Editorial Updates
14/10/13 |
Comments
no comments |
Chapter Map
> Child To Adult Transition. >Relationship: Parent/Child >Education<you are here> >School > "Post Angst" > Fixing The Damage > To Love Oneself > Loving Others |
Education: Personal
I have to come clean here and say that I have an axe to grind on this topic. The earlier part of my schooling, at a private boarding school was very abusive and damaging. Consequently my wife and I, after a lot of sole search and deliberation opted to educate our children a home. I do not wish to get lost in the pros and cons of taking such a drastic decision but in hind sight I am quite happy that we did so, not that it was not without is difficulties: my eldest boy suffered from Asbegers syndrome but over all I feel that the boys have turned out well adjusted to world and happy with who they are.
But I have to say that I have some very strong feelings and opinions about what I see happening in our education system. Firstly I would like it to be noted that the separation of education and schooling is quite deliberate and first of all I will look at education.
In looking at education I am not doing so to criticise per say but to offer my understand what we have at the moment and appreciate the influences that that approach has. There are I believe serious flaws to the current approach as I see it and consequently I do put forward some thoughts for consideration.
sisideas
But I have to say that I have some very strong feelings and opinions about what I see happening in our education system. Firstly I would like it to be noted that the separation of education and schooling is quite deliberate and first of all I will look at education.
In looking at education I am not doing so to criticise per say but to offer my understand what we have at the moment and appreciate the influences that that approach has. There are I believe serious flaws to the current approach as I see it and consequently I do put forward some thoughts for consideration.
sisideas
Education
Education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education :
Education in its general sense is a form of learning in which the knowledge, skills, and habits of a group of people are transferred from one generation to the next through teaching, training, or research.
Education, in terms of passing on information for survival, from one generation to the next generations, is not the preserve of man. Many higher animals help their off-spring to learn the skills and abilities necessary for survival in adult life. It is therefore fair to say that there is an instinctual element to education. From a survival point of view, man's off spring has a lot to learn. In our every more complex society, the almost exponential growth of knowledge in technology, medicine and all aspect of science in general means that for our children, to be capable of competing in the market place of jobs, will require an ever increasing data base of information. But is that all that education is? A tool for survival? Certainly a large proportion of education is just for that reason but as human beings, there are elements of the learning processes that make education for humans very much more complex. I feel that some elements of education, with in the current system are being lost, not so much from being over looked but that the whole processes is being motivated from the wrong perspective. However to start with I want to look historically at where education has come from, and understand why we have the system we do.
Education in its general sense is a form of learning in which the knowledge, skills, and habits of a group of people are transferred from one generation to the next through teaching, training, or research.
Education, in terms of passing on information for survival, from one generation to the next generations, is not the preserve of man. Many higher animals help their off-spring to learn the skills and abilities necessary for survival in adult life. It is therefore fair to say that there is an instinctual element to education. From a survival point of view, man's off spring has a lot to learn. In our every more complex society, the almost exponential growth of knowledge in technology, medicine and all aspect of science in general means that for our children, to be capable of competing in the market place of jobs, will require an ever increasing data base of information. But is that all that education is? A tool for survival? Certainly a large proportion of education is just for that reason but as human beings, there are elements of the learning processes that make education for humans very much more complex. I feel that some elements of education, with in the current system are being lost, not so much from being over looked but that the whole processes is being motivated from the wrong perspective. However to start with I want to look historically at where education has come from, and understand why we have the system we do.
Education: A Political Football
I think I am right in saying that back in the early days of publicly funded education, the curriculum was of a basic nature, concentrating on literacy and numeracy: what became knows as "the 3 R's". The method of teaching these skills was very much left up to the individual teacher. Publicly funded education, came out of an austere Victorian tradition,(approx the later part of the 19cent) where much of the method was both boring; learning by rote, and in many cases, accompanied with a discipline regime of excessive brutality. In spite of its ills, this education was of benefit and did give hope of embetterment to many; helping them to escape the poverty trap of illiteracy.
In spite of Victorian attitudes having remained long past their sell by date, education of today has come a very long way for the better, but the passage of education, from its earlier days to the present has been, at times very adversarial, with various factions kicking the education "football" in the direction their particular agenda.
Originally, what was taught and how, were the remit of teachers and educationalists but post war circumstances were to initiate a change.I suppose, it was inevitable, that governments were going to involve themselves in education, not lest as they became the holders of the purse-string but also, a more enlightened post war electorate looked to government for change.
