Children and ideal age for schooling

The ideal age for sending children to school is different for different people. 

What in your opinion is the right age for children to go to school?
Is starting schooling earlier than usual needed today?

Women and anti-women laws across the world.

About 155 countries have at least one law that limits women’s economic opportunities, while 100 states put restrictions on the types of jobs women can do and 18 allow husbands to dictate whether their wives can work at all, according to a World Bank report that paints a stark picture of the enduring obstacles women face in achieving economic empowerment.

Question: 

In countries that restrict a woman’s ability to make economic decisions, girls are less likely to finish secondary school and their prospects of leading decent life get diminished.

Comment.

free parking and urban traffic congestion. for and against

Free parking in town centres would make the urban sprawls free from traffic congestion, some city planners believe. But this view is not supported by everyone.  

·         What could be the arguments supporting and opposing the idea of free parking in town centers.

The rising family size in some rich countries.

Though nuclear family is the social order across the world, in some rich countries, the average size of the family is becoming bigger-- with three, four even five children.

What all reasons do you attribute to this?

Is it a positive or negative development? 

The family order as such in some richer countries is undergoing a shift these days and,  as a result, there are families with greater number of children. I can identify several reasons for this rising size and, in my view, it is not a positive order.

The prime reason for this change of order is the rising economic well-being being experienced by the already rich families. This happens by way of greater possibilities to augment wealth. When the wealth status rises, the new families mull the need for one or two additional children to share their wealth with.

The second thing is these countries are facing extensive migration from around the world. In order to plug this exodus, social scientists, economists and even some religious heads encourage many new generation parents to have a few more children. The uncertainty over old are also can be cited as a reason for this. For example, some parents may feel that at least one of their children will be around in the evenings of their life.   

TRy ot complete the essay by adding one more paragraph addressing the second question and the reaction that it is not a positive turn of event.

Single sex schools: girls stand to gain in terms of career.

Single-sex schools are more likely to produce high-flying career girls

A study claims pupils educated within an all-female environment are much more likely to take chances than their coed peers

If you want your daughter to be a high-flying businesswoman or banker, send her to a single-sex school. This is the startling conclusion drawn from new research charting the complex relationship between gender and risk-taking.

Next month's edition of the Economic Journal carries the results of an experiment by two economists at the University of Essex. Alison Booth and Patrick Nolen devised a series of questions for 260 male and female pupils that were designed to measure their appetite for risk. The pupils, from eight state single-sex and coeducational schools in Essex and Suffolk, were asked to choose between a real-stakes lottery and a sure bet. Option 1 guaranteed they won £5, while option 2 entered them in a lottery in which they would flip a coin and receive £11 if the coin came up heads or £2 tails.

The economists found that, on average, girls were 16% less likely than boys to opt for the lottery. But significantly, they found that girls in coed schools were 36% less likely to select the lottery than their male peers. The findings appear to confirm the long-held view that males have a greater appetite for risk than females and go some way to indicating that this may be down to the environment in which a young person grows up. Girls at single-sex schools were also willing to invest more in a hypothetical risky investment than coed female and all-male pupils.

The findings have important implications for the emerging field of experimental economics, which examines why there is an under-representation of women in the City. The economists write: "If the majority of remuneration in high-paying jobs is tied to bonuses based on a company's performance... women may choose not to take high-paying jobs because of the uncertainty."

Anecdotal evidence suggests the economists may be on to something. Some of the City's most successful businesswomen went to all-girls' schools. Alison Cooper, chief executive of FTSE 100 company Imperial Tobacco, was a pupil at Tiffin Girls' School, Kingston upon Thames; fund manager Nicola Horlick and financier Baroness Vadera both attended single-sex – albeit private – institutions.

The economists admit they have yet to explain their findings fully. However, they suggest that "adolescent females... may be… inhibited by culturally driven norms and beliefs about the appropriate mode of female behaviour – avoiding risk." Once they are placed in an all-female environment, however, they say, this inhibition is reduced. As Booth and Nolen conclude, "No longer reminded of their own gender identity and society's norms, they find it easier to make riskier choices than women who are placed in a coed class."

Single-sex schools: who benefit.

