The message
from "Brian Sharrock" contains these words:

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]?

It does say 'had' rather than have.

Must've googled!

Nah, I still use Alta Vista. :-)

--
Roger Chapman

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

[Snip]

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.

This certainly was not typical of the 50s and 60s.
Our science block - probably at the top end but not untypical - was bult in
the 50s and consisted of two general science laboratories, two physics
laboratories, two chemistry laboratories - with two/three biology laboratories
built in the 60s. There were also two large lecture theatres and two
preparation rooms. Equipment was, in nearly all cases, sufficient for classes
of 30+ to work in pairs for all experimental work (exceptions were for one or
two items like the 6th form radioactive gas experiment where there were just 2
sets of equipment). If anyone suffered from Tylers "Laboratory Notebook" those
were the experiments we did in physics - all of them! ;-(

[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).

Many schools made a lot of ROSLA such that you would certainly recognise it.
Much school buildng was done to cope with the extra pupils staying on due to
ROSLA with the new buildings frequently referred to as "the ROSLA block". At
that period the sec mods did get the lion share of funding for building work.

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)?

I cannot imagine. It went quite contrary to the national situation.

--
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 ,
Brian Sharrock wrote:

"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]?

Raising Of the School Leaving Age. Led to much new building to house extra sec
mod pupils.

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

In article ,
Joe wrote:

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

And (finally!) getting to something that is really relevant to this ng and
taken from the above entry on the Tripartite system:

"The technical school was designed to train children adept in mechanical and
scientific subjects. Planned as an equal tier of the system alongside the
grammar schools and the secondary moderns, shortages in funding led to
technical schools being provided on a limited scale. Catering for around 5% of
the school population, the focus of the schools was on providing scientists,
engineers and technicians."

The one thing this country needed was the one thing that was done hopelessly
badly. If half of the best pupils had been able to go to technical schools
funded as well as the (better funded) grammar schools we might just have been
able to stave off the bad condition of our industry by the 60s or 70s and
(wait for it) have a technology literate population.

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

I'd agree. But we'd probably disagree about which most feels the effect of
privatisation. BT was able to develop slowly into a private industry because
of its early start in the 60s. Even so its service is far worse then 40 years
ago when you could get straight through to the individual dealing with your
account (answered before 3rd ring) and check your account, the history of your
bill, find the price for an external extension, get a correct answer first
time, and put in an order for one - all within a matter of minutes. If you had
to call back you would be rmembered by name and number. If your bill went up
exceptionally you would be contacted before the bill was sent out and asked if
you had made exceptional calls that quarter so that errors could be put right
without a complaint.

Have you tried doing any of that recently? Hint: put plenty of time aside for
your attempt and be prepared to be disappointed.

GPO?
They're expected to run a service after their profitable business has been
hived off. Stupid.

I have a choice of numerous electricity and gas suppliers.

No. You have the same electricity and gas suppliers. You have a choice of who
chrages you for it and they all seem to be lying conmen.

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

I wish I got the same service that I got in the 70s.

--
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 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:59:04 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
I'd say that BT has been moderately successful in comparison to the
GPO.......

I'd agree. But we'd probably disagree about which most feels the effect of
privatisation. BT was able to develop slowly into a private industry because
of its early start in the 60s. Even so its service is far worse then 40 years
ago when you could get straight through to the individual dealing with your
account (answered before 3rd ring) and check your account, the history of your
bill, find the price for an external extension, get a correct answer first
time, and put in an order for one - all within a matter of minutes.

Not my experience. Users were subscribers, not customers, and this
reflected in the attitude towards them. There was no competition and
it took a long time to get issues addressed.


If you had
to call back you would be rmembered by name and number. If your bill went up
exceptionally you would be contacted before the bill was sent out and asked if
you had made exceptional calls that quarter so that errors could be put right
without a complaint.

I can remember having numerous billing errors and many arguments on
that subject.


Have you tried doing any of that recently?

Yes, although I have to say that I have found it to be a rare
occurence.

Hint: put plenty of time aside for
your attempt and be prepared to be disappointed.

GPO?
They're expected to run a service after their profitable business has been
hived off. Stupid.

I have a choice of numerous electricity and gas suppliers.

No. You have the same electricity and gas suppliers. You have a choice of who
chrages you for it and they all seem to be lying conmen.

That depends on your definition of "supplier". I am using the
strict definition, meaning the organisations with whom I have the
contracts to supply. I have many choices. I can go for the
cheapest on the day, the one that provides the best service by way of
someone to talk to, the one with the best green policy or I can take a
punt on future pricing. If I don't like the current one, I can
switch to another.




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

I wish I got the same service that I got in the 70s.

I've moved on from there and don't accept poor service at all.....


--

..andy

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:46:04 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

I think the governornment should have some influence over education.
We do need a strategic national plan. Is it really desirable for
education to diverge in different schools. This would make it
particularly difficult for children moving schools if the education
was different.

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.

This could not happen. I'll put it yet another way: If the
government is only contributing (financially) to places within the
state education system and they start contributing to places within
the current private section then this will mean they are contributing
to more places. Therefore there will be less money per child.

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.

More children does mean more money. However if you have to employ
more staff this will offset the increased revenue. In this position
the only way would be to replace good highly paid teachers with lower
paid teachers.

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.

What are you drinking? ;-)

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.

I would like to see more freedom without dumping a National
Curriculum. However it should be less prescriptive to give good
teaching a chance to show.

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.

I can see situations where 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.

This is no consolation for someone whose local school closes and they
have to travel 10 miles to the next one!

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.

What are the ranges of fees charged by typical private schools. Are
they less than the equivalent spent in a state school?

Mark.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:46:59 +0000, Mark wrote:



I think the governornment should have some influence over education.

