On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:25:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

Fairest for whom?

Mark.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:41:44 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:04:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 09:25:28 -0000, "Jonathan"
wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Isn't this the reason they got rid of rateable value and went to the
community charge, then council tax as the first was grossly unfair?

Yup, and no-one is able to tell me why the complex and unfair system we
have now is better than the poll tax.

Anyone?


It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That seems to
me to be the fairest way.

It depends whether you want a society or just individuals.

"Society" is a nebulous thing. The idea of an individual is much more
tangible.

That is not to say that those individuals with need should not, in
some way be supported by those with the ability to pay. However, I
don't think that this needs to entail the massive involvement by
central and local government in the affairs of the individual that has
increasingly happened in recent years.

I would far rather make my own arrangements for healthcare, education
and other things that don't need to have state or local government
involvement; and then to pay towards the needs of those unable to do
so for themselves as a separate thing. There are a few things such as
policing and security which probably do need to have central/local
government involvement, but really that's about it.

So only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education?
Does anyone really want as system like in the USA?

Mark.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:28:02 +0000, Matt
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I paid for private primary and secondary education out of income at
highest marginal rate because state education has become woefully
inadequate. I received nothing back from the local authority for
that.

Nor should you.

I disagree. As I said, I was and am perfectly happy to contribute
to the general fund for education in addition to paying school fees.

However, I think that there should be two aspects - funding and
provision.
The funding aspect should be used as a means of collecting the money
based on the ability to pay. That should then be used to provide an
amount of money per child being educated which is sufficient to pay
for that education in a state school or a privately run one operating
on a similar cost model to state schools.

The provisioning aspect is quite different. The state can continue
to provide education as before. The private sector can provide
schools either at the same price point (for which complete funding
from the state would be provided), or for parents who wish to
supplement said funding, schools with smaller class sizes and/or
better facilities.


There should be something at least as a tax break or as a contribution
from the local authority for education. I'm perfectly happy to pay
into the pot for those who wish to use the state system, but I do
think that the state should at least recompense the equivalent amount
spent in the state system to educate a child to those wishing to
choose an alternative.

Just because you choose to not take up the offer of free state
education does not mean that the costs of state provision can be
totally ignored or just "transferred". A state provided
classroom/teacher lying idle or half full because a number of
similarly misguided parents sent their little Jane's and Johnny's to a
private school still carries costs.

It's far from misguided to send a child to a private school. The
results in terms of educational and other outcome are plain to see;
and I found, very well worth the money.




In the extreme this could lead to
closure of the state school and bussing of pupils considerable
distances to alternatives. Closure of a school can have a huge impact
on life in a small village (and elsewhere)

That assumes that it all operates on the same cost model. It is well
known that smaller class and school sizes lead to better educational
results, which is one of the reason why the comprehensive megaschools
have failed so badly.

We ended use of the state system when my daughter, aged 6, and had a
reading ability way ahead of her peers was being deliberately held
back and who was also asked to help the younger kids, aged 5 to learn
to read. This is simply not acceptable.

There is no doubt that more money needs to be spent on education in
order to reduce class sizes. Therefore it would be a positive step if
the range of choice were expanded into the private sector, with
equivalent state funding.




Healthcare is even worse. The same bad principles apply, the state
service is a mess and should have been shut down years ago. All of
the above taxes apply, plus additional ones if an employer provides
health insurance as a benefit.

If you are stupid or greedy or selfish enough to consider private
healthcare then your choice must be for everything and that includes
accident and emergency services. No piggy backing AT ALL on the state
system. If you sustain an injury and there is evidence that you are
in a private healthcare scheme then there should be measures put in
place so you have to wait until the private ambulance turns up. If
you die in the meantime then tough, you made an "informed choice" and
the brochure looked good.

That's just silly bigotry.

In other countries systems of state and private ambulances, emergency
and non emergency healthcare are implemented and work perfectly well
together.



A private room with Sky TV, gourmet food and a nymphomaniac nurse?

I wish. Have you ever been in a private hospital?

The main differences are

- I can go when it suits me, not when the state decides

- I'm not kept hanging around for hours waiting for appointments

- I get a private room that is kept properly clean, several times a
day, so the chances of cross infection are much reduced. Frankly, I
don't want to be ill in the company of total strangers, thanks.

- The ratio of staff to patient is better

- The staff treat me as a person and not as a number who should be
grateful for what the state provides.

- Food is adequate, but far from gourmet.

........... or proper state healthcare for all with the best
facilities and best treatment regardless of the ability of the
individual to pay?

The trouble is that the state doesn't provide proper healthcare. If
it did, then I wouldn't mind.

Again, funding and provisioning should be separated in the same way as
for education. There should be funding from the state system
(collected from general taxation) to provide vouchers for everybody to
use towards healthcare. These should be sufficient for the
individual to obtain healthcare from a state run facility or if they
choose, an equivalent private one. People wishing to supplement the
voucher value with cash or insurance should be able to do so without
penalty.


Private education stinks and so does private healthcare. The sooner
they were *totally* eliminated from British society the better.

That's not very likely to happen, and if it did, then people will shop
elsewhere.

The real point is that the state has become far too big in all of
these areas. In a civilised environment, of course the less well off
people should be helped by those able to do so to some extent.
However, this should not be done to the extent of penalising those
most able to help for wanting to make their own choices.

Therefore, I think that it is quite reasonable for the state to be
involved in the collection and distribution of funding.

I think that it is quite unreasonable for the state to be involved to
the extent that it is in the provisioning of services. It can be a
player, along with others in provisioning, but ultimately the customer
should be able to decide.

The mentality in much of the state run services is that the person in
receipt of services (be it healthcare, education or anything else) is
somehow getting something for nothing and should be grateful for what
they get. It is a classic excuse for providing crappy service and
blaming others for shortcomings that could easily be addressed.

These massive state run organisations are well past their sell-by date
and should be pensioned off as a relic of the 1950s.


