In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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 know full well what you are saying. I'm just filling in the blanks that you
are deliberately leaving that way - like people who refer to 'the grammar
school system' pretending that secondary modern schools didn't exist as a
consequence.
You're lying like a good PR to sell an idea and I'm ****ing you off by
reminding everyone of the pitfalls.



[Snip]

--
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 Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:39:04 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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 know full well what you are saying. I'm just filling in the blanks that you
are deliberately leaving that way - like people who refer to 'the grammar
school system' pretending that secondary modern schools didn't exist as a
consequence.
You're lying like a good PR to sell an idea and I'm ****ing you off by
reminding everyone of the pitfalls.

Not really. I'm not ****ed off in the least. I haven't pretended
that secondary modern schools didn't exist - in fact I gave an
illustration of people who I know who went to them, were pretty
pleased with the outcome and went on to be very successful in their
chosen careers.

I certainly didn't say that all schools would be identical and equal
under a changed arrangement. In fact they wouldn't be. Having some
schools that focus more on academic learning, others on practical
skills etc. etc. while continuing to teach core numeracy and literacy
skills is eminently sensible. It allows greater concentration of
investment in staff and equipment for given subject areas and
achievement of excellence in them because the amount of duplication is
reduced.

It's remarkably inconsistent of you on the one hand to say that it is
unnacceptable for organisations like Tesco, Microsoft and Sky to have
large market shares and dominant positions, while on the other saying
that it is OK for the state to do the same with education and
healthcare.

--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:39:04 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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 know full well what you are saying. I'm just filling in the blanks that
you
are deliberately leaving that way - like people who refer to 'the grammar
school system' pretending that secondary modern schools didn't exist as a
consequence.
You're lying like a good PR to sell an idea and I'm ****ing you off by
reminding everyone of the pitfalls.

Not really. I'm not ****ed off in the least.

Matt, you are.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall writes:
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,

Second largest in the world, apparently.

3rd. Chinese army and the Indian railways beat it.

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's remarkably inconsistent of you on the one hand to say that it is
unnacceptable for organisations like Tesco, Microsoft and Sky to have large
market shares and dominant positions, while on the other saying that it is
OK for the state to do the same with education and healthcare.

When I have a (one person one) vote for the board at Tescos I'll revise my
comment.

--
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 Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:03:46 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Huge" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall writes:
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,

Second largest in the world, apparently.

3rd. Chinese army and the Indian railways beat it.

Either way, significantly worse since 1997.


--

..andy

John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

It's remarkably inconsistent of you on the one hand to say that it is
unnacceptable for organisations like Tesco, Microsoft and Sky to have large
market shares and dominant positions, while on the other saying that it is
OK for the state to do the same with education and healthcare.


When I have a (one person one) vote for the board at Tescos I'll revise my
comment.

You have much more than that: you can give them or deny them money.
That's *real* democracy. Imagine the politicians offering to make
their salaries a matter of voluntary public subscription...

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:55:43 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

I understand your concept of separating sourcing and delivery. I just
don't see how it could work.

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.

If the money remains the same then each "voucher" would be worth less
than the cost of one place at a state school. Either every parent
would have to make up the cost or schools would have to cut their
budgets accordingly.

What about children whose parents cannot supplement the budget?
Schools may be forced to exclude these children if they are to
survive.

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.

Schools can have greater autonomy without your scheme. There are
already levels of autonomy such as Foundation Schools (previously
Grant Maintained).

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 my experience this leads to greater bureaucracy as the Schools
themselves have more paperwork.

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

Some parents get a poorer set of choices. I am in favour of teachers,
governors and parents having more say.

A much better way of proceeding.

Better for some and worse for others.

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.

What kind of choice? Poorer people will have a worse choice that they
do now. I don't think that is fair.

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.

All the state schools I have experience with already have a good focus
on providing a quality service.

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.

I consider it a realistic view. I know of at least one good state
school whose has no leeway for a reduction in its budget.

Mark.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:55:28 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's remarkably inconsistent of you on the one hand to say that it is
unnacceptable for organisations like Tesco, Microsoft and Sky to have large
market shares and dominant positions, while on the other saying that it is
OK for the state to do the same with education and healthcare.

When I have a (one person one) vote for the board at Tescos I'll revise my
comment.

You are at liberty to by shares in order to have an influence on the
affairs of said company. They are trading at around 309p today.



--

..andy

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Quite. If the "services" offered by the State are that good, why do they
have to be provided at the point of a gun?

They don't.
You're trolling?

No he's not. He's asking a direct, and very much to the point
question - viz. why is there no choice of provider?



