On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:14:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my children
have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

Sadly this does not appear to be the norm as is evidenced by the
declining standards produced.

If you have noticed declining standards then you're looking at the wrong
figures.


I've looked at the exam papers, the grades and the eventual outcomes.
We both know what Disraeli had to say on the subject of figures.


--

..andy

In article , Joe
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Joe
wrote:

Basically a streamed comprehensive. Six-form intake, two grammar, two
technical and two secondary modern in the first year. Promotions and
relegations throughout the time there, though most in the first year. It
was possible to arrive in the lower s-m stream and do A-levels (someone
in my year did). Only about three forms left by the fifth year (it was
possible to leave before 16 in those days).

My only real criticism of such is the size of such institutions in
practice.

Around 850 during the years I was there, including the sixth form. Not
large as comprehensives go today. Class size around 35.

Y7 - 6x35 = 210
Y8 - 6x35 = 210
Y9 - 6x35 = 210
Y10- 6x35 = 210
Y11- 3x35 = 105
Y12 - 2x25 = 50
Y13 - 2x25 = 50

Total 1045

A bit large. My school (approx 1000 specialist grammar inc 6th form) could
cope because the facilities that would be required for a wider curriculum - eg
commerce, technology (not to mention girls!) - were ignored. One (very)
excellent comprehensive that I taught at worked by being significantly larger
(+ it had a sneaky way of ensuring that pupils and parents were highly
motivated - comprehensive but *very* selective). It was, in many ways, too
large though.

--
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

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my children
have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

Sadly this does not appear to be the norm as is evidenced by the
declining standards produced.

If you have noticed declining standards then you're looking at the wrong
figures.

What figures are YOU looking at?

OK, to be honest, due to my server suddenly losing retention, I've "lost the
thread", but I've scrolled through the last couple of days, and really the
argument seems to be going round in circles.

John C seems to have this idea of a socialist utopia, but of course it never
works. Ever wondered why "Socialist Worker" is often given as an example of
what an oxymoron is?
Scum rises to the top at both ends - ultra capitalist societies like the USA
have far greater extremes of wealth and poor than the UK, and near-socialist
"the harder you try, the harder you get penalised" 'ideals' of the UK just
mean that those that abuse the state hardest win, and the massively wealthy
off-shore all their stuff anyway.

There's a middle way, and to be honest, John, I'd perhaps be a little more
interested in your arguments if your knee-jerk reaction to any idea except
that of calling each other "comrade" and taxing everyone earning more than
minimum wage at 90% didn't invoke the cry of "Daily Mail" from you.

Yes, I'm exaggerating slightly before you point it out, but if you take an
amalgam of your posts, it comes across a bit like "I don't have what you
have, therefore I neither want to attempt to achieve that, nor allow you to
keep that, or allow you the choices that what you have allows." And even
though that was possibly the most difficult to follow sentence I've ever
typed, it's a bit like fox hunting. It's purely a perceived class thing - "I
don't like the trappings of pageantry that the class I perceive you to
belong to has while enjoying your sport, so I'm going on a fox-ban march on
my way to hooking a piece of jagged metal through the very sensitive mouth
of a fish, and then I'll hurl it back for someone else to do the same, while
the wound in it's mouth gets a toxic infection". There - if that doesn't
stir up the hornets nest, I don't know what will!

BTW, I'm not pro or anti fox hunting or fishing.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:14:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my children
have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

Sadly this does not appear to be the norm as is evidenced by the
declining standards produced.

If you have noticed declining standards then you're looking at the wrong
figures.

I've looked at the exam papers, the grades and the eventual outcomes.
We both know what Disraeli had to say on the subject of figures.

Whilst the exam papers were the totality of the GCE and A Levels when I took
them that is no longer the case. Comparing examination papers is not comparing
like with like. When one-third of the population (or less) goes on to take any
examination after the age of 11 it is far easier to show that a large
proportion of examinees reach a certain level. When over 99% are examined some
exam papers have to be set at a lower level. The high flyers today compare
very well with those in my days starting a sixth form course a year early and
passing S-Level exams in the third year sixth or going to university at age
17. Except that there are more of them. Those who were leaving school with few
numeracy or literacy skills at age 15 are now passing those levels at primary
school.
There are changes. I learnt my times tables forwards and backwards and to 16x
and that is rare today. I learnt poems. I learnt to box - real bouts and real
blood in the classroom under teacher supervision - aged 8. I didn't learn to
use a calculator or a computer, woodwork lasted only one year (but my towel
rack was quite good!), I never had any cookery, metalwork, electronics, or
commerce lessons.

