John wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:

That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.

Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send
the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area
not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on the
roads.


It's not just an excuse here. We live just 3.2 miles away from the second
largest bus station in western europe
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Bus_Station) but we get just *one* bus
every half-hour up to 6.15pm and then *nothing* after that; the bus service
just stops at 6.15 until the next day.

Move to the 125/126 bus route then :-)

Dave

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
The point is the same. Why do people perceive a need to go to
central London to work and do their shopping?
Simple. Because in the case of Cambridge, you can earn 100K plus jumping
on a train and going to the city, whereas 50k is the tops locally.

But is it really worth it. I live in central London and walk to work in
15 minutes. Sometimes I just stay at home and achieve more without all
the interruption. Most of my colleagues live in in places like Cambridge
and beyond, they spend a good part of their life either on trains or
waiting for them. Academic salaries do not differ between locations by a
factor of two - so what do they gain?


--
djc

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Parry wrote:
Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?

Because they cannot afford to rent or buy houses anywhere near their
work and no work is available near where they live.

Exactly. And that needs to be addressed and soon. There's far more to the
problem than restricting car use by any form of price alone.

Best solved by removing all the subsidies for commuter travel. Then
people, and their employers, could face up to the true cost of
commuting. Smaller cities, with an even smaller hinterland. Livelier
country towns maybe.


--
djc

John wrote:

half of all cars given a red disc, rest given a blue disc then alternate the
days on which each colour can drive.

Result:
congestion cut in half but government doesn't get a penny extra from us.

Something similar was tried in Athens some years ago. Base on odd or
even numbered car reg. Lots of two car families and false number plates.


--
djc

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:00:33 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


A trip to B&Q for me is 16km each way

I would hope it's much the same distance there and back... :-)

My "local " B&Q (a 'Superstore') is about 1½ miles away, but there's a
'Warehouse' only slightly further away (and another 'Whorehouse' about
5M distant).

and with titting around because of idle weekend shoppers and
push chairs getting underfoot takes in total 2-3 hours.

Push chairs are the new scourge - even worse than 4x4s really. ALL
push chair owners seem to know one another and have to park abreast in
the aisles to chatter.

Are they still called "buggies"? I haven't heard that expression for a
year or two...

--
Frank

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

You never answered my question about whether or not it had a
non-selective
secondary school - does it?

Sorry, missed that bit. Yes, it does... but it doesn't do mixed ability
well. I have experience of that from the other end, since I deal with
its output...

Would it be any better if it was two selective schools? Especially for the
majority who would be selected against, and who you'd potentially still be
dealing with?

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only arguing
with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

cheers,
clive

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The real killer with selective schooling is what happens on the wrong
side of the 11+. Consigning the kids to the 'lower status' school doesn't
produce good results - and there is no doubt that it is a lower status.

Is it ? I don't think so. Its just a different approach to a different
sort of person.

That was the theory behind secondary moderns. There was some merit to it as
a theory - technically biased schools for example. Unfortunately what
actually happened is they typically got the worse teachers (*) and the worse
resources, giving a downward spiral.

Of course there are other forms of selection too - eg comps in 'nice' areas
typically do quite well.

The net result is that certain schools definitely have a percieved lower
status, and in selective areas, this includes the ones on the wrong side of
the 11/12+. Why else do nice middle-class people send people who may be on
the borderline of the selection criteria to a comp in a different area?

(* Who'd want to teach at a 'nasty' school? Far better to go to one where
the kids actually listen, etc)

Anyway today academic excellence is more likely to get you your head
kicked in than a round of applause.

That attitude is as old as the hills - it's definitely not a recent thing.

cheers,
clive

On 2007-02-07 00:34:28 +0000, Frank Erskine
said:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:00:33 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:


A trip to B&Q for me is 16km each way

I would hope it's much the same distance there and back... :-)

Depends if you vary the route to relieve the boredom.



My "local " B&Q (a 'Superstore') is about 1½ miles away, but there's a
'Warehouse' only slightly further away (and another 'Whorehouse' about
5M distant).

and with titting around because of idle weekend shoppers and
push chairs getting underfoot takes in total 2-3 hours.

Push chairs are the new scourge - even worse than 4x4s really. ALL
push chair owners seem to know one another and have to park abreast in
the aisles to chatter.

Are they still called "buggies"? I haven't heard that expression for a
year or two...

I'm surprised that they allow them in these places, or for that matter
small kids
running around. Considering the various carts with assorted materials
that can be being
pushed around it's not exactly safe yet parents don't seem to keep the
kids on a lead.

On 2007-02-07 02:19:40 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

You never answered my question about whether or not it had a non-selective
secondary school - does it?

Sorry, missed that bit. Yes, it does... but it doesn't do mixed ability
well. I have experience of that from the other end, since I deal with
its output...

Would it be any better if it was two selective schools? Especially for
the majority who would be selected against, and who you'd potentially
still be dealing with?