As a stakeholder perhaps, but to note greater degree than parents or
the educators themselves, and certainly not entrusted with dictating
policy. The point is that it should be outside of political control.


We do need a strategic national plan.

At a very high level and in broad terms yes. To the level of detail
and micromanagement of the national curriculum, definitely not.

Is it really desirable for
education to diverge in different schools.

Yes, definitely, that would be a positive thing.


This would make it
particularly difficult for children moving schools if the education
was different.

There needs to be some degree of transportability I agree, but this
does not mean that all need to be the same.




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.

This could not happen. I'll put it yet another way: If the
government is only contributing (financially) to places within the
state education system and they start contributing to places within
the current private section then this will mean they are contributing
to more places. Therefore there will be less money per child.

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The
number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if
indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about),
remains the same.




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.

More children does mean more money. However if you have to employ
more staff this will offset the increased revenue. In this position
the only way would be to replace good highly paid teachers with lower
paid teachers.

I didn't suggest employing more staff except as implied by a school
teaching more children than before because it is doing a good job.



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.

What are you drinking? ;-)

Anything you're prepared to buy me :-)




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

I would like to see more freedom without dumping a National
Curriculum. However it should be less prescriptive to give good
teaching a chance to show.

The previous method of having a syllabus for each subject and
different examining boards was quite effective. It means that
schools can offer a range of courses or pick a few to different levels
according to demand.


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.

I can see situations where it would.

I would rather deal with the corner cases by making funds available
for children of lower income families with certain abilities to
receive an education appropriate to maximising their potential than to
reduce the potential of all by attempting to make a one size fits all
and dragging down everybody.



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.

This is no consolation for someone whose local school closes and they
have to travel 10 miles to the next one!

I don't see why. I used to travel about that and it was worth it
because I was able to get the most appropriate choices.

Return doesn't come without some effort. Clearly it is not
practicable to provide a broad range of choices within a two minute
walk in all cases. I would rather see some travel inconvenience if
it means high quality and appropriate education, properly equipped.





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.

What are the ranges of fees charged by typical private schools. Are
they less than the equivalent spent in a state school?


It can be from DC to light. However, one can't compare just on a
simple cash basis. One has to look on a cost basis to make a
comparison. Certainly it is true that the private sector tends to
have smaller class sizes and that obviously comes with a cost.

The money going to the state system is derived from taxation.

That going to private schools usually comes out of net income. This
means that it has been taxed (often at 40%) and national insurance and
employer's national insurance paid as well. Then consider that the
school usually does not benefit from the money that would have gone to
a state school educating that child.

Therefore in essence, the state takes the money and then taxes the
parent for making the choice to educate their child elsewhere.

That is one of the reasons why I think that the state should not be in
the education delivery business.

The funds that are collected in tax should be available to go to a
school regardless of whether the state, a trust, a charity or a
private organisation runs it.

Moreover, if a parent chooses to supplement such funding at a school
of their choice, then that should be tax deductable, not an object of
taxation.

--

..andy

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The
number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if
indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about),
remains the same.


Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for
those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by
the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state.
Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

--
Roger Chapman

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:06:26 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The
number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if
indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about),
remains the same.


Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for
those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by
the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state.
Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

--

..andy

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:06:26 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The
number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if
indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about),
remains the same.


Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for
those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by
the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state.
Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

No, because I also said that the state should remove the additional
taxation that it places on people paying school fees. That money
goes into education. The difference is that it doesn't go through the
bureaucracy of the state machinery.

I also don't regard the state paying the amount that would have gone
into the state sector for educating a child, but which instead goes to
an alternative outside the state sector as a subsidy. That gives
credence to the notion that the state should be the be all and end all
in delivery of services as well as the vehicle to fund them. I don't
accept that notion.




--

..andy

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:06:26 GMT, Roger
wrote:

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The
number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if
indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about),
remains the same.


Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for
those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by
the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state.
Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

You are stating the completely obvious. All to do with the rich gits
wanting it both ways.

"Oooh I'm in BUPA you know and I got my hip operation with just a 1/2
hour wait (but can you keep those emergency paramedics/A&E Specialists
on standby for me as I might need the NHS when it all goes Pete Tong
and i'm dying with one just qualified wet behind the ears junior
doctor, a £2.99 per hour security guard and the nympho nurse are on
duty in my posh private hospital)"


--

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The
number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if
indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about),
remains the same.


Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for
those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by
the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state.
Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

No, because I also said that the state should remove the additional
taxation that it places on people paying school fees. That money
goes into education. The difference is that it doesn't go through the
bureaucracy of the state machinery.

Except that it doesn't place any additional taxation on those who chose
to opt out of state education. You get taxed the same whether your
children go to state schools or not just as you get taxed the same
whether you have children or not. The real losers are those without
children who have to subsidise the sometimes extravagant lifestyles of
those with children who have both a higher income and a higher standard
of living.

I also don't regard the state paying the amount that would have gone
into the state sector for educating a child, but which instead goes to
an alternative outside the state sector as a subsidy. That gives
credence to the notion that the state should be the be all and end all
in delivery of services as well as the vehicle to fund them. I don't
accept that notion.

Of course it is a subsidy.

Now I have a much better plan. All parents should shoulder the total
cost of educating their grungy offspring and stop sponging off those who
don't have children. As a committed capitalist you should immediately
endorse such a plan. ;-)

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The
number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if
indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about),
remains the same.


Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for
those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by
the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state.
Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

No, because I also said that the state should remove the additional
taxation that it places on people paying school fees. That money
goes into education. The difference is that it doesn't go through the
bureaucracy of the state machinery.

