Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Personally I thnk we should all be given medical, education and
transport vouchers, to be exchanged for services at whatever private
establishments we see fit.

We could print pictures of the Queen on them, have them in various
denominations and call them "money".

Private?? Like the national grid. The head is on 1 million a year and just
gave himself a 0.5 million bonus, while it is short of modern equipment.
Private? Where money is concerned the service always drops.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 00:03:09 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

a is allowed to continue.

Man of the
moment, Alistair Campbell went to a comp.

That says it all.....

Exactly. But he did go a snotty uni though. I suppose there was
something
that wasn't quite right, but we will forgive him.

You may. I doubt if the electorate will.

He doesn't get elected.

He behaved as though he was.




There are
some brilliant comps around.

.. and the majority are mediochre at best,
as illustrated by the need
to lower standards to achieve a perception of achievement.

Better than silly grammar schools.

The evidence does not support that assertion.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 00:08:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Personally I thnk we should all be given medical, education and
transport vouchers, to be exchanged for services at whatever private
establishments we see fit.

We could print pictures of the Queen on them, have them in various
denominations and call them "money".

Private?? Like the national grid. The head is on 1 million a year and just
gave himself a 0.5 million bonus, while it is short of modern equipment.
Private? Where money is concerned the service always drops.

Such as with the NHS for example. That has had obscene amounts of
money wasted on it and still provides service inferior to many 3rd
world countries. It is a hangover of a bygone era and should be shut
down.

In the same way as for education, retirement provision,.... etc etc.
I am expected to pay huge sums of money into broken state run systems
and then pay for these services again out of higher rate taxed income
in order to get anything close to acceptable and usable.

I see that Brown has leaked today that there is to be a pull back in
public spending. A revolutionary idea.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 00:08:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

Personally I thnk we should all be given medical, education and
transport vouchers, to be exchanged for services at whatever private
establishments we see fit.

We could print pictures of the Queen on them, have them in various
denominations and call them "money".

Private?? Like the national grid. The head is on 1 million a year and
just
gave himself a 0.5 million bonus, while it is short of modern equipment.
Private? Where money is concerned the service always drops.

Such as with the NHS for example. That has had obscene amounts of
money wasted on it and still provides service inferior to many 3rd
world countries.

Not in my experience. Proof please, no Little Middle Englander spouting.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 05/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"Huge" wrote
| Then IMM would spend them all on drink.
| Let him. It's his money.
| No they have to be specifically
| allocated for 'education' or 'health'.
| Err, no. It's our money. Why can't we spend it on what we want?

If you can't be trusted to change an electric socket in a kitchen you don't
think the government are going to let you do anything with money do you?

And it's not your money. It's the government's. They generously allow you to
keep a small difference between wages and taxes.

Anyway, it would be unfair to deprive a possibly intelligent child of an
education just because its parents preferred to spend their money on fags,
gin, or tango lessons.

Owain

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 00:58:28 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Private? Where money is concerned the service always drops.

Such as with the NHS for example. That has had obscene amounts of
money wasted on it and still provides service inferior to many 3rd
world countries.

Not in my experience. Proof please, no Little Middle Englander spouting.


From personal experience:

6 hour wait in local A&E dept. Dirt and dust in the corners of the
room. Equipment with which Noah would have been familiar.

6 -12 month wait for treatment for life threatening condition.

2 minute appointments at GP surgery.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education
to the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much
more appropriate environment for academic learning than can be
achieved in a comprehensive school.

But there's more to education than academic learning. Being brought
up with an attitude that you are somehow better than other people is
IMO less than helpful to the country.

My grammar school was separated from a secondary modern by a chain
link fence. We were not allowed within 50 yards of the fence lest we
be corrupted by talking to these lesser mortals (school finishing
times were staggered to try and stop this too) and it would have been
unthinkable for our school to play them at football: games were
always played against schools judged to be of similar social
standing: Sir Walter St John, Haberdasker Aske etc, not those in the
locality. As I wrote in my Friends Reunited bio I have little time
for the school as an institution, though many of the teachers were
truly excellent and I owe them a lot.

--
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

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

Huge wrote:

The Natural Philosopher writes:

[28 lines snipped]


I would say teh 11 plus was an extremely good way to make a broad brush
selection at 11. Not perfect, but better than nothing at all.


I'm in two minds about the 11-plus. You see, I failed it. And went on
to get 11 O-levels, 4 A-levels and 2 degrees.




Indeed. I passed it and did the same.
No one in their right minds ever said that the 11 plus was totally fair,
but the majorioty who passed it benefitted from a more academic style,
and the majority who failed it probably didn't.

There was always a moinority who were marginal, and ended up in the
wrong place, and subsequently made it to the right place for them. The
tragedy today is that everyone bar a few ends up in the wrong place
really. Because the right places no longer are allowed to exist.

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:36:14 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education
to the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much
more appropriate environment for academic learning than can be
achieved in a comprehensive school.

But there's more to education than academic learning. Being brought
up with an attitude that you are somehow better than other people is
IMO less than helpful to the country.

I completely agree, Tony, which was why I was careful to say that I
did not see grammar schools (certainly the one I went to at least) as
"better" than a secondary modern. I found that there was never any
hint of social standing as an issue and sports were played with most
other schools in the area, regardless of type.

That was also why I confined the point to education of academic focus
for those who do well with it and of vocational focus for those that
do well with that.

My grammar school was separated from a secondary modern by a chain
link fence. We were not allowed within 50 yards of the fence lest we
be corrupted by talking to these lesser mortals (school finishing
times were staggered to try and stop this too) and it would have been
unthinkable for our school to play them at football: games were
always played against schools judged to be of similar social
standing: Sir Walter St John, Haberdasker Aske etc, not those in the
locality. As I wrote in my Friends Reunited bio I have little time
for the school as an institution, though many of the teachers were
truly excellent and I owe them a lot.

That was really my point. Like me, you clearly benefited from a high
standard of teaching in an environment that encouraged it.
It's the loss of that that I see as being important and the lowering
of standards. For example, I looked at some GCSE maths papers
recently. Most of the material I had covered by the end of 2nd form.

I agree with you that promotion of the notion that one school is
better than another on a social basis is a nonsense, but I think that
that could easily be addressed as it was in the school that I
attended.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 13:59:35 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



You hit the nail on the head. Amazing how many must have went through life
not even seeing this. or they saw it, and liked it, because they thought
they were better somehow. Good old British petty snobbery, that was what
grammar schools were about. Doing things with your hands was regarded as
being lowering yourself, unless you were a sculptor or artist.