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

cheers,
clive

I think that it's a question of suitability.

Somehow people seem to confuse a school focussed on delivering a good
education to those
with a strong academic ability as being "better" and one which focusses
on those with skills
in other areas as "not as good".

The outcome was therefore to socially engineer an arrangement where
everybody could be seen to get
the same, whether it was suitable or not with the net result of a loss
of more than a generation of opportunity
in most areas. Thus education falls short based on trying to be all
things to all men and not achieving excellence
in any of them.

Andy Hall wrote:

I'm surprised that they allow them in these places, or for that matter
small kids
running around. Considering the various carts with assorted materials
that can be being
pushed around it's not exactly safe yet parents don't seem to keep the
kids on a lead.

I love taking my 3 year old daughter to such places. She knows the basics of
using a screwdriver (proper one, not toy), that the same size of bar in
steel is heavier than aluminium - B&Q is an education in itself. But then
she stands in the trolley and doesn't get in the way.

I agree that some people's abilities in driving buggies means that I hope
not to meet them on the road in command of a bigger vehicle!

Cheers

Tim

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 02:19:40 UTC, "Clive George"
wrote:

Would it be any better if it was two selective schools? Especially for the
majority who would be selected against, and who you'd potentially still be
dealing with?

What does 'against' mean? Selection is for ability, not merit. Yes, it
would be better; each school is able to work to the strengths of those
for whom the selection (one way or the other) is made. I'm likely to
have one child at each school, and that is probably correct.

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only arguing
with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

You may have inferred it; I didn't say it!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Clive George wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

You never answered my question about whether or not it had a
non-selective
secondary school - does it?

Sorry, missed that bit. Yes, it does... but it doesn't do mixed ability
well. I have experience of that from the other end, since I deal with
its output...

Would it be any better if it was two selective schools? Especially for
the majority who would be selected against, and who you'd potentially
still be dealing with?


Not sure whether you need to select into schools, rather than classes..
I got a scholarship to an extremely expensive private school, and the
ability to pay is no guarantee of academic excellence..one could
certainly see that..(the school was very happy to have half a dozen
places a year funded by the county council. Made their Oxbridge entrance
results look very good). Anyway yes,some kids did very well at maths,
some did very well on the sports fields, and some just got their OK-ish
results and went on to become (one presumes) normal sorts of people.

Provided the schools are not too BIG I think that a selective SCHOOL
isn't a huge advantage..the trouble is when teh 'technical'; schools
have huge workshops with exepensive machines and the academic schools
hace huge labs with expensive equipment, the temptation to bang them
together and make one super school is a bit too much for a
politician..saves money..but I don;t think it makes a better school.

My wifes sister has recently somehow scraped up enough miney to send the
eldest girl to a boarding school. To be honest, it will probably suit
HER better tan any other school..the younger daughter though is a
different animal..and will probably do well wherever she goes. Just
point her at a subject she is interested in and she soaks it up like a
sponge..

Its really tricky. Personally I don't think all schools can be all
things to all children..there is a definite case for allowing schools to
develop their own special areas of expertise and letting the parents
have the choice. Provided the schools will accept them..I can recall two
people in my year at my old school both of whom really shouldn't have
been in that school. One was a really nice boy who wasn't very bright,
but was a really decent sort of guy.,e struggled to justify the
incredible cost of the thing - his parents were not well to do at
all..they lived at a much lower standard of living to send him
there..and it really was a bit wasted. Us 'scholars' who go free
stationery and books used to 'lose' ours and give them to him, cos we
knew his folks were hard up. The poor lad was forever feeling guilty
about his lack of success, he wasn't artistic, he wasn't a sportsman and
he wasn't an academic either. the school was wasted on him and a budern
on him and his parents.

The other one was a glowering ill tempered spoilt Welshman with parents
just rolling in Jaguars. A complete *******, whose three main interests
were Rugby, at which he was passably good, if inclined to violence,
bullying other people, of whom I was briefly one, and train spotting. He
was seldom in class. His ambition was to work for British Rail. I
believe he achieved it and became a porter. For all his cash he would
have been far far better off at a technical secondary modern,where his
doubted affinity for large machinery would have allowed him to become
something rather better than a porter.


I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

YES! Ther was a time when academic success was the be all and end all of
a parents ambitions for their child..misguided at best..and dangerous at
worts.

Still today, we have this myth that everyone deserves or needs a
university education, which is total ********. It doesn't even guarantee
a decent job or salary anymore, and it costs bomb. All that has
happened is that rather good 'polytechnics' that used to each vocational
stuff and actually ensure a pretty decent salary and job, now teach
bull**** subjects, and turn out parroting grads who think they are as
good as anybody because they have memorised the course work and cheated
at the practical course work and actually failed the exams, but still
got a piece of paper..why, here is one in this very NG..;-)


The solution is not to simply give everyone a comfit in a caucus race so
they feel like they have won..its to select on ability and aptitude and
give them what they need, not what they (or their parents) think they want..