Education is different. Kids learn different things. Kids are worse at some of
the sort of things I was (supposed) to have learnt. Standards declined? No.

--
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 ,
Jonathan wrote:
John C seems to have this idea of a socialist utopia, but of course it never
works.

That's what I said. It would be a great idea. If only!

[Snip]

There's a middle way

You said that you exaggerated. In opposing entrenched views that's what I have
done of course. My views are hardly one-sided and certainly not wedded to a
particular party line. They are against those repeating an unthinking party
line or pursuing policies without admitting the down-side of those policies -
eg those extolling the system of grammar schools without accepting the
existence of secondary modern schools.

I'd count a market economy under careful scrutiny of elected representatives
to be a reasonable middle way. Wouldn't you?

I want to be confident that the power tools that I buy are likely to be safe
to use and my government and local authority work to ensure that manufacturers
and importers wanting to make money but careless of my safety are brought to
heel before their dangerous offerings reach the market.

--
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 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

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:56:05 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:14:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my children
have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

Sadly this does not appear to be the norm as is evidenced by the
declining standards produced.

If you have noticed declining standards then you're looking at the wrong
figures.

I've looked at the exam papers, the grades and the eventual outcomes.
We both know what Disraeli had to say on the subject of figures.

Whilst the exam papers were the totality of the GCE and A Levels when I took
them that is no longer the case. Comparing examination papers is not comparing
like with like.

For a given subject, e.g. in maths or science, the basics haven't
changed. Kundt's tube still has a plunger, and Archimedes still
screws.

The basics of any subject remain important, however they are packaged
up, and in that respect, standards have most certainly declined.


When one-third of the population (or less) goes on to take any
examination after the age of 11 it is far easier to show that a large
proportion of examinees reach a certain level. When over 99% are examined some
exam papers have to be set at a lower level.

That's the whole point. There should be completely separate exams so
that the achievers are stretched.

The high flyers today compare
very well with those in my days starting a sixth form course a year early and
passing S-Level exams in the third year sixth or going to university at age
17.

The question there is whether they are universities or "universities".

Except that there are more of them. Those who were leaving school with few
numeracy or literacy skills at age 15 are now passing those levels at primary
school.

As indeed they were before the introduction of comprehensive
education.


There are changes. I learnt my times tables forwards and backwards and to 16x
and that is rare today. I learnt poems. I learnt to box - real bouts and real
blood in the classroom under teacher supervision - aged 8. I didn't learn to
use a calculator or a computer, woodwork lasted only one year (but my towel
rack was quite good!), I never had any cookery, metalwork, electronics, or
commerce lessons.

Education is different. Kids learn different things. Kids are worse at some of
the sort of things I was (supposed) to have learnt. Standards declined? No.

The acid test is the outcome. I am far from being convinced that
today's schools are producing the education required to match the
abilities of the pupils and the needs of the economy.



--

..andy

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:50:18 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:19:39 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


Unfortunately, in order to achieve economic success, it is necessary
to have inequality and unfairness in a multitude of areas

Why?

I understand that for one person or company to get to the top they may
believe that they have to damage the competition.

You may understand that. I don't.

That's what you appeared to be suggesting.

Certainly not. That's simply your preconceived notion that in order for
somebody to succeed they have to trample the "competition".

Please do try to read what I wrote. Read it. Read it again please and continue
reading it until such time as you actually manage to read what I wrote. I did
**not** write anything like your contrived idea.

That's good. It was you who was saying that you thought that I was
suggesting that trampling of competition was necessary for success.

I wasn't and made that completely clear.




Of course stopping anti-social activities (as long as the populace as a
whole rather than the government thinks that they are anti-social) is
reasonable.

We have an elected government. If they fail badly to do what we want then they
are out.

Eventually.


I know of no reason why the whole of society cannot be economically
successful without equality and fairness.

Because life isn't like that. We don't all have the same abilities, nor
the same motivations or indeed the same ambitions.

You are reading the words in an entirely different way than their true
meaning. No one is suggesting capping abilities.

It's the inevitable outcome of state sponsored "fairness".

Your Daily Mailness is coming out again.

