Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

redcogs · May 2007

Thanks for that Gaz - thoughtful and convincing in so many ways. But taking steps towards Saun Kerry's vision will involve creating a society based on the satisfaction of human needs rather than one which involves being chained to the generation of profits for the few at the expense of the many wont it? Seems to be a major stumbling block, but until we do, i fear we are destined to continue wading the public v private mire.

i thought American Beauty was a truly wonderful film BTW

please look up to the stars.. ***

redcogs · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Its just a thought, but why not create a system that allows people to chose how their children are educated subject to some basic requirements (e.g.: very broad curricula guidance; building and grounds standards; minimum staff:pupil ratios). Give all parents the same basic financial educational resources (whatever the average spend per pupil is now across the sector, for example) to spend and allow multiple small schools to be set up that represent a whole range of different philosophies of education, with the state providing at least one 'neutral' option for all areas. Encourage this diversity by setting a maximum size on schools, and ban any charges over and above the basic sum allotted to parents (no private schools as we know them now, but a multitude of ways of using the resources parents are given).

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Isn't this simply a way of introducing a 'market' into education 'Monkey - even with a cap on financial and educational resources?

You can imagine circumstances where, after a year or two of 'bedding in' for your new system, some schools will have become really unpopular amongst those with the wherewithal to avoid them (ie, the state "neutral" ones if this thread is an indicator of political preferences!). They would therefore, in all likelihood, become the 'sink' and under-resourced schools for the 'lower' social groupings, which wouldn't attract or hold decent staff.

The popular schools which attract (for a multiplicity of reasons) the economically able elites would continue to thrive

i wouldn't support the marketisation of education however it was presented.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Gary Askwith · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Thanks for that Gaz - thoughtful and convincing in so many ways. But taking steps towards Saun Kerry's vision will involve creating a society based on the satisfaction of human needs rather than one which involves being chained to the generation of profits for the few at the expense of the many wont it? Seems to be a major stumbling block, but until we do, i fear we are destined to continue wading the public v private mire.

i thought American Beauty was a truly wonderful film BTW

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Indeed...I can confidently predict that when my offspring gets going in his schooling I won't be wringing my hands, complaining to the teachers or psycho-pressuring him into 'performing'(sic) better than his peers in the stats/hoop jumping competition... if he shows reluctance or resistance to conform to expectations..and when he asks me why he has to do these things I will be able to carefully explain and reassure with endurance stories.later on if he is struggling at maths I will be able to explain to him something only one of my teachers could explain- (my a level physics tutor in another school!) .the practical use of algebra and differentiation/integration in the real world.
If he can play a musical instrument, write a poem, understand the evolution of our planet and humanity, confidently socialise with any group, display empathy, understanding and never wants to stop learning then in my book he (and we) have succeeded.whatever his exam results or 'vital' social/financial standing [xx(]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

[2.3] Harm in the School System
by Shaun Kerry, M.D. (a social psychiatrist)

As a social psychiatrist, I drone...blah.....blah facilitate continuous
learning.

Shaun Kerry, M.D.
Diplomate, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
http://www.school-reform.net/

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The fact that they treat such psycho-babble as the drivel it is, is one of the reasons grammar schools and private schools have done so much better than lefty-infested stste schools.

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

You can imagine circumstances where, after a year or two of 'bedding in' for your new system, some schools will have become really unpopular amongst those with the wherewithal to avoid them
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, folk might move 'a la redcogs'.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If he can play a musical instrument, write a poem, understand the evolution of our planet and humanity, confidently socialise with any group, display empathy, understanding and never wants to stop learning then in my book he (and we) have succeeded.whatever his exam results or 'vital' social/financial standing [xx(]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I confidently predict that if he can do all those, he will have passed all his exams as well.

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs
Isn't this simply a way of introducing a 'market' into education 'Monkey - even with a cap on financial and educational resources?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, if you like - but the important thing is that it is a framed market. It does, as mjones complains, stop people from spending as much money as they would like on schooling. So everyone gets the same, i.e: there is total equality in spending, but they have to make their own choices as to how they spend.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
You can imagine circumstances where, after a year or two of 'bedding in' for your new system, some schools will have become really unpopular amongst those with the wherewithal to avoid them
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, and they'd probably close, or be taken over by local coalitions of parents (and/or staff). Because everyone would have the same to spend, this wouldn't matter.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
(ie, the state "neutral" ones if this thread is an indicator of political preferences!).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

By neutral, I mean in ideological terms, as much as that was possible. I would imagine that decent non-religious education would actually be highly valued.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
They would therefore, in all likelihood, become the 'sink' and under-resourced schools for the 'lower' social groupings, which wouldn't attract or hold decent staff. The popular schools which attract (for a multiplicity of reasons) the economically able elites would continue to thrive
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You forget the resources issue here. Groups of parents would be highly powerful in this system and numbers would matter more than individual wealth, because, remember, the system specifically forbids extra spending beyond the 'voucher'. This is even fairer than the Danish system that does allow extra spending, and that has not gone to the extremes you suggest.

In addition, teachers do not necessarily 'avoid poor areas'. Are you suggesting that teachers are just mercenaries? I know many dedicated teachers who even in the current climate chose to work in more challenging environments. If equality was introduced in spending per pupil then this would only be encouraged not discouraged, and would act as an incentive even for those who were more mercenary to work in a range of areas.

Markets of sorts exist whether you like them or not - exchange is something that defines societies. The question, as Herman Daly suggests, is how you frame them so that they act in the common good rather than simply for some. The question in this case is how to allow multiple kind of education to be available without disadvantaging anyone. I can't see that you've offered any workable mechanism for provision of both decent education for all, and the possibility of innovation and change...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

redcogs · May 2007

So there it is, never thought i'd see it, 'Monkey advocates a market solution to the inevitable problems associated with capitalist education.

i would have hoped for a more imaginative leap of faith, some recognition that the market economy is the source of the problem rather than a potential solution.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

I'd be interested as to how you stop all markets from existing without force... 'markets' in these basic terms do not necessarily equal 'capitalism', in that they are not driven by the imperative of capital, and do not tend towards monopolistic provision or the concentration of the means of production in the hands of an elite. You really should actually read some Marx, and perhaps even think critically about what he said...

And no, I don't fit neatly into your stereotypes either, nor those of any ideological faith.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Gary Askwith · May 2007

Tad harsh there FM[:0]

In general, forget education for the moment, I see no realistic alternative to market-bartering transactions either....its a question of scale, small scale( family etc) business, co-operatives and profit sharing can make the world go round but large scale corporate monopolistic global capitalism is a blight on humanity

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

redcogs · May 2007

i'm not too keen on the idea of abolishing all markets 'Monkey - i frequent the car boots for instance. But i am quite keen on the idea that the majority working class ought to be deciding which markets should remain and which should go.

i'm confident that education would be one area that wouldn't be left to the 'invisible hand'.

BTW, its a bit of an elitist assumption that only lecturers can read Marx isn't it?

3/10. Poor.

please look up to the stars.. ***

ankev1 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

i'm not too keen on the idea of abolishing all markets 'Monkey - i frequent the car boots for instance. But i am quite keen on the idea that the majority working class ought to be deciding which markets should remain and which should go.

i'm confident that education would be one area that wouldn't be left to the 'invisible hand'.

BTW, its a bit of an elitist assumption that only lecturers can read Marx isn't it?

3/10. Poor.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And you have there inadvertantly hit the nail on the head about why socialist governments always end up as nasty little dictatorships. The "working class" of course never gets to decide anything and most of the time doesn't give a toss anyway but those who get appointed or appoint themselves to act on its behalf certainly do. Then they identify their own interests with those of this hallowed grouping and it's gulags all round! Never mind, there'll always been an armed resistance for people like me.

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

Exactly, Gary. Which is why I emphasised the small-scale as part of this. Anyway, it's just an idea put forward because it wasn't any of the extreme and incommensurable views being advocated here already...

The point is how we get from where we are to somewhere better. 'Backwards' is not good, it's just nostalgia, and nostaligia is mostly misguided - we didn't 'have it so good' in the 1950s, and certainly not the poor. But if your only answer is 'revolution', then as redcogs' fave John Lennon put it, 'you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.' You have to be prepared to work with what exists, be humble, flexible and realistic - what you believe is only one factor. This doesn't mean abandonning your goals, in fact you've got to hold on to those even harder or you end up like forgetting everything you ever stood for, like Peter Hain et al.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs
i'm confident that education would be one area that wouldn't be left to the 'invisible hand'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I like people to pay attention to what is actually said, not go off on one because of the word 'market'... I wasn't advocating a 'free market' (to which Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' refers), but a framed market - have a look at Daly and Cobb's classic but controversial 'For the Common Good' if you want to get more on this. This acknowledges that markets do a very good job but only if tightly controlled, with social and environmental goals in mind.

You have to have some means of people being able to control their own lives, without harming others. There has to be some way of giving power to the people, but constraining the accumulation of that power and not allowing the externalisation of costs onto distant people, the future or the natural environment... Marxist economics never recognised the problem of externalisation onto the environment (hence the 'no limits' stuff). Simple state control just creates a new form of elite which thinks it can act on behalf of the people, but inevitably gets locked into sustaining itself. Neo-liberal Capitalist economics has never recognised the social (although of course Smith did...). Both have varying degrees of problems with liberty in different domains. Framed markets offer a way to challenge the vested interested of conventional hierarchies, combine individual freedom with social and environmental goals, and not generate the new hierarchies of massive bureaucracy.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

i'm not too keen on the idea of abolishing all markets 'Monkey - i frequent the car boots for instance. But i am quite keen on the idea that the majority working class ought to be deciding which markets should remain and which should go.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm quite sure that they'll be all for keeping the markets that provide them with low cost consumer goodies.

redcogs · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Exactly, Gary. Which is why I emphasised the small-scale as part of this. Anyway, it's just an idea put forward because it wasn't any of the extreme and incommensurable views being advocated here already...

The point is how we get from where we are to somewhere better. 'Backwards' is not good, it's just nostalgia, and nostaligia is mostly misguided - we didn't 'have it so good' in the 1950s, and certainly not the poor. But if your only answer is 'revolution', then as redcogs' fave John Lennon put it, 'you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow.' You have to be prepared to work with what exists, be humble, flexible and realistic - what you believe is only one factor. This doesn't mean abandonning your goals, in fact you've got to hold on to those even harder or you end up like forgetting everything you ever stood for, like Peter Hain et al.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If this is directed at me 'Monkey, i find it judgemental. You know not what my character consists of - i merely contribute (often inadequately) to a forum because i'm interested in making an argument for change. If that translates as a lack of humility, or that i am in some way fixed and rigidly incapable of self criticism then i'll need to live with it. i think that arguments for change away from the smug satisfaction of political and economic individualism are both essential and realistic. You may have chucked in the ideological towel regarding education provision, and you might feel some guilt about that, but thankfully different ways of seeing and stating are not determined only by middle class academics.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

It was a general 'you' (I could have said 'one' if I wanted to be all posh), and of course, just my opinion as 'Flying_Monkey'. I'm making no assumptions about your character as a real and complex human being, just looking at what 'redcogs' says here. If you are less doctrinaire in real life, fine. I'm also less judgemental, funnier and better-looking [;)]. But on here, I've got nothing to go on apart from what you say - that's the opposite of making assumptions, in fact.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

ankev1 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs
i'm confident that education would be one area that wouldn't be left to the 'invisible hand'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I like people to pay attention to what is actually said, not go off on one because of the word 'market'... I wasn't advocating a 'free market' (to which Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' refers), but a framed market - have a look at Daly and Cobb's classic but controversial 'For the Common Good' if you want to get more on this. This acknowledges that markets do a very good job but only if tightly controlled, with social and environmental goals in mind.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This is what I've been saying for ages in one way or another: capitalism works but when allowed to be untrammelled it does more harm than good except for a minority, therefore it needs to be gripped in the interests of the majority. And I don't even get paid for writing "classic but controversial" books. At times it's tough being an unsung genius.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

If you are less doctrinaire in real life, fine. I'm also less judgemental, funnier and better-looking [;)]. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

In real life, I'm much more flirtatious with women. [:I]

redcogs · May 2007

Quote by ankev'

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> At times it's tough being an unsung genius.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Me n 'Monkey know what you mean[;)]

please look up to the stars.. ***

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs
Isn't this simply a way of introducing a 'market' into education 'Monkey - even with a cap on financial and educational resources?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes, if you like - but the important thing is that it is a framed market. It does, as mjones complains, stop people from spending as much money as they would like on schooling. So everyone gets the same, i.e: there is total equality in spending, but they have to make their own choices as to how they spend.
...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I do indeed complain about the spending cap! You still haven't given us a convincing justification for imposing such a restriction on people's individual freedom. We all know that redcogs is instinctively supportive of a state that tells us what to do for our own good, but this attitude strikes me as rather curious coming from you.

As your sig. demonstrates you are very sceptical of 'public good' justifications when being used in your own field of surveillance and security, yet you seem content with a vague appeal to 'equality' as justification for a severe constraint in how people can spend their own money on their own children. Perhaps you could expand on why this is necessary?

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

But i am quite keen on the idea that the majority working class ought to be deciding which markets should remain and which should go.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Laird redcogs, manipulator of the education system

If your working class attain this position of power they become the de facto ruling class, oppressing the former middle and upper classes. What will you do then, when these onetime horny-handed sons of toil become corrupted by power?

redcogs · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> We all know that redcogs is instinctively supportive of a state that tells us what to do for our own good
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As a "doctrinaire" contributer, with an interest in justice of all varieties, please allow a clarification..

Us collectivising equalitarians eagerly anticipate the complete withering away of the state once a classless society has been achieved and there are no longer any social groups to repress or any privilege to protect.

A small point i know, but the 'anti state' option was never exclusively the property of the right - you surely recall the Thatcher years, which significantly developed and empowered the more military wings of the state for overtly political purposes?

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Us collectivising equalitarians eagerly anticipate the complete withering away of the state once a classless society has been achieved and there are no longer any social groups to repress or any privilege to protect.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you think you're in for anything other than an eternal wait, you really don't understand human nature, redcogs. History and everyday experience demonstrate that there will always be an underclass of lazy, immoral, anti-social and deliberately moronic people who are immune to the benefits of a wholesome education and of the contribution to their standard of living by the rest of society; long may the meritocratic class distinction between the worthy and those who choose the easy path remain.

While I'm here, how come you lot post so much during 'normal working hours'.....whose time are you loafing on? [;)]

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
I do indeed complain about the spending cap! You still haven't given us a convincing justification for imposing such a restriction on people's individual freedom. We all know that redcogs is instinctively supportive of a state that tells us what to do for our own good, but this attitude strikes me as rather curious coming from you.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mjones - did I say that I wanted to stop people spending their own money on their children? No. What I said was that I would stop schools charging more per pupil than the 'voucher' amount. You're a clever guy, why don't you have a think what the difference is and why? Or maybe someone else can. If you can't work it out then I'll explain later...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Gary Askwith · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

As your sig. demonstrates you are very sceptical of 'public good' justifications when being used in your own field of surveillance and security, yet you seem content with a vague appeal to 'equality' as justification for a severe constraint in how people can spend their own money on their own children. Perhaps you could expand on why this is necessary?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

.....flip question could be: "why should social capital be directly related to instructional capital?"

