At 13:42 27/06/01 +0000, Pete Vincent wrote: (KH) >>It seems to me that the essential difference between state schools and >>private schools is not the money. (There *is* a huge difference I grant >>you, but that is mainly due to historical reasons and, if there was a real >>will on the part of governments and civil services, then this could be >>corrected over a period of time.) The real difference is that state >>schooling involves a large degree of central control. State teachers have >>little more influence over their schools than factory workers have. (It's >>no wonder that teachers have now almost totally lost the respect that they >>used to have.) However, an independent private school depends mainly on >>good leadership by the head-teacher and supportive staff. By and large >>they're not answerable to anybody else other than the parents and children. (PV) >I disagree generally with this characterization. _Public_ schools (I >realize there is an unfortunate historical confusion in Britain regarding >the phrase "public school", but the term is more appropriate, in its north >american meaning, than "state school", which seems to acquire a pejorative >connotation whenever Keith uses it), at least in my part of the world, are >no more constrained than private schools when it comes to results: I'm not using "state schools" in a pejorative way, only for clarity because "public" schools in England are, more accurately "private" schools. (I only use the word "state" in a pejorative way when I hyphenate it as in "nation-state". This is an historical condition which is closely akin to extreme nationalism and which, in the last 150-200 years or so, has given rise to the worst wars in the whole of human history -- that is, in which [increasingly] mothers and children generally pay a heavier price than the actual combatants.) (PV) >the universal test results must show an acceptable level of comprehension, >or heads will roll, regardless of organization. If a school is >turning out miseducated fools, it will be fixed, by whatever means >is appropriate: for public schools, administrators will be replaced, >if private, it will lose its permit to teach. Within that constraint, >schools are free to achieve their results by whatever means they find >effective. The curriculum of skills and knowledge fields is determined >by the province and applies equally to all schools, of whatever stripe. >Private schools may add distinctive material in the elective portion >of the curriculum. Once again, my comments are heavily influenced by what I know of the English education system which, with the possible exception of France, is probably the most highly centralised system in the developed world. Yes, of course, both public and private schools have to reach certain standards. But in the case of state schools in England, teachers are at the end of their tether because of the multitude of methods, tests and procedures that they are required to follow by the Department of Education in London. That is why we now have a deficiency of thousands of teachers, particularly of those who have had 10-20 years of experience. As already mentioned previously, England will have a shortage of several thousand teachers when the new term starts in September -- and mainly in those areas which need good schools more than most. > >[...] > >(KH) >>So I see no variance between "sensible selfishness" and a wholesome, >>caring, sustainable society. Mrs Thatcher was famously misquoted as saying >>"there is no society". Well, there isn't in the sense that there is a >>uniform mass of other people out there that we're able to help or with >>equal claims upon us. For each of us our "society" has a span that tails >>off with varying degrees of remoteness according to the function that we're >>talking about. If I am blind and want to cross a busy road I can't expect >>"society" to help me, but I can reasonably expect one or two nearby >>individuals to. For the moment, they are my society and they know that if >>they were blind the chances would be high that I would help them. (PV) >This enfolds a pernicious tenet of the sociopathic worldview embodied >in right wing rhetoric and chicago school economics: that the individual >is an independent agent uninformed by the character of their society. >I say bull. The behaviour of the "nearby individuals" will be >fundamentally influenced by the nature of the society in which they live. Yes, of course. I have never remotely suggested that the individual is an independent agent. We see this in its most raw form in the new-born baby but he learns over the years that there are gains to be made by practising kindness. Those who don't learn this from their mothers, families and local communities are what we call sociopaths (using the word in a non-pejorative sense -- see later when you use it). (PV) >The degree of social responsibility practised by the government of >their society will affect their sense of the nature of society, their >identity, and their level of expectation of behaviour for themselves >and others. In a society where compassion is a primary concern for >the government, and ingrained as a valued quality in the citizen, >these "individuals" will have a different range of likely behaviours than >in a society where the accepted norm