Single-sex schools 'no benefit for girls'

· Distraction by boys a myth, says study 
· Social class 'key to child achievement'

Teaching girls in single-sex schools, long an obsession of many parents worried about their daughters being distracted by boys, makes no difference to their educational attainment according to one of the most comprehensive studies of the way children learn.

The findings by Alan Smithers, Professor of Education at Buckingham University and one of Britain's most respected schools experts, will come as a shock to parents convinced their daughters would benefit from an all-girl environment. Half a century of research 'has not shown any dramatic or consistent advantages for single-sex education' for boys or girls, he will conclude.

'The reason people think single-sex schools are better is because they do well in league tables,' said Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research. 'But they are generally independent, grammar or former grammar schools and they do well because of the ability and social background of the pupils.' Their success should not be used to argue it is better to separate girls and boys in other settings, he added.

Smithers said head-teachers made 'exaggerated claims' about the benefits of girl-only schools because they were under threat. The number of single-sex state schools has fallen from nearly 2,500 to just over 400 in 40 years.

However, a growing movement in the US argues that boys' and girls' brains develop differently, so they benefit from separate teaching styles. In Britain more and more mixed schools are using single-sex classes because of ongoing concerns over boys' results, which have consistently lagged behind those of girls.

But Smithers, who will present his findings at a co-education conference at Wellington College in Berkshire, said that whether a school was single-sex or not had little impact on how well it did. His exhaustive review of data from across the world showed no evidence that single-sex schools were consistently superior. In Hong Kong, where 10 per cent of schools are single-sex, girls appeared to do better. But in Belgium, where co-educational schools are in the minority, boys and girls who study together get the best results. He highlighted the fact that 40 per cent of people who had a single-sex education wanted their children to go to a co-educational school.

The work was carried out on behalf of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, an organisation that represents the head-teachers of some 250 leading independent schools in Britain. It comes after research published last month in Scotland showed that even in a co-educational school, separating pupils into single-sex classes failed to improve boys' performance. Rather than raising success rates, the move led to greater indiscipline, it found.

The studies will not be welcomed by campaigners for single-sex education. Brenda Despontin, president of the Girls School Association said there was no question that girls benefited from the absence of boys. 'There are irrefutable differences between girls and boys. Girls have a greater ability to focus for longer, boys want to change [activities] more times. The requirements of a lesson and how it is structured are different. Parents want their girls feeling confident and comfortable about who they are. Sometimes having teenage boys around can be inhibiting for girls and vice-versa.'

She pointed to a study by the Department for Education and Skills showing the proportion of A grades achieved at A-level in all-girl independent schools was, on average, 10 per cent higher than that of girls in co-educational independent schools, in a number of subjects.

Whatever the arguments, many parents will continue to demand single-sex education for their children and Smithers says it should be provided. While his study shows no overall advantages to the schools, it also shows no disadvantages. As such, headteachers should feel 'liberated' because they can choose whatever system they feel suits them, he said, arguing that some parents wanted the schools for cultural or religious reasons.

Such reasons have led parents in Nottingham to fight against the proposed closure of an all-girls' comprehensive. Their campaign has led the council to launch a huge consultation into the issue of single-sex schools. But Councillor Graham Chapman - who is involved in the work - said the arguments for single-sex schooling were often lopsided: 'Parents tend to want girls to go to single- sex schools but boys to go to mixed ones. It is a difficult circle to square.'

Family and its rising average size.

Though nuclear family is the order of the day across the world, in some rich countries, the average size of the family is becoming bigger with three, four even five children.

What all reasons do you attribute to this? Is it a positive or negative development?

The average size of the family is going bigger

What is the right size family? We need an answer now

Downloaded from western press

What is the correct number of children each of us should have? It’s a question to which we urgently need an answer – made all the more necessary by the latest reported figures, which show that Britain now has more families with four or more children than at any time since the 1970s. According to the European statistics agency, Eurostat, there’s a growing trend for large families – even though the average family size is getting smaller.

Should this be celebrated, or condemned? We need some guidance, surely. If not, how are today’s young people of childbearing age ever going to work out what to do?