--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:04:45 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:41:44 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



That is not to say that those individuals with need should not, in
some way be supported by those with the ability to pay. However, I
don't think that this needs to entail the massive involvement by
central and local government in the affairs of the individual that has
increasingly happened in recent years.

I would far rather make my own arrangements for healthcare, education
and other things that don't need to have state or local government
involvement; and then to pay towards the needs of those unable to do
so for themselves as a separate thing. There are a few things such as
policing and security which probably do need to have central/local
government involvement, but really that's about it.

So only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education?
Does anyone really want as system like in the USA?


Did I say that? At the outset, I said that individuals with need
should be supported by those with the ability to pay.

The question is about the delivery model and the choice.

There should be a range of options available, operated by the state
sector and the private sector, and people should have the freedom to
choose. It should be possible to take a sum of money or voucher
(which is the same for everybody) and spend it at any facility with
the option of topping it up if the individual wishes to do so.


--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:03:07 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:25:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

Fairest for whom?

Mark.


Fairest for people who pay for and use goods and services.


--

..andy

In article , Bob Martin wrote:
In Germany (at least, when I was living there in the early 80s) they had
a monthly "big rubbish day" when people put out beds, fridges, etc.
A key feature of the scheme was that people would wander round and take
whatever they fancied. The council picked up the rest.

(thinks, why does the UK never take up bright ideas from elsewhere?)

20 years back the London Borough of Sutton used to put out community skips
in each road once or twice a year for people to get rid of big stuff. I
don't know whether they still do it. Arguably it's less necessary now that
most people have cars and can take stuff to their local tip.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

Mark wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
I would far rather make my own arrangements for healthcare, education
and other things that don't need to have state or local government
involvement; and then to pay towards the needs of those unable to do
so for themselves as a separate thing. There are a few things such as
policing and security which probably do need to have central/local
government involvement, but really that's about it.


So only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education?
Does anyone really want as system like in the USA?

I've a strong suspicion that things are being said for the sake
of impression - minor trolling, in fact. u.p.m may appreciate a
look-in.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's far from misguided to send a child to a private school. The
results in terms of educational and other outcome are plain to see;

Most of the benefits are because of inappropriate fast-tracking of ex-public
school products - and this is certainly not in the public interest. Other
benefits come from the freedom available to private schools to exclude pupils
and have other sanctions not available in the public sector.

Only then do the benefits of small classes and better equipment step in.

I'd like to see all private schools closed because everyone appreciated that
the public sector schools were clearly better; the mere existence of private
schools puts a charge on the public purse that is difficult to calculate but
is probably very high - it has certainly contributed to the bad state of
management in UK industry.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:02:00 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's far from misguided to send a child to a private school. The
results in terms of educational and other outcome are plain to see;

Most of the benefits are because of inappropriate fast-tracking of ex-public
school products - and this is certainly not in the public interest.

Public schools are but a small part of the private education sector.

I was talking about the individual and the educational benefits.
Unless you have actually experienced use of both sectors personally,
it is difficult to appreciate those.

Other
benefits come from the freedom available to private schools to exclude pupils
and have other sanctions not available in the public sector.

All schools should have the ability to exclude pupils under certain
circumstances. This is how things work in adult life.



Only then do the benefits of small classes and better equipment step in.

The benefits of small classes are apparent from the outset in terms of
the attention that each pupil gets and the accelerated speed of
learning. Again, unless you have been involved in and seen the
results personally, it is not easy to appreciate the benefits.


I'd like to see all private schools closed because everyone appreciated that
the public sector schools were clearly better;

Who is this "everyone"? The trouble is that public sector schools
have been in decline for a generation or more. Not their fault by any
means, but as the result of being dicked around by the political and
social experiments in education carried out by successive governments.

The benefit of private sector education is that it has, to some
extent, been insulated from some of the worst excesses of that.


the mere existence of private
schools puts a charge on the public purse that is difficult to calculate but
is probably very high - it has certainly contributed to the bad state of
management in UK industry.

The existence of private schools (and I mean in general, not public
schools) has been to retain a quality in education despite the worst
efforts of successive governments to destroy it.

The bad state of UK industry has been for numerous reasons,
predominantly related in one way or another to government
interference.


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:02:00 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's far from misguided to send a child to a private school. The
results in terms of educational and other outcome are plain to see;

Most of the benefits are because of inappropriate fast-tracking of
ex-public school products - and this is certainly not in the public
interest.

Public schools are but a small part of the private education sector.

I know. That's why I use the term publc school and private school
appropriately.

I was talking about the individual and the educational benefits. Unless you
have actually experienced use of both sectors personally, it is difficult
to appreciate those.

I have.

Other benefits come from the freedom available to private schools to
exclude pupils and have other sanctions not available in the public sector.

All schools should have the ability to exclude pupils under certain
circumstances. This is how things work in adult life.

Private schools have it much easier in general. And never have to pick up the
pieces.

Only then do the benefits of small classes and better equipment step in.

The benefits of small classes are apparent from the outset in terms of the
attention that each pupil gets and the accelerated speed of learning.
Again, unless you have been involved in and seen the results personally, it
is not easy to appreciate the benefits.

I have.


I'd like to see all private schools closed because everyone appreciated
that the public sector schools were clearly better;

Who is this "everyone"? The trouble is that public sector schools have
been in decline for a generation or more. Not their fault by any means,
but as the result of being dicked around by the political and social
experiments in education carried out by successive governments.

The benefit of private sector education is that it has, to some extent,
been insulated from some of the worst excesses of that.

Exactly. Some might say that the National Curriculum was designed to cause as
much damage as possible to public sector schools in order to boost private
schools. It's framework was designed by an ex-public school / private school
twit with no apparent understanding of the reality of public sector school
teaching at the time and undermined many good developments.

the mere existence of private schools puts a charge on the public purse
that is difficult to calculate but is probably very high - it has
certainly contributed to the bad state of management in UK industry.

