Road Tax on driving a vehicle

[The Natural Philosopher]

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

[Clive George]

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.

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

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.

Bollocks. 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.

You mean like you're promoting?

In theory. Practice is rather different.

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

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 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

[Andy Hall]

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I'm sorry but it absolutely has.

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.

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.

Unfortunately, to a very large extent they are.

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 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)

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

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

[nog]

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

[Mary Fisher]

LOL!

Ours were always too hungry to be picky :-)

Mary

[Stuart Noble]

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).

[Mary Fisher]

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.

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.

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

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

Mary

[Stuart Noble]

Oh dear. I blame the parents

[The Natural Philosopher]

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.

[The Natural Philosopher]

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.

[Clive George]

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.

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

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.

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

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

[Stuart Noble]

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

[John Rumm]

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)

[Mary Fisher]

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.

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

[Guy King]

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

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 ;-)

[tim.....]

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

[Stuart Noble]

Time to get your coat then :-)

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.

[Guy King]

The message from Stuart Noble contains these words:

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.

[Owain]

And after the age of about 3 children don't need much "nurturing" anyway, apart from a bullet to bite on and a glass of coca-cola when they fall off things.

Look at what's happened since we gave them the vote :-)

Owain