What is "Daily Mailness"? Are you referring to said newspaper? I've
never read the thing.

What we collectively want to do is
done mainly through local and national government action.

Who is this "we"? I certainly don't need the government, be it
local or national to hold my hand and tell me what I "collectively"
want to do. There is very little that actually *requires* the
involvement of government for success to be achieved. If people do
want to achieve things beyond their immediate capability, most are
more than capable of figuring out who to work with to achieve it
without having it imposed from on high.


What you are
supporting is criticism designed to destroy that collective will - usually
because it conflicts with the pecuniary interests of rich parasites.

That's just emotive silliness and there are two fallacies in your
statement - firstly that a collective will is that important, and
secondly that wealth implies not having worked to achieve it.




It simply isn't realistic or productive for the state to attempt to
impose "fairness" all the way down the line. It demotivates the
achievers so that they either don't bother to achieve any more or leave,
and is cruel for those without the ability to achieve in some areas but
with ability in others.

The only people who usually complain in this way are those intent on
nefarious activities and object to the state making reasonable laws to
stop them.

That's a very jaundiced view which really doesn't stand scrutiny.

So gives some examples - real ones that you encounter or described by an
objective source. The only time I see those examples described as typical
rather than exceptional is in - well you know which tabloids produce the
reactionary fiction.

No I don't, because I don't read any of them.




Some people were demotivated when they were stopped from adding floor
sweepings to floor, returning beer spillage to the barrel, selling drugs,
operating pyramid scams, &c. Good. I like to see such people demotivated.

So do I.

You won't see me supporting demotivation of potential achievers where
their projects will be of benefit to society (as well as themslves). I've
spent much of my life finding ways to encourage motivation and success.

I'm pleased. Generally the best way in which the government can help is by
staying out of people's affairs.

Oh dear! If only the government would stay out those nice people from Tescos,
Microsoft, Sky would buy out or kill off their troublesome competitors and
really look after us with their wonderful monopolies ...

.. wouldn't they?

They have been pretty effective at achieving large or dominant market
shares despite the interference of governments.

The challenge for the competitors is to produce something better or
more attractive to the buyers of products and services. It doesn't
need government meddling to achieve that.



I do know that a society (as opposed to individuals) *cannot* become
economically successful where inequalities are too large.

I know that a "society" (whatever that is) or a civilisation is not
successful economically or culturally unless there are inequalities and
a hierarchy.

One only has to look at the history books or the animal kingdom to
figure that one out.

If you are selective in your reading you are quite correct. You are
obviously selective. You are also selective in your understanding of what
you read because cooperation for a group is by far the fundamental way
societies develop. You appear to have been quite thoroughly brainwashed.

Hardly. Society is a nebulous term. The great advances in economics and
in civilisation have been through the innovation and work of individuals,
not through collectivism.

You got very close to calling me a communist there.

Did I? Good grief.. Heaven forbid....


The ideas may come from
individuals. The advances happen when individuals agree to make changes for
the whole of their society.

Oh sure. Dream on.



Think in terms of what the great philosophers, scientists and inventors
achieved. Then look at the results of collectivism in the soviet union,
former eastern Europe....

You managed it in the end. Very nicely put and it couldn't have been bettered
by the master himself. Has nobody told you that McCarthyism is a distinctly
nasty little idea to follow?

I agree, and nobody was suggesting following it.



When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western Civilisation is said "It
would be a good idea". Communism would be a good idea - but it doesn't exist
and has never existed. In the meantime social democracy is a whole lot better
than dictatorships and being able to vote out those who organise the framework
of your life is a damned good idea - as long as the elecorate are sufficiently
educated to appreciate that unfettered capitalism is just another means of
putting unelected dictators in control of our lives and just as unhealthy as
Stalin & co.

I'd settle just for democracy without the "social" label.

There isn't unfettered capitalism any more than communism was ever
anything meaningful. Sooner or later people find either unacceptable
and shop elsewhere. Either way, they can make up their own minds
without needing to be treated as a herd.


--

..andy

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:50:00 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

But your proposal _would_ result in less money for state schools if
any parents chose to use their voucher in a private school. It's
really simple - assuming there is no overall change in the level of
state funding. Every voucher spent in a private school would take
money away from the state school. Look at it another way: If you
spend your voucher at a private school you would be paying less
personally. Where has that money come from? The answer is from the
state school system.