I don't think I've heard such nonsense in a long time. This false
impression was part of the reason given to promote comprehensive
education. It wrecked not only the educational opportunities for
academically gifted children but for those with practical skills as
well.

At my school in addition to the excellent academic teaching we had a
wide range of practical content in science and in practical subjects
such as woodwork and metalwork. These aren't taught to anything like
the same extent today because the teachers aren't there to do it
because they don't want to teach in the state system and much of the
practical work has been taken away because of a falsely perceived risk
of injury.

These are the real dis-service to our society that has been
perpetrated for the last generation. It doesn't matter what the
suitabilty and quality are as long as everybody gets the same.

It is representative of the worst form of inverted snobbery.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

Andy Hall wrote:

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 00:08:10 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Huge wrote:

Personally I thnk we should all be given medical, education and
transport vouchers, to be exchanged for services at whatever private
establishments we see fit.

We could print pictures of the Queen on them, have them in various
denominations and call them "money".

Private?? Like the national grid. The head is on 1 million a year and just
gave himself a 0.5 million bonus, while it is short of modern equipment.
Private? Where money is concerned the service always drops.


Such as with the NHS for example. That has had obscene amounts of
money wasted on it and still provides service inferior to many 3rd
world countries. It is a hangover of a bygone era and should be shut
down.

In the same way as for education, retirement provision,.... etc etc.
I am expected to pay huge sums of money into broken state run systems
and then pay for these services again out of higher rate taxed income
in order to get anything close to acceptable and usable.

I see that Brown has leaked today that there is to be a pull back in
public spending. A revolutionary idea.




The trouble is, that ideoloy is never a decent substitute for actual
real thought, as IMM always so aptly demonstrates.


Ther are certain things - the basic infrastructure of te country for
example - that do bnenefit fom centrla planning and funding. The
downside is that a single monopolistic entity with no competition tends
to become ossifes, pay ist workers the slaray that the union demands,
and its top dogs whatever they can vote themselves. Or get themselves voted.

The privatisation ideology leads, on teh other hand, to cherry picking
of prifuitable serviecs and margianllly profitable serviecs go by the board.

The answer is of course to select the optimum cost benefit compromise.

E.g. public health funding is actuallty sensible - haveing epidemics of
disaease because those on lower incomes can't afford a dictors is to no
ones benefit. However, to deliver those serviecs via a huge monolithic
organisation top loaded with bureaucrats whose sole function is to spend
the public money on trying to make sure the public money is well
spent...is obvioulsy ultimately a self defeating exrecise. Photions are
not the only things subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty prinipal.


The soultion is to take the money in taxes, according to whatever
politically acceptable format is deemed appropriate, and dish it out as
medical insurance, freely spendable at whatever NHS, or OTHER,
establishment passes a bare minuimum of regulatory hurdles, and is
deemed by its customers to deliver service.

Ditto education. That way there is no 'poverty trap' between those than
can afford private education, and those that can't. If you want to spend
an extra thousand a year on education, you can. It's no longer a choice
between 'free and you get what you are given' and 'ten grand a year and
you get what you want'.

In fact I was able to do this for my mother, who needed an opeartio. Th
eoperation was carried out on teh NHS, but teh after care - which was
infintely better than NHS - cost nme a few thousand quid. Well worth it.
But having the whole thing domne privately would have cost nearer 20 grand.

The rael problems is the political spin and ideology. Its no longer
about delivering the best value for money services to the largest number
of people. Its aboyt being *seen* to be being 'fair' and 'not wasting
tax payers money' and 'getting rid of class based privilege' and so on -
and I stress the BEING SEEN. In other words, the perception of the
voting public outweighs the actual delivery of the essential services at
sensible cost.

Presumably large tracts of the Nu Laber fraternity actually believe in
what they are doing. Whjether Cambel and Balir ever did, is a moot
point. They seem to be totally and utterly dedicated to winning
elections and popularity, and never mind the best interests of the country.

Heigh ho!

You get in the end, the politicians you deserve.








.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education
to the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much
more appropriate environment for academic learning than can be
achieved in a comprehensive school.


But there's more to education than academic learning. Being brought
up with an attitude that you are somehow better than other people is
IMO less than helpful to the country.



Indeed. And THAT is the attitude that IMM has in spades.

My obesrvatin is that any orgaisation si equal, and sometimes greater
than the sum of its parts. For every general, you need an army of
footsoldiers. However, the jobs they do are DIFFERENT. Not more or less,
important, but different.
Foot soldiers need to be fast, tough, undertstand the practicalities of
the kit they use, and essentially follow orders fairly blindly.

Those that give the orders need to be politically aware, understand
military strategy, and be liked and trusted.

Two different sets of skills, two different educational needs.


My grammar school was separated from a secondary modern by a chain
link fence. We were not allowed within 50 yards of the fence lest we
be corrupted by talking to these lesser mortals (school finishing
times were staggered to try and stop this too) and it would have been
unthinkable for our school to play them at football: games were
always played against schools judged to be of similar social
standing: Sir Walter St John, Haberdasker Aske etc, not those in the
locality. As I wrote in my Friends Reunited bio I have little time
for the school as an institution, though many of the teachers were
truly excellent and I owe them a lot.




Mmm. There was probably a good reason for that, if the likes of IMM were
the other side of the fence. You would not have survived an instant on
their playing fields. Anyone with the wrong color skin, wrong accent or
wrong clothes in my experience is an instant target for at best violent
verbal abuse, and usually, physical abuse as well.

Mind you its probably no worse than getting buggered by the prefects at
boarding school, or the priests at Church school :-)

One size does not fit all. Society has - and needs - a vey small
proprtion of mad geniuses, a larger selection of creative and
imaginative self starters, a still greater number of broadly educated
competent adminsitrators and managers, and a huge majority of well
trained but unspectacular craftsmen and skilled people who can do a job
to a good standard. And something for the last minority - those who are
simply never going to be much good at anything at all - to do.

Hitherto, we had Oxbridge for the first, the redbricks for the second,
sneible business schools and the like for the third, and what used to be
called technical collegs - but are now called 'uni's' for the fourth.

And Borstal for the 5th :-)

It may not have been ideal, and it may have given rise to resentment,
BUT at least those broad categories were recognised. Now there is a one
size fits all strategy. Everybody goes to 'uni' or goes nowhere at all.

