On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:05:22 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:


No, you're suffering from tunnel thinking by assuming that funding and
delivery have to be done by the state as one entity.

The point is that they can be separated into two components.

I have not said that the total amount of money spent from the state purse
on education should be reduced. A voucher equivalent to the sum of money
spent in state education establishments would be made available to parents
for education. They would have the choice of spending them in state run
schools or private schools.

So you are talking about removing income from public sector schools.

No. That would be the choice of the parents based on whether they
wish to use a given school or not, regardless of sector. If a school
is working well and addressing the requirements of the pupils and
their parents then it would become more attractive, regardless of
state or private ownership.

You are
also talking about removing those parents best able to support such schools.

I'm not talking about removing anybody from anywhere. I am simply
suggesting that people be given more choice. After all they are
paying for these services. Why shouldn't they have the choice over
where to obtain them?




Over time, schools and educational institutions could migrate to some kind
of trust status outside of government ownership altogether. That would be
better still.

You are talking about ensuring that less is available for public sector
schools leaving them with increasing numbers of problem kids.

I am not talking about ensuring that less is available for anybody.
The point is that this would allow the schools in a given area to
focus more directly on what is required by the pupils in that area who
are likely to go to them. The key issue is autonomy from state
interference at point of delivery.


Either you don't
know this and don't know what you are talking about or you do know this and
are seking to destroy our schools. Either way you are a menace to society.

Oh dear. What a lot of silly emotive nonsense. I can appreciate that
you might have difficulty with or feel uncomfortable about ideas that
suggest less control by the state. Increasingly people are starting
to realise what is happening and will vote accordingly. Whether they
will be adventurous enough to espouse something more creative is
another thing of course.



The difference is that the state schools would have the autonomy to pursue
excellence in education that they don't have today because of government
interference. A high quality educational outcome does not depend on a
micromanaged one-size fits all curriculum.

The public sector schools were managing diversity quite well until the last
Tory government imposed the National Curriculum. I presume that you wish to
make a comment about that stupid move ...

Absolutely. It was a stupid move regardless of who did it. Almost as
stupid a move as the introduction of comprehensive education. Who was
it that did that?




You're tryng to opt out of responsibility for the bad effects of what you
support.

Not at all. You just haven't understood it.

That I doubt.

I think that you have demonstrated that to be the case pretty well.


I'm sure you would also like more state support for other things alongside
cuts in income tax and VAT. ;-)

That would flow naturally from the disengagement by the state from areas
that it doesn't need to be involved in such as provision (not funding) of
education and healthcare and especially by the elimination of the
bureaucracy unnecessarily used to operate them.

Don't be silly. The present bureaucracy multiplied directly from imposition of
the National Curriculum, Ofsted and reduction of LEA support for schools. All
done by the government you clearly supported.

I don't support any government in particular. I make up my own mind
on individual issues as an individual. The choice then becomes the
least bad.


Did you make your voice heard at
that time telling your fellow local Tory activists that your government was
embarking on stupid policies?

Why would you assume that I was a Tory activist? You do have some
strange ideas.


--

..andy