Ruth Kelly opts for a private education for her child.

[Guest]

...It's things like this, which makes me think that, children cannot learn EVERYTHING that we expect them to know in this day and age in society. ...

Basic skills in maths and English are the foundations of subsequent education, including skills in computer technology. Whether a child can or can't learn everything that we expect it to is really a separate issue. Without basic competency in maths and English, the child doesn't stand much of a chance of learning anything, including aspects of technology.

 

At a fundamental level, computers allow an alternative way to express yourself. Without basic literacy, the ability to use computers simply allows another way of demonstrating ignorance.

[Tony 10]

Who should care in all honestly? She's free to make choices as she can afford them just like everyone else.

 

I'm far more interested in her ability as a politician than as a mother, and in that regard her record speaks for itself.

[Bago 10]

I kept wondering whether I wrote something wrong.

Maybe I should clarify:

 

But they are though.

 

While we leave behind the basic maths, and English of a certain standard. We are teaching our kids technology. They are at least able to use a computer with ease.

 

So on the one hand, while we leave behind manual techniques, we are advancing quickly on technology. You can't have both, not especially when you only have one childhood, and a set number of years to grow up in before you're an adult. How much can a child learn, and what should they learn ?

 

I don't mean to leave behind maths and English full stop. i.e. they don't learn it AT all. I just mean that they are certainly not learning this to a higher standard in the past compared to today's standards. Which I feel is not entirely wrong. Yet, for those that comes out of the old education system still unable to express themselves or better their own educational standard with more private improvement, cannot blame the government at all. The fact of life is that, if you don't use, you lose it.

[Mo 10]

Who should care in all honestly? She's free to make choices as she can afford them just like everyone else.

 

 

But this was my point earlier on Tony, we can't all afford to make that choice much as we might like to. So all this about choice is a big con. You only have the choice if you can afford it and for most people that is the Hobsons variety.

[Bago 10]

Who should care in all honestly? She's free to make choices as she can afford them just like everyone else.

 

 

But this was my point earlier on Tony, we can't all afford to make that choice much as we might like to. So all this about choice is a big con. You only have the choice if you can afford it and for most people that is the Hobsons variety.

I'd always thought that when politicians say this, they mean that you can move around the country to have this 'choice'. The choice is still down to me to make. What a lot of people are doing is relying on the government for a lot of things. Which I feel is wrong too.

 

I mean, thinking back to my own education. My parents didn't send me to a private school, and I kind of turned out okay. Well, I like to think that I did. I still appreciate the fact that I had a free education. Even when I went to uni, I still had a grant. Okay, the amount was not high, but with family support, I was okay. What the educational system cannot provide for me by the local government, I made up in private. i.e. tutoring from my own siblings, or financial support from family. For that, I am still greatful, and I will continue that trend too, if I had kids. What I don't understand is that, a lot of parents don't see the point of an education anyway, since they never sent their kids to university even when it was free.

[fox20thc 10]

What I don't understand is that, a lot of parents don't see the point of an education anyway, since they never sent their kids to university even when it was free.

 

I am one of those kids Bago, my parents never pushed me to further education past my GCE O levels. Im sure I would have been a candidate for Uni if I had been pushed that little bit more. Unfortunately I was out at 16 and in work. Its one of my biggest regrets.

[Tony 10]

Mo, I know what you're saying, but should she turn up to work in sack cloth too? We all have more or less choice depending on where we are in life. Just because she is a well paid politician I see no reason why she shouldn't be able to use her financial clout to buy a better education.

 

It's irrelevant! It's what she does at work that matters.

[em2007 10]

how about a social worker who beats her kids so bad they end up in hospital or have to be taken in to care, and a policeman who speeds.........

[cloudybay 17]

I want to expand on this. You previously said that, what good would a child be, if they don't have the basic skills, but then I said that, they do already. If a child can use technology, then I'm sure they can self learn and expand on their learning further. The internet is full of information, and full of knowledge. The impression that I get is that you don't think that the current education system allows a child to learn the skills in life. I think they do already. Maybe it does not correlate with the idea that you have in mind, but they do, I'm sure.

 

I don't quite understand this 'hiding behind the keyboard' point that you made. Maybe you're talking about a child's EQ. Or social etiquettes and manners. Which I think should not be the school's responsibility, to be honest. It's down to the parents, surely.

 

Actually, a lot of people can be short-changed, and they don't know how to work it out. This is not a failure of an educatonal system though! You cannot judge a system based on a few people who decided one way or another that they dislike maths. Hence they never pushed themselves to learn simple mental arithmetics.

My condemnation of the current educational system is only equalled by my condemnation of British Society in general. I guess the two are mirror images. You are right in saying that a lot of it is down to parents as it certainly is but where does one lack of responsibility end and the other one start? Manners are the most basic form of etiquette and seem to be sadly lacking in this country.

The Internet, as you so rightly say, is full of information but as to whether it will teach you social skills I very much doubt.

[Tony 10]

how about a social worker who beats her kids so bad they end up in hospital or have to be taken in to care, and a policeman who speeds.........

How is that a comparison?

 

Surely sending your kids for a better education is a good thing?

[Bago 10]

As long as they distinguish the two, then this does not matter. Cos if they kept their family affair private, then how and why will you know ?

 

As for jobs involving kids. There checks in place for this, for a good reason. However, for a politician, as they long as they keep the economy steady, and a good living standard for its citizens, then surely this is all that matters ? They shouldn't be made out to be role models for citizens though.

[fox20thc 10]

It's irrelevant! It's what she does at work that matters.

 

Its not Tony. With all respect, Ruth and her party are flagwaving the education policies of the party and the great strides taken to provide the best education possible for our children of all abilities. For a prominent politician to remove a child from this same education system based on the fact that it is inadequate for her childs needs totally undermines this.

 

Im all for everyone to have freedom of choice and if she wants to spend £15k on a private education fair enough, however she and the party should expect a backlash from those who are being told that we have the best education system in a long time and it is there to meet all our childrens needs, when clearly in the eyes of Ms Kelly it isn't.