As an exercise in social experimentation, it is an interesting failure.
As an exercise in how to educate the poeple of a country whose
intellectual skills are just about the ONLY natural resource it has
left, its a bloody disaster.

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

The Natural Philosopher writes:

[28 lines snipped]

I would say teh 11 plus was an extremely good way to make a broad brush
selection at 11. Not perfect, but better than nothing at all.

I'm in two minds about the 11-plus. You see, I failed it. And went on
to get 11 O-levels, 4 A-levels and 2 degrees.

Indeed. I passed it and did the same.
No one in their right minds ever said that the 11 plus was totally fair,
but the majorioty who passed it benefitted from a more academic style,
and the majority who failed it probably didn't.

There was always a moinority who were marginal, and ended up in the
wrong place, and subsequently made it to the right place for them. The
tragedy today is that everyone bar a few ends up in the wrong place
really. Because the right places no longer are allowed to exist.

Of course, this is just babble.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:36:14 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education
to the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much
more appropriate environment for academic learning than can be
achieved in a comprehensive school.

But there's more to education than academic learning. Being brought
up with an attitude that you are somehow better than other people is
IMO less than helpful to the country.

I completely agree, Tony, which was why I was careful to say that I
did not see grammar schools (certainly the one I went to at least) as
"better" than a secondary modern. I found that there was never any
hint of social standing as an issue and sports were played with most
other schools in the area, regardless of type.

That was also why I confined the point to education of academic focus
for those who do well with it and of vocational focus for those that
do well with that.

My grammar school was separated from a secondary modern by a chain
link fence. We were not allowed within 50 yards of the fence lest we
be corrupted by talking to these lesser mortals (school finishing
times were staggered to try and stop this too) and it would have been
unthinkable for our school to play them at football: games were
always played against schools judged to be of similar social
standing: Sir Walter St John, Haberdasker Aske etc, not those in the
locality. As I wrote in my Friends Reunited bio I have little time
for the school as an institution, though many of the teachers were
truly excellent and I owe them a lot.

That was really my point. Like me, you clearly benefited from a high
standard of teaching in an environment that encouraged it.

This implies that comprehensives don't have decent teachers and are not
motivated, which of course is tripe.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

IMM wrote:

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education
to the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much
more appropriate environment for academic learning than can be
achieved in a comprehensive school.

But there's more to education than academic learning. Being brought
up with an attitude that you are somehow better than other people is
IMO less than helpful to the country.

My grammar school was separated from a secondary modern by a chain
link fence. We were not allowed within 50 yards of the fence lest we
be corrupted by talking to these lesser mortals (school finishing
times were staggered to try and stop this too) and it would have been
unthinkable for our school to play them at football: games were
always played against schools judged to be of similar social
standing: Sir Walter St John, Haberdasker Aske etc, not those in the
locality. As I wrote in my Friends Reunited bio I have little time
for the school as an institution, though many of the teachers were
truly excellent and I owe them a lot.


Tony,

You hit the nail on the head. Amazing how many must have went through life
not even seeing this. or they saw it, and liked it, because they thought
they were better somehow. Good old British petty snobbery, that was what
grammar schools were about. Doing things with your hands was regarded as
being lowering yourself, unless you were a sculptor or artist.



Not im my school and education it wasn't mate..in fat teh eople who are
most averse top manual work are nearly always drawn from teh ranks of
teh aspiring blue collra class, who do it to distance themselves from
their foreberas. There is no snob worse than someone who has no
confidence in their own upbringing.

Be it inverted, or normal, snobbery.

However, there are in general plenty of people who can and do have good
manual skills, and rather fewer that have intellectual ones. That is
reaosnable from a Darwinian perspective: It makes sense for sociey to
continue to do what it always has done, rather than leap into unknown
waters without those having been plumbed by a few misbegotten
anti-social geniuses and entrepreneurs.

Concversely, those that have been educated to take command and show some
sense of responsibiliuty, in the expectation that they would one day
inhabit such positions, do marginally better than those who have not,
all other things being equal.

You should read some history. Good knights depended on good blacksmiths
for the weaponry, and nobless oblige ensured that good knights protected
good smiths and the peasants who suppiled food for them all, from being
slaughtered by the other marauding knights of foreign persuasion. It
worked because it supplied a neeedd, and that is the origins of teh
'class' system. Lacking the ability to educate everyine to vbe a
peasant, as we seem to be attempting today, or indeed any way to do
aptitude testing, one got educated to do the bit for society that ones
parents had done, broadly speaking. Only when that system became out
moded (rise of industialisation) did current political thinking arise.

We are now beynd that phase as well, and post industrial society is busy
forming itself out of the ashes. You are just a dinosaur - a relic from
the last century - mouthing the sort of mean spirited political rhetoric
that replaced the brutality of the Russian Tsars with the brutality of
Stalin and Hitler..

....I am reminded of the potted version of Iranian politics given me by
an Iranian 'well things were OK, and we had food and education, and
could wear mini-skirts and bikinis, but the Shah was taking all the
money and giving it to his familiy and the Americans, so we threw him
out and got in the Ayatollah, and now there is no food, no education, no
money and we all have to wear silly clothes, but I suppose at least it
all doesn't go to the Shah, and the Americans'

Ther is another little story told me a long time ago.

Once aupon a time there was a little bird, who was happy, sang in the
sunhsine, and ate worms. One day he attended a politial meeting, where
he was told that 'the hawks and eagles are no better than us, we should
be up there, we are as good as them' so the little bird flew up, found a
thermal, and flew higher and higher and higher..but only being a little
bird, he got tired and cold, and didn;t know how to get out of the
thermal, and couldn;t see the ground, and eventually his wings froze,
and he fell out of the sky like a stime straight into a steaming pile of
**** l;eft by a passing cow.

Gradually he thawed out, felling lucky to be alive, but then he got
hungry and started to squawk. 'Help, get me out of here, I am stuck in
the ****'

A psssing cat, hearing the noise, asked 'do you want me to get you out?'
'YES' so the cat got him out and ate him.

The moral of this cautinary tale is firstly that all birds are not
created equal, and secondly trying to ape those who have different
skills than you will at best leave you isolated, and at worst land you
deep in ****, and the third moral is that peple offering help are not
necessarily yoir friend, and the final moral is that if you are deep in
the ****, but is relatively comfortable and safe, sometimes it pays to
keep your effing mouth SHUT.