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?

But your scheme would only give more choice to the more wealthy and
less choice to the less wealthy. I find that very unpalatable.


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.

See above.

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.

But many schools would be destroyed as a result.

Mark

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
When one-third of the population (or less) goes on to take any examination
after the age of 11 it is far easier to show that a large proportion of
examinees reach a certain level. When over 99% are examined some exam
papers have to be set at a lower level.

That's the whole point. There should be completely separate exams so that
the achievers are stretched.

There are.

--
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:
Education is different. Kids learn different things. Kids are worse at
some of the sort of things I was (supposed) to have learnt. Standards
declined? No.

The acid test is the outcome. I am far from being convinced that today's
schools are producing the education required to match the abilities of the
pupils and the needs of the economy.

That's quite a different matter. The needs have changed quite substantially
and there is now far less demand for the illiterate mill-fodder needed in the
50s.

--
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:
What you are supporting is criticism designed to destroy that collective
will - usually because it conflicts with the pecuniary interests of rich
parasites.

That's just emotive silliness and there are two fallacies in your statement
- firstly that a collective will is that important, and secondly that
wealth implies not having worked to achieve it.

Collective will is not important; it's essential. Without it we are doomed to
exist as small groups each dictated to by a leader imposing his will by
violence or fear, each group pussyfooting around others or taking over weaker
groups. Collective will provides the means whereby everyone in a group can
contribute to decisions for the group and, by extension, a way to organise
larger groups peacefully.

And whilst there are certainly rich people who are not parasites I restricted
my comment to those that are both. You really do struggle with the logic of
the English language ...

--
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:
Oh dear! If only the government would stay out those nice people from
Tescos, Microsoft, Sky would buy out or kill off their troublesome
competitors and really look after us with their wonderful monopolies ...

.. wouldn't they?

They have been pretty effective at achieving large or dominant market
shares despite the interference of governments.

Well Tescos are regularly challenged and need government action on a regular
basis in order to stop them taking over the lot. Sky is working very hard to
severly damage the BBC and is using its monopolistic position to do that.
Microsoft has somehow managed to avoid the government action that should have
happened some time ago indicating that the present laws are not strong enough.

The challenge for the competitors is to produce something better or more
attractive to the buyers of products and services. It doesn't need
government meddling to achieve that.

Tut. So what happens when competitors do produce something better and the
monopolies use their power and money to simply swat them aside? Microsoft do
that on a regular basis. Apple only exist because Microsoft had to bail them
out in order to avoid losing a court case brought against them by the US
government.
Do you have any idea how much computer development has stalled over the last
10 years because of Microsoft's interference?
Your complacency is apparently based on ignorance.

--
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:
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?

Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher.

--
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:
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.

Because your ideas are straight out of their back pocket and follow the party
line without intervening thought. If you do have independent thought then
think through the results of your ideas. You rejected my criticism of your
(the Tory Party's) idea of school vouchers but explain what will happen with
the sink schools and redundant school that you will inevitably produce. Don't
fudge it. Vouchers *will* produce sink schools and lots of expensive redundant
schools. Who pays for them? Who is responsible for the damaged education
whilst all this is in motion? Who gets to live near the sink schools? Who pays
for the high cost of running the sink school? Which poor sods gets to teach in
those schools? Who lives near those schools? Who pays to mop up the fall out
produced by kids going to those school - and throughout their lives?

I don't mind ideas different from my own as long as they are thought through
ideas and the downside laid out and accepted.

--
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

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:56:05 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:14:44 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my
children
have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

Sadly this does not appear to be the norm as is evidenced by the
declining standards produced.

If you have noticed declining standards then you're looking at the
wrong
figures.

I've looked at the exam papers, the grades and the eventual outcomes.
We both know what Disraeli had to say on the subject of figures.

Whilst the exam papers were the totality of the GCE and A Levels when I
took
them that is no longer the case. Comparing examination papers is not
comparing
like with like.

For a given subject, e.g. in maths or science, the basics haven't
changed. Kundt's tube still has a plunger, and Archimedes still
screws.

The basics of any subject remain important, however they are packaged
up, and in that respect, standards have most certainly declined.


When one-third of the population (or less) goes on to take any
examination after the age of 11 it is far easier to show that a large
proportion of examinees reach a certain level. When over 99% are examined
some
exam papers have to be set at a lower level.

