Should children be taught politics in school?

Sambostar

I think the stuff they teach in first year University about Agencies, Agency funding and Quangos and what is what not, should be taught, although as it changes so extensively and rapidly, maybe in primary school or year 2 or 3 or 4. 

Private Members Bills were the thing of the day when I was young, three people would rock up to Parliament to vote to over ride some environmental protection of a bit of land or something.  Environmental law was weak, anything would be over ridden by a private members Bill with 3 MP's bothering to vote on it, because it was in their personal '££' backpocket interests, in an empty House of Commons. 

I suppose at least, that is the benefit of Europe and Agency Staff being entitled to holidays, or at least one day off.  Although that was pre Blair. 

These days it seems politics have just reverted.  I have to admit even compared to the '90's Politics these days, even at a European level and it just seems Mickey Mouse these days. 

If I was older I would hate to think to how it compares to the more distant past.

littlegreenman

Considering the mindset of a work colleague who did a politics degree, I'm not entirely sure it should be taught to anyone, at any level.

xSkarloey

littlegreenman said:

Considering the mindset of a work colleague who did a politics degree, I'm not entirely sure it should be taught to anyone, at any level.

You're not a Cabinet minister are you? 

littlegreenman

Skarloey said:

littlegreenman said:

Considering the mindset of a work colleague who did a politics degree, I'm not entirely sure it should be taught to anyone, at any level.

You're not a Cabinet minister are you? 

No, and I'm hugely thankful that neither are they

scrumhalf

Come to think of it, make Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minster part of of the curriculum.

hungrymark

Sambostar;959005" said:

Well Americans are a step ahead of us and have been for years.  American kids from Kindergarten onwards have to stand up and present and debate in each and every school a few times a week, as well as pledging allegiance to their country and what it stands for, each and every day and thinking about what it means to live in a democratic country.Half the kids in the UK can't even read and write at 11, all their flood plain playing fields have long been sold off,  in a council swindle for cronyism and they have to make do with a stream of illiterate supply teachers whilst their parents just let them do what they want so long as they don't make any noise or upset them and they keep raking in the child benefit and tax credits.The only kids who experience an American style education in this country, that teaches personal responsibility and self worth go to public school.

I don't know, whenever I've had ex-pat American kids come into my class they've been quite a way behind.

Sambostar

But at least, hopefully they know about guns, frontier and personal responsibility.

Heartfeltdawn

littlegreenman said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

It should be taught in schools. Debating should be part of the school system. The rigid nonsense abotu having PE for all pupils: fuck it, give the intelligent kids the option to sit it out and to do political studies instead. 

Surely the option should be to do either, or both? Sporty competitive kids can be intelligent, and vice versa, no? And who decides which kids are "intelligent" enough to skip PE?

No, all sporty kids are stupid (yes I am being facetious on purpose). 

Both would be great. An intelligent kid like me was fine with cricket and football but the hours on a hockey pitch and netball court were totally pointless (and yes my school taught netball to the men as well). Give them the choice. 

Sambostar

Seriously all kids need PE and games when they are growing.  Being a sedentary child is one of the main reason for a short life and a bad heart, not to mention team skills and personal discipline.  If they hate, they should be beaten until they are good at it, it's for their own good.  We can't have all the intellectuals dying at 40.

mgaw

i think they should show "the thick of it" in schools, if for no other reason to give a much needed boost to inventive name calling throughout the land.

CabbageCat

Heartfeltdawn said:

Teachers are not by definition part of a political group. 

True, but the significant majority (teachers in state schools) do directly gain from left-leaning governments so would not really be considered unbiased. The syllabus could be nailed down to prevent indoctrination and I think a large number of them would be able to keep their own perspectives separate from their jobs, but many would, I suspect, find themselves answering questions based on their politics and not their material.

ICBM

It's a difficult question. On the one hand it bothers me a lot how little most people seem to know or care about the way their country is run, except for who they think is going to tax them least at General Election time - and on the other it would be nearly impossible to keep political interference out of the syllabus, both at individual teacher level and at government policy level.

A bit like teaching religion, but with more intransigent views…

Even teaching modern history can be tricky.

Troy

I don't think teachers should teach politics as they will be some who will indoctrinate the children in their left leaning ways. A better way would be to get each school a "council" ran by the children and voted in each year by the children. That will expose them to politics whilst not giving a chance for the teachers to indoctrinate.

