Council tax and new ways..........

[John Cartmell]

If you have noticed declining standards then you're looking at the wrong figures.

[John Cartmell]

Please do try to read what I wrote. Read it. Read it again please and continue reading it until such time as you actually manage to read what I wrote. I did

**not** write anything like your contrived idea.

Good. Neither do I.

We have an elected government. If they fail badly to do what we want then they are out.

Your Daily Mailness is coming out again. What we collectively want to do is done mainly through local and national government action. What you are supporting is criticism designed to destroy that collective will - usually because it conflicts with the pecuniary interests of rich parasites.

So gives some examples - real ones that you encounter or described by an objective source. The only time I see those examples described as typical rather than exceptional is in - well you know which tabloids produce the reactionary fiction.

Oh dear! If only the government would stay out those nice people from Tescos, Microsoft, Sky would buy out or kill off their troublesome competitors and really look after us with their wonderful monopolies ...

.. wouldn't they?

You got very close to calling me a communist there. The ideas may come from individuals. The advances happen when individuals agree to make changes for the whole of their society.

You managed it in the end. Very nicely put and it couldn't have been bettered by the master himself. Has nobody told you that McCarthyism is a distinctly nasty little idea to follow?

When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western Civilisation is said "It would be a good idea". Communism would be a good idea - but it doesn't exist and has never existed. In the meantime social democracy is a whole lot better than dictatorships and being able to vote out those who organise the framework of your life is a damned good idea - as long as the elecorate are sufficiently educated to appreciate that unfettered capitalism is just another means of putting unelected dictators in control of our lives and just as unhealthy as Stalin & co.

[Andy Hall]

No, you're suffering from tunnel thinking by assuming that funding and delivery have to be done by the state as one entity.

The point is that they can be separated into two components.

I have not said that the total amount of money spent from the state purse on education should be reduced. A voucher equivalent to the sum of money spent in state education establishments would be made available to parents for education. They would have the choice of spending them in state run schools or private schools. Over time, schools and educational institutions could migrate to some kind of trust status outside of government ownership altogether. That would be better still.

The difference is that the state schools would have the autonomy to pursue excellence in education that they don't have today because of government interference. A high quality educational outcome does not depend on a micromanaged one-size fits all curriculum.

Not at all. You just haven't understood it.

That would flow naturally from the disengagement by the state from areas that it doesn't need to be involved in such as provision (not funding) of education and healthcare and especially by the elimination of the bureaucracy unnecessarily used to operate them.

[Andy Hall]

I've looked at the exam papers, the grades and the eventual outcomes. We both know what Disraeli had to say on the subject of figures.

[John Cartmell]

Y7 - 6x35 = 210 Y8 - 6x35 = 210 Y9 - 6x35 = 210 Y10- 6x35 = 210 Y11- 3x35 = 105 Y12 - 2x25 = 50 Y13 - 2x25 = 50

Total 1045

A bit large. My school (approx 1000 specialist grammar inc 6th form) could cope because the facilities that would be required for a wider curriculum - eg commerce, technology (not to mention girls!) - were ignored. One (very) excellent comprehensive that I taught at worked by being significantly larger (+ it had a sneaky way of ensuring that pupils and parents were highly motivated - comprehensive but *very* selective). It was, in many ways, too large though.

[Jonathan]

What figures are YOU looking at?

OK, to be honest, due to my server suddenly losing retention, I've "lost the thread", but I've scrolled through the last couple of days, and really the argument seems to be going round in circles.

John C seems to have this idea of a socialist utopia, but of course it never works. Ever wondered why "Socialist Worker" is often given as an example of what an oxymoron is? Scum rises to the top at both ends - ultra capitalist societies like the USA have far greater extremes of wealth and poor than the UK, and near-socialist "the harder you try, the harder you get penalised" 'ideals' of the UK just mean that those that abuse the state hardest win, and the massively wealthy off-shore all their stuff anyway.

There's a middle way, and to be honest, John, I'd perhaps be a little more interested in your arguments if your knee-jerk reaction to any idea except that of calling each other "comrade" and taxing everyone earning more than minimum wage at 90% didn't invoke the cry of "Daily Mail" from you.