The existence of private schools (and I mean in general, not public
schools) has been to retain a quality in education despite the worst
efforts of successive governments to destroy it.

Certainly some retain *a* quality - and not necessarily a good quality. Again
from personal knowledge.

The bad state of UK industry has been for numerous reasons, predominantly
related in one way or another to government interference.

High profile cases may be exceptions but the major problem has been extremely
bad management sourced using the old boy network.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:53:34 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

Public schools are but a small part of the private education sector.

I know. That's why I use the term publc school and private school
appropriately.

.... and why I was talking about the private sector in general, and not
particularly about public schools.



I was talking about the individual and the educational benefits. Unless you
have actually experienced use of both sectors personally, it is difficult
to appreciate those.

I have.

In the sense of having paid to have a child educated in one?



Other benefits come from the freedom available to private schools to
exclude pupils and have other sanctions not available in the public sector.

All schools should have the ability to exclude pupils under certain
circumstances. This is how things work in adult life.

Private schools have it much easier in general. And never have to pick up the
pieces.

That isn't quite true. They still have to deal with a lot of
unnecessary state interference.

In terms of pastoral care when needed, that is certainly a significant
aspect. There is also the time to make sure that the child is
equipped to deal with how to think and how to approach issues rather
than just dealing with curriculum.




Only then do the benefits of small classes and better equipment step in.

The benefits of small classes are apparent from the outset in terms of the
attention that each pupil gets and the accelerated speed of learning.
Again, unless you have been involved in and seen the results personally, it
is not easy to appreciate the benefits.

I have.

Then I am sure that you will understand the benefits.




I'd like to see all private schools closed because everyone appreciated
that the public sector schools were clearly better;

Who is this "everyone"? The trouble is that public sector schools have
been in decline for a generation or more. Not their fault by any means,
but as the result of being dicked around by the political and social
experiments in education carried out by successive governments.

The benefit of private sector education is that it has, to some extent,
been insulated from some of the worst excesses of that.

Exactly. Some might say that the National Curriculum was designed to cause as
much damage as possible to public sector schools in order to boost private
schools.

Some might, but that is something of an extrapolation.

It's framework was designed by an ex-public school / private school
twit with no apparent understanding of the reality of public sector school
teaching at the time and undermined many good developments.

Public sector schools were semi-reasonable when there was proper
selection into appropriate schools for the child. Comprehensive
education and the National Curriculum together have screwed that up
quite effectively.




the mere existence of private schools puts a charge on the public purse
that is difficult to calculate but is probably very high - it has
certainly contributed to the bad state of management in UK industry.

The existence of private schools (and I mean in general, not public
schools) has been to retain a quality in education despite the worst
efforts of successive governments to destroy it.

Certainly some retain *a* quality - and not necessarily a good quality. Again
from personal knowledge.


I know. The sad thing is that a lot more used to before the setup was
meddled with by the educational theorists.


The bad state of UK industry has been for numerous reasons, predominantly
related in one way or another to government interference.

High profile cases may be exceptions but the major problem has been extremely
bad management sourced using the old boy network.

I know a lot of people in middle and senior management in a variety of
organisations and very few come from the "old boy network".
Ultimately, if what you say is true, then natural selection will
resolve the problem.


--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:57:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Tax the politicians, that will stop them in their tracks.


Best suggestion I've read so far! However, that should only be after
we have reduced the salaries of all of them to the national average wage.

Yup. And base their pensions on the national average too. And their
various allowances.


and their little dog too....


--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:54:15 +0000, Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Bob Martin wrote:
In Germany (at least, when I was living there in the early 80s) they had
a monthly "big rubbish day" when people put out beds, fridges, etc.
A key feature of the scheme was that people would wander round and take
whatever they fancied. The council picked up the rest.

(thinks, why does the UK never take up bright ideas from elsewhere?)

20 years back the London Borough of Sutton used to put out community skips
in each road once or twice a year for people to get rid of big stuff. I
don't know whether they still do it. Arguably it's less necessary now that
most people have cars and can take stuff to their local tip.

In Sutton it was last done in about 1996/97 - then they stopped, which was
utterly stupid.

Apart from the usefullness of the scheme, it was partly aimed at
discouraging fly tipping.

Tunbridge Wells BC have really been on the crack in the last couple of
years. We now have rubbish collection fortnightly; designed to encourage
recycling, but in reality means smelly bins in summer and putting surplus
rubbish in the neighbours bins. I take the more cynical view that
recycling is secondary and they are just saving money. The recycling
provision is pretty useless, being in the intervening weeks they collect
paper and garden waste. The paper is fine, but I use the garden waste
"feature" about 5 times a year. What I would rather have is glass and
metal collection. As point of fact, I'd rather the CC waste processing
facility did the metal as even back in the 70's some where using
electromagnets to collect the ferrous materials. I believe other metals
can now be auto seperated using linear motor technology which makes it
quite practical to do centrally, and the CC should get some money back
from the scrap.

When one spends 12 hours a day working or travelling to work the last
thing I can be bothered with is doing the council's job for them - I'd be
much happier to pay extra for a decent service rather than a half-arsed
one.

Tim

Andy Hall wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:57:54 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Tax the politicians, that will stop them in their tracks.


Best suggestion I've read so far! However, that should only be after
we have reduced the salaries of all of them to the national average wage.

Yup. And base their pensions on the national average too. And their
various allowances.


and their little dog too....

I thought Cherie was quite tall :-)


--

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:53:34 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

Public schools are but a small part of the private education sector.

I know. That's why I use the term publc school and private school
appropriately.

... and why I was talking about the private sector in general, and not
particularly about public schools.

In that case I'd better mention that the public school/private school overlap
is quite large and the former is almost entirely a sub-set of the latter. But
I didn't think I'd need to spell it out.


I was talking about the individual and the educational benefits. Unless
you have actually experienced use of both sectors personally, it is
difficult to appreciate those.

I have.

In the sense of having paid to have a child educated in one?