And I do not think it is possible for every educational establishment to
be optimal for all possible pupils, no. So in principle you have to
accept selective schools, as well as streamed classes..

Whether one should call them grammar schools or not, is a moot point though.

Certainly parents now seem to want schools that select on ethnicity and
religious backgrounds..

I think the whole thing is a hot potato of the highest order, and that
parents should be given the fees as vouchers, and allowed to negotiate
with private or partially funded schools that dictate their own
terms..and just maintain an inspectorate that guarantees a minimum
standard of the basics, and freedom from the grosser forms of religious,
ethnic, and class indoctrination.

In other words its bad enough with school masters and parents at war
over what's best, without the chattering classes and politicians getting
involved.

If people had the freedom to choose each other - school and pupil - then
no one could say they were 'forced' to go to this or that school..except
by their parents anwyay.






cheers,
clive

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-02-07 02:19:40 +0000, "Clive George"
said:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

You never answered my question about whether or not it had a
non-selective
secondary school - does it?

Sorry, missed that bit. Yes, it does... but it doesn't do mixed ability
well. I have experience of that from the other end, since I deal with
its output...

Would it be any better if it was two selective schools? Especially for
the majority who would be selected against, and who you'd potentially
still be dealing with?

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

cheers,
clive

I think that it's a question of suitability.

Somehow people seem to confuse a school focussed on delivering a good
education to those
with a strong academic ability as being "better" and one which focusses
on those with skills
in other areas as "not as good".

The outcome was therefore to socially engineer an arrangement where
everybody could be seen to get
the same, whether it was suitable or not with the net result of a loss
of more than a generation of opportunity
in most areas. Thus education falls short based on trying to be all
things to all men and not achieving excellence
in any of them.


HEAR HEAR!

Change the perception..Its good to be as good as you can be, its stupid
to try and be what you are not, and the right school to bring out YOUR
potential is the thing to aim for.

djc wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
The point is the same. Why do people perceive a need to go to
central London to work and do their shopping?
Simple. Because in the case of Cambridge, you can earn 100K plus
jumping on a train and going to the city, whereas 50k is the tops
locally.

But is it really worth it. I live in central London and walk to work in
15 minutes. Sometimes I just stay at home and achieve more without all
the interruption. Most of my colleagues live in in places like Cambridge
and beyond, they spend a good part of their life either on trains or
waiting for them. Academic salaries do not differ between locations by a
factor of two - so what do they gain?


A large garden for the kids, access to decent schools, and freedom from
urban crime, mainly.

In short for all its commuting, a perceived better lifestyle.

djc wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Parry wrote:
Why do those have to live so far from work they need to come in by car?

Because they cannot afford to rent or buy houses anywhere near their
work and no work is available near where they live.

Exactly. And that needs to be addressed and soon. There's far more to the
problem than restricting car use by any form of price alone.

Best solved by removing all the subsidies for commuter travel. Then
people, and their employers, could face up to the true cost of
commuting. Smaller cities, with an even smaller hinterland. Livelier
country towns maybe.


Some merit in that.

"Clive George" wrote in message
news:45c9391a$0$8744$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-

... Why else do nice middle-class people send people who may be on the
borderline of the selection criteria to a comp in a different area?

What do you mean by 'middle class'?

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Clive George" wrote in message
news:45c9391a$0$8744$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-

... Why else do nice middle-class people send people who may be on the
borderline of the selection criteria to a comp in a different area?

What do you mean by 'middle class'?

Mary


I think these days it mens 'anyone with enough money to be able to make
choices'

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is as
I said.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.

As long as you know that most of these successful schools are successful
because they actively get rid of pupils that would fail to get the
results they need to stay a "good" school.


Good idea. If you have a bright kid you don't want it being held back by a
load of dozy plonkers.

Likewise there is nothing worse than being consistently bottom of class.

Streaming works. Accept it.

But look at the implications..
you choose a school because they get good grades..
if you don't take into account what they started with you don't know if they
are good at teaching or just take the kids that get A even if the teaching
is poor.
Just because a school gets good grades doesn't mean they can teach if they
are allowed to get rid of kids that aren't going to pass.

I know of schools that do that as I know parents where they have been
"advised" to take their kids elsewhere.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:41:49 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Still today, we have this myth that everyone deserves or needs a
university education, which is total ********.

Couldn't agree more. Many university students are totally unsuited to a
real degree course.

It doesn't even guarantee
a decent job or salary anymore, and it costs bomb. All that has
happened is that rather good 'polytechnics' that used to each vocational
stuff and actually ensure a pretty decent salary and job, now teach
bull**** subjects, and turn out parroting grads who think they are as
good as anybody because they have memorised the course work and cheated
at the practical course work and actually failed the exams, but still
got a piece of paper..why, here is one in this very NG..;-)

Absolutely. A good vocational course would have been *much* better, at a
good polytechnic.