That's the whole point. There should be completely separate exams so
that the achievers are stretched.

The high flyers today compare
very well with those in my days starting a sixth form course a year early
and
passing S-Level exams in the third year sixth or going to university at
age
17.

The question there is whether they are universities or "universities".

Except that there are more of them. Those who were leaving school with
few
numeracy or literacy skills at age 15 are now passing those levels at
primary
school.

As indeed they were before the introduction of comprehensive
education.


There are changes. I learnt my times tables forwards and backwards and to
16x
and that is rare today. I learnt poems. I learnt to box - real bouts and
real
blood in the classroom under teacher supervision - aged 8. I didn't learn
to
use a calculator or a computer, woodwork lasted only one year (but my
towel
rack was quite good!), I never had any cookery, metalwork, electronics,
or
commerce lessons.

Education is different. Kids learn different things. Kids are worse at
some of
the sort of things I was (supposed) to have learnt. Standards declined?
No.

The acid test is the outcome. I am far from being convinced that
today's schools are producing the education required to match the
abilities of the pupils and the needs of the economy.

Matt, why not throw the towel now as you are taking a real beating.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:40:54 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

There are also a wide range of fees in the private sector

Maybe not as wide ranging as they should be:

http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article326055.ece

quote:

"The OFT said "regular and systematic exchange of confidential
information" between the 50 had led to parents being charged higher
fees than they would have otherwise been. In the three years covered
by the charges - 2001 and 2004 - school fee rises were often as much
as three times the level of inflation."

"The OFT has ruled that regular contact between the 50 - conducted
through Sevenoaks School, which collated information about fee rises
that was then passed on to the others - was contrary to the
Competition Act of 1998.

The information was regularly updated and recirculated to the schools
involved between four and six times each year as they went through
their annual budget-setting processes.

The OFT said the ruling "only relates to this particular agreement". A
spokesman added: "There could be more investigation into other
agreements""

cheers,
Pete.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:51:51 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:50:00 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

But your proposal _would_ result in less money for state schools if
any parents chose to use their voucher in a private school. It's
really simple - assuming there is no overall change in the level of
state funding. Every voucher spent in a private school would take
money away from the state school. Look at it another way: If you
spend your voucher at a private school you would be paying less
personally. Where has that money come from? The answer is from the
state school system.

No you're missing the point. My starting premise was that the
sourcing and financing could and should be separated from the
delivery. The second point is that the state does not *need* to own
and run schools, although it could. However, that would be alongside
schools in the private sector or having a trust status.

The first key thing is that the money in the pot remains the same or
could even be supplemented by those parents wishing to do so.

The second key thing is that schools, be they in any of these sectors
would have greater autonomy from government control and control of
their destiny.

Both of these provide for the good existing schools which are held
back by bureaucracy to excell and make themselves increasingly
attractive to parents.

In other words, the parents and pupils get to decide, along with the
teachers how things run and not the civil servants.

A much better way of proceeding.

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?

But your scheme would only give more choice to the more wealthy and
less choice to the less wealthy. I find that very unpalatable.

It gives everybody a choice, just as it does for every other service
or item that we buy. I see no issue with that.

Moreover, it encourages the schools to focus on providing a good
quality service. If they do then people will use them. If they
don't, then people won't. It's a very effective way of raising
standards to what they should be.



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.

But many schools would be destroyed as a result.


This is a pessimistic view. The reality is that the good ones would
excell and the poor ones would close. That is what should happen.



--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:16:42 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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?

Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher.

Well there you go.



--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:24:16 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

Because your ideas are straight out of their back pocket and follow the party
line without intervening thought.

What a curious notion.

If you do have independent thought then
think through the results of your ideas. You rejected my criticism of your
(the Tory Party's) idea of school vouchers but explain what will happen with
the sink schools and redundant school that you will inevitably produce.
Don't
fudge it.

I've already explained it very clearly several times. The point is
to separate funding from delivery.

Why do you automatically assume that sink schools would be produced?
Doesn't this rather demean those who you imagine would go to them? I
expect that they would find that offensive.

The point is also to empower schools to make their own local decisions
about which way to go and to deliver what is appropriate. I suspect
that many would opt to excell in certain educational areas and subject
mixes. This would be very effective because it would allow for more
resources to be put on specialist areas in a school rather than trying
to be jacks of all trades and masters of none.