--

..andy

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:58:40 +0000, Mark wrote:



I understand your concept of separating sourcing and delivery. I just
don't see how it could work.

It works for pretty much every other service and product that we buy.



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.

If the money remains the same then each "voucher" would be worth less
than the cost of one place at a state school.

No. The value would be what is spent per child today.


Either every parent
would have to make up the cost or schools would have to cut their
budgets accordingly.

No. If they are providing a good education that parents want to
choose, then they will increase their income.


What about children whose parents cannot supplement the budget?
Schools may be forced to exclude these children if they are to
survive.

Wrong way round. The school should concentrate on and would have more
freedom to provide quality education that people will select. Today
that is done through Ofsted, who can only make a limited look at a
school. By empowering parents, the good schools will excell and
others would have the oppotunity to improve.



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.

Schools can have greater autonomy without your scheme. There are
already levels of autonomy such as Foundation Schools (previously
Grant Maintained).

These were certainly a better solution in the past than the present
comprehensive system because it permitted financial independence to a
degree. However, either way I think that the national curriculum
should be dumped as well.



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 my experience this leads to greater bureaucracy as the Schools
themselves have more paperwork.

Not really true. If you take a look at how an independent school in
the private sector runs, there is very, very little bureaucracy and
very little admin overhead. Quite often, it's a full time and a
part time secretary and a part time bursar and that' it. Parents
want their fees spent on teachers and facilities.



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

Some parents get a poorer set of choices. I am in favour of teachers,
governors and parents having more say.


So am I. Having the government out of the picture in terms of actual
running and policy of a school would enable that.



A much better way of proceeding.

Better for some and worse for others.

I think better for everybody.



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.

What kind of choice? Poorer people will have a worse choice that they
do now. I don't think that is fair.

No they won't - they'll have more choice. FOr example, there doesn't
have to be a geographical boundary or school catchment areas. If
people don't want to pay additional money for their education, they
don't have to. That's no different to today.



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.

All the state schools I have experience with already have a good focus
on providing a quality service.


I've sadly seen a rather different side to this with demotivated
teachers and all the rest of it.



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.

I consider it a realistic view. I know of at least one good state
school whose has no leeway for a reduction in its budget.

One more time. Nobody said anything about a reduction in its budget.
If it's a good school, then it will be able to attract more pupils and
increase its funding.


--

..andy

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:55:28 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's remarkably inconsistent of you on the one hand to say that it is
unnacceptable for organisations like Tesco, Microsoft and Sky to have
large market shares and dominant positions, while on the other saying
that it is OK for the state to do the same with education and healthcare.

When I have a (one person one) vote for the board at Tescos I'll revise my
comment.

You are at liberty to by shares in order to have an influence on the
affairs of said company. They are trading at around 309p today.

And I have no need to revise my comment. I am not inconsistent. Your criticism
is crap.

OK?

--
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:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Quite. If the "services" offered by the State are that good, why do they
have to be provided at the point of a gun?

They don't.
You're trolling?

No he's not. He's asking a direct, and very much to the point
question - viz. why is there no choice of provider?

He's lying.
There are services where for various reasons it is not appropriate to offer a
choice of provider and in those cases it is also inappropriate for them to be
under the control of a private company. Such services include those where it
would be stupid to provide multiple access points - eg gas, electricity,
telephone, water, sewerage - those where multiple provision would raise costs,
cause disruption, or produce conflict - eg fire, police, ambulance,
coastguard, trading standards, registrars - and those where competition would
remove a community provision - eg post, buses, trains, health, education.
Other consideration eg safety may also come into play.

State services are generally very good and cheap - but this is rarely
appreciated until privatised. ;-(

--
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:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Quite. If the "services" offered by the State are that good, why do
they
have to be provided at the point of a gun?

They don't.
You're trolling?

No he's not. He's asking a direct, and very much to the point
question - viz. why is there no choice of provider?

He's lying.
There are services where for various reasons it is not appropriate to
offer a
choice of provider and in those cases it is also inappropriate for them to
be
under the control of a private company. Such services include those where
it
would be stupid to provide multiple access points - eg gas, electricity,
telephone, water, sewerage - those where multiple provision would raise
costs,
cause disruption, or produce conflict - eg fire, police, ambulance,
coastguard, trading standards, registrars - and those where competition
would
remove a community provision - eg post, buses, trains, health, education.
Other consideration eg safety may also come into play.

State services are generally very good and cheap - but this is rarely
appreciated until privatised. ;-(

I couldn't agree more. Look at the privatised, money grabbing mess that
some well run nationalised industries turned into. A disgrace.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:15:52 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Quite. If the "services" offered by the State are that good, why do they
have to be provided at the point of a gun?

