Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Unknown · June 2007

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

Others, particularly those cossetted and cushioned from the consequences of real world exploitation were perhaps able to select other choices.

Academics are in such a false environment wouldn't you say?

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

Cue 5,000 agonised words from FM on how 17 of them shared one tiny room in a Newcastle tenement, living on scraps which they found in bins and fought the rats for............[;)]

Hang on - that's how he lives now on an academic's salary. [:)]

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

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

Well 'Monkey, as we know from your proposed marketisation of education model, 'you pays your money and you takes your choice'.

i made mine a long time ago as a consequence of being born and bought up in a tough working class environment that knew both morality, and the value and worth of real labour.

Others, particularly those cossetted and cushioned from the consequences of real world exploitation were perhaps able to select other choices.

Academics are in such a false environment wouldn't you say?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Redcogs - you are now making assumptions about my family and background (of which you know very little and it's going to stay that way) - I wasn't born an academic FFS. And frankly the assumption that morality can only be acquired in hard labour is bollocks. There's all kinds of ways of experiencing 'reality' and we'll both have done things and seen and felt things that the other will not have done. I don't dismiss your background at all or the path you've walked in your life, but I certainly don't think it gives you a trump card over anyone else or the right to avoid making a coherent argument...

Oh, and I've already explained the ideas about which I'm currently thinking enough to suggest that are not free market ideas - I've put them out for discussion, argued for them etc. You haven't managed to explain anything about your educational alternative, and just dismissing something by labeling it as 'marketisation' hardly counts as an argument worth considering. Unless you are prepared to actually put forward and defend something in more depth than just slogans, there's really not point...

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

Gary Askwith · June 2007

I can readily identify with Redcogs working class hard labour...one of my grandfathers was a miner the other a shipyard metal worker..both worked phenomonal hours, shift work, little holiday time etc...huge meals to fuel the work intensity
Both were relativly uneducated but they had skills I could never emulate..even as a child it was a wonder to watch as a old filing cabinet was turned into a complex double-curvature perfect replica of a Hillman hunter rear wing for welding into my dads car..or a pile of rods and brackets turned into a garden gate fit for a mansion...that magical and mystical co-ordination between eye hand and brain which no conventional education could teach
My other grandfather played the accordion amazingly well, he used to make a few bob doing the pubs and was much in demand...
Both died in their early sixties of heart failure, no doubt related to their work rate......i was barely in my 20's, i wish I'd appreciated them more
So when i hear people saying they work hard I think yeah well theres different ways of defining 'working hard'

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

redcogs · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I certainly don't think it gives you a trump card over anyone else or the right to avoid making a coherent argument...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ah - the classic shiney arsed 'left' academics stunt of accusing anyone who questions their capitulation to capital of having an inabilty to make a "coherent " argument. i've heard it all before 'Monkey, its unpleasant and reactionary from any academic source, but its doubly so from those who try to project an image of being 'right on' fighters for social justice and green issues, when its absolutely and transparently motivated by dilettante middle class guilt.

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I certainly don't think it gives you a trump card over anyone else or the right to avoid making a coherent argument...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ah - the classic shiney arsed 'left' academics stunt of accusing anyone who questions their capitulation to capital of having an inabilty to make a "coherent " argument. i've heard it all before 'Monkey, its unpleasant and reactionary from any academic source, but its doubly so from those who try to project an image of being 'right on' fighters for social justice and green issues, when its absolutely and transparently motivated by dilettante middle class guilt.

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

FM's keyboard is having to be water cooled at this very moment. [;)]

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

edited because there's no point and people need to calm down... [:)]

Getting personal doesn't help. I apologise if you've felt offended by anything I've said, redcogs.

Can we get back to the issue at hand?

mjones · June 2007

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

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I certainly don't think it gives you a trump card over anyone else or the right to avoid making a coherent argument...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ah - the classic shiney arsed 'left' academics stunt of accusing anyone who questions their capitulation to capital of having an inabilty to make a "coherent " argument. i've heard it all before 'Monkey, its unpleasant and reactionary from any academic source, but its doubly so from those who try to project an image of being 'right on' fighters for social justice and green issues, when its absolutely and transparently motivated by dilettante middle class guilt.