Except that it doesn't place any additional taxation on those who chose
to opt out of state education. You get taxed the same whether your
children go to state schools or not just as you get taxed the same
whether you have children or not.

That depends on which parts of the chain that you consider. If you
look narrowly at only the issue of money earned and money available for
spending, that is perfectly true.

However, the real picture is that money is simply a mean of exchange in
respect of goods and services, not an end in itself. The starting
point is what do I have to do in terms of my means of earning (could be
hours worked, type of work or business activity etc) to achieve the end
result - in this case education for the kids.

As things stand, the state takes a large amount of money, subtracts
bureaucratic waste leaving less money and places it in some way in
state run education giving the customer who has paid for it extremely
little choice and not a very good outcome.
If I want to choose a more appropriate form of education because I
believe that investment in the future of my kids is important, I still
have to pay for the state stuff, but then, out of income that is
already taxed at 50%+ to pay for the fees in a private school.

This is a complete nonsense. It is both wasteful and inefficient at
delivering the appropriate end result for the child.

I've simply suggested

- a voucher system that provides users of education with an amount of
money that can only be spent on education at a school of their choice.
The point is that the government does not need to be in the delivery
business, only the funding.

- tax relief on school fees. This would be implemented in such a way
that the tax relief goes to the school rather than to the parent.

The real losers are those without
children who have to subsidise the sometimes extravagant lifestyles of
those with children who have both a higher income and a higher standard
of living.

One never has a high standard of living with children........


I also don't regard the state paying the amount that would have gone
into the state sector for educating a child, but which instead goes to
an alternative outside the state sector as a subsidy. That gives
credence to the notion that the state should be the be all and end all
in delivery of services as well as the vehicle to fund them. I don't
accept that notion.

Of course it is a subsidy.

I don't see it as such. A subsidy is something used to prop up a
business that isn't viable, usually for political reasons. This is
simply an acceptance of the reasonable notion that the state does not
need to be in the delivery business of state funded services. Quite
different.


Now I have a much better plan. All parents should shoulder the total
cost of educating their grungy offspring and stop sponging off those who
don't have children. As a committed capitalist you should immediately
endorse such a plan. ;-)

Of course capitalism has stood the test of time, is in line with human
nature as well as that of the rest of the animal kingdom but that's
another issue.

If the state were to get out of the delivery *and* the funding
businesses, especially in the areas of healthcare and education, then
such notions start to become affordable. Since both, for most people
are things which tend to have high cost for some of the time and little
or no cost for most of the time (looking on a lifelong basis), I see no
reason not to fund them using investment vehicles in a similar way to
funding retirement. (leaving aside the specific issues of pension
schemes.)

The message .com
from "andy hall" contains these words:

Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for
those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by
the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state.
Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

No, because I also said that the state should remove the additional
taxation that it places on people paying school fees. That money
goes into education. The difference is that it doesn't go through the
bureaucracy of the state machinery.

Except that it doesn't place any additional taxation on those who chose
to opt out of state education. You get taxed the same whether your
children go to state schools or not just as you get taxed the same
whether you have children or not.

That depends on which parts of the chain that you consider. If you
look narrowly at only the issue of money earned and money available for
spending, that is perfectly true.

However, the real picture is that money is simply a mean of exchange in
respect of goods and services, not an end in itself. The starting
point is what do I have to do in terms of my means of earning (could be
hours worked, type of work or business activity etc) to achieve the end
result - in this case education for the kids.

However you dress it up you are still arguing for a subsidy for private
education. Don't get me wrong. I am all in favour of a system where
parents pay for their childrens education but vouchers don't achieve
that aim as they would be paid for out of general taxation, not the
parents private pocket.

As things stand, the state takes a large amount of money, subtracts
bureaucratic waste leaving less money and places it in some way in
state run education giving the customer who has paid for it extremely
little choice and not a very good outcome.

As things stand the state takes from most of us and concentrates much of
its expenditure on the health, education and welfare of a much more
limited subset, namely parents and children.

If I want to choose a more appropriate form of education because I
believe that investment in the future of my kids is important, I still
have to pay for the state stuff, but then, out of income that is
already taxed at 50%+ to pay for the fees in a private school.

If some chose not to have children why should their (possibly) small
incomes be taxed so your children can have a privileged education. Just
be thankful you you have a large enough income to attract the 40% top
rate of income tax.

This is a complete nonsense. It is both wasteful and inefficient at
delivering the appropriate end result for the child.

I suspect that you have been seduced by your own rhetoric. AIUI unit
costs in state schools are lower than unit costs in private schools.

I've simply suggested

- a voucher system that provides users of education with an amount of
money that can only be spent on education at a school of their choice.
The point is that the government does not need to be in the delivery
business, only the funding.

But it still either takes money away from those who cannot afford the
additional cost that private schools entail or requires additional funds
from the taxpayer to subsidise those who attend private schools.

- tax relief on school fees. This would be implemented in such a way
that the tax relief goes to the school rather than to the parent.

Other things being equal one persons tax relief is anothers tax increase.

The real losers are those without
children who have to subsidise the sometimes extravagant lifestyles of
those with children who have both a higher income and a higher standard
of living.

One never has a high standard of living with children........

That depends on your perspective but children are a voluntary addition
to your establishment.


I also don't regard the state paying the amount that would have gone
into the state sector for educating a child, but which instead goes to
an alternative outside the state sector as a subsidy. That gives
credence to the notion that the state should be the be all and end all
in delivery of services as well as the vehicle to fund them. I don't
accept that notion.

Of course it is a subsidy.

I don't see it as such. A subsidy is something used to prop up a
business that isn't viable, usually for political reasons. This is
simply an acceptance of the reasonable notion that the state does not
need to be in the delivery business of state funded services. Quite
different.

