Platos View On The Souls

Platos View On The Souls Platos ideas about the soul were revolutionary and extremely advanced for his time, as with most of Platos philosophies, yet on the other hand they appear to be both self-conflicting and flawed. In this essay I will proceed to justify this statement. Plato was a Greek philosopher with many views on life and existence. Platos views on the mind body distinction have been the target of many criticisms since his time. In the republic, he formulated ideas on the allegory of the cave and the theory of the forms. He believed that our existence on earth was merely a shadow of a higher spiritual plane, our bodies just a vessel, or even looked upon as a cage trapping the soul and restricting it from this higher plain.  [1]  Plato was a dualist and so believed that when the material body dies the soul lives on. He believed that we are dual creatures; the soul is distinct from the body and vice versa. The body has extension (it takes up space) and is impermanent: it has a beginning and will have an end. The soul takes up no space and is immortal: it pre-existed our body and will live forever. Plato does not really believe that the soul lives but that there is a part of existence that exists outside time. Platos views, are best described in his analogy allegory of the cave in which it depicts a prisoner that escapes the cave metaphorical for this life- and goes on to discover everything he once believed in was only a fraction of the truth: Platos main philosophy stemmed from the cave and was about knowing the theory of the forms. Here, he thought that the soul is immaterial and is immortal, however the body- being physical- could be doubted as it was part of the empirical world. Plato believed that the soul was immortal; it was in existence before the body and it continues to exist when the body dies. Plato thought this to be true because of his Theory of Forms. Plato thought we had such ideas as a perfect circle, not because we have seen one before or that it had been described to us, but the image was already known to us through the world of Forms. This theory also explained how the soul was generated; the soul already lived a life in the world of forms, a world that cannot be destroyed as the body can be destroyed. Once you die, the soul is free for a short time before being entrapped once again in another body.  [2]  Plato was also a rationalist. He believed that you only have true knowledge and understanding of reality through reason. The physical world is inferior, or course, to the realm of Forms. Any knowledge we have of the physical world is through our senses and is subjective and inexact. Platos idea of the soul is his dualist position, believing that body and soul are fundamentally distinct. His theory on the soul was produced in his book Phaedrus. In it Plato was most concerned with demonstrating the immortality of the soul and its ability to survive bodily death. He proposed the idea that, like Aristotles idea of motion, whatever is the source of its own motion or animation must be immortal.  [3]  Plato was writing at a time in Greek philosophy where popular opinion believed that the soul did not survive death, and that it dispersed into nothing, like breath or smoke. Plato believed that the soul must be immortal by the very nature of being the source of its own animation, for it is only through a psyche that things can be living rather than dead. The souls are both animated and at the same time the source of its own animation. Plato also states that the soul is an intelligible and non-tangible article that cannot be destroyed or dispersed, much like his ideas about forms of non-tangible realities; such as beauty or courage. In a more simplistic sense, the soul is a form and is outside time in that way. The argument from affinity, as Plato posited in Phaedrus, states that because the soul is an invisible and intangible entity, as opposed to a complex and tangible body; the two must be distinct and separate. Plato believed that which is composite must be divisible, sensible and transient; and that which is simple must be invisible, indivisible and immutable.  [4]  Forms bear a resemblance to the simple, immutable entities, such as beauty; however a beautiful painting is transient and palpable. The body shows an affinity to the composite by nature of its mortality and mutability; just as the soul shows a similar affinity to immortality and indivisibleness. To further emphasise the point, Plato writes when the soul investigates by itself it passes into the realm of what is pure, ever existing, immortal and unchanging, and being akin to this, it always stays with it whenever it is by itself and can do so; it ceases to stray and remains in the same state as it is in touch with thing s of the same kind (Phaedo, 79c-d). He argues that just as the bodys prime function is to understand the material and transient world, the functioning of the soul as an entity of rational and self-reflective thought demonstrates its affiliation with a simple and immutable world; showing that the two are distinct. However Plato does not explore the criticisms of this argument that just because an entity portrays an affiliation, does not necessarily require it to be as that which it affiliates. Plato believed that the soul, if it were to be the animator of all living things, must be responsible for a persons mental or psychological activities and responses. For the soul cannot be the reason for life, yet at the same time limited in its influence over the bodies in which it animates. However this provides one of the most serious and potentially defeating criticisms of Platos views on the soul. He fails to address the issue of the interrelationship between body and soul, if they are indeed distinct. He doesnt mention if the soul act as controller of a lifeless body, or is there more to the body than simply the material. Moreover the argument from affiliation would suggest that the body is concerned with the material, composite world whilst the soul is concerned with the invisible and simple world. If this is the case then the soul cannot, following from Platos argument, have any interaction with the material, bodily world; for then it ceases to be simple and immutable. An argument from recollection, which Plato first put forward when discussing