Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:09:48 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I made one from an old radar set. Worked quite well.

Ex H2S displays from Lancaster's and Shackletons, 17/6d each in
Proops in the days when Tottenham Court Road had proper junk shops.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:37:25 -0000, "John" wrote:

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


That was the setup in Athens *30* years ago.

A.I.R. it was operated with even/odd index numbers.

They just made sure they had access to 2 cars to use on even/odd days.

DG

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"Owain" wrote in message
...
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.

Why a fridge alarm?

We had to fit a lock on our fridge when the children were teenagers!

Mary

Owain

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
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.

LOL! Very useful :-)

Mary

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On 2007-02-08 10:30:50 +0000, Derek Geldard said:

On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 10:37:25 -0000, "John" wrote:

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


That was the setup in Athens *30* years ago.

A.I.R. it was operated with even/odd index numbers.

They just made sure they had access to 2 cars to use on even/odd days.

DG

Yes and it doesn't work.

Trade vehicles and vans are exempt.

People buy two cars, with the second being a more polluting crappy one,

It increases congestion in the suburbs because of a lack of off street parking.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On 2007-02-08 10:11:03 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-02-06, Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

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.

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways.

Tell me about it. I failed my 11 plus.

11 'O' levels, 4 'A' levels and 2 degrees later, I have mixed feelings
about streamed education...

Perhaps demonstrating that selection at age 11 wasn't deleterious to
the outcome?

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

I'd dispute that. A good teacher can handle a class of otherwise
bored/unruly teenagers - surely you're not pretending that primary school
kids are harder to cope with than that? FWIW my 'social skills' meant those
skills which weren't directly related to the subject - covering things such
as charisma, etc.

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.

It's the job of the education system to cope with this. In the real world of
work, you can eg refuse to employ somebody who's not up to the job. The
state education system can't do this : they must be able to handle
everybody.
(We know of examples where the schools are behaving more like bad
employers - eg encouraging those who won't get an A to not take an exam, to
improve 'results'. I'm sure you'll agree this is not good.)

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.

They already teach this. Well, at most schools. (There is (was?) at least
one famous exception, but they're rather different to the rest). Fixed
lesson times, homework, coursework, etc - all are doing exactly what you
want here. No need to actually discriminate against people to achieve it
either.

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

Except there is a problem with segregated provisioning. It's not just
perception.

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

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

********. Segregated provisioning has significant problems you're just
pretending don't exist.

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.

In this country we still have grammar and comp. There's no evidence that the
"decline in standards" affects either system more than the other. Therefore
there is no evidence that comp produces mediocrity. Look elsewhere for
mechanisms for the (possibly overstated) decline in standards.

clive

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:12:59 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-02-08 10:11:03 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-02-06, Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

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.

OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways.

Tell me about it. I failed my 11 plus.

11 'O' levels, 4 'A' levels and 2 degrees later, I have mixed feelings
about streamed education...

Perhaps demonstrating that selection at age 11 wasn't deleterious to
the outcome?

And, indeed, may have actually been advantageous?

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

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

Huge wrote:
On 2007-02-08, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:12:59 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-02-08 10:11:03 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-02-06, Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

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.
OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways.
Tell me about it. I failed my 11 plus.

11 'O' levels, 4 'A' levels and 2 degrees later, I have mixed feelings
about streamed education...
Perhaps demonstrating that selection at age 11 wasn't deleterious to
the outcome?

It's just that it's such an ugly, anti-social concept.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:11:28 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:09:48 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I made one from an old radar set. Worked quite well.

I built one as well. The timebase was generated by a "Miller
integrator screen coupled phantastron" using an EF39 pentode.

http://www.r-type.org/exhib/aad0089.htm

It was very nice. :-)


Ex H2S displays from Lancaster's and Shackletons, 17/6d each in
Proops in the days when Tottenham Court Road had proper junk shops.

Not to forget "Lisle Street"

http://www.retinascope.co.uk/lislestreet.html

I'd bet a pound against a piece of **** it was an "Indicator Unit type
62A" from the Gee Navigation system.

http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/r...355/r1355.html

Reason being that it used the VCR97 crt which had electrostatic
deflection. I'm assuming (BICBW, nothing much on the web) that the
H2S display used a magnetic deflection tube with rotating scan coils
sync-ed to the rotating antenna (somehow). However it's CRT definitely
had a long persistence phosphor with a blue flash and orange
afterglow.

Footnote, a schoolfriend's dad actually built the Practical Television
home-built TV set using the VCR 97 and EF50 valves from an indicator
unit 62A

DG

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On 2007-02-08 12:35:06 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
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.

I'd dispute that. A good teacher can handle a class of otherwise
bored/unruly teenagers - surely you're not pretending that primary
school kids are harder to cope with than that?

There's no need to pretend. They can be.

FWIW my 'social skills' meant those skills which weren't directly
related to the subject - covering things such as charisma, etc.

Fine, but it doesn't make up for any lack of ability in the subject.




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.

It's the job of the education system to cope with this. In the real
world of work, you can eg refuse to employ somebody who's not up to the
job. The state education system can't do this : they must be able to
handle everybody.

Always assuming the principle of universal provision by the state or
the possibility of opt out with refund, although that's a separate
issue.

There is, in any case, nothing that says that the state has to do this
by mean of single comprehensive schools as opposed to freedom of choice.



(We know of examples where the schools are behaving more like bad
employers - eg encouraging those who won't get an A to not take an
exam, to improve 'results'. I'm sure you'll agree this is not good.)

It isn't good, and is another reason why the comprehensive system has
let down two generations of children.

This could be entirely avoided by a correct matching between school and
pupil rather than attempting a poor form of social engineering.



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.

They already teach this. Well, at most schools. (There is (was?) at
least one famous exception, but they're rather different to the rest).
Fixed lesson times, homework, coursework, etc - all are doing exactly
what you want here. No need to actually discriminate against people to
achieve it either.

There was no discrimination. You are confusing appropriate matching
of pupil with type of school as being discrimination. It isn't.



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

Except there is a problem with segregated provisioning. It's not just
perception.

There isn't a problem with segregated provisioning - only a perception
that there is.


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

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

********. Segregated provisioning has significant problems you're just
pretending don't exist.

There is nothing wrong with matching the pupil with the most
appropriate type of schoold for them.



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.

In this country we still have grammar and comp.

Not to the degree and with the freedom of choice that we did.