Raising the school leaving age, funding, education boards, and many more aspects, I commend this article ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_England#
it should be noted that Scotland has its own very different history to education.
When the baby-boom of the fifties and sixties came to school, parents wanted to see a fairer climate of opportunity from the "shedding ring" of the Eleven-plus into "sheep and goats" and the subsequent social stigma that went with it. They wanted greater hope and opportunities for their children in the relatively, newly aligned social structure of a post war Britain.
Education was propelled centre stage of the political agenda, where it has remained, to be a political football that has been kicked around ever since. I do not want to get drawn into the conjecture of the various competing factions that have dominated the education debate but with out meaning to sound too facile, sufficient to say that each of the "contenders" saw the issues from their own perspective.
Education has always been a socially divisive aspect in British society. Not just in terms of the eleven plus but perhaps more so the private public schools; being seen as evidence of a class ridden elitism in our society that has limited the opportunities of the underprivileged. Private schools have historically, disproportionately filled more places in the establish universities than state schools. Such inequalities in a growing socialist post war climate gave political credence to notions of improving social mobility by means of a more meritocratic education system but that necessitated a greater equality of opportunity.
So governments, to some extent have trod a "schizophrenic" path, trying to please as many of the various factions as they could whilst being true to their political colour. On top of which they would have had to contend with the projected requirements of a future work force, in a very rapidly changing post war environment as well as being the keepers of the educational purse strings.
Parents want the "best" for their children and that "best" educationally, translates, in the main, to being a "success"; a success at being able to achieve the qualifications to obtain a "good" job, security, respectability. For many of the older generation, the two great wars were seen, amongst other things, as being an instigator of social change: in as much as the wars had to some degree a "levelling" affect on different strata of society. By the time the sixties came there was the beginnings of an air of optimism by parents at the possibility of embetterment for their children.
In my mind one of the losers' at this game of foot ball were the teachers or rather the teaching profession. During the early sixties the sudden rise in the demand for teachers, caused by the baby-boom, necessitated the beginnings of a formulaic production of teacher. Gone where the days of teaching being a vocational calling. Such necessary innovations stifled the inspiration of good teachers but raised the basic standard to a lowest common denominator; and with it came "red tape" in profusion; education by prescription. Although some of these factions had goals and aims in common that dose not stop there being a continuous tweaking to this day. A laudable, endless pursuit to perfection you might think but surely after sixty years or so we would have arrived at something pretty close to perfection by now? Assuming, of course that we had asked the right question and new what we were looking for?
In spite of Victorian attitudes having remained long past their sell by date, education of today has come a very long way for the better, but the passage of education, from its earlier days to the present has been, at times very adversarial, with various factions kicking the education "football" in the direction their particular agenda.
Originally, what was taught and how, were the remit of teachers and educationalists but post war circumstances were to initiate a change.I suppose, it was inevitable, that governments were going to involve themselves in education, not lest as they became the holders of the purse-string but also, a more enlightened post war electorate looked to government for change.
Raising the school leaving age, funding, education boards, and many more aspects, I commend this article ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_England#
it should be noted that Scotland has its own very different history to education.
When the baby-boom of the fifties and sixties came to school, parents wanted to see a fairer climate of opportunity from the "shedding ring" of the Eleven-plus into "sheep and goats" and the subsequent social stigma that went with it. They wanted greater hope and opportunities for their children in the relatively, newly aligned social structure of a post war Britain.
Education was propelled centre stage of the political agenda, where it has remained, to be a political football that has been kicked around ever since. I do not want to get drawn into the conjecture of the various competing factions that have dominated the education debate but with out meaning to sound too facile, sufficient to say that each of the "contenders" saw the issues from their own perspective.
Education has always been a socially divisive aspect in British society. Not just in terms of the eleven plus but perhaps more so the private public schools; being seen as evidence of a class ridden elitism in our society that has limited the opportunities of the underprivileged. Private schools have historically, disproportionately filled more places in the establish universities than state schools. Such inequalities in a growing socialist post war climate gave political credence to notions of improving social mobility by means of a more meritocratic education system but that necessitated a greater equality of opportunity.
So governments, to some extent have trod a "schizophrenic" path, trying to please as many of the various factions as they could whilst being true to their political colour. On top of which they would have had to contend with the projected requirements of a future work force, in a very rapidly changing post war environment as well as being the keepers of the educational purse strings.