his theory of the world of the forms, also serves his theory of the soul. Perfect forms, such as equality, are knowable a priori; we have no need for experience to tell us whether two lines are equal length. We must, therefore, know these things through recollection of these perfect forms. Therefore, the soul must have pre-existed the body to know these facts a priori. Platos argument from opposites was based on his idea that everything in the observable world has an opposite effect. As Plato writes in his work Phaedo; If something smaller comes to be it will come from something larger before, which became smaller (Phaedo, 270d). In other words everything we can know has an opposite; asleep and awake; hot and cold. Similarly they are reversible, just as one goes from a state of sleep to a state of being awake, one can do the opposite. Plato argued that if this were the case, then the same should apply to life and death. Just as one can go from life to death, one must be able to go from death to life; and if this statement is correct, then the soul must survive this transition and as a consequence possess immortality and separation from the body. He believed that animation and life was integral to the very notion of the soul, just like heat is a part of fire; thus it cannot be destroyed and is eternal. A separate argument from his theory of opposites was that of a similar theory of the forms and their opposites. He stated that no entity can consist of contradictory forms, and thus one form must necessarily exist and the other not in any particular entity. The number five cannot possess both the form of even and odd; by adding or subtracting one; the form of odd is displaced by even. Plato wrote: so fire as the cold approaches will either go away or be destroyed; it will never venture to admit coldness and remain what it was, fire and cold The soul must share in the form of life, for we know that those living have a soul. Therefore, it cannot contain the form of death also, for this would be in direct conflict of life. The soul must ontologically necessarily exist, and must therefore be immortal. Contemporary analysis of Platos views on the soul produces many criticisms; there is a clear chronological confusion as his work progresses; with the soul starting as an intelligible and non-tangible item, yet progressing to where the soul becomes a complex tripartite entity that is trapped in the material body, yet still longing to enter the world of the forms. Plato demonstrates a contradictory and muddled thought process that attempts to find resolutions for flaws in his thinking. The idea of an imperfect entity entering the perfect realm of the forms is one such logical fallacy in his argument; and he does this by seeking to find reason and justification for his conclusion, rather than seeking a conclusion based on all of his own logic.

Conflict: Science against Religion Essay

Throughout the ages science and religion have struggled with one another. They both are constantly striving to gain the upper hand against the other. Within this struggle both are trying to assert the fact that their ideas are accurate and how the others ideas are inaccurate. Science yearns to answer the questions of how things happen through the means of solid facts. Religion, on the other hand, seeks to answer the question of why things occur and its thought process is grounded in faith. Some believe that the two views are not in turmoil with one another. This thought process is extremely skewed because these two belief systems contradict one another consistently and believers of each view then struggle to prove their perspective is correct. Science and religion, â€Å"do not have the same viewpoints about the nature of the world or agree about how truth is perceived or confined† (Neese, 2001). These two ideologies are at war with one another. The issues between the two cann ot be overlooked or brushed under the rug because there are too many opposing aspects. Because of this there is no way for these two ideologies to coexist harmoniously. When science and religion have overlapping topics that attempt to answer the same questions, conflict occurs between believers of each theory. A good example of this overlap is the Evolution theory. This theory has caused controversy from its beginnings in history. Evolution, as defined by Webster’s Dictionary, is â€Å"a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations† (Webster, 2012). The placement of this theory in high school text books has been very controversial. Multiple court cases have been fought over the theory of evolution and its existence within public schools’ curriculum. There are cases dating back from 1968 up until present day arguing about whether this theory should be taught to students (Masamura & Mead, 2001). According to religion, God made all things. This is known as creationism. Within the creationism theory there is no margin for compromise. God made man and there is no other explanation in accordance with the creationism theory. The Theory of Evolution contradicts everything that religion is based on. The Bible says that God created the animals but he also created man. The Bible speaks nothing of God creating animals and they evolving into mankind, so the idea that religious parties could agree with the evolutionary theory and accept it is ludicrous. Regardless of whether it is acknowledged or not, science is deeming what religion believes as a lie. There is no way to avoid the turmoil that it causes by attempting to prove that God didn’t make man but instead we evolved from animals. Debates regarding where mankind comes from seems to elevate tempers and leads to arguments. History shows us that people have not agreed upon these two opinions and it has led to judicial action b ecause there could not be an agreement made about the subjects. These are not issues of the past but are still currently raging throughout society even today. It is absurd to think that the theory of creationism and the theory of evolution do not cross over into one another and create conflict. How could two views that are polar opposites possibly be agreed upon? It is a simple answer; they can and will not be agreed upon. Another argument that rages between science and religion is the argument about the approximate age of the Earth. Science believes