Subsidy can have a broader meaning than you claim. The difference you
are trying to hide is the extra funding required to subsidise parents
who opt to have their children educated privately. They don't have to
opt out but if they do they should stop moaning about the consequences.

Now I have a much better plan. All parents should shoulder the total
cost of educating their grungy offspring and stop sponging off those who
don't have children. As a committed capitalist you should immediately
endorse such a plan. ;-)

Of course capitalism has stood the test of time, is in line with human
nature as well as that of the rest of the animal kingdom but that's
another issue.

Other issue? I thought the subject was fairness in apportioning
educational costs. What could be fairer than making parents pay for the
education their children receive?

If the state were to get out of the delivery *and* the funding
businesses, especially in the areas of healthcare and education, then
such notions start to become affordable. Since both, for most people
are things which tend to have high cost for some of the time and little
or no cost for most of the time (looking on a lifelong basis), I see no
reason not to fund them using investment vehicles in a similar way to
funding retirement. (leaving aside the specific issues of pension
schemes.)

I don't buy the idea that the state services could miraculously become
much more efficient just by transferring them to the private sector.
Private schools and hospitals already exist. Unit costs in private
schools (albeit for a better service) are certainly higher and if they
weren't in private hospitals why is it that the private hospitals that
have a very nice line in a guaranteed level of routine scheduled
operations get more for each operation than the NHS hospitals would have
if the operation had stayed in house? (And don't get me started on PFI.)

As for pension schemes. Those for the really rich are obscene and tax
relief on the millions set aside for that purpose by the fat cats is
quite unnecessary. Those who enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle while
they are working are not going to be so short sighted that they don't
make some provision for their retirement. Imagine a captain of industry
retiring with just an old age pension of say £75 per week to live on -
no chance. They would be extremely distressed on twice that (and no
chance of any means tested benefits) or even 10 times that.

--
Roger Chapman

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:17:42 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:46:59 +0000, Mark wrote:



I think the governornment should have some influence over education.

As a stakeholder perhaps, but to note greater degree than parents or
the educators themselves, and certainly not entrusted with dictating
policy. The point is that it should be outside of political control.


We do need a strategic national plan.

At a very high level and in broad terms yes. To the level of detail
and micromanagement of the national curriculum, definitely not.

Is it really desirable for
education to diverge in different schools.

Yes, definitely, that would be a positive thing.

Why would children need to learn different things in different
schools?

This would make it
particularly difficult for children moving schools if the education
was different.

There needs to be some degree of transportability I agree, but this
does not mean that all need to be the same.

See my previous post.

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.

This could not happen. I'll put it yet another way: If the
government is only contributing (financially) to places within the
state education system and they start contributing to places within
the current private section then this will mean they are contributing
to more places. Therefore there will be less money per child.

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The
number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if
indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about),
remains the same.

See my previous posts.

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.

More children does mean more money. However if you have to employ
more staff this will offset the increased revenue. In this position
the only way would be to replace good highly paid teachers with lower
paid teachers.

I didn't suggest employing more staff except as implied by a school
teaching more children than before because it is doing a good job.

How would you avoid employing more 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.

What are you drinking? ;-)

Anything you're prepared to buy me :-)

I think it should be the other way around. You seem to have a larger
disposable income than me.

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

I would like to see more freedom without dumping a National
Curriculum. However it should be less prescriptive to give good
teaching a chance to show.

The previous method of having a syllabus for each subject and
different examining boards was quite effective. It means that
schools can offer a range of courses or pick a few to different levels
according to demand.


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.

I can see situations where it would.

I would rather deal with the corner cases by making funds available
for children of lower income families with certain abilities to
receive an education appropriate to maximising their potential than to
reduce the potential of all by attempting to make a one size fits all
and dragging down everybody.

Safety nets for poorer people rarely work in practise. The criteria
for means testing is always too crude and the money available too
little.

I don't know what you mean by "dragging down everybody".

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.

This is no consolation for someone whose local school closes and they
have to travel 10 miles to the next one!

I don't see why. I used to travel about that and it was worth it
because I was able to get the most appropriate choices.

You obviously had the choice. Many are not so fortunate.

Return doesn't come without some effort. Clearly it is not
practicable to provide a broad range of choices within a two minute
walk in all cases. I would rather see some travel inconvenience if
it means high quality and appropriate education, properly equipped.

Again this is your personal opinion. Many would not want or be able
to pay for this.

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.

What are the ranges of fees charged by typical private schools. Are
they less than the equivalent spent in a state school?


It can be from DC to light. However, one can't compare just on a
simple cash basis. One has to look on a cost basis to make a
comparison. Certainly it is true that the private sector tends to
have smaller class sizes and that obviously comes with a cost.

The money going to the state system is derived from taxation.

That going to private schools usually comes out of net income. This
means that it has been taxed (often at 40%) and national insurance and
employer's national insurance paid as well. Then consider that the
school usually does not benefit from the money that would have gone to
a state school educating that child.

Therefore in essence, the state takes the money and then taxes the
parent for making the choice to educate their child elsewhere.

That is one of the reasons why I think that the state should not be in
the education delivery business.

The funds that are collected in tax should be available to go to a
school regardless of whether the state, a trust, a charity or a
private organisation runs it.

Moreover, if a parent chooses to supplement such funding at a school
of their choice, then that should be tax deductable, not an object of
taxation.

Some might think that you are just selecting a system that would
benefit you personally and not one that suits the country as a whole.

Mark.

In article ,
Roger wrote:
If some chose not to have children why should their (possibly) small
incomes be taxed so your children can have a privileged education.

In the long run of things the contribution such people make to the future may
be limited to the good that taxation can produce.

