John Simkin

It is working at the moment. However, the TeacherNet website does appear to go down a lot. Not an uncommon problem for government sites. They all take ages to load. Although I have broadband I find some government backed sites like Becta's very frustrating to use. Does anyone know why this is?

Although John Kerry claimed that Spain should not withdraw its troops from Irak, probably he said it without meaning it.

I think Kerry meant it. We have over 100K troops over there right now, and Kerry will want to show that he can lead a community of nations. That means keeping UK, Spain, Italy, Poland etc, and getting greater support from nations such as Germany and France.

Kerry definitely needs to find a way to come across as strong on foreign policy, but having things unravel in IRaq will not be in any mainstream American politican's best interests.

Very good point. It is becoming clear to me that this is one of the advantages of the International Educational Forum. It is great to be in contact with people with “insider” views on political matters. Most of us involved in this debate have seen in through European eyes. As you point out, these issues are viewed very differently in America.

The information coming out of the United States will make it easier for the Spanish government to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Richard Clarke will later today explain to the 9/11 Commission how George Bush was determined to invade Iraq despite evidence that it had nothing to do with the attacks on New York.

It has just been revealed that Jay Garner, America’s first occupation administrator of Iraq was sacked by Bush. Apparently he had objected to programme of mass privatisation of Iraq resources. He had also called for early elections in Iraq. Garner argued that Iraqis should decide economic policy for themselves. He felt that the imposition ahead of elections of free market economic schemes was bound to result in conflict. Jay Garner sounds very sensible so one can understand why he had to be sacked and replaced by yes man, Paul Bremer.

This new American organization is trying to bring ordinary people back into politics. The website claims: "With a system that today revolves around big money and big media, most citizens are left out. When it becomes clear that our "representatives" don't represent the public, the foundations of democracy are in peril. MoveOn is a catalyst for a new kind of grassroots involvement, supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice. Our nationwide network of more than 1,700,000 online activists is one of the most effective and responsive outlets for democratic participation available today."

http://www.moveon.org/front/

This website uses data from 'Crime in England and Wales 2002/2003' Published on 17 July 2003, it brings together police recorded crime figures with data collected by the British Crime Survey (BCS) to provide a comprehensive account of the latest patterns and trends in the main high-volume crimes. The recorded crime data is provided by the 43 police forces throughout England & Wales, who are required to supply the Home Office with monthly figures for all of the Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) in their police force area. You can also access long-term data from the British Crime Survey - the most reliable indicator of long-term crime trends.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/

The QCA are currently reviewing the curriculum for History and other subjects. I have been asked to attend a consultation conference that is discussing the future history curriculum. The details suggest that the conference will look at the relationship between depth studies and chronology, ways of avoiding a Nazi heavy curriculum, links with the Citizenship curriculum. The emphasis is on 14-19 provision.

There are good reasons why some topics are studied more than others. Subjects like Nazi Germany are very popular with students and therefore teachers are attracted to the increased motivation that the topic creates.

Before the arrival of the National Curriculum the history teacher had the task of finding topics that he/she thought were important but would also be popular with the students.

I believe the QCA should return to this formula. Teachers largely agree about what topics are important to study. Therefore the main question involves how these topics can be made more exciting.

For example, before the introduction of the National Curriculum I spent a lot of time studying the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I was not alone as it was the most popular book ever published by Tressell.

We taught the subject because it was incredibly popular with the students (everyone loves a mystery – especially one that involves such a charismatic figure as Kennedy). I stopped teaching it after the introduction of the NC. I found it impossible to justify spending so much time on the death of one president. I now think I was wrong to make this decision. What I should have done was to use the topic to study the Cold War and the domestic policies of the United States. By looking at the possible motives for the assassination you could have studied Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, USA relations with the Soviet Union, civil rights legislation, political corruption in the USA, Détente, the Mafia, John F. Kennedy, Nikita Khrushchev, Lyndon Johnson, etc.

Maybe the issue the QCA should be addressing is the way we approach the important topics we have identified. I would suggest the same is also true of citizenship.

I have read somewhere...that there is an Blair/Brown agreement for the next general elections. Blair could retire one year after these elections. Does it make sense?