---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education
to the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much
more appropriate environment for academic learning than can be
achieved in a comprehensive school.


But there's more to education than academic learning. Being brought
up with an attitude that you are somehow better than other people is
IMO less than helpful to the country.



Indeed. And THAT is the attitude that IMM has in spades.

No I don't.

My obesrvatin is that any orgaisation si equal, and sometimes greater
than the sum of its parts. For every general, you need an army of
footsoldiers. However, the jobs they do are DIFFERENT. Not more or less,
important, but different.
Foot soldiers need to be fast, tough, undertstand the practicalities of
the kit they use, and essentially follow orders fairly blindly.

Those that give the orders need to be politically aware, understand
military strategy, and be liked and trusted.

Two different sets of skills, two different educational needs.

You pillock. The class system ensures that the officers ARE from a certain
class and that the foot soldier WILL be from a certain class.


My grammar school was separated from a secondary modern by a chain
link fence. We were not allowed within 50 yards of the fence lest we
be corrupted by talking to these lesser mortals (school finishing
times were staggered to try and stop this too) and it would have been
unthinkable for our school to play them at football: games were
always played against schools judged to be of similar social
standing: Sir Walter St John, Haberdasker Aske etc, not those in the
locality. As I wrote in my Friends Reunited bio I have little time
for the school as an institution, though many of the teachers were
truly excellent and I owe them a lot.




Mmm. There was probably a good reason
for that, if the likes of IMM were
the other side of the fence.

A comp boy, just like Alistair Campbell. We never for one moment thought
that grammar school kids were better than us socially or academically.

You would not have survived an instant on
their playing fields.

We always battered the hell out of grammar school kids in football.

Anyone with the wrong color skin, wrong accent or
wrong clothes in my experience is an instant target for at best violent
verbal abuse, and usually, physical abuse as well.

Mind you its probably no worse than getting buggered by the prefects at
boarding school, or the priests at Church school :-)

Oh that lovely public school system you keep defending.

One size does not fit all. Society has - and needs - a vey small
proprtion of mad geniuses, a larger selection of creative and
imaginative self starters, a still greater number of broadly educated
competent adminsitrators and managers, and a huge majority of well
trained but unspectacular craftsmen and skilled people who can do a job
to a good standard. And something for the last minority - those who are
simply never going to be much good at anything at all - to do.

And the system makes sure that the well paid management/power positions are
not the kids from the sink estate.

Hitherto, we had Oxbridge for the first, the redbricks for the second,
sneible business schools and the like for the third, and what used to be
called technical collegs - but are now called 'uni's' for the fourth.

And Borstal for the 5th :-)

And the system keeps the differentials of the strata well set. Since when
does Oxbridge have a monopoly on genius? Logi Baird, the TV inventor was
not one of them, neither was Trevor Baylis.

It may not have been ideal, and it may
have given rise to resentment,
BUT at least those broad categories
were recognised. Now there is a one
size fits all strategy. Everybody goes to
'uni' or goes nowhere at all.

And what is wrong with that? The higher the educational rate of a country
the more it does well. Look at the Japs.

As an exercise in social experimentation,
it is an interesting failure.

The tripe you itemised "Hitherto, we had Oxbridge for the first, the
redbricks for the second, sneible business schools and the like for the
third, and what used to be called technical collegs". This is a failure, as
it is not based on merit.

As an exercise in how to educate the
poeple of a country whose
intellectual skills are just about the
ONLY natural resource it has
left, its a bloody disaster.

Yes, the tripe you itemised "Hitherto, we had Oxbridge for the first, the
redbricks for the second, sneible business schools and the like for the
third, and what used to be called technical collegs", is a failure, as it is
not based on merit and has been one of the prime causes why the UK has
underperformed.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

E.g. public health funding is actuallty sensible - haveing epidemics of
disaease because those on lower incomes can't afford a dictors is to no
ones benefit. However, to deliver those serviecs via a huge monolithic
organisation top loaded with bureaucrats

The extra management tiers were introduced by your darling Maggie.
Currently the largest ever HNS building programme is under way.

The rael problems is the political spin

You have been reading the sneaky Mail haven't you?

Presumably large tracts of the Nu Laber fraternity actually believe in
what they are doing. Whjether Cambel and Balir ever did, is a moot
point. They seem to be totally and utterly dedicated to winning
elections and popularity, and never mind the best interests of the
country.

You are 15 years out of kilter. That was Maggie. remember all those 1000s
living on the streets? All alcos, lazy *******s, scroungers, drug addicts,
etc, etc. Amazing that when Blair came to power they all gradually went
away and were no longer also and lazy *******s. Strange that wasn't it.
People have short memories and highly tuned selective amnesia.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

The trouble is, that ideoloy is never a decent substitute for actual
real thought, as IMM always so aptly demonstrates.


Ther are certain things - the basic infrastructure of te country for
example - that do bnenefit fom centrla planning and funding. The
downside is that a single monopolistic entity with no competition tends
to become ossifes, pay ist workers the slaray that the union demands,
and its top dogs whatever they can vote themselves. Or get themselves
voted.

The privatisation ideology leads, on teh other hand, to cherry picking
of prifuitable serviecs and margianllly profitable serviecs go by the
board.

The answer is of course to select the optimum cost benefit compromise.

E.g. public health funding is actuallty sensible - haveing epidemics of
disaease because those on lower incomes can't afford a dictors is to no
ones benefit. However, to deliver those serviecs via a huge monolithic
organisation top loaded with bureaucrats whose sole function is to spend
the public money on trying to make sure the public money is well
spent...is obvioulsy ultimately a self defeating exrecise. Photions are
not the only things subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty prinipal.


The soultion is to take the money in taxes, according to whatever
politically acceptable format is deemed appropriate, and dish it out as
medical insurance, freely spendable at whatever NHS, or OTHER,
establishment passes a bare minuimum of regulatory hurdles, and is
deemed by its customers to deliver service.

snip


Which can be neatly summed up as the "tragedy of the commons".

If you were to go out for a meal with one or two friends, and agree to split
the bill according to what you consume, then you might have a care as to
what you eat. Feeling flush? Well, the fillet steak looks attractive. Bit
strapped for cash? There must be a cheaper option, and perhaps you don't
really need that extra bottle of bolly...