There's no evidence that the "decline in standards" affects either
system more than the other.

Standards have certainly declined in the UK over the last 40 years
compared with what they were. There is really no argument about that.
This has not happened in other countries who have focused on correct
provision of education rather than social wet dreams. The correlating
factor is comprehensive education.


Therefore there is no evidence that comp produces mediocrity.

Unfortunately there is. It isn't the only reason for mediochrity but
is certainly the major culprit.


Look elsewhere for mechanisms for the (possibly overstated) decline in
standards.

It isn't overstated.

I've looked recently at GCSE papers. They are of the standard of 2nd
form grammar school at best.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On 2007-02-08 16:59:41 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Huge wrote:
On 2007-02-08, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:12:59 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-02-08 10:11:03 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-02-06, Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

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.
OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways.
Tell me about it. I failed my 11 plus.

11 'O' levels, 4 'A' levels and 2 degrees later, I have mixed feelings
about streamed education...
Perhaps demonstrating that selection at age 11 wasn't deleterious to
the outcome?

It's just that it's such an ugly, anti-social concept.

So's the real world. Unfortunately we have to live in that one.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

Stuart Noble wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2007-02-08, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:12:59 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

On 2007-02-08 10:11:03 +0000, Huge said:

On 2007-02-06, Clive George wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

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.
OTOH streaming also needs to be flexible. The Grammar/Secondary
modern
"streaming" doesn't work in a lot of ways.
Tell me about it. I failed my 11 plus.

11 'O' levels, 4 'A' levels and 2 degrees later, I have mixed feelings
about streamed education...
Perhaps demonstrating that selection at age 11 wasn't deleterious to
the outcome?

It's just that it's such an ugly, anti-social concept.

Is it? it is just one of those things..a crude device that on balance
probably did more good than harm.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-02-08 12:35:06 +0000, "Clive George"
said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
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.

I'd dispute that. A good teacher can handle a class of otherwise
bored/unruly teenagers - surely you're not pretending that primary school
kids are harder to cope with than that?

There's no need to pretend. They can be.

Mmm, right. Little kids have distinct disadvantages compared to teenagers in
any potential conflict - which is the worst case scenario we're talking
about here. Not just physical either.

FWIW my 'social skills' meant those skills which weren't directly related
to the subject - covering things such as charisma, etc.

Fine, but it doesn't make up for any lack of ability in the subject.

I never claimed otherwise. However ability in the subject is easy compared
to the other skills required.

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.

It's the job of the education system to cope with this. In the real world
of work, you can eg refuse to employ somebody who's not up to the job.
The state education system can't do this : they must be able to handle
everybody.

Always assuming the principle of universal provision by the state or the
possibility of opt out with refund, although that's a separate issue.

There is, in any case, nothing that says that the state has to do this by
mean of single comprehensive schools as opposed to freedom of choice.

There people like you saying the state has to do it by grammar rather than
comprehensive school. Many towns aren't large enough to support the three
schools which would be required by your ideology. Having just the one
appears to work very well in many cases.

(We know of examples where the schools are behaving more like bad
employers - eg encouraging those who won't get an A to not take an exam,
to improve 'results'. I'm sure you'll agree this is not good.)

It isn't good, and is another reason why the comprehensive system has let
down two generations of children.

********. Plain and simple. The comprehensive system has not let those
generations down. I'm pretty sure I'm younger than you - I've actually got
experience of this system you claim is failing people, and I mix with others
of my age group who have also got this experience. I will admit to being a
proponent of streaming - but even that belief is slipping, having learned
more about places where they make non-streamed education work.

Any failures aren't a result of "the comprehensive system". Mixed schools
didn't bring those problems, other factors did. The grammar system wasn't
the flawless ideal that you imagine - the replacements happened not purely
out of social idealism, there were and still are real problems with the
segregated model, which is still failing people in the same way you deride
the comprehensive system as doing.

This could be entirely avoided by a correct matching between school and
pupil rather than attempting a poor form of social engineering.

You mean like you're promoting?

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.

They already teach this. Well, at most schools. (There is (was?) at least
one famous exception, but they're rather different to the rest). Fixed
lesson times, homework, coursework, etc - all are doing exactly what you
want here. No need to actually discriminate against people to achieve it
either.

There was no discrimination. You are confusing appropriate matching of
pupil with type of school as being discrimination. It isn't.

In theory. Practice is rather different.

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

Except there is a problem with segregated provisioning. It's not just
perception.

There isn't a problem with segregated provisioning - only a perception
that there is.

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

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

********. Segregated provisioning has significant problems you're just
pretending don't exist.

There is nothing wrong with matching the pupil with the most appropriate
type of schoold for them.

In theory. Real life (remember, that which only a couple of posts ago you
were claiming taught the better lessons) shows different.

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.

In this country we still have grammar and comp.

Not to the degree and with the freedom of choice that we did.

Chortle. There's rather more freedom of choice now - easy transport has
permitted that. I can see it in action even in a rural area such as this -
eg the people choosing to send their kids to the non-selected schools.

More relevantly, there's sufficient provision of both to demonstrate there's
no inherent mediocrity produced in either system. It's not the lack of
selection causing the problems (percieved or otherwise), it's other factors.

There's no evidence that the "decline in standards" affects either
system more than the other.

Standards have certainly declined in the UK over the last 40 years
compared with what they were. There is really no argument about that.
This has not happened in other countries who have focused on correct
provision of education rather than social wet dreams. The correlating
factor is comprehensive education.

There isn't correlation, let alone causation. Sufficient numbers of grammar
schools remained to demonstrate this - they aren't performing better than
their comprehensive equivalents. Sure, scumbag comp doesn't appear to
produce as good results as leafytrees grammar - but leafytrees comp does.

Any problems aren't a result of lack of selection. It simply isn't the magic
bullet you like to believe it is. Remember, I've actually experienced both
systems.

clive

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On 2007-02-09 02:50:56 +0000, "Clive George" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2007-02-08 12:35:06 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
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.

I'd dispute that. A good teacher can handle a class of otherwise
bored/unruly teenagers - surely you're not pretending that primary
school kids are harder to cope with than that?

There's no need to pretend. They can be.

Mmm, right. Little kids have distinct disadvantages compared to
teenagers in any potential conflict - which is the worst case scenario
we're talking about here. Not just physical either.

The worst case scenario in any school or for that matte other
environments is bullying in all of its forms. One should not assume
that that isn't devastating at any age - it is simply manifest in
different ways.