Vouchers *will* produce sink schools and lots of expensive redundant
schools.

Schools will only be redundant if they make themselves so by not
providing what is required.

Who pays for them? Who is responsible for the damaged education
whilst all this is in motion?

Why do you think their would be damage to education? It was deemed
that there would not be anything unacceptable when comprehensive
education was embarked on and the national curriculum commenced.



I don't mind ideas different from my own as long as they are thought through
ideas and the downside laid out and accepted.

The downsides are really only in the minds of those who believe that
the state has to be in the funding *and* the delivery of education
business.

Once one appreciates that this is perfectly possible, and actually
desirable, then the shackles of state control fall away.



--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:58:26 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Education is different. Kids learn different things. Kids are worse at
some of the sort of things I was (supposed) to have learnt. Standards
declined? No.

The acid test is the outcome. I am far from being convinced that today's
schools are producing the education required to match the abilities of the
pupils and the needs of the economy.

That's quite a different matter. The needs have changed quite substantially
and there is now far less demand for the illiterate mill-fodder needed in the
50s.

It seems that the market has moved to needing lots of media studies
experts. Presumably this is so that they can put their own spin on
government failure rather than the government having to pay to do it
for them.


--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:15:45 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:40:54 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

There are also a wide range of fees in the private sector

Maybe not as wide ranging as they should be:

http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article326055.ece

quote:

"The OFT said "regular and systematic exchange of confidential
information" between the 50 had led to parents being charged higher
fees than they would have otherwise been. In the three years covered
by the charges - 2001 and 2004 - school fee rises were often as much
as three times the level of inflation."


So 50 suppliers have allegedly banded together and done a price fixing
deal. So what?

It doesn't really need somebody from the OFT to figure out that fee
rises are 3x inflation. I think that their customers can work that
one out.

I think if you were to look across the whole sector, you would see
quite a range. Even so, within a range, it would not be surprising
that the major costs of buildings, maintenance and staff would be
fairly similar.


--

..andy

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Matt, why not throw the towel now as you are taking a real beating.

Dribble, if you had been paying attention Andy Hall and I had a
disagreement further back on this thread. I prefer state education
and totally believe in the NHS. Andy from what he posted prefers
something costing much more and providing something rather inferior.
Personally I can't understand it especially given his good taste in
tools :-)



--

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:08:04 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
What you are supporting is criticism designed to destroy that collective
will - usually because it conflicts with the pecuniary interests of rich
parasites.

That's just emotive silliness and there are two fallacies in your statement
- firstly that a collective will is that important, and secondly that
wealth implies not having worked to achieve it.

Collective will is not important; it's essential.

Oh dear. What a lot of nonsense.

Without it we are doomed to
exist as small groups each dictated to by a leader imposing his will by
violence or fear, each group pussyfooting around others or taking over weaker
groups.

Of course we are not. This is the classic excuse used by those who
would seek to do people's thinking for them.


Collective will provides the means whereby everyone in a group can
contribute to decisions for the group and, by extension, a way to organise
larger groups peacefully.

That's simply demeocracy and it doesn't require a collective will. It
simply means that those who would wish to govern lay out their store
and individual people get to decide which to buy.

Presumably you found the union block voting arrangements pretty
attractive?



And whilst there are certainly rich people who are not parasites I restricted
my comment to those that are both.

Ah, I see. You weren't clear on that point.

You really do struggle with the logic of
the English language ...

That's an area where I have no difficulty at all, thanks.


--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:15:30 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Oh dear! If only the government would stay out those nice people from
Tescos, Microsoft, Sky would buy out or kill off their troublesome
competitors and really look after us with their wonderful monopolies ...

.. wouldn't they?

They have been pretty effective at achieving large or dominant market
shares despite the interference of governments.

Well Tescos are regularly challenged and need government action on a regular
basis in order to stop them taking over the lot.

This doesn't *need* government action at all. What is needed is for
their competitors to sort themselves out and to provide what their
customers want to buy. Tesco has done that very effectively and
deserve to have their market position as a result.


Sky is working very hard to
severly damage the BBC and is using its monopolistic position to do that.
Microsoft has somehow managed to avoid the government action that should have
happened some time ago indicating that the present laws are not strong enough.

The present laws are more than strong enough. What is again needed is
effective competition by others having what people want to buy.


The challenge for the competitors is to produce something better or more
attractive to the buyers of products and services. It doesn't need
government meddling to achieve that.

Tut. So what happens when competitors do produce something better and the
monopolies use their power and money to simply swat them aside? Microsoft do
that on a regular basis. Apple only exist because Microsoft had to bail them
out in order to avoid losing a court case brought against them by the US
government.
Do you have any idea how much computer development has stalled over the last
10 years because of Microsoft's interference?
Your complacency is apparently based on ignorance.

Not at all. I've been in the IT industry long enough to have seen it
all before. In the 70s and 80s, IBM dominated, and to some extent
DEC in certain sectors. PCs became popular because users wanted to
declare UDI from IT departments and do their own thing. We see
outsourcing coming and going. Another fashion.
It all runs on what people sell and what they buy. Fortunately,
governments have sufficiently little influence over that.



--

..andy

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:09:00 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
However, in your continual attacks on the "Poll Tax", you
ignore the discounts and exemptions that were given to
people - why?

Because it doesn't suit a socialist's cause to have to face the truth.

If you read my earlier post you'll find that my widowed mother living on
the OAP actually paid more with the poll tax than rates.

Significantly more? How much in % terms?

We were better off under the poll tax because we had 3 kids at school.

Next door were worse off by about 20% but their kids were all working
and they had 4 salaries coming in.


It was a typical Tory idea of cutting taxes for the *very* well off, but
fooling middle England it would be a good idea for them.

Politicians have always been so. How much community charge does "Oh No
Antonio" pay on his £3 million Belgravia (?) house?

DG

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:56:40 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article . com,
Alan wrote:
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?

The tabloids and Tory right-wingers had campaigns comparing the rates paid by
families with 3 or 4 working members and retired widows. To put this anomaly
right it was suggested that the government add a 'per head' element into the
rates. Thatcher was then persuaded to make it entirely 'per head' as this
would go down well with the Tory faithful.

She was conned by somebody that if "everybody" paid it the charge
for "everybody" could be small. I've heard the figure of 50 quid per
annum mentioned !

From square one, the special pleading from the single interest groups
rolled in, and the cost for "everyone else" went higher and higher.

Then the local authorities (mostly Labour controlled) thought it was
their turn to start troughing in on the change, as they had done in
the LA re-organisation in the '70s, and indeed yet again sometime
later.

When everyone realised that ths
would be even more unfair than the rates which only had anomalies at the edges
it was too late as Thatcher had then made up her mind and wouldn't change it
even if the coutry burnt.

She also made the big mistake of doing a trial run in Scotland. They
*hated* her for that, (we have relatives up there) . And IGWS there
being "winners and Losers" in these matters, those who lost in
Scotland were doubly indignant and vociferous.

Community charge started later in England by that time the "rent a
trots" were fully organised.

A fine kettle of fish.


My uncle's house at the time of rates backed onto a park, so he paid
more than the person over the road. He used to fill around 15 sacks a
year with leaves that fell off the trees in the park, and had beer and
whisky bottles thrown over his fence regularly by the local 'yoofs'.
And he had to pay extra for this pleasure!

Very unlikely. The rateable value took size and amenities into account but
hardly 'backing onto a park'.

An estate agent would regard it as a valuable amenity. If only because
it meant nobody would be building over your back fence, usually.

The number of toilets in the house used to affect your water rates.

How much was the difference?

DG

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
And whilst there are certainly rich people who are not parasites I
restricted my comment to those that are both.

Ah, I see. You weren't clear on that point.

I wrote it in English. It made clear sense when read in that same language.

--
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:
I've been in the IT industry long enough to have seen it all before. In
the 70s and 80s, IBM dominated, and to some extent DEC in certain sectors.
PCs became popular because users wanted to declare UDI from IT departments
and do their own thing. We see outsourcing coming and going. Another
fashion. It all runs on what people sell and what they buy. Fortunately,
governments have sufficiently little influence over that.

Fortunately the UE has more balls than the UK government and is more
effective than the USA courts.

--
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:
If you do have independent thought then think through the results of your
ideas. You rejected my criticism of your (the Tory Party's) idea of school
vouchers but explain what will happen with the sink schools and redundant
school that you will inevitably produce. Don't fudge it.

I've already explained it very clearly several times. The point is to
separate funding from delivery.

No. That was the PR excuse. The *point* was to corruptly move more money from
taxation into fat cats' bank accounts.