that the Earth is billions of years old; meanwhile, religious groups believe that the Earth is approximately 10,000 years old. Scientists believe that the earth can be dated back over 4 billion years using a method of Argon-Argon dating (Robins, 2006). On the other hand religious groups use the Bible as a reference to date the earth. Science argues that their method of dating is accurate and they have found fossils that are millions of year old; yet, religion argues that â€Å"The Great Flood† trapped carbon around the fossils and therefore would negate the carbon dating process that is typically used when dating fossils (Fossil, 2011). There are drastic differences between the timeline that science has created and the one religion uses. Science relies on gathering evidence that allows a conclusion to be made about the Earth’s age; meanwhile, religion relies upon the Bible and declares nothing can be questioned because the Bible is absolute. The argument regarding the age of the Earth is definitely a continuing issue. These two viewpoints have no common ground and will continue to conflict one another. The question of why someone is a homosexual has plagued debates for years. This argument is very emotional for a lot of people. Science and religion both have very opposing views of this topic. Some scientists believe that homosexuality is linked to genetics and have been trying to locate the gene that causes someone’s homosexuality (Abrams, 2007). Yet, religious sects believe that homosexuality is a choice. Science is trying to prove that people do not choose to be gay but instead are born with the predisposition to like someone of the same gender. In religious groups this view is widely rejected because the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong, and God would not make someone more prone to â€Å"sin†. The debate regarding the origins of why someone lives the homosexual lifestyle has not fully been pinpointed in science yet but this still doesn’t calm the argument with religious groups. The fight over giving homosexuals the right to legally marry in the U.S. gives us a good example of how heated this debate actually is and how far it is from being resolved. Several states have voted to allow gay marriage while the majority of states still have not latched on to the idea due to religious backgrounds within the communities. Not as widely discussed but still a conflicting issue for science and religion is the iss ue of death. The belief in the hereafter, or lack thereof, is strongly debated among scientists and religious groups. Science does not prove or disprove the existence of anything occurring after death. Some scientists argue that the phenomenon of an out of body experience is simply the result of the brain continuing to work even though the body does not (Fitzpatrick, 2010). This discredits people’s stories of experiencing the hereafter and coming back from it. Religion gives a greater purpose in life and the ultimate goal is to spend eternity in the heavenly realm. By some scientists disregarding the possibility of a hereafter it adds to the tension that already exists between religion and science. Since science leaves for the possibility that nothing exists after we die, it doesn’t support the theory that religion does. In not supporting the idea of something existing after we die, it creates an invisible wall between science and religion and leaves room for argumentative discussions. One of the most overlooked conflicts between science and religion is the separation of the languages. There are multiple theories about how language developed and changed according to s cience. Most scientists will agree that they believe evolution played a large part in the diversity of languages. Science bases the evolution of multiple languages on people slightly changing their current dialect as they migrated to different regions. Many scientists believe that the first language was developed somewhere in Africa (Wade, 2011). Religion seeks a completely different approach to the development of the separate languages. Religion bases the changing of dialects to the event that occurred at the tower of Babel, as recorded by the Bible. The Bible says that people were joining together to build a tower to reach to heaven. God was displeased with this act so he separated the languages so the people could no longer understand one another; thus, stopping their ability to work together to build the tower (Genesis 11, KJV). These two counter ideas both answer the question of how languages evolved but in two extremely different ways. In no way are these two theologies coexisting seei ng that there are no similarities between their theories. People argue about the existing conflict between religion and science. Some argue for the presence of a conflict, while others argue that turmoil simply does not exist between the two. A man by the name of Stephen Jay Gould â€Å"referred to the non-overlapping magisterial of science and religion, with the former describing reality – what is – and the latter dealing with values – how we ought to act† (Fish, 2010). Gould argued in his book, â€Å"Rock of Ages†, â€Å"that science and religion can coexist because they occupy two separate spheres of the human experience. According to Gould, science and God are inherently divided and thus can easily co-exist in the human belief system. Science, he argues, answers questions of fact, while religion covers questions of morality† (Clark, n.d.). Many people have the same viewpoint as Gould or a similar one. This argument suggests that these two ideologies run parallel to one another, therefore there is no possible way for them to conflict. By making this kind of claim it is saying that there is a limit to what science can investigate and theorize about. If science and religion do not overlap as Gould and many others suggest, then it would box these two ideologies in and limit their topics of discussion. In reality, this can never occur. You cannot limit the topics in which both science and religion have opinions about, because this would be the only way for these two to have no overlapping viewpoints. This argument defines science and religion as being two separate entities that do not cross over into one another. This is not reality however. Whether it be creation, sexual preference, death, or the separation