Other benefits come from the freedom available to private schools to
exclude pupils and have other sanctions not available in the public
sector.

All schools should have the ability to exclude pupils under certain
circumstances. This is how things work in adult life.

Private schools have it much easier in general. And never have to pick up
the pieces.

That isn't quite true. They still have to deal with a lot of unnecessary
state interference.

In terms of pastoral care when needed, that is certainly a significant
aspect. There is also the time to make sure that the child is equipped to
deal with how to think and how to approach issues rather than just dealing
with curriculum.

Only then do the benefits of small classes and better equipment step in.

The benefits of small classes are apparent from the outset in terms of
the attention that each pupil gets and the accelerated speed of
learning. Again, unless you have been involved in and seen the results
personally, it is not easy to appreciate the benefits.

I have.

Then I am sure that you will understand the benefits.

I'd like to see all private schools closed because everyone appreciated
that the public sector schools were clearly better;

Who is this "everyone"? The trouble is that public sector schools
have been in decline for a generation or more. Not their fault by any
means, but as the result of being dicked around by the political and
social experiments in education carried out by successive governments.

The benefit of private sector education is that it has, to some extent,
been insulated from some of the worst excesses of that.

Exactly. Some might say that the National Curriculum was designed to cause
as much damage as possible to public sector schools in order to boost
private schools.

Some might, but that is something of an extrapolation.

I don't believe it. I think it was designed by an ex-public schoolboy who got
his job because of his school rather than his competence.

It's framework was designed by an ex-public school / private school twit
with no apparent understanding of the reality of public sector school
teaching at the time and undermined many good developments.

Public sector schools were semi-reasonable when there was proper selection
into appropriate schools for the child. Comprehensive education and the
National Curriculum together have screwed that up quite effectively.

The only thing wrong with selection was the state of the schools that the
majority of pupils attended. And the fact that most authorities didn't select
but used a scholarship system. It was all based on a pernicious lie.

the mere existence of private schools puts a charge on the public purse
that is difficult to calculate but is probably very high - it has
certainly contributed to the bad state of management in UK industry.

The existence of private schools (and I mean in general, not public
schools) has been to retain a quality in education despite the worst
efforts of successive governments to destroy it.

Certainly some retain *a* quality - and not necessarily a good quality.
Again from personal knowledge.

I know. The sad thing is that a lot more used to before the setup was
meddled with by the educational theorists.

The bad state of UK industry has been for numerous reasons,
predominantly related in one way or another to government interference.

High profile cases may be exceptions but the major problem has been
extremely bad management sourced using the old boy network.

I know a lot of people in middle and senior management in a variety of
organisations and very few come from the "old boy network".

Certainly less than there used to be.

Ultimately, if what you say is true, then natural selection will resolve
the problem.

Sometimes 'ultimately' is too late. In this case it is too late.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:29:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:04:45 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:41:44 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



That is not to say that those individuals with need should not, in
some way be supported by those with the ability to pay. However, I
don't think that this needs to entail the massive involvement by
central and local government in the affairs of the individual that has
increasingly happened in recent years.

I would far rather make my own arrangements for healthcare, education
and other things that don't need to have state or local government
involvement; and then to pay towards the needs of those unable to do
so for themselves as a separate thing. There are a few things such as
policing and security which probably do need to have central/local
government involvement, but really that's about it.

So only the wealthy should have access to healthcare and education?
Does anyone really want as system like in the USA?


Did I say that? At the outset, I said that individuals with need
should be supported by those with the ability to pay.

Not in so many words - but I strongly believe that such as system
would amount to a more unfair system in practise.

The question is about the delivery model and the choice.

There should be a range of options available, operated by the state
sector and the private sector, and people should have the freedom to
choose. It should be possible to take a sum of money or voucher
(which is the same for everybody) and spend it at any facility with
the option of topping it up if the individual wishes to do so.

If there was a voucher system like you suggest I don't know how state
schools could survive. If you (and others) choose to use your
vouchers, for example, at a private school that would mean less
resources for the state school (unless the gov't put more money
overall into such a system and I doubt this would happen).

Mark.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:28:09 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:02:00 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's far from misguided to send a child to a private school. The
results in terms of educational and other outcome are plain to see;

Most of the benefits are because of inappropriate fast-tracking of ex-public
school products - and this is certainly not in the public interest.

Public schools are but a small part of the private education sector.

I was talking about the individual and the educational benefits.
Unless you have actually experienced use of both sectors personally,
it is difficult to appreciate those.

Other
benefits come from the freedom available to private schools to exclude pupils
and have other sanctions not available in the public sector.

All schools should have the ability to exclude pupils under certain
circumstances. This is how things work in adult life.

Only then do the benefits of small classes and better equipment step in.

The benefits of small classes are apparent from the outset in terms of
the attention that each pupil gets and the accelerated speed of
learning. Again, unless you have been involved in and seen the
results personally, it is not easy to appreciate the benefits.

If private schools do offer such benefits then shouldn't these be open
to all children and not just to those with wealthy enough parents?

Mark.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:31:25 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:03:07 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:25:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

Fairest for whom?

Mark.


Fairest for people who pay for and use goods and services.

But unfair to those who cannot afford to pay.

Mark.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:12:38 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:



In that case I'd better mention that the public school/private school overlap
is quite large and the former is almost entirely a sub-set of the latter. But
I didn't think I'd need to spell it out.

You didn't. As I said, public schools are a relatively small subset
of the private sector.



I was talking about the individual and the educational benefits. Unless
you have actually experienced use of both sectors personally, it is
difficult to appreciate those.

I have.

In the sense of having paid to have a child educated in one?


So no, then?



Exactly. Some might say that the National Curriculum was designed to cause
as much damage as possible to public sector schools in order to boost
private schools.

Some might, but that is something of an extrapolation.

I don't believe it. I think it was designed by an ex-public schoolboy who got
his job because of his school rather than his competence.

