Think tanks seem to provide an excuse for all sorts of magical thinking, post hoc reasoning and the apparent legitimisation of non sequitors.
"Children must learn life skills. Children's personal skills are increasingly likely to influence their future earning potential, not just exam results, a think-tank suggests. Failure to teach key skills such as communication is widening the gap between rich and poor, says the Institute for Public Policy Research. It recommends a longer school day so pupils can learn these "soft" skills at after-class arts and sports clubs. Parents who fail to send their children to clubs should face fines, it says. "
Honestly, where does one start?
Let's stick to the biggest glaring error. In what way does imposing fines upon people demonstrate the practice of good communication? What lesson should people take from this other than that those in work do not need to communicate persuasively since all they need do is threaten others?
All in all, (by way of a quick summary), if schools can offer classes that children freely want to attend, that don't descend into vicious anarchy, that do have proper adult input, that do offer a way of integrating children into the world outside the school gates, I don't have any argument. Otherwise I most certainly do.
HT: Elizabeth
3 comments:
Well said.
But what's with the classism? Certainly nobody in Britain is really poor, not with the welfare system.
Why is the worth of people measured in terms of their lifestyle?
I just thought it was funny, that most HE'ers say that the one question they always get asked is about socialization for the kids. It seems most people think the best place they learn to socialize/communicate is in school--so I'd say that this think tank would highly disagree with the general popoulation.
Lol...you're right there, though sad that think tank cannot imagine that there may be yet another way to learn "soft skills" other than to force people back into school.
Post a Comment