FWIW my 'social skills' meant those skills which weren't directly
related to the subject - covering things such as charisma, etc.

Fine, but it doesn't make up for any lack of ability in the subject.

I never claimed otherwise. However ability in the subject is easy
compared to the other skills required.

Neither are easy if they are outside the natural ability of the person.



It's the job of the education system to cope with this. In the real
world of work, you can eg refuse to employ somebody who's not up to the
job. The state education system can't do this : they must be able to
handle everybody.

Always assuming the principle of universal provision by the state or
the possibility of opt out with refund, although that's a separate
issue.

There is, in any case, nothing that says that the state has to do this
by mean of single comprehensive schools as opposed to freedom of choice.

There people like you saying the state has to do it by grammar rather
than comprehensive school.

It's a matter of freedom of choice. The state should be offering
that rather than effectively mandating that education is delivered by a
one size fits all system.


Many towns aren't large enough to support the three schools which
would be required by your ideology.

Except that it isn't an ideology. Comprehensive education is the
ideology of the 60s just like tower blocks were. Ultimately it has
been realised that tower blocks were a failed social experiment and
they are being demolished. The damage caused by them can probably be
undone in a few years. Comprehensive education is a similar failed
social experiment and likewise should be dismantled. As regards
availability, there is nothing to say that school has to be available
with a two minute ride in the car from the front door.

Having just the one appears to work very well in many cases.

That's highly questionnable when the concept is failed in principle.



(We know of examples where the schools are behaving more like bad
employers - eg encouraging those who won't get an A to not take an
exam, to improve 'results'. I'm sure you'll agree this is not good.)

It isn't good, and is another reason why the comprehensive system has
let down two generations of children.

********. Plain and simple. The comprehensive system has not let those
generations down.

I'm sorry but it absolutely has.


I'm pretty sure I'm younger than you - I've actually got experience of
this system you claim is failing people, and I mix with others of my
age group who have also got this experience.

Then you do not have the ability to compare the two. I've seen the
effects of both and it's abundantly clear that choice of type of school
with excellence of each in what they do is the right solution.


I will admit to being a proponent of streaming - but even that belief
is slipping, having learned more about places where they make
non-streamed education work.

It shouldn't need to be "made to work". If that is required, then
the concept is broken. Once again it is the dogma of foracing the
unnatural system where everybody gets the same regardless of
suitability.



Any failures aren't a result of "the comprehensive system". Mixed
schools didn't bring those problems, other factors did.

Unfortunately, to a very large extent they are.


The grammar system wasn't the flawless ideal that you imagine

Nobody said that it was. However the whole point of selection and
choice is to match pupils to the school focus and culture most suitable
for them. Giving everybody a grey mediocrity serves nobody to their
potential.


- the replacements happened not purely out of social idealism, there
were and still are real problems with the segregated model, which is
still failing people in the same way you deride the comprehensive
system as doing.

The segregated model is no longer universally available in the UK so
one cannot say that it is failing people.

It is operated quite effectively in other countries such as Germany
where there are a range of choices with transitions at different ages:

Gymnasium (equivalent to grammar school)
Realschule (high school - leads typically to vocational school)
Gesamtschule (comprehensive school)
Hauptschule (general school - also leads to vocational school but a
year earlier or the option to stay a year longer and obtain a
Realschule diploma)




This could be entirely avoided by a correct matching between school and
pupil rather than attempting a poor form of social engineering.

You mean like you're promoting?

I'm not promoting anything - simply making a distinction between what
works and what fails.


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.

They already teach this. Well, at most schools. (There is (was?) at
least one famous exception, but they're rather different to the rest).
Fixed lesson times, homework, coursework, etc - all are doing exactly
what you want here. No need to actually discriminate against people to
achieve it either.

There was no discrimination. You are confusing appropriate matching
of pupil with type of school as being discrimination. It isn't.

In theory. Practice is rather different.

In practice as well. There will always be pupils who won't match
anything very well. It is not reasonable to impose a mismatch for the
majority based on a minority.



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

Except there is a problem with segregated provisioning. It's not just
perception.

There isn't a problem with segregated provisioning - only a perception
that there is.

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

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

********. Segregated provisioning has significant problems you're just
pretending don't exist.

There is nothing wrong with matching the pupil with the most
appropriate type of schoold for them.

In theory. Real life (remember, that which only a couple of posts ago
you were claiming taught the better lessons) shows different.

It isn't theory. It worked very well in the UK in the past and
continues to work very well where operated.

Nobody other than you is applying the description "better" in the sense
of one thing having greater value than the other. What actually
matters is what is better for the individual. That is achieved by
having a matching type of school for them.





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.

In this country we still have grammar and comp.

Not to the degree and with the freedom of choice that we did.

Chortle. There's rather more freedom of choice now - easy transport has
permitted that.

Earlier you were making the point that three schools were not viable in
many towns. Which is it?

I can see it in action even in a rural area such as this - eg the
people choosing to send their kids to the non-selected schools.

... and all of the options of grammar school, technical school and
general school are available to them in addition to non-selected?



More relevantly, there's sufficient provision of both to demonstrate
there's no inherent mediocrity produced in either system. It's not the
lack of selection causing the problems (percieved or otherwise), it's
other factors.

Untrue. One only has to compare the standards achieved in academic
and non academic output now compared with one and two generations ago
and the comparison is stark and highly concerning.




There's no evidence that the "decline in standards" affects either
system more than the other.

Standards have certainly declined in the UK over the last 40 years
compared with what they were. There is really no argument about that.
This has not happened in other countries who have focused on correct
provision of education rather than social wet dreams. The correlating
factor is comprehensive education.

There isn't correlation, let alone causation. Sufficient numbers of
grammar schools remained to demonstrate this - they aren't performing
better than their comprehensive equivalents.

There are not sufficient numbers to demonstrate that. More to the
point, there aren't technical and general schools any longer in order
to make the comparison.


Sure, scumbag comp doesn't appear to produce as good results as
leafytrees grammar - but leafytrees comp does.

It isn't reasonable to compare a grammar school with a comprehensive
school on a direct basis. One can only compare with the equivalent
function in a comprehensive school and a technical school with
equivalent to that in a comprehensive school because each represents a
suitability to pupil. On that basis, it is very clear that the
comprehensive system fails. The grammar function does not achieve
excellence for the academic pupil any more than the technical school
function does for the vocational pupil. The result is a mediocrity
for both.


