, ‘Helping Students who are Experiencing Persistent and/or Serious Discipline Problems to Succeed in School: The State of the Evidence’, Ontario Ministry of Education Research Symposium, 18-20 January 2006, | |
One way to deal with this argument is by noting that this would be one tool in a school’s arsenal. If it proves to be obviously counterproductive, then it will not be employed, in the same way that other disciplinary tactics schools/society can impose will not be used if they are seen to be adverse or ineffective. | |
The “parental responsibility” argument is a good counter here. An appeal to the fact that some lax parents clearly raise spoiled children can also be effective in building intuition about the notion that parents are imposing a cost through their actions. | |
Danger for Abuse Many children that have consistent behavioural problems at school come from dysfunctional families in which either physical or emotional abuse and neglect is common. This has then resulted in behavior disorders such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder. [1] While it would be nice to believe that parents would respond to the stated incentives in a healthy way, it must be considered that it is just as likely that in some of these households parents would crack down violently (again, either emotionally or physically ) on their children. Such actions by parental role models often lead to a vicious cycle in which the behaviour is then continued at school and in future generations. It is difficult to say what proportion of households may respond in this fashion, but if even a small proportion of children are actively harmed by this policy, it is a strong argument against its uniform adoption. [1] ‘Behaviour Problems in Children and Adolescents’, Children’s Mental Health Ontario, | |
Authority Aversion A short argument, but a potentially powerful one. The assumption that children will not act out even more under such a regime in a bid to lash out at parents is untenable. Misbehaviour at school is often a rebellion against authority anyway, and the ultimate authority in most children’s lives is the parents. Therefore, as acting out against both of these institutions is consistent with the misbehaving mind set, it follows that tying school misbehaviour to parental detriments is unlikely to affect the child and may even serve to encourage their bad deeds. | |
Unjust There is an argument to be made that this form of punishment of parents is simply unjust. The legal basis of punishment is based on the principle that a sane individual is fully responsible for his or her actions. One can always point to dysfunctional families or other influences that may have had an effect on an individual’s actions, but the level of influence is impossible to quantify. Therefore, any level of punishment that is meted out to external sources cannot be matched proportionally to actions taken by these outside parties, thereby abrogating the principle of proportional punishment. As a result, any just system of punishment is bound by this constraint, and shifting responsibility to external sources is not consistent with our principles. This argument functions best in the criminal justice context, but applies in the school context as well. Schools that adopt this policy must examine the ethical underpinnings of the policy, and if the policy itself is immoral, then regardless of its efficacy (which is disputed in the first argument and later on) the policy should not be adopted. | |
One could say that in cases in which abuse is suspected the program would be suspended for that child, and that teacher’s always have an obligation to report abuse (in the U.S., anyhow). | |
The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. In many countries the number of students in the last two years of formal schooling would at least double, requiring a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. And this is just the direct cost - there are also potentially enormous indirect losses to the state in terms of the taxes and pension contributions which it currently receives from young workers but would forego if the school-leaving age was raised. | |
Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society's future Doing so increases the economic potential of the future workforce, and so will bring increased tax revenues in the long term to more than cover any initial costs. Although some countries would experience a more dramatic change than others, it is worth noting that in many states a very large majority of young people voluntarily stay in education beyond the end of compulsory schooling (e.g. France, Germany and Japan). In the UK 84 per cent of pupils in year 10 stated that they had intentions to stay on in further education. [1] If these countries can already bear the extra cost without economic collapse, it should be possible for others to cope as well. [1] Office for National Statistics. Social Trends. 2009, , ch 3 | |
Unfortunately equality in the job market is unlikely to emerge simply because everyone now stays in school for the same amount of time. As noted above, not everyone will get the same out of school for being there the same time. Those who achieve the best exam results will still be the most employable, especially if they go into tertiary education before finding a job. | |
More education brings more opportunities More education provides the opportunity to acquire more skills and therefore more options. It has been shown many times that those with more education find it easier to find work and that they are more likely to find that work satisfying. Similarly, the level of education among the population can have a positive effect on the economy as a whole as they can be more efficient workers. The impact of extra years of education on earnings and economic productivity is also disproportionately heavy at the lower end - that is, two more years at school for a 16 year old will make a much greater percentage difference to their later economic worth than two years of graduate work for a 22 year old. The UK has recently raised the school leaving age to 18 for the same reasons. [1] [1] Browne, Anthony and Webster, Philip, ‘School leaving age goes up to 18’, 2007 | |
This argument suggests that children whom Britain's state schools have failed to teach even to read and write should be compelled to stay at those schools for an extra two years. It will not suddenly bring new opportunities just because children are forced to sit in a classroom for longer. This is absurd. It is re-enforcing failure. It is an idea according to which, if climbing a mountain on your hands and knees does not work, then you should be made to go on doing it. [1] [1] Bartholomew, James, ‘Raising the school-leaving age would be crazy’, 2006, | |
Raising the school learning age promotes equal opportunities Ensuring everyone gets educated for the same amount of time at school should promote equality. Currently early-school leaving is linked with other indicators of socio-economic disadvantage, such as low-income jobs or high unemployment. More importantly parents who left school young and as a consequence have lower-grade occupations are more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16) [1] . Forcing all children to stay in school longer could break this cycle of disadvantage. [2] [1] Ibid, ch 3 [2] RTE News, ‘Early school leavers earn lower wages’, 2009, | |
Leaving school early is not necessary. Simply in a few cases there is a need for more government intervention in order to make sure that everyone is able to afford to remain in school up to the age of 18. If children are unqualified at 16 then there is all the more reason to teach them the basics that they have failed to grasp for two more years. There could also be some exceptions as in the British system where there are exemptions for under-18s who are caring for parents or relatives, and for teenage mothers. [1] [1] Browne, Anthony and Webster, Philip, ‘School leaving age goes up to 18’, 2007, | |
UK statistics plainly show “There is no evidence that raising the minimum school leaving age made people who had not intended to leave at the minimum age raise their educational standard. This is consistent with the view that education raises productivity and not with the view that productive people get more education.” [1] [1] Zhu, Y., & Walker, I. Education, earnings and productivity: recent UK evidence, 2003, | |