They don't.
You're trolling?

No he's not. He's asking a direct, and very much to the point
question - viz. why is there no choice of provider?

He's lying.

There is really no need to resort to this kind of accusation.

There are services where for various reasons it is not appropriate to offer a
choice of provider and in those cases it is also inappropriate for them to be
under the control of a private company.

Such are very, very few.

Such services include those where it
would be stupid to provide multiple access points - eg gas, electricity,
telephone, water, sewerage - those where multiple provision would raise costs,
cause disruption, or produce conflict - eg fire, police, ambulance,
coastguard, trading standards, registrars

These are all obvious and I already illustrated them in an earlier
post.



- and those where competition would
remove a community provision - eg post, buses, trains, health, education.

All of these can be quite easily operated outside of state control and
benefit from being so.


Other consideration eg safety may also come into play.

State services are generally very good and cheap.

They are almost always poor and very expensive when all costs to the
taxpayer are taken into account.

- but this is rarely
appreciated until privatised. ;-(

and the improvements are realised.


--

..andy

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:03:02 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:55:28 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's remarkably inconsistent of you on the one hand to say that it is
unnacceptable for organisations like Tesco, Microsoft and Sky to have
large market shares and dominant positions, while on the other saying
that it is OK for the state to do the same with education and healthcare.

When I have a (one person one) vote for the board at Tescos I'll revise my
comment.

You are at liberty to by shares in order to have an influence on the
affairs of said company. They are trading at around 309p today.

And I have no need to revise my comment. I am not inconsistent. Your criticism
is crap.

OK?


Not really.

I didn't make any criticism at all. I simply pointed out one way that
you can influence the behaviour of Tesco. Someone else pointed out
another which is where one chooses to shop.

These are simple enough. Why do you have difficulty with the
concepts?


--

..andy

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:30:41 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:
Wrong way round. The school should concentrate on and would have more
freedom to provide quality education that people will select. Today
that is done through Ofsted, who can only make a limited look at a
school. By empowering parents, the good schools will excell and
others would have the oppotunity to improve.

There is merit in the argument, but the devil's in the detail.
Unfortunately parents don't always select schools on grounds of quality
of education; some choose "faith" schools because of religious
affiliation.

OK. However, that is their choice.


Many more will chose exam results over "real" education.


But then what is "real" education? It means different things to
different people and in different environments. For someone with
high academic skills it could be an academic education; whereas
someone with practical skills would find it in that area and so on.

People choose on the basis of exam results because they believe for
right or for wrong that these are the passport to future prosperity
and happiness. It may or may not be true now and may or may not
*need* to be true in the future.



No they won't - they'll have more choice. FOr example, there doesn't
have to be a geographical boundary or school catchment areas. If
people don't want to pay additional money for their education, they
don't have to. That's no different to today.

This might work in urban areas but in rural areas there is usually only
one school - and that might be 10 miles away.

I agree that there is always going to be an issue of choice in rural
areas because the trade off becomes between what is on offer and
travel time. OTOH, it would certainly not be worse than what is
available today and with greater freedom of funding, more options by
way of residential courses on some subjects may become practical -
i.e. rather than attempting to teach woodwork with one lesson a week
using inadequate facilities, why not create a regional centre, really
well equipped, aavailable for courses once a year for a given school?


And in urban areas,
"successful" schools might be tempted to accept more pupils than they
have facilities for, meaning that although the academic education is
first-rate, subjects such as PE suffer.

Well..... i wasn't restricting thinking just to academic education. It
can be as broad as the imagination wants to make it. Facilities for
more advanced PE (as an example) can easily be provided more
effectively if several schools participate rather than replicating at
a second rate level in every school.



--

..andy

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:15:52 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:58 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Quite. If the "services" offered by the State are that good, why do
they
have to be provided at the point of a gun?

They don't.
You're trolling?

No he's not. He's asking a direct, and very much to the point
question - viz. why is there no choice of provider?

He's lying.

There is really no need to resort to this kind of accusation.

Matt, lies are lies.

"Andy Hall" aka Matt wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:03:02 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:55:28 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
It's remarkably inconsistent of you on the one hand to say that it
is
unnacceptable for organisations like Tesco, Microsoft and Sky to
have
large market shares and dominant positions, while on the other
saying
that it is OK for the state to do the same with education and
healthcare.

When I have a (one person one) vote for the board at Tescos I'll
revise my
comment.