Parents want the "best" for their children and that "best" educationally, translates, in the main, to being a "success"; a success at being able to achieve the qualifications to obtain a "good" job, security, respectability. For many of the older generation, the two great wars were seen, amongst other things, as being an instigator of social change: in as much as the wars had to some degree a "levelling" affect on different strata of society. By the time the sixties came there was the beginnings of an air of optimism by parents at the possibility of embetterment for their children.
In my mind one of the losers' at this game of foot ball were the teachers or rather the teaching profession. During the early sixties the sudden rise in the demand for teachers, caused by the baby-boom, necessitated the beginnings of a formulaic production of teacher. Gone where the days of teaching being a vocational calling. Such necessary innovations stifled the inspiration of good teachers but raised the basic standard to a lowest common denominator; and with it came "red tape" in profusion; education by prescription. Although some of these factions had goals and aims in common that dose not stop there being a continuous tweaking to this day. A laudable, endless pursuit to perfection you might think but surely after sixty years or so we would have arrived at something pretty close to perfection by now? Assuming, of course that we had asked the right question and new what we were looking for?
Asking the Right Question
In all of this political tussling I wonder if any one actually asked the obvious question. What and for whom is education? Clearly from the perspective of the various faction such a question would appear facetious as the merits of all the contenders is self evident: parents wanting the best for their children long term security in a well paid job, governments wanting a productive well educated work force able to keep a breast of the innovations in an ever growing technological world: in order to create wealth for the country. To be fair, my question has probably never been asked, in that what we have today has evolved out of a time in history where the question was not entirely relevant. In any event education dose have logical substance and a recipient: the what and for whom, and in spite of the political kicking, the goals of the various protagonists are not that far apart.
At face value one might ask "so what's wrong with any of that? The answer would be "nothing", if the nature or purpose of education, (as assumed by my contenders), was a true and the best definition of what education should be. What can we say has been assumed to be the purpose of education from the goals and aims of our contenders?
That education is ultimately for the purpose of creating wealth for the individuals and the country?
From a purely instinctual animal survival point of view this would appear to be a satisfactory aim and that theses goals could be achieved by utilizing all the potential learning abilities of our children. But is this a fair analysis of what education is currently and if so is it the right answer as to the question "what and whom education is for?"
At face value one might ask "so what's wrong with any of that? The answer would be "nothing", if the nature or purpose of education, (as assumed by my contenders), was a true and the best definition of what education should be. What can we say has been assumed to be the purpose of education from the goals and aims of our contenders?
That education is ultimately for the purpose of creating wealth for the individuals and the country?
From a purely instinctual animal survival point of view this would appear to be a satisfactory aim and that theses goals could be achieved by utilizing all the potential learning abilities of our children. But is this a fair analysis of what education is currently and if so is it the right answer as to the question "what and whom education is for?"
Getting the Right Answer
Education (as a process) is a necessary tool for survival, but education for man is, I believe, more than just for survival. I feel that the "what" (and subsequently the how) in education is at present being driven almost exclusively from the aspect of "instinctual necessity". Survival is ultimately about successful prosperity that equates with getting a job... a good job that creates wealth. This driving force directly reflex the nature of a survival of the fittest mentality as epitomised by the values of a supply and demand economic structure. By seeing education in this manner we narrowed down the remit of what educations is. By limiting the agenda or at lest by putting such a narrow emphasis on the one aspect of education, we do so to the exclusion of a raft of other aspects. More over by setting a particular emphasis of "education for jobs/wealth" we indicate a sense of our values on to children.
An inevitable consequence of seeing education in this manner is that it becomes a prescribed production: that of inculcating our children with the greatest amount of knowledge that a given individual is capable of retaining. In doing so we are moulding our children into a comparative rare "commodity" (knowledge and skill wise) in order that they should have greater value in society. We exploit the natural unfairnesses of life to the benefit of individual children, by channelling an individual's relative superior abilities into scarcer and there for more valuable skills set.
To be faintly cynical and facetious for a moment one could look at the current process of education like that of a sausage factory where our children are the sausage skins to be stuffed with the sausage meet of knowledge, to be moulded into good sausages.
Surely it doesn't take a genius to work out that if education is a transfer of knowledge it must principally be for the benefit of the recipient. That of course is not to say that the beneficial effects of educating an individual dose not go beyond the individual. Society at large benefits from a knowledgeable individuals but never the less education, being the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next is for, our children. Consequently, rather than looking at education as a means of producing wealth and using our children as a tool to that aim, should we not be putting children first and looking at what would be best for them? From my question, are they not the "For whom?"