--
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:

If some chose not to have children why should their (possibly) small
incomes be taxed so your children can have a privileged education.

In the long run of things the contribution such people make to the
future may
be limited to the good that taxation can produce.

I am sure that response must have a meaning hidden therein but I can't
work out what it is.

--
Roger Chapman

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

If some chose not to have children why should their (possibly) small
incomes be taxed so your children can have a privileged education.

In the long run of things the contribution such people make to the future
may be limited to the good that taxation can produce.

I am sure that response must have a meaning hidden therein but I can't work
out what it is.

People with no kids and no interest with other people's kids aren't leaving
much of any worth for the future. At least their taxes might do some good for
future generations.

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

If some chose not to have children why should their (possibly) small
incomes be taxed so your children can have a privileged education.

In the long run of things the contribution such people make to the
future
may be limited to the good that taxation can produce.

I am sure that response must have a meaning hidden therein but I can't
work
out what it is.

People with no kids and no interest with other people's kids aren't
leaving
much of any worth for the future. At least their taxes might do some good
for
future generations.


Ever since Barbara Castle broke the individual piggy-banks to
cater for inflation, 1975(?), the 'Old Age Pension' -or whatever it's
called this week- has been paid from _current_ income.
You - that's you and me- haven't got a pot of money that 'We've
been paying into all our (working) lives'. It doesn't exist!
It's all been spent! It has paid the pensions of our parents!
Unless we've bred children to pay National Insurance 'Contributions'
during our retirement - the money won't be available to pay out
during our retirement. So by extension "People with no kids "
should be excluded from State pensions, etc. etc.

--

Brian

Roger wrote:
The message .com
from "andy hall" contains these words:

Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for
those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by
the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state.
Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

No, because I also said that the state should remove the additional
taxation that it places on people paying school fees. That money
goes into education. The difference is that it doesn't go through the
bureaucracy of the state machinery.

Except that it doesn't place any additional taxation on those who chose
to opt out of state education. You get taxed the same whether your
children go to state schools or not just as you get taxed the same
whether you have children or not.

That depends on which parts of the chain that you consider. If you
look narrowly at only the issue of money earned and money available for
spending, that is perfectly true.

However, the real picture is that money is simply a mean of exchange in
respect of goods and services, not an end in itself. The starting
point is what do I have to do in terms of my means of earning (could be
hours worked, type of work or business activity etc) to achieve the end
result - in this case education for the kids.

However you dress it up you are still arguing for a subsidy for private
education. Don't get me wrong. I am all in favour of a system where
parents pay for their childrens education but vouchers don't achieve
that aim as they would be paid for out of general taxation, not the
parents private pocket.

I think that this is a matter of definition and understanding. Once
you accept the notion that the state can be one delivery vehicle for a
service as well as other constructs such as charitable trusts and the
private sector, then it is no longer a subsidy.

I would prefer that there were an arrangement such that people are more
free to choose where their hard earned money is spent. However, a
voucher system does at least ensure that money is ringfenced for a
specific service, because unfortunately there are people who would not
provide for their children's education or for healthcare.




As things stand, the state takes a large amount of money, subtracts
bureaucratic waste leaving less money and places it in some way in
state run education giving the customer who has paid for it extremely
little choice and not a very good outcome.

As things stand the state takes from most of us and concentrates much of
its expenditure on the health, education and welfare of a much more
limited subset, namely parents and children.

Mmm.. and that is far from being a fair distribution of resources.



If I want to choose a more appropriate form of education because I
believe that investment in the future of my kids is important, I still
have to pay for the state stuff, but then, out of income that is
already taxed at 50%+ to pay for the fees in a private school.

If some chose not to have children why should their (possibly) small
incomes be taxed so your children can have a privileged education.

I don't disagree with the notion of paying for what one uses. However,
I don't regard education as a privilege. I do think that appropriate
education for the child should be available and that it's quite
reasonable for the state to pay for some of that and the parents to
supplement that if they choose. What is totally wrong is paying twice.



Just
be thankful you you have a large enough income to attract the 40% top
rate of income tax.

There's nothing attractive about 40% tax and this is not that unusual
any more. The thresholds are far too low. Same with national
insurance contribution.




This is a complete nonsense. It is both wasteful and inefficient at
delivering the appropriate end result for the child.

I suspect that you have been seduced by your own rhetoric.

I don't deal in rhetoric.....

AIUI unit
costs in state schools are lower than unit costs in private schools.

That could be. On the one hand, classes are generally smaller.
However, this is offset to some extent by the lack of bureaucracy.



I've simply suggested

- a voucher system that provides users of education with an amount of
money that can only be spent on education at a school of their choice.
The point is that the government does not need to be in the delivery
business, only the funding.

But it still either takes money away from those who cannot afford the
additional cost that private schools entail or requires additional funds
from the taxpayer to subsidise those who attend private schools.

No it doesn't. Once you get past the notion that the alternatives are
the state being the collector of money and deliverer of service and a
paid private sector, to one where funding and delivery are separated;
with the state perhaps owning one method of delivery (but better
independent trusts for former state schools) and then charitable trusts
and private sector, there are many more options available and
flexibility on how money is spent.



- tax relief on school fees. This would be implemented in such a way
that the tax relief goes to the school rather than to the parent.

Other things being equal one persons tax relief is anothers tax increase.

No, remember that money is a form of exchange only. The purpose here
is to pay for education. If the funding can go directly from the
person earning the money to the delivery of education, (remember I said
that said tax relief is for education use), then the net effect is to
cut out the bureaucracy in the middle and to direct some civil servants
towards gainful employment.



The real losers are those without
children who have to subsidise the sometimes extravagant lifestyles of
those with children who have both a higher income and a higher standard
of living.