--
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:
But many schools would be destroyed as a result.

This is a pessimistic view.

It's the downside of your proposal. It's rather a large and expensive downside
- and you expect the taxpayer and the individuals hit by it to pay the cost
whilst you and your mates pick up all those extra profits going into private
schools.

--
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 ,
John Cartmell wrote:
Fortunately the UE

I'm sure I thought "EU" when I wrote that! ;-)

--
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 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:07:22 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
But many schools would be destroyed as a result.

This is a pessimistic view.

It's the downside of your proposal. It's rather a large and expensive downside
- and you expect the taxpayer and the individuals hit by it to pay the cost
whilst you and your mates pick up all those extra profits going into private
schools.


You're still missing the point and are using emotive arguments. I
haven't said anything about profits or extra profits, only the
separation of funding from delivery. I already said that the state
investment in education would remain the same.

The advantage would be that the users would have the opportunity to
choose between different schools of which the state might run some and
other organisations might run others.




--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:04:55 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
If you do have independent thought then think through the results of your
ideas. You rejected my criticism of your (the Tory Party's) idea of school
vouchers but explain what will happen with the sink schools and redundant
school that you will inevitably produce. Don't fudge it.

I've already explained it very clearly several times. The point is to
separate funding from delivery.

No. That was the PR excuse. The *point* was to corruptly move more money from
taxation into fat cats' bank accounts.


Oh dear. I think that you are looking for PR excuses because you have
become familiar with a a government that operates in that way.

Unable to produce a reasoned discussion you resort to terms like "fat
cats". I'm not very impressed.


--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:21:33 +0000, Matt
wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Matt, why not throw the towel now as you are taking a real beating.

Dribble, if you had been paying attention Andy Hall and I had a
disagreement further back on this thread. I prefer state education
and totally believe in the NHS. Andy from what he posted prefers
something costing much more and providing something rather inferior.
Personally I can't understand it especially given his good taste in
tools :-)


Certainly I have good taste in tools. I certainly don't believe in
the NHS as it stands today or in the structure of education. To be
explicit, I think that the state can be in the business of organising
funding for both so that there is fair distribution of finance. I
don't think that the state needs to be in the delivery of either.

It does seem to be rather different to your view, Matt, doesn't it.?

I don't know why Dribble can't tell the difference either. I blame
the parents.



--

..andy

On 10 Nov 2005 19:38:45 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Matt writes:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Matt, why not throw the towel now as you are taking a real beating.

Dribble, if you had been paying attention Andy Hall and I had a
disagreement further back on this thread. I prefer state education
and totally believe in the NHS. Andy from what he posted prefers
something costing much more and providing something rather inferior.

Good Lord. How is that possible?


Quite. Considering that the NHS is the largest employer in Europe, it
is difficult to conceive of anything more expensive.


--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:01:42 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I've been in the IT industry long enough to have seen it all before. In
the 70s and 80s, IBM dominated, and to some extent DEC in certain sectors.
PCs became popular because users wanted to declare UDI from IT departments
and do their own thing. We see outsourcing coming and going. Another
fashion. It all runs on what people sell and what they buy. Fortunately,
governments have sufficiently little influence over that.

Fortunately the UE has more balls than the UK government and is more
effective than the USA courts.


ROTFL....



--

..andy

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:27:36 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
Fortunately the UE

I'm sure I thought "EU" when I wrote that! ;-)


I'm sure. It's still laughable


--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:21:33 +0000, Matt aka Lord Hall
wrote:

"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

Matt, why not throw the towel now as you are taking a real beating.

Dribble, if you had been paying attention Andy Hall and I had a
disagreement further back on this thread. I prefer state education
and totally believe in the NHS. Andy from what he posted prefers
something costing much more and providing something rather inferior.
Personally I can't understand it especially given his good taste in
tools :-)

Certainly I have good taste in tools.

Matt, Makitas have been proven to be overpriced and shoddy, right here on
this ng. Matt you are fooling no one.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:07:22 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
But many schools would be destroyed as a result.

This is a pessimistic view.

It's the downside of your proposal. It's rather a large and expensive
downside
- and you expect the taxpayer and the individuals hit by it to pay the
cost
whilst you and your mates pick up all those extra profits going into
private
schools.


You're still missing the point

Matt, he is not. He is lacing you.