And I do not think it is possible for every educational establishment to
be optimal for all possible pupils, no. So in principle you have to
accept selective schools, as well as streamed classes..

Exactly.

Certainly parents now seem to want schools that select on ethnicity and
religious backgrounds..

Why it it unacceptable to many people to select on academic ability, but
perfectly acceptable to select on ability in (say) football? Specialist
sports colleges don't get the same grief.

Actually, of ther two possible grammar schools (similar travelling
distance), we selected the smaller one. Some disadvantages, but
outweighed by advantages.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:27:50 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:

But look at the implications..
you choose a school because they get good grades..

You might. We looked at added value, and a host of other factors. Read
the Ofsted reports, etc.

Just because a school gets good grades doesn't mean they can teach if they
are allowed to get rid of kids that aren't going to pass.

Of course. Mind, they have other ways too. I know a school (I dare not
name it as I got my wife into enough trouble already) which actually
stopped kids taking certain courses because they might not get GCSE
As...and that's very common, actually. So even when they get there,
things are fiddled. It's the bloody targets again.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is as
I said.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.
As long as you know that most of these successful schools are successful
because they actively get rid of pupils that would fail to get the
results they need to stay a "good" school.

Good idea. If you have a bright kid you don't want it being held back by a
load of dozy plonkers.

Likewise there is nothing worse than being consistently bottom of class.

Streaming works. Accept it.

But look at the implications..
you choose a school because they get good grades..

Do you?

I wouldn't..not necessarily.

if you don't take into account what they started with you don't know if they
are good at teaching or just take the kids that get A even if the teaching
is poor.

Its pretty hard to take bright kids, subject them to utterly crap
teaching and get straight A's.


Just because a school gets good grades doesn't mean they can teach if they
are allowed to get rid of kids that aren't going to pass.

I know of schools that do that as I know parents where they have been
"advised" to take their kids elsewhere.


And why not?

If your kid is obviously going to make a mint as a rock star or a
footballer, here isn't much point pushing him to university to study
philosophy is there? Probably a basic course in practical accountancy
and law will stand him/her in better stead..

Owain wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
A trip to B&Q for me is 16km each way
I would hope it's much the same distance there and back... :-)
Depends if you vary the route to relieve the boredom.

Or have one hell of a one-way system.

Owain

Truing to get from one point in my local town, to another point that I
could see, and was 15 yards away with a perfectly good road connecting
them, wide enough for two lanes except they had enlarged the pavement to
make a cycle rack that no one actually uses.. but 'one way',..involved
me in a 3/4 mile trip rond the market square and back..

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

I think that it's a question of suitability.

Somehow people seem to confuse a school focussed on delivering a good
education to those
with a strong academic ability as being "better" and one which focusses on
those with skills
in other areas as "not as good".

That's part of the problem. However what also happened in practice is the
one which focussed on those with skills in other areas suffered in other
areas - funding, ability to get good teachers for example. The former should
never have happened, but did, and the latter is unfortunately harder to get
round.
The other fatal flaw is that segregation at age 11/12 is rather inflexible -
there are many cases of people ending up in an unsuitable school because eg
they developed at different ages to others.

The outcome was therefore to socially engineer an arrangement where
everybody could be seen to get
the same, whether it was suitable or not with the net result of a loss of
more than a generation of opportunity
in most areas. Thus education falls short based on trying to be all
things to all men and not achieving excellence
in any of them.

The comprehensive system wasn't the failure its detractors make it out to
be. It wasn't the inclusion of all which caused the problem they're seeing,
it was other factors. This is apparent because a lot of schools have made a
success of it - whether streamed internally or not. (the latter did come as
a surprise to me, but apparently it can be made to work - it may just
require effort which people aren't prepared to put in.)

cheers,
clive

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

There really is no other choice in this case. There are no grammar
schools in our twon, or the next one. Nearest one is as I said. PT is
as
I said.

No doubt Mary or someone will now tell us we should send him to the
nearest school regardless, because 'it was good enough for them'.
As long as you know that most of these successful schools are
successful because they actively get rid of pupils that would fail to
get the results they need to stay a "good" school.

Good idea. If you have a bright kid you don't want it being held back by
a load of dozy plonkers.

Likewise there is nothing worse than being consistently bottom of class.

Streaming works. Accept it.

But look at the implications..
you choose a school because they get good grades..

Do you?

I wouldn't..not necessarily.

if you don't take into account what they started with you don't know if
they are good at teaching or just take the kids that get A even if the
teaching is poor.

Its pretty hard to take bright kids, subject them to utterly crap teaching
and get straight A's.