Any problems aren't a result of lack of selection. It simply isn't the
magic bullet you like to believe it is. Remember, I've actually
experienced both systems.

You earlier said that you didn't. I've also experienced the
teaching regime in each. The acid test is in the end result and the
standards achieved. I recently pulled out some O level and A level
papers from the early to mid 70s together with GCSE and A level papers
from the late 90s. The modern A level paper is at a level that is
little different to the O level paper of 30 years previously. That
says it all.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:47:43 -0000, tim..... wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:40:31 UTC, Tony Bryer
wrote:

If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.

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.

Just how is it state control?

And it doesn't have to be implemented as a surveillance
tool. IMHO you would have better results just campaigning
for that.

Mobile phones aren't implememted as a surveillance tool, but phone records
have been used for forensic purposes.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:
I wanted to make an oscilloscope but the pocket money wouldn't stretch
much beyond a fridge alarm and an intercom system.
Why a fridge alarm?

Because I wanted to try a HeathKit and there wasn't much in the range I
could afford. And I'd already got an intercom.

What I *really* wanted to build were a Maplin stereo amplifier and an
electronic crosspoint telephone exchange.

LOL!

We had to fit a lock on our fridge when the children were teenagers!

There was never anything in our fridge that I wanted to eat.

Ours were always too hungry to be picky :-)

Mary

Owain

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

It isn't reasonable to compare a grammar school with a comprehensive
school on a direct basis. One can only compare with the equivalent
function in a comprehensive school and a technical school with
equivalent to that in a comprehensive school because each represents a
suitability to pupil. On that basis, it is very clear that the
comprehensive system fails. The grammar function does not achieve
excellence for the academic pupil any more than the technical school
function does for the vocational pupil. The result is a mediocrity
for both.

This whole education thing is a red herring. A child's "education" is
essentially over by the time they get to primary school. The next decade
or two so simply supplies information, but the appetite for learning and
the ability to communicate (aka confidence) should already be well
established. The problem now is that too many parents are delivering ill
equipped children to the school, having spent the previous 4 years
farming them out to child minders and shopping at weekends.

It's all a question of balance. The programme last night about "gifted"
children suggests that hothouse tactics produce evil, precocious little
buggers who can play Bach, beat you at chess, and do arithmetic in their
head. Er, I have an old PC in the loft that can do all that, so is this
really a worthwhile pursuit for the human brain? And is it worth the
inevitable social exclusion? The programme should have been called
"Loony Parents".

At the other end of the scale, neglect is causing a huge waste of
potential in our kids. I've never met a 2 year old that wasn't as bright
as a button, but something happens (or doesn't happen) between then and
primary school. The light goes out, something whithers on the vine, and
the poor little sod already has one foot on the scrapheap. Fortunately
the scrapheap is quite a lucrative place to be nowadays but having money
doesn't compensate for a lack of education. The inferiority complex
follows you and sours your relationships with the rest of the world.

I think we have to get away from the working mum culture because only
mum is really qualified to do the pre school bit. It has to be one to
one for 4 years. You put the work in, you reap the rewards. Nothing more
challenging (or rewarding if you're honest about it).

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...


This whole education thing is a red herring. A child's "education" is
essentially over by the time they get to primary school. The next decade
or two so simply supplies information, but the appetite for learning and
the ability to communicate (aka confidence) should already be well
established. The problem now is that too many parents are delivering ill
equipped children to the school, having spent the previous 4 years farming
them out to child minders and shopping at weekends.

Yes. I 'minded' and fostered several children because I was asked to do so
but we didn't want our own children being brought up by someone else. What's
the point? It was bad enough having to send them to school.

It's all a question of balance. The programme last night about "gifted"
children suggests that hothouse tactics produce evil, precocious little
buggers who can play Bach, beat you at chess, and do arithmetic in their
head. Er, I have an old PC in the loft that can do all that, so is this
really a worthwhile pursuit for the human brain? And is it worth the
inevitable social exclusion? The programme should have been called "Loony
Parents".

No idea what that paragraph is about, I assume it's television which we
don't have. Life's too full of interesting things to do.

At the other end of the scale, neglect is causing a huge waste of
potential in our kids. I've never met a 2 year old that wasn't as bright
as a button, but something happens (or doesn't happen) between then and
primary school. The light goes out, something whithers on the vine, and
the poor little sod already has one foot on the scrapheap. Fortunately the
scrapheap is quite a lucrative place to be nowadays but having money
doesn't compensate for a lack of education. The inferiority complex
follows you and sours your relationships with the rest of the world.

I think we have to get away from the working mum culture because only mum
is really qualified to do the pre school bit. It has to be one to one for
4 years. You put the work in, you reap the rewards. Nothing more
challenging (or rewarding if you're honest about it).

It's unfashionable to say that! Positively out of order!!

But I agree with every word, except 'whithers' :-)

Mary

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

This whole education thing is a red herring. A child's "education" is
essentially over by the time they get to primary school. The next decade
or two so simply supplies information, but the appetite for learning and
the ability to communicate (aka confidence) should already be well
established. The problem now is that too many parents are delivering ill
equipped children to the school, having spent the previous 4 years farming
them out to child minders and shopping at weekends.

Yes. I 'minded' and fostered several children because I was asked to do so
but we didn't want our own children being brought up by someone else. What's
the point? It was bad enough having to send them to school.
It's all a question of balance. The programme last night about "gifted"
children suggests that hothouse tactics produce evil, precocious little
buggers who can play Bach, beat you at chess, and do arithmetic in their
head. Er, I have an old PC in the loft that can do all that, so is this
really a worthwhile pursuit for the human brain? And is it worth the
inevitable social exclusion? The programme should have been called "Loony
Parents".

No idea what that paragraph is about, I assume it's television which we
don't have. Life's too full of interesting things to do.
At the other end of the scale, neglect is causing a huge waste of
potential in our kids. I've never met a 2 year old that wasn't as bright
as a button, but something happens (or doesn't happen) between then and
primary school. The light goes out, something whithers on the vine, and
the poor little sod already has one foot on the scrapheap. Fortunately the
scrapheap is quite a lucrative place to be nowadays but having money
doesn't compensate for a lack of education. The inferiority complex
follows you and sours your relationships with the rest of the world.

I think we have to get away from the working mum culture because only mum
is really qualified to do the pre school bit. It has to be one to one for
4 years. You put the work in, you reap the rewards. Nothing more
challenging (or rewarding if you're honest about it).

