We are often seeing in the press the figures for children playing truant from school. There are two things that arise from this, 1) why do the children stay away? Giving them presents to attend is not the way. The education system has to "educate" the children into giving part of themselves to the school and its activities. They need to invest in their own education.
One of the remarkable and courageous things I have ever seen was a new headmistress asking her school children what they actually wanted to be taught. It was a revelation including subjects like Japanese. Attendance started going up. The main problem is that children have lost a sense of belonging. It is why the gang culture is so predominant. The gang becomes a surrogate family and education.
There is too much emphasis placed on the academic, though the new skills campaign is a good start it is too little too late. The destruction and deregulation of industries which traditionally had apprenticeships has over the years forced the education system into believing that academic qualifications are the only way. On a bleak sink estate its about survival not about the Romantics or algebra, its about trying to get off the estate with most of your soul in tact, and often skills are the only way to do that. But its also about having pride in what you do. School kids will have an enormous confidence boost if they can do something which puts them on a level with their academic contemporaries. Ask yourself could your carpenter create an apprentice piece that was an exam in the past?
and 2) children carers. These are children as young as 8 in some cases who have to look after one or more parent. These children have to take on the role of parent and mean while be a child. It is obvious that any child is going to suffer from stress, exhaustion and eventually they will go truant from school. I recently read an article which stated that one child had not been to school for two years and no one noticed. What we need is support for these children and there are a lot of them, the official figures say 170,000 but the unofficial say nearer a million, plus they need a joined up social services.
All of the departments of the health, education and social sevices should have a single set of rules of which the top one should be the care of the child on the child's terms. If they are taken away for "their own good" the amount of guilt and feelings of failure will only cause problems later on in their teens and early adult years. If we can help now then it will create good citizens for the future.
There is too much reliance on strict procedures. Where is the human being in this paperwork? Sometimes a person with emotions and fears and stresses and pain who needs help gets lost as a section in the procedures manual. Lets start talking about people not statistics. Lets ask what people in need want and what can help them. We complain that children today don't know how to communicate, well it seems neither do governement departments. I mean its really difficult isn't it to pick up the phone, send an e-mail or even a letter?
On the idea of education, should we have individual qualifications? With the passing of Michaelangelo Antoionni one the great artists if not one of a very rare breed of film maker in that he was a poet of the screen, but and this is the point he trained to be an art historian. Eisenstein on whom all the truly great rules of cinema were based trained to be an engineer. Surely one of the ways to get children to invest in their own future is to get them to choose the subjects they want and not follow some archaic pathway. If they create their own curriculum and timetables don't you think this may be the start of them actually having a slice of the resposibility for their own future? It gives them the choice of career they want to take up not one in which it is expected they will go.
Friday, 10 August 2007
Friday, 3 August 2007
Teaching
At last someone has come to their senses about having men teaching in primary and junior schools.Children of all ages need to have some form of positive male role model. At the moment the nearest things they have are football players who seem to glory in their own thugishness and are paid huge amounts of money. Why should they stay at school and learn and work when they can do nothing, except be a thug. These young children are in a world where fantsy rules. They believe that if you shoot someone or attack then its ok. Why shouldn,t it be after all they do it every day on their computer games or they see it on the films. Any young person of any age, be it as young as five or as old as 19, who commits an act of violence on another should be made to go and spend an evening at A&E, to see what does happen and the consequences of their actions. I don't blame them, because they have been given power without being taught responsibility. To kill someone not only takes away their past but also their future and the part they play in others futures.
The demonisation of men which seemed to last forever has finally proved to be false, though the Chris Langham trial has probably confirmed the fears of many. I remember articles in womens magazines saying that men were no longer needed, the future was all female, but now it seems that is not so. I never believed it anyway, simply because the same magazines were always stating one week that men needed to get in touch with their femine side and then the following week that women need a real man. Education changed so that more girls could achieve more. Fantastic but at the expense of boys. Now finally the experts, are saying that the teaching system is not working for boys, so they are going to have to change it. Brilliant, go to the top of the class. Next year, the experts will say we need to get the playing fields back so that the kids can do an hour a day sport, but haven't they been built on because the schools were so underfunded that they had to sell them? When are the experts going to start living in my world and not rely on a cross sample which has answered a questionnaire that has been devised to get such an ambiguous set of answers that any conclusion can be reached?
Since the idea of the role of men has changed from the breadwinner to more equal partner, which I think is a positive state, though not it seems in the eyes of the judicery where men are always it seems regarded with suspicion where children are concerned.this has been covered by a specific high profile celebrity so I will not dwell any further. We find that women are taking on the male role a little excessively, such as road rage, binge drinking and street violence. If thats what they want to do then great, but lets not throw stones at the men shall we, when we want to do the same thing.