You are at liberty to by shares in order to have an influence on the
affairs of said company. They are trading at around 309p today.

And I have no need to revise my comment. I am not inconsistent. Your
criticism
is crap.

OK?

Not really.

Matt, it is crap.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Ahh, the wisdom of my decision to killfile this **** several days ago
is confirmed.

So you only make use of the police, fire service, ambulance, &c at the point
of a gun? Or would you suggest the author of that claim was lying?

--
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

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

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.

The milk snatcher could probably be blamed for many of our current ills
but not that. The legislation that forced grammar schools to merge with
secondary moderns or go private was passed in 1976 and MT was totally
opposed to it.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

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.

The milk snatcher could probably be blamed for many of our current ills
but not that. The legislation that forced grammar schools to merge with
secondary moderns or go private was passed in 1976 and MT was totally
opposed to it.

Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher. Have you checked the numbers?

--
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

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

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.

The milk snatcher could probably be blamed for many of our current ills
but not that. The legislation that forced grammar schools to merge with
secondary moderns or go private was passed in 1976 and MT was totally
opposed to it.

Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher. Have you checked the numbers?

You mean she personally required education authorities to go
comprehensive? No chance. It was the loony left that did that in 1976.
As there are (or were until recently) a few real grammar schools left in
the state sector I suspect that the legislation that gave parents the
vote on whether schools switch was her attempt to limit the damage when
she came to power in 1979. Trying to reverse the changes already made,
or even those in progress would have been too daunting even for her.

--
Roger Chapman

In article , Roger
wrote:
The message from John Cartmell
contains these words:

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.

The milk snatcher could probably be blamed for many of our current ills
but not that. The legislation that forced grammar schools to merge with
secondary moderns or go private was passed in 1976 and MT was totally
opposed to it.

Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher. Have you checked the numbers?

You mean she personally required education authorities to go comprehensive?

I mean more schools went comprehensive under her watch than anyone else. Ceck
the numbers.

As there are (or were until recently) a few real grammar schools left in
the state sector I suspect that the legislation that gave parents the vote
on whether schools switch was her attempt to limit the damage when she came
to power in 1979.

As my children suffered under the system and I have taught in one of the local
grammar schools I do know about it. My authority is one that has what you
would call 'real' grammar schools but that's not quite true as it doesn't have
'real' secondary modern schools; the worst aspects of the grammar/sec mod
system have been modified by putting more money into the 'high schools'.
It's still not a solution but is nowhere near as bad as the old version -
except for the problems of the 11-plus examination.

Trying to reverse the changes already made, or even those
in progress would have been too daunting even for her.

More likely she wasn't interested.

--
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

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

The milk snatcher could probably be blamed for many of our
current ills
but not that. The legislation that forced grammar schools to
merge with
secondary moderns or go private was passed in 1976 and MT was totally
opposed to it.

Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher. Have you checked the numbers?

You mean she personally required education authorities to go
comprehensive?

I mean more schools went comprehensive under her watch than anyone
else. Ceck
the numbers.

That may or may not have been the case but the responsibility for the
change rests squarely on the shoulders of the loony left and the
significant date is not when they went comprehensive but the date the
decision was made to comply with the law and take them comprehensive.

As there are (or were until recently) a few real grammar schools left in
the state sector I suspect that the legislation that gave parents the vote
on whether schools switch was her attempt to limit the damage when
she came
to power in 1979.

As my children suffered under the system and I have taught in one of
the local
grammar schools I do know about it. My authority is one that has what you
would call 'real' grammar schools but that's not quite true as it
doesn't have
'real' secondary modern schools; the worst aspects of the grammar/sec mod
system have been modified by putting more money into the 'high schools'.
It's still not a solution but is nowhere near as bad as the old version -
except for the problems of the 11-plus examination.

Selection on the grounds of intelligence makes a good deal more sense
than the current system of specialist schools where they can have
selection for just about any ability apart from intelligence.

That old system if more a figment of your imagination than the reality.
ISTR that earlier in this thread you claimed that grammar schools got
twice as much money as secondary moderns (or even more absurdly the vast
bulk of the money).

Trying to reverse the changes already made, or even those
in progress would have been too daunting even for her.

More likely she wasn't interested.

That's just your prejudices surfacing again.


--
Roger Chapman

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:45:06 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Roger
wrote:
The message from John Cartmell
contains these words:

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.

The milk snatcher could probably be blamed for many of our current ills
but not that. The legislation that forced grammar schools to merge with
secondary moderns or go private was passed in 1976 and MT was totally
opposed to it.

Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher. Have you checked the numbers?

You mean she personally required education authorities to go comprehensive?