However, contrast with the situation where you're out with 20 people and for
ease of administration you split it all equally at the end. The incremental
cost of that steak is suddenly only 1/20th of what it would have been, and
if the person next to you splashes out on it, then what the hell, why not?
Slowly, and unnoticeably the overall bill mounts up till you're hit with a
shock at the end of it all.

Exactly the same is true for public spending on such things as health and
education. Monolithic provision of these services by state institutions,
paid for by vague, general taxation is one sure fire way to increase the
cost of these services without any natural pressure for improvement.

You can't rely purely on removal of taxation and payment by individuals,
because we still need to provide a base minimum service for all, and those
that need the base education the most will be those in family environments
who are least likely to either be able to afford to pay for it, or who;s
parents would squander the resources elsewhere given half a chance.

You can't remove the option of people to spend more willingly on these
services, becuase if I want to work harder to get that next sale/win the
next contract/fix another person's electrics/boiler, whatever, and spend it
either on my family's health or my kids' education then I should damned well
be able to.

So you;'re left with the only sane solution which is to give people some
"currency" - be it vouchers, electronic cash entitlement, etc etc - for
particular base services and let them top them up if their means or attitude
to the service allows. That entitlement has got to be portable, enabling it
to be "spent" in any "suitable" organisation, and lo! a pressure to improve
then exists in the system as a whole.

On a different note, one of the problems with the old grammar school system
was that once you were streamed by the 11 plus to grammar or secondary
modern, it was very difficult to switch to the other stream, regardless of
any aptitude that you might have had otherwise. I was educated in a very
mixed comprehensive, but was streamed throughout - something that I gather
doesn't happen now. The sixth form was run rather more like a grammar - I
believe that it's presence was instrumental in making sure that many of the
better teachers in the school stayed there, which was to the benefit of all.


cheers
Richard

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..

On a different note, one of the problems with the old grammar school
system
was that once you were streamed by the 11 plus to grammar or secondary
modern, it was very difficult to switch to the other stream, regardless of
any aptitude that you might have had otherwise. I was educated in a very
mixed comprehensive, but was streamed throughout - something that I gather
doesn't happen now. The sixth form was run rather more like a grammar - I
believe that it's presence was instrumental in making sure that many of
the
better teachers in the school stayed there, which was to the benefit of
all.

So, it worked. All these pillocks who keeping saying the comp system
doesn't work are talking tripe as usual.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 16:22:34 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

It is representative of the worst form of inverted snobbery.

You got that from the Daily Mail, didn't you? The stock Little Middle
Englander answers when cornered "inverted snobbery", "chip on the shoulder",
etc, etc. It is amazing to read the writing of someone so conditioned.

I don't read the Daily Mail, so that would be rather difficult.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 15:54:32 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




That was really my point. Like me, you clearly benefited from a high
standard of teaching in an environment that encouraged it.

This implies that comprehensives don't have decent teachers and are not
motivated, which of course is tripe.

The demoralisation of the teaching profession is such that people are
leaving it in droves and the government is having to lay out cash
bribes to attract new recruits.

I know quite a large number of teachers and I can tell you that they
are not motivated in their work. The National Curriculum has stamped
out any notion of creativity.







---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Huge wrote:


The Natural Philosopher writes:


Huge wrote:



The Natural Philosopher writes:


[20 lines snipped]



Personally I thnk we should all be given medical, education and
transport vouchers, to be exchanged for services at whatever private
establishments we see fit.



We could print pictures of the Queen on them, have them in various
denominations and call them "money".





Then IMM would spend them all on drink.


Let him. It's his money.



No they have to be specifically
allocated for 'education' or 'health'.


Err, no. It's our money. Why can't we spend it on what we want?

Mmm.Try reaeaching teh history of taxes and socialism. Essentially its
always someone elses money :-)


Of course, this is trollop.




Pardon? Looks like you need to do some more reasearch into meaning of words.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Huge wrote:


The Natural Philosopher writes:

[28 lines snipped]


I would say teh 11 plus was an extremely good way to make a broad brush
selection at 11. Not perfect, but better than nothing at all.

I'm in two minds about the 11-plus. You see, I failed it. And went on
to get 11 O-levels, 4 A-levels and 2 degrees.

Indeed. I passed it and did the same.
No one in their right minds ever said that the 11 plus was totally fair,
but the majorioty who passed it benefitted from a more academic style,
and the majority who failed it probably didn't.

There was always a moinority who were marginal, and ended up in the
wrong place, and subsequently made it to the right place for them. The
tragedy today is that everyone bar a few ends up in the wrong place
really. Because the right places no longer are allowed to exist.


Of course, this is just babble.



If its so obvious, why do you feel the need to say so?

Hmm.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Andy Hall wrote:


E.g. public health funding is actuallty sensible - haveing epidemics of
disaease because those on lower incomes can't afford a dictors is to no
ones benefit. However, to deliver those serviecs via a huge monolithic
organisation top loaded with bureaucrats


The extra management tiers were introduced by your darling Maggie.
Currently the largest ever HNS building programme is under way.


The rael problems is the political spin


You have been reading the sneaky Mail haven't you?


Presumably large tracts of the Nu Laber fraternity actually believe in
what they are doing. Whjether Cambel and Balir ever did, is a moot
point. They seem to be totally and utterly dedicated to winning
elections and popularity, and never mind the best interests of the

country.

You are 15 years out of kilter. That was Maggie. remember all those 1000s
living on the streets? All alcos, lazy *******s, scroungers, drug addicts,
etc, etc. Amazing that when Blair came to power they all gradually went
away and were no longer also and lazy *******s. Strange that wasn't it.
People have short memories and highly tuned selective amnesia.



IMM, for once I totally agree with you, that the rot really started with
Thatcher, and Blair has just continued it.

You seem to think I am a dyed in the wool Tory and Mail reader. Far from
it. No current political party satisfies my criteria for common sense,
freedom from simplistic ideology, and intelligent comment. My fondest
hope is for a completely hung prliament, where no party can force
through legislation on party ideological grounds. It would then have to
be debated, and just possibly become sensible rather than senseles
legislation.

However, that is by the bye



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...


It is representative of the worst form of inverted snobbery.


You got that from the Daily Mail, didn't you? The stock Little Middle
Englander answers when cornered "inverted snobbery", "chip on the shoulder",
etc, etc. It is amazing to read the writing of someone so conditioned.



I have never read the daily mail that I can recall. In fact I don't read
newspapers at all, except occasionally the Financial Times. I used to
read the economist as well, but don't have the time these days it seems.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...