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

FM's keyboard is having to be water cooled at this very moment. [;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Time to get the popcorn in folks! I realise I still haven't given FM a response to his earlier post, but I think I'll leave it till the dust has settled on this one...

As an aside, as one of those previously include on bonj's list of 'lefties' I'd be amused to compare that list with redcogs' list of right-wingers and see how much overlap there is...[:D]

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Anyone got a catapult? [;)][xx(]

[url][/url]http://www.friedrichs.us/mnf-costa-vultures.jpg[url][/url]

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

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

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

I can readily identify with Redcogs working class hard labour...one of my grandfathers was a miner the other a shipyard metal worker..both worked phenomonal hours, shift work, little holiday time etc...huge meals to fuel the work intensity
Both were relativly uneducated but they had skills I could never emulate..even as a child it was a wonder to watch as a old filing cabinet was turned into a complex double-curvature perfect replica of a Hillman hunter rear wing for welding into my dads car..or a pile of rods and brackets turned into a garden gate fit for a mansion...that magical and mystical co-ordination between eye hand and brain which no conventional education could teach
My other grandfather played the accordion amazingly well, he used to make a few bob doing the pubs and was much in demand...
Both died in their early sixties of heart failure, no doubt related to their work rate......i was barely in my 20's, i wish I'd appreciated them more
So when i hear people saying they work hard I think yeah well theres different ways of defining 'working hard'
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks, Gary - I don't disagree with this at all... you've probably seen that they're starting to demolishing the massive cranes at Wallsend from today, the last reminder for anyone of shipbuilding on the Tyne and all that went with it.

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

Unknown · June 2007

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

edited because there's no point and people need to calm down... [:)]

Getting personal doesn't help. I apologise if you've felt offended by anything I've said, redcogs.

Can we get back to the issue at hand?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Damn!!!! This is just far too civilised. I was expecting something like a fight scene in Gladiators (only played to rougher rules)and it's all spoilt by FM being the perfect gentleman.[:(!]

Canrider · June 2007

Don't want to get betwixt reds and FM but I had to flag this up:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that magical and mystical co-ordination between eye hand and brain which no conventional education could teach<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is the sort of thing I was trying to get at when Patrick decided the soul of wit was to lampoon me with cracks about hugging lessons. I'd like to see academic skills losing some of their historically privileged status and a recognition that other types of skilful endeavour are equally important. A doctorate in metalworking to stand alongside the doctorate in plasma physics, if you will.

(Now Patrick can start asking me what colour hood the PhDs in dustbin-emptying will wear)

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

Unknown · June 2007

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

This is the sort of thing I was trying to get at when Patrick decided the soul of wit was to lampoon me with cracks about hugging lessons.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Interestingly enough, I'd forgotten all about that - but you hadn't. [;)]

david2 · June 2007

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

Thanks, Gary - I don't disagree with this at all... you've probably seen that they're starting to demolishing the massive cranes at Wallsend from today, the last reminder for anyone of shipbuilding on the Tyne and all that went with it.

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">

Thanks FM, that reminded me that I did my OND in Shipbuilding and Naval Architecture and went on to make massive dockside cranes. All this was a long way from the Tyne.

Canrider · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Interestingly enough, I'd forgotten all about that - but you hadn't.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You could take some memory lessons..

"We will never win until the oil runs out or they invent hover cars - but then they may land on us." -- lardarse rider

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Heres my old granpoppys works:
..snivel...

[url][/url]http://website.lineone.net/~d.ord/Readhead .htm[url][/url]

[url][/url]http://www.dmm-gallery.org.uk/gallery/w008-001.htm[url][/url]

Readheads site still exists (McNulty offshore repair oil platforms etc)
Westoe colliery is now a 'exclusive studio apartment housing development' (subsidence, what subsidence)[xx(]

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

redcogs · June 2007

No problem 'Monkey. i get wound up by the suggestion that i only offer sloganising or doctrinal arguments. i'd be the first to accept the limitations of some of the positions that i put forward, but generally speaking i try to advance views that are honest and genuinely held. Also, the truth is that each one of us use arguments that have their basis in some sort of ideology (ie doctrinal), but because most ideolgies serve capitalism, and are usually seeking to preserve what i think is an unacceptable status quo, they are unfairly not considered to be 'doctrinaire'.