I may have mentioned this before but its still an important message to make; if a person,(male or female) is arrested for causing a disturbance due to drink, then they should be fined, but not just the standard £80 plus costs, but also the wages of however many policemen it took to subdue them, the cost of the van to take them to the station and the hourly rate of the desk seargent. So assuming it takes 5 policemen to subdue a miscreant and put him/her in the van, then assuming it costs £20 per policeman thats £100, plus another forty for the van plus another £30 for the desk seargent plus the £80 pound standard fine plus the court costs, we are looking at a fine just short of £500. A good night has turned into an expensive one. The idea of being arrested as a rite of passage becomes a serious one. It may also if not paid affect their credit rating.
By the way Britain has more people in serious debt than any other place, well is it any suprise? We also have the highest rates of any country. Why do credit cards have to be at a different rate to the banks. I realise they are bleating about the amount of debt they have to cover, but then if they dropped the interest rate they might find that their customers would pay more than the minimum and pay it off quicker.I do get fed up with their bleating about how hard done by they are, yet I've yet to see a credit card compnay go bust or have their offices reposesed. They made the rules now they want to change them because the free market policy they had isn't working.
If we stopped living with an idealised or demonised image of the world then maybe we wouldn't need half the stuff we have, we might spend less and actually have a good quality of life. I find it shocking that someone should murder another human being for their mobile phone while in other parts of the world they are dying for a want of clean drinking water.
The demonisation of men which seemed to last forever has finally proved to be false, though the Chris Langham trial has probably confirmed the fears of many. I remember articles in womens magazines saying that men were no longer needed, the future was all female, but now it seems that is not so. I never believed it anyway, simply because the same magazines were always stating one week that men needed to get in touch with their femine side and then the following week that women need a real man. Education changed so that more girls could achieve more. Fantastic but at the expense of boys. Now finally the experts, are saying that the teaching system is not working for boys, so they are going to have to change it. Brilliant, go to the top of the class. Next year, the experts will say we need to get the playing fields back so that the kids can do an hour a day sport, but haven't they been built on because the schools were so underfunded that they had to sell them? When are the experts going to start living in my world and not rely on a cross sample which has answered a questionnaire that has been devised to get such an ambiguous set of answers that any conclusion can be reached?
Since the idea of the role of men has changed from the breadwinner to more equal partner, which I think is a positive state, though not it seems in the eyes of the judicery where men are always it seems regarded with suspicion where children are concerned.this has been covered by a specific high profile celebrity so I will not dwell any further. We find that women are taking on the male role a little excessively, such as road rage, binge drinking and street violence. If thats what they want to do then great, but lets not throw stones at the men shall we, when we want to do the same thing.
I may have mentioned this before but its still an important message to make; if a person,(male or female) is arrested for causing a disturbance due to drink, then they should be fined, but not just the standard £80 plus costs, but also the wages of however many policemen it took to subdue them, the cost of the van to take them to the station and the hourly rate of the desk seargent. So assuming it takes 5 policemen to subdue a miscreant and put him/her in the van, then assuming it costs £20 per policeman thats £100, plus another forty for the van plus another £30 for the desk seargent plus the £80 pound standard fine plus the court costs, we are looking at a fine just short of £500. A good night has turned into an expensive one. The idea of being arrested as a rite of passage becomes a serious one. It may also if not paid affect their credit rating.
By the way Britain has more people in serious debt than any other place, well is it any suprise? We also have the highest rates of any country. Why do credit cards have to be at a different rate to the banks. I realise they are bleating about the amount of debt they have to cover, but then if they dropped the interest rate they might find that their customers would pay more than the minimum and pay it off quicker.I do get fed up with their bleating about how hard done by they are, yet I've yet to see a credit card compnay go bust or have their offices reposesed. They made the rules now they want to change them because the free market policy they had isn't working.
If we stopped living with an idealised or demonised image of the world then maybe we wouldn't need half the stuff we have, we might spend less and actually have a good quality of life. I find it shocking that someone should murder another human being for their mobile phone while in other parts of the world they are dying for a want of clean drinking water.
Monday, 30 July 2007
cannabis
I think the new research on cannabis is very interesting. Does this mean that all the other research has been wrong over the past decade? The millions of users who recreationally use the drug are more or less likely to become subject to some form of mental illness than say alcohol?
What I don't understand is if the research is just about cannabis is it subdivided into different areas. Does Morrocan cause one effect over a long term and Ganga another or say does one partuicular strain become more likely to cause a mental illness?
Its not that the research into the usage I find shocking, but its isolation. It needs to be compared with other forms of taxable and non-taxable drugs, to be put in context. Surely the money for the research shouldn't be on the long term effects but on why young people find it necessary to indulge in a narcotic which makes then feel relaxed? Has there been any real research on why some areas of the population need drugs to get through the day.
We may be one the pivotal nations in the players on the world stage, but really does that matter if huge areas of the country cannot face the world without some form of a chemical crutch. What is progress if people are no better off inside themselves.
Car accidents used to be the main killer of young men between the ages of 15 and 25 now its suicide. We have a situation where young people can text in nano seconds but have nothing real to say; where girls are confusing their sex appeal with self esteem and school children know how to pass exams but not write a sentence. We seem to have lost our way and everything is seen in terms of profit.
Programmes on the television about houses used to be about making a home more comfortable, more family orientated but now it always ends with how much extra money they are worth. We seem to have forsaken the ideas of a good and healthy existence for a more wealthy one. When we discover that not everything can be valued in monetary terms but more about the quality of life then we may just understand why people commit slow suicide by taking narcotics.
However on a lighter note, if the research is absolutely correct and I have no doubt it is, then with the most recent revelations it must mean that some members of the house of commons, including the government contains people who are about to become mentally ill. Does this mean when they change their policies they can blame it on their other personality?
What I don't understand is if the research is just about cannabis is it subdivided into different areas. Does Morrocan cause one effect over a long term and Ganga another or say does one partuicular strain become more likely to cause a mental illness?
Its not that the research into the usage I find shocking, but its isolation. It needs to be compared with other forms of taxable and non-taxable drugs, to be put in context. Surely the money for the research shouldn't be on the long term effects but on why young people find it necessary to indulge in a narcotic which makes then feel relaxed? Has there been any real research on why some areas of the population need drugs to get through the day.
We may be one the pivotal nations in the players on the world stage, but really does that matter if huge areas of the country cannot face the world without some form of a chemical crutch. What is progress if people are no better off inside themselves.
Car accidents used to be the main killer of young men between the ages of 15 and 25 now its suicide. We have a situation where young people can text in nano seconds but have nothing real to say; where girls are confusing their sex appeal with self esteem and school children know how to pass exams but not write a sentence. We seem to have lost our way and everything is seen in terms of profit.
Programmes on the television about houses used to be about making a home more comfortable, more family orientated but now it always ends with how much extra money they are worth. We seem to have forsaken the ideas of a good and healthy existence for a more wealthy one. When we discover that not everything can be valued in monetary terms but more about the quality of life then we may just understand why people commit slow suicide by taking narcotics.
However on a lighter note, if the research is absolutely correct and I have no doubt it is, then with the most recent revelations it must mean that some members of the house of commons, including the government contains people who are about to become mentally ill. Does this mean when they change their policies they can blame it on their other personality?
Sunday, 15 July 2007
Green Plastic
We are producing more rubbish than we can cope with, especially plastics. Anybody who has unpacked a childs toy knows exactly how much useless packaging there is, though strangely never any batteries. The benefit and pain of plastic is that you can't destr0y it, but you can mould it. So why cant we take the rubbish and either compress or mould it into building blocks for sea and river defences. It would be cheap and by the looks of it an everlasting supply. It would also be durable and easy to repair.
Adding to that why can't we build housing estates in the sea. If we can build complex harbours then why not housing estates. They can do two things; supply cheap housing without encroaching on the already dininishing green field sites, plus if they were built correctly then they could stop the erosion of the coastline by acting as a sea defence. All we would do is to take the idea that the Dutch had years ago and improve upon it.
We constantly overload land fill sites with rubbish that can never degrade, so here is the alternative.
On another point, why are new houses still not being built with energy saving equipment. Surely there should be a law, maybe there is but I can see plenty of houses being built without one sight of a solar panel or a wind turbine, so why is the law not being implemented.
But then again why is the government not giving hard tax bills to motor manufacturers that are still building cars with conventional fuels and why not give really good tax incentives to companies that only build cars with bio/hybrid fuels. The same would go for fuel suppliers.
By the way putting up taxes doesn't work, but tax incentives does. If high taxes worked then we wouldn't have one smoker left in the country, or one driver.If a manufacturer was going to save millions by following the party line or lose the same amount by not following it I think a shift in the paradigm might take place.
Adding to that why can't we build housing estates in the sea. If we can build complex harbours then why not housing estates. They can do two things; supply cheap housing without encroaching on the already dininishing green field sites, plus if they were built correctly then they could stop the erosion of the coastline by acting as a sea defence. All we would do is to take the idea that the Dutch had years ago and improve upon it.
We constantly overload land fill sites with rubbish that can never degrade, so here is the alternative.
On another point, why are new houses still not being built with energy saving equipment. Surely there should be a law, maybe there is but I can see plenty of houses being built without one sight of a solar panel or a wind turbine, so why is the law not being implemented.
But then again why is the government not giving hard tax bills to motor manufacturers that are still building cars with conventional fuels and why not give really good tax incentives to companies that only build cars with bio/hybrid fuels. The same would go for fuel suppliers.
By the way putting up taxes doesn't work, but tax incentives does. If high taxes worked then we wouldn't have one smoker left in the country, or one driver.If a manufacturer was going to save millions by following the party line or lose the same amount by not following it I think a shift in the paradigm might take place.
Thursday, 12 July 2007
The rise in interest rates.
I am amazed that the Bank of England is allowed to put up interest rates, to curb inflation while the railways are allowed to put up their fares by 30% above inflation. Lets us not forget that the railways for all their blustering are still subsidised by the tax payer, so in fact we pay twice. Where does this money go, as I thought that the whole point of privatisation was the need to raise investment, to lower the prices and make the service more efficient. I understand that the trains are slower now than a hundred years ago. So much for the price of progress. Surely the time has come to reevaluate the idea of a privatised service. Either one thing or the other. Either a completely privatised service without the subsidies so letting the market dictate the price of the tickets or a nationalised service. In a time when we are all supposed to be more aware of our carbon footprint and doing less driving in our cars, putting up the fares smacks of a severe lack of common sense.
The other question therefore that arises from the interest rate rise is why? We already have the highest rates in Europe, so much so that the tourists we were hoping for this summer can't come here,and why would they want to, with badly managed hotels, a n idea of customer service that stems not from some of the greats but from the charm school of a 1950's seaside landlady, with really bad weather and high prices as well.
The question that has been worrying me is where does the extra money go. It will cost me an extra 16 GBP on my mortgage each month but where does it go? Does it go to the Building society? Why should I pay them extra for something I have already negotiated. Does it go to the government, if so what do they do with it? The NHS or Education perhaps? If so then why are both in a state of neglect. Why do we have to pay extra for it. Surely with all the new economists coming out of universities across the globe someone must have worked out how to curb inflation by now. If its to curb borrowing then why isn't it just put on new borrowers not on the already established borrowers who already have their loans and mortgages. If its a choice of 2pence extra on a can of beans and 16 pounds every month on my house so putting me under stress and worry of the possibility of losing my house, then what do you think is going to be my answer. I can do without the beans.
This leads to another point, why do I have to pay an interest rate of double figures for a credit card when the bank rate is so low? Why should their be a variable rate according to status. This discriminates those who already have problems getting a loan because of their credit rating so making those in financial hardship worse off so actually subsidising the rich. Surely there should be a standard rate, and if there is concern about payback then a small insurence policy to cover the loan should cover that problem, so allowing the worse off to maybe invest in their own future instead of being hampered by a credit system that is the worst in Europe. Only now are we getting what the Europeans have had for years, 25 year fixed mortgages. No wonder the amount we owe is the largest in Europe.
The other question therefore that arises from the interest rate rise is why? We already have the highest rates in Europe, so much so that the tourists we were hoping for this summer can't come here,and why would they want to, with badly managed hotels, a n idea of customer service that stems not from some of the greats but from the charm school of a 1950's seaside landlady, with really bad weather and high prices as well.
The question that has been worrying me is where does the extra money go. It will cost me an extra 16 GBP on my mortgage each month but where does it go? Does it go to the Building society? Why should I pay them extra for something I have already negotiated. Does it go to the government, if so what do they do with it? The NHS or Education perhaps? If so then why are both in a state of neglect. Why do we have to pay extra for it. Surely with all the new economists coming out of universities across the globe someone must have worked out how to curb inflation by now. If its to curb borrowing then why isn't it just put on new borrowers not on the already established borrowers who already have their loans and mortgages. If its a choice of 2pence extra on a can of beans and 16 pounds every month on my house so putting me under stress and worry of the possibility of losing my house, then what do you think is going to be my answer. I can do without the beans.
This leads to another point, why do I have to pay an interest rate of double figures for a credit card when the bank rate is so low? Why should their be a variable rate according to status. This discriminates those who already have problems getting a loan because of their credit rating so making those in financial hardship worse off so actually subsidising the rich. Surely there should be a standard rate, and if there is concern about payback then a small insurence policy to cover the loan should cover that problem, so allowing the worse off to maybe invest in their own future instead of being hampered by a credit system that is the worst in Europe. Only now are we getting what the Europeans have had for years, 25 year fixed mortgages. No wonder the amount we owe is the largest in Europe.