One never has a high standard of living with children........

That depends on your perspective but children are a voluntary addition
to your establishment.

True enough. This is another argument for less involvement of the
state as an intermediary.




I also don't regard the state paying the amount that would have gone
into the state sector for educating a child, but which instead goes to
an alternative outside the state sector as a subsidy. That gives
credence to the notion that the state should be the be all and end all
in delivery of services as well as the vehicle to fund them. I don't
accept that notion.

Of course it is a subsidy.

I don't see it as such. A subsidy is something used to prop up a
business that isn't viable, usually for political reasons. This is
simply an acceptance of the reasonable notion that the state does not
need to be in the delivery business of state funded services. Quite
different.

Subsidy can have a broader meaning than you claim. The difference you
are trying to hide is the extra funding required to subsidise parents
who opt to have their children educated privately.

Sigh.... I am not trying to hid anything. This is not subsidy of the
private sector, it is a broadening of the available vehicles for
delivery of education and removal of what amounts to a near state
monopoly with penalties for choice. There is no justification for
such a monopoly because it drags the majority of the population,
regardless of means into unsuitable education.


They don't have to
opt out but if they do they should stop moaning about the consequences.

That depends on how much one is prepared to sacrifice or not for a
child's future. The state should certainly not penalise choice.



Now I have a much better plan. All parents should shoulder the total
cost of educating their grungy offspring and stop sponging off those who
don't have children. As a committed capitalist you should immediately
endorse such a plan. ;-)

Of course capitalism has stood the test of time, is in line with human
nature as well as that of the rest of the animal kingdom but that's
another issue.

Other issue? I thought the subject was fairness in apportioning
educational costs. What could be fairer than making parents pay for the
education their children receive?

I thought that you were mentioning capitalism in general at this point.


If the state were to get out of the delivery *and* the funding
businesses, especially in the areas of healthcare and education, then
such notions start to become affordable. Since both, for most people
are things which tend to have high cost for some of the time and little
or no cost for most of the time (looking on a lifelong basis), I see no
reason not to fund them using investment vehicles in a similar way to
funding retirement. (leaving aside the specific issues of pension
schemes.)

I don't buy the idea that the state services could miraculously become
much more efficient just by transferring them to the private sector.

There are various types of status that an organisation can have outside
of state control. One is charitable trust, another is non-profit
corporation. I don't equate "private" as meaning "for-profit" - not
that there is anything wrong with profit. I am certain that in
education, management on a school level would provide a much better
arrangement without the overhead of national and local civil servants
who add little or no value.


Private schools and hospitals already exist. Unit costs in private
schools (albeit for a better service) are certainly higher and if they
weren't in private hospitals why is it that the private hospitals that
have a very nice line in a guaranteed level of routine scheduled
operations get more for each operation than the NHS hospitals would have
if the operation had stayed in house? (And don't get me started on PFI.)

Presumably because they won't do the work at the price point that the
NHS funding machine would otherwise wish to pay. As we've already
established, the NHS is the largest employer in western Europe and the
third largest in the world. It's a complete nonsense and a huge waste.
take a look at dentistry. It's practically non existent in the NHS
because dentists are not willing to work for the kind of money on
offer. Remove the bureaucracy and much more money goes to the point
of delivery.

The message
from John Cartmell contains these words:

People with no kids and no interest with other people's kids aren't leaving
much of any worth for the future. At least their taxes might do some
good for
future generations.

That's just the selfish way of looking at the future. What they are
doing (apart from whatever worth there was in the work they did) is
making this already grossly overpopulated world take just a little bit
longer before it reaches the tipping point into total anarchy brought
about by the twin problems of unrestrained reproduction and exhaustion
of natural resources.

--
Roger Chapman

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

People with no kids and no interest with other people's kids aren't
leaving
much of any worth for the future. At least their taxes might do some
good for
future generations.

That's just the selfish

Roger, give up. You are being thrashed a superior intellect. Which isn't
very difficult.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:08:26 GMT, "Brian Sharrock"
wrote:

Unless we've bred children to pay National Insurance 'Contributions'
during our retirement - the money won't be available to pay out
during our retirement. So by extension "People with no kids "
should be excluded from State pensions, etc. etc.

You have to bear in mind the "ones" breeding the fastest (12-14 years
between successive generations is not unknown) contribute the smallest
amount, if any, to the National Insurance / Inland Revenue pool.


--

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

That's just the selfish

Roger, give up. You are being thrashed a superior intellect. Which isn't
very difficult.

Drivel by name, drivel by nature. What don't you say something
constructive for a change? Or better still get a job.

--
Roger Chapman

On 16 Nov 2005 00:13:38 -0800, "andy hall"
wrote:

I've simply suggested

- a voucher system that provides users of education with an amount of
money that can only be spent on education at a school of their choice.

No, you are suggesting a voucher system that allows parents with
decent jobs/income to be able to choose the school of their choice
while those who do not are forced to send their children to what ever
school will take vouchers alone. It is a truly appalling idea.


- tax relief on school fees. This would be implemented in such a way
that the tax relief goes to the school rather than to the parent.

Now you are suggesting that the private schools get even MORE money.

I could accept tax relief on school fees if, and only if, that money
went to underfunded state schools.

How would you feel about that idea?

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

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

That's just the selfish

Roger, give up. You are being thrashed by
a superior intellect. Which isn't
very difficult.

Drivel by name, drivel by nature. What don't you say something
constructive for a change?

Roger, I am being constructive. Pull out now as you are out of your depth.
You are being thrashed my son, thrashed.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message ews.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

That's just the selfish

Roger, give up. You are being thrashed a superior intellect. Which
isn't
very difficult.