Actually I know a school that does just that. Set a really high academic
entrance standard, hire cheap teachers, test continuously and encourage
those who don't make the grade to leave. You may only end up getting 'good'
results for 50% of your original intake, but who cares - the kids who
'failed' aren't your problem. Ironically the school is immensely popular
with parents, at least until their kids have been there a year or so...

Andy

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 02:19:40 UTC, "Clive George"
wrote:

Would it be any better if it was two selective schools? Especially for
the
majority who would be selected against, and who you'd potentially still
be
dealing with?

What does 'against' mean? Selection is for ability, not merit. Yes, it
would be better; each school is able to work to the strengths of those
for whom the selection (one way or the other) is made.

Nice theory - has some really bad flaws in practice. See my reply to Andy
Hall.

In my town, there's just the one state secondary school - and AFAIK it's
pretty good. Obviously it's a comprehensive.

The next bigger town has a grammar system - 2 single-sex grammar schools,
which are doing quite well, and one secondary-modern/high school, which has
been dreadful for an awful long time. It's the classic failure - the
secondary-modern school ended up with worse resources, and hence hasn't been
able to deliver the education which it's supposed to. It's not alone in
suffering this problem.

I'm likely to
have one child at each school, and that is probably correct.

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing
with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

You may have inferred it; I didn't say it!

Maybe not so then - but in your preceding paragraph, you've definitely
stated that the grammar system is better.

(FWIW when I said "grammar is necessarily better", I meant grammar system vs
comp)

cheers,
clive

Tim S wrote:
I love taking my 3 year old daughter to such places. She knows the
basics of using a screwdriver (proper one, not toy),

Good for you - in fact, good for both of you!

As time goes by, it'll be a nice feeling to be still using some of her
very first proper tools. 55 years on, I can testify to that.


--
Ian White

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:24:14 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:52:29 +0000 Joe wrote :
As I've said before, you solve London's transport problems by doubling
the rates on office floor space, and halving domestic rates. Repeat
annually until existing transport is adequate...

Melbourne taxes non-residential parking spaces within the city centre,
A$800, about £320 per space p.a. IIRC. It makes it much less attractive
for employers to offer parking to staff, and if they have to pay to park
they'll be less inclined to drive. And if you want to drive on the
freeways that bypass the city you pay for a transponder

Doubling rates will help send some companies abroad, or to Canary
Wharf. Taxing company parking spaces would be interesting as many are
empty (several buildings I've visited) since the Kengestion tax came
in. Would they be d-i-y'ed into some other use rather than lying idle?
Gordon Brown was going to tax spaces but IIRC the supermarkets and
out-of-town SCs did it in for him.

--
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

Ian White wrote:
Tim S wrote:
I love taking my 3 year old daughter to such places. She knows the
basics of using a screwdriver (proper one, not toy),

Good for you - in fact, good for both of you!


Good for you because a child's education is essentially over by the time
they go to school.

"Ian White" wrote in message
...
Tim S wrote:
I love taking my 3 year old daughter to such places. She knows the basics
of using a screwdriver (proper one, not toy),

Good for you - in fact, good for both of you!

As time goes by, it'll be a nice feeling to be still using some of her
very first proper tools. 55 years on, I can testify to that.

My daughters MADE tools at school (in the 70s) - I'm still using one but
they took all the others away with them. The cabinet maker uses hers I know
that.

Mary

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:03:23 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

On 5 Feb 2007 19:40:14 GMT Bob Eager wrote :
I have no problem with that....but I'd prefer it to be done via fuel
pricing, or whatever. Otherwise it's just one more state control and
surveillance tool.

But ultimately, and missed by most commentators, this is not about
making money, rather persuading people to change their lifestyles. So
the mother quoted by the OP doesn't spend £86 a month to take her
children to school, but sends them by PT, moves house

But there's also a tax on moving house (Stamp Duty).

or sends them to a school in walking distance.

That would seem to imply parents have a choice. Here in Leeds they
don't, the council just runs a computer program that allocates every
child a place in a school somewhere. They then declare all their
schools to be *Full*.

A parent has the right to chose the school his child attends under the
1949 (?) Education Act, However, a parent cannot request that their
child is given a place at a school that is already "Full". Geddit ?

The Council's Admissions officer has admitted to me their computer
program does not take account of the presence or absence of footpaths,
bus routes etc or obstacles such as railway lines, motorways, dual
carriageways etc, only distance on the map from the centroid of the
school to the centroid of the child's house as the crow flies. When I
complained that there was a school bus that went to the local school
(But not the one she was allocated to) from our nearest bus stop, they
just replied that since deregulation the council didn't run the buses
any more. :-(((

Under the act the school has to show in detail how the effective
operation of the school would be compromised by the admission of that
one extra pupil. Their submission was that they might not have enough
coat hooks in the cloakroom, or might be short of chairs.

We appealed this with the Local Government Ombudsman and our appeal
was refused.

So ...