The good thing about it all is the equal-opportunities nature of it: almost everyone is made to feel inadequate

Virtually every day, it seems, some politician or media figure weighs in on the issue of family size: one of the most personal decisions that anyone will ever make is also, it seems, one of the most politicised. Last month, for instance, George Osborne sparked a major row by deciding to cut tax credits for working families with more than two children, and with this in mind, I looked to our popular press for its top tips on the optimum family size. Here is its voice of reason:

Zero children. Poor you: you must obviously be sad, or lonely.

One child. How could you condemn your little one to a life of loneliness – you selfish person!

Two children. Well done you! You hit the magic number – and will never regret having too many or too few. But watch out – friends may be jealous of your perfect family.

Three children. Sorry, you may think you’re being a bit daring, with your extra fertility ’n’ all, but this is the most stressful number to have.

Four or more: you probably know this already, but you’ve just doubled your risk of heart disease.

The good thing about the above is the equal-opportunities nature of it: almost everyone is made to feel inadequate or miserable. Politically, though, it seems that larger families in particular are in the firing line. All the parties, but the Tories most enthusiastically, have pledged to clamp down on these feckless parents, and these political messages are fed by the scare stories in the press of “benefit scroungers” having endless babies and living luxury lifestyles – paid for by hardworking taxpayers.

I’m all for the idea that people should only have children if they can afford them, and shouldn’t expect the state to step in (though I do believe in the principle of child benefit for all). But most of the widely reported media stories involve benefits cheats who have been caught out, rather than people living on state-approved generosity. These extreme cases distort the true picture, which is of working families struggling to make ends meet but suffering short-term problems such as illness or job losses which leave them requiring support.

Most grotesquely, back in 2013 Osborne seized on the horrific deaths of six children in a house fire as a moment to question benefits payments. After the manslaughter conviction of Mick Philpott, who started the blaze in his Derby home, the chancellor said: “It’s right we ask questions as a government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like these.”

This supreme example of using a tiny number of cases to hammer whole sections of society has been a hallmark of the Tories in government. And watch out: thelatest rise in large families has been credited to the number of migrant families, who have relatively more children. So if we didn’t already have enough reasons to hate migrants, here’s another one.

Of course, there is a group of large families whom the media love, whose size is a sign of their drive and ambition. They are the super-rich.

“City superwoman” Helena Morrissey is one: she has nine children, earns squillions by day, yet gets home by 6pm every night to do the ironing.Nicola Horlick is another: she raised six children while working in the City. There you are, women, you CAN have it all. Stop your moaning about equal-rights this, maternity that, childcare the other. If you can’t fly as high as they do, there must be something wrong with you! (Of course, the army of nannies, cleaners, cooks, gardeners, etc, who support them is not reported quite so often, but there you go.)

I have a larger than average family (due mainly to a series of accidents – they never taught me sex education at school). And I never read the right newspapers to show me the number of children I should aim to have. Were I to make the choice again, I’d probably think two is not quite enough, and three is too much. But until we all have exactly 2.4 kids each, there’s no sign the arguments over family size – personal and political – will ever stop.

Conserving the old: the spend worth it. how to reduce the expense

All the cities across the world have great ancient constructions like buildings, forts and palaces that call for great funding in terms of maintenance and managing.

·         Is this expense worth it in your view?

·         Suggest one or two ways to cut down on these expenses.

The regular upkeep of ancient constructions, obviously, is a money intensive business the world over, and this expense, in my view, is sensible on certain conditions. However, there are possibilities to minimize this budgetary outlay. 35

To put it plainly, conserving old built-ups is of great significance regardless of the finance involved. But this general approach may not work across the spectrum. For example, some such buildings are so dilapidated that no money is going to give them any lease of life. Some forts and palaces in India are so damaged and they cannot stand the test of time any more. The buildings of that sort need to be removed. It will be a win-win equation as it, firstly, would save conservation expenses and, at the same time, it might make way for the present expansion needs. 100

However, this demolition spree should not be applied globally, rather; there needs some serious thinking while dealing with some age-old makes that defy time and question new age architecture. Those culturally, architecturally and artistically prominent heritages need to be preserved at any cost. 40