It's unfashionable to say that! Positively out of order!!

But I agree with every word, except 'whithers' :-)

Oh dear. I blame the parents


Mary

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

Mary Fisher wrote:

I think we have to get away from the working mum culture because only mum
is really qualified to do the pre school bit. It has to be one to one for
4 years. You put the work in, you reap the rewards. Nothing more
challenging (or rewarding if you're honest about it).

It's unfashionable to say that! Positively out of order!!

But I agree with every word, except 'whithers' :-)


I don't think it matters whether its mum or dad that stays at home, but
I think leaving kids to find their own way or supervised in large groups
is awful.



Mary

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

Huge wrote:

Life is full of selection, much of it ugly and anti-social. Might
as well get used to it ASAP.


I have to agree.
People who succeed learn to do it DESPITE all the disadvantages. They
use what they have access to.

People to fail do it DESPITE all the advantages. How many coal miners
sons and daughters now live in Hollywood, and how many ex public school
kids are dead from overdoses?

By and large there is a huge temptation to blame failure on external
factors, rather than on personality weaknesses.

Everybody can be top at *something*, even if its as simple and vital a
thing as being the best parent to their children that they are likely to
get.

Anybody can fail at anything, if its simply beyond their capabilities. I
could easily be the world worst footballer.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip most stuff

There's no point in arguing with you - you're just a believer. There's
direct evidence that comps can and do work and you just sit there denying
it.

Sure, scumbag comp doesn't appear to produce as good results as
leafytrees grammar - but leafytrees comp does.

It isn't reasonable to compare a grammar school with a comprehensive
school on a direct basis.

Not on all pupils, maybe, but that doesn't prevent the comparison being made
with suitable care.

One can only compare with the equivalent function in a comprehensive
school and a technical school with equivalent to that in a comprehensive
school because each represents a suitability to pupil. On that basis,
it is very clear that the comprehensive system fails. The grammar
function does not achieve excellence for the academic pupil any more than
the technical school function does for the vocational pupil. The result
is a mediocrity for both.

The evidence is that that is wrong - academic pupils can and do achieve
excellence within the comprehensive system. I also know that the
technical/vocational schools fail many pupils within the segregated system,
and I know of grammar schools which weren't as good for academic pupils as
comps.

Any problems aren't a result of lack of selection. It simply isn't the
magic bullet you like to believe it is. Remember, I've actually
experienced both systems.

You earlier said that you didn't.

Where? You may be misreading - perhaps your grammar school education failing
you :-)

I've also experienced the teaching regime in each. The acid test is in
the end result and the standards achieved. I recently pulled out some O
level and A level papers from the early to mid 70s together with GCSE and
A level papers from the late 90s. The modern A level paper is at a
level that is little different to the O level paper of 30 years
previously. That says it all.

It's not a result of losing your precious grammar schools though - it's
trivial to show that, since they weren't all lost. If the grammar system was
so much better, those areas which kept it would have shown a distinct
advantage over those which didn't.

Couple of other points:

The grammar/technical/secondary modern school system was just as much a
social experiment as the comprehensive system. (Actually, the technical side
was very rapidy sidelined, leaving grammar/the rest.)

You mention other countries making a better job of it. Do you think they do
this with the same resources? (Do the leglislators in those countries
actually have a personal interest in ensuring state education works, or do
they make sure their kids are looked after elsewhere?)

clive

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:

I think we have to get away from the working mum culture because only
mum is really qualified to do the pre school bit. It has to be one to
one for 4 years. You put the work in, you reap the rewards. Nothing
more challenging (or rewarding if you're honest about it).

It's unfashionable to say that! Positively out of order!!

But I agree with every word, except 'whithers' :-)


I don't think it matters whether its mum or dad that stays at home

Ever tried it? I know we're all supposed to be the same now, but it soon
became obvious to me that the female of the species has something extra
in this area. Maybe giving birth has something to do with it

, but
I think leaving kids to find their own way or supervised in large groups
is awful.



Mary

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

nog wrote:

And it doesn't have to be implemented as a surveillance
tool. IMHO you would have better results just campaigning
for that.

Mobile phones aren't implememted as a surveillance tool, but phone records
have been used for forensic purposes.

IIUC, they can be used as a direct listening device if you play with
primitives low enough down in the GSM stack... (the mic on/off commands etc)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
news:Tj0zh.2681$Uy5.2570@newsfe2-

I don't think it matters whether its mum or dad that stays at home

How very liberal!

And wrong.

If it's unavoidable for an unavoidable reason (the woman earning more isn't
a sufficient one) then a father caring for his children is better than other
child care but it's child care rather than nurture.

Ever tried it? I know we're all supposed to be the same now, but it soon
became obvious to me that the female of the species has something extra in
this area. Maybe giving birth has something to do with it

I think that has a lot to do with it, women are equipped to nurture
children, men are equipped for other necessary roles. there was a time,
during my young, leftie sociology studying time when I wouldn't have said
that but many years of direct experience and observation have taught me
differently.

Mary

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

If it's unavoidable for an unavoidable reason (the woman earning more isn't
a sufficient one) then a father caring for his children is better than
other
child care but it's child care rather than nurture.

Thanks Mary. Luckily I've learned to discard the views of misguided
people on usenet.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
news:Tj0zh.2681$Uy5.2570@newsfe2-
I don't think it matters whether its mum or dad that stays at home

How very liberal!

And wrong.

If it's unavoidable for an unavoidable reason (the woman earning more isn't
a sufficient one) then a father caring for his children is better than other
child care but it's child care rather than nurture.
Ever tried it? I know we're all supposed to be the same now, but it soon
became obvious to me that the female of the species has something extra in
this area. Maybe giving birth has something to do with it

I think that has a lot to do with it, women are equipped to nurture
children, men are equipped for other necessary roles. there was a time,
during my young, leftie sociology studying time when I wouldn't have said
that but many years of direct experience and observation have taught me
differently.

I never bothered with children because I never found a female that I
thought was actually safe to be left in charge of children, frankly.

I think that is self serving twaddle,. Apart from, stuffing a tit in is
mouth, men can be just as good, if not better at 'nurturing' whatever
that really means.

I've noted the standard female line is always 'women are just as good as
men, except when they are better'
Inspection shows this to be

- impossible.
- not consistent with reality.
- sexist.