**** Em.

Merely upping the price of fuel won't do
this - if you choose not to drive from here to Heathrow at 10.00p.m. no
one really benefits (marginal less pollution aside). If you (and lots
like you) can be persuaded not to drive there between 0800 and 1000
then there are real benefits for everyone else.

As to surveillance, there are so many cameras around these days I
suspect that they can track anyone they need to.

Correct.

Why give them another opportunity to track our lawful movements, on a
plate, the data to be made available to all and sundry including US
Government Agencies ?

What were *you* doing in Grosvenor Square in Sept 2,004?

You weren't ? According to your car's Traffic Data Details ...

Next stop Gitmo.

DG

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
That's assuming there is a choice. Nearest suitable school for my kids
is at least 8 miles away. Terrible public transport (1.5hrs by bus).
We've sent him FURTHER away so he can go by train. GIvernments never
seem to grasp that a big stick won't work if there is no alternative.

Hmm. Every one wants to have a free choice where they live, work and send
the kids to school - and *always* have an excuse about PT in their area
not being suitable for either. So we have the inevitable congestion on the
roads.

I'm not being judgemental about this - merely posing the question about
what happens when the country grid locks - as it must do - if traffic
continues to increase?

Oh it is a very very difficult question as to what to do about road
congestion. On one hand, you could charge high tax so that only the rich
could afford to own and drive a car but on the otherhand, the car makers
would be up in arms because they would not be able to sell the cars, then of
course there are the fuel companies, losing money by way of not being able
to sell enough fuel.
Personally, I don't give a hoot about the car makers or fuel companies, but
without them, the government coffers in any country would be in an extremely
bad state.
We are our own worst enemies and the government and car makers etc just love
us to have the MUST HAVE attitude.
No, there is no easy option.



Do we issue passes for essential use like going to work or taking the kids
to school and ban driving to the shops - apart from say once a week?

That would be like going back to the war years.
Perhaps, scrap the current road fund licence, scrap petrol duty, make
insurrance duty be payable on the car and not the person driving and then
charge everyone who wants a car to pay a yearly road tax of £1 per cc, so if
you have a 3litre car, you pays £3000 and so on.
--
the_constructor



--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2007-02-07 13:44:27 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

I think that it's a question of suitability.

Somehow people seem to confuse a school focussed on delivering a good
education to those
with a strong academic ability as being "better" and one which focusses
on those with skills
in other areas as "not as good".

That's part of the problem. However what also happened in practice is
the one which focussed on those with skills in other areas suffered in
other areas - funding, ability to get good teachers for example. The
former should never have happened, but did, and the latter is
unfortunately harder to get round.

Then the question is what constitutes a good teacher. Again, one who
is academically able is probably best suited to teaching academic
subjects, whereas one with more practical skills is probably better
suited to that. Neither is a better teacher than the other.


The other fatal flaw is that segregation at age 11/12 is rather
inflexible - there are many cases of people ending up in an unsuitable
school because eg they developed at different ages to others.

Very easily solved by having the facility to transfer at 13 and 15.
One also has to asked what "developed" means. It can mean someone who
struggles in practical subjects that they would like to do but lack the
aptitude just as much as those who would like to study advanced
Calculus but don't have a mathematical ability.


The outcome was therefore to socially engineer an arrangement where
everybody could be seen to get
the same, whether it was suitable or not with the net result of a loss
of more than a generation of opportunity
in most areas. Thus education falls short based on trying to be all
things to all men and not achieving excellence
in any of them.

The comprehensive system wasn't the failure its detractors make it out
to be. It wasn't the inclusion of all which caused the problem they're
seeing, it was other factors.

It was really all of these.


This is apparent because a lot of schools have made a success of it -
whether streamed internally or not. (the latter did come as a surprise
to me, but apparently it can be made to work - it may just require
effort which people aren't prepared to put in.)

Because it is social engineering for its own sake which goes against
human nature and requirements and doesn't achieve excellence in what it
does, in comparison with separated and appropriate provisioning which
does.





cheers,
clive

On 2007-02-07 08:28:17 +0000, Tim S said:

Andy Hall wrote:

I'm surprised that they allow them in these places, or for that matter
small kids
running around. Considering the various carts with assorted materials
that can be being
pushed around it's not exactly safe yet parents don't seem to keep the
kids on a lead.

I love taking my 3 year old daughter to such places. She knows the basics of
using a screwdriver (proper one, not toy), that the same size of bar in
steel is heavier than aluminium - B&Q is an education in itself. But then
she stands in the trolley and doesn't get in the way.

I agree that some people's abilities in driving buggies means that I hope
not to meet them on the road in command of a bigger vehicle!

Cheers

Tim

This is all fine if the kids are properly supervised. Unfortunately
it seems that
for many this is another form of Sunday outing which is only slightly
better than people
who shove the kids in pushchairs and weave about aimlessly on pvements
in town centres on
Saturday mornings getting under the feet who just need to complete
their shopping.