Yes, clearly the necessities of being prepared for later life (having a good job etc) would still be needed but I feel that this would be achieved coincidentally and dose not need to be the overriding objective of education.
To make what I feel would be a more apposite analogy, should we not view our children as the princes and princesses, to be clothed and fitted in the raiments of knowledge best suited to them, rather than seeing them as the skins to be stuffed? But this of course would turn everything up side down.
An inevitable consequence of seeing education in this manner is that it becomes a prescribed production: that of inculcating our children with the greatest amount of knowledge that a given individual is capable of retaining. In doing so we are moulding our children into a comparative rare "commodity" (knowledge and skill wise) in order that they should have greater value in society. We exploit the natural unfairnesses of life to the benefit of individual children, by channelling an individual's relative superior abilities into scarcer and there for more valuable skills set.
To be faintly cynical and facetious for a moment one could look at the current process of education like that of a sausage factory where our children are the sausage skins to be stuffed with the sausage meet of knowledge, to be moulded into good sausages.
Surely it doesn't take a genius to work out that if education is a transfer of knowledge it must principally be for the benefit of the recipient. That of course is not to say that the beneficial effects of educating an individual dose not go beyond the individual. Society at large benefits from a knowledgeable individuals but never the less education, being the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next is for, our children. Consequently, rather than looking at education as a means of producing wealth and using our children as a tool to that aim, should we not be putting children first and looking at what would be best for them? From my question, are they not the "For whom?"
Yes, clearly the necessities of being prepared for later life (having a good job etc) would still be needed but I feel that this would be achieved coincidentally and dose not need to be the overriding objective of education.
To make what I feel would be a more apposite analogy, should we not view our children as the princes and princesses, to be clothed and fitted in the raiments of knowledge best suited to them, rather than seeing them as the skins to be stuffed? But this of course would turn everything up side down.
What next? Standing on My Head?
Clearly such a notion throws up a lot of questions and issues, such as what would be the practical difference and outcome of Putting Children First ?
Some of the implications goes far beyond education its self. When one re-looks at the current motivations of education in the light of not putting children first, we become aware of the nature of the values we currently have in place and in particular "fairness" in a non egalitarian society; this is one aspect that I will be looking at under the title A Very Vexed Conundrum.
There are also a number of lesser issues that I would like to cover, for instance, Looking at the subtext of the proses: by the way and method we educate we teach about education, What we learn about the proses its self set future attitudes in adult life. To to start with Iam going to deal with "A Very Vexed Conundrum.
Sisideas
Some of the implications goes far beyond education its self. When one re-looks at the current motivations of education in the light of not putting children first, we become aware of the nature of the values we currently have in place and in particular "fairness" in a non egalitarian society; this is one aspect that I will be looking at under the title A Very Vexed Conundrum.
There are also a number of lesser issues that I would like to cover, for instance, Looking at the subtext of the proses: by the way and method we educate we teach about education, What we learn about the proses its self set future attitudes in adult life. To to start with Iam going to deal with "A Very Vexed Conundrum.
Sisideas
A Very Vexed Conundrum
In some ways this topic has very little to do with education, it relates to a more overtly philosophical issue that just happens to touch or surface when dealing with our children. In terms of education we see it as Fairness. fairness is a moral quality that like morality we tend to see more in terms of its negative: unfairness. See: Morality Beliefs and the Future.
Conundrum: A logical postulation that evades resolution, an intricate and difficult problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conundrum
So what are the elements to my postulation?
All animals are born into an existence that they have had no say in it's creation, but man alone has the abilities to analysis the nature of his existence. There are aspects to the reality of our existence that we either just do not face up to, or are unaware of. We perhaps don't face up to these realities because they suggest unpalatable aspect of the nature of who we are:
Because we, as an animal, are subject to the instinctual dictate: survive, we are part of a competitive struggle to ensure that survival. As such we are programmed to be selfish, like all life we are driven to be self preserving. Where as all other animals are oblivious to this reality man is not. This awareness makes him unique amongst animals and is the essence of what I call the human condition. In being aware of the nature of our selfish drive and motivation to survive, we can make the empathic corollary that "my Survival" is competitive: It is at the expense of an other's demise. We live uneasily with this reality, either denying it or turning a blind eye. We chose not to see a world ridden with poverty and starvation as being the result of an economic system of values bases and motivated by our instinct to survive and yet we throw a cursory glance to charity to salve our conscience.