of languages; all of these things have obviously been delved into by both science and religion. The argument that these two approaches of doctrine exist parallel is unrealistic. If that were the case then that would mean that no topic discussed by science or religion has ever or will ever be of the same subject. As everyone knows, throughout history science and religion have undoubtedly had discussions about the same subject ma tter; thus, negating the whole basis for Gould’s argument and others who believe as he does. If logic is used and we look at both of these ways of thinking we see the drastic difference in their opinions. This leads to a dialogue about who is right and who is wrong. There is no middle ground with these conflicting views. â€Å"Science is based on verifiable facts, whereas religion rests on faith that is not amendable to verification† (Dias, 2010). These two thought processes show no similarities; therefore, they do not have common ground and cannot agree. The desire for knowledge will always be prevalent in the human race. With this obtained knowledge comes theory and with theory comes disputes. Here stems the disagreements between science and religion. The never ending feud about whose viewpoint is right is raging as strong today as it has been in the past. The conflicts encountered within these two ideologies have no end in the foreseeable future. Their methodologies keep these two polar opposites continually disputing with one another. If there is a way for science and religion to harmoniously exist with one another, society has yet to find it. There are utopian ideas that attempt to reconcile science and religions altercations but no attempt at calming this argument has been successful thus far. Albert Einstein said that â€Å"science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind,† (Neese, 2001). His statement is rather idealistic and unfortunately we do not currently live in a world where this way of thinking is widespread. No matter how good it would be for these two groups to coexist, it will never happen due to their drastically different views. Maybe in time things will progress but as for now the two remain at war with one another. References Abrams, M. (2007). BORN GAY?. Discover, 28: 58-83. Retrieved Friday, August 10, 2012 from EBSCOhost database. Clark, Josh. (n.d.) Can God and Science Co-exist? Retrieved from http://science.howstuff works.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/god-science-co-exist.htm. DIAS, P. (2010). Is Science Very Different from Religion? A Polanyian Perspective. Science & Christian Belief, 22(1), 43-55. â€Å"Evolution†. (2012). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved August 28, 2012, from http://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution. Fish, J. M. (2010). Science VS Religion DEBATE. Humanist,70(4), 27-31. Fitzpatrick,L. (2010). Is There Such a Things as Life After Death?. Time. Retrieved from http://www.Time.com. Fossil and Radiosiotope Dating. (2011). Retrieved August 28, 2012, from http://creationscience today.com/28-Carbon-14_Dating.html Helden, A.V. (1995). The Galileo Project. Retrieved from http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative _7.html. Masamura,M. , Mead, L. (2001). Ten Major Court Cases About Evolution and Creationism. Retrieved from http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution- Creationism. Neese, L. H. (2001). SCIENCE vs. RELIGION: The Challenge of Interpretation. USA Today Magazine, 130(2674), 70. Robins, M. (2006). How We Know Earth’s Age. Discover, 27(3), 22-23. Retrieved Friday, August 10, 2012 from EBSCOhost database. Wade, N. (2011). Phonetic Clues Hint Language is Africa – Born. New York Times, Retrieved from http://newyorktimes.com.

Partnership with parents Essay

In recent years, an array of legislation and guidance has emerged under the present new Labour government to bring together a co-ordinated framework of services to address the care and educational needs of children. The government has expressed its intention, DfES (1997) and DfES (2003) to place schools at the heart of a new multidisciplinary approach to children’s services with improved communication and consultation between schools, together with other service providers, and parents, as one of its principle aims. Many commentators such as Nind et al (2003); Williams (2004) and Berk (2004) have noted the importance of parents as the prime educators of their children and the issue of establishing successful partnerships between schools and parents has been addressed through a number of different perspectives. It seems that the strategies employed to overcome barriers and build constructive relationships must be situated within a school ethos of genuine inclusion which values parents’ views and contribution which, in turn, can only enhance children’s attitudes to learning. Effective Home-School collaborative education stimulates and imbues children with a positive culture of learning. Brooker (2002) and Mayall (2002) have noted the ways in which children, and parents, are effectively socialised into the pedagogical ethos of their child’s school and suggest that parents’ conformity to this ethos has commonly underpinned many models of parental involvement. As Brooker (2002) argues, an â€Å"open door† policy which ostensibly invites parents in to see classroom practice and consult with staff does not necessarily constitute a climate conducive to genuine collaboration in the educative process. The research presented by Brooker (2002), whilst focusing primarily upon early years learning cultures, has provided some useful insights into the ways schools conceptualise their relationships with families and, conversely, how parents experience schools. She found that, from early on children’s schooling, school staff attitudes towards parents were highly influenced by their own perceptions of the extent to which parents expressed their interest in, and became involved with their children’s education. Brooker (2002) identifies a wide gulf between the beliefs and values of formal educators and what she calls the â€Å"mountain of invisible investment  made by parents†. She cites the work of Vincent (1996), for example, highlighting the negative perceptions of parents by teachers and suggests that, essentially, teachers tend only to welcome the