Drivel by name, drivel by nature. What don't you say something
constructive for a change? Or better still get a job.

I was going to complain about DD exaggerating on my behalf

I am not exaggerating, Roger is being thrashed as usual. He needs someone to
tell him to pull out.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:05:35 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On 16 Nov 2005 00:13:38 -0800, "andy hall"
wrote:

I've simply suggested

- a voucher system that provides users of education with an amount of
money that can only be spent on education at a school of their choice.

No, you are suggesting a voucher system that allows parents with
decent jobs/income to be able to choose the school of their choice
while those who do not are forced to send their children to what ever
school will take vouchers alone. It is a truly appalling idea.

You didn't read all of what I said. I also made the point that for
situations where a child has a strong ability and motivation for a
specific form of education (not necessarily of academic nature) but is
limited because of parental income, that it would be reasonable for
said funding to come via the state or via charitable foundation in
schools of that status.




- tax relief on school fees. This would be implemented in such a way
that the tax relief goes to the school rather than to the parent.

Now you are suggesting that the private schools get even MORE money.

I'm not suggesting that at all, only that funds should flow to the
school as opposed to the parents.


I could accept tax relief on school fees if, and only if, that money
went to underfunded state schools.

How would you feel about that idea?

I think that you are missing the point entirely. The main issue is to
separate the funding from the delivery aspect of education. The
concept of "state" schools as we know them today would disappear and
they would become independently managed via any of the mechanisms
already described.


--

..andy

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:31:36 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:05:35 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On 16 Nov 2005 00:13:38 -0800, "andy hall"
wrote:

I've simply suggested

- a voucher system that provides users of education with an amount of
money that can only be spent on education at a school of their choice.

No, you are suggesting a voucher system that allows parents with
decent jobs/income to be able to choose the school of their choice
while those who do not are forced to send their children to what ever
school will take vouchers alone. It is a truly appalling idea.

You didn't read all of what I said. I also made the point that for
situations where a child has a strong ability and motivation for a
specific form of education (not necessarily of academic nature) but is
limited because of parental income, that it would be reasonable for
said funding to come via the state or via charitable foundation in
schools of that status.


Ah - IC. All the well off kids go to good schools and one or two of
the brightest or most talented poor kids get a charitable donation
towards decent/superior schooling.

All the average poor kids can go to the "poor" schools.

How is that any less appalling?




- tax relief on school fees. This would be implemented in such a way
that the tax relief goes to the school rather than to the parent.

Now you are suggesting that the private schools get even MORE money.

I'm not suggesting that at all, only that funds should flow to the
school as opposed to the parents.

I assumed you were suggesting that the funds should flow into the
schools where the extra-paying parents sent their children. Am I
wrong? If you are suggesting that the tax relief goes ito the "voucher
only" system then I'm all for it. I have no problem with the well off
subsidising the less well off.


I could accept tax relief on school fees if, and only if, that money
went to underfunded state schools.

How would you feel about that idea?

I think that you are missing the point entirely. The main issue is to
separate the funding from the delivery aspect of education. The
concept of "state" schools as we know them today would disappear and
they would become independently managed via any of the mechanisms
already described.

I am not missing the point at all. You want schools to be subject to
market forces. I think that is a Bad Idea.

I think our fundamental difference is that I believe that all children
have the right to a decent education and you believe that all children
have a right to an adequate education with those who can afford it or
whose parents are willing to make sacrifices being given a superior
education according to market forces currently in play.

Is that a reasonable definition?

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

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:25:10 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:31:36 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


You didn't read all of what I said. I also made the point that for
situations where a child has a strong ability and motivation for a
specific form of education (not necessarily of academic nature) but is
limited because of parental income, that it would be reasonable for
said funding to come via the state or via charitable foundation in
schools of that status.


Ah - IC. All the well off kids go to good schools and one or two of
the brightest or most talented poor kids get a charitable donation
towards decent/superior schooling.

All the average poor kids can go to the "poor" schools.

How is that any less appalling?


I didn't put any numbers on how many go where, neither did I say that
any particular school would be poor or not poor.

I also didn't suggest that any particular school or type of school
should be more or less "superior" to another. That is within the
remit of the schools themselves.

The point is that that becomes in the hands of the parents in terms of
schools that they choose and the schools in terms of what they
deliver.





- tax relief on school fees. This would be implemented in such a way
that the tax relief goes to the school rather than to the parent.

Now you are suggesting that the private schools get even MORE money.

I'm not suggesting that at all, only that funds should flow to the
school as opposed to the parents.

I assumed you were suggesting that the funds should flow into the
schools where the extra-paying parents sent their children. Am I
wrong? If you are suggesting that the tax relief goes ito the "voucher
only" system then I'm all for it. I have no problem with the well off
subsidising the less well off.

I've made it completely clear. A voucher is simply a non-cash way
for the parent to make their choice of which school they wish to use
regardless of it's ownership status. As I said, I don't think that
the state should be in the delivery business anyway, and that current
state schools should move into a self-managed status.

Tax relief is a separate issue, and again the point should be that
said relief should earmarked for the education of the child. This
puts more money into education because more parents would be
encouraged to contribute to additional funding for their childrens'
education. As it is today, there is a disincentive because that comes
out of taxed income.




I could accept tax relief on school fees if, and only if, that money
went to underfunded state schools.

How would you feel about that idea?

I think that you are missing the point entirely. The main issue is to
separate the funding from the delivery aspect of education. The
concept of "state" schools as we know them today would disappear and
they would become independently managed via any of the mechanisms
already described.

I am not missing the point at all. You want schools to be subject to
market forces. I think that is a Bad Idea.

That's your choice. Higher education is certainly subject to market
forces. I see no reason why that shouldn't apply to all forms of what
we understand as state services today, including all forms of
education and healthcare.

