Treasures from the threads -Number "no brainer" fourteen!

Daily Telegraph today, linked here: I currently work in the education system in S.E. England. When I joined 5 years ago, I was aware of a quit-rate of 50% within 5 years for teachers new to the profession. I initially wondered why such people were attraced in the first place. I viewed (and still do) teaching as a vocation, and a professional one at that. Now I realise that many of those who quit must have done so out of sheer exasparation at the 'dead-hand' way the education system is run. As sure as eggs are eggs, this is the way I feel now. Self-discipline is the catalyst that makes true education run. Without it the process is slow and painful, especially if the learners have no educational values imposed at home. But even without educational aspirations at the heart of the family, self-discipline (even a small amount) can make the process work. So why do children appear to have such little self-discipline? Haven't children always had little in the way of self-discipline? Isn't that the point of having a family around children which can impose discipline on the child until the child is mature enough to see the reasons why these skills are valued? If so, then if we choose to educate people when they are young, then they must have parents who will, from an early age, impose their will on the child. In fact, is it not unfair to label (with GCSE's) the child with the outcome of their (poor) education, when in fact, much of the blame lies with parents who, basically, cant be arsed to keep their kids in line? Is the role of the state to SUPPORT the FAMILY that is attempting to produce the future of this country? I would say that is almost what my students call a 'no-brainer'. Of course it is, if for no other reason (there are many) than it will, in the long run, be best for the taxpayer AND the country. Yet socialists beleive that the solution to this problem is to drive a wedge between families by insisting that they are helping children everywhere by, in effect, paying child benefit to the child, 'allowing' the creation of jobless, benefit dependent communities, easing the process of divorce and even making it financially more attactive (to the poorer of us, in the main). Or the jobless young who compare their bank balance when on benefits to their bank balance when in work and, logically, conclude that working isn't worth it. So there is no recogition of the role that the FAMILY has in the upbrining of the child. Indeed, the more time that passes, the more it seems that thr starting premise of this government is that the STATE supercedes the FAMILY. Which is of course, nonsense. No individual is above the law, but the family is definitely not subservient to the state. It wasn't that long ago that a member of the labour goverment announced that schools were to add moral, social and ethical content to the National Curriculum. I suppose the intended message was to announce that the state would help ineffectual parents of children who are sliding of the rails. But they seem to think that the way to do that is to process them through an education system undermined by the very same state, as they believe that all people are essentially good and that if we are nice to them all time they would suddenly change to be more like 'us'(politicians). If more money was spent on supporting people with a child who is 0-5 years old, we would eventually not pay for the costs of the child 'boundary-less' generations that we have now. Support the parent to have control over their children and provide them with the things they NEED not toys, but things like; comfort, security, discipline, time, love, support. No 'state' can provide this for a child. Only the parent(s) can. Posted by Fed-up teacher on May 3, 2008 4:20 PM