Moving onto cost cutting on heritage upkeep, my first suggestion is to invite private participation. For instance, if governments can rope in the hospitality industry, investments in heritage attractions will flow in. Besides this, it will be a good idea to summon global heritage conservation institutions and hand over very old buildings to them. These can greatly reduce the expenses on the old built-ups. 65

My conclusion is that it is worth it to spend sizeably on superb old construction marvels if they are culturally and commercially so significant. Anyway, the suggestions I have made are able to reduce the expenses to an extent. 40

280 words

16.8.15 a jaypees.doc www.jpsukham.blogspot.com

Ecological overshoot and how does it impact the big CC. climate change

Humans have already used up 2015's supply of Earth's resources – analysis                                                                         Downloaded press report

The world is using the Planet’s resources much faster than it (the planet) is able to re-produce (them).

·         What does this imply? What is the way out to strike a balance?

Earth ‘overshoot day’ – the day each year when our demands on the planet outstrip its ability to regenerate – comes six days earlier than 2014, with world’s population currently consuming the equivalent of 1.6 planets a year

Humans have exhausted a year’s supply of natural resources in less than eight months, according to an analysis of the demands the world’s population are placing on the planet. The Earth’s “overshoot day” for 2015, the point at which humanity goes into ecological debt, will occur on Thursday six days earlier than last year, based on an estimate by the Global Footprint Network (GFN).

The date is based on a comparison of humanity’s demands – in terms of carbon emissions, cropland, fish stocks, and the use of forests for timber – with the planet’s ability to regenerate such resources and naturally absorb the carbon emitted. That implies the excess demands being placed on natural systems are doing more permanent harm that cannot be easily undone.

The GFN estimates that human consumption first began to exceed the Earth’s capacity in the early 1970s and the overshoot day has been falling steadily earlier ever since, due to the growth in the global population alongside the expansion of consumption around the world.

Mathis Wackernagel, president of the GFN told the Guardian: “The big problem is not that our deficit is getting bigger, it is that it cannot be maintained in the long-run. Even though we are in a deficit equation we are not taking measures to take us in the right direction. The problem is psychological – somehow we are missing this basic physical law. It is obvious to children, but for 98% of economic planners it is a minor risk not worth our attention. In the end the question is – does it matter to the government?”

The GFN estimate that the world’s population currently consumes the equivalent of 1.6 planets. This figure should rise to two planets by 2030 based on current trends. On a per capita basis, the UK consumes around three times more than the equivalent level that ecosystems can renew, but its relative share is dropping as developing economies grow and consume more.

The impact of this “ecological deficit” can be witnessed through deforestation, soil erosion, depletion of water resources and the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Wackernagel added that the UN’s crunch international climate change conference in Paris in December and global diplomatic efforts were providing hope for change.

“The conference in December is sparking conversations and we are seeing unheard of agreements between the US and China,” he said. “The two biggest emitters are starting to co-operate and the G20 leaders have recognized we have to move out of fossil fuels by the end of this century – although this is a bit too slow in my opinion.”

Ecological overshoot and its implications

The world is using the Planet’s resources much faster than it (the planet) is able to re-produce (them).

·         What does this imply? What is the way out to strike a balance?

Offering financial help is no good

Some people oppose offering financial aid to the nations that are in bad shape.

• What could their arguments? 
• In what all others ways can such nations be helped? 

YOU can be whatever you want to..be hard working and tolerant

Instead of telling children that they are special and they can be anything they want to, we should emphasize self-control and hard work.

·         Do you agree or disagree with this view on parenting?

Basically, children are children and they pick up much more from their parents and home than from anyone and anywhere. In such a context, encouraging them to have greater self-control and an attitude to hard work would work wonders in the long run. ‘You can be anything you want to be’ is not cut for all.

My ultimate point is that self-control makes children enjoy greater degree of emotional intelligence. Let me prove it with and example. If children are made to believe that they are so special and able to become whatever they want to, there will be all likely-hood for them to lose sight of everything other than their goals and ambitions dictate them to see. This is really disappointing; for life keeps great many more beautiful things in store for children, and those tolerant children would have great childhood, eventful adulthood and contented life thereafter.