But then, most female thinking is in that category ;-)




Mary

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"nog" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:47:43 -0000, tim..... wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:40:31 UTC, Tony Bryer
wrote:

If five million people signed it would still have no effect. The
reality is that something has to be done to reverse the ever
increasing amount of traffic and the Conservatives know it too.

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.

Just how is it state control?

And it doesn't have to be implemented as a surveillance
tool. IMHO you would have better results just campaigning
for that.

Mobile phones aren't implememted as a surveillance tool, but phone records
have been used for forensic purposes.

That's because the record is for the use of the same
network that is controlling the billing.

A satellite based road charging system only uses the
satellite to calculate the miles driven/class of road
used etc. The actual data will have to be calculated
from this data by the the 'box' in the car transmitting
the info back to the road authority using some other
mechansim (probably GPRS). There is no need for
this transmitted data to include where you drove, only
how far and when for each road type.

tim

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
news:Tj0zh.2681$Uy5.2570@newsfe2-
I don't think it matters whether its mum or dad that stays at home

How very liberal!

And wrong.

If it's unavoidable for an unavoidable reason (the woman earning more
isn't a sufficient one) then a father caring for his children is
better than other child care but it's child care rather than nurture.
Ever tried it? I know we're all supposed to be the same now, but it
soon became obvious to me that the female of the species has
something extra in this area. Maybe giving birth has something to do
with it

I think that has a lot to do with it, women are equipped to nurture
children, men are equipped for other necessary roles. there was a
time, during my young, leftie sociology studying time when I wouldn't
have said that but many years of direct experience and observation
have taught me differently.

I never bothered with children because I never found a female that I
thought was actually safe to be left in charge of children, frankly.

Time to get your coat then :-)

I think that is self serving twaddle,. Apart from, stuffing a tit in is
mouth, men can be just as good, if not better at 'nurturing' whatever
that really means.

It's the ability to do it day in and day out when you haven't slept for
a week that rules most men out.


I've noted the standard female line is always 'women are just as good as
men, except when they are better'
Inspection shows this to be

- impossible.
- not consistent with reality.
- sexist.

But then, most female thinking is in that category ;-)




Mary

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

The message
from Stuart Noble contains these words:

It's the ability to do it day in and day out when you haven't slept for
a week that rules most men out.

You might explain that to the wife! She often commented how nice it was
when the kids slept through the night - when they hadn't. Even now
they're 9 and 4 she rarely wakes if they're bothered in the night.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

tim..... wrote:

mechansim (probably GPRS). There is no need for
this transmitted data to include where you drove, only
how far and when for each road type.

So when someone offers "the powers that be" the option of being able to
know where any vehicle is at any given time, you can see them turning
down the "option" of having that information... since it would only be
in the interests of "the war on terror"/controlling
immigration/preventing crime/ or whatever the BS excuse of the month is
at the time?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

Owain wrote:

What I *really* wanted to build were a Maplin stereo amplifier and an
electronic crosspoint telephone exchange.

I always lusted after that 25W MOSFET amp kit they did in the wooden
case. Problem was each time I saved up enough to buy the kit, the price
went up! Then they discontinued it...

We had to fit a lock on our fridge when the children were teenagers!

There was never anything in our fridge that I wanted to eat.

Dwarf bread?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

Stuart Noble wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
news:Tj0zh.2681$Uy5.2570@newsfe2-
I don't think it matters whether its mum or dad that stays at home

How very liberal!

And wrong.

If it's unavoidable for an unavoidable reason (the woman earning more
isn't a sufficient one) then a father caring for his children is
better than other child care but it's child care rather than nurture.
Ever tried it? I know we're all supposed to be the same now, but it
soon became obvious to me that the female of the species has
something extra in this area. Maybe giving birth has something to do
with it

I think that has a lot to do with it, women are equipped to nurture
children, men are equipped for other necessary roles. there was a
time, during my young, leftie sociology studying time when I wouldn't
have said that but many years of direct experience and observation
have taught me differently.

I never bothered with children because I never found a female that I
thought was actually safe to be left in charge of children, frankly.

Time to get your coat then :-)

I think that is self serving twaddle,. Apart from, stuffing a tit in
is mouth, men can be just as good, if not better at 'nurturing'
whatever that really means.

It's the ability to do it day in and day out when you haven't slept for
a week that rules most men out.


Ive worked like that..with a bunch of employees behaving worse than
children.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

mechansim (probably GPRS). There is no need for
this transmitted data to include where you drove, only
how far and when for each road type.

So when someone offers "the powers that be" the option of being able to
know where any vehicle is at any given time, you can see them turning down
the "option" of having that information...

No, of course. That is why we should campaign for it not to
happen. (This is not the same as supporting a campaign for
there not to be road charging)

tim

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On 2007-02-09 14:56:36 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

snip most stuff

There's no point in arguing with you - you're just a believer.

There's nothing to believe. The evidence is completely clear.


There's direct evidence that comps can and do work and you just sit
there denying it.

The question is how effectively in comparison with freedom of choice.
I can make anything work if I lower the criteria for success.



Sure, scumbag comp doesn't appear to produce as good results as
leafytrees grammar - but leafytrees comp does.

It isn't reasonable to compare a grammar school with a comprehensive
school on a direct basis.

Not on all pupils, maybe, but that doesn't prevent the comparison being
made with suitable care.

Unfortunately the world at large doesn't deal in mamby pamby "suitable
care". It deals with suitability and achievement and makes little
allowance for inappropriate matches.




One can only compare with the equivalent function in a comprehensive
school and a technical school with equivalent to that in a
comprehensive school because each represents a suitability to pupil.
On that basis, it is very clear that the comprehensive system fails.
The grammar function does not achieve excellence for the academic pupil
any more than the technical school function does for the vocational
pupil. The result is a mediocrity for both.

The evidence is that that is wrong - academic pupils can and do achieve
excellence within the comprehensive system.

Provided that the standards are altered (as they have been) in order
for that to happen.



I also know that the technical/vocational schools fail many pupils
within the segregated system, and I know of grammar schools which
weren't as good for academic pupils as comps.

That would assume a linearity of ability and standards which has not
been the case.


Any problems aren't a result of lack of selection. It simply isn't the
magic bullet you like to believe it is. Remember, I've actually
experienced both systems.

You earlier said that you didn't.

Where? You may be misreading - perhaps your grammar school education
failing you :-)

It was completely clear. Possibly you have lost the plot?