On the OP, i'm (predictably) very sceptical about the prospects of education ever being equitable within the current system. As i wrote in the other closely related thread:

"i don't deny the possibility of some half decent reforms (short term), (but) i'm very pessimistic about the prospects for significant educational improvement for most people within capitalism.. The complex relationships between social advantage of the wealthy and lack of educational achievement amongst those in relative poverty mean that real improvement is impossible without much wider social and economic changes. Unfortunately i dont see those happening in the immediate future".

please look up to the stars.. ***

Unknown · June 2007

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

i try to advance views that are honest and genuinely held. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Seconded! The views are always honest and genuinely held - albeit in many cases entirely mistaken. [;)]

cuddy duck · June 2007

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

Originally posted by Foghat
Your argument seems to be that by abolishing private fee-paying schools (which account for only a relatively small proportion of all school places) where the costs of education pro rata are greater than for state education

But I am not sure that the spending per pupil is higher....etc
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sweet. Straight off the middle of the bat. I've got a Mexican wave going here.
Can we see that post again, in its entirety, and this time in slow motion?

There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing. But no cyclists: that's one thing we can be sure of....

mjones · June 2007

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

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

Originally posted by Foghat
Your argument seems to be that by abolishing private fee-paying schools (which account for only a relatively small proportion of all school places) where the costs of education pro rata are greater than for state education

But I am not sure that the spending per pupil is higher....etc
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sweet. Straight off the middle of the bat. I've got a Mexican wave going here.
Can we see that post again, in its entirety, and this time in slow motion?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
[?]
Are you actually going to contribute to this discussion, rather than just cheer when you see statements that fit your ideological prejudices, whether soundly based or not?

mjones · June 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
on quick reading I would probably agree with most of what you said.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I suspected you might... the absolutely crucial thing in it is to constrain the cost of education though, otherwise none of it works. I am still not sure you do agree with this!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Indeed I don't!

I have several objections, both in principle and to the practicalities.

1. Price caps can limit and distort investment decisions, with the risk that education is provided down to a price. If there is a nationally set education budget per person then that is too easily subject to downward pressure by the Treasury and short term decision making. This has been demonstrated in a number of publicly funded services (e.g. public transport) over the years.

2. Enforcability: no doubt schools would come up with all sorts of ruses for imposing supplementary charges for trips and extra-curricula teaching, charitable donations etc.

3. Education costs at different types of school aren't going to be the same, so your system aimed at increasing diversity could end up reducing it.

4. Your emphasis seems to be mostly on achieving 'equality', however this might be measured. However, equality is not automatically the same as increasing standards. Dragging down the spending ability of private schools does not automatically push up the standard of the bad state schools. Indeed, reducing the quality of the most successful schools will reduce the overall standards against which we can benchmark success. I'd prefer the state to focus on improving the worst performing schools and leaving the best ones to their own devices (as long as they keep the creationists out).

5. However you choose to express it, your charge cap does effectively reduce the options available to parents on how they can spend money on their children's education. As per previous arguments, I'd oppose any restrictions imposed by the state on the individual without a very good case made for the wider good of society. As the benefit to society is made through improving standards at the bottom, not reducing those at the top, then I don't see that case being made.

I wouldn't normally go for Biblical references in an argument, but for fun let's think about the Parable of the Sower. Noticing that the seed that falls on the poor ground doesn't do as well, does the farmer try to make sure that in the future he sows his seeds in the good ground, or does he take a scythe the successful plants to make them equal?[:)]

cuddy duck · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
Are you actually going to contribute to this discussion, rather than just cheer when you see statements that fit your ideological prejudices, whether soundly based or not?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No I'm not going to contribute to this discussion. Actually.
You red/blue meme droogs would simply set up your customary panic of barking in the light of turquoise meme sensibilities.
And if it's all the same to you - and even if it isn't - I'll reserve the right to cheer the patient, informed dismantling of angry blustering fools.

There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing. But no cyclists: that's one thing we can be sure of....

mjones · June 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
Are you actually going to contribute to this discussion, rather than just cheer when you see statements that fit your ideological prejudices, whether soundly based or not?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No I'm not going to contribute to this discussion. Actually.
You red/blue meme droogs would simply set up your customary panic of barking in the light of turquoise meme sensibilities.
And if it's all the same to you - and even if it isn't - I'll reserve the right to cheer the patient, informed dismantling of angry blustering fools.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh no, because I've just disagreed with FM again! What a heretic I am! Obviously I'm wrong (as well as being terribly right wing to boot), but are you going to put me right or wait until your hero returns to correct my wrongful thinking?[;)]

cuddy duck · June 2007

You're so vain.
You probably think this post is about you.

There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing. But no cyclists: that's one thing we can be sure of....

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
1. Price caps can limit and distort investment decisions, with the risk that education is provided down to a price. If there is a nationally set education budget per person then that is too easily subject to downward pressure by the Treasury and short term decision making. This has been demonstrated in a number of publicly funded services (e.g. public transport) over the years.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sorry, but I just don't buy the standard neoliberal economics to which there are plenty of counterexamples in practice across Europe in particular in Scandanavia. And which 'investment decisions' are you talking about? This is education. For all the children of the country. And you are assuming that the Treasury in a rather more sensible government would want to undermine a policy that they would support - why?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
2. Enforcability: no doubt schools would come up with all sorts of ruses for imposing supplementary charges for trips and extra-curricula teaching, charitable donations etc.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not if you carefully regulate, no. And again you assume the worst about what schools would want to do...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
3. Education costs at different types of school aren't going to be the same, so your system aimed at increasing diversity could end up reducing it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That is true in some cases, particularly with special provision for highly disabled kids for example - and that would have to be provided for in those particular cases - no-one is suggesting you shouldn't provide for those who need extra help. But sorry, no idea how you think this would reduce diversity. There's no logical connection at all.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
4. Your emphasis seems to be mostly on achieving 'equality', however this might be measured. However, equality is not automatically the same as increasing standards. Dragging down the spending ability of private schools does not automatically push up the standard of the bad state schools. Indeed, reducing the quality of the most successful schools will reduce the overall standards against which we can benchmark success. I'd prefer the state to focus on improving the worst performing schools and leaving the best ones to their own devices (as long as they keep the creationists out).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Again, you misunderstand the very basis of the scheme. In fact you create a complete straw man... I will repeat again, the scheme is about equality only in the sense of equal spending per pupil (and some broad national curricular standards and expectations). It is nothing to do with trying to make people the same or reducing quality. Those are just your assumptions...

The point is that you seem to want choice for a rich minority only, and for the rest to put up with whatever the state can provide. My point is that if you allow private schools to charge more, especially if there are more of them - as there would be in my model, albeit not of the same hierarchy-replicating variety as now - then this reduces the choice and opportunity for the majority of people. That is the situation now. Free markets in education are simply not fair or just. That's why they need to be controlled. At the same time, standard state education tends to be mass-production education and does not embrace more radical, effective and innovative ways of teaching and learning... however much money you put into it, this problem is not solved. Your solution therefore seems to be the worst of both worlds - the mess we have now in other words.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
5. However you choose to express it, your charge cap does effectively reduce the options available to parents on how they can spend money on their children's education. As per previous arguments, I'd oppose any restrictions imposed by the state on the individual without a very good case made for the wider good of society. As the benefit to society is made through improving standards at the bottom, not reducing those at the top, then I don't see that case being made.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I already answered this one.

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

cuddy duck · June 2007

It's like Viv Richards in his pomp.

There are 9 million bicycles in Beijing. But no cyclists: that's one thing we can be sure of....

spire · June 2007

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

Are you actually going to contribute to this discussion, rather than just cheer when you see statements that fit your ideological prejudices, whether soundly based or not?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Steady on, mjones! [;)]

Cuddy normally spews out pure bile, so I'd be quite happy for him to cheer a post-box for being red.

Unknown · June 2007

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

Of course mine is a suggested made off the cuff that would probably not be implemented exactly as suggested in practice, but I find your reluctance to consider any change rather Panglossian, not to say blinkered in ignoring better working examples from elsewhere.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So comments such as "interesting posts there, FM"...."significant merit in a voucher system"....."agree with you that it needs some level of reform to make it more equitable".....constitute a blinkered approach and a reluctance to consider change, do they? And you accuse me of taking liberties! I suggest you re-evaluate my post to understand what I'm saying; it would seem we agree that private schools should remain (you say fee-capped, I say unrestricted). I can understand why you might feel somewhat affronted that someone has the temerity to challenge your proposal, but what I'm doing is commenting on the workability of, and rationale behind, a system that you have "put out for discussion"; and I'm venturing that there is a fundamental flaw in your logic regarding, and a failure to address, the expenditure currently made through private fees in terms of total national funding available for education.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
But I am not sure that the spending per pupil is higher (i'd have to check this, but i'm sure i've read before that state schools often spend more per pupil than private schools), which is the point. Current high private school fees don't necssarily get translated into higher spending per pupil.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well if the spending per pupil is lower for private education, then clearly it makes even less sense economically to attempt to bring private schools under state control (bang goes duff's mexican wave; duff resumes customary position of looking foolish), for reasons previously outlined, and because any efficiencies are highly unlikely to be carried across; but as you're advocating a network of private schools anyway, this is possibly a moot diversion. And if your system isn't about money, but is about equity of choice, then it has to allow the existing private schools to remain (subject to any general curriculum adjustments prescribed by your system, but otherwise letting them get on with it), because it's what the majority of the parents will choose. So all that's changed is that the parents now are obliged to receive the same education (subject to any general curriculum adjustment) for just the cost of the voucher, so they no longer pay twice for the education (taxation + fees) and the general tax payer foots the bill! Brilliant, the monied riff-raff and the toffs will no doubt be over the moon.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
That's not what I am proposing at all. You are making a straw man...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you're not making any attempt at the redistribution of wealth and privilege with your system? Just want to be clear about this.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The equity is in provision; what comes out of that is only regulated by the framwork of national standards. There is no suggestion that higher performance will be reduced or that some schools will not focus almost entirely on the highly intellectually capabable. Where did you get the impression this was about levelling down?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, unless you simultaneously increase taxation with the introduction of your system, then the funding in the system will be down, to the tune of what current fee-payers are paying (less any difference between the cost of private vs state cost per pupil, if it goes that way; but hold on, they're staying private aren't they?!). So, yes, there would be a levelling down if spending of taxes on education stays the same. Don't construe this as being opposed to increasing taxes to improve education; I'm merely commenting on your proposal and your assurance that standards will not level downwards if current private education fees are removed from the equation.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If Britain had anything like the best educational system and the happiest kids in developed countries I'd have to agree with you, but on almost every measure, we do not have anything like either.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And I completely agree. But I don't think restricting private education fees will achieve in practice the equity you're after, as parents will find ways to circumvent the capping rules. I'm not ignoring any examples from elsewhere.....I'm pointing out where I think your proposal needs some major work to address matters that you haven't considered; presumably you're not completely averse to this, given it is an "off-the-cuff" proposal in need of refinement?

rob35 · June 2007

Spire.
My I apologise for my personal insults yesterday evening, I do tend to get wound up from time to time. I'll stick with the rest of my post though.
Rob

mjones · June 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
1. Price caps can limit and distort investment decisions, with the risk that education is provided down to a price. If there is a nationally set education budget per person then that is too easily subject to downward pressure by the Treasury and short term decision making. This has been demonstrated in a number of publicly funded services (e.g. public transport) over the years.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Sorry, but I just don't buy the standard neoliberal economics to which there are plenty of counterexamples in practice across Europe in particular in Scandanavia. And which 'investment decisions' are you talking about? This is education. For all the children of the country. And you are assuming that the Treasury in a rather more sensible government would want to undermine a policy that they would support - why?

Is investment a dirty word all of a sudden? Money has to be spent on facilities, equipment, teachers etc etc Some capital, some revenue. I am merely assuming that the Government behaves in the way that Governments behave. Education would become even more top-down budget driven than before, unless you are also assuming the existence of a very unlikely form of enlightened government in addition to your educational proposals. Idealism is all very well: if I believed such a form of government were possible (with an electorate to support it) then I'd advocate for more radical environmental policies than I do at the moment.


2. Enforceability: no doubt schools would come up with all sorts of ruses for imposing supplementary charges for trips and extra-curricula teaching, charitable donations etc.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not if you carefully regulate, no. And again you assume the worst about what schools would want to do...


Assume the worst? No- I merely assume that, human nature being what it is, people will try to work round regulations. That's what happens in the real world. Again, if I thought otherwise I'd be in favour of far more environmental regulation than I'd advocate at the moment.


3. Education costs at different types of school aren't going to be the same, so your system aimed at increasing diversity could end up reducing it.
[/quote]

That is true in some cases, particularly with special provision for highly disabled kids for example - and that would have to be provided for in those particular cases - no-one is suggesting you shouldn't provide for those who need extra help. But sorry, no idea how you think this would reduce diversity. There's no logical connection at all.


Tell Tescos they have to sell all brands of a particular product at the same price. Do you think choice will increase, or decrease?


4. Your emphasis seems to be mostly on achieving 'equality', however this might be measured. However, equality is not automatically the same as increasing standards. Dragging down the spending ability of private schools does not automatically push up the standard of the bad state schools. Indeed, reducing the quality of the most successful schools will reduce the overall standards against which we can benchmark success. I'd prefer the state to focus on improving the worst performing schools and leaving the best ones to their own devices (as long as they keep the creationists out).
[/quote]

Again, you misunderstand the very basis of the scheme. In fact you create a complete straw man... I will repeat again, the scheme is about equality only in the sense of equal spending per pupil (and some broad national curricular standards and expectations). It is nothing to do with trying to make people the same or reducing quality. Those are just your assumptions...


No, I don't misunderstand your scheme, I merely disagree with it! You wish to impose equality of spending on schools, some will inevitably lose out, so it will end up levelling out quality as well- unless you are proposing equalising funding at the highest level, which isn't what you said previously.


The point is that you seem to want choice for a rich minority only, and for the rest to put up with whatever the state can provide. My point is that if you allow private schools to charge more, especially if there are more of them - as there would be in my model, albeit not of the same hierarchy-replicating variety as now - then this reduces the choice and opportunity for the majority of people.


Why would there be more schools in your model? It doesn't automatically follow at all. Imposing a charge cap is very likely to reduce the total number of schools as they focus on minimising unit costs. That's why I think imposing a budget limit would actually reduce overall choice. By the way, my opinion is nothing to do with wanting to favour choices the wealthy. It is about permitting people choice and recognising that the problems with our eduction system occur at the bottom, not at the top.



That is the situation now. Free markets in education are simply not fair or just. That's why they need to be controlled. At the same time, standard state education tends to be mass-production education and does not embrace more radical, effective and innovative ways of teaching and learning... however much money you put into it, this problem is not solved. Your solution therefore seems to be the worst of both worlds - the mess we have now in other words.


My solution differs from yours only in allowing vouchers to be used in any school that wishes to accept it, assuming they meet the required educational standards. I might want some sort of independent regulator, certainly strict adherence to non-profit making charitable status, but my approach is less restrictive on individual choice and requires less regulation, and so is less vulnerable to the failings that afflict most government provided services.

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rob35

Spire.
My I apologise for my personal insults yesterday evening, I do tend to get wound up from time to time. I'll stick with the rest of my post though.
Rob
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Apology accepted! [:)]

We all get wound up from time to time.

Betrayal as Tories abandon grammar schools

Comments

Categories