There's nothing wrong with the learning experiences but they should be
that rather than
just getting the kids out of the house for a couple of hours while
mother does the cleaning.

On 2007-02-07 18:27:45 +0000, Owain said:

Mary Fisher wrote:
My daughters MADE tools at school (in the 70s)

I wanted to make an oscilloscope but the pocket money wouldn't stretch
much beyond a fridge alarm and an intercom system.

Owain

I made one from an old radar set. Worked quite well. I also found
out what HT supplies were.

Owain wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:

My daughters MADE tools at school (in the 70s)


I wanted to make an oscilloscope but the pocket money wouldn't stretch
much beyond a fridge alarm and an intercom system.

I built something called IIRC an electrocardioscope, when I was in my
early teens. My Dad did consulting for HeathKit, and he had me do test
builds for their new items. We got to keep the finished kits.
Great fun.

Sheila

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-02-07 13:44:27 +0000, "Clive George"
said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

I think that it's a question of suitability.

Somehow people seem to confuse a school focussed on delivering a good
education to those
with a strong academic ability as being "better" and one which focusses
on those with skills
in other areas as "not as good".

That's part of the problem. However what also happened in practice is the
one which focussed on those with skills in other areas suffered in other
areas - funding, ability to get good teachers for example. The former
should never have happened, but did, and the latter is unfortunately
harder to get round.

Then the question is what constitutes a good teacher. Again, one who is
academically able is probably best suited to teaching academic subjects,
whereas one with more practical skills is probably better suited to that.
Neither is a better teacher than the other.

My definition is different to that - it's one who can teach the kids.
Academic/practical ability are in fact less important than social skills
here.

The other fatal flaw is that segregation at age 11/12 is rather
inflexible - there are many cases of people ending up in an unsuitable
school because eg they developed at different ages to others.

Very easily solved by having the facility to transfer at 13 and 15. One
also has to asked what "developed" means. It can mean someone who
struggles in practical subjects that they would like to do but lack the
aptitude just as much as those who would like to study advanced Calculus
but don't have a mathematical ability.

What I mean is some kids get clever/learn how to work at different ages to
others. The fixed exam time doesn't help with this.


The outcome was therefore to socially engineer an arrangement where
everybody could be seen to get
the same, whether it was suitable or not with the net result of a loss
of more than a generation of opportunity
in most areas. Thus education falls short based on trying to be all
things to all men and not achieving excellence
in any of them.

The comprehensive system wasn't the failure its detractors make it out to
be. It wasn't the inclusion of all which caused the problem they're
seeing, it was other factors.

It was really all of these.


This is apparent because a lot of schools have made a success of it -
whether streamed internally or not. (the latter did come as a surprise to
me, but apparently it can be made to work - it may just require effort
which people aren't prepared to put in.)

Because it is social engineering for its own sake which goes against human
nature and requirements and doesn't achieve excellence in what it does, in
comparison with separated and appropriate provisioning which does.

Disagree. It wasn't necessarily social engineering for its own sake. It was
recognising that there is a problem with segregated provisioning and
attempting to solve it. That problem still exists, even though you prefer to
deny it.

Thing is, despite your claims that a segregated system is inherently better,
real life shows you're wrong.

cheers,
clive

Clive George wrote:


Thing is, despite your claims that a segregated system is inherently
better, real life shows you're wrong.

Actyally, for those of us old enough to remember it, real life shows us
right.

Nothing of any use to man nor beast has come out of society in the last
15 years.

Products are worse designed and don't last.

We are faced with a global crisis, but no one can count any more, so all
the solutions proposed don't actually work.

The jails are full, and more people are on drugs full time -
prescription or otherwise - than ever before.

Frankly I have never seen in all my 56 years a more miserable society,
or one less able to cope with real life.



cheers,
clive

On 2007-02-08 00:55:46 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2007-02-07 13:44:27 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

I'm not really arguing against your choice of local school, I'm only
arguing with the implied premise that grammar is necessarily better.

I think that it's a question of suitability.

Somehow people seem to confuse a school focussed on delivering a good
education to those
with a strong academic ability as being "better" and one which focusses
on those with skills
in other areas as "not as good".

That's part of the problem. However what also happened in practice is
the one which focussed on those with skills in other areas suffered in
other areas - funding, ability to get good teachers for example. The
former should never have happened, but did, and the latter is
unfortunately harder to get round.

Then the question is what constitutes a good teacher. Again, one who
is academically able is probably best suited to teaching academic
subjects, whereas one with more practical skills is probably better
suited to that. Neither is a better teacher than the other.

My definition is different to that - it's one who can teach the kids.
Academic/practical ability are in fact less important than social
skills here.