In article , Andy Hall
wrote:


Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.


Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education
to the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much
more appropriate environment for academic learning than can be
achieved in a comprehensive school.


But there's more to education than academic learning. Being brought
up with an attitude that you are somehow better than other people is
IMO less than helpful to the country.

My grammar school was separated from a secondary modern by a chain
link fence. We were not allowed within 50 yards of the fence lest we
be corrupted by talking to these lesser mortals (school finishing
times were staggered to try and stop this too) and it would have been
unthinkable for our school to play them at football: games were
always played against schools judged to be of similar social
standing: Sir Walter St John, Haberdasker Aske etc, not those in the
locality. As I wrote in my Friends Reunited bio I have little time
for the school as an institution, though many of the teachers were
truly excellent and I owe them a lot.


Tony,

You hit the nail on the head. Amazing how many must have went through

life

not even seeing this. or they saw it, and liked it, because they thought
they were better somehow. Good old British petty snobbery, that was

what

grammar schools were about. Doing things with your hands was regarded

as

being lowering yourself, unless you were a sculptor or artist.


However, there are in general plenty of people who can and do have good
manual skills, and rather fewer that have intellectual ones. That is
reaosnable from a Darwinian perspective: It makes sense for sociey to
continue to do what it always has done, ..


You mean have a rigged system based on class. Ever heard of the term, equal
opportunity? Or merit?


Concversely, those that have been educated
to take command and show some
sense of responsibiliuty, in the expectation
that they would one day inhabit such positions,


You mean had arrogance instilled into them.


No, I don't.

Commanders who are disliked, usually find themselves suddenly alone on
the battlefield, or die from friendly fire in understandable mistakes.

Like most people wiuth your sort of inverted snobbery profle, all you
see of management and command is someone giving orders, and someone
taking them.

I have mmet managers in business who think that management is about
sitting in a plush office, having meetings and telling other people what
to do and sacking them if they don't.

REAL management and leadership is an entirely different kettle of fish.




snip babble attempting to justify a rigged class system with education as
the heart of it



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

RichardS wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

The trouble is, that ideoloy is never a decent substitute for actual
real thought, as IMM always so aptly demonstrates.


Ther are certain things - the basic infrastructure of te country for
example - that do bnenefit fom centrla planning and funding. The
downside is that a single monopolistic entity with no competition tends
to become ossifes, pay ist workers the slaray that the union demands,
and its top dogs whatever they can vote themselves. Or get themselves

voted.

The privatisation ideology leads, on teh other hand, to cherry picking
of prifuitable serviecs and margianllly profitable serviecs go by the

board.

The answer is of course to select the optimum cost benefit compromise.

E.g. public health funding is actuallty sensible - haveing epidemics of
disaease because those on lower incomes can't afford a dictors is to no
ones benefit. However, to deliver those serviecs via a huge monolithic
organisation top loaded with bureaucrats whose sole function is to spend
the public money on trying to make sure the public money is well
spent...is obvioulsy ultimately a self defeating exrecise. Photions are
not the only things subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty prinipal.


The soultion is to take the money in taxes, according to whatever
politically acceptable format is deemed appropriate, and dish it out as
medical insurance, freely spendable at whatever NHS, or OTHER,
establishment passes a bare minuimum of regulatory hurdles, and is
deemed by its customers to deliver service.


snip


Which can be neatly summed up as the "tragedy of the commons".


Yes...possibly.



If you were to go out for a meal with one or two friends, and agree to split
the bill according to what you consume, then you might have a care as to
what you eat. Feeling flush? Well, the fillet steak looks attractive. Bit
strapped for cash? There must be a cheaper option, and perhaps you don't
really need that extra bottle of bolly...



Yes. But what I am more advocationg is that you get - say - £15 per head
subsiy on teh meal, and anbything extra comes out of your pocket.


However, contrast with the situation where you're out with 20 people and for
ease of administration you split it all equally at the end. The incremental
cost of that steak is suddenly only 1/20th of what it would have been, and
if the person next to you splashes out on it, then what the hell, why not?
Slowly, and unnoticeably the overall bill mounts up till you're hit with a
shock at the end of it all.


Yes. But is that any worse than going out, paying nothing, and getting
given baked beans on toast?



Exactly the same is true for public spending on such things as health and
education. Monolithic provision of these services by state institutions,
paid for by vague, general taxation is one sure fire way to increase the
cost of these services without any natural pressure for improvement.


Yes, which is why the *PROVISION* should not be via teh state. Teh
PROVISION should be by independent financially accountable institutions
that are slectable by the INDIVIDUAL but are subsidised UP TO AN AGRRED
POINT by central FUNDING, not central PROVISION.



You can't rely purely on removal of taxation and payment by individuals,
because we still need to provide a base minimum service for all, and those
that need the base education the most will be those in family environments
who are least likely to either be able to afford to pay for it, or who;s
parents would squander the resources elsewhere given half a chance.



Yes. Totally agree. Which is why they have to have vouchers with 'for
education use only' stamepd in them.

BUT tehy are redeemable at ANY school. So, if you don't like the school
you can send your kids to another one, or even, if its deeemed
acceptable, teach them yourself (as one person I know decided to do)


You can't remove the option of people to spend more willingly on these
services, becuase if I want to work harder to get that next sale/win the
next contract/fix another person's electrics/boiler, whatever, and spend it
either on my family's health or my kids' education then I should damned well
be able to.


Yes, so some schools are more expensive than the voucher system. Lets
say that basic educatiuon is free, but there are special paid courses
available in e.g. some more obscure subjects...well you could pay extra
for those if you wanted, or not if you could not afford it.

The beauty of this system is that if your child has any special needs -
be they intellectually backward OR precocious, you ought to be able to
have a better chance of matching them to a school that caters for them.

Its all about trying to find a solution that allows for parental choice,
and allows for private subsidy as well as state, whilst freeing up
enough central FUNDING to get the basic minimum of standrad education
available to the widest section of the public in the most varied ways.

Schools that are unable to teach anything more than how to scrawl 4
letter words on toilet walls would soon vanish. Assumiong that the
parents had some motivation to get their kids to be able to do more than
that.