I mean more schools went comprehensive under her watch than anyone else. Ceck
the numbers.


Oh please.

That's just playing with figures.

It's the same argument as saying that the UK economy has been
moderately OK because of the efforts of Brown as opposed to despite
them.


--

..andy

In article ,
Roger wrote:
That old system if more a figment of your imagination than the reality.
ISTR that earlier in this thread you claimed that grammar schools got
twice as much money as secondary moderns (or even more absurdly the vast
bulk of the money).

If you think I made an error there then please correct me. I'd be pleased to
accept that it's very easy to find many ways of calculating the differences so
feel free to use any you think is relevant.

--
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

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

That old system if more a figment of your imagination than the reality.
ISTR that earlier in this thread you claimed that grammar schools got
twice as much money as secondary moderns (or even more absurdly the vast
bulk of the money).

If you think I made an error there then please correct me. I'd be pleased to
accept that it's very easy to find many ways of calculating the
differences so
feel free to use any you think is relevant.

Think? You're just spouting total ********.

But just for the record 'vast bulk' implies a much greater ratio than
two to one even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you
meant your comparisons to be taken on a pupil to pupil ratio.

And as for the the 2/1 ratio if that was the case where did the money
go? It certainly didn't all go in teachers salaries and the overheads
for most academic subjects were considerably less than for practical
subjects.

In my neck of the wood it was the secondary modern that got the new
buildings (including science labs) on a greenfield site, the new
equipment and the better facilities. And the building vacated (it went
on to become a primary school and is now a magistrates court) was on a
par with that of the local grammar. The SM taught (among other things)
metalwork, woodwork, domestic science (so could have been drivels alma
mater) and even seamanship. The ersatz local grammar school taught none
of those.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

That old system if more a figment of your imagination than the
reality.
ISTR that earlier in this thread you claimed that grammar schools got
twice as much money as secondary moderns (or even more absurdly the
vast
bulk of the money).

If you think I made an error there then please correct me. I'd be
pleased to
accept that it's very easy to find many ways of calculating the
differences so
feel free to use any you think is relevant.

Think? You're just spouting total ********.

Roger, it is clear he is not and you are getting a lacing.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:26:56 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:58:40 +0000, Mark wrote:



I understand your concept of separating sourcing and delivery. I just
don't see how it could work.

It works for pretty much every other service and product that we buy.

I don't consider education in the same way I do buying baked beans.

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.

If the money remains the same then each "voucher" would be worth less
than the cost of one place at a state school.

No. The value would be what is spent per child today.

So where would the extra money come from?

Either every parent
would have to make up the cost or schools would have to cut their
budgets accordingly.

No. If they are providing a good education that parents want to
choose, then they will increase their income.

Take an Infant School, for example. They are restricted to 30
children per class so cannot take more children unless they build
more classrooms and employ more teachers. If they do or don't they
have little scope for improvements as the additional income would be
offset by the increase expenses. For other Schools they could be
tempted to increase their class sizes which may not be desirable.

What about children whose parents cannot supplement the budget?
Schools may be forced to exclude these children if they are to
survive.

Wrong way round. The school should concentrate on and would have more
freedom to provide quality education that people will select. Today
that is done through Ofsted, who can only make a limited look at a
school. By empowering parents, the good schools will excell and
others would have the oppotunity to improve.

I could imagine the opposite happening in many areas.

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.

Schools can have greater autonomy without your scheme. There are
already levels of autonomy such as Foundation Schools (previously
Grant Maintained).

These were certainly a better solution in the past than the present
comprehensive system because it permitted financial independence to a
degree. However, either way I think that the national curriculum
should be dumped as well.

I think the National Curriculum has helped improving the standards in
poor schools, but it has held back good teaching in good schools. It
would be easy to change this to allow good schools to have more
freedom.

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 my experience this leads to greater bureaucracy as the Schools
themselves have more paperwork.

Not really true. If you take a look at how an independent school in
the private sector runs, there is very, very little bureaucracy and
very little admin overhead. Quite often, it's a full time and a
part time secretary and a part time bursar and that' it. Parents
want their fees spent on teachers and facilities.

I think all parents want their money spent on good teachers and
facilities. I must admit to knowing little about how private schools
are run. For example, how do they appoint their Head Teacher?

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

Some parents get a poorer set of choices. I am in favour of teachers,
governors and parents having more say.


So am I. Having the government out of the picture in terms of actual
running and policy of a school would enable that.

I would be in favour of this if I were convinced that the proposals
did not adversely affect people on lower incomes.

A much better way of proceeding.