There has been a rumour (never confirmed) that Brown agreed not to stand against Blair for the leadership of the Labour Party after John Smith died. Apparently, in return, Blair would resign after an agreed number of year to allow Brown to become prime minister.

The real reason Brown did not stand was that he was told that research with Labour Party focus groups suggested he could not win a general election. It was claimed that they felt uncomfortable that unlike Blair, Brown was not a husband and father. There is evidence to suggest that Blair’s supporters were circulating stories that Brown was gay and that the tabloid press (Blair’s mate Murdoch etc.) would reveal this during the election campaign.

Brown therefore decided not to stand and went about getting himself a wife and child (now successfully achieved). He is now ready to depose Blair. However, he is unsure when to make his strike. Some commentators believe he has left it too late and that he has lost the trust of the left. The other problem is that the left have left the party in droves and the right could hold a majority.

Why many debaters excel in blaming Bush for doing to little is a riddle for me in respect of that and also when comparing for example with Clinton, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair etc. records on this question. And as for Kerry, he still is untried and unknown in the context of Middle East.

The reason why people are so critical of George Bush is that his policies have increased the conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. This is especially true of his “war against terrorism” policy.

Richard Clarke was Bush’s chief counter-terrorism adviser until retiring last year. Last night he gave an interview on the CBS current affairs programme, 60 Minutes. Clarke claimed that Bush ignored warnings about the attack on the USA by terrorists because of his obsession with Iraq.

One of Mr Clarke's tasks was to chair the administration's counter-terrorism and security group, a panel of CIA, FBI and White House experts that met several times a week to assess foreign threats. He said his urgent request for a cabinet-level meeting on the possibility of a terrorist assault was only granted a few days before the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. At crisis meetings in the White House the day after those attacks, Mr Clarke said he expected to discuss how to strike back at al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, and was surprised when the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, quickly shifted the subject to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Mr Clarke said in last night's interview. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaida is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq." Clarke initially thought that Mr Rumsfeld was joking, but quickly discovered that this was the view of Bush.

Clarke was commissioned to write a report on 9/11. The report concluded that Iraq had few links with al-Qaida and no involvement in the September 11 attacks. He said: "We sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the national security adviser or deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer ... Do it again.'

It is this obsession to punish the Iraq that has dominated Bush’s policy in the Middle East. While he remains there is no chance of peace in the Middle East. John Kerry might not end up being any better, but he can hardly be any worse than Bush.

When in opposition Brown was seen as the leading representative of the centre left. This has not been reflected in Brown’s behaviour in government. As Derek has pointed out he appears to have enthusiastically embraced privatisation and the regressive tax policies inherited from the Tory government. To keep the support of the left, Brown’s friends have leaked stories that he disapproves of Blair’s right-wing stance on numerous policies. However, this is usually followed by Brown making a speech given his full support to Blair on these issues. Brown is trying to give the impression he is a loyal member of the government but if Blair happened to fall, he would be willing to replace him with a left of centre agenda. The problem for Brown is that he is now closely associated with the right-wing policies of Blair.

Brown is obviously the favourite to replace Blair when he decides to go. However, it all depends how Blair goes. If he is forced out of office for lying to the British public, Brown’s chances of success will be dramatically reduced. In a case like that a critic of the war, such as Robin Cook, might be elected.

I think the actions of Peter Hain recently (especially the publication of his recent pamphlet on democracy in the party) suggests he is interested in trying to attract the left of the party in any future campaign for the leadership. This could cause problems for any future Brown campaign.

The fact that most Labour MPs have loyally supported Blair’s right-wing policies suggests that he will eventually replaced by someone with similar views. For example, David Blunkett or Jack Straw. However, it is difficult to find out if these MPs really believe in Blair’s policies or are just taking decisions based on the need to keep the Labour Party in power.

I have read this debate with interest. Although it was initially about science education, the issue applies to the teaching of all subjects in the curriculum. I have taught exam groups since 1977 but left the classroom a couple of years ago to concentrate on online education.

