Sunday, June 17, 2007

More on Raising School Age and Diplomas

Jonathan Dimbleby hosts a panel-led studio debate on the raising of the school leaving age in which Jim Knight (Schools Minister) implies that there will most likely be a re-writing of Section 7 of the 1996 Education Act in order that it be made clear that young people (aged 16 - 18), rather than their parents, will be responsible for their education; this even though government appears to want to dictate not only that they must do it, but also what form it should take.

Yup, apparently being responsible for something doesn't mean that one is actually responsible for any significant, life-altering decision-making, such as whether or not one wants to be a youthful entrepreneur, or researcher in an entirely new field, or an apprentice who would rather learn entirely on the job rather than periodically in a college. Being responsible means doing exactly what you are told, within a certain limited range of options.

The debate on school leaving ages is followed by an extended discussion on the proposed diplomas which are due to be introduced from 2008.

HT: Aspie Home Education


Tech said...

Ah ha so there's the fly in the ointment - never imagined that they didn't always have something sinister up their sleeves when they scraped the light touch change consult. *Turns air blue*.

Raquel said...

that's sickening. I thought somewhere in Canada they raised the leaving age but home educators managed to win their corner. Has anyone contacted them lately? Off to google...

Anonymous said...

You are very right about the stupidity of the language used to describe the young people's apparent 'responsibility for their education'.

In the teacher training happening in the so called flagship schools now, they keep going on about the children being held responsible for their education. This invariably means that if they haven't done the homework (they probably didn't want in the first places in subjects they were forced to take) they will have to take the consequences and do detention etc.

It's manipulative language, lacking in integrity.

Anonymous said...

Although, by the way, continuing from above - I do agree that there is obliviousness to the impact of violence in France. We have French relatives there and 2 of the three children have been in psychiatric care for extended periods thanks to, what I can only see as an extraordinary level of physical violence from parents.

But, then, I am certain from what I've seen here, that we are not that much better, just more covert! We specialise perhaps in emotional abuse (is this better?)...if, of course, we can generalise like this.

Anonymous said...

Oops! Just realised that had posted previous comment in wrong section! Should be in with France comments, of course.