Clearly both are required. Social skills are a pre-requisite but
will not compensate for a lack of ability or interest in the subject.
Kids can spot a phony quicker than anything. However, the social
skills aspect is more important for the primary school environment
where teachers are generally covering a multitude of subjects than it
is at secondary level where they are generally teaching one or a small
number.




The other fatal flaw is that segregation at age 11/12 is rather
inflexible - there are many cases of people ending up in an unsuitable
school because eg they developed at different ages to others.

Very easily solved by having the facility to transfer at 13 and 15.
One also has to asked what "developed" means. It can mean someone who
struggles in practical subjects that they would like to do but lack the
aptitude just as much as those who would like to study advanced
Calculus but don't have a mathematical ability.

What I mean is some kids get clever/learn how to work at different ages
to others. The fixed exam time doesn't help with this.

That is part of the education of life. Unfortunately the real world
of work doesn't accept people developing arbitrarily. There are
checks, balances and measurements which have to be achieved and
deliverables at certain times. That is one of the most important
aspects of life and one that is better learned early rather than later.





The outcome was therefore to socially engineer an arrangement where
everybody could be seen to get
the same, whether it was suitable or not with the net result of a loss
of more than a generation of opportunity
in most areas. Thus education falls short based on trying to be all
things to all men and not achieving excellence
in any of them.

The comprehensive system wasn't the failure its detractors make it out
to be. It wasn't the inclusion of all which caused the problem they're
seeing, it was other factors.

It was really all of these.


This is apparent because a lot of schools have made a success of it -
whether streamed internally or not. (the latter did come as a surprise
to me, but apparently it can be made to work - it may just require
effort which people aren't prepared to put in.)

Because it is social engineering for its own sake which goes against
human nature and requirements and doesn't achieve excellence in what it
does, in comparison with separated and appropriate provisioning which
does.

Disagree. It wasn't necessarily social engineering for its own sake. It
was recognising that there is a problem with segregated provisioning
and attempting to solve it.

Except that there is no problem with segregated provisioning, only with
the perception that some forms of education were "better" than others.

Social engineering to make sure that everybody is seen to be getting
the same, when that is patent nonsense is a huge disservice.



That problem still exists, even though you prefer to deny it.

The only problem is that segregated provisioning isn't universally available.


Thing is, despite your claims that a segregated system is inherently
better, real life shows you're wrong.

In fact it doesn't. The decline in standards in both the academic
and practical spheres is ample evidence that only mediocrity is
produced by a one size fits all system.

If one looks at the education systems of many other countries one finds
that it is common to have a range of secondary school choices suited to
pupil aptitudes available.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-02-08 00:55:46 +0000, "Clive George"
said:

What I mean is some kids get clever/learn how to work at different
ages to others. The fixed exam time doesn't help with this.

That is part of the education of life. Unfortunately the real world of
work doesn't accept people developing arbitrarily. There are checks,
balances and measurements which have to be achieved and deliverables at
certain times. That is one of the most important aspects of life and
one that is better learned early rather than later.



And learning to cope with failure without sulking is another one.


Disagree. It wasn't necessarily social engineering for its own sake.
It was recognising that there is a problem with segregated
provisioning and attempting to solve it.

Except that there is no problem with segregated provisioning, only with
the perception that some forms of education were "better" than others.

Social engineering to make sure that everybody is seen to be getting the
same, when that is patent nonsense is a huge disservice.



That problem still exists, even though you prefer to deny it.

The only problem is that segregated provisioning isn't universally
available.


Thing is, despite your claims that a segregated system is inherently
better, real life shows you're wrong.

In fact it doesn't. The decline in standards in both the academic
and practical spheres is ample evidence that only mediocrity is produced
by a one size fits all system.

Ineed. The triumph of socialism has been to move the dysfunctional drone
from the realms of the upper class landed gentry to the council estate
chav. Arguably the former were less of a nuisance.

If one looks at the education systems of many other countries one finds
that it is common to have a range of secondary school choices suited to
pupil aptitudes available.


And quite rightly. Germany at least seems capable of turning out
competent builders..and probably Poland and Czechoslovakia too. Sweden
for all its dreary mediocrity, does good dentists..

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
If one looks at the education systems of many other countries one finds
that it is common to have a range of secondary school choices suited to
pupil aptitudes available.

The Grammar School I went to in Aberdeen streamed each subject - five
streams for each mainstream one. So if you were good at maths but poor at
English you could be in the top stream for one, but the bottom for the
other - although this was rare. However, a spread of three streams was
common. But more to the point was the decent social mix of kids. It had a
primary department with the kids mainly drawn from the local area, which
was a 'good' one. All those kids continued into the secondary side
regardless of 11+ results. The secondary side was larger and kids who had
passed their 11+ at other primary schools joined - all those who passed
the 11+ got a place at one or other of the grammar type schools. So you
ended up with a good social mix based mainly on ability. As indeed you did
at some of the Secondary Modern schools.

--
*Money isn‘t everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.