At the beginning of every exam course I would tell my students several things. This included telling them that I would do all I could to help them get the highest possible examination grade. I also told them about the other responsibilities I had as a teacher. This included helping them develop their full potential as a human being.

I also told them that if at the end of the course they obtained an A grade but never read another history book in their life, then I would see myself as a failure. My main objective was to help encourage them to become lifelong learners. My worry is that some teachers see their role as a supervisor in an exam factory. They might do this job very well but I fear they are also at the same time destroying the student’s love of learning.

Very interesting report. Other members might be interested in these two reports of the elections.

Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,1...1175078,00.html

BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3554117.stm

Democracies are undermined by the fact that some people can use their power and wealth to influence the result of elections. Of course, the people who pay out this money expect something in return. The United States has suffered from this problem for some time. George Bush is only the latest president to reward his financial backers.

In Britain there has been a dramatic change in the way the Labour Party has been funded. At one time the party was largely funded by the trade unions. It now relies on donations from wealthy individuals. Of course, it is very unusual for wealthy individuals to provide money to political parties committed to redistribution of wealth. It is therefore no surprise that this aspect of the party’s programme has been dropped.

Early this week the parliamentary ombudsman forced Tony Blair to disclose details of private meetings he has had with commercial lobbyists. This has resulted in the revelation that Blair had a private meeting with Paul Drayson on 6th December, 2001. Soon afterwards two things happened: (1) Drayson donated £100,000 to the Labour Party; (2) Drayson’s company, PowerJect, won a £32 million contract to produce a smallpox vaccine. The most surprising aspect of this contract was that it was not put out to open tender.

Another company to get lots of government contracts is Jarvis. The company is involved in building and maintaining railways, schools, hospitals and roads and is totally dependent on government contracts. Despite having a chairman, Steven Norris, who is a former Conservative Party minister, Jarvis is a generous donor to the Labour Party.

If this happened in local government the person responsible would be imprisoned for corruption. However, prime ministers can do it without any fear of it having any problems with the courts.

I wonder who Tony Blair has been meeting with recently.

Democracies are undermined by the fact that some people can use their power and wealth to influence the result of elections. Of course, the people who pay out this money expect something in return. The United States has suffered from this problem for some time. George Bush is only the latest president to reward his financial backers.

In Britain there has been a dramatic change in the way the Labour Party has been funded. At one time the party was largely funded by the trade unions. It now relies on donations from wealthy individuals. Of course, it is very unusual for wealthy individuals to provide money to political parties committed to redistribution of wealth. It is therefore no surprise that this aspect of the party’s programme has been dropped.

Early this week the parliamentary ombudsman forced Tony Blair to disclose details of private meetings he has had with commercial lobbyists. This has resulted in the revelation that Blair had a private meeting with Paul Drayson on 6th December, 2001. Soon afterwards two things happened: (1) Drayson donated £100,000 to the Labour Party; (2) Drayson’s company, PowerJect, won a £32 million contract to produce a smallpox vaccine. The most surprising aspect of this contract was that it was not put out to open tender.

Another company to get lots of government contracts is Jarvis. The company is involved in building and maintaining railways, schools, hospitals and roads and is totally dependent on government contracts. Despite having a chairman, Steven Norris, who is a former Conservative Party minister, Jarvis is a generous donor to the Labour Party.

If this happened in local government the person responsible would be imprisoned for corruption. However, prime ministers can do it without any fear of it having any problems with the courts.

Forum members may be aware that the BBC is proposing to axe its TV languages programmes for adult learners. These enormously valuable resources (accompanied by books, audio cassettes etc and more recently enhanced by online resources) have provided teachers - and especially those teaching adult beginners - with a wealth of material over the years and will be sorely missed. What message does this gives out about the importance of languages at a time when the National Languages Strategy is promoting lifelong learning of languages?

This is indeed disturbing news. I wonder if this is the result of pressure from commercial firms who have been opposed to these services being provided free by the BBC.

I see that the old European antisemitic stance is alive and well here...

This is the person who said she would vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen if she lived in France. Or is it ok to be a racist as long as you support right-wing economic policies. I’ve noted you continue to refuse to respond to my comments about racism in the United States. Especially the role that Martin Luther King played in trying to turn America into a democracy. Were you involved in this campaign or were you a supporter of Jim Crow laws?

I would actually describe myself as a pacifist. However, I live in a democratic state and believe that the best way of changing government policies is by non-violent action. I am not sure if I would have been a pacifist in Nazi Germany. I suppose it would have depended on leadership and numbers. It is of course impossible to judge what would have happened if Gandhi or Martin Luther King had been living in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. Would they have been able to lead the German people in another direction? There were of course pacifists in Nazi Germany but they were never able to obtain much support for their ideas. Does that reflect the power of Hitler’s government or a failure of the German population? It is one of the few questions in history where I tend to sit on the fence. I would be interested to hear the views of other members on this question. It is of course relevant in today’s world. For example, will the problems of the Middle East be solved by the emergence of a new pacifist leader?

I agree with the suggestions you have already made. To this I would add a comparative look at Clement Atlee and Margaret Thatcher. You might want to take a look at the Harold Wilson government. British historians are increasingly seeing this as an important period of post-war history.

I would also take a comparative look at Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt in Germany. Especially the two men’s foreign policy. For post-war France I would suggest a look at Charles De Gaulle. In comparison I would take a look at the life and career of Jean Monnet.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUattlee.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRwilsonHa.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDthatcher.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERadenauerK.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERbrandtW.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdegaulle.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWmonnet.htm

For having said what I quote (and other stupidities of the same kind) Ghandi WAS a ninny and an idiot... And while being a so-called "pacifist" he was the cause of a massacre of millions... I call it as I see it... And I tell my students to do the same...

I see that you don't comment on his affirmation, only on the fact that I attack your idol with his own words...

I actually did agree with you that Gandhi pacifist views would have been ineffective against German fascism. However, I do think it is an effective strategy when used in a country that has democratic characteristics such as the United States. To support this view I used the example of Martin Luther King employing the ideas of Ghandi against the right-wing racist government in post-war America. Although it did not quite bring democracy to America it did bring it closer to the European model.

I have only one question...

Why do you think that being a teacher in a public school entitles you to try and endoctrinate your students?

I am not sure I follow the logic of your arguments. How does providing a quotation from a newspaper show that I am trying to indoctrinate my students? Later in the thread you yourself have posted a long quotation from the Economist? Does that mean you indoctrinate your students? Of course it doesn’t. Maybe you do indoctrinate your students. However, I cannot tell that from you posting a quotation on this forum.

Several times on this forum you have said that Keynes is dead? Is that what you tell your students? If so, I think you are guilty of indoctrinating your students. Far better to ask your students the question: “Is Keynes dead?” They might well find he is alive and living in Europe. (For example, the fall in the unemployment rate in Britain under the present government is due to the increased number of people being employed by the state.)

Your attacks on me for indoctrinating my students sounds like you are suffering from what Freud called projection.

I find no reason to have such obviously "politics for politics sake" debates on the EDUCATION forum. If people want to talk politics AT ALL on THIS forum it should be restricted (moderated) to;

1. Politics that are relevant to Education, e.g. Government initiatives, teachers pay, public policy on education etc. , or

2. In the Government & Politics section, debates that are relevant to TEACHING Government & Politics.

I see NO merit in political debates that are not relevant to education ON THIS FORUM. Way, way too many recent posts in the Government & Politics section have been Politics for Politics sake and, in my view, have no place on a Education forum.

I find Adrian’s comments very disturbing. As an administrator and co-founder of the Forum I would like to make it very clear that members are free to express opinions on whatever topics they like (as long as it is not racist). This is a democratic forum that is shaped by members own areas of interest. I would hate to think members might impose self-censorship in an effort not to upset Adrian.

Adrian, if you don’t like the discussions in the political sections, I suggest you don’t read them. That should stop you getting upset about people expressing opinions that you disagree with.

I agree about the background. I much prefer a light, plain background. It should also be a colour that allows the blue hyperlinks to stand out.

You also have to be very careful about creating webquests based on other people’s websites. A large percentage of websites do not continue for a long period of time. For example, you have a link to a Titantic webquest. That was created eight years ago (part of a teacher’s MA) and many of the links no longer work. It is therefore always worth checking out with the person who has produced the content that they intend to keep the website online.

Well, given the Middle East situation, ninnies like Ghandi would be a disaster... And I am not a great admirer of Mandela either (I give 10 years for South Africa to become akin to all sub-Saharan countries I have seen, a hell hole...)

For an academic (according to your biography you are a professor of economics in a business school in New England) your use of language in debate is very strange. You describe Ghandi as an idiot and a ninny. I can understand people disagreeing with Ghandi but I think his views need to be taken seriously. As you say, his views might well have been ineffective against German fascism. However, as you know, Martin Luther King was deeply influenced by the ideas of Ghandi. King’s non-violent campaign was extremely effective when it was used against American racists and helped bring democracy to America. Therefore, don’t you think Ghandi deserves some credit in the contribution he made to turning America into a more civilized country.

Well, I believe you'll have a problem... France is hated in the United States now... I have met some French people who are absolutely flabbergasted on the hostility and disdain they meet when travelling in the United States (outside New York). Even if Kerry is elected, he won't want a "rapprochement" with France as he will deal with an hostile Congress (I don't foresee a change in control) and an hostile population.

Are you really suggesting that the American people are so mindless that they hate the French because of a political decision made by its government? If that is the case, America is in deep, deep, trouble.

I suppose this also explains your prejudice against immigrants and Muslims. You seem to have this idea that if a small number of a particular group do something you do not like you have a right to hate the whole group. What would your attitude be if we Europeans made comments about the American people because of the actions of George Bush?

What distinguishes you from most members of the forum is your complete lack of empathy. You have a total inability to put yourself into the minds of other people. You appear to have no idea what it is to be a poor person living in the United States, an Arab living in the Middle East, or an immigrant living in Europe. As someone once said, morality is imagination.

It seems that democracy was seen in action tonight as the latest reports suggest that the Spanish government has been defeated and power will be handed over to the Socialists. The Prime Minister and his potential replacement were heckled as they went to vote being called 'manipulators' and 'liars'.

Spanish government admits defeat (BBC)

This is an interesting development. Polls have suggested that 90% of Spanish voters were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. However, before the bombing, the ruling Popular Party government was expected to win. The main reason being that people, as usual, were basing their support on domestic rather than foreign policy issues.

The bombing has changed all that. What it did was to emphasize the importance of foreign policy on the lives of the Spanish people. Jose Maria Aznar’s attempt to blame ETA for the outrage obviously backfired. However, it is difficult to calculate what the election result would have been if the Spanish government had not made those statements about Eta after the bombings. Some commentators believe that it was the bombing alone that changed the results of the election. As Chris Morris of the BBC pointed out: “the late swing to the Socialists also raises one disturbing thought. If al-Qaeda was responsible for Thursday's attacks, it appears to have had significant influence in changing the government of a leading Western democracy”.

This raises the issue of what happens next. One possibility is a series of bombings in American cities in the run-up to November’s elections. Will these hurt or help Bush? We will obviously get a lot of tough talk about terrorism not being allowed to win. This might help Bush in the short-term. However, the message of the bombings will be clear, you cannot defeat terrorism by military action. The citizens of America will feel less safe than they did before the invasion of Iraq. Will the majority of voters really want to maintain a government that has made them feel less safe? That is the question that many Spanish people asked themselves yesterday before they voted. I suspect the American electorate might well ask themselves the same question next November. Maybe they will come up with a similar answer.

Why have no women been mentioned in this list?! I would like to add one, but I can't actually think of one off the top of my head who fits the criteria, perhaps answering my own question?!

I will nominate several women over the next few days. I will start with Jane Addams. She spent her life campaigning to improve the lives of the people. This included the formation of Hull House (1889), Women's Trade Union League (1903), National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (1909), National Federation of Settlements (1911), Woman's Peace Party (1915), Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (1919), and the American Civil Liberties Union (1920). She was also a leading figure in the National American Women's Suffrage Association.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAaddams.htm