On the panel of Question Time, dealing with a query about putting parents in prison for not sending their children to school, it was suggested that we should make schools so that students actually wanted to go there.
Something I totally agree with. When I was a form teacher, I got my students from a 'deprived' area to arrive at school early by . . . . smiling at them when they did arrive . . It worked.
My form went on to get 50% with 5 A-C in a school where the rest got 23%.
Strong encouragement and a positive attitude really works.
Nowadays most of the inspiring teachers have left education, resenting being told how to teach, and found more satisfying jobs or retired early. One Head of a school elsewhere said that she dreaded the day when they did away with the National Curriculum as most of her teachers wouldn't be able to cope.
The whole atmosphere in most schools is oppressive as far as I can tell and there isn't a school in the area that has so far really impressed me. In London, when I left in 2004, Creativity and Problem Solving in lessons in IT were inspiring kids to work very hard and achieve much, resulting in a high sense of self-achievement. Now what is called creativity has very low level difficulty in my opinion and the whole class does not often enjoy the lessons to the full because some of the lesson is beyond them.
This is the fault of the prescribed method of teaching, backed by a government that wants to train kids and manage their teachers. The result is kids that are antisocial, lack discipline and get their kicks out of being disruptive.
Monty Don's next big point is that the government and most of us are taking our eye off the ball.
Whilst we are all preoccupied with the credit crunch and misbehaving bankers that should be slapped in gaol, we really need to focus on Global Warming (which I have dealt with before and again here).
Too many people who have little science background pronounce that there are good reasons to not take it seriously - well at least not yet - even though we are almost certainly beyond a point where we will not be able to stop it.
I have come across one proposal by a very wise and knowledgeable scientist call Lovelock. He points out that Wind Farms will only ever tickle the problem. The way to really make an impact is to bury carbon like coal but in the form of organic charcoal from vegetation that has been burnt incompletely. This will lock the carbon out of the carbon cycle and start to do good. This will require specially designed 'furnaces' with a massive throughput - not an impossibility. Sounds farfetched I'm sure but makes a lot of sense when considered from a scientific point of view.
Without something being done I believe we are heading for total breakdown of society.
First take the realisation by the masses, in ten to twenty years time, that the human race is doomed. Now add the economic problems created by a greedy society that money (with some sex, alcohol and drugs to relieve the pain) solves all problems and we've got a a lethal cocktail.
Time for every sane person who has a bit of objectivity left to stand up and be counted.
Try telling this kind of thing to politicians like our existing County Councillors and you'll probably be slapped in gaol for disturbing the peace. I had my very responsible email to them sent on to the police as though I was threatening violence (story to follow). And Wendy Kolbe insisted on perpetuating this lie only last week and is attempting to justify herself.
I wish her luck!
2 comments:
I don't agree that incomplete combustion of vegitation and burrying it is a good solution to global warming - you would be better off burning biomatter from short rotation coppice to generate power and heat (if you don't transport the biomatter far then it is near carbon neutral).
We need more forests to absorb CO2, and create habitat.
The best thing we could do is invest in alternative energy (rather than Nuclear which is red herring IMO), encourage lower power consumption amongst consumers and business... and probably change the way we all live dramatically.
To be honest we have gone too far to prevent climate change now. It is more a case of trying to limit the ultimate level that we are going to face. The next few years are crucial - we have about 10 years to find our solutions, similar to put them in place... and we may just avert the worst. Messing about chasing the wrong solutions is simply going to ensure that we are facing a global catastrophe which will make everything else ever faced by the human species look a walk in the park.
Rob,
In all these discussions, we have and are entitled to our own view.
It is however important to take on board the views of top rate scientists. Lovelock is one of these and a very imaginative analyst of the problem of global warming.
His approach is to remove carbon form the carbon cycle. This is the exact opposite of burning coal and is far more effective than any of the alternative solutions.
He claims that this dramatic solution is the only one that has the slightest chance of success. Even then it is highly unlikely to succeed.
There's a danger that those of us with limited scientific background confuse the discussion with opinions rather than scientific facts.
My scientific background (Ph.D in Chemical Engineering) reinforces Lovelock's views.
I suggest that you read "The case for burying charcoal" which explains why this is superior to burning biomatter see http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18589/
Anyone interested and I can send this and other documents to explain this.
Post a Comment