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Parental responsibility
Why is it when discussing the youth of today no-one ever asks why parents haven't brought their children up to be decent human beings or assisted their children to find alternative hobbies and interests to aleviate the 'boredom' that leads to bad behaviour. There are plenty of youth clubs, drama groups, dance groups, scout groups and other activities available, but they require time, money (though often very little) and motivation.
Having children is a huge responsibility which many seem unaware of, unprepared for or unable to cope with. To what extent should the state intervene? Many of those who decry involvement and claim that they know best how to bring up their children are the same ones who heap responsibility for moulding their children on the school system.
Schools should have a wide educational remit, though it is stifled by paperwork and national initiatives, but children need to reach school already understanding the difference between right and wrong, accepting authority and understanding the need for boundaries. They MUST be able to put themselves in the position of others to be able to develop empathy. This is the responsibility of parents. Frankly if they can't manage this, then they really shouldn't have children in the first place.
Having children is a huge responsibility which many seem unaware of, unprepared for or unable to cope with. To what extent should the state intervene? Many of those who decry involvement and claim that they know best how to bring up their children are the same ones who heap responsibility for moulding their children on the school system.
Schools should have a wide educational remit, though it is stifled by paperwork and national initiatives, but children need to reach school already understanding the difference between right and wrong, accepting authority and understanding the need for boundaries. They MUST be able to put themselves in the position of others to be able to develop empathy. This is the responsibility of parents. Frankly if they can't manage this, then they really shouldn't have children in the first place.
Saturday, 7 July 2007
The Government is to spend an extra £14m in school teaching kids how to be polite and cope with disappointment. I'm guessing that this money is going to be spent in secondary schools.
Firstly, surely the people responsible for teaching kids manners, and how to deal with disappointment from day one are parents. Clearly many parents are not fulfilling their duty to their children to bring them up as responsible citizens. Most of this should be in kids before they get to school and school should simply reinforce it.
We could leave it up to parents but their seem to be a generation out there who either don't know how or don't want to bring their children up to be morally responsible citizens. How could a Government affect this? Well, the obvious thing is influence them with incentives. It should be possible to ring fence child allowance for under 5s so that it can only be spent on product relating to the care of children of that age. This could be done in the form of vouchers. Extra tax relief could then be offered to parenst who take and pass a course in parenting. This could cover both practical parenting and issues such as moral responsibility. Clearly parents who don't take, or don't pass such a course would then be registered with social services as being potentially at risk. Notice the word is potentially. Clearly some parents may make a fantastic job of brining up their children pre-school and these people should receive an assessment that entitles them to claim the money they would have received as a lump sum.
Far too many people bleat on about the nanny state, yet these are the same people who are outraged at the increase in teenage violence. For a Government to influence a generation it must have access to them during their formative years. The breakdon of family, the influence of the church (I am not religious) and of communities has lead to a situation where people seem isolated. We all live in a thing called 'soiety'. We are all affected by the actions of others. To not get involved seems to be an invitation to anarchy.
Firstly, surely the people responsible for teaching kids manners, and how to deal with disappointment from day one are parents. Clearly many parents are not fulfilling their duty to their children to bring them up as responsible citizens. Most of this should be in kids before they get to school and school should simply reinforce it.
We could leave it up to parents but their seem to be a generation out there who either don't know how or don't want to bring their children up to be morally responsible citizens. How could a Government affect this? Well, the obvious thing is influence them with incentives. It should be possible to ring fence child allowance for under 5s so that it can only be spent on product relating to the care of children of that age. This could be done in the form of vouchers. Extra tax relief could then be offered to parenst who take and pass a course in parenting. This could cover both practical parenting and issues such as moral responsibility. Clearly parents who don't take, or don't pass such a course would then be registered with social services as being potentially at risk. Notice the word is potentially. Clearly some parents may make a fantastic job of brining up their children pre-school and these people should receive an assessment that entitles them to claim the money they would have received as a lump sum.
Far too many people bleat on about the nanny state, yet these are the same people who are outraged at the increase in teenage violence. For a Government to influence a generation it must have access to them during their formative years. The breakdon of family, the influence of the church (I am not religious) and of communities has lead to a situation where people seem isolated. We all live in a thing called 'soiety'. We are all affected by the actions of others. To not get involved seems to be an invitation to anarchy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)