That may well be, but incompetence is not the preserve of the
ex-public-schoolboy. The state does a pretty good job of turning out
people with qualifications that are not very useful to the economy.



It's framework was designed by an ex-public school / private school twit
with no apparent understanding of the reality of public sector school
teaching at the time and undermined many good developments.

Public sector schools were semi-reasonable when there was proper selection
into appropriate schools for the child. Comprehensive education and the
National Curriculum together have screwed that up quite effectively.

The only thing wrong with selection was the state of the schools that the
majority of pupils attended. And the fact that most authorities didn't select
but used a scholarship system. It was all based on a pernicious lie.

Well.... as an anecdote, I have a number of friends in my age peer
group who went to grammar, selective and secondary modern schools in
my area in the late 60s. All were and have remained happy with the
education they received, and all have become successful in their
chosen paths in life. They all say that their parents were happy with
their education as well. All of the schools bar one, have since
become comprehensives and/or have been combined together into larger
entities. Each of the people has had children of their own going to
either the school that they went to, or one of the others. Only one
of them and only one of their children is happy with the state
education that he has received. That one has been to the one
remaining grammar school.

To me, that says it all.




I know a lot of people in middle and senior management in a variety of
organisations and very few come from the "old boy network".

Certainly less than there used to be.

Ultimately, if what you say is true, then natural selection will resolve
the problem.

Sometimes 'ultimately' is too late. In this case it is too late.

There are many reasons for the decline of UK industry and blame can be
laid at the doors of the trade union movement in more or equal measure
as to the gates of the public school.




--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:12:38 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:



In that case I'd better mention that the public school/private school
overlap is quite large and the former is almost entirely a sub-set of the
latter. But I didn't think I'd need to spell it out.

You didn't. As I said, public schools are a relatively small subset of the
private sector.

Adding the equivalent for girls' schools - I think not. Do you have the
figures - and how are you defining 'Public School'?

I was talking about the individual and the educational benefits.
Unless you have actually experienced use of both sectors personally,
it is difficult to appreciate those.

I have.

In the sense of having paid to have a child educated in one?

So no, then?

Be very wary of rash assumptions. Ths one is *very* rash.

[Snip]

The only thing wrong with selection was the state of the schools that the
majority of pupils attended. And the fact that most authorities didn't
select but used a scholarship system. It was all based on a pernicious lie.

Well.... as an anecdote, I have a number of friends in my age peer group
who went to grammar, selective and secondary modern schools in my area in
the late 60s. All were and have remained happy with the education they
received

So none of them at secondary school were told they were just marking time
before going into the mill?
None of them notice the gross imbalance between funding for grammar and
secondary modern schools?
You're not bothered that the 11-plus was sold as a selective examination when
all it did was cream off the number of places available in far better
provisioned grammar schools?
It doesn't worry you that girls had to obtain a higher score than boys in
order to 'pass' the 11-plus simply because there were more grammar school
places for boys?
You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities never
bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there was no
attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:42:29 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities never
bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there was no
attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

I passed the 11+ and went to a grammar technical school.

--
Frank Erskine

In article , Frank Erskine
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:42:29 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

I passed the 11+ and went to a grammar technical school.

Exactly. the 'selection' process was meant to find the appropriate school for
each child. It didn't. If you 'passed' you had the choice of grammar or
technical grammar school (if there was one).

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:35:41 +0000, Mark wrote:

Fairest for people who pay for and use goods and services.

But unfair to those who cannot afford to pay.

Which has to beg the question as to why they can't pay.

Didn't work to earn the money in the first place?

Or, had it and ****ed it away in Benidorm, down the Boozer,

or on the Gee-Gees?

DG

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:28:02 +0000, Matt
wrote:

If you are stupid or greedy or selfish enough to consider private
healthcare then your choice must be for everything and that includes
accident and emergency services. No piggy backing AT ALL on the state
system. If you sustain an injury and there is evidence that you are
in a private healthcare scheme then there should be measures put in
place so you have to wait until the private ambulance turns up. If
you die in the meantime then tough, you made an "informed choice" and
the brochure looked good.

I wouldn't go that far - we are after all supposed to live in a
civilised society. Certainly no access to NHS prescriptions but as for
the rest - just send a bill for the full commercial value of the
service, make it a receipt if the person in question is in possession
of a credit card.

--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:22:03 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:29:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


The question is about the delivery model and the choice.

There should be a range of options available, operated by the state
sector and the private sector, and people should have the freedom to
choose. It should be possible to take a sum of money or voucher
(which is the same for everybody) and spend it at any facility with
the option of topping it up if the individual wishes to do so.

If there was a voucher system like you suggest I don't know how state
schools could survive. If you (and others) choose to use your
vouchers, for example, at a private school that would mean less
resources for the state school (unless the gov't put more money
overall into such a system and I doubt this would happen).


I think that most state schools would survive and some would not.
People would have their choices, but simply on a broader basis than
today.



--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:03:07 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:25:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

Fairest for whom?


It works for food.

Or would you rather we had a "National Food Service", and a truck came
round twice a day, parked down the end of the street and doled out a
dipper full of "Mealie Pap" (Coarse maize porridge) to everybody.

You can't say fairer than that.

DG

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:02:00 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's far from misguided to send a child to a private school. The
results in terms of educational and other outcome are plain to see;

Most of the benefits are because of inappropriate fast-tracking of ex-public
school products - and this is certainly not in the public interest.


Agreed, but that's only a hand full of schools, Eton, Rugby,
Winchester et al. Grossly unfair never the less.

Some public sector schools are also "well connected" with the best
universities.

Other benefits come from the freedom available to private schools to exclude pupils
and have other sanctions not available in the public sector.


Only then do the benefits of small classes and better equipment step in.

Smaller classes, yes, in infant school whilst learning to read. OTOH
My daughter goes to lectures in Uni which have "classes" of 200.

When I looked around provincial schools about 8 years ago, public
sector and private were equipped with identical sets of kit, topic by
topic.


