Light blogging
I'm off to the big smoke for a couple of days, my first trip to the capital for a very long time. I'm going to meet a few people and then I'm listening to Martin Rees give a Reith Lecture tomorrow night.
Blogging will be non-existent.
In the meantime, here's something non-climate-related.
I was pondering the sad state of the education system when I chanced upon the clause in the Human Rights Act which says
the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and to teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
Now, as someone with a deep philosophical objection to state education, I wondered if the state's respect for my convictions would extend to providing me with an education voucher to allow me to send my children to a private school.
Neat idea eh?
Is it a goer though? Well, I asked the Human Rights experts at the Guardian's Liberty Clinic and they have posted up a reply.
Reader Comments (38)
As everyone who has had to endure the state 'education' system knows, the right of 'education' is not one to be given back to the people lightly. Over in the US, a Dept. of Truthiness is now being planned. What alternative is there, when people are not thinking the right thoughts?
Some interesting responses, you appear to be akin to a mentally defective, potential Thomas Hamilton, according to one!
O come on Bishop - no lap top, no wifi! Btw, the rumour now is that Nick C is going to scew us byt joining that bane of the seventies - a lib-lab pact - this 'principled' man. putiing 'country before party'!
The situation in the UK appears to be much like most of the US - parents may homeschool their children, but have to meet certain standards of eduction in doing so. In the US these standards may vary somewhat from state to state, but generally require than homeschooled children score reasonably well on nationally recognized achievement tests. In most states, and public school districts, no public financial support is available for homeschooling.
My daughter felt that the public school system in her district was inadequate, and decided to homeschool our grandson from the age of 10. It was a difficult decision, requiring substantial financial sacrifice.
Homeschooling was a great family experience. My wife and I became active participants in our grandson's education as teachers of history, composition, French, economics, science and music. Teaching one-on-one is intensive (the student has nowhere to hide!), but can be very effective and rewarding. And both teacher and student are learning.
Uninformed people often object that homeschooled children will miss the "socialization" provided by public schools. In fact, what they mostly miss is the intense peer pressure, consumerism, bullying, drugs, premature sex and adolescent disdain for adults. My grandson was socially active throughout those years in music, theater, fencing, gaming and homeschool social groups. Today, at age 20, he is taking final exams for his third year at university. He is a member of the student senate, an editor on the school paper, and an almost full scholarship student.
Homeschooling probably isn't the "best" method of education for every child or every family. But neither is the industrial model we call public education. Children aren't stamped out by cookie-cutters; they are individuals deserving of our best educational efforts. "One size fits all" is a poor way to prepare the next generation.
To the point - it might have been nice if we got a Con-Lib gov. - from the civil lerbities viewpoint - but aren't oppositions always rational and goverment not! How Goverments treat minorities is a test that is always failed - hence, the oppression and continued calumny against those who wish to teach their own children in their own way. Btw, nice to change the subject, for once!
The Guardian's lawyer appears to be saying that the HRA does not say what you think it says and if it does then we had our fingers crossed when we agreed to it. It seems that Sir Humphrey must have had a hand in drafting the HRA.
As to the value of a State Education - I voted with my wallet and sent my kids to private schools here in the States. It was very, very expensive. If I had to do it all over again, I think we would have probably home schooled through the age of 15, then private school. So long as they study hard sciences at University and can get access to the the honors program, public higher ed is fine.
Hay, Bernie, what about 'Hard History' - surely something like that is what our children need - otherwise repeat and rinse!
'Repeat and rinse' like voting for lib dem when ones historic duty, I surmise, would have been to vote for a strong goverment. I believe dante has a speciel place outside of Hell ( no one will have them ) for such people. To learn for History is to lear the 1945 goverment was a disaster which we are not so much recovering from, as expressing our last, heart pierced, and agonising sigh. History, of course, and am I snobbed to think those who voted 'wrong' know nothing of it?
Dear Bishop Hill, once you've come back from what Johnson said one could never get bored of ( O! He's right - I wish I was there, too!) is there a way of re-editing a post one has posted(!) - I have been using opera mini, which is, often, impossible! I hate misspellings and bad grammar!
Lewis:
"Hard History" is not taught at UMass - my local state school. For anything like a non-left wing view of history one needs to go to one of a few private universities/colleges or a few select State Universities in the mid-West or South. Slim pickings elesewhere if you want to avoid revisionist bs.
I mentioned Jerry Pournelles quote of Glenn T. Seaborg on another blog a week or so back. It is useful to remember it when pondering the sad state of the education system we have inflicted today.
'Glenn T. Seaborg, wrote that "If a foreign nation had imposed this system of education on the United States, we would rightfully consider it an act of war."'
We don't have an education system, we have a crèche so that both middle class parents get taxed for working.
Now this was as startling a line as I've seen in many a day:
" as someone with a deep philosophical objection to state education," I don't think I've ever come across anyone with such a view before!