Better for some and worse for others.

I think better for everybody.

We obviously disagree on this :-)

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.

What kind of choice? Poorer people will have a worse choice that they
do now. I don't think that is fair.

No they won't - they'll have more choice. FOr example, there doesn't
have to be a geographical boundary or school catchment areas. If
people don't want to pay additional money for their education, they
don't have to. That's no different to today.

Not if their only local state school closes.

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.

All the state schools I have experience with already have a good focus
on providing a quality service.


I've sadly seen a rather different side to this with demotivated
teachers and all the rest of it.

That's a crime. I stronly believe that everyone should have access to
good education.

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.

I consider it a realistic view. I know of at least one good state
school whose has no leeway for a reduction in its budget.

One more time. Nobody said anything about a reduction in its budget.
If it's a good school, then it will be able to attract more pupils and
increase its funding.

The figures don't add up. If there is a fixed amount of money going
into state education and this is turned into vouchers. Some of these
vouchers will be spent in private schools. This in turn means less
money for state schools. There isn't suddenly going to be less
children to educate.

Mark.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:23:20 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:15:52 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

-- snip --
- and those where competition would
remove a community provision - eg post, buses, trains, health, education.

All of these can be quite easily operated outside of state control and
benefit from being so.

They can be operated in many different ways. Privatisation has mainly
failed. We have had poorly run state industries replaced by poorly
run private industries.

Other consideration eg safety may also come into play.

State services are generally very good and cheap.

They are almost always poor and very expensive when all costs to the
taxpayer are taken into account.

Many were poorly run and expensive. However privatisation does not
fix this.

- but this is rarely
appreciated until privatised. ;-(

and the improvements are realised.

Have there been any? The only 'improvements' I have noticed is for
the shareholders. Many still provide poor service and value for
money.

Mark.

The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

Think? You're just spouting total ********.

Roger, it is clear he is not and you are getting a lacing.

That remark as always applies equally to you Drivel. Why don't you get a
job? Spending all of every day and half of every night glued to your PC
can't be good for you.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
You seem to be forgetting the differences in wages for graduate and
non-graduate teachers, the cost of science subjects, an extra 3-4 year
school-life, provision of text books, &c.

NB At my grammar school every boy was loaned text books (plural) for every
subject for the whole of the year. The kids in the local sec mod had none.

--
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

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

NB At my grammar school every boy was loaned text books (plural) for every
subject for the whole of the year. The kids in the local sec mod had none.

I have no idea whether or not the SM pupils had text books or not but we
had to share mostly old and decrepid text books. I remember the SM had
a library though which is more than can be said for the Grammar.
--
Roger Chapman

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

That old system if more a figment of your imagination than the
reality.
ISTR that earlier in this thread you claimed that grammar schools got
twice as much money as secondary moderns (or even more absurdly the
vast bulk of the money).

If you think I made an error there then please correct me. I'd be
pleased
to accept that it's very easy to find many ways of calculating the
differences so feel free to use any you think is relevant.

Think? You're just spouting total ********.

But just for the record 'vast bulk' implies a much greater ratio than two
to one even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant
your comparisons to be taken on a pupil to pupil ratio.

And as for the the 2/1 ratio if that was the case where did the money go?
It certainly didn't all go in teachers salaries and the overheads for most
academic subjects were considerably less than for practical subjects.

You seem to be forgetting the differences in wages for graduate and
non-graduate teachers, the cost of science subjects, an extra 3-4 year
school-life, provision of text books, &c.

ISTR that the difference between graduate and non graduate salaries was
not very great unlike the gulf that now exists between teachers and
classroom assistants and graduate teachers could be found both sides of
the fence. AFAIK the pay scales for heads was the same. What made the
difference for grammar school heads was that the pay was based on a
weighted head count with, IIRC, a factor of 10 between first years and
sixth form.

The science lessons I recall wouldn't have troubled the petty cash, let
alone the school budget and the SM school must have done science as well
otherwise there would have been no point in giving it science labs.

The extra years (very few would have managed 4) that some grammar school
pupils enjoyed (if that is the right word) is a red herring. Even before
the school leaving age was raised to 16 some pupils stayed on to the end
of the 5th year and it was not unknown for them to then transfer to the
grammar school. We had one such join our sixth form. He went on to
become a teacher and the last I heard he was the head (or possibly
deputy head) of a large comprehensive down Bristol way. AFAIK schools
were funded on the basis of their school roll, not their potential
numbers had their leavers stayed on.

In my neck of the wood it was the secondary modern that got the new
buildings (including science labs) on a greenfield site, the new equipment
and the better facilities. And the building vacated (it went on to
become a
primary school and is now a magistrates court) was on a par with that of
the local grammar.

That was quite certainly exceptional. Was this pre-ROSLA and if so which
school & which LEA was responsible?

I had no idea what you meant by ROSLA and am puzzled why you would
expect me to recognise such an obscure acronym. The circumstances relate
to the period of my school days (which was pre-ROSLA). The LEA would
have been whichever one covered NE Essex and it also covered the
Colchester schools that seem to always get well placed in the league
tables these days.

The 2 secondary moderns were the Hill Secondary School which was
replaced by The Sir Anthony Deane County Secondary School AKA the SAD
school and named after a native of Harwich who was a friend of Pepys and
a master ship builder. When the school eventually became the site for
the local comprehensive snobbery ruled the day. the SAD name was dumped
(can't have ex grammar school staff and pupils tainted by association
with a secondary modern) and the school renamed prosaically as the
Harwich School. ISTR the SAD school opened in 1956 but I might be a year
or so out.

The SM taught (among other things) metalwork, woodwork,
domestic science (so could have been drivels alma mater) and even
seamanship. The ersatz local grammar school taught none of those.

I was basing my comment on the national (England & Wales) figures. One
school
probably didn't skew even its LEA figures too much.

Why would the LEA single out one school for such superior treatment (and
the local grammar for such poor treatment)?

The local grammar incidentally was the Harwich County High School. The
head at the time I was there thought it would improve his standing if it
was renamed Harwich County Grammar and had all the stationary, etc.
redone. Got slapped down by the LEA and forced to change back.

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:41:42 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:26:56 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:58:40 +0000, Mark wrote:



I understand your concept of separating sourcing and delivery. I just
don't see how it could work.

It works for pretty much every other service and product that we buy.

I don't consider education in the same way I do buying baked beans.

Neither do I. It's a much more serious issue. However, we are
customers and are paying phenomenal amounts of money for poor state
run services. As a customer, I would like much better value for
money and I think that it is easily achievable if the government moves
out of the delivery aspect.



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.

If the money remains the same then each "voucher" would be worth less
than the cost of one place at a state school.

No. The value would be what is spent per child today.

So where would the extra money come from?

The money spent in education would be the same (accounting for
inflation etc.) as it is today. All that changes is the method of
delivery.





Either every parent
would have to make up the cost or schools would have to cut their
budgets accordingly.

No. If they are providing a good education that parents want to
choose, then they will increase their income.

Take an Infant School, for example. They are restricted to 30
children per class so cannot take more children unless they build
more classrooms and employ more teachers. If they do or don't they
have little scope for improvements as the additional income would be
offset by the increase expenses. For other Schools they could be
tempted to increase their class sizes which may not be desirable.

No. More children equals more money and the ability to spend on more
facilities and staff.





What about children whose parents cannot supplement the budget?
Schools may be forced to exclude these children if they are to
survive.

Wrong way round. The school should concentrate on and would have more
freedom to provide quality education that people will select. Today
that is done through Ofsted, who can only make a limited look at a
school. By empowering parents, the good schools will excell and
others would have the oppotunity to improve.

I could imagine the opposite happening in many areas.

I prefer to see the glass half full than half empty.



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.

Schools can have greater autonomy without your scheme. There are
already levels of autonomy such as Foundation Schools (previously
Grant Maintained).

These were certainly a better solution in the past than the present
comprehensive system because it permitted financial independence to a
degree. However, either way I think that the national curriculum
should be dumped as well.

I think the National Curriculum has helped improving the standards in
poor schools, but it has held back good teaching in good schools. It
would be easy to change this to allow good schools to have more
freedom.

Of course. It's called either dumping the national curriculum or
having different ones for different types of school.



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 my experience this leads to greater bureaucracy as the Schools
themselves have more paperwork.

Not really true. If you take a look at how an independent school in
the private sector runs, there is very, very little bureaucracy and
very little admin overhead. Quite often, it's a full time and a
part time secretary and a part time bursar and that' it. Parents
want their fees spent on teachers and facilities.

I think all parents want their money spent on good teachers and
facilities. I must admit to knowing little about how private schools
are run. For example, how do they appoint their Head Teacher?

It depends on the school. Often it is the governers or trustees.



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

Some parents get a poorer set of choices. I am in favour of teachers,
governors and parents having more say.


So am I. Having the government out of the picture in terms of actual
running and policy of a school would enable that.

I would be in favour of this if I were convinced that the proposals
did not adversely affect people on lower incomes.

I see no reason why it would.




A much better way of proceeding.

Better for some and worse for others.

I think better for everybody.

We obviously disagree on this :-)

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.

What kind of choice? Poorer people will have a worse choice that they
do now. I don't think that is fair.

No they won't - they'll have more choice. FOr example, there doesn't
have to be a geographical boundary or school catchment areas. If
people don't want to pay additional money for their education, they
don't have to. That's no different to today.

Not if their only local state school closes.

I said that there didn't have to be geographical boundaries. Also,
there can be specialisation in subject areas. As soon as the
restrictions imposed by the state are lifted, there are many more
possibilities open.



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.

All the state schools I have experience with already have a good focus
on providing a quality service.


I've sadly seen a rather different side to this with demotivated
teachers and all the rest of it.

That's a crime. I stronly believe that everyone should have access to
good education.

So do I and also one that is suitable for them and such that their
potential is maximised. One size fits all doesn;t achieve that.



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.

I consider it a realistic view. I know of at least one good state
school whose has no leeway for a reduction in its budget.

One more time. Nobody said anything about a reduction in its budget.
If it's a good school, then it will be able to attract more pupils and
increase its funding.

The figures don't add up. If there is a fixed amount of money going
into state education and this is turned into vouchers. Some of these
vouchers will be spent in private schools. This in turn means less
money for state schools. There isn't suddenly going to be less
children to educate.

No. What matters is the total amount going into education and what
is available for each child. I've already said that the state could
be one delivery vehicle, but it would be better if what are now state
schools entered independent trust or grant maintained status, where
management is clearly within the school. At that point, the concept
of the "state school" becomes irrelevant.



--

..andy

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 09:52:34 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:23:20 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:15:52 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

-- snip --
- and those where competition would
remove a community provision - eg post, buses, trains, health, education.

All of these can be quite easily operated outside of state control and
benefit from being so.

They can be operated in many different ways. Privatisation has mainly
failed. We have had poorly run state industries replaced by poorly
run private industries.

I'd say that BT has been moderately successful in comparison to the
GPO.......

I have a choice of numerous electricity and gas suppliers.

etc.


Other consideration eg safety may also come into play.

State services are generally very good and cheap.

They are almost always poor and very expensive when all costs to the
taxpayer are taken into account.

Many were poorly run and expensive. However privatisation does not
fix this.

It's true that there needs also to be a change of worth ethic and
attitiude. Unless there is also the cold effect of competition,
these issues may not be addressed.



- but this is rarely
appreciated until privatised. ;-(

and the improvements are realised.

Have there been any? The only 'improvements' I have noticed is for
the shareholders. Many still provide poor service and value for
money.

I'm pretty happy with the service I get from BT and my utility
suppliers.



--

..andy

In article , Huge wrote:
OK, there are some failures - the railways being an interesting one, since
I would deny that they have been privatised in any meaningful sense.

In another sense railways are a success, in that rail passenger numbers are
IIRC at a 40 or 50 year high and it is this growth against an almost fixed
capacity infrastructure that gives rise to some of the problems. On the
freight side the American EWS came in and made changes to the business that
should have been done years ago, like buying in 250 new locos to replace
1960s old bangers. Go to Clapham Junction and you'll see loads of new
passenger stock too. The problems seem to be on the track and signalling
side.

--
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]

Roger wrote:
The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:


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.


The milk snatcher could probably be blamed for many of our current ills
but not that. The legislation that forced grammar schools to merge with
secondary moderns or go private was passed in 1976 and MT was totally
opposed to it.


Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher. Have you checked the numbers?


You mean she personally required education authorities to go
comprehensive? No chance. It was the loony left that did that in 1976.
As there are (or were until recently) a few real grammar schools left in
the state sector I suspect that the legislation that gave parents the
vote on whether schools switch was her attempt to limit the damage when
she came to power in 1979. Trying to reverse the changes already made,
or even those in progress would have been too daunting even for her.


For what seems to be a relatively impartial and accurate summary, have
a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_System.

Anyone actually interested could follow some links, few of which seem
to be particularly impartial.

Wikipedia is of course a communal data-gathering system and as such
comes with no guarantees. But it is, wait for it... D-I-Y.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

snip

That was quite certainly exceptional. Was this pre-ROSLA and if so which
school & which LEA was responsible?

I had no idea what you meant by ROSLA and am puzzled why you would
expect me to recognise such an obscure acronym. The circumstances relate
to the period of my school days (which was pre-ROSLA).

What's puzzling about these two sentences?
[ .... obscure acronym. ... pre-ROSLA]?

Must've googled!

--

Brian