Heartfeltdawn

CabbageCat said:

True, but the significant majority (teachers in state schools) do directly gain from left-leaning governments so would not really be considered unbiased. The syllabus could be nailed down to prevent indoctrination and I think a large number of them would be able to keep their own perspectives separate from their jobs, but many would, I suspect, find themselves answering questions based on their politics and not their material.

The vast majority of teachers did not directly gain from the Blair-Brown years with regard to issues like assessments, more paperwork, continued tinkering of the National Curriculum, the introduction of Academies outside of LEA control. Education is one of the clearest areas in which you can see the noeliberal march, from Thatcher through New Labour to the coalition to today. One example would be governor training. Back in the day, the LEA would organise training sessions for governors. These would be subsidised. As time went on, councils would charge more for them. Now we're in the Academy era, you have Crapita offering them, the same Crapita whose former executive chairman lent Labour a million quid. 

"The syllabus could be nailed down" - it already is and has been for years in the form of the National Curriculum. "Community schools" as our gov'ment refer to them, have to follow the NC. Faith schools,CTC's, and state boarding schools do as well. On the matter of faith schools, the one area in which they are allowed to deviate from the NC is religious studies, and I think we are all aware how that ended up in some schools in the Birmingham area. 

Free schools and academies do not follow the National Curriculum. When the government is so firmly behind academies and free schools, I would suggest the potential for bias is far stronger. Although anecdotal evidence is not my chosen method of reply, if you ever work in a school that is placed into special measures, then you will see directives coming from high that do far more to steer a school along the lines of political bias than the NUT could manage. 

If there was this groundswell of bias and indoctrination going on in schools over the New Labour period, they clearly didn't do a very good job of it based on the results of the last three elections. 

An allegation of bias is a serious one and I would say that the majority of teachers who don't have their heads stuffed up the union pipes do their job in a professional unbiased manner, despite having their jobs regularly interfered with by those with a clear political bias. 

english_bob

CabbageCat said:

True, but the significant majority (teachers in state schools) do directly gain from left-leaning governments so would not really be considered unbiased. The syllabus could be nailed down to prevent indoctrination and I think a large number of them would be able to keep their own perspectives separate from their jobs, but many would, I suspect, find themselves answering questions based on their politics and not their material.

A friend of mine is a teacher- he's taught religious education in the past and is a christian. He says that the kids want to know his opinion on the moral issues they discuss, christian "bias" and all. I think most kids can be credited with being able to differentiate facts and opinions just as well or as poorly as the average adult.

It's not as if we aren't bombarded with biased views on every topic under the sun every day. Instead of trying to remove bias from the curriculum and the teachers teaching it, a much more sensible approach (and one that my teachers 20 years ago already took) is to teach children to recognise bias when they see it and account for it.

Chalky

I think @CabbageCat's point was that the 'politics' syllabus could be nailed down. There isn't one for that topic yet.

Fretwired

fretmeister said:

It's the adults that can't be trusted to teach it properly.

^^

This.

And the fact that every political party will setup groups to target kids with their propaganda. Kids should be taught about how the political system works but should make their own minds up about who to vote for ...

ESBlonde

Political history and the workings of our parliament should be taught to 12/13 Year olds but the history should end about 50 years ago to prevent biased teaching and indoctrination of healthy minds. Those that take an interest can further their own education over the remainder of their lives. The curriculum should be clearly defined to prevent 'off piste' extreme wing bias. Logical items like the rise of Hitler, common man votes and women's votes, the power of the Lords etc are sensible imho.

Fretwired

ESBlonde said:

Political history and the workings of our parliament should be taught to 12/13 Year olds but the history should end about 50 years ago to prevent biased teaching and indoctrination of healthy minds. Those that take an interest can further their own education over the remainder of their lives. The curriculum should be clearly defined to prevent 'off piste' extreme wing bias. Logical items like the rise of Hitler, common man votes and women's votes, the power of the Lords etc are sensible imho.

^^ This

I did history at O level and that included the industrial revolution, the social impact of cities, the rise of the Trade Union movement and the Labour Party. It stopped with the Jarrow marchers. I was taught in the early 1970s. I think kids should learn this as it's important, although I would go as far as the 1970s with the abuse of power by the unions, the winter of discontent, the rise of Thatcher and the de-industrialisation of Britain.

Modulus_Amps

If you are an immigrant and want to gain British citizenship you have to do the "living in the UK" test. The reading material for this test  covers the political system to some degree and I think everybody should have some understanding off it. It would be interesting to see how many British born people would fail that test, allot I think.