I believe passionately that the state owes its people the best of education, and should provide that. I can't comment on the US picture, but here in the UK there are a lot of very good state schools.There are some horrors, certainly, but I'd almost go so far as to say that the existence of a private sector in education itself is the biggest cause of problems in the state sector. (Not because it's wrong per se, but because those in power use it, and thereby ignore the failings in the state system because they are not affected). I must read that JS Mill reference to see where you're coming from.
providing me with an education voucher
What you are actually asking here Bishop, is, "Can I steal money from other people to educate my children at home?"
The answer might be "Yes You Can", but you would be committing an immoral act of theft nonetheless.
School vouchers are tokens for money collected from taxes by the threat of violence, redistributed to parents. This is theft. Whether the voucher given to you is spent at one school or another or used to educated your children at home is immaterial to the source of the money, which is fundamentally immoral.
You cannot be, on the one hand, against the Climate Change fraud, the money spent on it, the fraudulent Carbon Trading schemes, irrational subsidized wind farms and the proposed carbon taxes; all of which are going to be enforced by government force, and at the same time, think its OK to steal money from one group of people so that parents can educate their children.
The subject of Climate Change fraud and School Vouchers are intimately related; both of them are unintended consequences of the existence of the State.
I strongly suggest you read 'For A New Liberty' by Murray Rothbard. Once you finish it, you will forever be able to answer questions like the one you posed in this post. You will have an impenetrable, unassailable and logical substrate upon which to build the missing parts of your philosophy (I say this because you do not seem to have the answer to this question!) so that your completely correct stance on Climate Change and all the other parts of your philosophy will be a part of a single, coherent logical system, unbreakable, moral and completely sound.
"the obligation on the state is only to respect BishopHill's philosophical convictions, not to give effect to them": jolly good - but what does "respect" mean then?
Kids are a lot smarter than you think. You can keep them in the dark and feed them bs but they won't turn into mushrooms. The Commies couldn't do it, nobody can. They will learn to think for themselves, it just might take a bit longer. All the AGW bs in the world won't keep them from looking up at the sky, the sea and the forests and thinking their own thoughts. Don't underate the little ones.
Off topic, but I want to commend you on The Hockey Stick Illusion. You're ability to clearly summarize a highly complex subject is exceptional. I am recommending THSI to others in my lectures on the science of climate change. Thanks much.
"the obligation on the state is only to respect BishopHill's philosophical convictions, not to give effect to them": jolly good - but what does "respect" mean then?
To respectfully tell him to bugger off and stop annoying them.
I think Frank Brown has a point, but for only some of them. Too many actually believe what they have been taught. Too few learn to think for themselves. I was taught to think by my public school teachers and later in university. Sadly, that seems to have changed drastically in the last fifty or so years.
My sister who teaches mathematics in a private high school near Minneapolis complains that the students she has refuse to think even in a math class, saying one of her test was unfair because they did not have those questions in their home work. Right. She is retiring next year. I wonder why?
Bishop -- teacher your kids yourself. Teach them to have the malady of thought.
And they're off. Again
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8673828.stm
Dear Andrew,
As some of your previous commenters have suggested, segregated schooling can exacerbate social problems. A classic example of this is shown by the history of Northern Ireland over the last century, with the apartheid of the two main sectarian tribes being perpetuated by separate schooling. The English class system is another example of social division perpetuated partly by a lack of integrated schooling. This may not matter much to the rare dissenters such as you or me, but society as a whole can suffer. I am sympathetic towards those who would like to educate their children at home, but in most cases there is no reason for this to be to the exclusion of communal schooling. Perhaps one could also argue the converse - that communal schooling is fine as long as it does not preclude private or home education.
I liked your book! A diligent piece of work.
Chuckles
PDF of the Hartwell paper here:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mackinderProgramme/pdf/HartwellPaper07052010.pdf
Yes, children will learn to think themselves but the basic core opinions are often still hidden there. It is better to give them education, choices and freedom, in a supprotive, positive envirnomnet.
Jut wondered if your summons to London involved any chats with political figures? Dave, Nicky or Gordo? Perhaps a new career beckons....? Ermine???
There are some interesting ideas in the Hartwell pdf. The summary is not a correct summary of the contents - neither is the BBC story correct about the paper.
Spoiled a bit by being so long-winded - they never use a few short words when they can use a dozen long words instead.
Here's a good bit
Good message - but having 'suggested' and 'may' is an example of word-redundancy. Each word on its own would convey the meaning.
Long time reader, first time poster, etc etc.
To counter the anecdotal evidence of homeschooling benefits posted above, I counter that all of the homeschooled kids that I encountered in my teens and 20s were a bit odd. This includes two of my cousins, who I hung out with regularly as a kid. It's hard to describe - they were certainly smart, polite, and friendly. But they lacked numerous intangible social skills: working with others, patience, empathy and interest in others' ideas and feelings. They lacked key cultural references. Frankly, some were quite arrogant and closed-minded. One of my cousins is now a recluse with no friends or job. I met maybe 10-15 homeschooled kids over my life, so admittedly not many. But other friends I've spoken to recently have commented on the same thing.
What say ye?
William Tolhurst:
You cannot be, on the one hand, against the Climate Change fraud, the money spent on it, the fraudulent Carbon Trading schemes, irrational subsidized wind farms and the proposed carbon taxes; all of which are going to be enforced by government force, and at the same time, think its OK to steal money from one group of people so that parents can educate their children.
-------------------------------------------------------------
One can be absolutely against "the Climate Change fraud, the money spent on it, the fraudulent Carbon Trading schemes, irrational subsidized wind farms and the proposed carbon taxes" because they are based on lies and errors, but think it a good thing that some other things are best funded by taxes.
Depressingly, Lib Dem MP Chris Huhne has been appointed to "Energy and Climate Change" in the new UK government. As he is very gung ho on AGW we can probably look forward to power cuts and billions ****ed away on wind farms.
FR
You say you have met 10-15 kids who have been schooled at home, we can add to that the zero number I have met, well zero as far as I know. It would be interesting to see some statistics. There is certainly room for improvement in our education system and no doubt there are some pretty poor schools about but lets not forget there are also some very good schools too. I know when my children were at their school’s pupils were bussed in from towns 20-25 miles away I don’t know if that’s the norm but it does seem that in this area for one there are places in good schools of choice if there is no objection to travelling. As for schooling at home, fine or should I say "the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and to teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions" but please don’t expect the tax payer to pay.
Education for Children is best funded by their producer the parents, not taxes.
So where, AC1, do the taxes come from, if not the people? There are many services funded to which you could make the same point. Education is special in that it enables it's recipients to better contribute to the common wealth. Without education you have (more or less) serfdom. One could argue that only education should be state funded, and the rest be down to individuals, but I go with Maggie T on this - society is the common responsibility of us all, and the community needs to contribute to the welfare of all, and the best way of doing that is by education.
May 12, 2010 | FR
Oddly enough, I'm a college professor and haven't met very many home-schooled kids either... actually, just one that I know about for sure. She was personable, a leader in the class and one of the very best students I've had.
I thought individuals got educated, not "society".
Polluter pays, that's the parents. Loan them the money if need be.
Taxes should come from Government Created Monopolies such as Land and IP Rights (i.e. paying to exclude). Not by extorting from peoples wages.
bish, hope u had a good break. thought u might like to see the new scientist on Rees's Reith lecture. look forward to your comments:
12 May: New Scientist: Time for scientists to go into politics
(by) Michael Brooks, consultant, stood in the general election for the Science Party
Last night the president of the Royal Society gave the first of his 2010 Reith Lectures at the BBC.
In my view, Martin Rees displayed a shocking naïveté in quoting Churchill's line that scientists "should be on tap but not on top". His point that was scientists have a duty to inform politics, but they have no special insights beyond that, and must allow politicians to formulate policy based on social, economic and ethical principles....
But Rees's insistence that scientists offer nothing more than scientific opinion stands in contradiction of this apparent admiration. It is also staggeringly unrealistic.
The recent sacking of UK government drugs policy advisor David Nutt showed that politicians are quite happy to ditch scientific advice when it is not expedient.
If scientists acquiesce to this kind of treatment - and happily they haven't, as demonstrated by the cascade of resignations prompted by the Nutt case - they weaken their position on issues such as climate change....
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2010/05/time-for-scientists-to-go-into.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
LOL
10 May: Space&Science Research Center: Press Release SSRC 2-2010
Food and Ethanol Shortages Imminent as Earth Enters New Cold Climate Era
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:
Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.”....ETC
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
Bish,
Just to help you weed out the spam; 'e's been a vewy naughty boy, 'e 'as...
wipe this comment when your done.
replica watches comments on Jones on the Medieval Warm Period
Men Caps
replica watches comments on Von Storch fixes the IPCC
Men Caps
replica watches comments on The Yamal implosion
Men Caps
replica watches comments on Big Oil forgets to bribe McKitrick
Men Caps
your / you're
Time for another tea!
and he's commented in "unthreaded"
One can be absolutely against "the Climate Change fraud, the money spent on it, the fraudulent Carbon Trading schemes, irrational subsidized wind farms and the proposed carbon taxes" because they are based on lies and errors, but think it a good thing that some other things are best funded by taxes.
No, this is incorrect. You cannot be for stealing in one area, but then think its a 'good thing' that 'other things' are funded by taxes. Its clear that you do not understand the true nature of taxes; taxes are theft; they are not reasonable, good or acceptable to decent and moral people.
If you object to Climate Change Fraud and all the government programmes and taxes that emerge from it, all of which are enforced by violence, you cannot simultaneously be for stealing money to line your own pocket, and remain logical and moral.
What this demonstrates, if you do not accept what I have just written, is that you are for violence against people on matters that you agree with (taxes being used to fund schooling), but are against violence on matters that you think are improper (taxes being used to fund wind-farms). This is confused, immoral and incomplete thinking. You really need to read the book I linked to earlier in this comment stream before you try and justify violence with poor logic.