In adult hood we tacitly accept the practical implications of this reality. Our sense of values, particularly economic are based on a supply and demand attitude, commodities or people-skills that are beneficial for surviving take on greater value. Yes, from with in some societies, where there is excessive opulence, there may well be apparent digressions from this norm (pop stars, film-stars footballers) but in crisis we will resort/revert to a survival set of attitudes. But on the other hand, as I said we can see the nature of our existence and it lives uneasily with us. From with in a human experience we can see that people are born different and to varying circumstances, and that consequently some people are born better equipped to be more successful than others: Cunning, physical prowess, machismo (dominant natural leadership), beneficial traits born to some, would have equipped both animals and early man to be comparatively more successful but in our modern culture the beneficial traits have changed to intellect and academic ability: the unfair lottery of our birth touches us when it comes to the education of our children.
We are compelled to live in an existence that we recognise to be selfish and therefore is unfair. That is the essence of the vexed conundrum.
Conundrum: A logical postulation that evades resolution, an intricate and difficult problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conundrum
So what are the elements to my postulation?
All animals are born into an existence that they have had no say in it's creation, but man alone has the abilities to analysis the nature of his existence. There are aspects to the reality of our existence that we either just do not face up to, or are unaware of. We perhaps don't face up to these realities because they suggest unpalatable aspect of the nature of who we are:
Because we, as an animal, are subject to the instinctual dictate: survive, we are part of a competitive struggle to ensure that survival. As such we are programmed to be selfish, like all life we are driven to be self preserving. Where as all other animals are oblivious to this reality man is not. This awareness makes him unique amongst animals and is the essence of what I call the human condition. In being aware of the nature of our selfish drive and motivation to survive, we can make the empathic corollary that "my Survival" is competitive: It is at the expense of an other's demise. We live uneasily with this reality, either denying it or turning a blind eye. We chose not to see a world ridden with poverty and starvation as being the result of an economic system of values bases and motivated by our instinct to survive and yet we throw a cursory glance to charity to salve our conscience.
In adult hood we tacitly accept the practical implications of this reality. Our sense of values, particularly economic are based on a supply and demand attitude, commodities or people-skills that are beneficial for surviving take on greater value. Yes, from with in some societies, where there is excessive opulence, there may well be apparent digressions from this norm (pop stars, film-stars footballers) but in crisis we will resort/revert to a survival set of attitudes. But on the other hand, as I said we can see the nature of our existence and it lives uneasily with us. From with in a human experience we can see that people are born different and to varying circumstances, and that consequently some people are born better equipped to be more successful than others: Cunning, physical prowess, machismo (dominant natural leadership), beneficial traits born to some, would have equipped both animals and early man to be comparatively more successful but in our modern culture the beneficial traits have changed to intellect and academic ability: the unfair lottery of our birth touches us when it comes to the education of our children.
We are compelled to live in an existence that we recognise to be selfish and therefore is unfair. That is the essence of the vexed conundrum.
Back to education
I feel that I have explained my vexed conundrum that when it comes to our children's education we become aware of the natural unfairnesses of life and wish to compensate for them; this would also give a reason for education being such an emotive topic. Before I go back to education its self, I would like to point out and consider the effects of another aspect of societies structure, that has an implication for children and education.
As as a highly social animal we live within a hierarchy structure. I believe this dominance and subordinate social structure to be legacy from our ancestral animal past, not dissimilar to that of a troop of gorillas. The dominant male; the silver-back, being the leader (king) who's primary roll was two fold: firstly to protect his troop and particularly his wives from outsiders and secondly to maintain order and the cohesion within the troop itself. As I have already pointed out elsewhere in my writing, these activities equate very well with the roll of government/leadership in today's human societies.
Throughout the history of man there has been sometimes violent struggles as to the nature of the relationship between leaders and the lead. It would certainly appear that the struggle for dominance is a very ingrained animal trait that is still very recognisable with in our societies of to day. (power wealth respectability control) Although it must be concluded that to some extent such hierarchical structure is moribund into days societies as one of the original purposes of dominant leadership was for procreational reasons, (the perpetuation of best genetic make up) such criteria is not applicable in today's societies. But how are these hierarchy social structures made in today's societies? Where as in the past the the prowess of leaders could be demonstrated in the heroic gallant deeds of bravery in battle, To day, physical prowess is less rewarded over academic achievement (with some obvious exceptions) and it has to be said that leadership has become a more defused existence from the kings and silver-backs of the past but there is most certainly a "pecking order" with in society.