involvement of those parents who do not contest school policies and practices or undermine their authority. In similar vein, Beveridge (2004) asserts that teachers’ attitudes can often be negative and stereotypical regarding parental motivation, competence and skills in the educative domain and furthermore, parents are often aware of this and are adversely affected. She suggests that parents experiences of schools and school staff will inevitably be enhanced when they â€Å"feel respected in their own right as parents, and equally importantly, when they perceive that their child is a positively valued member of the school† (Beveridge, 2004). Congruently the more involved parents are in what goes on in the classroom; the more likely they are to understand the teacher’s goals and practices. Warren and Young (2002) identify five broad areas presenting barriers to forming home-school partnerships. Firstly the ever-changing fluid nature of family demographics impinges on the development of dynamic partnerships. Secondly an entrenched â€Å"school ethos† often creates barriers to effective â€Å"culture-change† and schools are too set in their ways to embrace parental involvement in affairs of curriculum, decision-making and administration. Thirdly, the financial burden of developing partnerships with parents is a strain some schools feel cannot be justified and resources need to be channelled into more pressing areas and some teachers are unable to relinquish any degree of control to parents in the classroom. Fourthly, parents may lack the necessary skills to assist their children’s educational development. Finally, communication is a pivotal building block of home-school partnerships and critics often point to the unequal relationship between schools and families in this area; communication is one-way traffic from the school to the parent and there is not enough thought or dialogue given to the way parents can provide input to the school or children’s learning. The development of partnerships between home and schools with the mutual acknowledgement of the diverse but essential roles of the other is not an easily accomplished task but neither is it an impossible task. School staff attitudes, and indeed school ethos, seem central to the quality of relationships that can be developed with parents (Beveridge, 2004). Research conducted by Bastiani (1992) and Coleman (1998) found that whilst parents commonly expressed their need for information about the progress, attainments and possible difficulties regarding their children’s schooling, they also wanted reassurance that school staff understood their child’s personal and social needs, as well as their academic needs. Beveridge (2004) extends this view and draws from her own research into parents’ views, suggesting that teachers need to acquire the skills to â€Å"elicit and respond to parents’ own in-depth knowledge, perspectives and insights† about their children’s needs. This implies that teachers should be equipped with a high level of sensitivity and interpersonal skill vis-à  -vis the parental perspective so that they may provide honest, clear and accura te information about the learning and behaviour of individual children at school. Hornby et al (1995) and Hornby (2000) reiterate this point and argue for an extension of teachers’ skills to incorporate the principles, drawn from the counselling arena, of active, non-judgemental listening and joint problem-solving techniques. Hornby (2000), for example, calls for â€Å"skilled assertiveness that allows teachers to be both direct and diplomatic in their interactions with parents, and to respond constructively to disagreements and criticisms when these occur†Hornby (2000) argues for a reciprocal, inclusive framework of home-school links within which every family has a place, not just those few whose own culture and practices are in line with those of the school. Parents’ knowledge of their children, together with the contribution they can make to teaching, is seen as strengths universal to all families. Hornby (2000) and Nind et al (2003) argue it should also be recognised, however, that parents have different levels of need in terms of information and support. Beveridge (2004) agrees that parents’ accumulated, in-depth knowledge about their children can greatly enhance teachers’ understandings. In her discussion of parental involvement in the monitoring and assessment of children’s academic progress, Beveridge stresses that teachers need to include areas of comparative strength and ways in which these can be built upon, rather than a sole focus on difficulties and deficits. Whilst Beveridge is primarily discussing those children deemed as having ‘special educational needs’ here, this observation equally well  applies to the assessment of all children’s progress. Although it seems clear that discrepancies inevitably will exist between the views of parents and teachers, a striving for mutual understanding and a greater accentuation on the â €˜positives’ can do much to engender positive attitudes for both parents and children. The current Head Teacher of Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School Mr Mullan stressed the purpose of the home-school partnership in terms of making an agreement between the school, the family and the student which will help parents staff and students to work successfully together and help improve standards of education for pupils. This is done through a variety of ways ranging from regular homework for parents to complete with their children and for pupils with learning difficulties a variety of visual and auditory activities are sent home. Each term targets are set for the pupils and parents are sent copies to help them support learning, an example cited was the suggestion parents allow their children to handle money and pay for the weekly shop to help increase their understanding of money in relation to maths. Pupils also have a home school communication book. The school runs workshops throughout the academic year to help parents participate in their child’s education and have included in the past Sing-along training or Literacy and ICT workshops. The school also places great emphasis on parental help in the education process in the form of parental â€Å"class assistants†. The school takes great pride in the fact several parents have gone on to forge a career as a teacher after starting out as â€Å"class assistants†. The Head Teacher stressed the partnership revolved around good lines of communication between both parties. In the arena of parent/teacher consultations, Bastiani (1992) identified particular pre-requisites for success in ensuring that both parties are heard. Firstly, she suggests that parents must have sufficient information about the nature, purpose and length of the convened meeting and an opportunity to clarify and add items to the agenda. Secondly, a constructive focus needs to be established and decisions on subsequent actions to be taken understood and agreed by all participants. It must be recognised that some parents will require more support in these matters than others.  