AND if they heven't, well its a justification for IMM'S class system
anyay. :-)




So you;'re left with the only sane solution which is to give people some
"currency" - be it vouchers, electronic cash entitlement, etc etc - for
particular base services and let them top them up if their means or attitude
to the service allows. That entitlement has got to be portable, enabling it
to be "spent" in any "suitable" organisation, and lo! a pressure to improve
then exists in the system as a whole.


YES!!!



On a different note, one of the problems with the old grammar school system
was that once you were streamed by the 11 plus to grammar or secondary
modern, it was very difficult to switch to the other stream, regardless of
any aptitude that you might have had otherwise. I was educated in a very
mixed comprehensive, but was streamed throughout - something that I gather
doesn't happen now. The sixth form was run rather more like a grammar - I
believe that it's presence was instrumental in making sure that many of the
better teachers in the school stayed there, which was to the benefit of all.



Yes. I think your points are utterly valid.

In fact, its the problem of the 'socially acceptable, but free choice'
dilemma in a nutshell.

Societies need to be able to reward useful effort that benefits all with
something. That means being able to spend that reward on things you
personally find rearding. Thats teh market, free enterprise and the
capitalis system

However if left to its own devices, the sum of the micro decisions of
individuals and corporations, will result in a macro society with severe
deprivation of a minority, which in turn leads to problems for the
majority. Hence the need for some centralised socialist type government
intervention to moderate it.

Capitalism and socialsim are the engine and the regulator of society,
they are not viable alternatives. That is the point.

Unbridled capitalism leads to a fascist police state, and in the end, so
does unbridled socialism. There is very little to choose between Soviet
experience and the experience of say Saddam Husseins government, when it
comes down to it. He even looks like Stalin. :-)

If only people would adopt the view ezxporessed, that both are needed,
and teh best solution is a pragmatic compromise, then we would abandon
the whole stupid ideology of class, and political correctness, and
privatisation, and take an unbiased look at the way things really work
(as aoppsed to IMM's little book of How Things Work, in Politics and
Sociology) and start to build a better system.




cheers
Richard

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

IMM wrote:

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..


On a different note, one of the problems with the old grammar school

system

was that once you were streamed by the 11 plus to grammar or secondary
modern, it was very difficult to switch to the other stream, regardless of
any aptitude that you might have had otherwise. I was educated in a very
mixed comprehensive, but was streamed throughout - something that I gather
doesn't happen now. The sixth form was run rather more like a grammar - I
believe that it's presence was instrumental in making sure that many of

the

better teachers in the school stayed there, which was to the benefit of

all.

So, it worked. All these pillocks who keeping saying the comp system
doesn't work are talking tripe as usual.



Comrehensoive SCHOOLS used to work better than they do now, because they
were streamed. But tha was because they were in a streamed SYSTEM. Its
the modern practice of abandoning all streaming in favour of monolthic
education that leaves the least able and the most able out in the cold.
AND arguably isn't that good for those in the middle either. That is
what we are calling teh comprehensive SYSTEM. Junk.

How old were YOU when you first learnt the Calculus IMM?



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...


It is representative of the worst form of inverted snobbery.


You got that from the Daily Mail, didn't you? The stock Little Middle
Englander answers when cornered "inverted snobbery", "chip on the
shoulder",
etc, etc. It is amazing to read the writing of someone so conditioned.



I have never read the daily mail that I can recall. In fact I don't read
newspapers at all, except occasionally the Financial Times. I used to
read the economist as well, but don't have the time these days it seems.

The Economist, that says something too.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

AND then saying that failing an exam at 11 scarred you for life. Well so
it may do, but so does falling out of a tree, your first tragic love
affair,

What drivel!


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:

My elder sister, who passed her 11 plus in 1957 I think, and went on via
a Grammar school to study modern languages in Sheffield, and
subsequently diod a teacher training ciourse for a year, before spending
a year in a comprehensive school in Liverpool in I think 1968 or
thereabouts, left that school and went to teach in a private school in
France. I asked her why...and she said 'because I want to teach people
who want to learn, and whose parents want them to learn, and I am sick
of having my car vandalised in teh school parking lot, and dealing with
a bunch of kids who despise what I am trying to do, and whose parents
think its all a load of snotty middle class pretensions'

The middle class, which most teachers came from, did look down on working
class culture and ideals, and attempt to instil their ways and taste on
them. This the working class did not take too kindly to.

Most of the more able scientists of the day left for America. The Brain
Drain. In the good old days of the last Labour Government, with supertax
and so on, no one with any sense stayed in this country.

In the 1960s the brain drain was mainly for the US weapons and space
programmes. Those people went because of the ground braking leading edge,
super financed research, not money.

snip Tory party propaganda


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:36:14 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:


In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

Grammar schools are all about good old British petty snobbery.

Not in my experience. The point is to match the type of education
to the strengths of the child. The grammar schools created a much
more appropriate environment for academic learning than can be
achieved in a comprehensive school.

But there's more to education than academic learning. Being brought
up with an attitude that you are somehow better than other people is
IMO less than helpful to the country.

I completely agree, Tony, which was why I was careful to say that I
did not see grammar schools (certainly the one I went to at least) as
"better" than a secondary modern. I found that there was never any
hint of social standing as an issue and sports were played with most
other schools in the area, regardless of type.

That was also why I confined the point to education of academic focus
for those who do well with it and of vocational focus for those that
do well with that.

My grammar school was separated from a secondary modern by a chain
link fence. We were not allowed within 50 yards of the fence lest we
be corrupted by talking to these lesser mortals (school finishing
times were staggered to try and stop this too) and it would have been
unthinkable for our school to play them at football: games were
always played against schools judged to be of similar social
standing: Sir Walter St John, Haberdasker Aske etc, not those in the
locality. As I wrote in my Friends Reunited bio I have little time
for the school as an institution, though many of the teachers were
truly excellent and I owe them a lot.

That was really my point. Like me, you clearly benefited from a high
standard of teaching in an environment that encouraged it.


This implies that comprehensives don't have decent teachers and are not
motivated, which of course is tripe.

Maybe, may be not. How many grammar/public schools have you attended to
adjudge the difference?

How many comps have you Little Middle Englanders attended.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..


On a different note, one of the problems with the old grammar school

system

was that once you were streamed by the 11 plus to grammar or secondary
modern, it was very difficult to switch to the other stream, regardless
of
any aptitude that you might have had otherwise. I was educated in a
very
mixed comprehensive, but was streamed throughout - something that I
gather
doesn't happen now. The sixth form was run rather more like a grammar -
I
believe that it's presence was instrumental in making sure that many of

the

better teachers in the school stayed there, which was to the benefit of

all.

So, it worked. All these pillocks who keeping saying the comp system
doesn't work are talking tripe as usual.

Comrehensoive SCHOOLS used to work better than they do now, because they
were streamed. But tha was because they were in a streamed SYSTEM. Its
the modern practice of abandoning all streaming in favour of monolthic
education that leaves the least able and the most able out in the cold.
AND arguably isn't that good for those in the middle either. That is
what we are calling teh comprehensive SYSTEM. Junk.

The core of the education is what Little Middle Englanders have been
screaming for, the 3 Rs. Comps are streamed.

How old were YOU when you first learnt the Calculus IMM?

15 or 16 I think, and did it later at uni. I liked it, integration and all.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Huge wrote:


The Natural Philosopher writes:


Huge wrote:



The Natural Philosopher writes:


[20 lines snipped]



Personally I thnk we should all be given medical, education and
transport vouchers, to be exchanged for services at whatever private
establishments we see fit.



We could print pictures of the Queen on them, have them in various
denominations and call them "money".





Then IMM would spend them all on drink.


Let him. It's his money.



No they have to be specifically
allocated for 'education' or 'health'.


Err, no. It's our money. Why can't we spend it on what we want?

Mmm.Try reaeaching teh history of taxes and socialism. Essentially its
always someone elses money :-)

Of course, this is trollop.

Pardon? Looks like you need to do some more reasearch into meaning of
words.

trollop: a woman who has had a lot of sexual relationships without any
emotional involvement.

Sounds about right.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
RichardS wrote:

AND if they heven't, well its a justification for IMM'S class system
anyay. :-)

I don't want a class system. That is pretty naive as there probably will be
a limited one irrespective. To clarify:

1. I don't want a system that promotes a class system.

To fine tune:

2. I don't want a system that ensures a certaoin type of class are
privilidged.

We have 1 and 2 right now.

If only people would adopt the view ezxporessed, that both are needed,
and teh best solution is a pragmatic compromise, then we would abandon
the whole stupid ideology of class, and political correctness, and
privatisation, and take an unbiased look at the way things really work
(as aoppsed to IMM's little book of How Things Work, in Politics and
Sociology) and start to build a better system.

I don't really have an ideal. When I see something overtly wrong it should
be fixed.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:33:59 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




The core of the education is what Little Middle Englanders have been
screaming for, the 3 Rs. Comps are streamed.

No, they are organised with a system of sets by subject. That
creates an even greater limitation of choice and wastage because of
timetable issues.



How old were YOU when you first learnt the Calculus IMM?

15 or 16 I think, and did it later at uni. I liked it, integration and all.


I began with it in first or second form.

Are you sure you didn't do disintegration?



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:19:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



How old were YOU when you first learnt the Calculus IMM?

15 or 16 I think, and did it later at uni. I liked it, integration and
all.

I began with it in first or second form.

It is an O level subject and was only A level at one time I believe. How
come you were doing it earlier?

Because I had a fair aptitude for maths and a teacher at my grammar
school who believe in encouraging his students to develop their
abilities as fast as they were able.

In terms of external exams it was a maths O level subject, IIRC,
which I took a year early and obtained a grade 1.

I believe that nowadays it's a 6th form subject.

I had a similar situation in primary school where I had an excellent
teacher in multiple subjects and was doing some basic trigonometry and
algebra in my penultimate year there.

The opposite situation happened with my daughter, who we started at
the local state primary school. She was reading well at least a year
before she went there but was held back at age 6 "to help the little
ones" i.e. 5 year olds to learn to read. The school (which has a
good reputation) told me that they did not have the resources for her
to move ahead. We paid for most of the rest of her education at
considerable cost. Despite this being in addition to the payments for
the state system and out of taxed income, it was worth every penny.
This had nothing to do with the private school being "better" in the
sense of the state school being "inferior", but simply with the
resources and ethic to match each child's needs and abilities.






Are you sure you didn't do disintegration?

LOL!


---

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:19:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:33:59 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




The core of the education is what Little Middle Englanders have been
screaming for, the 3 Rs. Comps are streamed.

Some are, some aren't - although I find it hard to imagine how
anything can be taught without streaming.

No, they are organised with a system of sets by subject. That
creates an even greater limitation of choice and wastage because of
timetable issues.

How old were YOU when you first learnt the Calculus IMM?

15 or 16 I think, and did it later at uni. I liked it, integration and
all.

I began with it in first or second form.

It is an O level subject and was only A level at one time I believe. How
come you were doing it earlier?

Like Andy, I started calculus in the 1st/2nd year. I don't know when
it was ever restricted to A level - when I was doing this (30 years
ago!) we did O level maths in the 4th year, and started doing much of
the curriculum from the first year onwards (including basic set
theory, matrix arithmetic, etc. as well as calculus). The syllabuses
(syllabii?) that I followed assumed working knowledge of these to
support science subjects at both O and A level.

spinOf course, it is evident to all concerned that there has been no
"dumbing down" of secondary education or examinations./spin

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:19:49 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:33:59 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




The core of the education is what Little Middle Englanders have been
screaming for, the 3 Rs. Comps are streamed.

Some are, some aren't - although I find it hard to imagine how
anything can be taught without streaming.

No, they are organised with a system of sets by subject. That
creates an even greater limitation of choice and wastage because of
timetable issues.

How old were YOU when you first learnt the Calculus IMM?

15 or 16 I think, and did it later at uni. I liked it, integration
and
all.

I began with it in first or second form.

It is an O level subject and was only A level at one time I believe. How
come you were doing it earlier?

Like Andy, I started calculus in the 1st/2nd year. I don't know when
it was ever restricted to A level - when I was doing this (30 years
ago!) we did O level maths in the 4th year, and started doing much of
the curriculum from the first year onwards (including basic set
theory, matrix arithmetic, etc. as well as calculus). The syllabuses
(syllabii?) that I followed assumed working knowledge of these to
support science subjects at both O and A level.

spinOf course, it is evident to all concerned that there has been no
"dumbing down" of secondary education or examinations./spin

Quite right too.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Jablite sheet - stiffness
 

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:50:23 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message


spinOf course, it is evident to all concerned that there has been no
"dumbing down" of secondary education or examinations./spin

Quite right too.

Is it "quite right" that education has been dumbed down, or that it
hasn't been dumbed down?

Julian

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk