So when someone offers "the powers that be" the option of being able to know where any vehicle is at any given time, you can see them turning down the "option" of having that information... since it would only be in the interests of "the war on terror"/controlling immigration/preventing crime/ or whatever the BS excuse of the month is at the time?
I always lusted after that 25W MOSFET amp kit they did in the wooden case. Problem was each time I saved up enough to buy the kit, the price went up! Then they discontinued it...
Dwarf bread?
Ive worked like that..with a bunch of employees behaving worse than children.
No, of course. That is why we should campaign for it not to happen. (This is not the same as supporting a campaign for there not to be road charging)
tim
There's nothing to believe. The evidence is completely clear.
The question is how effectively in comparison with freedom of choice. I can make anything work if I lower the criteria for success.
Unfortunately the world at large doesn't deal in mamby pamby "suitable care". It deals with suitability and achievement and makes little allowance for inappropriate matches.
Provided that the standards are altered (as they have been) in order for that to happen.
That would assume a linearity of ability and standards which has not been the case.
It was completely clear. Possibly you have lost the plot?
It isn't an issue of grammar schools being precious, but one of suitability of schools and freedom of choice being precious. Most of all it is about an increase in standards as opposed to a decrease them in order that the flawed system of comprehensive education is seen to "work"
Education has been by selection in one form or another for generations. It works provided that one accepts the principle that once size does not fit all, which of course is the case.
Who knows? I am sure that some countries spend more GDP per capita on education than others. Teachers consider themselves undervalued virtually everywhere, and it's probably true.
This assumes that the state has to be the main provider of education. That is a false assumption along the same lines that healthcare has to be provided by the state. In both cases, funding and delivery are two different things.
Yes - that comps work. Simple.
When I say "can and do work", I'm not talking about working to a lower standard. I'm talking about working to the same or higher standard than other schools. An adequately resourced comp will produce similar results for the same kids as an adequately resourced grammar.
Erm, I was using the phrase "suitable care" to refer to how one goes about measuring to get a comparison. You appear to have "gone off on one" here :-)
Nope. Not at all. As can be shown by comparisons with other selected schools.
Eh?
Try not treating me like dribble - did you miss the smiley? Please point out where I said I didn't experience both systems. Google may help you here, or a quote will do. I'm pretty darn sure I never said that.
Once again : the decrease in standards you percieve is nothing to do with the introduction of comprehensive education. It's to do with other factors.
Can you tell me any education system in this country which has provided adequate education for all? Bear in mind when you answer that secondary education was only compulsory from 1945 on, and we've essentially only tried two systems since then : Grammar/tech/secondary mod and Comprehensive. Despite what you may wish to believe, the former system was failing, which is why the latter was bought in. You may choose to believe the systems before then - the original grammar school system, and before - produced better results. But without the mass employers capable of taking on the large numbers of uneducated people left by those systems, it would fail in an instant.
Either system can be made to work, and work well. We do have positive examples of this - eg under your preferred system, the technical school concept did work for some, and even today it's easy to observe success in the system you don't like. The factors which make them work when they do are the same for both - and it isn't selection. The big one is social - we all know (I think?) kids do a lot better with parents who provide the right environment - hence 'nice middle-class' schools doing well, regardless of selection. The other is resourcing, at the basic level financial, but getting good teachers is critical. With a huge amount of effort it's even possible to undo the problems induced by bad parenting - but I'm not going to pretend that the cost involved is approaching politically acceptable.
Is it worth mentioning that the comprehensive system isn't actually intended to force all people to do the same thing? A well run school will play to the different strengths of all its pupils - your vision of different schools providing for different pupils can actually be met within one school.
clive
Anything can "work" if the criteria for success are altered.
I am.
Of course it will if you set the criteria for success low enough, and that is exactly what has been done.
The only valid form of measurement would be to have used the level and type of measurment before and after the changes to the system. This wasn't done. There is a huge decline in standards over a generation or more, precisely so that the new system can be seen to "work"
Incorrect. The standards of measurement have altered as well.
Simple enough. The criteria for "success" have been set lower so that the failed social experiment of comprehensive education appears to "work".
I'd never do that :-)
You indicated that you were younger than me (perhaps you are) and had experienced both systems. School career split across the two types? Otherwise how?
It isn't. The decline is standards is plain for all to see. Just take a look at exam papers over the period. I also took a look at O and A level papers prior to the introduction of comprehensive education and the standard was fairly constant. A few years after its introduction, the standards begin to decline.
It depends on what the objectives are. The ideal goal is to offer education adequate for all. Unfortunately in any system, this is unachievable. The question then is whether one should allow and provide for those who can achieve excellence in the direction where they have ability (be it academic or vocational); or whether one creates an environment where the resources are spread in such a way that the those people lose out by being forced into a system of mediocrity. I don't think that it is the right thing for the individual or indeed for the economy as a whole to be doing the latter.
In the final analysis, there will always be people that will be less educated and there will always be people who are unemployable. This is not a justification to reduce standards for all or to spread resources in a direction which disadvantages the high achievers, whether it be in the academic or the vocational world.
It's easy to observe success when the criteria for measurement are altered to allow that to be the case.
In a comparison between schools of the same type in different environments, that is obvious enough.
I don't think that it can to the same degree of excellence that was achieved in a selective system, and the decline in standards demonstrates that quite clearly.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.