I'd like to see all private schools closed because everyone appreciated that
the public sector schools were clearly better; the mere existence of private
schools puts a charge on the public purse that is difficult to calculate but
is probably very high - it has certainly contributed to the bad state of
management in UK industry.

It's a symptom, it's not the disease. The disease is the British
attitude to the people that do the actual, tangible, productive work.

DG

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:42:29 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:12:38 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:



In that case I'd better mention that the public school/private school
overlap is quite large and the former is almost entirely a sub-set of the
latter. But I didn't think I'd need to spell it out.

You didn't. As I said, public schools are a relatively small subset of the
private sector.

Adding the equivalent for girls' schools - I think not. Do you have the
figures - and how are you defining 'Public School'?

A public school is an independent secondary school which is a charity
(not profit-making) and which belongs to one of the public school
associations.


I was talking about the individual and the educational benefits.
Unless you have actually experienced use of both sectors personally,
it is difficult to appreciate those.

I have.

In the sense of having paid to have a child educated in one?

So no, then?

Be very wary of rash assumptions. Ths one is *very* rash.

So either you did, or you didn't. Which is it?



[Snip]

The only thing wrong with selection was the state of the schools that the
majority of pupils attended. And the fact that most authorities didn't
select but used a scholarship system. It was all based on a pernicious lie.

Well.... as an anecdote, I have a number of friends in my age peer group
who went to grammar, selective and secondary modern schools in my area in
the late 60s. All were and have remained happy with the education they
received

So none of them at secondary school were told they were just marking time
before going into the mill?

That's a very jaundiced view. All have become moderately to very
successful in their chosen careers. That is actually what ultimately
matters


None of them notice the gross imbalance between funding for grammar and
secondary modern schools?
You're not bothered that the 11-plus was sold as a selective examination when
all it did was cream off the number of places available in far better
provisioned grammar schools?

That's a loaded way to describe the situation, but I see nothing
whatever wrong in using a selective examination to select suitable
education for each child. If the implication of that is that one
form of education is more expensive to provide than another, then so
be it. I don't see the need to keep attempting to equalise things
all the way down the track. This would be running the same argument
that everybody should be paid the same, and clearly that's just as
much of a nonsense.

I do think that perhaps the age of 11 may not have been suitable as
the exam age, but 12 as in other countries or 13 as here in the
private sector.

It doesn't worry you that girls had to obtain a higher score than boys in
order to 'pass' the 11-plus simply because there were more grammar school
places for boys?

That certainly does, but could have quite easily been corrected
without wrecking the system for every child.



You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities never
bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there was no
attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

Well... where I lived there certainly was.




--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:35:00 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:28:09 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



The benefits of small classes are apparent from the outset in terms of
the attention that each pupil gets and the accelerated speed of
learning. Again, unless you have been involved in and seen the
results personally, it is not easy to appreciate the benefits.

If private schools do offer such benefits then shouldn't these be open
to all children and not just to those with wealthy enough parents?



There are also a wide range of fees in the private sector, so with the
contribution that would be obtained by a voucher equivalent to the
cost of education in a state school today, plus tax relief on fees,
far more choice would be available to far more people.

There are then various other mechanisms that can be used to supplement
the cost of particular forms of education that are more suited to a
given child. I don't see a fundamental need to say that the same
should be spent on each child.

The current system of attempting to impose a bland uniformity
regardless of ability in given areas doesn't serve the needs of the
child or the economy.

The vast majority of parents that I know or have known that have put
their children through private school are far from wealthy and have
made very substantial sacrifices to pay for education for their
children. So it is far from being a preserve of the rich.



--

..andy

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:35:41 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:31:25 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:03:07 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:25:12 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It isn't. In the main, people should pay for what they use. That
seems to me to be the fairest way.

Fairest for whom?

Mark.


Fairest for people who pay for and use goods and services.

But unfair to those who cannot afford to pay.


We're talking about essentials here, and I have not suggested that
there shouldn't be a safety net for those who genuinely can't afford
to pay for essentials. However, I don't think that this then has to
mean that the state needs to provide for everybody.


--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:

You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities never
bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there was no
attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?


You seem fairly knowledgable he how many multilaterals were there? I
have only ever been aware of the one I attended and its sister girls'
school. Why was the Comprehensive system used instead?

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:11:00 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Frank Erskine
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:42:29 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

I passed the 11+ and went to a grammar technical school.

Exactly. the 'selection' process was meant to find the appropriate school for
each child. It didn't. If you 'passed' you had the choice of grammar or
technical grammar school (if there was one).

Sadly the grammar technical which I attended subsequently turned into
a comprehensive (long after I left!), and its educational achievements
are _much_ lower.

(I would say that, wouldn't I ?)!

--
Frank Erskine

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:28:02 +0000, Matt
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I paid for private primary and secondary education out of income at
highest marginal rate because state education has become woefully
inadequate. I received nothing back from the local authority for
that.

Nor should you.

There should be something at least as a tax break or as a contribution
from the local authority for education. I'm perfectly happy to pay
into the pot for those who wish to use the state system, but I do
think that the state should at least recompense the equivalent amount
spent in the state system to educate a child to those wishing to
choose an alternative.

Just because you choose to not take up the offer of free state
education does not mean that the costs of state provision can be
totally ignored or just "transferred".

Why not?

A state provided
classroom/teacher lying idle or half full because a number of
similarly misguided parents sent their little Jane's and Johnny's to a
private school still carries costs. In the extreme this could lead to
closure of the state school and bussing of pupils considerable
distances to alternatives. Closure of a school can have a huge impact
on life in a small village (and elsewhere)

Our LEA doesn't give a monkeys about the kids/parents in my village.

We had a beautiful stone built primary school (on "School Street") in
our village. They closed the school on School Street and sold the land
for housing, built another school on a greenfield site outside the
village, and then told the kids/parents living in the new houses on
School Street they were outside the catchement area of the new school,
and they'd have to go to an inner city school 2 miles away (by road)
across a railway line, (so can't walk) that surprise - surprise has
empty places!