I've also experienced the teaching regime in each. The acid test is
in the end result and the standards achieved. I recently pulled out
some O level and A level papers from the early to mid 70s together with
GCSE and A level papers from the late 90s. The modern A level paper
is at a level that is little different to the O level paper of 30 years
previously. That says it all.

It's not a result of losing your precious grammar schools though - it's
trivial to show that, since they weren't all lost. If the grammar
system was so much better, those areas which kept it would have shown a
distinct advantage over those which didn't.

It isn't an issue of grammar schools being precious, but one of
suitability of schools and freedom of choice being precious. Most of
all it is about an increase in standards as opposed to a decrease them
in order that the flawed system of comprehensive education is seen to
"work"




Couple of other points:

The grammar/technical/secondary modern school system was just as much a
social experiment as the comprehensive system. (Actually, the technical
side was very rapidy sidelined, leaving grammar/the rest.)

Education has been by selection in one form or another for generations.
It works provided that one accepts the principle that once size does
not fit all, which of course is the case.


You mention other countries making a better job of it. Do you think
they do this with the same resources?

Who knows? I am sure that some countries spend more GDP per capita on
education than others. Teachers consider themselves undervalued
virtually everywhere, and it's probably true.


(Do the leglislators in those countries actually have a personal
interest in ensuring state education works, or do they make sure their
kids are looked after elsewhere?)


This assumes that the state has to be the main provider of education.
That is a false assumption along the same lines that healthcare has to
be provided by the state. In both cases, funding and delivery are
two different things.

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-02-09 14:56:36 +0000, "Clive George"
said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip most stuff

There's no point in arguing with you - you're just a believer.

There's nothing to believe. The evidence is completely clear.

Yes - that comps work. Simple.

There's direct evidence that comps can and do work and you just sit
there denying it.

The question is how effectively in comparison with freedom of choice. I
can make anything work if I lower the criteria for success.

When I say "can and do work", I'm not talking about working to a lower
standard. I'm talking about working to the same or higher standard than
other schools. An adequately resourced comp will produce similar results for
the same kids as an adequately resourced grammar.

Sure, scumbag comp doesn't appear to produce as good results as
leafytrees grammar - but leafytrees comp does.

It isn't reasonable to compare a grammar school with a comprehensive
school on a direct basis.

Not on all pupils, maybe, but that doesn't prevent the comparison being
made with suitable care.

Unfortunately the world at large doesn't deal in mamby pamby "suitable
care". It deals with suitability and achievement and makes little
allowance for inappropriate matches.

Erm, I was using the phrase "suitable care" to refer to how one goes about
measuring to get a comparison. You appear to have "gone off on one" here :-)

One can only compare with the equivalent function in a comprehensive
school and a technical school with equivalent to that in a comprehensive
school because each represents a suitability to pupil. On that basis,
it is very clear that the comprehensive system fails. The grammar
function does not achieve excellence for the academic pupil any more
than the technical school function does for the vocational pupil. The
result is a mediocrity for both.

The evidence is that that is wrong - academic pupils can and do achieve
excellence within the comprehensive system.

Provided that the standards are altered (as they have been) in order for
that to happen.

Nope. Not at all. As can be shown by comparisons with other selected
schools.

I also know that the technical/vocational schools fail many pupils within
the segregated system, and I know of grammar schools which weren't as
good for academic pupils as comps.

That would assume a linearity of ability and standards which has not been
the case.

Eh?

Any problems aren't a result of lack of selection. It simply isn't the
magic bullet you like to believe it is. Remember, I've actually
experienced both systems.

You earlier said that you didn't.

Where? You may be misreading - perhaps your grammar school education
failing you :-)

It was completely clear. Possibly you have lost the plot?

Try not treating me like dribble - did you miss the smiley? Please point out
where I said I didn't experience both systems. Google may help you here, or
a quote will do. I'm pretty darn sure I never said that.

I've also experienced the teaching regime in each. The acid test is
in the end result and the standards achieved. I recently pulled out
some O level and A level papers from the early to mid 70s together with
GCSE and A level papers from the late 90s. The modern A level paper
is at a level that is little different to the O level paper of 30 years
previously. That says it all.

It's not a result of losing your precious grammar schools though - it's
trivial to show that, since they weren't all lost. If the grammar system
was so much better, those areas which kept it would have shown a distinct
advantage over those which didn't.

It isn't an issue of grammar schools being precious, but one of
suitability of schools and freedom of choice being precious. Most of all
it is about an increase in standards as opposed to a decrease them in
order that the flawed system of comprehensive education is seen to "work"

Once again : the decrease in standards you percieve is nothing to do with
the introduction of comprehensive education. It's to do with other factors.

Couple of other points:

The grammar/technical/secondary modern school system was just as much a
social experiment as the comprehensive system. (Actually, the technical
side was very rapidy sidelined, leaving grammar/the rest.)

Education has been by selection in one form or another for generations. It
works provided that one accepts the principle that once size does not fit
all, which of course is the case.

Can you tell me any education system in this country which has provided
adequate education for all? Bear in mind when you answer that secondary
education was only compulsory from 1945 on, and we've essentially only tried
two systems since then : Grammar/tech/secondary mod and Comprehensive.
Despite what you may wish to believe, the former system was failing, which
is why the latter was bought in.
You may choose to believe the systems before then - the original grammar
school system, and before - produced better results. But without the mass
employers capable of taking on the large numbers of uneducated people left
by those systems, it would fail in an instant.

Either system can be made to work, and work well. We do have positive
examples of this - eg under your preferred system, the technical school
concept did work for some, and even today it's easy to observe success in
the system you don't like. The factors which make them work when they do are
the same for both - and it isn't selection. The big one is social - we all
know (I think?) kids do a lot better with parents who provide the right
environment - hence 'nice middle-class' schools doing well, regardless of
selection. The other is resourcing, at the basic level financial, but
getting good teachers is critical. With a huge amount of effort it's even
possible to undo the problems induced by bad parenting - but I'm not going
to pretend that the cost involved is approaching politically acceptable.

Is it worth mentioning that the comprehensive system isn't actually intended
to force all people to do the same thing? A well run school will play to the
different strengths of all its pupils - your vision of different schools
providing for different pupils can actually be met within one school.

clive

Road Tax on driving a vehicle
 

On 2007-02-10 02:13:54 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2007-02-09 14:56:36 +0000, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...

snip most stuff

There's no point in arguing with you - you're just a believer.