Not all skills are best learnt in a classroom environment. Practical skills (for example carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on-the-job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both routes place young people into contact with professionals in the field as well as giving them access to a wider range of tools and materials than could possibly be available in schools. For many young people who would like to work in these areas extra years at school will merely be time ‘treading water’ before they can get on with learning the skills of their trade. This is even more alarming in the case of the UK with the new tuition fees for universities, which are likely to decrease the chances of certain socio-economic categories of going to university at all. | |
There are cases where leaving school early is necessary Working early can be an advantage in some circumstances. Many families need their children to make an economic contribution to the family income, often for example on a farm or in a family business. Working early can help these families to survive. Similarly unqualified individuals can gain equality or even an advantage over their qualified peers by having a few years’ work-experience ‘on-the-shop-floor’. If they are forced to stay in school as long as their peers they lose this advantage. Recognizing this, the British government introduced 21,000 extra apprenticeships in 2009 in an attempt to ensure those who aren’t suited to school do not fall behind when it comes to finding a job and a sustainable income. (Lipsett, 2009) | |
Forced education achieves little Unfortunately just being in school does not guarantee that a student is learning. If they lack aptitude, ability or interest the extra time in the classroom is likely to benefit them very little, especially when they have not chosen to be there. It also poses a sharp divide on the question of disruptive children. If they are excluded from school their disadvantage is extended over more years while if they are included, they damage the education of others in their class for even longer. As Henry Phibbs argues “Increasing the school-leaving age will not result in more being learned – just more broken windows in the locality of the school. Children fed up with school need an escape route, not an extension of their sentence.” [1] [1] Phibbs, H., ‘Let them leave school at 14’, 2011, | |
Practical Skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have vocational schools. For example the German system vocational schools, Berufsschulen, have been around since the 19th Century where students spent part of their time in vocational training in the school and part of their time as apprentices, these are attended until at least the age of 18. [1] It is possible for Schooling to be flexible while still continuing to 18. [1] Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany London, ‘Education’, 2011, | |
Poetry should not be seen as something that one studies after learning English but should, instead, be seen as a way to help students grasp the English language. Many aspects of English are improved through the study of poetry. Learning poetry involves repetitive reading and an exploration of vowels and syllables. Students also explore a variety of sentence structures and are given the opportunity to explore the creativity and flexibility available in language. Furthermore, by reading poetry students can improve their reading ability and public speaking skills. | |
Students need to study the basics of language not a complex form such as poetry According to a report published in 2011 [3] a great number of pupils in England are struggling after starting secondary school and 3 out of 10 pupils are not making enough progress in English. If pupils are not making the required progress in basic English then it is difficult to understand the motivation behind teaching complex poetry. If a student is unable to do basic multiplication it makes no sense to ask them to do complicated mathematic equations. The same is true in English: pupils who struggle with things like grammar and vocabulary should not be expected to tackle complicated poetic structures. | |
Musicians have, for some time, been awarded poet status. Early in his career Bob Dylan was described as being “as good as Keats [an early 19th Century British poet]." [7] Musicians must be allowed the chance to develop their poetic style and be recognized for their lyrical writing skills. Rap gives the listener an insight into the plight of the artist. It shows the harsh conditions in which people live and gives a voice to those that we otherwise might not hear. William Blake’s famous poem ‘London’ is often described a social protest, a voice of discontent with the conditions of life in 1790’s London. Rap does the same thing; social protest, put to music, and designed to describe the racial and economic inequalities that exist within society. Rap, even with its sometimes offensive lyrics reflects the society the artist sees and it should be accepted as it is. We must not judge the poetry on the basis of the poet’s life Dylan Thomas, Wales’ national poet, was an adulterer and an alcoholic. However, this does not make his poetry any less worthy. | |
Poetry is too difficult for school students There are people who dedicate their lives to studying poetry and still have trouble understanding its meaning. If these people constantly debate the nature of poetry how can school children be expected to properly understand it? It is difficult to teach because poetry can have multiple meanings; “[U]ntil education theory asks itself what poetry itself is, and therefore what the teacher is trying to get across, poems will continue largely to figure as teaching aids, exercises and – for teenagers – increasingly tedious, somewhat arbitrary puzzles" [2] and therefore poetry will remain of little worth in the classroom. The greatest poets write about adult experiences, e.g, love, work, history, politics, solitude etc. As a result great poetry requires an adult mind to grasp its full meaning and teaching it in schools means that students develop a disliking for poetry before they are even fully capable of appreciating it. | |
While great poetry may deal with adult experiences there is poetry that targets a younger audience and methods available to teach this type of poetry. Children’s poetry, for instance, is not complex or dark in subject matter and uses very regular rhythm and rhyme schemes, which young students will enjoy. If age-appropriate poetry is taught in schools then it gives young people the chance to develop an appreciation for poetry and its various techniques. This means that in later years young people will have the skills necessary to properly understand great poetry. | |
Rappers; modern day poets Many people believe that rap is a form of modern day poetry and as such it should be taught in schools [4]. Sir Andrew Motion, Professor of Creative Writing at Royal Holloway, University of London, said that: “Poetry is a house of many mansions. It does pupils a disservice only to tell them things they already know. Rap has its own challenges and opportunities – but so do many other kinds of poetry, many of which are neglected in schools." [5] However, many rappers use lyrics that are homophobic, violent, sexist, and promote violence and crime. To teach rap in schools is to give a voice to these values and expose children to views that education must not support. [6] | |
We must be realistic in education; we need to prepare our students for the difficulties of the real world. It is those subjects that are vocational in nature and/ or life skills, home language (not literature), mathematics, science, modern languages, business studies and law that must take priority in schools. We must equip and train the new generation to successfully gain employment. Therefore, artistic subjects like poetry do not take priority. | |
History books can tell us more about the horrors of the First World War than any poetry can. War poetry is based on the opinions of one person’s experiences whereas a history book can give an account of all the events and horrors that occurred. Because history books have been written after the war they can gather accounts from many different people and can tell the full story of the war. Shellshock in the First World War helped make many mad; Sassoon himself was nicknamed “Mad Jack” for near suicidal exploits. [10] War poetry may thus be an unreliable source, and it is only one among many that should teach history. | |
Poetry allows people to express and understand themselves Education should not just be about learning basic skills but should, instead, be about exploring what it means to be human. Poetry teaches pupils to think deeply about themselves and others and encourages them to explore the ways in which their ideas can be expressed. Ideas help to change, and improve, the world we live in. Encouraging students to express themselves and their ideas is important because the heart of democracy involves the ability to express ideas. If individuals cannot express themselves they do not have a voice. Therefore, by teaching poetry we allow pupils the opportunity to express their own ideas on a huge variety of subjects. Many poets, such as William Wordsworth, have written poetry about nature in order to “see into the life of things." [11] Giving children the tools to express ideas about the world in a variety of ways is crucial to the development of both the individual and society as a whole. | |
As an artistic form of a core subject poetry offers a creative method of teaching English Pupils in schools must learn English and poetry offers a creative outlet for a subject that would otherwise be repetitive and boring. Poetry also introduces the reader to new concepts which hold the learner’s interest and improve vocabulary and spelling. Poetry offers a fun method of teaching subjects that can otherwise be exhaustive and repetitive. For example, Shirley Hughes’ poems for young readers such as ‘Best Friends’ introduce young readers to the vowel sounds of English and Zoe’s Earrings by Kit Wright teaches pre-GCSE students about accents. [8] | |
Education is about teaching culture, the arts, and creativity We want cultured people to graduate from schools. It would be terrible if high school graduates had no understanding of the arts and had no desire to explore cultural places like museums and art galleries. The arts inspire learning and encourage human curiosity; removing this cultural aspect from schools means that we produce people without the creativity necessary for society to grow. At present the only cultural GCSE subject that is compulsory is English Literature; as such, it is important to include as much culture in it as possible i.e. novels and poetry. | |
Poetry is cross-curricular Poetry has benefits beyond the English curriculum by teaching about other subjects. In History for example war poetry offers the modern reader the chance to understand the horrors of war. Poet Wilfred Owen suffered from shellshock as a result of fighting in the First World War. In his poem ‘Mental Cases’ he describes his time and experiences at Craiglockhart psychiatric hospital in Scotland where he and Siegfried Sassoon (another World War 1 poet) were treated: “[W]ho are these? Why sit they here in twilight? Wherefore rock they, purgatorial shadows[9]” While we might never be able to properly understand the terrifying experiences that people go through during war we must read their poetry helps bring us closer to how they related to and coped with the experience in a way that simply learning the history does not. | |
Learning the basics of literature and language is not designed to be fun or enjoyable, it is an essential requirement. It is important that students can get to grips with the basics of their home language. A standard ‘look, cover, write, check’ method is an effective way to learn spelling and vocabulary as it requires the learner to write the words themselves. Simply reading them is not enough, especially not in the context of a poem which can be complex and difficult for a pupil whose priority is to learn writing and reading. It is much more effective to develop the pupils reading skills through standard literature where the structure is easier to follow. | |
Poetry is hardly the only way to teach people how to express themselves; if we are interested in self-expression for democratic purposes then children should be taught politics. If they are to express their ideas about nature then other art forms are just as important. Unfortunately poetry as a form of self-expression can only be crippled as a result of students’ lack of knowledge of the basics of language. The priority of government should be to achieve a basic level of literacy for all students; only then can the luxury of teaching art be introduced. There is no use in children being able to effortlessly quote Shakespeare if they have no idea how to spell his name. | |
Universities can't be guided by an "invisible hand": the conditions in the higher education market are not such that optimum results will obtain from this sort of "free market" idea. There are several reasons why. First, demand for university courses fluctuates, and a low intake for a course one year, and therefore decreased funding, could unfairly penalise other people studying in that department, who are not free to leave (and take their money elsewhere) but simply have to suffer the decrease in quality until the end of their degree course. Second, universities don't operate in a true free-market system: the high start up costs (buildings, libraries) mean that it is very difficult for new universities to enter the market, even if standards in existing ones fall.Thirdly, there will always be those students who are poorer and have to go to the worse universities (if they cannot afford or do not want the burden of a student loan). A poorer student will either get a second rate education and waste valuable time and money or will opt out of higher education all together and accrue none of the benefits, since graduates typically earn more than non-graduates1. 1 Lexington, "Higher education: Is it really the next bubble?" The Economist, 21 April 2011, | |
The introduction of more private universities would increase the quality of education by allowing open competition In the rest of the economy, when consumers are allowed to choose between goods or services, the higher quality products are successful and the bad ones fail. Similarly, when consumers can makes choices between universities, and are putting money on the line (thus taking a risk) they will choose the good universities, and consider the bad universities as not worth wasting their money on. As a consequence, the best universities will expand, and the worst universities will either improve or fail. The New College of the Humanities for example is aiming to rival Oxford and Cambridge1 so helping to provide these two elite institutions with the necessary competition to force up standards. This will result in a higher quality of education being available to more people. 1 BBC News, "Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011 | |
If more diversity is necessary, then governments can change the way in which they fund universities, perhaps by giving a proportion of funding based on student numbers. However, for the large part so-called "increased diversity" would not constitute improvements on the quality of academic education, but rather gimmicks to make a university look more attractive to the young people who apply – there are incentives to make the university popular to sixth-form applicants, not to existing undergraduates. | |
Private universities are needed to increase the number of places for students. British universities are facing cuts in government funding and as a result there will be no new places created to cater for rising demand. Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK noted the fact that the budget cuts that could soar to as much as £950,000,000 over three years would decrease the quality of education whilst keeping the numbers of University places stagnant. In 2009, 160,000 students who applied did not go to University. In 2010, 75,000 more people applied.1 Governments in rich countries all over the world are facing squeezed budged over the next few years and will be unable to increase funding for universities. This leaves private universities as the only way to meet increasing demand for higher education. 1Shepherd, 2010 | |
Encouraging private universities will not increase the number of university places available. Instead they will skim off the students who can afford to pay, but who would be going to university anyway. This will leave remaining publicly funded universities having to pick up the strain, often with less money and just as many potential students without places. | |
It is unfortunate that the current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich, but this is justified as long as two things are true: first, overall, the government does redistribute wealth in such a way as to take from the rich and give to the poor, and second, the funding of universities from the public purse is of benefit to the poorer people in society. In this case publicly funding universities gives the poor the option of going to university that they would otherwise not have, even if they fail to take that option up. (The opposition arguments explain why this latter condition is the case.) | |
The privatisation of universities encourages course-diversity and provides for students are individuals, not cattle Privatisation of universities allows for a greater range of educational provision: universities are no longer restrained by government targets and bureaucracy, and are incentivised by possible profits to set themselves apart and provide "unique selling points" that will gain them more students: the current system does not provide this motivation because universities receive their funding regardless of student numbers. | |
The current system constitutes taking from the poor and giving to the rich The majority of people in the UK have not benefited from a university education, and graduates earn more, on average, than the rest of the population. Further, universities accept a larger number of richer people than they do poorer people. A National Audit Office report claims "Socioeconomic background remains a strong determinant of higher education participation. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds make up around half of the population of England, but represent just 29 per cent of young, full-time, first-time entrants to higher education."1 It is therefore wrong on principle to use tax-payers' money to subsidise universities, because when universities are subsidised from a general "pot" of taxation, a redistribution of wealth occurs whereby the rich benefit at a cost to the poorer people in society. This is wrong, because we should be using taxation to attempt to mitigate economic inequality, not to exacerbate it. 1 Woolcock, Nicola, "White working class boys least likely to go to university." Times Online, 25 June 2008, | |
The reason why people from poorer backgrounds are underrepresented at university is not because they perceive it as something only rich people can do. Instead, it is because their schools did not adequately prepare them: on average, they have fewer/worse qualifications, and are less likely to have performed the myriad extra-curricular activities that give people an advantage when applying to universities1. Making university education private, then, does not disadvantage the poor: if the opposition really wants to help people from poorer backgrounds it would address the deficiencies of school-level education instead. 1 Cassidy, Sarah, "Quality of education still determined by wealth, says report." The Independent, 8 August 2008, | |
Allowing market forces to control educational opportunity is as legitimate at university level as it is at school level. Parents wanting the best for their children should be allowed to spend the resources that they have accumulated in any way that they like, rather than have those resources taken from them by the state to create an education system that isn't as good as that which those parents could have funded themselves. | |
Private Universities would risk reducing the quality of university degrees. New private universities will not have a long standing reputation to keep up. They may not be as well regulated and they will have no social interest beyond simply getting money from their students. This means that they may well offer cheap and poor quality education in order to find a gap in the market. This could damage the reputation of other universities as Dr Paul Greatrix registrar of Nottingham University worries "If there are entrants who are on the extreme end of cheap and cheerful, this will damage our international reputation."1 In systems that are both private and state funded universities there is an immense divide between a few very good elite institutions that charge immense amounts and a much larger number of poorer quality universities. Take the US system, it is well known for its world class Ivy League universities. Its publicly funded universities however do much less well with only the University of Michigan near the top of the world rankings in 20th place. Of the state universities only those that do not face so much Ivy league competition over in California due to distance do well1. Having Private universities clearly creams off the best students and the funding leaving the public universities in a worse position lowering the overall quality of education. 1 Shepherd, Jessica, "What universities think of competing for their admissions." Guardian.co.uk, 28 June 2011. 2 Hotson, Howard, "Don't Look to the Ivy League." London Review of Books, Vol.33, No.10, 19 May 2011 . | |
Private universities would increase the divide between the rich and poor Funding universities through taxation rather than privately allows poorer people in society to access university education because the government can increase access in three key ways. First, it can subsidise universities to decrease the price, second, it can exert pressure on universities to increase diversity within their student populations (by increasing numbers of people from disadvantaged backgrounds) and third, it can easily control peripheral support structures such as student loan schemes that become difficult to manage under a privatised system. | |
This will increase the perception that universities are just for the rich Treating university education like any other commodity will increase the perception that, like any other very expensive commodity, it is a luxury, and that therefore those who can't afford it should just see that as an economic reality, and not as an assault against their life chances. This will mean that fewer people from less well-off backgrounds will go to university, even if they are very clever, and thus will decrease social mobility. | |
Allowing universities to be guided by an invisible hand does more harm than good University degree programmes, unlike other products like televisions or designer shoes, are tools of social mobility: unlike a TV, a good degree will help you to get other good things later in life (like a higher salary). This means that it is important that people have a fairly equal opportunity to access the best degrees. Market forces will make the best universities more expensive than the others, and mean that the best degree places are awarded not to the cleverest, but to those able to afford it. Universities are already elitist despite being open to all and being publicly funded. In the UK class is a major determinant of where you go to university. Oxford University only has 11.5%, and Cambridge 12.6% of its students coming from a working class background compared to an average of 32.3%1. This is a situation that will only get worse as students have to pay for the best private universities. 1 Davis, Rowenna, "Does your social class decide if you go to university? Get the full list of colleges." Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2010, | |
With regard to subsiding universities and the student loan schemes, both of these could nevertheless be operated even if universities were privatised. For example, assisted place-schemes,(which-School.co.uk) where the government funded bright students to attend private schools are successfully run in the UK.With regard to pressure to increase diversity in the student population, this merely treats the symptom and not the cause, which is the inadequate educational support given to some groups in society at a lower level: this should be directly addressed instead. | |
Far from reducing the quality of university private universities would increase it. Private Universities would go where most money is, and this is most likely to be at the top where a lot of money can be charged for the degrees. This is what Grayling's proposed New College of the Humanities is doing. The New College of the Humanities will charge fees of £18,0001. With the extra money they will be able to hire the best professors and have a very good student teacher ratio, better than 1:10, with the result that there will be a lot of one to one tuition and student-staff interaction to increase the quality of teaching2. 1 BBC News, “Academics launch £18,000 college in London.” 5 June 2011. 2 New College of the Humanities | |
Schools have significantly better facilities and a much more appropriate and segregated learning atmosphere than the home. The state system pools facilities to allow access for all children to sports and science facilities1. Parents are very unlikely to be wealthy enough to provide the plethora of things necessary to a well-rounded education. Teaching within the home asks children to switch between 'learning' and 'play' mode in the same environment which is confusing especially for young children. Schools provide a specific environment that is dedicated to learning. Homes are more complex environments, ill-suited to teaching and the concentration required to learn. 1 'The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling' in Educate Expert (2011) | |
The home is an ideal learning environment. Home schooling allows children to learn in an environment that has the needs of one or a very few number of students as the focus of the educative process. Parents are willing to invest in their children and can provide targeted provision that prioritises the learning needs of those individuals1. Therefore, specific textbooks that are tailored to the child's mode of learning can be purchased. State schools, in contrast, are often very ill-equipped and under-funded, leading to standardized text books and teaching methods. The home also lacks the many distractions and disadvantages of schools: peer pressure, social stigma attached to achievement, bullying, show-offs and general rowdiness. 1'Virtues in to Vices' in The Journal Of Home Education | |
Homeschooling allows for the accommodation of faith practices. The state constantly fails those with greatest faith needs in schools. There are numerous examples of failure of accommodation: ignorant provision for prayer times, banning of religious dress, unwitting subjection of students to religious festivals that are manifestly unsuitable1. If parents want to avoid such perils altogether, and teach their child within an environment that caters for their religious need then that is and should be their right. 1'Rise in racism in the playground' BBC News (2007) | |
Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their requirements. Once a student has needs of such a magnitude that demands it, they are educated in special schools specifically intended to help them, with staff trained to possess skills beyond that of a parent's instinct. Even if it were the case that home-schooling is better for the specific needs of exceptional students, the benefits of education in a wider context override the objection to class-based education. The experience of growing up alongside less and more able students produces individuals with greater understanding of their society1. 1'Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: a research synthesis' Scruggs, Thomas E. Mastropieri, Margo A. Exceptional Children (1996) | |
Parents should be permitted to home-school their children provided they register the fact and submit to inspections Parents who take their children out of school, or choose to home-school due to apprehensions over the quality of state education, should be entitled to do so provided the child is better off as a result. To ensure they are not neglected, parents hoping to home-school must both register the fact they are home-schooling their child and submit to regular, state inspections of the child's progress. If the child is deemed to be falling behind his age group, the parent may be forced to return the child to a school. The parent should be given standards of teaching that they must adhere to before the inspections occur, and the standards should be sufficiently flexible to reflect children learn at different speeds and that not all children's development reflects fairly on their teacher. | |
Home schooling involves good community involvement and social interaction. Homeschooling families do not operate in isolation. There are extensive support networks (particularly in the USA the nation with the largest proportion of the population homeschooling) that exist to provide companionship, promote sports events and social functions. In addition, standard social provisions for children in civic society – scout movements, sports club – are open to homeschoolers. Homeschooling is not a removal from society but just from state schools.1 Homeschooled children often engage with their local community to a greater extent than their schooled peers. 1 ‘Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream’ Patrick Basham, Public Policy Sources | |
Interaction with other pupils is a crucial element of a child's development and involvement in clubs is not a substitute for the social skills learnt in school. Teaming building, working towards goals, being forced to confront problems with and live alongside individuals one might not like, or come from different backgrounds, is clearly done best in a school environment1. Those that seek to cocoon their offspring from the outside world merely delay the time when their children have to deal with it. Education is about more than academic teaching, it's about educating the whole person, and that is best achieved by educating them within a school with their peers. 1 'School as a context of early adolescent's academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings' RW Roeser, JS Eccles, The Elementary School Journal (2000) | |
Merely ensuring the registration of a child as being home-schooled does not fulfill the state's right to ensure that all children are given a satisfactory education. Inspections will help, but parents will nevertheless be unable to provide to their children the opportunities present in a school environment. The inspections should require that parents offer their children at least an equivalent level of teaching to that he or she would receive at a school, yet how is a parent going to teach practical science? How are they going to dissect animals? The inevitable result of such a policy therefore would be the acceptance of inadequate education. The only policy that respects and protects a child's right to education is to ban home-schooling altogether. | |
Those that wish to be educated in a religious environment have the chance to send them to a religious school the quality of which can be monitored by the state1. There are great dangers involved in exclusivity of faith. The adherents of all religions shouldn't shut themselves away, but rather engage in society as a whole, and understand other people's beliefs and points of view. 1'Gove defends faith schools', Riazat Butt, Guardian.co.uk (2011) | |
A school education is not mutually exclusive with family bonding. Just because a child attends school does not mean that their parent loses all influence upon their moral development. It is important for children to have a variety of different role models around them1. There is also no guarantee that the moral structure that parents might be instilling in their children away from any effective monitoring is beneficial. 1 'Why a Positive Role Model Is Important for Children', Caitlin Erwin, LiveStrong.com (2010) | |
Home schooling is often the best option for catering for the needs of exceptional or disabled students. Classroom-based education must, by necessity, cater for the needs of the group as a whole which leaves those the very bright unchallenged and those with special needs falling behind and unsupported1. The state often takes years to recognise the needs of students and they lose years of education in the process2. In addition, even if those needs are identified 'special schools' are underfunded and stigmatised. For many students with identifiable problems that affects their capacity to learn within mainstream schooling but is not severe enough to merit a place within the special needs sector, homeschooling can benefit such students by shaping the learning environment to cater for their needs by being flexible to adapt. 1 'Every Child is Special | |
COUNTERPOINT Home-schooling is not the best option for exceptional students. The state does not ignore or abandon individuals that have special needs and those with special needs are those that most need the state's enormous resources to focus on their Family bonding is a massively important element of a child's development and is prioritised by home schooling1. The value of the family is constantly undermined in modern society; positive parental role models are found less and less frequently. If a parent is judged by a state vetting process to be good enough it is enormously beneficial for society as a whole to approve is an environment that cements both a positive role model and family bonding. 1'The Role of Interpretation Processes and Parental Discussion in the Media's Effects on Adolescents' Use of Alcohol' Erica Weintraub Austen, Bruce E. Pinkelton, Yuki Fujioka, Paediatrics, (2000) | |
Homeschooling is not mutually exclusive from social interaction1. Interaction happens outside the classroom, where it belongs instead of acting as distractions to learning. In addition, homeschooling events involve children of all different ages as well as adults and in this way children learn to interact with a greater range of individuals than they would come across in a class just containing children of their own age and often makes them more confident in interacting with adults in a relationship that is not just a simple teacher and pupil relationship2. Parents still select schools for their children on the basis of common values, cultures and achievements - and even go as far as to move closer to the school they want to fall into its catchment area. 1Mike Fortune-Wood, ‘The “S” Word Socialisation’ from Home Education UK 2‘Civic Involvement’ HSLDA | |
Schools are often of poor quality and are failing the children. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from bed state schools. If the quality of education is sufficiently low in their eyes, they are entitled to be allowed to make the considerable sacrifice involved in becoming a 'home schooler'. It is reasonable that a parent should want to reject such educational theories and if they pass the inspection process then should not be denied that chance. "Homeschool freedom works. Homeschoolers have earned the right to be left alone."1 1 'Academic Statistics on Homeschooling', Home Schooling Legal Defense Association, (October 22, 2004) | |
Most parents do not have any teaching qualifications. If parents are not trained or qualified teachers how can they provide a better or equivalent quality of education than a professional teacher at a school. Even if a parent or tutor excels in one area, will they cover all the things a school does? Even if they tried to, they would not do so adequately due to sheer lack of experience and training. The point of a curriculum is that these are things we have decided as a society that children need to learn, and in order to learn they require the support of qualified teachers1. Support groups and educational text books can help, but they alone cannot turn a parent into a good teacher. 1 National Curriculum Website | |
Danger of parents indoctrinating their children. Homeschooling allows the possibility of parents removing their child from wider society and indoctrinating them with their own beliefs. State schools teach history and social interaction within a framework agreed on by w wide variety of bodies within the social spectrum. If a parent's world view if so far detached from that perspective that he wishes to remove his child from school it is likely that those alternative view are questionable at best. These beliefs can involve can include gross intolerance for particular minority groups supported by false information. These ideas can still reach the child out of school, but the government has a duty to protect children from a regressive upbringing by at least offering a more constructive perspective. 'Andy Winton, the chair of the National Association of Social Workers in Education, said: "School is a good safety net to protect children."' 1 1'Get tough on home tuition to weed out abuse, says review' from Guardian website | |
Diversity of school is necessary for social development. Being forced to confront problems and individuals from different backgrounds is vital as a preparation for the future as a microcosm of the society they will later enter. Parents and children spending day after day at home re sometimes subject to a phenomenon sociologists call the 'hothouse' relationship the closeness between them becomes exclusive, with reaction to outsiders almost aggressive by instinct. This relationship makes it even more difficult for the child to adapt to life in the wider world.1 While there maybe attempts by parents to socialize their children through other means these organizations and club are centred around similarity. School is a mixture that does not filter out students, and there is an inherent social value to such a mix. 1‘The Cons and Arguments against Home Schooling’ in Educate Expert (2011) www.educate expert.com | |
The state operates a system of quality control run by experts. Hundreds of experts and researchers ensure the quality of public schools. It is presumptuous for a parent to think they know how to teach a child better than that accumulated wisdom. Just because the child is a product of that individual does not mean that the education knowledge of the parent surpasses that of professionals in that field who have spent years training1. Furthermore, even the best teachers can be improved by the insight of a third-party; such evaluations are not accessible to home-schooling parents. The danger is that 'From the government's perspective, the world of home education is full of unknowns'; there are not sufficient measures of quality control in place to protect the child and their right to a comprehensive education. 1'Home truths: do we need yet another inquiry into home education?' from Guardian website | |
The state education curriculum offers only a very limited view of history and as such is itself a form of indoctrination. For example, in the UK, a proud history of achievement and creation goes untaught whilst the sins of colonialism and the faults of class structure are emphasised to pupils year after year. Parents do not necessarily have to have extreme or radical political views to want to home school their child and indoctrinate them. They often actually want to allow them to have broader historical and political education than offered by the narrow curriculum1. If parents are determined to prejudice their children it is unlikely that being in school will prevent that. And these parents who wish to teach tolerance shouldn't be penalised by a minority. 1'Prescriptive national curriculum restricts teachers', Jessica Shepherd, Guardian.co.uk (2009) | |
It is wrong to assume that home schooling will necessarily be of poor quality. Many parents will be fantastic teachers with or without a formal qualification. One parent says that it is often teacher themselves that recognise that teaching qualification are not necessarily the most important factor: 'the more people– mainly teachers – we spoke to, the more it began to seem like school could actually be a damaging place to be.’1 In addition, there are extensive support networks that are capable of providing a range of skills and knowledge that a parent might be lacking. The internet makes these connections increasingly viable as well as providing better research facilities than any school library had ten years ago. 1 ‘Honey, I think we're home-schooling the kids’ from the Guardian website | |
What is taught in history will never be 100% accurate, but it is possible for historians to achieve a considerable degree of objectivity, especially if they seek to be aware of the influences upon their own thinking. Part of most secondary school history curricula is the consideration of how historians are affected by the context in which they write: this equips pupils to consider critically what they are being taught and why they are being taught it. Moreover, it can be argued that worthwhile ends (e.g. the good relations between different ethnic communities sought by the British government) justify some selection of the history that is taught to schoolchildren. After all, it isn't possible to teach children everything about all historical periods, so there must be some criteria for making choices about what would be most valuable to study. A 'British' history curriculum will aid integration and encourage multi-culturalism within the country, without sacrificing truth, merely breadth. | |
History teaching will reflect the erroneous preconceptions and aims of those who set the curriculum History is not objective and, in schools, historical fact is at the mercy of those in control of the curriculum. Even when there is no attempt to deceive or manipulate, postmodernist critiques of history suggest all history teaching will reflect the preconceptions and aims of those who set and teach the curriculum. The British government announced in early 2006 that history taught in schools should seek to engender a sense of "Britishness" by stressing a shared political and cultural heritage1. The Education Secretary at the time asked schools to 'play a leading role in creating community cohesion' by doing so1. Even if no historical events are invented as such, this will nevertheless lead to an unbalanced account, in which events that support modern political/social ends are highlighted and others receive less attention. The principle that such tainted information, whether implicit or explicit, can be taught to children is dangerous. 1 BBC News. "Schools 'must teach Britishness'." BBC News. January 25, 2007. (accessed July 14, 2011). | |
Isolated instances in which history has been used for propaganda purposes do not reflect a dangerous subject, merely dangerous regimes. The vast majority of History teaching does not seek to promote such agendas. It is common sense to tailor the national history curriculum to the nation in which it is being taught, and very easily achieved without constituting propaganda. Recent studies have shown it is common for states to focus heavily on their national history, 'setting out key events that shaped the national story as compulsory knowledge'1. Furthermore, all subjects can be distorted if the State and its teachers are prepared to try hard enough - for example, under the Nazis German children were taught Mathematics with a heavy emphasis upon military applications (e.g. calculating angles and ranges for artillery). Instead of banning the subject, what is needed is proper inspection of schools and monitoring of the curriculum, under the control of a democratic government. 1 Baker, Mike. "History study needs fact first, analysis later." The Guardian. February 18, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011). | |
History should be left for those intellectual capable of understanding its limitations, and therefore not taught at school Even if no agenda is being consciously or subconsciously pursued, school pupils are presented with oversimplified information in History. This is a result of the limited time available, the limited intellectual capacity of pupils, the limited knowledge of many teachers (who may not be history specialists, especially in primary schools) and the desire for answers that can be labelled as "correct" or "incorrect" in examinations. Much school history teaching is therefore concerned simply with memorising "facts". However, such learning needs to be accompanied by a deeper understanding of events, lacking definitive answers but providing a narrative to give the 'facts' (often figures) meaning. As schools recognize this is beyond most students, they struggle to make time spent in history lessons conducive; a study in America found that only 20 percent of fourth graders were proficient in history, while that dropped to 12 per cent for high school seniors1. 1 Resmovits, Joy. "U.S. History Test Scores Stagnate As Education Secretary Arne Duncan Seeks 'Plan B'." Huffington Post. June 14, 2011. (accessed July 14, 2011). | |
Where there is uncertainty, this can and should be highlighted if pupils have the intellectual capacity to understand the debate. Much of the benefit of studying History is that it is not (or should not be) solely based upon the learning of facts. Rather, History develops the ability to evaluate and challenge different interpretations. If historical study were postponed to adulthood, this would mean that most people would learn no History, unless they chose to study for a History degree. And it is impossible to escape any discussion of History in adult life - there are many television programmes and press articles devoted to historical subjects every day, and politicians constantly refer to past events to justify their actions. Only if citizens are equipped at school to question such historical interpretations can the public avoid being misled. | |
History lessons can be used as state-sponsored propaganda, distorting the events of the past History taught in schools sometimes involves flagrant distortion of historical evidence either by the State or by individual teachers. Attempts may be made to avoid nasty aspects of a nation's past (e.g. the massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese soldiers at Nanking in 1937) and/or to put down other peoples (e.g. the presentation of Australian Aboriginals as uncivilized until the 1960s). Japan's attempt to erase the memory of Nanking in its schoolchildren began in 1950s when it banned a third of all textbooks and 'Nanking Massacre simply disappeared' from their history1. As well as these extreme examples, low-level anti-Americanism is arguably pervasive in modern French school textbooks, reflecting tensions between France and the USA arising from the latter's Gaullist heritage and the recent "War on Terror". It is highly undesirable for school pupils to be exposed to misinformation peddled in History classes, which can lead to violence, hatred or discrimination. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011). | |
History does offer a source for understanding oneself and one's nation, but that no reason to teach it at school. In fact, the centrality of history to identity is an argument in favour of leaving history lessons until students are old enough to weigh sources and evaluate arguments themselves. Australian school children don't need to be taught specifics about the history of their nation at school in order to develop into well rounded, reasoned adults. In fact, they are more likely to better understand the plight of the native aboriginals if they are only introduced to the historical specifics of the case at a later, more mature age. | |
The teaching of history does not either to the maintenance of memory or the learning of lessons. Examples have shown that states can use history lessons to in fact erase certain memories, denying any lessons to future generations. Furthermore, teaching history encourages people to become obsessed with past conflicts and alleged wrongs inflicted upon them; it is more productive to forget the past and to seek friendship in the present. For example, modern tensions would be reduced if pupils in Ireland were no longer taught about the Battle of the Boyne (1690) and pupils in South Asia stopped learning about conflicts following the Partition between India and Pakistan (1947). | |
Historical facts can be established to a sufficient degree to be taught to schoolchildren For most post-medieval periods, it is possible to establish such "facts" with a very high degree of probability. To take the Holocaust as an example, fears of the events being erased out of history books drove Dwight Eisenhower to travel to Germany to witness the aftermath first-hand. The future American President was driven by a desire to be able to 'testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief that the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda'1. Furthermore, even if the historical facts are not as clearly evident as the Holocaust, and have to be simplified, this need not be "intellectually dangerous": it is impossible to prove that a real harm results from only knowing the academically dominant interpretation of a historical episode, even if it might be theoretically desirable to consider minority viewpoints too. Indeed, all school teaching involves simplification and generalization: much school science teaching entails discussion of how general rules (learned earlier during a pupil's school career) are not always applicable. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011). | |
History teaches useful skills applicable in other areas of education and life History teaches many useful skills, which are of great value to both individuals and the economy. These include the ability to think critically and construct reasoned arguments, an awareness of differing points of view and understanding of cultures (both one's own and those of others). Essays on historical events or figures require an original, structured argument and an evaluation of sources, skills that have relevance in other areas of education. Furthermore, the humility necessary to accept the limitations of historical research are instrumental in encouraging multi-culturalism in society and respect for views one might not initially understand. | |
History should be taught to school-children, they form an integral part of understanding oneself and one's nation Historical events, no matter how tragic, gruesome or embarrassing, should be taught in schools in order to provide a basis for the youth to explore their own identity and that of their nation. Children should therefore not be shielded from reality, but be taught, in an appropriate manner, about all manner of relevant historical events. In so doing, they will not leave school with a false image of reality, or of whom they are and where they live. Only then will they be prepared for the very worst life will throw at them. For example, Australian school children are unlikely to fully appreciate the plight of their Aboriginal compatriots without a thorough understanding of the British discovery of the island and subsequent governmental policy that oppressed the native population. As the future leaders of tomorrow, it is essential that the youth are given the broadest, most accurate platform on which to build their own perceptions of life. | |
Teaching history ensures that events of the past are not forgotten, and lessons are learned "Organized forgetting" of the past does not lead to harmony: those who allege historic wrongs are unlikely to forget them and will be aggrieved at attempts to deny the significance of the events concerned. This is seen in the Chinese outcry at Japanese attempts to forget the Rape of Nanking; the international attention drawn to the issue led to attempts within Japan itself to re-introduce the event into history textbooks1. By 1997, all Japanese textbooks included the event, signalling a shift towards a closer relationship with China, their long-term rivals1. Friendship often results from shared recognition of past wrongs, and a resolve not to repeat past injustices and mistakes; studying the past is essential for this. History teaching in schools is especially important when tensions are present: those who set and teach the curriculum can and should strive to be impartial, to counter one-sided historical narratives to which pupils may be exposed by their families and the media. 1 Chapel, Joseph. "Denying Genocide: The Evolution of the Denial of the Holocaust and the Nanking Massacre." University of California: Santa Barbara. May 2004. (accessed July 14, 2011). | |
History teaching is a waste of time, particularly at school, where it often revolves around the learning of names and dates. Antiquarian knowledge is of no practical use; pupils should spend more time learning sciences and vocational subjects. It is dangerous to both pupils' employment prospects and the economy as a whole for time to be spent studying History at school. | |
Historical facts cannot be established to a sufficient degree to justify history being taught as a subject in school. Though there are certain facts that are beyond question, history is about more than the accumulation of facts but the creation of a narrative. Narratives in history are constantly subject to changes as further evidence comes to hand. Young students should not be forced to learn a narrative that may become redundant in the week between history lessons. Furthermore, though Eisenhower meant well, he could only ever control events in the United States, if Germany had decided to censor their textbooks, as the Japanese did, in the wake of World War II, his protests would have fallen on deaf ears and done little to ensure the German youth knew of the horrors of the Holocaust. As such, it is necessary to restrict history lessons to the youth; once mature and reasoned, they will be much better placed to evaluate and study history in depth. | |
While it is true that parents who are having their children educated privately still pay their taxes that get spent on state education, it is also worth noting that private schools currently hold charitable status in the UK, and as such benefit from tax subsidies that some people estimate as £88 million annually (BBC, 2011). This money is able to fund facilities that state schools could not afford. Therefore while private schools financially benefit state schools in some ways, they also are financially damaging to state schools in many other ways. | |
Private schools are financially beneficial for state schools The state funds the education system through taxation. Parents who do not send their children to state schools still pay those same taxes. Therefore, these taxes are spent on a smaller number of schools and there is more money per child in the state sector than there would be if we banned private education. In 2008 there were 569,080 students in independent schools in England,(BBC 2009) - this would be a very large extra burden for state schools to bear. These students’ parents are therefore not only paying for their own children but also for students to study at state schools as well. | |
The US magazine Time found research in 2007 that suggested that private schools do not provide a better education than state schools, they do however have a higher percentage of students who would do well in any situation. This means that these children would not lose out by going to state schools. ‘The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality’ (Time.com). The second criticism is that statistics provided by the argument are true only because private education exists, and takes all the best teachers, head teachers and resources away from state schools. If public schools were banned then state schools would gain more teachers and resources and thus would raise to the standards currently occupied by private schools. In a study by Hill and Guin for the University of Washington found that in the US more experienced teachers taught in private schools, thus in theory improving levels of teaching due to experience. (University of Washington2003). | |
People should have free choice about how they spend their money People should be allowed to spend their money as they wish. If parents choose to spend money on their children’s advancement over something else they could buy then it is there decision to make. The core of this is the idea of ownership over our income, and that the state should not be able to restrict our spending this income by banning products such as private education. Education in Germany can be used as an example of allowing parents the free will to decide where their child goes to school, article 7 paragraphs 4 of the Grundgesetz enshrines the right to create private schools. (The Grundgesetz). There are many other similar cases where the state provides a service but there are also private options, healthcare being the most obvious. While most people in Britain use a National Health Service (NHS) hospital there are other options provided privately by companies such as BUPA, no one proposes that people should not be able to buy better healthcare, quite the opposite - the NHS may be moving towards privatization.(McCabe and Kirkpatrick, 2011) | |
The state already does restrict our spending by criminalizing the purchase of certain goods. For example we cannot choose to spend our money buying slaves even if we desire to. Just as we shouldn’t be able to buy another human life, we also should not be able to buy an advantage in life. It seems clear throughout this debate that private education does give an advantage over state schools in many areas. This argument of an unfair advantage has also been identified by Ontario’s (Canada) Provincial Ministry of Education where they are going to identify where a credit was earned if outside the student’s high school (Tamsyn 2010). It further seems unfair to say that people should have a right to choose private education, while this choice is not available to everyone. Those who cannot afford the huge expense of private education are often not choosing to put their children into state schools, they just have no other options. The average annual cost of sending a child to private school in the UK is £9,627, which works out at 36% of the average earning; In the USA the cost of a year’s secondary education is $10,549, out of reach of most families. (The Guardian, 2007; capenet.org). Therefore in defending the freedom to choose to send a child to private school, we are merely defending the right of the wealthy to have this choice and restricting the choice of everyone else. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.