You couldn't make it up !


Healthcare is even worse. The same bad principles apply, the state
service is a mess and should have been shut down years ago. All of
the above taxes apply, plus additional ones if an employer provides
health insurance as a benefit.

If you are stupid or greedy or selfish enough to consider private
healthcare then your choice must be for everything and that includes
accident and emergency services.

Tonight's Yorkshire Evening Post, front page story:

http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticl...icleID=1246994

TINY Harley Ansbro's head is misshapen, his skull slopes to one side
and his ears are in different positions.
His worried mum says the condition – positional plagiocephaly – is
also affecting his balance and he cannot sit without falling to one
side.

But health bosses say the condition is "cosmetic" and have refused to
treat Harley on the NHS.

They will, however, pay for procedures such as breast enlargement, a
nose job or tattoo removal.

*** Extract Ends ***


Two of our local hospitals have just been awarded *zero* stars.

from www.leedstoday.net

"Leeds is not the only trust failing to make the grade

LEEDS is not the only city to have fared badly in the hospital league
tables.
Bosses at the crisis-hit Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust - which runs services
in Wakefield, Pontefract and Dewsbury - also scored zero stars.

The rating was the latest in a long line of troubles for the trust,
which fell into a desperate financial situation earlier this year and
had to rescued with £30m of Government money."

(DG) I've seen better organised slime moulds.

Again from www.leedstoday.net :

Cockroaches shut hospital kitchens

KITCHENS at St James's Hospital in Leeds have been shut down - because
they are infested with cockroaches.

Again from www.leedstoday.net :

Midwives close ‘filthy’ baby unit
Midwives forced the closure of a ‘refurbished’ maternity unit claiming
there was blood on the floors, exposed wires, soiled sheets, dirty
carpets and broken furniture.

Again from www.leedstoday.net :

It's time to come clean on hygiene
....There is no excuse for dirty hospitals now. As a result Britain now
officially has the dirtiest hospitals in Europe which is the shameful
reality faced by a country still deluding itself.

No piggy backing AT ALL on the state
system. If you sustain an injury and there is evidence that you are
in a private healthcare scheme then there should be measures put in
place so you have to wait until the private ambulance turns up.

Indeed there are private health schemes that will provide for that.

I daresay they are expensive but I'd be better equipped to pay their
charges if I wasn't paying an obscene amount into the NHS which
doesn't deliver.

Last time I looked there were more private intensive care beds than
NHS ones around Leeds.

If
you die in the meantime then tough, you made an "informed choice" and
the brochure looked good.

A private room with Sky TV, gourmet food and a nymphomaniac nurse?

My wife got the benefit of all that at BUPA when she had a gall
bladder operation earlier this year. She couldn't eat *any* food,
despite steak and kidney pud on the (Gourmet ???) menu, and was out
after 2 nights. The cost was about £5k but she got seen and treated
and she survived, which is more than her father did in St James's.

There isn't an NHS hospital in Leeds she'd contemplate using.

My secretary is also waiting for an operation, has been waiting since
April, and has been through the "Waiting list to get on a waiting
list" rigmarole. She won't pay to go private although they have the
money, but she's simply dreading going into "Jimmy's". This sentiment
is just normal around here.

BTW. The concept of a nymphomaniac 55 yo Yorkshirewoman as a nurse
stretches the imagination too much.


........... or proper state healthcare for all with the best
facilities and best treatment regardless of the ability of the
individual to pay?

That you will get "Only under communism" :-))


Private education stinks and so does private healthcare. The sooner
they were *totally* eliminated from British society the better.

I depend on the state run NHS to provide me with a health service,
payment for which is not voluntary. What level of service do I get?
Just look at it. "Dirtiest Hospitals in Europe" , "Filthy Maternity
Unit" "Infested with cockroaches".

It's not private healthcare that stinks.

Father in law died of MRSA in St James's Leeds. He was supposed to
have been "Barrier Nursed" but they kept his door open and the ward
mop and bucket in the room with him ! Outside his window was a 1st
floor quadrangle (no public access) that was littered with disposable
urine bottles and used hypodermic syringes.

The dirty *******s.

DG

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:59:58 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Bob Martin wrote:
In Germany (at least, when I was living there in the early 80s) they had a
monthly "big rubbish day" when people put out beds, fridges, etc.
A key feature of the scheme was that people would wander round and take
whatever they fancied. The council picked up the rest.
(thinks, why does the UK never take up bright ideas from elsewhere?)

Because the Germans probably put their rubbish out only on the allotted
day, positioned exactly five hundred millimetres from the kerb.

In the UK it would be left out weeks beforehand and people would
dismantle the piles and take only the good bits, leaving a mess everywhere.


In Headingley it's a fixed penalty offence to put out the wrong
coloured bin, or the right coloured bin (so many ?) hours outside it's
allotted time of emptying.

The hobby-bobby community ****sterbule (AKA "Parkie") will come and
get you with his Zapper.

DG

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:42:29 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:12:38 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:



In that case I'd better mention that the public school/private school
overlap is quite large and the former is almost entirely a sub-set of
the latter. But I didn't think I'd need to spell it out.

You didn't. As I said, public schools are a relatively small subset of
the private sector.

Adding the equivalent for girls' schools - I think not. Do you have the
figures - and how are you defining 'Public School'?

A public school is an independent secondary school which is a charity (not
profit-making) and which belongs to one of the public school associations.

The 'independent' bit isn't (or at least hasn't always been) strictly
essential.

[Snip]

So none of them at secondary school were told they were just marking time
before going into the mill?

That's a very jaundiced view. All have become moderately to very successful
in their chosen careers. That is actually what ultimately matters

Were told by the headteacher - in a case I'm thinking about.

None of them notice the gross imbalance between funding for grammar and
secondary modern schools? You're not bothered that the 11-plus was sold as
a selective examination when all it did was cream off the number of places
available in far better provisioned grammar schools?