The state can potentially do a semi-reasonable job of collecting funds
(although there would need to be a thorough cleanout of HMRC to
achieve that). It is completely incompetent at service delivery and
should stop wasting our money on attempting it.



I think our fundamental difference is that I believe that all children
have the right to a decent education and you believe that all children
have a right to an adequate education with those who can afford it or
whose parents are willing to make sacrifices being given a superior
education according to market forces currently in play.

Is that a reasonable definition?

No. I believe that all children should receive an appropriate
education for their abilities and motivations. I don't think that any
one form should be considered to be more or less valuable than
another. If people wish to be driven by the earning potential of a
given field, then market forces dictate that anyway. If they prefer
to pursue a different path, then that should be fine as well.

I most definitely don't think that the one size fits all mentality or
the notion of education in everything in every form under one roof
(i.e. comprehensive educaction) makes any sense. It is a failed
social experiment from the 60s and 70s that should have been dumped
long ago.

I certainly do think that parents should have the choice over which
type or owned status of school that they wish to use, and if they wish
to supplement what the state provides in terms of funding, that they
should be able and encouraged to do so without penalty.




--

..andy

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:23:59 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

stuff I disagree with but after a day clearing and prepping a bedroom
for redecoration I'm too tired to respond.

Plus I think it's time to move to uk.politics

Plus my head is full of bathroom redecoration ideas.

Is it possible to to tile a bathroom floor to ceiling and get a decent
result without actually moving the bath, handbasin and toilet? Tiling
I am willing to have a go at and the local tile shop has a fine
selection of discontinued stock at knock down prices ATM. Plumbing is,
I think, beyond me. Can't really afford to get a plumber in - just had
to pay the first installment of Uni tuition and accomodation fees for
my eldest.



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

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:37:20 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:


Is it possible to to tile a bathroom floor to ceiling and get a decent
result without actually moving the bath, handbasin and toilet?

It really depends on the shapes of them.

The bath might be a possibility depending on the shape of the top. You
might be able to hide the edge behind a bead of silicone.

Handbasins are often curved and trying to cut tiles to a curved shape
to fit usually doesn't lead to a pretty result. Same with a cistern.

However, it's not that hard to temporarily remove a cistern or a
basin. Normally you can disconnect the tap connectors that go on
the taps and the cistern ball valve. Buy some fibre washers for
about 1p each from a plumbers merchants before starting.
Then you will need two wrenches.

If the cistern valve is plastic, when refitting it is best to slacken
the nut on the cistern to allow it to be free. Then put the nut of
the tap connector on the thread and finally tighten everything.


Tiling
I am willing to have a go at and the local tile shop has a fine
selection of discontinued stock at knock down prices ATM. Plumbing is,
I think, beyond me.

To achieve this, it really is not very difficult. However, don't
wait until Sunday lunchtime, just in case you need any bits.

It is worth getting an electric tile cutter. These can be had for
less than £50 and will help make a really good job.


Can't really afford to get a plumber in - just had
to pay the first installment of Uni tuition and accomodation fees for
my eldest.

I remember it well. Tax relief would be beneficial :-)


--

..andy

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:15:23 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:37:20 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

Can't really afford to get a plumber in - just had
to pay the first installment of Uni tuition and accomodation fees for
my eldest.

I remember it well. Tax relief would be beneficial :-)

Grants would be better!


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

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:24:40 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:15:23 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:37:20 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

Can't really afford to get a plumber in - just had
to pay the first installment of Uni tuition and accomodation fees for
my eldest.

I remember it well. Tax relief would be beneficial :-)

Grants would be better!


That would do, too....


--

..andy

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:44:22 +0000, Owain
wrote:

Geoffrey wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
Can't really afford to get a plumber in - just had
to pay the first installment of Uni tuition and accomodation fees for
my eldest.
I remember it well. Tax relief would be beneficial :-)
Grants would be better!

Sending at least one of the bairns to plumbing college would have been
better still!

I am currently working on that. No.2 son has no idea what he wants to
do (apart from being a drummer) I'm doing a lot of hinting about
plumbing, building, plastering etc. No luck with No.1 daughter -
insists on being a teacher of small children.

Surely the well-planned family will produce 1 x lawyer, 1 x doctor, 1 x
plumber, and 1 x devoted spinster daughter to look after parents in old
age.


One child making vast quantities of cash would do. Have invested in
drums and have fingers crossed.

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

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:44:01 +0000, Owain
wrote:



One child making vast quantities of cash would do. Have invested in
drums and have fingers crossed.

Fingers not stuck in ears? ;-)


Earplugs dull the noise, nothing on earth would block it out...

Fortunately he's good and I'm really starting to get into Death Metal.


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

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:23:59 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:25:10 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

I am not missing the point at all. You want schools to be subject to
market forces. I think that is a Bad Idea.

That's your choice. Higher education is certainly subject to market
forces. I see no reason why that shouldn't apply to all forms of what
we understand as state services today, including all forms of
education and healthcare.

And look what a mess higher education is in now!

Mark

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:03:49 +0000, Mark wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:23:59 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:25:10 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

I am not missing the point at all. You want schools to be subject to
market forces. I think that is a Bad Idea.

That's your choice. Higher education is certainly subject to market
forces. I see no reason why that shouldn't apply to all forms of what
we understand as state services today, including all forms of
education and healthcare.

And look what a mess higher education is in now!


Quite. It would have been far better to have left it alone and not
have attempted to make every establishment a "university".


--

..andy

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Quite. It would have been far better to have left it alone and not
have attempted to make every establishment a "university".

Folly of the 1980s and 1990s. ;-((

--
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