Finally, as highlighted by DfES (1997), schools need to consider carefully the range of opportunities they can provide for parents to become involved and also the forms of assistance that might be needed to enable parents to participate fully. Tizard et al (1981); Hannon (1985); Mills (1996) and Beveridge (2004) are keen to stress there is much evidence for the effectiveness of well-planned schemes of parental involvement in the teaching of reading. Moreover Mills (1996) highlights the crucial role that parents can play in developing literacy skills with their children, pointing out that the â€Å"one-to-one† relationship is clearly more valuable to the child than the â€Å"30 to one† ratio typical in the average classroom. Mills (1996) suggests that simply sending books home is insufficient but also notes that â€Å"parents may sometimes need support and advice about effective models of hearing their children read†. As Warren and Young (2002) succinctly advocate â€Å"appropriate instructional materials and teaching methodologies should be utilized. Gregory (2000) echoes this view and expresses concerns that traditional schemes may not be suitable for all families. She recommends that schools consider different approaches which might better fit the needs of families. For example, a sole focus on story books might be extended, or replaced, by making use of other kinds of literacy experiences at home and also to include other members of the family and community. The aim here is not simply to follow the school’s approach to literacy, and indeed other curriculum goals and activities, but to build bridges between home and school. Such home-school partnership arrangements may foster literacy acquisition but it has to be noted this makes inherent presuppositions about the abilities of parents from a diversity of backgrounds and cultures to support the literacy development of their children. Not all parents possess the motivation let alone the cognitive ability to enhance the literacy acquisition of their children. Warren and Young (2002) draw attention to the importance parental involvement plays in boosting positive learning attitudes amongst children in Mathematics, Science and Technology because â€Å"academic learning activities  that are completed at home promote the child’s achievement at school† and this further impacts on a positive learning culture as â€Å"parent and child attitudes about school become more positive through academic interactions†. Parents who embrace an unrestrained joy for a particular area of the national curriculum and who transmit such infectious enthusiasm to their children need to be harnessed by schools. This is what Freud (1991) terms â€Å"projection† or the transference of an emotion or character trait onto another person. Parents who project positive learning attitudes onto their children need to be nurtured by schools because they help foster an intrinsic motivation within children to learn for the sheer pleasure of it. Recent government initiatives such as â€Å"Every Child Matters† and â€Å"Higher Standards, Better Schools for All – More Choice for Parents and Pupils† has urged schools to be a more socially cohesive and responsible participant in community relations as well as fostering closer home-school partnerships. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is at the forefront of facilitating this challenge and connecting home and school through an array of initiatives. Firstly it offers wholesale opportunities for children by providing continuity of learning outside regular school hours and parents provide appropriate mentoring, challenge and support. This presupposes the ICT infrastructure within schools can cope with the rapid growth of collaborative learning and schools need to formulate cohesive and appropriate e-learning strategies. Secondly it empowers parents to support their children’s learning vis-à  -vis responsibility, informed choice and appropriate support. Impact on the engagement of parents can be profound through skilful use of a school’s website or virtual learning environment to suggest how parents can supplement and support the national curriculum. There is the scope for wider engagement as long as ICT is used in a meaningful way. It has benefits for both parents and schools; parental participation will increase if they are given a real voice which in turn provides schools with raw data on how best to serve the interests of its pupils and their parents. Thirdly, the home environment is a hub of learning powered by the dynamics of  the internet and schools can provide valuable advice and guidance to parents on the use of ICT to support pupil learning outside the classroom. Some schools have set up homework clinics and utilize parents as â€Å"on-line experts† to bring together the rich tapestry of ICT and parental resources in educating children. Again this presupposes parents have a tacit and intimate relationship with ICT skills and such skills have to be framed around legitimate data protection issues. Finally, it acts as a focus for a culture of learning within the community as a whole but this almost presents more challenges than rewards. For instance, should the level and location of remote access be fixed or mobile or perhaps a combination of both, what are the logistics of this and what are the financial costs of such access, how can secure and safe access to personal work files be guaranteed, how can genuine collaborative engagement with other learners be rendered, how do parents interpret and respond to the assessment of their children’s e-learning and how and who will provide appropriate parental training to enable them to fully support ICT home-school practice. Nevertheless a modern ICT home-school partnership offers up an abundance of resources outside the remit of traditional teaching methodology and offers substantial potential for fostering positive learning attitudes amongst children. Mills (1996) has recorded that whilst many schools have developed strong home/school links with parents, especially through reading schemes, there has been less success in minority language communities and suggests that â€Å"schools have found that cultural and linguistic differences have created barriers to collaboration† and this has impacted negatively upon children’s academic progress and motivation at school. Similarly, Berk (2004) observes that many ethnic minority parents are uncomfortable about going to school and often â€Å"lack the skills, knowledge and confidence to support their children’s progress in majority culture language work†. Ofsted (2000) claims black and ethnic minority pupils are disadvantaged by an education system that perpetuates inequalities. This then creates a barrier to fostering sufficient levels of parental involvement amongst ethnic minorities. Mills (1996) describes the experiences of Asian parents in Birmingham, most particularly those from Pakistani, Northern India and Bangladeshi cultures. Evidence from initiatives in two Birmingham primary schools to foster home-school links yielded a number of recommendations for schools in minority language communities. These include the development of books and information in a variety of local languages as well as the use of multicultural materials and activities within the school for all pupils to generate an atmosphere of greater understanding and inclusion for all children, regardless of cultural background. Most importantly, as Mills (1996) asserts, parents need to feel positively welcomed by the school through the creation of a genuinely open environment. Berk (2004) underlines this view and suggests that teachers must make extra efforts to integrate â€Å"ethnic minority values and practices into classroom life and regularly contact parents who don’t come to conferences and school events†. Many commentators have situated the notion of partnership between schools, parents and the community within the wider context of school ethos and inclusive practice. Dyson (1997), for example, has observed that many of the educational difficulties experienced by children, such as disaffection, disruption and underachievement are associated with social disadvantage. Croll (2002) underlines this and highlights the clear links, also, between parental socio-economic status and social, emotional and behavioural problems, as well as the learning difficulties which come under the banner of â€Å"special educational needs†. Parents’ experience of high levels of stress, perhaps in poorer, â€Å"run-down† neighbourhoods, can adversely affect not only their interactions with their children but also their dealings with education and related services (Beveridge, 2004). Teachers may hold stereotypical, negative views of such families which impede the quality of home-school relationships. Bastiani (1997) points out the increasing recognition that there is a diversity of successful parenting styles and that teachers can acknowledge this and adopt a more positive approach which builds on parents’ own strategies for raising their children. Ball (1998) and White (1997) have reported on successful Portage schemes for parents of children with learning difficulties involving short-term learning  targets agreed with parents. Beveridge (2004), however, highlights the potential stigmatising effects of these schemes when they are limited to families with children deemed as having ‘special educational needs’ and argues that these specific strategies should be available for all families. The current push for schools to be placed at the centre of the community (DfES, 2003) has been championed by Berk (2004) as a prime opportunity to nurture the collaborative work of teachers, parents and children. She cites Connors and Epstein (1996) who argued that â€Å"when parents are involved in school activities, talk regularly with teachers, monitor their child’s progress and help with homework, children show better academic achievement† (Berk, 2004, p.206). It seems that the strategies adopted by schools to establish strong home/school links must be situated within the wider educational ethos and practice of the school in order to be truly effective. Factors such as co-operative dialogues, joint problem-solving, staff training and support are flagged up as key objectives for the whole school in order to provide â€Å"experiences for children that are as encouraging, enriching and educative as possible†. (Berk, 2004). Within the true spirit of partnership, however, the ethos of the â€Å"learning community† demands that all those involved in this inclusive enterprise of educative enrichment need to play an active role. Thus, as Berk (2004) suggests, parents also have a responsibility to become knowledgeable about what constitutes high quality education and they can then press for better classroom experiences for their children. Teachers and parents, together with children, need to build bridges and it seems crucial that each plays an active role if their strategies are to be truly reciprocal and successful. Further to this the child’s perspective is an integral part of this reciprocity. Children are active social agents and not merely passive recipients of learning processes and they have a â€Å"personal perspective on their own experiences, aspirations and needs which cannot be inferred from having adults speak on their behalf† (Beveridge, 2004). In conclusion, then, primary schools can do much to engender strong home/school links, particularly through the cultivation of more positive and  non-judgemental attitudes towards families, in recognition of the contribution that all families can make towards their children’s education whatever their social and cultural background. As commentators such as Beveridge (2004) and Berk (2004) have highlighted, however, true partnership implies that all those involved, adults and children alike, have a role to play in the development of successful collaborative strategies. In terms of the particular role played by primary schools, it would seem that strategies rooted in a â€Å"whole school† philosophy of genuine inclusion which values and respects the views of parents and children are those which are most likely to make a positive difference in terms of children’s attitudes to learning. Bibliography Ball M. (1998) School Inclusion: the School, the Family and the Community. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, YorkBastiani J. (1992) Working with Parents: a whole school approach. NFER-Nelson, Windsor. Bastiani J.(Ed (1997) Home-School Work in Multicultural Settings. David Fulton, London. Berk L. (2004) Awakening Children’s Minds: How Parents and Teachers can make a difference. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Beveridge S. (2004) Children, Families and Schools: Developing Partnerships for Inclusive Education. RoutledgeFalmer, London. Brooker L. (2002)Starting School – Young Children Learning Cultures. Open University Press, Buckingham. Coleman P. (1998) Parent, Student and Teacher Collaboration: the power of three. Paul Chapman, London. DfES. (2003) Every Child Matters, Green Paper. HMSO, London. Freud S. (1991)The Essentials of Psychoanalysis.Penguin, London. Gregory E (2000) â€Å"Recognising differences: reinterpreting family involvement in early literacy† in Combating Educational Disadvantage: meeting the needs of vulnerable children. Ed Cox T. Falmer Press, London. pp. 45-50. Hannon P. (1995) Literacy, Home and School: research and practice in teaching literacy with parents. Falmer Press, London. Hornby G. (2000) Improving Parental Involvement. Cassell, London. Hornby G, Davis G, Taylor G. (1995) The Special Needs Co-ordinator’s Handbook. Routledge, London. Mayall B. (2002) Towards a Sociology for Childhood. Open University Press, Buckingham. Mills J. (Ed) (1996) Partnership in the Primary School. Routledge, London. Nind M, Rix J, Sheehy K, Simmons K. (Eds) (2003) Inclusive Education: diverse perspectives. David Fulton, London. Ofsted.(2000)Educational Inequality: Mapping Race, Class and Gender. A Synthesis ofResearch Evidence. Ofsted, London. Tizard B, Mortimore J, Burchell B. (1981) Involving Parents in Nursery and Infant Schools: A Source Book for Teachers. Grant McIntyre, London. White M. (1997) â€Å"A Review of the influence and effects of Portage† in Working with Parents of SEN Children after the Code of Practice. Ed Wolfendale S. David Fulton, London. pp. 32-36. JournalsCroll P. (2002)†Social deprivation, school-level achievement and special educational needs†. Educational Research. Vol. 44. pp. 43-53. Dyson A. (1997) â€Å"Social and educational disadvantage: reconnecting special needs education†. British Journal of Special Education. Vol. 24, No. 4. pp. 152-157. Warren E, Young J. (2002)†Parent and School Partnerships in Supporting Literacy and Numeracy†. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 30, No 3. pp. 217-228. Williams F. (2004)†Commentary on Every Child Matters, DfES Green Paper† Critical Social Policy.Vol.24, No 3. pp 55-66. WebliographyWeb reference 1DfES (1997)www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/parentalinvolvement

How to Play the Yes, And ... Improv Game

Unless an actor is the star of a one-person show, his or her acting experience will involve a lot of cooperation and engagement with other actors. In theory, an actor should be able to pick up on his or her fellow actors body language and tone, responding appropriately and seamlessly, even in the trickiest situations.   The Problems Actors Face on Stage When Things Go Wrong Plenty of actors have been part of a scene in which lines are dropped. Without proper training, actors often stand speechless, wondering what happened,  and what to do next. With an understanding of improv and cooperation, actors can seamlessly continue the scene, guiding the story back to the script. Similar situations occur in a live theater all the time. A prop has disappeared, a cue is missed, a table is in the wrong position, and actors must work together to keep the scene moving forward in a plausible manner. How Actors Learn to Go With the Flow on Stage Part of the proper training for the unexpected involves improv work that requires creative cooperation. The game Yes, And forces actors to avoid rejecting other cast members ideas, and, instead, to find a way to go with the flow. Yes, And is the opposite of No, But, which is a response that can lead to catastrophe on stage. The game Yes, And is very simple. In an improv situation, actors are required to accept their fellow actors ideas and build on them. For example, at the beginning of the scene, the first character begins by establishing a setting and plot, as seen below.   Character #1: What a hot and miserable day to be a ranch hand! (Following the â€Å"Yes, And† method, the second character will accept the premise and add to the situation.)Character #2: Yep and the boss said we don’t get no water until this fence is mended.Character #1: Yes and ain’t he the meanest cuss we’ve ever worked for?Character #2: Yep and it’s made me think about leaving behind this cowboy life and headin’ off for San Francisco. Developing Conflict Can Help Actors Move the Plot Along Now, the scene could continue on indefinitely with the actors simply agreeing with one another. However, it’s best to develop conflict as well. For example: Character #2: Yep, and it’s made me think about leaving behind this cowboy life and headin’ off for San Francisco.Character #1: Yes, and you’d be broke twenty minutes after stepping off the stagecoach.Character #2: Yeah, and I supposed you think you could do better?!Character #1: Yes! And after I made my fortune panning for gold I come back and buy this sorry ranch and you’d be working for me! After working on â€Å"Yes, And† exercises, actors ultimately learn how to do scenes in which they embrace the ideas and concepts offered by fellow performers. Actors don’t actually need to say the words â€Å"Yes, And† for the system to work. They simply need to affirm what the character is saying and allow it to build the scene. If actors deny their fellow performer, the scene may be dead in the water before it even had a chance. See how it could unfold: Character #1: What a hot and miserable day to be a ranch hand!Character #2: No it’s not. And we’re not ranch hands either.