There's nothing to believe. The evidence is completely clear.

Yes - that comps work. Simple.

Anything can "work" if the criteria for success are altered.




There's direct evidence that comps can and do work and you just sit
there denying it.

The question is how effectively in comparison with freedom of choice.
I can make anything work if I lower the criteria for success.

When I say "can and do work", I'm not talking about working to a lower
standard.

I am.


I'm talking about working to the same or higher standard than other
schools. An adequately resourced comp will produce similar results for
the same kids as an adequately resourced grammar.

Of course it will if you set the criteria for success low enough, and
that is exactly what has been done.



Sure, scumbag comp doesn't appear to produce as good results as
leafytrees grammar - but leafytrees comp does.

It isn't reasonable to compare a grammar school with a comprehensive
school on a direct basis.

Not on all pupils, maybe, but that doesn't prevent the comparison being
made with suitable care.

Unfortunately the world at large doesn't deal in mamby pamby "suitable
care". It deals with suitability and achievement and makes little
allowance for inappropriate matches.

Erm, I was using the phrase "suitable care" to refer to how one goes
about measuring to get a comparison. You appear to have "gone off on
one" here :-)

The only valid form of measurement would be to have used the level and
type of measurment before and after the changes to the system. This
wasn't done. There is a huge decline in standards over a generation
or more, precisely so that the new system can be seen to "work"




One can only compare with the equivalent function in a comprehensive
school and a technical school with equivalent to that in a
comprehensive school because each represents a suitability to pupil.
On that basis, it is very clear that the comprehensive system fails.
The grammar function does not achieve excellence for the academic
pupil any more than the technical school function does for the
vocational pupil. The result is a mediocrity for both.

The evidence is that that is wrong - academic pupils can and do achieve
excellence within the comprehensive system.

Provided that the standards are altered (as they have been) in order
for that to happen.

Nope. Not at all. As can be shown by comparisons with other selected schools.

Incorrect. The standards of measurement have altered as well.



I also know that the technical/vocational schools fail many pupils
within the segregated system, and I know of grammar schools which
weren't as good for academic pupils as comps.

That would assume a linearity of ability and standards which has not
been the case.

Eh?

Simple enough. The criteria for "success" have been set lower so that
the failed social experiment of comprehensive education appears to
"work".



Any problems aren't a result of lack of selection. It simply isn't the
magic bullet you like to believe it is. Remember, I've actually
experienced both systems.

You earlier said that you didn't.

Where? You may be misreading - perhaps your grammar school education
failing you :-)

It was completely clear. Possibly you have lost the plot?

Try not treating me like dribble - did you miss the smiley?

I'd never do that :-)



Please point out where I said I didn't experience both systems. Google
may help you here, or a quote will do. I'm pretty darn sure I never
said that.

You indicated that you were younger than me (perhaps you are) and had
experienced both systems. School career split across the two types?
Otherwise how?



I've also experienced the teaching regime in each. The acid test is
in the end result and the standards achieved. I recently pulled out
some O level and A level papers from the early to mid 70s together with
GCSE and A level papers from the late 90s. The modern A level paper
is at a level that is little different to the O level paper of 30 years
previously. That says it all.

It's not a result of losing your precious grammar schools though - it's
trivial to show that, since they weren't all lost. If the grammar
system was so much better, those areas which kept it would have shown a
distinct advantage over those which didn't.

It isn't an issue of grammar schools being precious, but one of
suitability of schools and freedom of choice being precious. Most of
all it is about an increase in standards as opposed to a decrease them
in order that the flawed system of comprehensive education is seen to
"work"

Once again : the decrease in standards you percieve is nothing to do
with the introduction of comprehensive education. It's to do with other
factors.

It isn't. The decline is standards is plain for all to see. Just
take a look at exam papers over the period. I also took a look at O
and A level papers prior to the introduction of comprehensive education
and the standard was fairly constant. A few years after its
introduction, the standards begin to decline.



Couple of other points:

The grammar/technical/secondary modern school system was just as much a
social experiment as the comprehensive system. (Actually, the technical
side was very rapidy sidelined, leaving grammar/the rest.)

Education has been by selection in one form or another for generations.
It works provided that one accepts the principle that once size does
not fit all, which of course is the case.

Can you tell me any education system in this country which has provided
adequate education for all? Bear in mind when you answer that secondary
education was only compulsory from 1945 on, and we've essentially only
tried two systems since then : Grammar/tech/secondary mod and
Comprehensive. Despite what you may wish to believe, the former system
was failing, which is why the latter was bought in.

It depends on what the objectives are. The ideal goal is to offer
education adequate for all. Unfortunately in any system, this is
unachievable. The question then is whether one should allow and
provide for those who can achieve excellence in the direction where
they have ability (be it academic or vocational); or whether one
creates an environment where the resources are spread in such a way
that the those people lose out by being forced into a system of
mediocrity. I don't think that it is the right thing for the
individual or indeed for the economy as a whole to be doing the latter.



You may choose to believe the systems before then - the original
grammar school system, and before - produced better results. But
without the mass employers capable of taking on the large numbers of
uneducated people left by those systems, it would fail in an instant.

In the final analysis, there will always be people that will be less
educated and there will always be people who are unemployable. This is
not a justification to reduce standards for all or to spread resources
in a direction which disadvantages the high achievers, whether it be in
the academic or the vocational world.



Either system can be made to work, and work well. We do have positive
examples of this - eg under your preferred system, the technical school
concept did work for some, and even today it's easy to observe success
in the system you don't like.

It's easy to observe success when the criteria for measurement are
altered to allow that to be the case.


The factors which make them work when they do are the same for both -
and it isn't selection. The big one is social - we all know (I think?)
kids do a lot better with parents who provide the right environment -
hence 'nice middle-class' schools doing well, regardless of selection.

In a comparison between schools of the same type in different
environments, that is obvious enough.


The other is resourcing, at the basic level financial, but getting
good teachers is critical. With a huge amount of effort it's even
possible to undo the problems induced by bad parenting - but I'm not
going to pretend that the cost involved is approaching politically
acceptable.

Quite.


Is it worth mentioning that the comprehensive system isn't actually
intended to force all people to do the same thing? A well run school
will play to the different strengths of all its pupils - your vision of
different schools providing for different pupils can actually be met
within one school.


I don't think that it can to the same degree of excellence that was
achieved in a selective system, and the decline in standards
demonstrates that quite clearly.