of both government and citizen >is "get what you can and screw the next guy, it's every man for himself >here". (KH) >>The task of modern government, as I see it, is to more clearly define what >>the various "spans" of society are, according to the function that are >>involved. (PV) >I believe the primary role of government is to set an example for >the norm of decent, acceptable behaviour, and the range of concerns >which should be held as universal, for the promotion of a civil society. Once again, yes, of course. However, the unfortunate fact is that because the modern nation-state has so much power in almost every department of the country's activities, politicians at the top have almost unlimited opportunities to line their pockets. For example, out of the 15 members of the European Union at least nine or ten of their most senior politicians (sometimes called "statesmen") have faced court proceedings for corruption in the last few years. The last Tory government in England lost power mainly due to sleaze, and we have had more than a few instances of alleged financial corruption already in the Labour administration. I'll grant that most ordinary Members of Parliament are conscientious people who mostly do their best for their constituents -- but the House of Commons is not where the power is these days. It's in the Cabinet (and, today, within an even smaller clique). When you have that sort of structure -- and this Presidential system seems to be so in all developed countries -- then I cannot see how corruption can be avoided. Do you think such politicians really have the "promotion of a civil society" as their main objective? (KH) >> Problems arise when governments define the span as stretching out >>over the whole country (the span of which was determined by military and >>transport functions more than anything else.) rather than truly functional >>spans. And, getting back to education, this is the trap that most modern >>governments have fallen into. They treat education as though it was a >>similar activity as providing an army, for example. (PV) >In many ways it is. How so? Education is as important as an army but it has absolutely no functional similarity. (PV) >There is a wide range of possibilities for how >either of those things can be realized, however. (KH) >>So I see no fundamental difference between the economic market and the >>social market. They both exist by means of exchange. The practical >>difference is that economic exchange takes place by means of instantaneous >>transactions, and the social market by means of transactions which are >>difficult to quantify and take time to balance out in a way which is felt >>to be reasonable and just. > >>The irony is that our present "egalitarian" approach (by all political >>parties) in the field of education is increasingly producing a set of >>outcomes between the best and the worst schools which is far, far wider >>than the varied outcomes of independent schools. Education is a wonderful >>candidate for almost complete decentralisation of its functions. (PV) >I guess the process varies with jurisdiction: putting a requirement >on acceptable product seems to do a fairly good job of keeping the >output uniform here. That may be so in Canada. I know nothing about the educational system there. But the disparity between the best and the worst secondary state schools in England, America, and several European countries is huge. The best of them (a few handfuls in England) are as good as the best private schools, most of them are way below the average of the average private schools, and the worst of them are where teachers are often physically attacked by parents and children and the school buildings are themselves vandalised and burned down (several a year in England). I would strongly doubt that Canadian schools are as uniform as you're stating, but I wouldn't quarrel with you on this point. (PV) >Of course, we haven't been subject to sociopathic >right wing idealogues seeking to gut the public sector for the last >decade. It's sad that you've ended your comments by implying that I'm a "sociopathic right wing idealogue". This way of emotive arguing simply gets us nowhere. The "sociopathic right wing idealogue" examples of, say, ex-President Marcos in the Philippines, or the present General So-and-so in Burma produce corruption and suffering on a massive scale. But even they don't compare with the "sociopathic left wing idealogue" examples of Stalin, Mao-Tse and the present President Kim of North Korea who have produced, and are still producing, death through starvation of scores of millions of people. To take current examples, let me contrast Burma (50 million people) and North Korea (22 million) in a little more detail. The Government of Burma has several hundred political opponents in prison, has assassinated a few score activists and is a thoroughly reprehensible regime; the Government of North Korea has allowed the starvation of at least 3,000,000 of their own people in the last three or four years -- with a further 1,500,000 fleeing into China. Which is worse? I'd much rather discuss facts than be labelled in such a violent way as a "sociopathic right wing idealogue". Keith Hudson ___________________________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________