That's a loaded way to describe the situation, but I see nothing whatever
wrong in using a selective examination to select suitable education for
each child.

Neither do I. That's what was promised - but that was never the case.

If the implication of that is that one form of education is more expensive
to provide than another, then so be it.

One form was given the vast bulk of the money. In education you can always use
all the money you receive.

I don't see the need to keep attempting to equalise things all the way down
the track. This would be running the same argument that everybody should be
paid the same, and clearly that's just as much of a nonsense.

So it's OK to channel twice as much money to grammar schools 'because the kids
there matter more'?

I do think that perhaps the age of 11 may not have been suitable as the
exam age, but 12 as in other countries or 13 as here in the private sector.

The age was chosen because there was experimental evidence to show that it
worked - ie that children of 11 exhibited a fixed IQ that didn't change later
in life. The 'evidence' was the work of one man who falsified the evidence.

It doesn't worry you that girls had to obtain a higher score than boys in
order to 'pass' the 11-plus simply because there were more grammar school
places for boys?

That certainly does, but could have quite easily been corrected without
wrecking the system for every child.

It was implicit in the organsisation. If you happened to be in the wrong year
- either more kids that year - or a brighter set of kids - or pitted against a
group that was coached (for an exam that was 'designed' not to be susceptible
to coaching! !!) then you might 'fail' even though your score was identical to
someone who 'passed' in another year.
And 'failing' at 11 meant that your school had far inferior equipment, a
narrower curriculum, and you could be automatically rejected for better jobs
for life no matter how capable you might be or become.

You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

Well... where I lived there certainly was.

Not on your description. How was the choice made between grammar schools and
technical grammar schools? In my experience there was no system at all.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Joe
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

You seem fairly knowledgable he how many multilaterals were there? I
have only ever been aware of the one I attended and its sister girls'
school. Why was the Comprehensive system used instead?

can you explain what you mean by multi-lateral?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Derek ^ wrote:
It's a symptom, it's not the disease. The disease is the British
attitude to the people that do the actual, tangible, productive work.

Agreed. [and almost back to relevance for the group!]
As a Technology teacher I had many arguments with people who thought that the
subject was there to let less capable kids shine after all the clever ones had
been creamed off to do academic stuff. My attitude was that the cream were the
ones capable of combining skills and knowledge across the curriculum.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
There are also a wide range of fees in the private sector, so with the
contribution that would be obtained by a voucher equivalent to the
cost of education in a state school today, plus tax relief on fees,
far more choice would be available to far more people.

Which would leave public-sector schools coping with the kids of parents who
didn't care. What all schools need are parents with clout who will ensure that
resources and teaching are kept up to standard.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Derek ^ wrote:
Tonight's Yorkshire Evening Post, front page story:

I've no knowledge of the individuals or their circumstances but have found
that, if you reverse the 'facts' in any local paper 'story' you might get
close to the truth. ;-(

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:04:17 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:



So none of them at secondary school were told they were just marking time
before going into the mill?

That's a very jaundiced view. All have become moderately to very successful
in their chosen careers. That is actually what ultimately matters

Were told by the headteacher - in a case I'm thinking about.

Very inappropriate. Was, is and always will be.



None of them notice the gross imbalance between funding for grammar and
secondary modern schools? You're not bothered that the 11-plus was sold as
a selective examination when all it did was cream off the number of places
available in far better provisioned grammar schools?

That's a loaded way to describe the situation, but I see nothing whatever
wrong in using a selective examination to select suitable education for
each child.

Neither do I. That's what was promised - but that was never the case.

The solution would have been to address the issues with the system as
it was, not to completely wreck it.


If the implication of that is that one form of education is more expensive
to provide than another, then so be it.

One form was given the vast bulk of the money. In education you can always use
all the money you receive.

Yes of course. Unfortunately, spreading it equally by head doesn't
produce the optimum outcome when taken across the student population
as a whole.




I don't see the need to keep attempting to equalise things all the way down
the track. This would be running the same argument that everybody should be
paid the same, and clearly that's just as much of a nonsense.

So it's OK to channel twice as much money to grammar schools 'because the kids
there matter more'?

That's a loaded and emotive way to express it.

However, if channeling twice as much money to one form of education
vs. another is needed in order for it to be effective, then I think
that that is entirely justified.

A five or six year course in medical school clearly costs more than a
standard three year degree. There are countless other examples.

However, that is how long it takes to complete that form of education
and it is deemed that that is worthwhile to "society" or to the
economy or both.

I see no reason not to apply the same principle all the way through
education.

It doesn't worry you that girls had to obtain a higher score than boys in
order to 'pass' the 11-plus simply because there were more grammar school
places for boys?

That certainly does, but could have quite easily been corrected without
wrecking the system for every child.

It was implicit in the organsisation. If you happened to be in the wrong year
- either more kids that year - or a brighter set of kids - or pitted against a
group that was coached (for an exam that was 'designed' not to be susceptible
to coaching! !!) then you might 'fail' even though your score was identical to
someone who 'passed' in another year.

It's implicit in any situation where there is competition. That's
how life is. Unless one completely eliminates the notion of
competition and passing and failing at things then there will always
be examples where people feel hard done by.



And 'failing' at 11 meant that your school had far inferior equipment, a
narrower curriculum, and you could be automatically rejected for better jobs
for life no matter how capable you might be or become.

That's a gross extrapolation which doesn't stand scrutiny.



You're not concerned that there was meant to be three types of school -
grammar, technical grammar, and secondary modern - but most authorities
never bothered about the second or hardly developed the idea - and there
was no attempt to select for those fitted for such an education?

Well... where I lived there certainly was.

Not on your description. How was the choice made between grammar schools and
technical grammar schools? In my experience there was no system at all.

There were grammar, selective and secondary modern schools. Initial
selection was made at age 11 with further opportunities to change at
13 and 15 and again for A level.

--

..andy