The penultimate point is that there is only one shortcut to success in life; that is called hard-work. History has it that man has been able to work wonders in their life out of sheer hard work and perseverance. To exemplify it, I am going to correlate hard work with ambition or ‘anything you want to be’ attitude. No one can be something unless there is hard work. Ambition or the ‘you can be anyone’ mindset would not work without hard work. Self control and hard work are prerequisite for success.

In short, it is always better for children to be driven by self-control and hard work. Being able to become something out of one’s motivated ambition is much less rewarding than being successful in any form by sheer hard work. All children are special, but not all are hard-working.    

280 words.

Press article on child reading and two approaches

Why you shouldn’t tell children they can be whatever they want

Instead of telling children they are special and can be superstars, we should emphasise self-control and hard work. downloaded from western press

I return here to one of my favourite themes – the gap between reality and expectation for children. This is prompted by an excellent article in the online magazine, Aeon, headlined You Can Do It Baby – the implication being that you probably can’t do it, baby. The article explores the myth that, “You can be anything you want to be”. It suggests that this trope isn’t helping most of the young launch careers or find satisfaction in life.

I am drawn towards this subject by two personal factors – my father telling me, as I was growing up, that ambition is a curse. In defiance of this, I became hugely ambitious – thus defying my father’s edict and, at the same time, in a strange way, confirming it. Because although I have achieved way beyond my father’s – and even my own – expectations, it has not brought the happiness I imagined was guaranteed with the package.

In fact, most of the joy I have got out of my life has been through the commonplace activities of home, family and hobbies, rather than being that most sought-after occupation, a novelist, which pushes me constantly to the frontiers of my limited abilities. Yes, I have won a few laurels – but the price I have paid in terms of effort and struggle and disappointment is high.

The article questions the mantra that children should be told they can do whatever they like. The author, Canadian writer Leslie Garrett, quotes a typical line on this, from the actor Will Smith: “Being realistic is the most commonly travelled road to mediocrity.” But “mediocrity” is a loaded term. “By implying that the only options are superstardom or mediocrity, we ignore where most of us ultimately land – that huge middle ground between anything and nothing much at all,” notes Garrett. In other words, most of us, by definition, are going to be mediocre – at least by Smith’s standards.

What’s wrong with this “you can be anything” ethic is what “being anything” usually implies. “We’re equating it with prestige, power, titles, money, certain sectors,” says Garrett. But is it so shameful to want to be a nurse rather than a doctor, a schoolteacher rather than a university lecturer?

A better point to put to our children is not what they want to be, but who they want to be. This observation is made by Roman Krznaric, who teaches on career fulfillment at the School of Life in London. In his classes he says it is striking that, “Someone who’s maybe a taxi driver or a nurse cannot believe there’s a TV producer who seems to be more miserable than they are.”

So what’s the answer? We don’t want to discourage our children from reaching towards the higher branches of life. But realism is also important.

Another commentator quoted in the article, Tracey Cleantis, author of The Next Happy, observes: “There’s a kind of unspoken narrative: if I become this, if I do this, if I achieve this, then I will be loved, I will have self-acceptance.” The idea that your success in work represents your success as a person is useful for capitalism, but it can extract an exacting personal cost.

Given how difficult it is for most of us to achieve our dreams, given the extraordinarily competitive nature of modern society, perhaps it is best for many of us to do what our parents’ generation did – keep our enthusiasms and passions for our hobbies. Unless you display a genuine, prodigious early talent, you should be a little more practical in ambitions for professional life.

Instead of teaching “you’re special, you’re great”, we should emphasize self-control and hard work, which are positively correlated with success. And we should define for our children some alternative life goals to reaching for the stars – because for the overwhelming majority of us, they will always sparkle, coldly, out of reach.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Some parents tell their children that they can become whatever they want while others resist this approach and encourage their children to emphasize on self-control and an attitude to hard work. 

·         How would these two approaches to child rearing benefit children in general?  

Task on on child reading and its two approachesl popular

Some parents tell their children that they can become whatever they want while others resist this approach and encourage their children to emphasize on self-control and an attitude to hard work.  

·         How would these two approaches to child rearing benefit children in general?