Yes, I'm exaggerating slightly before you point it out, but if you take an amalgam of your posts, it comes across a bit like "I don't have what you have, therefore I neither want to attempt to achieve that, nor allow you to keep that, or allow you the choices that what you have allows." And even though that was possibly the most difficult to follow sentence I've ever typed, it's a bit like fox hunting. It's purely a perceived class thing - "I don't like the trappings of pageantry that the class I perceive you to belong to has while enjoying your sport, so I'm going on a fox-ban march on my way to hooking a piece of jagged metal through the very sensitive mouth of a fish, and then I'll hurl it back for someone else to do the same, while the wound in it's mouth gets a toxic infection". There - if that doesn't stir up the hornets nest, I don't know what will!

BTW, I'm not pro or anti fox hunting or fishing.

[John Cartmell]

Whilst the exam papers were the totality of the GCE and A Levels when I took them that is no longer the case. Comparing examination papers is not comparing like with like. When one-third of the population (or less) goes on to take any examination after the age of 11 it is far easier to show that a large proportion of examinees reach a certain level. When over 99% are examined some exam papers have to be set at a lower level. The high flyers today compare very well with those in my days starting a sixth form course a year early and passing S-Level exams in the third year sixth or going to university at age

1. Except that there are more of them. Those who were leaving school with few numeracy or literacy skills at age 15 are now passing those levels at primary school. There are changes. I learnt my times tables forwards and backwards and to 16x and that is rare today. I learnt poems. I learnt to box - real bouts and real blood in the classroom under teacher supervision - aged 8. I didn't learn to use a calculator or a computer, woodwork lasted only one year (but my towel rack was quite good!), I never had any cookery, metalwork, electronics, or commerce lessons.

Education is different. Kids learn different things. Kids are worse at some of the sort of things I was (supposed) to have learnt. Standards declined? No.

[John Cartmell]

So you are talking about removing income from public sector schools. You are also talking about removing those parents best able to support such schools.

You are talking about ensuring that less is available for public sector schools leaving them with increasing numbers of problem kids. Either you don't know this and don't know what you are talking about or you do know this and are seking to destroy our schools. Either way you are a menace to society.

The public sector schools were managing diversity quite well until the last Tory government imposed the National Curriculum. I presume that you wish to make a comment about that stupid move ...

That I doubt.

Don't be silly. The present bureaucracy multiplied directly from imposition of the National Curriculum, Ofsted and reduction of LEA support for schools. All done by the government you clearly supported. Did you make your voice heard at that time telling your fellow local Tory activists that your government was embarking on stupid policies?

[John Cartmell]

That's what I said. It would be a great idea. If only!

[Snip]

You said that you exaggerated. In opposing entrenched views that's what I have done of course. My views are hardly one-sided and certainly not wedded to a particular party line. They are against those repeating an unthinking party line or pursuing policies without admitting the down-side of those policies - eg those extolling the system of grammar schools without accepting the existence of secondary modern schools.

I'd count a market economy under careful scrutiny of elected representatives to be a reasonable middle way. Wouldn't you?

I want to be confident that the power tools that I buy are likely to be safe to use and my government and local authority work to ensure that manufacturers and importers wanting to make money but careless of my safety are brought to heel before their dangerous offerings reach the market.

[Andy Hall]

No. That would be the choice of the parents based on whether they wish to use a given school or not, regardless of sector. If a school is working well and addressing the requirements of the pupils and their parents then it would become more attractive, regardless of state or private ownership.

I'm not talking about removing anybody from anywhere. I am simply suggesting that people be given more choice. After all they are paying for these services. Why shouldn't they have the choice over where to obtain them?

I am not talking about ensuring that less is available for anybody. The point is that this would allow the schools in a given area to focus more directly on what is required by the pupils in that area who are likely to go to them. The key issue is autonomy from state interference at point of delivery.

Oh dear. What a lot of silly emotive nonsense. I can appreciate that you might have difficulty with or feel uncomfortable about ideas that suggest less control by the state. Increasingly people are starting to realise what is happening and will vote accordingly. Whether they will be adventurous enough to espouse something more creative is another thing of course.

Absolutely. It was a stupid move regardless of who did it. Almost as stupid a move as the introduction of comprehensive education. Who was it that did that?

I think that you have demonstrated that to be the case pretty well.

I don't support any government in particular. I make up my own mind on individual issues as an individual. The choice then becomes the least bad.

Why would you assume that I was a Tory activist? You do have some strange ideas.

[Andy Hall]

For a given subject, e.g. in maths or science, the basics haven't changed. Kundt's tube still has a plunger, and Archimedes still screws.

The basics of any subject remain important, however they are packaged up, and in that respect, standards have most certainly declined.

That's the whole point. There should be completely separate exams so that the achievers are stretched.

The question there is whether they are universities or "universities".

As indeed they were before the introduction of comprehensive education.

The acid test is the outcome. I am far from being convinced that today's schools are producing the education required to match the abilities of the pupils and the needs of the economy.

[Andy Hall]

That's good. It was you who was saying that you thought that I was suggesting that trampling of competition was necessary for success.

I wasn't and made that completely clear.

Eventually.

What is "Daily Mailness"? Are you referring to said newspaper? I've never read the thing.

Who is this "we"? I certainly don't need the government, be it local or national to hold my hand and tell me what I "collectively" want to do. There is very little that actually *requires* the involvement of government for success to be achieved. If people do want to achieve things beyond their immediate capability, most are more than capable of figuring out who to work with to achieve it without having it imposed from on high.

That's just emotive silliness and there are two fallacies in your statement - firstly that a collective will is that important, and secondly that wealth implies not having worked to achieve it.

No I don't, because I don't read any of them.

They have been pretty effective at achieving large or dominant market shares despite the interference of governments.

The challenge for the competitors is to produce something better or more attractive to the buyers of products and services. It doesn't need government meddling to achieve that.

Did I? Good grief.. Heaven forbid....

Oh sure. Dream on.

I agree, and nobody was suggesting following it.

I'd settle just for democracy without the "social" label.

There isn't unfettered capitalism any more than communism was ever anything meaningful. Sooner or later people find either unacceptable and shop elsewhere. Either way, they can make up their own minds without needing to be treated as a herd.

[Mark]

But your proposal _would_ result in less money for state schools if any parents chose to use their voucher in a private school. It's really simple - assuming there is no overall change in the level of state funding. Every voucher spent in a private school would take money away from the state school. Look at it another way: If you spend your voucher at a private school you would be paying less personally. Where has that money come from? The answer is from the state school system.

But your scheme would only give more choice to the more wealthy and less choice to the less wealthy. I find that very unpalatable.

See above.

But many schools would be destroyed as a result.

Mark

[John Cartmell]

There are.

[John Cartmell]

That's quite a different matter. The needs have changed quite substantially and there is now far less demand for the illiterate mill-fodder needed in the

50s.

[John Cartmell]

Collective will is not important; it's essential. Without it we are doomed to exist as small groups each dictated to by a leader imposing his will by violence or fear, each group pussyfooting around others or taking over weaker groups. Collective will provides the means whereby everyone in a group can contribute to decisions for the group and, by extension, a way to organise larger groups peacefully.

And whilst there are certainly rich people who are not parasites I restricted my comment to those that are both. You really do struggle with the logic of the English language ...

[John Cartmell]

Well Tescos are regularly challenged and need government action on a regular basis in order to stop them taking over the lot. Sky is working very hard to severly damage the BBC and is using its monopolistic position to do that. Microsoft has somehow managed to avoid the government action that should have happened some time ago indicating that the present laws are not strong enough.

Tut. So what happens when competitors do produce something better and the monopolies use their power and money to simply swat them aside? Microsoft do that on a regular basis. Apple only exist because Microsoft had to bail them out in order to avoid losing a court case brought against them by the US government. Do you have any idea how much computer development has stalled over the last

10 years because of Microsoft's interference? Your complacency is apparently based on ignorance.

[John Cartmell]

Most of it was done by Margaret Thatcher.

[John Cartmell]

Because your ideas are straight out of their back pocket and follow the party line without intervening thought. If you do have independent thought then think through the results of your ideas. You rejected my criticism of your (the Tory Party's) idea of school vouchers but explain what will happen with the sink schools and redundant school that you will inevitably produce. Don't fudge it. Vouchers *will* produce sink schools and lots of expensive redundant schools. Who pays for them? Who is responsible for the damaged education whilst all this is in motion? Who gets to live near the sink schools? Who pays for the high cost of running the sink school? Which poor sods gets to teach in those schools? Who lives near those schools? Who pays to mop up the fall out produced by kids going to those school - and throughout their lives?

I don't mind ideas different from my own as long as they are thought through ideas and the downside laid out and accepted.

[Doctor Drivel]

Matt, why not throw the towel now as you are taking a real beating.