From the nature of the current method of educating where the system is geared to exploit the innate or natural abilities of gifted (or just the lucky) children, such a system will inevitably produce relative failures as well as the successful. My justification for such an assertion is that when we do not put the needs of children first but have their needs subservient to the creation of wealth, we will inevitably create a competitive gladiatorial environment, where the act of testing and examining must make relative failures. From such, a "naturally" made pecking order is created that in real terms is just a sophisticated, institutionalised version of the struggle for dominance within a troop of gorillas or wolves. Such a mechanism fails to meet the needs of many children as they do not fulfil the true potential and society loses the diversity of expression that they had to offer; ironically the loss may well also be in terms of wealth or even possible as a cost in having to maintain them in unemployment benefit.
But as parents we view the all of the natural vagaries of existence, the natural eugenics of survival of the fittest and the domination and subordination, (leaders and the lead) with a bias eye towards our own children. From a parent's view towards their own children, they don't want natural selection to determine success or failure of their children. We, parents want it to be "fair", because we know that life is not fair, life is not forgiving, it is not kind, it dose not help the week: it is designed to separate the week from the strong. Unfair is the word that recognises the nature to our instinctual animal existence.
As as a highly social animal we live within a hierarchy structure. I believe this dominance and subordinate social structure to be legacy from our ancestral animal past, not dissimilar to that of a troop of gorillas. The dominant male; the silver-back, being the leader (king) who's primary roll was two fold: firstly to protect his troop and particularly his wives from outsiders and secondly to maintain order and the cohesion within the troop itself. As I have already pointed out elsewhere in my writing, these activities equate very well with the roll of government/leadership in today's human societies.
Throughout the history of man there has been sometimes violent struggles as to the nature of the relationship between leaders and the lead. It would certainly appear that the struggle for dominance is a very ingrained animal trait that is still very recognisable with in our societies of to day. (power wealth respectability control) Although it must be concluded that to some extent such hierarchical structure is moribund into days societies as one of the original purposes of dominant leadership was for procreational reasons, (the perpetuation of best genetic make up) such criteria is not applicable in today's societies. But how are these hierarchy social structures made in today's societies? Where as in the past the the prowess of leaders could be demonstrated in the heroic gallant deeds of bravery in battle, To day, physical prowess is less rewarded over academic achievement (with some obvious exceptions) and it has to be said that leadership has become a more defused existence from the kings and silver-backs of the past but there is most certainly a "pecking order" with in society.
From the nature of the current method of educating where the system is geared to exploit the innate or natural abilities of gifted (or just the lucky) children, such a system will inevitably produce relative failures as well as the successful. My justification for such an assertion is that when we do not put the needs of children first but have their needs subservient to the creation of wealth, we will inevitably create a competitive gladiatorial environment, where the act of testing and examining must make relative failures. From such, a "naturally" made pecking order is created that in real terms is just a sophisticated, institutionalised version of the struggle for dominance within a troop of gorillas or wolves. Such a mechanism fails to meet the needs of many children as they do not fulfil the true potential and society loses the diversity of expression that they had to offer; ironically the loss may well also be in terms of wealth or even possible as a cost in having to maintain them in unemployment benefit.
But as parents we view the all of the natural vagaries of existence, the natural eugenics of survival of the fittest and the domination and subordination, (leaders and the lead) with a bias eye towards our own children. From a parent's view towards their own children, they don't want natural selection to determine success or failure of their children. We, parents want it to be "fair", because we know that life is not fair, life is not forgiving, it is not kind, it dose not help the week: it is designed to separate the week from the strong. Unfair is the word that recognises the nature to our instinctual animal existence.
A Positive Vision
Still to write this bit :).
In Conclusion
In conclusion; there is nothing new in what I am suggesting, as there are many alternative systems that have and are being practised to day, which do take into account the issues I have raised. Perhaps thought, my analysis of what I see the status quo is doing, is a new view: being, driven by an understandable but non-the-less flawed approach: too orientated to the singularity of our survival instinct's and not the "Greater Educational" picture. We must see education in its broadest terms. In seeing it as a experiential process, we should neither use it as a means of manipulation nor see it as a compulsive necessity, that robs it of the natural excitement and wonder.