The new British government has made a start implementing its 'free schools' policy. What will this mean for our education system? Simon Wilson reports.It's charter schools and competition for the British. Good luck with that. In reality, it's all about family structure. If your kids are coming from a broken home, they're starting with a massive handicap. Broken homes have half the labor force and half the earning power of traditional, nuclear families.
What are the Lib-Cons doing?
They are cracking on with implementing Tory school reforms, which survived the coalition talks all but intact. First, the government announced this week that it will fast-track an Academies Bill through Parliament aimed at boosting the number of schools that operate outside local authority control. Under Labour, academies were largely focused on improving standards in the most difficult areas. In future, academies are more likely to be the highest-achieving schools, many in affluent areas. In time, however, the new education secretary, Michael Gove, wants to give every school in England (other parts of Britain run their own systems) the chance to opt out.
If two companies are making the same number of shoes, the one with half the labor force and half the cash is going to produce lower quality shoes almost all of the time. It's the same if you're making cars, wedding cakes, mobile homes or kids. You can have all the competition you want and all the efficiency you want, but the end result is going to be the same. You lose.
If you're going to embrace personal freedom at the expense of personal commitment and responsibility, at least have the decency to own the results.
4 comments:
Forgot where I heard it but...
Democrats or Republicans, regardless of who wins, the government gets in.
... and they think that the government is the pre-eminent provider of solutions for society's problems. I was reading Der Spiegel this morning and the Germans can't figure out why birth rates have continued to fall after the government has instituted "family-friendly" programs. It's like wondering why Alakan salmon aren't growing larger after you dig a hole in your backyard. They're totally unrelated.
KT,
All you said is true. However, given that there is no changing the culture in the short term, better to let those who have decent family backgrounds excel.
BTW, my Dad was raised by his Mom, she was widowed when he was five or six. He said that he was still expected to get his homework done, stay out of trouble, etc. The problem isn't just the lack of fathers in the home, the larger culture is an issue. He was poor and fatherless and ended with a Master's degree. He attributes to a set of expectations and teachers who encouraged him to excel. What is different today? It has to be more than mere father absence.
B-Daddy, while some individual women can make up for the lack of a man in the family, the majority cannot. The same is true for single men trying to raise a family. Men and women have different roles to play and all the individual examples of excellence doesn't change that.
So the Brits are opening the schools up to competition. Yes, that's a good thing. However, they're not doing so in any context other than "the government has the answer!" If they Tories were saying that school competition is our policy, but we acknowledge it's a poor replacement for societal change, I'd have a much difference opinion.
It's not the policy that's the problem, it's the refusal to clearly and consistently state the real problem. Until they do that, this is pretty much a waste of time.
Post a Comment