Frith

To "discuss" this issue you first have to define "modern education" in order to ascertain whether it is "harmful". The concept "modern" and the concept "harmful" are not mutually inclusive.

Education cannot be harmful if it is the relation of facts and the teaching of practise or theory concerning a subject and if this teaching is carried out by appropriately qualified personnel.

The subject choice in modern curricula seems to be causing the problem. That can be solved by returning to the kind of curricula used in the past. However, if you are going to start teaching Latin again or forcing them to pass mathematics when they have no aptitude just so they can get university entrances, you will not be solving any of the problems inherent in an idea that modern education could be harmful.

If political propaganda is fed into students then education could be harmful. Creationism, for example, as taught by some religious American schools will be extremely detrimental to any child's conception of the real world and its geological history. But then this is open to choice and the private curriculum and the government standard might clash. You might have to make allowances and allow choice in terms of institution and curriculum. But not all children or students have the freedom to choose. Those who must rely on state educational facilities are at greatest risk from any lowering of standards or inculcated propaganda.

Subject choice for particular qualifications has become problematic too. Schools are not offering a wide enough choice of important subjects and perhaps, as in the past, certain subjects should be made compulsory so that a standard can be built in on a fundamental level before the one inherent in the overall success rate after examinations.

Etc. ...

You have to take into account the nature of the society you are living in. If it is highly commercially oriented with a dominant service industry type workforce then subjects will of necessity follow source. This has resulted in some universities closing their mathematics and engineering faculties for lack of student interest in these subjects.

School should prepare students for further study as well as for the job market. This means getting the basics of some subjects embedded before university or college. Subjects that have no bearing on the learning of skills or basic literacy should not be examination subjects and should never be allowed to count as subjects for a qualification.

Subjects such as the environmental sciences would be useful today whereas they were not considered so a short while ago. Computer literacy is essential to modern life. But these things tend to take the place of other subjects that once filled the curriculum so you have to ask where do the necessary subjects begin and end and how liberal can education be before it collapses into a series of personal choices rather than a preparation for anything above the mundane or frivolous.

Etc ...

You could solve the problem of subject choice and graduate competency by creating schools for different areas of specialisation. Arts schools, industrial arts schools, IT schools, earth sciences colleges, etc so that whilst the basic literacy in certain subjects considered "essential" could be worked into the curricula, there would also be the added advantage of equipping students with particular talents and skills for education earlier on in their chosen fields.

This can result, however, in the overenthusiastic choice made sometimes by the parents before a younger child is capable of deciding for him or herself what to do. Maybe this deviation to specialised schools and colleges should only occur after the age of twelve. I have noticed that by this time, just as the child enters adolescence, that the signs of future talents are self evident and these choices can be made. Funding might be put to better use if streamlining could take place on a level that fitted each student for the best possible learning experience within the most likely scenario.

cassie

This is more like it!

I'll have to give it more thought before replying, but my initial instinct (I put it no higher than that) is to attempt to define the word 'education' first and then to qualify it with 'modern'. Hopefully, that will provide a framework for what you've posted.

It is a big. important subject.



_____________

youcanhandlethetruth

Good point cassie,

And we are constantly being told examination results are getting better and better when illiteracy(did I spell that right ? ) levels are down !

Nothing to do with government targets I'm sure.

youcanhandlethetruth

I was referring to cassies observation:
"Nowadays educational establishments have commercial imperatives leading them to inflate their 'successes', their pass numbers!"

prober

Cuba says it has 99% literacy. Teachers there get £20/month. Save a lot of money and solve the problem by sending all pupils that fail to meet gov targets for a 3 month holiday in Ciuba.

youcanhandlethetruth

Ha ha good one prober !

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

TannyD

Thanks for entertaining me.

__________________
Ignore/Avoid List: youcanhandlethetruth.

youcanhandlethetruth

And isn't it amazing that these "marxist rebel" independent third world sovereign nations have better levels of education and healthcare than some highly developed first world democratic nations !

Quite remarkable !

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

Frith

Cuba also had very good health care. So did Iraq, a secular socialist state. Iraq's health care was the envy of the Arab world, apparently. The problem with these countries is their lack of liberty in terms of everyman. They say it keeps crime off the streets and the system functioning in perpetual motion. In reality it keeps crime off the streets but allows it to proliferate in high places instead. A redress to the imbalance without destroying the quality of education or care must lie somewhere between socialism and capitalism, therefore. This is what Libertarianism is trying to achieve, balance and fairness as well as maximum liberty for law abiding citizens. But it always depends on how these ideologies pan out in the hands of real-time politicians and social engineers. In the case of both Cuba and Iraq, not that well in certain areas.

Despotic rule should not have to accompany good service. No service should ever have to fall to tyranny. Humanity just can't seem to get the balance right. There are reasons for this, but few as yet, want to examine them or do anything about them as they bump up against cherished traditions of inequality and prejudice.

Hartlepool

Perhaps frith has often been to both Cuba and Iraq and is speaking to us all from her/his experiences in those countries.

I'm interested,perhaps she/he was there during the years that I was there.

Go ahead,tell us about these countries of which you speak authoratively.