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
I do indeed complain about the spending cap! You still haven't given us a convincing justification for imposing such a restriction on people's individual freedom. We all know that redcogs is instinctively supportive of a state that tells us what to do for our own good, but this attitude strikes me as rather curious coming from you.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mjones - did I say that I wanted to stop people spending their own money on their children? No. What I said was that I would stop schools charging more per pupil than the 'voucher' amount. You're a clever guy, why don't you have a think what the difference is and why? Or maybe someone else can. If you can't work it out then I'll explain later...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Now now that's ever so slightly patronising FM! And still doesn't answer the question either... you are also a clever guy so might have remembered that what you originally wrote was:

" and ban any charges over and above the basic sum allotted to parents (no private schools as we know them now."

If the schools aren't allowed to charge more than a certain amount, then parents can't spend more than a certain amount. You've also stated pretty clearly what this means for private schools.

Your answer above is also inconsistent with your earlier answer to my question about this in which you admit that you are proposing a constraint on choice:


mjones: " What is the justification for constraining an individual's freedom to chose how to spend their own money?"

FM: "Because the social consequences are more important... that's always the reason for any law that constrains absolute rights in any area. This is about providing equity in basic education." 

So, having admitted that you are proposing a constraint on parental choice, effectively eliminating private education, are you going to give us the justification?

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

As your sig. demonstrates you are very sceptical of 'public good' justifications when being used in your own field of surveillance and security, yet you seem content with a vague appeal to 'equality' as justification for a severe constraint in how people can spend their own money on their own children. Perhaps you could expand on why this is necessary?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

.....flip question could be: "why should social capital be directly related to instructional capital?"

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No Gary. In a free country it is for the state to justify restrictions on the choice of the individual; not for the individual to have to justify their choices to the state.

Gary Askwith · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

As your sig. demonstrates you are very sceptical of 'public good' justifications when being used in your own field of surveillance and security, yet you seem content with a vague appeal to 'equality' as justification for a severe constraint in how people can spend their own money on their own children. Perhaps you could expand on why this is necessary?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

.....flip question could be: "why should social capital be directly related to instructional capital?"

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No Gary. In a free country it is for the state to justify restrictions on the choice of the individual; not for the individual to have to justify their choices to the state.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Slight diversion here, but I find this romantic rigid adherence to personal individualism many on the 'right wing'(not necessarily you mjones[;)]) have to be blinkered...the idea that society or your social environment is independant of your personal freedom ignores the fact that as individuals we get just about everything from those around us- our language, thoughts, attitudes, dress, diet, lifestyle, ideas, shelter, warmth, protection,culture etc ..we are all trapped in the contemporary way-of-living-thinking-and acting as surely as a caveman....and we would all have completly different ways, thoughts and attitudes if we had been brought up in another era/age/culture
That might seem obvious...the point is that none of us are independant isolated agents.....our actions resonate in others, since we get so much from society that society should have a say in those actions.....

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
Now now that's ever so slightly patronising FM! And still doesn't answer the question either... you are also a clever guy so might have remembered that what you originally wrote was:

" and ban any charges over and above the basic sum allotted to parents (no private schools as we know them now."

If the schools aren't allowed to charge more than a certain amount, then parents can't spend more than a certain amount. You've also stated pretty clearly what this means for private schools.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your reasoning is somewhat faulty here, so excuse me if I continue to be a little patronising, but for a very good reason.

There are three separate groups of questions here, if you want to understand this proposal:

1. Why might it be a good thing to constrain what schools can charge to the same amount as the 'voucher'? And why might it be a bad idea not to do so?

2. What does this mean for private schools? Does it mean they would vanish? If not, what would happen?

3. Why does this not limit parents' spending on education for their children (as if you could do such a thing even if you wanted to...)?

And I agree with Gary BTW, that there is no default in individual consumer rights over social value (which is not the same as the 'liberty' v. 'safety' issue of my quote below) which needs to be explained. You might think that neoliberal economics is 'common sense', but it doesn't actually work in providing an equitable and just society, so in my mind, you need to explain equally why you think there should be no constraints in this area.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories