Discussion:
The administrative complications of school vouchers and parental choice
(too old to reply)
Robert Henderson
2004-07-08 17:56:31 UTC
Permalink
The administrative complications of school vouchers and parental choice

By Robert Henderson

I am not ideologically opposed to a voucher system for school
education provided the voucher does not end up as a subsidy for private
school fees, ie, the voucher should not be used to pay part of the
fees of, for example, Eton. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that a
loosening of direct state control of education is in principle a good
thing. However, attractive as the idea is, there are very large
administrative problems involved in moving to a fully fledged voucher
system.

The most obvious difficulty is what real choice can a parent have in
practise if they only have two or three schools in their catchment area?
Precious little, because it is unlikely that all will be good. Outside
the larger cities and towns the choice, particularly in rural areas, is
likely to be even more restricted.

Catchment areas could in theory be greatly widened or even abandoned
altogether but neither is practical for few parents and even fewer
children want to be travelling long distances to school every day.

Allowing popular schools to expand is an alluring idea but most
schools, and most are in cities and towns, would have the land to do so
significantly.

The reality for most parents is that, as things stand, they will not be
able to exercise more choice than they do presently.

But even where a school does have the land to expand fresh problems
arise. First, where is it to get the money to fund expansion? The
individual voucher will pay for the tuition, administration and the
maintenance of the existing school. It will not fund new buildings.
Who is to pay? The taxpayer? Private investors? If the latter, how would
the private investor be repaid? Out of future voucher proceeds? If so,
that would reduce the amount of money available for teaching etc.

Second, if a school expands it must draw pupils away from other schools
in the catchment area. Those schools at best will be underfunded and at
worst will become unviable. If the former the question why should the
pupils there be left in a declining school with little morale has to be
answered? There is no moral answer. If the latter, where exactly would
the pupils from a failed school go to get an education? Not to the
expanded school because that will already be full.

Is there any way to circumvent these difficulties? A variety of private
options are possible. Parents could club together and use their vouchers
to fund a school of their own in its own premises. But that would be an
unstable institution because parents would cease to have an interest in
the school once their children left, either through age or because the
family moved away. Suppose a school had fifty pupils and ten suddenly
left. It could make the school unviable.

Private schools, in their own premises, charging no more than the
voucher cost could arise, but they would drain pupils from the existing
state schools.

The third private option would be for private investment in existing
state schools. To an extent this is already happening. The problem with
this would be that once the schools have been placed in private hands
the private contractor will have the option of blackmailing the
government into paying more or seeing the school close down leaving
pupils with no where to go. This is something which is already happening
in PFI projects generally. Alternatively, the private contractor might
go bust or simply walk away for a contract. Who would educate their
pupils then?

There is a general problem of how to maintain provision if the state
and private sector becomes entwined. Suppose private schools took so
many pupils that many state schools had to close. That would reduce
the default state educational provision. If there is a severe
depression and private schools really felt the pinch, many might go to
the wall. Who would run the schools then? The taxpayer would have to
stump up to keep things going.

All of this is rather daunting. However, we might inch towards a
voucher system by degrees. The first thing to do would be to make all
state schools self-governing. This would prepare them administratively
for a voucher system.

The second thing would be to put more money into schools to bring them
up to the mark before a voucher system was introduced. The money should
come from abolition of LEAs (which would free up a good deal of money
they spend on their administration and reduce the administration schools
have to undertake) and the abolition of all teacher training colleges
and departments (teachers would learn on the job).

I would further free up teachers by reducing the current age-group
tests to the three 'Rs', making all school exams true exams, ie, their
classification to be simply a final exam mark with no course work to
count towards the grade and generally reducing the information sought
by the Dpet of Education and Science. I would also reduce the stress on
teachers by abolishing league tables, which have merely distorted
the way schools' operate to the detriment of true education. Government
could control quality by ensuring that the school public exams were of
sufficient standard.

The real answer to our present educational woes is of course a good
school for everyone. But even if that were possible people would still
have preferences. The only honest way of deciding who should go to
which school when a school is oversubscribed is to put all the names
into a hat and draw out enough to fill the school. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
a
Roger Dewhurst
2004-07-08 20:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
The administrative complications of school vouchers and parental choice
By Robert Henderson
I am not ideologically opposed to a voucher system for school
education provided the voucher does not end up as a subsidy for private
school fees, ie, the voucher should not be used to pay part of the
fees of, for example, Eton. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that a
loosening of direct state control of education is in principle a good
thing. However, attractive as the idea is, there are very large
administrative problems involved in moving to a fully fledged voucher
system.
No Robert. Hand over control of schools to locally elected school boards
given the power to put every teacher on annual employment contract. If the
school starts to get a reputation as a failure the board of directors can
refuse to renew contracts, particularly that of the principal.

Roger Dewhurst
unknown
2004-07-08 22:49:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:09:54 +1200, "Roger Dewhurst"
Post by Roger Dewhurst
Post by Robert Henderson
I am not ideologically opposed to a voucher system for school
education provided the voucher does not end up as a subsidy for private
school fees, ie, the voucher should not be used to pay part of the
fees of, for example, Eton. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that a
loosening of direct state control of education is in principle a good
thing. However, attractive as the idea is, there are very large
administrative problems involved in moving to a fully fledged voucher
system.
No Robert. Hand over control of schools to locally elected school boards
given the power to put every teacher on annual employment contract. If the
school starts to get a reputation as a failure the board of directors can
refuse to renew contracts, particularly that of the principal.
Only branded chains of schools can deliver the best performance.
Locally elected school boards could procure from these chains though -
competition without 'choice' - fine by me
--
cheers

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Harry The Horse
2004-07-09 11:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Dewhurst
No Robert. Hand over control of schools to locally elected school boards
given the power to put every teacher on annual employment contract.
Then they'd better start paying salaries comensurate with that risk.
There's no way I would work for a teacher's salary on an annual contract.
Mark
2004-07-09 11:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
There is a general problem of how to maintain provision if the state
and private sector becomes entwined. Suppose private schools took so
many pupils that many state schools had to close. That would reduce
the default state educational provision. If there is a severe
depression and private schools really felt the pinch, many might go to
the wall. Who would run the schools then? The taxpayer would have to
stump up to keep things going.
Why should this be any different to anything else in the free market?
If, say, Rover go bust, we don't suddenly demand that the government
set up new tax-funded car manufacturers. If a farm shuts down, we
don't demand that the government starts spending our taxes on growing
food.

What's so special about schools that the government has to be
involved? What exactly is so hard about teaching kids how to read,
write and do basic maths, something that we've been doing successfully
for many centuries now? I don't know about you, but I could do that
quite well before I first stepped into a school when I was four or
five years old... most of the other decade and a half I spent there
was a waste of my time.

Mark
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-07-12 16:58:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
I am not ideologically opposed to a voucher system for school
education provided the voucher does not end up as a subsidy for private
school fees, ie, the voucher should not be used to pay part of the
fees of, for example, Eton.
As a matter of practical politics, it may be difficult to
sell the idea that Eton's pupils should be as entitled to vouchers
as those of Bog Standard Comprehensive. But as a matter of principle,
it is absurd to suppose that the voucher is exactly the cost of
education "everywhere". There *should* be schools offering premium
education at a premium over the voucher, and other schools offering
"cheap'n'cheerful" education with a refund. Parents would have to
weight up the differing provisions with an eye to value for money,
just as they do with all their other expenditure. For my part, ISTM
that the biggest single thing wrong with education today is that
there is no [full time] provision *at all* between "free" and "pay
everything".
Post by Robert Henderson
The most obvious difficulty is what real choice can a parent have in
practise if they only have two or three schools in their catchment area?
Why do you think this is interestingly different from the
choice you can practice in relation to supermarkets? Or to car
showrooms? Or leisure centres? Or bookshops? It is not required
that *everyone* has choice, but that enough people do for many
schools to have to respond to the competitive effects of that choice.
[It needn't even be all schools; if your school has a monopoly, it
still has, in real life, to respond to claims that it is offering a
worse education than other schools.]
Post by Robert Henderson
Allowing popular schools to expand is an alluring idea but most
schools, and most are in cities and towns, would have the land to do so
significantly.
Again, this is no different in principle from what happens
to supermarkets or bookshops. They take over other buildings or
available land in the area. In some cases they move lock, stock
and barrel to the new [larger] site, in others they establish
outposts [eg, a sixth form centre]. [But AAMOF most of the popular
schools around here have lots of land, and several are already
busily expanding, no doubt at the expense of the unpopular ones.]
Post by Robert Henderson
But even where a school does have the land to expand fresh problems
arise. First, where is it to get the money to fund expansion? [...]
Same way as you get any money to fund expansion. A popular
school with a large guaranteed supply of children and therefore income
is a pretty good and safe investment. Private schools manage this
trick perfectly well already.
Post by Robert Henderson
Private schools, in their own premises, charging no more than the
voucher cost could arise, but they would drain pupils from the existing
state schools.
In an ideal world there would no longer *be* any state
schools. The proper job of the state is to *fund* state education
and to *regulate* it, not to provide it. Note that the most
successful part of UK education is our universities, which are
run largely along these lines, and further that the best univs
are those [Oxbridge, then the older univ sector] which have had
the least state interference in their provision.
Post by Robert Henderson
The third private option would be for private investment in existing
state schools. To an extent this is already happening. The problem with
this would be that once the schools have been placed in private hands
the private contractor will have the option of blackmailing the
government into paying more or seeing the school close down leaving
pupils with no where to go. [...]
The contract of the school is [or should be] with the families,
not with the government. The school is not going to close down unless
it genuinely cannot be run except at a loss, in which case it will be
up to the local community to step in and provide subsidies or other
solutions. See below.
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] If there is a severe
depression and private schools really felt the pinch, many might go to
the wall. Who would run the schools then? The taxpayer would have to
stump up to keep things going.
The taxpayer is already stumping up. The answer is to place on
local authorities a statutory duty to ensure the provision of "voucher
cost" education for its children. If a private system is working, LAs
can just sit back and relax. If it falls apart because of the sort of
blackmail you mention above, then the LA builds and runs its own schools
at voucher cost and the private sector capitulates [it would never get
that far, of course]. If it falls apart because the voucher really is
inadequate, then this will become a political issue with the parties
promising to increase the value -- but that will be the *only* political
lever that the parties have. Until then, LAs will have to subsidise
education in their areas -- and will be putting immense pressure on
govt as a consequence.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-07-13 06:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
I am not ideologically opposed to a voucher system for school
education provided the voucher does not end up as a subsidy for private
school fees, ie, the voucher should not be used to pay part of the
fees of, for example, Eton.
As a matter of practical politics, it may be difficult to
sell the idea that Eton's pupils should be as entitled to vouchers
as those of Bog Standard Comprehensive. But as a matter of principle,
it is absurd to suppose that the voucher is exactly the cost of
education "everywhere".
Simple answer. The voucher value could be adjusted for the cost of
living regionally. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There *should* be schools offering premium
education at a premium over the voucher, and other schools offering
"cheap'n'cheerful" education with a refund.
Exactly what should not happen. One grants privilege paid for by the
taxpayer, the other encourages a poor education for the sake of profit.
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Parents would have to
weight up the differing provisions with an eye to value for money,
just as they do with all their other expenditure. For my part, ISTM
that the biggest single thing wrong with education today is that
there is no [full time] provision *at all* between "free" and "pay
everything".
Post by Robert Henderson
The most obvious difficulty is what real choice can a parent have in
practise if they only have two or three schools in their catchment area?
Why do you think this is interestingly different from the
choice you can practice in relation to supermarkets? Or to car
showrooms? Or leisure centres? Or bookshops?
Education is a different case from all those things, which incidentally
can be visited occasionally or purchased online or via the post, none of
which applies to a good school education. Education is the thing which
frees people to move within society. Make a mess of it and the child is
affected for life. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It is not required
that *everyone* has choice, but that enough people do for many
schools to have to respond to the competitive effects of that choice.
[It needn't even be all schools; if your school has a monopoly, it
still has, in real life, to respond to claims that it is offering a
worse education than other schools.]
Post by Robert Henderson
Allowing popular schools to expand is an alluring idea but most
schools, and most are in cities and towns, would have the land to do so
significantly.
Again, this is no different in principle from what happens
to supermarkets or bookshops. They take over other buildings or
available land in the area. In some cases they move lock, stock
and barrel to the new [larger] site
Not if there is none in the area. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
, in others they establish
outposts [eg, a sixth form centre]. [But AAMOF most of the popular
schools around here have lots of land, and several are already
busily expanding, no doubt at the expense of the unpopular ones.]
Post by Robert Henderson
But even where a school does have the land to expand fresh problems
arise. First, where is it to get the money to fund expansion? [...]
Same way as you get any money to fund expansion. A popular
school with a large guaranteed supply of children and therefore income
is a pretty good and safe investment. Private schools manage this
trick perfectly well already.
But they are catering for a privileged and specialised market. It is in
effect niche marketing. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Private schools, in their own premises, charging no more than the
voucher cost could arise, but they would drain pupils from the existing
state schools.
In an ideal world there would no longer *be* any state
schools. The proper job of the state is to *fund* state education
and to *regulate* it, not to provide it.
In principle I do not disagree with that, but as an ex-Civil servant I
can also see the horrendous administrative problems. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Note that the most
successful part of UK education is our universities, which are
run largely along these lines,
Again, they have been successful by catering for a specialised market
not a general one. Their success is now plummeting with the ridiculous
increase in student numbers. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and further that the best univs
are those [Oxbridge, then the older univ sector] which have had
the least state interference in their provision.
They have been taking the State's money quite happily longer than
anywhere else. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
The third private option would be for private investment in existing
state schools. To an extent this is already happening. The problem with
this would be that once the schools have been placed in private hands
the private contractor will have the option of blackmailing the
government into paying more or seeing the school close down leaving
pupils with no where to go. [...]
The contract of the school is [or should be] with the families,
not with the government. The school is not going to close down unless
it genuinely cannot be run except at a loss, in which case it will be
up to the local community to step in and provide subsidies or other
solutions. See below.
And what happens to the pupils in the meantime? You people are so bloody
reckless. You just don't understand administration.

And what about the effect on children forced to change schools, perhaps
close to their exams?
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] If there is a severe
depression and private schools really felt the pinch, many might go to
the wall. Who would run the schools then? The taxpayer would have to
stump up to keep things going.
The taxpayer is already stumping up. The answer is to place on
local authorities a statutory duty to ensure the provision of "voucher
cost" education for its children. If a private system is working, LAs
can just sit back and relax. If it falls apart because of the sort of
blackmail you mention above, then the LA builds and runs its own schools
at voucher cost
But that is not something which happens overnight. You will constantly
be having boom and bust. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and the private sector capitulates [it would never get
that far, of course]. If it falls apart because the voucher really is
inadequate, then this will become a political issue with the parties
promising to increase the value -- but that will be the *only* political
lever that the parties have. Until then, LAs will have to subsidise
education in their areas -- and will be putting immense pressure on
govt as a consequence.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-07-13 17:57:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
[...]. But as a matter of principle,
it is absurd to suppose that the voucher is exactly the cost of
education "everywhere".
Simple answer. The voucher value could be adjusted for the cost of
living regionally. RH
On what basis? If this is a national scheme, why should
children in [say] Edinburgh receive more/less from their voucher
than children in Nottingham or Little Mumbling? The voucher
should [in any scheme I would propose/support] fund some average
level of education deemed nationally appropriate, and if people
in Edinburgh [etc] want more or less for their children than that,
they should pay [or receive back] the difference. And I would
extend that to a family-by-family basis. If you want, for example,
your children to be taught in a school with [eg] library resources
or physics labs well beyond the "national" level, then that should
be possible without the voucher being withdrawn.
Post by Robert Henderson
There *should* be schools offering premium
education at a premium over the voucher, and other schools offering
"cheap'n'cheerful" education with a refund.
Exactly what should not happen. One grants privilege paid for by the
taxpayer, the other encourages a poor education for the sake of profit.
But the *privilege* is not paid for by the taxpayer. The
taxpayer is paying for the national standard level of education;
the family is paying a premium for something better [such as better
libraries/laboratories than the voucher provides]. And the "other"
is not a "poor" education for "profit". Rather, as the school finds
it can provide the national standard while making a large profit, it
is instead [presumably] making a smaller profit and using the surplus
to attract more/better customers. Yes, it could instead have used
the surplus to offer a premium education and attract customers; that
is their choice. No different from a "family" car manufacturer choosing
whether to offer a cheaper [but roadworthy, etc] car than its competitors
or one at the same price but with "de luxe" fittings.

In real life, car manufacturers produce a range of products;
and there are Aldi/Sainsbury supermarkets, basic/luxury leisure centres,
and so on; I don't see why [subject to regulation about minimum standards,
similar to those imposed on cars, food, swimming pools, ...] there should
not equally be a range of educational provision.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
The most obvious difficulty is what real choice can a parent have in
practise if they only have two or three schools in their catchment area?
Why do you think this is interestingly different from the
choice you can practice in relation to supermarkets? Or to car
showrooms? Or leisure centres? Or bookshops?
Education is a different case from all those things, which incidentally
can be visited occasionally or purchased online or via the post, none of
which applies to a good school education.
Nevertheless, in practice I am confined to a relatively small
number of these things; and I would be very reluctant to buy a car
[or a leisure centre!] online or via the post; and if I lived in a
village, the choice -- especially if I had no car -- might be very
restricted indeed. The competition that raises standards does not
depend on *me* having a choice, but on some of their more marginal
customers having a choice.
Post by Robert Henderson
Education is the thing which
frees people to move within society. Make a mess of it and the child is
affected for life. RH
Well, yes; you'll get no argument from me over a claim that
education is v important. But we *are* making a mess of some parts
of it, and the question is how to improve things. Having it run by
the state does not seem to me an unqualified success.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
But even where a school does have the land to expand fresh problems
arise. First, where is it to get the money to fund expansion? [...]
Same way as you get any money to fund expansion. A popular
school with a large guaranteed supply of children and therefore income
is a pretty good and safe investment. Private schools manage this
trick perfectly well already.
But they are catering for a privileged and specialised market. It is in
effect niche marketing. RH
And ...? You think the families in that niche are stupid, or
that the companies that build their extensions don't care whether or
not the schools can pay? A popular school is much more likely still
to be around to pay off the mortgage in 25 years than a new restaurant
or clothes shop or whatever. Or even the average family.
Post by Robert Henderson
In an ideal world there would no longer *be* any state
schools. The proper job of the state is to *fund* state education
and to *regulate* it, not to provide it.
In principle I do not disagree with that, but as an ex-Civil servant I
can also see the horrendous administrative problems. RH
Yes, of course you can. And where there is a problem, the
"solution" is, of course, to appoint someone to administer it, and
then a whole raft of people to implement it, and so on. That's how
we get into our messes.
Post by Robert Henderson
Note that the most
successful part of UK education is our universities, which are
run largely along these lines,
Again, they have been successful by catering for a specialised market
not a general one. Their success is now plummeting with the ridiculous
increase in student numbers. RH
If their success is "plummeting", then the message has clearly
not got through to (a) the other countries that are sending us their
best students in ever-increasing numbers, (b) employers who are taking
our students on ditto, and (c) companies, charities and other agencies
who are funding our research at ever-increasing [real-terms] levels.
Please recall that the "ridiculous" increase in numbers is tiny among
middle-class male school leavers taking full-time undergraduate degrees,
so is composed almost entirely of other groups -- females, postgrads,
poorer families, mature students, part-timers, sub-degree courses --
playing catch-up.
Post by Robert Henderson
and further that the best univs
are those [Oxbridge, then the older univ sector] which have had
the least state interference in their provision.
They have been taking the State's money quite happily longer than
anywhere else. RH
*Interference*, Robert. It is one thing for the state [or
the LEA] to pay a university to educate a student, as Cambridge or
Nottingham sees fit [and to grumble or withdraw support if the results
are not what they expect], quite another to tell us how many maths
students we must take, what qualifications our lecturers must have,
how our courses must be specified, and a whole raft of unreadable
directives plonking onto our desks every few days.
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] The school is not going to close down unless
it genuinely cannot be run except at a loss, in which case it will be
up to the local community to step in and provide subsidies or other
solutions. See below.
And what happens to the pupils in the meantime?
Same as happens at present when a school runs into financial
difficulties [eg through falling rolls]. It doesn't happen overnight,
you have a period of "mounting concern", then "proposals", then public
inquiries, and solutions emerge, for good or ill. Nothing new.
Post by Robert Henderson
You people are so bloody
reckless. You just don't understand administration.
If "you" is me, in particular, then I think I understand it
tolerably well. I get to do quite a lot -- far too much, in fact --
of it myself, both internally around this department and the univ,
and externally interfacing with schools, government and companies.
Post by Robert Henderson
And what about the effect on children forced to change schools, perhaps
close to their exams?
That happens occasionally today. It will continue to happen
occasionally. There is no reason to suppose that it would happen
more under a voucher scheme.
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] If a private system is working, LAs
can just sit back and relax. If it falls apart because of the sort of
blackmail you mention above, then the LA builds and runs its own schools
at voucher cost
But that is not something which happens overnight. You will constantly
be having boom and bust. RH
But the fact that the LEA *could* do such a thing prevents
the "blackmail" happening in the first place. Your scenario has a
[profitable] school threatening to close itself down in order to
force the govt to pay more. But there is no such "threat". The
*parents* might be upset [which is not good news for the school],
but the govt isn't. If that school was so foolish as to close,
then another one would open, and reap the same profit.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-07-14 06:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
[...]. But as a matter of principle,
it is absurd to suppose that the voucher is exactly the cost of
education "everywhere".
Simple answer. The voucher value could be adjusted for the cost of
living regionally. RH
On what basis? If this is a national scheme, why should
children in [say] Edinburgh
Wouldn't apply to Scotland - education is a devolved responsibility. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
receive more/less from their voucher
than children in Nottingham or Little Mumbling?
Because the cost of living varies greatly around the country. Simple to
administer. One sets up regional cost of living indices. I have long
been an advocate of these. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The voucher
should [in any scheme I would propose/support] fund some average
level of education deemed nationally appropriate, and if people
in Edinburgh [etc] want more or less for their children than that,
they should pay [or receive back] the difference. And I would
extend that to a family-by-family basis. If you want, for example,
your children to be taught in a school with [eg] library resources
or physics labs well beyond the "national" level, then that should
be possible without the voucher being withdrawn.
Post by Robert Henderson
There *should* be schools offering premium
education at a premium over the voucher, and other schools offering
"cheap'n'cheerful" education with a refund.
Exactly what should not happen. One grants privilege paid for by the
taxpayer, the other encourages a poor education for the sake of profit.
But the *privilege* is not paid for by the taxpayer.
They are in part. Vouchers release money to the parent to spend on
other things which would otherwise be spent on the privilege, RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The
taxpayer is paying for the national standard level of education;
the family is paying a premium for something better [such as better
libraries/laboratories than the voucher provides]. And the "other"
is not a "poor" education for "profit". Rather, as the school finds
it can provide the national standard while making a large profit, it
is instead [presumably] making a smaller profit and using the surplus
to attract more/better customers.
How little you understand of private business. Profit is all. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Yes, it could instead have used
the surplus to offer a premium education and attract customers; that
is their choice. No different from a "family" car manufacturer choosing
whether to offer a cheaper [but roadworthy, etc] car than its competitors
or one at the same price but with "de luxe" fittings.
Completely different in its consequences. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In real life, car manufacturers produce a range of products;
and there are Aldi/Sainsbury supermarkets, basic/luxury leisure centres,
and so on; I don't see why [subject to regulation about minimum standards,
similar to those imposed on cars, food, swimming pools, ...] there should
not equally be a range of educational provision.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
The most obvious difficulty is what real choice can a parent have in
practise if they only have two or three schools in their catchment area?
Why do you think this is interestingly different from the
choice you can practice in relation to supermarkets? Or to car
showrooms? Or leisure centres? Or bookshops?
Education is a different case from all those things, which incidentally
can be visited occasionally or purchased online or via the post, none of
which applies to a good school education.
Nevertheless, in practice I am confined to a relatively small
number of these things; and I would be very reluctant to buy a car
[or a leisure centre!] online or via the post; and if I lived in a
village, the choice -- especially if I had no car -- might be very
restricted indeed.
Nothing like as restricted as living in a village and having only one
school to choose from. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The competition that raises standards does not
depend on *me* having a choice, but on some of their more marginal
customers having a choice.
Post by Robert Henderson
Education is the thing which
frees people to move within society. Make a mess of it and the child is
affected for life. RH
Well, yes; you'll get no argument from me over a claim that
education is v important. But we *are* making a mess of some parts
of it, and the question is how to improve things.
Reintroduce exams which are exams, ie, no continuous assessment, strip
out all the "progressive" cant, remove the pc contagion from syllabuses,
abolish LEAs, and close down all teacher training colleges and depts of
Education. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Having it run by
the state does not seem to me an unqualified success.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
But even where a school does have the land to expand fresh problems
arise. First, where is it to get the money to fund expansion? [...]
Same way as you get any money to fund expansion. A popular
school with a large guaranteed supply of children and therefore income
is a pretty good and safe investment. Private schools manage this
trick perfectly well already.
But they are catering for a privileged and specialised market. It is in
effect niche marketing. RH
And ...?
And it does not work administratively for the entire population. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You think the families in that niche are stupid, or
that the companies that build their extensions don't care whether or
not the schools can pay? A popular school is much more likely still
to be around to pay off the mortgage in 25 years than a new restaurant
or clothes shop or whatever. Or even the average family.
New private schools have a very high failure rate. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
In an ideal world there would no longer *be* any state
schools. The proper job of the state is to *fund* state education
and to *regulate* it, not to provide it.
In principle I do not disagree with that, but as an ex-Civil servant I
can also see the horrendous administrative problems. RH
Yes, of course you can. And where there is a problem, the
"solution" is, of course, to appoint someone to administer it,
No, it means I see the administrative consequences of what you propose.
You don't because you have a bounded mind and consequently do not
understand administration which requires skills the bounded mind does
not have, ie, free thinking across disciplines, an understanding of
psychology and sociology and a general appreciation that human beings
are not robots, things all outside the scope of the bounded mind. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and
then a whole raft of people to implement it, and so on. That's how
we get into our messes.
Post by Robert Henderson
Note that the most
successful part of UK education is our universities, which are
run largely along these lines,
Again, they have been successful by catering for a specialised market
not a general one. Their success is now plummeting with the ridiculous
increase in student numbers. RH
If their success is "plummeting", then the message has clearly
not got through to (a) the other countries that are sending us their
best students in ever-increasing numbers,
There dimwit students willing to pay in every increasing numbers more
like. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
(b) employers who are taking
our students on ditto, and (c) companies, charities and other agencies
who are funding our research at ever-increasing [real-terms] levels.
Please recall that the "ridiculous" increase in numbers is tiny among
middle-class male school leavers taking full-time undergraduate degrees,
so is composed almost entirely of other groups -- females, postgrads,
poorer families, mature students, part-timers, sub-degree courses --
playing catch-up.
Post by Robert Henderson
and further that the best univs
are those [Oxbridge, then the older univ sector] which have had
the least state interference in their provision.
They have been taking the State's money quite happily longer than
anywhere else. RH
*Interference*, Robert. It is one thing for the state [or
the LEA] to pay a university to educate a student, as Cambridge or
Nottingham sees fit [and to grumble or withdraw support if the results
are not what they expect], quite another to tell us how many maths
students we must take, what qualifications our lecturers must have,
how our courses must be specified, and a whole raft of unreadable
directives plonking onto our desks every few days.
He who pays the piper picks the tune. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] The school is not going to close down unless
it genuinely cannot be run except at a loss, in which case it will be
up to the local community to step in and provide subsidies or other
solutions. See below.
And what happens to the pupils in the meantime?
Same as happens at present when a school runs into financial
difficulties [eg through falling rolls]. It doesn't happen overnight,
you have a period of "mounting concern", then "proposals", then public
inquiries, and solutions emerge, for good or ill. Nothing new.
Post by Robert Henderson
You people are so bloody
reckless. You just don't understand administration.
If "you" is me, in particular, then I think I understand it
tolerably well.
That is because you have a bounded mind and ego and imagine you
understand it when it is completely beyond you. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
I get to do quite a lot -- far too much, in fact --
of it myself, both internally around this department and the univ,
and externally interfacing with schools, government and companies.
"Externally interfacing" eh? Says it all. You imagine comfy jargon =
administration. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
And what about the effect on children forced to change schools, perhaps
close to their exams?
That happens occasionally today. It will continue to happen
occasionally. There is no reason to suppose that it would happen
more under a voucher scheme.
There si ever reason. It is quite possible twenty per cent of pupils
could be affected in the transitional stages. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] If a private system is working, LAs
can just sit back and relax. If it falls apart because of the sort of
blackmail you mention above, then the LA builds and runs its own schools
at voucher cost
But that is not something which happens overnight. You will constantly
be having boom and bust. RH
But the fact that the LEA *could* do such a thing prevents
the "blackmail" happening in the first place.
No it does not if the state school infrastructure has been lost. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Your scenario has a
[profitable] school threatening to close itself down in order to
force the govt to pay more. But there is no such "threat". The
*parents* might be upset [which is not good news for the school],
but the govt isn't. If that school was so foolish as to close,
then another one would open, and reap the same profit.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Halberd
2004-07-14 19:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Reintroduce exams which are exams, ie, no continuous assessment,
Why? Most everything else in life is continuous assessment. A project
provides far better evidence of how well someone has grasped the learning
than 3 hours answering specific questions.
Post by Robert Henderson
strip
out all the "progressive" cant, remove the pc contagion from syllabuses,
What on earth might that be?
Post by Robert Henderson
abolish LEAs, and close down all teacher training colleges and depts of
Education.
You will be heartened to hear that there is quite a move to unqualified
teachers. ICT, for example is recognised as being easy enough to be taught
by anyone, even 18 year olds with an 'A' level in it. Supply teachers are
becoming a rare breed as unqualified 'cover supervisors' take over from
absent colleagues. There is a scheme in place to employ and train graduates
in schools with no need for colleges,

Give it a decade and you may get your wish of schools manned entirely by
unqualified teachers.
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-07-15 19:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
On what basis? If this is a national scheme, why should
children in [say] Edinburgh
Wouldn't apply to Scotland - education is a devolved responsibility. RH
Yes, but devolution is not divorce. If the Scottish voucher
is, say, #1000 more than the English [or the Nottingham] voucher, is
this difference made up by the Scots or by Westminster? And if by
the Scots, then why would a difference between Nottingham and London
not be made up by Londoners? And a difference between me and the
family next door made up by me? Or if by Westminster, then do I get
my voucher made up to the amount I want?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
receive more/less from their voucher
than children in Nottingham or Little Mumbling?
Because the cost of living varies greatly around the country. Simple to
administer. One sets up regional cost of living indices. I have long
been an advocate of these. RH
I suspect that those who argue with you about the in[ie]quities
of the Barnett formula will guffaw long and loud if they see this. How
is it "simple"? We can't even get member states/countries of the EU or
the UK to agree on differential funding. You certainly aren't going to
manage it between "regions" -- not simply. And within most of our
regions there are pockets of wealth/poverty that are going to scream
good and loud if they get less than similar pockets elsewhere.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But the *privilege* is not paid for by the taxpayer.
They are in part. Vouchers release money to the parent to spend on
other things which would otherwise be spent on the privilege, RH
Contrariwise, what they do is correct the present injustice.
Repeat -- the voucher pays for the officially approved standard of
education. That is what all our children should be entitled to.
Your route, in which private schools will get voucher money from
their parents if they charge only voucher-level fees, will simply
lead to avoidance schemes, in which the "top-up" is disguised as
"after school club" or "book fees" or dinner money or a myriad of
other clever wheezes. Simpler, by far, to hand the voucher to the
family and say "This #4K [or whatever] can be exchanged for #4K of
school fees at any of the UK's approved schools -- everything else
is between you and the school."
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] And the "other"
is not a "poor" education for "profit". Rather, as the school finds
it can provide the national standard while making a large profit, it
is instead [presumably] making a smaller profit and using the surplus
to attract more/better customers.
How little you understand of private business. Profit is all. RH
In the first place, much of the private sector, especially in
fields like education and medicine, is non-profit-making; including
almost all of HE, but also many [most? practically all?] "public"
schools. Secondly, even to a fully-commercial venture, what matters
is not the profit per customer but the overall figure. Lots of
companies have thrived on a "pile 'em high, flog 'em cheap" basis.
Note that in HE, we already have "cheap'n'cheerful" universities
prepared to pay students a refund on their tuition fees in order to
attract more students; and it will get worse/different/better under
this govt's "top-up fee" proposals.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Nevertheless, in practice I am confined to a relatively small
number of these things; and I would be very reluctant to buy a car
[or a leisure centre!] online or via the post; and if I lived in a
village, the choice -- especially if I had no car -- might be very
restricted indeed.
Nothing like as restricted as living in a village and having only one
school to choose from. RH
Really? How many villages do you know with two leisure
centres [but only one school]? Two cricket teams? Two supermarkets?
The sort of village that just about runs to a school as often as
not has only one pub, one garage, one restaurant, one post office,
one community centre, one church. Or none. If you live in a
village, then there are usually great swathes of your life for
which you accept the local facility, if any, or else have to drive
[or catch the one bus per day] to the nearest town.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Well, yes; you'll get no argument from me over a claim that
education is v important. But we *are* making a mess of some parts
of it, and the question is how to improve things.
Reintroduce exams which are exams, ie, no continuous assessment, strip
out all the "progressive" cant, remove the pc contagion from syllabuses,
abolish LEAs, and close down all teacher training colleges and depts of
Education. RH
Tee hee. Come back when you've actually had some real contact
with assessment -- I've already told you how you could make yourself
useful -- and *then* let us know what you think. Until then, there is
no reason at all for anyone to take your pontifications seriously.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] Private schools manage this
trick perfectly well already.
But they are catering for a privileged and specialised market. It is in
effect niche marketing. RH
And ...?
And it does not work administratively for the entire population. RH
Why not? There are many more pubs than schools in the UK,
they cover all sorts of populations and lifestyles, yet they manage
to build extensions and car-parks and dining facilities without any
interference from the government. Why are the admin staff at your
local comp deemed incapable of administering things that every pub,
every private school, every [competent] household even, manages to
cope with?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] A popular school is much more likely still
to be around to pay off the mortgage in 25 years than a new restaurant
or clothes shop or whatever. Or even the average family.
New private schools have a very high failure rate. RH
*Popular* school, Robert. How many private schools that are
so full that they need to expand have you known to fail? [And if
they do, their new buildings are presumably still valuable enough
to pay off the remnants of an old mortgage.]
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
In principle I do not disagree with that, but as an ex-Civil servant I
can also see the horrendous administrative problems. RH
Yes, of course you can. And where there is a problem, the
"solution" is, of course, to appoint someone to administer it,
No, it means I see the administrative consequences of what you propose.
No, it means you see gremlins where others see opportunities.
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't because you have a bounded mind [...]
You might just as well say "white flag", as I proposed to you
some time ago. It will save you inventing insults or phantasies, it
gets you out of actually apologising, and we will all understand it.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If [HE] success is "plummeting", then the message has clearly
not got through to (a) the other countries that are sending us their
best students in ever-increasing numbers,
There dimwit students willing to pay in every increasing numbers more
like. RH
The "dimwit" students are not paying, their "dimwit" parents
are. Surprising, then, that these dimwits have managed to amass wealth
enough to pay [considerably more than I, and I suspect you, could
afford], and yet are too stupid to send their children to the much
cheaper universities in Oz or the USA [if they insist on English]
or France/Germany/Italy/etc [otherwise]. Surprising too that the
dimwit students get much the same degrees as HEU students, often
despite the language and cultural problems that they face. Oh, and
I assume you are not counting the exceptionally talented youngsters
we often receive from places like China, Nepal, Cameroon, ..., who
are being sent by a government that understands that their talents
need to be extended by top quality universities.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
They have been taking the State's money quite happily longer than
anywhere else. RH
*Interference*, Robert. [...]
He who pays the piper picks the tune. RH
Interference in the internal running of univs is quite
different from picking the tune.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You people are so bloody
reckless. You just don't understand administration.
If "you" is me, in particular, then I think I understand it
tolerably well.
That is because you have a bounded mind and ego and imagine you
understand it when it is completely beyond you. RH
Nevertheless, I do rather a lot of it, and seem to have done
so quite successfully; well enough to keep being asked to do more.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
And what about the effect on children forced to change schools, perhaps
close to their exams?
That happens occasionally today. It will continue to happen
occasionally. There is no reason to suppose that it would happen
more under a voucher scheme.
There si ever reason. It is quite possible twenty per cent of pupils
could be affected in the transitional stages. RH
*What* transitional stages? The only transition, in most
cases, will be that families will receive vouchers and exchange them
at the schools, instead of LEAs doing it for them. No more complex
than one day of dinner money, though involving much larger sums of
money. It don't imagine that many families will want to move their
GCSE-year children just on a whim; and if they do, it's the family's
decision, not "children forced to change schools".
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But the fact that the LEA *could* do such a thing prevents
the "blackmail" happening in the first place.
No it does not if the state school infrastructure has been lost. RH
The school infrastructure has not been *lost*, any more than
the telephone infrastructure was lost when BT was privatised. Some,
perhaps many/most, schools will change how they operate, but they
will still be there. Over a period, some will close, some will open,
some will expand, some will contract. But the idea that profitable
schools will threaten to close themselves down in order to blackmail
the LEAs is just silly.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-07-17 07:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
On what basis? If this is a national scheme, why should
children in [say] Edinburgh
Wouldn't apply to Scotland - education is a devolved responsibility. RH
Yes, but devolution is not divorce. If the Scottish voucher
is, say, #1000 more than the English [or the Nottingham] voucher, is
this difference made up by the Scots or by Westminster?
The Scotch get a block grant. They would have to set the voucher price
within the proportion of the grant devoted to education. Alternatively,
they could opt out as education is a devolved responsibility. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And if by
the Scots, then why would a difference between Nottingham and London
not be made up by Londoners?
Within England tax takes vary greatly from region to region. Central
taxation in England irons out the differences and produces differential
spending. Higher vouchers in London would be no different from London
weighting . RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And a difference between me and the
family next door made up by me? Or if by Westminster, then do I get
my voucher made up to the amount I want?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
receive more/less from their voucher
than children in Nottingham or Little Mumbling?
Because the cost of living varies greatly around the country. Simple to
administer. One sets up regional cost of living indices. I have long
been an advocate of these. RH
I suspect that those who argue with you about the in[ie]quities
of the Barnett formula will guffaw long and loud if they see this.
That is completely to misunderstand the Barnett formula. It was
ostensibly designed to "compensate" the Scotch for supposed additional
costs resulting from a small population spread over a large area - the
problem of the Highlands and Island. In reality, it was a Labour bribe
to win Scotch votes and beat down demands fro devolution. Happily, with
devolved govt that need no be a consideration in the future. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
How
is it "simple"? We can't even get member states/countries of the EU or
the UK to agree on differential funding. You certainly aren't going to
manage it between "regions" -- not simply. And within most of our
regions there are pockets of wealth/poverty that are going to scream
good and loud if they get less than similar pockets elsewhere.
There might be some initial whining but it would soon be accepted as
London weighting has been accepted. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But the *privilege* is not paid for by the taxpayer.
They are in part. Vouchers release money to the parent to spend on
other things which would otherwise be spent on the privilege, RH
Contrariwise, what they do is correct the present injustice.
There is no injustice. Parents buy privilege for their children. The
option of having free at the point of use education is there if they
choose to take it. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Repeat -- the voucher pays for the officially approved standard of
education. That is what all our children should be entitled to.
Your route, in which private schools will get voucher money from
their parents if they charge only voucher-level fees, will simply
lead to avoidance schemes, in which the "top-up" is disguised as
"after school club" or "book fees" or dinner money or a myriad of
other clever wheezes.
Nope, because the voucher would be expected to pay for everything the
school does. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Simpler, by far, to hand the voucher to the
family and say "This #4K [or whatever] can be exchanged for #4K of
school fees at any of the UK's approved schools -- everything else
is between you and the school."
The voice of the middle class seeking privilege. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] And the "other"
is not a "poor" education for "profit". Rather, as the school finds
it can provide the national standard while making a large profit, it
is instead [presumably] making a smaller profit and using the surplus
to attract more/better customers.
How little you understand of private business. Profit is all. RH
In the first place, much of the private sector, especially in
fields like education and medicine, is non-profit-making;
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
including
almost all of HE, but also many [most? practically all?] "public"
schools. Secondly, even to a fully-commercial venture, what matters
is not the profit per customer but the overall figure. Lots of
companies have thrived on a "pile 'em high, flog 'em cheap" basis.
Note that in HE, we already have "cheap'n'cheerful" universities
prepared to pay students a refund on their tuition fees in order to
attract more students; and it will get worse/different/better under
this govt's "top-up fee" proposals.
That rather proves my point about what happens when money follows the
student in higher education. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Nevertheless, in practice I am confined to a relatively small
number of these things; and I would be very reluctant to buy a car
[or a leisure centre!] online or via the post; and if I lived in a
village, the choice -- especially if I had no car -- might be very
restricted indeed.
Nothing like as restricted as living in a village and having only one
school to choose from. RH
Really? How many villages do you know with two leisure
centres [but only one school]?
Schools are vital, leisure centres are not. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Two cricket teams? Two supermarkets?
The sort of village that just about runs to a school as often as
not has only one pub, one garage, one restaurant, one post office,
one community centre, one church. Or none. If you live in a
village, then there are usually great swathes of your life for
which you accept the local facility, if any, or else have to drive
[or catch the one bus per day] to the nearest town.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Well, yes; you'll get no argument from me over a claim that
education is v important. But we *are* making a mess of some parts
of it, and the question is how to improve things.
Reintroduce exams which are exams, ie, no continuous assessment, strip
out all the "progressive" cant, remove the pc contagion from syllabuses,
abolish LEAs, and close down all teacher training colleges and depts of
Education. RH
Tee hee. Come back when you've actually had some real contact
with assessment -- I've already told you how you could make yourself
useful -- and *then* let us know what you think. Until then, there is
no reason at all for anyone to take your pontifications seriously.
Translation: The bounded mind stays in its comfy familiar hole. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] Private schools manage this
trick perfectly well already.
But they are catering for a privileged and specialised market. It is in
effect niche marketing. RH
And ...?
And it does not work administratively for the entire population. RH
Why not?
Because an education is a necessity, the other things you mention are
not. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are many more pubs than schools in the UK,
they cover all sorts of populations and lifestyles, yet they manage
to build extensions and car-parks and dining facilities without any
interference from the government. Why are the admin staff at your
local comp deemed incapable of administering things that every pub,
every private school, every [competent] household even, manages to
cope with?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] A popular school is much more likely still
to be around to pay off the mortgage in 25 years than a new restaurant
or clothes shop or whatever. Or even the average family.
New private schools have a very high failure rate. RH
*Popular* school, Robert. How many private schools that are
so full that they need to expand have you known to fail? [And if
they do, their new buildings are presumably still valuable enough
to pay off the remnants of an old mortgage.]
You are assuming all private schools will be a success in the regime you
envisage. They won't. There will be competition between them and the
remaining state schools. Best to stick to sums, Dr Walker. Basic
economics seems a but too much for you. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
In principle I do not disagree with that, but as an ex-Civil servant I
can also see the horrendous administrative problems. RH
Yes, of course you can. And where there is a problem, the
"solution" is, of course, to appoint someone to administer it,
No, it means I see the administrative consequences of what you propose.
No, it means you see gremlins where others see opportunities.
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't because you have a bounded mind [...]
You might just as well say "white flag", as I proposed to you
some time ago. It will save you inventing insults or phantasies, it
gets you out of actually apologising, and we will all understand it.
Translation: A bounded mind hides. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If [HE] success is "plummeting", then the message has clearly
not got through to (a) the other countries that are sending us their
best students in ever-increasing numbers,
There dimwit students willing to pay in every increasing numbers more
like. RH
The "dimwit" students are not paying, their "dimwit" parents
are. Surprising, then, that these dimwits have managed to amass wealth
enough to pay [considerably more than I, and I suspect you, could
afford], and yet are too stupid to send their children to the much
cheaper universities in Oz or the USA [if they insist on English]
or France/Germany/Italy/etc [otherwise]. Surprising too that the
dimwit students get much the same degrees as HEU students, often
despite the language and cultural problems that they face. Oh, and
I assume you are not counting the exceptionally talented youngsters
we often receive from places like China, Nepal, Cameroon, ..., who
are being sent by a government that understands that their talents
need to be extended by top quality universities.
Noe of it is surprising. getting rich in the Third world generally means
connections and corruption. It does not imply brains. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
They have been taking the State's money quite happily longer than
anywhere else. RH
*Interference*, Robert. [...]
He who pays the piper picks the tune. RH
Interference in the internal running of univs is quite
different from picking the tune.
It is precisely the same thing. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You people are so bloody
reckless. You just don't understand administration.
If "you" is me, in particular, then I think I understand it
tolerably well.
That is because you have a bounded mind and ego and imagine you
understand it when it is completely beyond you. RH
Nevertheless, I do rather a lot of it, and seem to have done
so quite successfully; well enough to keep being asked to do more.
I am not talking about arranging a timetable or booking in a few dozen
students, I am talking of the large scale administrative policy strategy
which has to be developed to manage millions of people. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
And what about the effect on children forced to change schools, perhaps
close to their exams?
That happens occasionally today. It will continue to happen
occasionally. There is no reason to suppose that it would happen
more under a voucher scheme.
There si ever reason. It is quite possible twenty per cent of pupils
could be affected in the transitional stages. RH
*What* transitional stages?
The movement to private schools, the closing of poor state schools. The
general upheaval of millions of pupils being shunted around. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The only transition, in most
cases, will be that families will receive vouchers and exchange them
at the schools, instead of LEAs doing it for them.
No more complex
than one day of dinner money, though involving much larger sums of
money.
Chortle. The bounded mind at its most revealing. Talk about mental
tramlines. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It don't imagine that many families will want to move their
GCSE-year children just on a whim; and if they do, it's the family's
decision, not "children forced to change schools".
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But the fact that the LEA *could* do such a thing prevents
the "blackmail" happening in the first place.
No it does not if the state school infrastructure has been lost. RH
The school infrastructure has not been *lost*, any more than
the telephone infrastructure was lost when BT was privatised.
Apples and oranges. The BT infrastructure is necessary for the
continuation of landlines in the UK: an individual school is not
necessary for the education system. A good example of the bounded mind
not being able to spot a logical difference which is not set in bounded
circumstances such as a formula. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Some,
perhaps many/most, schools will change how they operate, but they
will still be there. Over a period, some will close, some will open,
some will expand, some will contract. But the idea that profitable
schools will threaten to close themselves down in order to blackmail
the LEAs is just silly.
Not the lEAs but the taxpayer via the govt. And it will not be the
profitable ones which do threaten to close. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-07-20 18:55:27 UTC
Permalink
The Scotch get a block grant. [...]
Higher vouchers in London would be no different from London
weighting . RH
Yes, but you have not explained what you propose should
be done about regional differences in education. This is quite
different from cost-of-living allowances. You want the voucher
to be different in different regions. So, suppose the people
of Loamshire decide that they want education costing X and those
of Marlshire [with the same cost of living] decide Y. Who pockets
or provides the difference? Or are they both told Z, like it or
lump it? [If so, so much for choice.]
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But the *privilege* is not paid for by the taxpayer.
They are in part. Vouchers release money to the parent to spend on
other things which would otherwise be spent on the privilege, RH
Contrariwise, what they do is correct the present injustice.
There is no injustice. Parents buy privilege for their children. The
option of having free at the point of use education is there if they
choose to take it. RH
But I don't want to "buy privilege" for my children; I simply
want them to get a decent education, and my standards are somewhat
higher than the national average [and there are many other people
whose standards are lower]. The *actual* education provided across
the country is a compromise that satisfies almost no-one [except in
a few privileged catchment areas]. For those of us who believe
strongly in education ["for its own sake"], most state education is
seriously inadequate. For others, who want their children to learn
"useful" things and to leave school as soon as they are "old enough
to earn a living", it's full of "fancy notions" and a waste of time
and money. Both groups could easily be accommodated in a voucher
scheme. Most of the "believers" cannot afford private education;
but many of us could afford a small top-up.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Your route, in which private schools will get voucher money from
their parents if they charge only voucher-level fees, will simply
lead to avoidance schemes, in which the "top-up" is disguised as
"after school club" or "book fees" or dinner money or a myriad of
other clever wheezes.
Nope, because the voucher would be expected to pay for everything the
school does. RH
Including school meals, after school clubs, music lessons,
extra tutoring, visits to museums or nature reserves, uniforms,
football coaching for the school teams, ...? Or are all these
things just forbidden in your Stalinist scheme? Have you ever
had any contact at all with education, and discovered at first
hand just how expensive "free" education can be?
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Simpler, by far, to hand the voucher to the
family and say "This #4K [or whatever] can be exchanged for #4K of
school fees at any of the UK's approved schools -- everything else
is between you and the school."
The voice of the middle class seeking privilege. RH
This is rubbish. Actually, the greatest benefits will come
to those who are satisfied with the minimum approved provision, who
will get large rebates which could make a huge difference to the
finances of many poorer families. But in any case, if any proposed
scheme does not get the approval of the middle classes, it will fail.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In the first place, much of the private sector, especially in
fields like education and medicine, is non-profit-making;
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Why not? But anyway it's not really to do with "charity".
I would expect most of the initial round of "new" schools to be
"management buy-outs" of existing good schools, taking over much the
same staff, pupils, catchment, etc. The prime requirement will be
that the school can continue to provide a good education, pay its
staff, maintain its buildings, etc., not that it turns a profit
for [non-existent] share-holders.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Nothing like as restricted as living in a village and having only one
school to choose from. RH
Really? How many villages do you know with two leisure
centres [but only one school]?
Schools are vital, leisure centres are not. RH
And? It was a question about choice, not vitality.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
But they are catering for a privileged and specialised market. It is in
effect niche marketing. RH
And ...?
And it does not work administratively for the entire population. RH
Why not?
Because an education is a necessity, the other things you mention are
not. RH
But food is even more necessary than education, and we have
no national problem with "niche marketing" or with administration
"not working for the entire population". Almost all admin can, and
should, be devolved to individual schools. The remainder -- the
actual distribution/collection/audit of vouchers, and the inspection
of schools -- can be done LEA by LEA and is quite small fry.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
New private schools have a very high failure rate. RH
*Popular* school, Robert. How many private schools that are
so full that they need to expand have you known to fail? [And if
they do, their new buildings are presumably still valuable enough
to pay off the remnants of an old mortgage.]
You are assuming all private schools will be a success in the regime you
envisage. They won't. There will be competition between them and the
remaining state schools.
In the regime I envisage, private schools will differ from
basic state provision only in their level of top-up fee or rebate.
It's hard to see how popular schools could do worse in such a
scheme than at present. Of course, *new* schools may or may not
thrive, as at present, but we're not [in the main] talking about
new schools; and unpopular schools are a different matter -- they
will have to get their act together or go under.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You might just as well say "white flag", as I proposed to you
some time ago. It will save you inventing insults or phantasies, it
gets you out of actually apologising, and we will all understand it.
Translation: A bounded mind hides. RH
Translation: white flag.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. Oh, and
I assume you are not counting the exceptionally talented youngsters
we often receive from places like China, Nepal, Cameroon, ..., who
are being sent by a government that understands that their talents
need to be extended by top quality universities.
Noe of it is surprising. getting rich in the Third world generally means
connections and corruption. It does not imply brains. RH
I didn't say "rich", I said "talented". I see a number of
applications from potential students in [eg] China, which basically
tell me about youngsters who are the very best mathematicians in
quite large cities. Their government is proud to send them to us,
and we are pleased to educate them. The potential pay-off to this
country is enormous in terms of good-will and kudos.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
They have been taking the State's money quite happily longer than
anywhere else. RH
*Interference*, Robert. [...]
He who pays the piper picks the tune. RH
Interference in the internal running of univs is quite
different from picking the tune.
It is precisely the same thing. RH
As a piper, you might not be surprised to be paid to play
a particular tune. But you might be surprised to be told also
what fingering to use, how often to polish the instrument, that
you couldn't play unless your performance was peer-reviewed, that
you had to produce regular reports on all performances, that you
wouldn't be paid unless your performance was exactly 573 seconds
long, and that you were not allowed, as a piper, to own property
or a car. That is, roughly, the level of interference we get;
and it goes *far* beyond "is *this* university doing a good job
of educating *that* student in return for the money we provide?".
Indeed, that sort of question often seems to be the last thing
on the official mind.
I am not talking about arranging a timetable or booking in a few dozen
students, I am talking of the large scale administrative policy strategy
which has to be developed to manage millions of people. RH
Devolved to LEA or school level, as it always used to be.
Why is that so hard to understand? It no doubt takes a civil-
service mind to jump from there to some massive nation-wide
bureaucracy. It's different in the real world, Robert.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
[...]. It is quite possible twenty per cent of pupils
could be affected in the transitional stages. RH
*What* transitional stages?
The movement to private schools, the closing of poor state schools. The
general upheaval of millions of pupils being shunted around. RH
Oh. You clearly have in mind a much more intrusive scheme
than I do. No wonder you want a huge bureaucracy for it.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The school infrastructure has not been *lost*, any more than
the telephone infrastructure was lost when BT was privatised.
Apples and oranges. The BT infrastructure is necessary for the
continuation of landlines in the UK: an individual school is not
necessary for the education system.
But it will still be there after "voucher day", carrying on
with the same staff and pupils. All that changes on VD is that the
money is handed over from LEA to parent to school instead of direct
from LEA to school. Most parents will stick with that, for the
sorts of reason you give -- continuity of provision, etc.
A good example of the bounded mind
not being able to spot a logical difference which is not set in bounded
circumstances such as a formula. RH
"White flag" would have saved you a lot of writing.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. But the idea that profitable
schools will threaten to close themselves down in order to blackmail
the LEAs is just silly.
Not the lEAs but the taxpayer via the govt. And it will not be the
profitable ones which do threaten to close. RH
But then it isn't blackmail. Those schools will indeed need
local support to stay open, and the local community will have to
decide whether to subsidise them, or let that school close [either
moving its pupils to another school or opening -- probably in the
same physical buildings -- another "under new management"]. That
is exactly the same as current practice.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-07-21 17:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The Scotch get a block grant. [...]
Higher vouchers in London would be no different from London
weighting . RH
Yes, but you have not explained what you propose should
be done about regional differences in education. This is quite
different from cost-of-living allowances.
No it isn't. The difference sin cost would be down to the wage levels
needed in the area, house prices etc. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You want the voucher
to be different in different regions. So, suppose the people
of Loamshire decide that they want education costing X and those
of Marlshire [with the same cost of living] decide Y. Who pockets
or provides the difference? Or are they both told Z, like it or
lump it? [If so, so much for choice.]
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But the *privilege* is not paid for by the taxpayer.
They are in part. Vouchers release money to the parent to spend on
other things which would otherwise be spent on the privilege, RH
Contrariwise, what they do is correct the present injustice.
There is no injustice. Parents buy privilege for their children. The
option of having free at the point of use education is there if they
choose to take it. RH
But I don't want to "buy privilege" for my children; I simply
want them to get a decent education, and my standards are somewhat
higher than the national average
Weasel words. You want better than that available to the majority. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[and there are many other people
whose standards are lower]. The *actual* education provided across
the country is a compromise that satisfies almost no-one [except in
a few privileged catchment areas]. For those of us who believe
strongly in education ["for its own sake"], most state education is
seriously inadequate. For others, who want their children to learn
"useful" things and to leave school as soon as they are "old enough
to earn a living", it's full of "fancy notions" and a waste of time
and money. Both groups could easily be accommodated in a voucher
scheme. Most of the "believers" cannot afford private education;
but many of us could afford a small top-up.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Your route, in which private schools will get voucher money from
their parents if they charge only voucher-level fees, will simply
lead to avoidance schemes, in which the "top-up" is disguised as
"after school club" or "book fees" or dinner money or a myriad of
other clever wheezes.
Nope, because the voucher would be expected to pay for everything the
school does. RH
Including school meals, after school clubs, music lessons,
extra tutoring, visits to museums or nature reserves,
All yes. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
uniforms,
Not a school activity. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
football coaching for the school teams, ...?
Yes. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Or are all these
things just forbidden in your Stalinist scheme? Have you ever
had any contact at all with education, and discovered at first
hand just how expensive "free" education can be?
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Simpler, by far, to hand the voucher to the
family and say "This #4K [or whatever] can be exchanged for #4K of
school fees at any of the UK's approved schools -- everything else
is between you and the school."
The voice of the middle class seeking privilege. RH
This is rubbish. Actually, the greatest benefits will come
to those who are satisfied with the minimum approved provision, who
will get large rebates which could make a huge difference to the
finances of many poorer families.
You miss the point. the voucher cost is for the minimum acceptable
education. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But in any case, if any proposed
scheme does not get the approval of the middle classes, it will fail.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In the first place, much of the private sector, especially in
fields like education and medicine, is non-profit-making;
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Why not?
Because (1) they would have no foundation funds, (2) vast numbers of new
charities in one area of charitable work could not be sustained and (3)
there would not be the people willing to man them. Nor would I be
willing to give a subsidy to such schools. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But anyway it's not really to do with "charity".
I would expect most of the initial round of "new" schools to be
"management buy-outs" of existing good schools, taking over much the
same staff, pupils, catchment, etc. The prime requirement will be
that the school can continue to provide a good education, pay its
staff, maintain its buildings, etc., not that it turns a profit
for [non-existent] share-holders.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Nothing like as restricted as living in a village and having only one
school to choose from. RH
Really? How many villages do you know with two leisure
centres [but only one school]?
Schools are vital, leisure centres are not. RH
And? It was a question about choice, not vitality.
Try doing without that which is vital. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
But they are catering for a privileged and specialised market. It is in
effect niche marketing. RH
And ...?
And it does not work administratively for the entire population. RH
Why not?
Because an education is a necessity, the other things you mention are
not. RH
But food is even more necessary than education, and we have
no national problem with "niche marketing" or with administration
"not working for the entire population".
Food is merely the supply of goods; education is vastly more complicated
both morally and psychologically. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Almost all admin can, and
should, be devolved to individual schools. The remainder -- the
actual distribution/collection/audit of vouchers, and the inspection
of schools -- can be done LEA by LEA and is quite small fry.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
New private schools have a very high failure rate. RH
*Popular* school, Robert. How many private schools that are
so full that they need to expand have you known to fail? [And if
they do, their new buildings are presumably still valuable enough
to pay off the remnants of an old mortgage.]
You are assuming all private schools will be a success in the regime you
envisage. They won't. There will be competition between them and the
remaining state schools.
In the regime I envisage, private schools will differ from
basic state provision only in their level of top-up fee or rebate.
Merely a subsidy to the better off. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It's hard to see how popular schools could do worse in such a
scheme than at present. Of course, *new* schools may or may not
thrive, as at present, but we're not [in the main] talking about
new schools; and unpopular schools are a different matter -- they
will have to get their act together or go under.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You might just as well say "white flag", as I proposed to you
some time ago. It will save you inventing insults or phantasies, it
gets you out of actually apologising, and we will all understand it.
Translation: A bounded mind hides. RH
Translation: white flag.
Translation: A bounded mind hides in panic. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. Oh, and
I assume you are not counting the exceptionally talented youngsters
we often receive from places like China, Nepal, Cameroon, ..., who
are being sent by a government that understands that their talents
need to be extended by top quality universities.
Noe of it is surprising. getting rich in the Third world generally means
connections and corruption. It does not imply brains. RH
I didn't say "rich", I said "talented". I see a number of
applications from potential students in [eg] China, which basically
tell me about youngsters who are the very best mathematicians in
quite large cities. Their government is proud to send them to us,
and we are pleased to educate them. The potential pay-off to this
country is enormous in terms of good-will and kudos.
Tell that to the marines. It deprives British students of opportunities.
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
They have been taking the State's money quite happily longer than
anywhere else. RH
*Interference*, Robert. [...]
He who pays the piper picks the tune. RH
Interference in the internal running of univs is quite
different from picking the tune.
It is precisely the same thing. RH
As a piper, you might not be surprised to be paid to play
a particular tune. But you might be surprised to be told also
what fingering to use, how often to polish the instrument, that
you couldn't play unless your performance was peer-reviewed, that
you had to produce regular reports on all performances, that you
wouldn't be paid unless your performance was exactly 573 seconds
long, and that you were not allowed, as a piper, to own property
or a car. That is, roughly, the level of interference we get;
and it goes *far* beyond "is *this* university doing a good job
of educating *that* student in return for the money we provide?".
Indeed, that sort of question often seems to be the last thing
on the official mind.
If I am paying you do what I want. Your analogy does not work
incidentally. I would tell you not merely what to pay but when to play,
where to play it, how long to play it... Bounded minds are best advised
not to stray into unbounded territory such as analogies. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
I am not talking about arranging a timetable or booking in a few dozen
students, I am talking of the large scale administrative policy strategy
which has to be developed to manage millions of people. RH
Devolved to LEA or school level, as it always used to be.
It still is. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why is that so hard to understand? It no doubt takes a civil-
service mind to jump from there to some massive nation-wide
bureaucracy. It's different in the real world, Robert.
It is indeed different for the unbounded mind in the real world. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
[...]. It is quite possible twenty per cent of pupils
could be affected in the transitional stages. RH
*What* transitional stages?
The movement to private schools, the closing of poor state schools. The
general upheaval of millions of pupils being shunted around. RH
Oh. You clearly have in mind a much more intrusive scheme
than I do. No wonder you want a huge bureaucracy for it.
I would need very little bureaucracy. I am making all schools self-
governing, abolishing league tables, keeping national tests to the 3 Rs
etc. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The school infrastructure has not been *lost*, any more than
the telephone infrastructure was lost when BT was privatised.
Apples and oranges. The BT infrastructure is necessary for the
continuation of landlines in the UK: an individual school is not
necessary for the education system.
But it will still be there after "voucher day", carrying on
with the same staff and pupils. All that changes on VD is that the
money is handed over from LEA to parent to school instead of direct
from LEA to school. Most parents will stick with that, for the
sorts of reason you give -- continuity of provision, etc.
A good example of the bounded mind
not being able to spot a logical difference which is not set in bounded
circumstances such as a formula. RH
"White flag" would have saved you a lot of writing.
Translation: more bounded mind panic. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. But the idea that profitable
schools will threaten to close themselves down in order to blackmail
the LEAs is just silly.
Not the lEAs but the taxpayer via the govt. And it will not be the
profitable ones which do threaten to close. RH
But then it isn't blackmail.
Yes it is. The schools say give us the money or we close and you have
nowhere to send the pupils. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Those schools will indeed need
local support to stay open, and the local community will have to
decide whether to subsidise them, or let that school close [either
moving its pupils to another school or opening -- probably in the
same physical buildings -- another "under new management"]. That
is exactly the same as current practice.
I realise that bounded minds have difficulty expressing themselves in
writing on unbounded subjects but do try to be a little less long-
winded. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-07-22 19:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Yes, but you have not explained what you propose should
be done about regional differences in education. This is quite
different from cost-of-living allowances.
No it isn't. The difference sin cost would be down to the wage levels
needed in the area, house prices etc. RH
Then you have completely missed the point. Different people
want different [minimum, if you insist] standards of education. This
happens at every level of granularity of society, right through from
families to regions and nations. Traditionally, the "Celtic fringe"
have valued education more than the rest of us, and so have many of
the ethnic minorities. So, what in your model, devolved as it is to
regional levels, is going to happen when the people of region A decide
that a minimum education includes, say, well-stocked science labs and
libraries, and those of region B decide that it doesn't?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
There is no injustice. Parents buy privilege for their children. The
option of having free at the point of use education is there if they
choose to take it. RH
But I don't want to "buy privilege" for my children; I simply
want them to get a decent education, and my standards are somewhat
higher than the national average
Weasel words. You want better than that available to the majority. RH
Not so. I want better that that *wanted* by the majority.
If the government waved some wand and made all schools up to "my"
standard, *I* would be very pleased; but I recognise that most
people would complain about the cost [which would add perhaps #1000
to the voucher, or the equivalent of about 2p on standard rate income
tax]. There are others who want *less* than that wanted by most of
us, who regard all education beyond the basics as a waste of money,
and would rather have a #1000 rebate or 2p off income tax. Sensible
voucher schemes can accommodate that; yours can't.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Nope, because the voucher would be expected to pay for everything the
school does. RH
Including school meals, after school clubs, music lessons,
extra tutoring, visits to museums or nature reserves,
All yes. RH
And do those who don't want/need after-school clubs, music
lessons or extra tutoring get a rebate?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
uniforms,
Not a school activity. RH
But a money-spinner for the school, and a serious expense
for the families.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
The voice of the middle class seeking privilege. RH
This is rubbish. Actually, the greatest benefits will come
to those who are satisfied with the minimum approved provision, who
will get large rebates which could make a huge difference to the
finances of many poorer families.
You miss the point. the voucher cost is for the minimum acceptable
education. RH
So is it compulsory for the school to provide more and more
extra music lessons that pupils don't want until the voucher is used
up? There is no point to the whole scheme unless schools get more
control over what they do, so that some schools will provide the
minimum acceptable education as cheaply as possible [and families
benefit from rebates] and others will spend to the voucher [and
families will see education provided beyond the minimum standard];
and in my scheme yet others will spend beyond the voucher to provide
education up to the standards *I* would like [roughly, old-fashioned
grammar school]. Your proposals make grammar school standards
unreachable except by perpetuating expensive private schools for
the rich [only].
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Why not?
Because (1) they would have no foundation funds,
So? A popular school taken over by its staff in a management
buy-out [or similar] is a going concern, with a more-or-less guaranteed
income stream from the vouchers. It's not the sort of charity that
doles out money to the needy, so first needs a large pot of money, it's
the sort that charges for its services but without making a commercial
profit. Just like most of our current universities and private schools.
Post by Robert Henderson
(2) vast numbers of new
charities in one area of charitable work could not be sustained
Why not?
Post by Robert Henderson
and (3)
there would not be the people willing to man them.
You don't need any more people to run a not-for-profit school,
university, hospital or lottery company than to run a commercial one.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Really? How many villages do you know with two leisure
centres [but only one school]?
Schools are vital, leisure centres are not. RH
And? It was a question about choice, not vitality.
Try doing without that which is vital. RH
Repeat, it was a question about choice, not vitality. Why does
a limited choice, for most villagers, of leisure centres, supermarkets,
pubs, cricket teams, post offices, etc., not lead to the utterly dire
consequences for the standards of these things that you are predicting
for schools?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But food is even more necessary than education, and we have
no national problem with "niche marketing" or with administration
"not working for the entire population".
Food is merely the supply of goods; education is vastly more complicated
both morally and psychologically. RH
OK, then try transport or the GP service .... Of course
education is not "the same" as any other feature of society. But
*no* other such feature suffers the way you claim because of "niche
marketing" or because local or regional administration can't work
"for the entire population". You're just making excuses. Devolved
schools would work perfectly well.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In the regime I envisage, private schools will differ from
basic state provision only in their level of top-up fee or rebate.
Merely a subsidy to the better off. RH
No; the better off would mostly pay a premium -- at least,
those who value education would. The rebate -- scarcely a subsidy
-- would go to those who do not value education.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: A bounded mind hides. RH
Translation: white flag.
Translation: A bounded mind hides in panic. RH
"White flag." Still saves typing.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
I didn't say "rich", I said "talented". I see a number of
applications from potential students in [eg] China, which basically
tell me about youngsters who are the very best mathematicians in
quite large cities. Their government is proud to send them to us,
and we are pleased to educate them. The potential pay-off to this
country is enormous in terms of good-will and kudos.
Tell that to the marines. It deprives British students of opportunities.
RH
If there were highly-qualified young people scrabbling to get
onto our science and engineering courses, you would have a better point.
But my actual choice is (a) take a Chinese student with AAA and huge
potential, (b) take an English student with BBC for whom the government
will not give us any money at all and who will almost certainly fail
at the end of the first year, (c) have an empty place in the lecture
theatre. It's a no-brainer. Complain to Mr Blair if you would prefer
(b). But this university is reaping massive rewards from the contacts
made with [eg] Malaysia a few decades back. The rewards from our
contacts with [eg] China and Nepal and Cameroon will certainly follow.
Education is a big international business these days.
Post by Robert Henderson
If I am paying you do what I want. Your analogy does not work
incidentally. I would tell you not merely what to pay but when to play,
where to play it, how long to play it...
But those are *not*, repeat *not*, the things that we are
[in the analogy] being told by government.
Post by Robert Henderson
Bounded minds are best advised
not to stray into unbounded territory such as analogies. RH
"White flag."
Post by Robert Henderson
It is indeed different for the unbounded mind in the real world. RH
"White flag."
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: more bounded mind panic. RH
"White flag."
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Not the lEAs but the taxpayer via the govt. And it will not be the
profitable ones which do threaten to close. RH
But then it isn't blackmail.
Yes it is. The schools say give us the money or we close and you have
nowhere to send the pupils. RH
Yes they have; there is an unused building, easily made
subject to compulsory purchase, a supply of pupils [-- it was a
popular school, after all] who will want to continue to go to the
same school with the same staff, and a supply of teachers, who
were made redundant when the school closed and will welcome a job.
Another no-brainer.
Post by Robert Henderson
I realise that bounded minds have difficulty expressing themselves in
writing on unbounded subjects
"White flag."
Post by Robert Henderson
but do try to be a little less long-
winded. RH
I have to explain it very simply for the benefit of the
intended audience. You seem to be incapable of filling in the
gaps, so I have to do it for you.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-07-24 14:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Yes, but you have not explained what you propose should
be done about regional differences in education. This is quite
different from cost-of-living allowances.
No it isn't. The difference sin cost would be down to the wage levels
needed in the area, house prices etc. RH
Then you have completely missed the point.
No, you have gone off on a bounded mind tangent all of your own. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Different people
want different [minimum, if you insist] standards of education.
Children all require a good general education. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
This
happens at every level of granularity of society, right through from
families to regions and nations. Traditionally, the "Celtic fringe"
have valued education more than the rest of us, and so have many of
the ethnic minorities. So, what in your model, devolved as it is to
regional levels, is going to happen when the people of region A decide
that a minimum education includes, say, well-stocked science labs and
libraries, and those of region B decide that it doesn't?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
There is no injustice. Parents buy privilege for their children. The
option of having free at the point of use education is there if they
choose to take it. RH
But I don't want to "buy privilege" for my children; I simply
want them to get a decent education, and my standards are somewhat
higher than the national average
Weasel words. You want better than that available to the majority. RH
Not so. I want better that that *wanted* by the majority.
Who says? The vast majority would want the very best for their children
if they could afford it. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If the government waved some wand and made all schools up to "my"
standard, *I* would be very pleased; but I recognise that most
people would complain about the cost [which would add perhaps #1000
to the voucher, or the equivalent of about 2p on standard rate income
tax]. There are others who want *less* than that wanted by most of
us, who regard all education beyond the basics as a waste of money,
and would rather have a #1000 rebate or 2p off income tax. Sensible
voucher schemes can accommodate that; yours can't.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Nope, because the voucher would be expected to pay for everything the
school does. RH
Including school meals, after school clubs, music lessons,
extra tutoring, visits to museums or nature reserves,
All yes. RH
And do those who don't want/need after-school clubs, music
lessons or extra tutoring get a rebate?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
uniforms,
Not a school activity. RH
But a money-spinner for the school, and a serious expense
for the families.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
The voice of the middle class seeking privilege. RH
This is rubbish. Actually, the greatest benefits will come
to those who are satisfied with the minimum approved provision,
Translation: let the children of the poor or feckless parent rot. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
who
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
will get large rebates which could make a huge difference to the
finances of many poorer families.
You miss the point. the voucher cost is for the minimum acceptable
education. RH
So is it compulsory for the school to provide more and more
extra music lessons that pupils don't want until the voucher is used
up?
No, it is compulsory for a school to provide the minimum education
deemed fit by Parliament. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There is no point to the whole scheme unless schools get more
control over what they do, so that some schools will provide the
minimum acceptable education as cheaply as possible [and families
benefit from rebates] and others will spend to the voucher [and
families will see education provided beyond the minimum standard];
and in my scheme yet others will spend beyond the voucher to provide
education up to the standards *I* would like [roughly, old-fashioned
grammar school]. Your proposals make grammar school standards
unreachable except by perpetuating expensive private schools for
the rich [only].
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Why not?
Because (1) they would have no foundation funds,
So?
So, they would not be able to fund scholarships. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
A popular school taken over by its staff in a management
buy-out [or similar] is a going concern, with a more-or-less guaranteed
income stream from the vouchers. It's not the sort of charity that
doles out money to the needy, so first needs a large pot of money, it's
the sort that charges for its services but without making a commercial
profit. Just like most of our current universities and private schools.
Post by Robert Henderson
(2) vast numbers of new
charities in one area of charitable work could not be sustained
Why not?
Ye Gods, I know the bounded mind is very narrow but even so. There
wouldn't be the private money or workers willing to support large
numbers. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
and (3)
there would not be the people willing to man them.
You don't need any more people to run a not-for-profit school,
university, hospital or lottery company than to run a commercial one.
In practice you will because provision not profit will be the driving
force. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Really? How many villages do you know with two leisure
centres [but only one school]?
Schools are vital, leisure centres are not. RH
And? It was a question about choice, not vitality.
Try doing without that which is vital. RH
Repeat, it was a question about choice, not vitality. Why does
a limited choice, for most villagers, of leisure centres, supermarkets,
pubs, cricket teams, post offices, etc., not lead to the utterly dire
consequences for the standards of these things that you are predicting
for schools?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But food is even more necessary than education, and we have
no national problem with "niche marketing" or with administration
"not working for the entire population".
Food is merely the supply of goods; education is vastly more complicated
both morally and psychologically. RH
OK, then try transport or the GP service .... Of course
education is not "the same" as any other feature of society.
Both transport and GP provision relies heavily or entirely on public
subsidy. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But
*no* other such feature suffers the way you claim because of "niche
marketing" or because local or regional administration can't work
"for the entire population". You're just making excuses. Devolved
schools would work perfectly well.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In the regime I envisage, private schools will differ from
basic state provision only in their level of top-up fee or rebate.
Merely a subsidy to the better off. RH
No; the better off would mostly pay a premium -- at least,
Purchasing privilege. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
those who value education would. The rebate -- scarcely a subsidy
-- would go to those who do not value education.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: A bounded mind hides. RH
Translation: white flag.
Translation: A bounded mind hides in panic. RH
"White flag." Still saves typing.
A volley of bounded mind panis. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
I didn't say "rich", I said "talented". I see a number of
applications from potential students in [eg] China, which basically
tell me about youngsters who are the very best mathematicians in
quite large cities. Their government is proud to send them to us,
and we are pleased to educate them. The potential pay-off to this
country is enormous in terms of good-will and kudos.
Tell that to the marines. It deprives British students of opportunities.
RH
If there were highly-qualified young people scrabbling to get
onto our science and engineering courses, you would have a better point.
British students will be dissuaded from going on courses which are
dominated by foreigners . RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But my actual choice is (a) take a Chinese student with AAA and huge
potential, (b) take an English student with BBC for whom the government
will not give us any money at all and who will almost certainly fail
at the end of the first year, (c) have an empty place in the lecture
theatre. It's a no-brainer.
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Complain to Mr Blair if you would prefer
(b). But this university is reaping massive rewards from the contacts
made with [eg] Malaysia a few decades back. The rewards from our
contacts with [eg] China and Nepal and Cameroon will certainly follow.
Education is a big international business these days.
Post by Robert Henderson
If I am paying you do what I want. Your analogy does not work
incidentally. I would tell you not merely what to pay but when to play,
where to play it, how long to play it...
But those are *not*, repeat *not*, the things that we are
[in the analogy] being told by government.
Post by Robert Henderson
Bounded minds are best advised
not to stray into unbounded territory such as analogies. RH
"White flag."
Post by Robert Henderson
It is indeed different for the unbounded mind in the real world. RH
"White flag."
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: more bounded mind panic. RH
"White flag."
Another outbreak of bounded mind panic. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Not the lEAs but the taxpayer via the govt. And it will not be the
profitable ones which do threaten to close. RH
But then it isn't blackmail.
Yes it is. The schools say give us the money or we close and you have
nowhere to send the pupils. RH
Yes they have; there is an unused building, easily made
subject to compulsory purchase, a supply of pupils [-- it was a
popular school, after all] who will want to continue to go to the
same school with the same staff, and a supply of teachers, who
were made redundant when the school closed and will welcome a job.
Another no-brainer.
Post by Robert Henderson
I realise that bounded minds have difficulty expressing themselves in
writing on unbounded subjects
"White flag."
Post by Robert Henderson
but do try to be a little less long-
winded. RH
I have to explain it very simply for the benefit of the
intended audience. You seem to be incapable of filling in the
gaps, so I have to do it for you.
More bounded mind prolixity. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-07-26 19:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Different people
want different [minimum, if you insist] standards of education.
Children all require a good general education. RH
But people differ in what they mean by that. A large part
of the population believes [wrongly in my opinion, but that's what
happens in a democracy] that a decent grasp of the 3R's is all that
is *necessary*, and that everything else is airy-fairy nonsense
intended to keep their children away from real work.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Weasel words. You want better than that available to the majority. RH
Not so. I want better that that *wanted* by the majority.
Who says? The vast majority would want the very best for their children
if they could afford it. RH
I says. This came forcibly to my attention when my elder
daughter started at junior school -- a school that has a very high
reputation, one of those whose catchment areas add tens of thousands
to house prices. The defects in the education offered were, to my
eyes, almost unbelievable; but, to my surprise, almost all parents
were totally satisfied with it. After a year in which she went
backwards, we moved her to a different school, with more traditional
attitudes towards standards; in her first week, she produced the
same drivel she had become used to, was told to do better, and never
looked back.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
The voice of the middle class seeking privilege. RH
This is rubbish. Actually, the greatest benefits will come
to those who are satisfied with the minimum approved provision,
Translation: let the children of the poor or feckless parent rot. RH
Not so. All children will, in my scheme, continue to receive
the approved standard of education. Families who want more will have
to pay for it. Efficient schools will have the choice of offering
better at voucher cost or the approved standard while giving some
money back to their families.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You miss the point. the voucher cost is for the minimum acceptable
education. RH
So is it compulsory for the school to provide more and more
extra music lessons that pupils don't want until the voucher is used
up?
No, it is compulsory for a school to provide the minimum education
deemed fit by Parliament. RH
So, what in your scheme will happen when that standard can
be provided for [say] two-thirds voucher cost [as it certainly can
by the most efficient schools]?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Why not?
Because (1) they would have no foundation funds,
So?
So, they would not be able to fund scholarships. RH
Why should they want to? No-one is forced to pay real money
for voucher education any more than they are now -- apart, that is,
from all the extras we currently have, like travel, uniforms, school
meals, trips, etc.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
(2) vast numbers of new
charities in one area of charitable work could not be sustained
Why not?
Ye Gods, I know the bounded mind is very narrow but even so. There
wouldn't be the private money or workers willing to support large
numbers. RH
No private money needed -- primary income to the schools is
from the vouchers. All the work needed is already being done.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
and (3)
there would not be the people willing to man them.
You don't need any more people to run a not-for-profit school,
university, hospital or lottery company than to run a commercial one.
In practice you will because provision not profit will be the driving
force. RH
So tell me why this university needs "manning" in a way that
would cease if we ran as a commercial company. You think we would
then sack our marketdroids and our PR people?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
OK, then try transport or the GP service .... Of course
education is not "the same" as any other feature of society.
Both transport and GP provision relies heavily or entirely on public
subsidy. RH
And education does not? What planet are you on?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If there were highly-qualified young people scrabbling to get
onto our science and engineering courses, you would have a better point.
British students will be dissuaded from going on courses which are
dominated by foreigners . RH
Evidence? Students, both at univ and in 6FCs, simply do not
have the hang-ups that you have about "foreigners". They really,
really, simply do not care in the slightest what colour someone is,
nor where they were born, nor what ethnicity they have.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But my actual choice is (a) take a Chinese student with AAA and huge
potential, (b) take an English student with BBC for whom the government
will not give us any money at all and who will almost certainly fail
at the end of the first year, (c) have an empty place in the lecture
theatre. It's a no-brainer.
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
Yes I do. A few years back, my predecessor accidentally took
in some 90 students over quota. It cost the department a great deal
of money and other resource, and caused problems for our competitors
[who were those 90 excellent students short], but we didn't have any
great difficulties in coping with them. There is very little connexion
between quotas, availability of students, and availability of places.

There are not the applicants around today for me to be able to
fill up beyond quota in three weeks time. But if a dozen overseas
students of the requisite quality magically appeared, we would have no
difficulty at all in physically fitting them in to our courses.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Frank F. Matthews
2004-07-27 21:22:11 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If there were highly-qualified young people scrabbling to get
onto our science and engineering courses, you would have a better point.
British students will be dissuaded from going on courses which are
dominated by foreigners . RH
Evidence? Students, both at univ and in 6FCs, simply do not
have the hang-ups that you have about "foreigners". They really,
really, simply do not care in the slightest what colour someone is,
nor where they were born, nor what ethnicity they have.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But my actual choice is (a) take a Chinese student with AAA and huge
potential, (b) take an English student with BBC for whom the government
will not give us any money at all and who will almost certainly fail
at the end of the first year, (c) have an empty place in the lecture
theatre. It's a no-brainer.
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
Yes I do. A few years back, my predecessor accidentally took
in some 90 students over quota. It cost the department a great deal
of money and other resource, and caused problems for our competitors
[who were those 90 excellent students short], but we didn't have any
great difficulties in coping with them. There is very little connexion
between quotas, availability of students, and availability of places.
There are not the applicants around today for me to be able to
fill up beyond quota in three weeks time. But if a dozen overseas
students of the requisite quality magically appeared, we would have no
difficulty at all in physically fitting them in to our courses.
I think that you have to consider the differences between schools. I
have had significant experience with three and all were quite different.

The first, my undergraduate degree, was very small under 1000 UG) and
exclusive. An additional dozen students across the whole place would
have developed significant stress in a busy year. The entering class
ranges from 215-245 and they really cannot cope with a larger class.

My graduate degree was with a large mega university (total > 60000 UG &
GR). There they could probably cope with another dozen in any program
including the exotic ones.

The place where I've taught for the past 30 years is a moderate size
commuter campus. It has about 8000 mostly part time 1/2 Masters
students. Here it would depend completely on the program. We could
probably drop a dozen Math students in the existing class structure with
no problem. In computing I know that they have gone crazy when someone
recruited a dozen foreign students and they show up needing full time
schedules when the classes are full.

You well may be ready and able to cope. Others may well not be able to
cope.
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-07-28 17:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank F. Matthews
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
Yes I do. [...]
I think that you have to consider the differences between schools. I
have had significant experience with three and all were quite different.
You seem to be talking about *US* experience, which is, in this
area, not that relevant to the UK.

[... more good foreign students:]
Post by Frank F. Matthews
You well may be ready and able to cope. Others may well not be able to
cope.
At Nottingham, probably only medicine would have any problem.
Otherwise, the disciplines which have physical limitations because of
things like lab space are short, sometimes very short, of really good
students and those with an over-supply of students are constrained by
the university and finances rather than anything physical or logical.

Reminder: UK students are limited by the government, and if
I take "too many", we have to educate them from existing resources,
no-one will pay us a penny for them. Overseas student pay their own
way, which means that I will happily take any good ones who apply.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-07-30 17:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Different people
want different [minimum, if you insist] standards of education.
Children all require a good general education. RH
But people differ in what they mean by that.
Not in general terms which is a grasp of the essentials to understand
any course and the proper training in particular subjects. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
A large part
of the population believes [wrongly in my opinion, but that's what
happens in a democracy] that a decent grasp of the 3R's is all that
is *necessary*, and that everything else is airy-fairy nonsense
intended to keep their children away from real work.
The 3 RS are the basis for all learning. Too many children cannot even
read adequately. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Weasel words. You want better than that available to the majority. RH
Not so. I want better that that *wanted* by the majority.
Who says? The vast majority would want the very best for their children
if they could afford it. RH
I says. This came forcibly to my attention when my elder
daughter started at junior school -- a school that has a very high
reputation, one of those whose catchment areas add tens of thousands
to house prices. The defects in the education offered were, to my
eyes, almost unbelievable; but, to my surprise, almost all parents
were totally satisfied with it. After a year in which she went
backwards, we moved her to a different school, with more traditional
attitudes towards standards; in her first week, she produced the
same drivel she had become used to, was told to do better, and never
looked back.
So, the 3 RS and traditional standards are what is required. Thank you.
A good example
of the bounded mind not being able to think outside their immediate
subject of interest and see the contradiction in their views. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
The voice of the middle class seeking privilege. RH
This is rubbish. Actually, the greatest benefits will come
to those who are satisfied with the minimum approved provision,
Translation: let the children of the poor or feckless parent rot. RH
Not so. All children will, in my scheme, continue to receive
the approved standard of education.
But the approved standard of education should be the best. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Families who want more will have
to pay for it.
Buying privilege. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Efficient schools will have the choice of offering
better at voucher cost or the approved standard while giving some
money back to their families.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You miss the point. the voucher cost is for the minimum acceptable
education. RH
So is it compulsory for the school to provide more and more
extra music lessons that pupils don't want until the voucher is used
up?
No, it is compulsory for a school to provide the minimum education
deemed fit by Parliament. RH
So, what in your scheme will happen when that standard can
be provided for [say] two-thirds voucher cost [as it certainly can
by the most efficient schools]?
Dear oh dear, if the voucher can pay for more than the set standard the
set standard will be raised. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Why not?
Because (1) they would have no foundation funds,
So?
So, they would not be able to fund scholarships. RH
Why should they want to?
To give the poor a proper chance. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
No-one is forced to pay real money
for voucher education any more than they are now -- apart, that is,
from all the extras we currently have, like travel, uniforms, school
meals, trips, etc.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
(2) vast numbers of new
charities in one area of charitable work could not be sustained
Why not?
Ye Gods, I know the bounded mind is very narrow but even so. There
wouldn't be the private money or workers willing to support large
numbers. RH
No private money needed -- primary income to the schools is
from the vouchers. All the work needed is already being done.
The voucher cost will be used to pay for the education, hence no
surpless for charitable work. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
and (3)
there would not be the people willing to man them.
You don't need any more people to run a not-for-profit school,
university, hospital or lottery company than to run a commercial one.
In practice you will because provision not profit will be the driving
force. RH
So tell me why this university needs "manning" in a way that
would cease if we ran as a commercial company. You think we would
then sack our marketdroids and our PR people?
Any profit driven company restricted to the voucher price funding would
reduce staff. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
OK, then try transport or the GP service .... Of course
education is not "the same" as any other feature of society.
Both transport and GP provision relies heavily or entirely on public
subsidy. RH
And education does not? What planet are you on?
Sigh. You were talking of education in private hands. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If there were highly-qualified young people scrabbling to get
onto our science and engineering courses, you would have a better point.
British students will be dissuaded from going on courses which are
dominated by foreigners . RH
Evidence?
No one likes to be in the ethnic minority. That is why white middle
class folks like you live in very white worlds. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Students, both at univ and in 6FCs, simply do not
have the hang-ups that you have about "foreigners". They really,
really, simply do not care in the slightest what colour someone is,
nor where they were born, nor what ethnicity they have.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But my actual choice is (a) take a Chinese student with AAA and huge
potential, (b) take an English student with BBC for whom the government
will not give us any money at all and who will almost certainly fail
at the end of the first year, (c) have an empty place in the lecture
theatre. It's a no-brainer.
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
Yes I do. A few years back, my predecessor accidentally took
in some 90 students over quota.
Ye Gods, the sheer childlike irresponsibility of the bounded mind! RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It cost the department a great deal
of money and other resource,
I'll bet it did. The person(s) responsible should have been summarily
sacked. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and caused problems for our competitors
[who were those 90 excellent students short]
Oh dear, there's that toddler-level ego again. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
, but we didn't have any
great difficulties in coping with them. There is very little connexion
between quotas, availability of students, and availability of places.
There are not the applicants around today for me to be able to
fill up beyond quota in three weeks time. But if a dozen overseas
students of the requisite quality magically appeared, we would have no
difficulty at all in physically fitting them in to our courses.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-02 18:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Children all require a good general education. RH
But people differ in what they mean by that.
Not in general terms which is a grasp of the essentials to understand
any course and the proper training in particular subjects. RH
And when you're setting out a legal framework for a universal
scheme, "general terms" is not enough. Witness the furore when SATs
came in and [for example] the history syllabus was published. Half
of the population goes berserk because the Napoleonic wars are down
to one lesson, or whatever, and the other half because schools are
wasting their time doing this history rubbish when "useful" stuff is
being squeezed out. There just is no commonality as soon as you're
past motherhood-and-apple-pie.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. After a year in which she went
backwards, we moved her to a different school, with more traditional
attitudes towards standards; in her first week, she produced the
same drivel she had become used to, was told to do better, and never
looked back.
So, the 3 RS and traditional standards are what is required. Thank you.
But you missed the point. School A was *extremely* popular,
children and parents enjoyed being told how well they were doing,
anyone who complained about [eg] spelling was told that no-one cared
about that any more, "trust us, we're the professionals"; no-one
was bothered by the Ofsted report ["disappointing results, given the
standard of input"], which the school played down as jealousy from
the inspectors; other parents had the same experiences as we did,
but when we compared notes, they didn't put two and two together as
"it's a good school", so it must be "our fault". School B had places
to spare. Most families preferred school A; we were in a small
minority that *cared* about standards.

FWIW, the same happens in health, where so many people are
besotted with how skilled and dedicated the doctors and nurses are
that they overlook all the problems with the NHS and ascribe their
own poor treatment as one-offs or lack of money or too many managers.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Not so. All children will, in my scheme, continue to receive
the approved standard of education.
But the approved standard of education should be the best. RH
M&AP. The approved standard will be what most of us want and
what the government can get away with, not the elite provision that
I personally would want. There are, for a start, insufficient decent
teachers to provide "the best". There are too few competent maths
teachers, in particular, to provide even adequate maths education.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
No, it is compulsory for a school to provide the minimum education
deemed fit by Parliament. RH
So, what in your scheme will happen when that standard can
be provided for [say] two-thirds voucher cost [as it certainly can
by the most efficient schools]?
Dear oh dear, if the voucher can pay for more than the set standard the
set standard will be raised. RH
At that school in particular? Or will you expect good schools
to subsidise worse ones? Or do you live in some weird world where all
schools are equally competent?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Why not?
Because (1) they would have no foundation funds,
So?
So, they would not be able to fund scholarships. RH
Why should they want to?
To give the poor a proper chance. RH
Why would you need scholarships to enable poor people to get
their free education more cheaply?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
No private money needed -- primary income to the schools is
from the vouchers. All the work needed is already being done.
The voucher cost will be used to pay for the education, hence no
surpless for charitable work. RH
Do you mean "surplice"? *What* "charitable work", apart that
is from the education? Are you expecting schools to educate children
*and* go round rescuing battered dogs?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Both transport and GP provision relies heavily or entirely on public
subsidy. RH
And education does not? What planet are you on?
Sigh. You were talking of education in private hands. RH
Education *currently* runs largely on public money, and in
a voucher scheme it would *continue* so to run.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
British students will be dissuaded from going on courses which are
dominated by foreigners . RH
Evidence?
No one likes to be in the ethnic minority. That is why white middle
class folks like you live in very white worlds. RH
*You* may. *I* don't. My colleagues and neighbours are of
all manner of shades, nationalities and ethnicities, and my children
have close friends likewise of all types.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
Yes I do. A few years back, my predecessor accidentally took
in some 90 students over quota.
Ye Gods, the sheer childlike irresponsibility of the bounded mind! RH
Who said anyone was "irresponsible"?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It cost the department a great deal
of money and other resource,
I'll bet it did. The person(s) responsible should have been summarily
sacked. RH
Unfortunately, he was saddled with a system in which we are
required to offer contracts to applicants long before we know (a) how
many will ultimately apply, (b) how many will accept the offer, (c)
how many of those will meet the terms of our offer, (d) what changes,
if any, our competitors have made to their practices, and (e) how large
our quota will be. Each of these can easily change our numbers by
around 10% in one year. So we can be 60% over or under simply by an
unfortunate coincidence, none of which is under our own control.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and caused problems for our competitors
[who were those 90 excellent students short]
Oh dear, there's that toddler-level ego again. RH
Don't be silly. We had 90 more AAA students than we expected;
they didn't get them. Nothing to do with ego. Cambridge was the only
university not affected; every other university would gladly have
taken some of those students, and had instead to fill up as best they
could with weaker students. Most years we are within 10 or so of the
right numbers; but there is at least as much luck as skill in this.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-08-03 06:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Children all require a good general education. RH
But people differ in what they mean by that.
Not in general terms which is a grasp of the essentials to understand
any course and the proper training in particular subjects. RH
And when you're setting out a legal framework for a universal
scheme, "general terms" is not enough.
Sigh. Yes it is. By essentials I mean the three Rs, ability to build an
argument, logical thought etc. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Witness the furore when SATs
came in and [for example] the history syllabus was published. Half
of the population goes berserk because the Napoleonic wars are down
to one lesson, or whatever, and the other half because schools are
wasting their time doing this history rubbish when "useful" stuff is
being squeezed out. There just is no commonality as soon as you're
past motherhood-and-apple-pie.
A balanced school curriculum can as a matter of objective fact bee
created. In the instance of history, by definition a country should
teach its own history first and in depth. Cicero said that a man who
knew nothing of his country's history must remain forever a child. As
history is a subject beyond the bounded mind, this explains in part its
childlike nature. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. After a year in which she went
backwards, we moved her to a different school, with more traditional
attitudes towards standards; in her first week, she produced the
same drivel she had become used to, was told to do better, and never
looked back.
So, the 3 RS and traditional standards are what is required. Thank you.
But you missed the point.
The point is you want the traditional qualities instilled in her. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
School A was *extremely* popular,
children and parents enjoyed being told how well they were doing,
anyone who complained about [eg] spelling was told that no-one cared
about that any more, "trust us, we're the professionals"; no-one
was bothered by the Ofsted report ["disappointing results, given the
standard of input"], which the school played down as jealousy from
the inspectors; other parents had the same experiences as we did,
but when we compared notes, they didn't put two and two together as
"it's a good school", so it must be "our fault". School B had places
to spare. Most families preferred school A; we were in a small
minority that *cared* about standards.
FWIW, the same happens in health, where so many people are
besotted with how skilled and dedicated the doctors and nurses are
that they overlook all the problems with the NHS and ascribe their
own poor treatment as one-offs or lack of money or too many managers.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Not so. All children will, in my scheme, continue to receive
the approved standard of education.
But the approved standard of education should be the best. RH
M&AP. The approved standard will be what most of us want and
what the government can get away with, not the elite provision that
I personally would want.
Obviously all children cannot be expected to excel. However, all can be
given the chance to. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are, for a start, insufficient decent
teachers to provide "the best". There are too few competent maths
teachers, in particular, to provide even adequate maths education.
Ah, so now you admit that schools are inadequate. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
No, it is compulsory for a school to provide the minimum education
deemed fit by Parliament. RH
So, what in your scheme will happen when that standard can
be provided for [say] two-thirds voucher cost [as it certainly can
by the most efficient schools]?
Dear oh dear, if the voucher can pay for more than the set standard the
set standard will be raised. RH
At that school in particular?
At all schools. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Or will you expect good schools
to subsidise worse ones? Or do you live in some weird world where all
schools are equally competent?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
That is because it is charitable. The new schools (and universities)
would not be charities. RH
Why not?
Because (1) they would have no foundation funds,
So?
So, they would not be able to fund scholarships. RH
Why should they want to?
To give the poor a proper chance. RH
Why would you need scholarships to enable poor people to get
their free education more cheaply?
Because without them the middleclass will colonise the better schools as
they do now. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
No private money needed -- primary income to the schools is
from the vouchers. All the work needed is already being done.
The voucher cost will be used to pay for the education, hence no
surpless for charitable work. RH
Do you mean "surplice"? *What* "charitable work", apart that
is from the education?
Sigh. No surplus for providing scholarships. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Are you expecting schools to educate children
*and* go round rescuing battered dogs?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Both transport and GP provision relies heavily or entirely on public
subsidy. RH
And education does not? What planet are you on?
Sigh. You were talking of education in private hands. RH
Education *currently* runs largely on public money, and in
a voucher scheme it would *continue* so to run.
The money would be administered by people operating under the profit
motive. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
British students will be dissuaded from going on courses which are
dominated by foreigners . RH
Evidence?
No one likes to be in the ethnic minority. That is why white middle
class folks like you live in very white worlds. RH
*You* may. *I* don't. My colleagues and neighbours are of
all manner of shades, nationalities and ethnicities, and my children
have close friends likewise of all types.
'course you do, DR Walker, 'course you do. How many working class
ethnics do you count amongst your friends? How many non-white faces
appear in your wedding photographs? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
Yes I do. A few years back, my predecessor accidentally took
in some 90 students over quota.
Ye Gods, the sheer childlike irresponsibility of the bounded mind! RH
Who said anyone was "irresponsible"?
Anyone other than a bounded mind. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It cost the department a great deal
of money and other resource,
I'll bet it did. The person(s) responsible should have been summarily
sacked. RH
Unfortunately, he was saddled with a system in which we are
required to offer contracts to applicants long before we know (a) how
many will ultimately apply, (b) how many will accept the offer, (c)
how many of those will meet the terms of our offer, (d) what changes,
if any, our competitors have made to their practices, and (e) how large
our quota will be. Each of these can easily change our numbers by
around 10% in one year. So we can be 60% over or under simply by an
unfortunate coincidence, none of which is under our own control.
No, he was saddled with a system which takes that into account and
allows clearing to fill vacant places. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and caused problems for our competitors
[who were those 90 excellent students short]
Oh dear, there's that toddler-level ego again. RH
Don't be silly. We had 90 more AAA students than we expected;
they didn't get them. Nothing to do with ego. Cambridge was the only
university not affected; every other university would gladly have
taken some of those students, and had instead to fill up as best they
could with weaker students. Most years we are within 10 or so of the
right numbers; but there is at least as much luck as skill in this.
More toddler-level ego. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Bob LeChevalier
2004-08-03 11:54:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And when you're setting out a legal framework for a universal
scheme, "general terms" is not enough.
Sigh. Yes it is. By essentials I mean the three Rs, ability to build an
argument, logical thought etc. RH
...
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. After a year in which she went
backwards, we moved her to a different school, with more traditional
attitudes towards standards; in her first week, she produced the
same drivel she had become used to, was told to do better, and never
looked back.
So, the 3 RS and traditional standards are what is required. Thank you.
But you missed the point.
The point is you want the traditional qualities instilled in her. RH
I understand him as saying that he wants MORE than the traditional
qualities instilled in her. More importantly, he wants her taught not
merely to get by with the minimum needed to succeed, but to be
challenged to do her best work, which is probably far above that which
is needed to get the grades in school.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are, for a start, insufficient decent
teachers to provide "the best". There are too few competent maths
teachers, in particular, to provide even adequate maths education.
Ah, so now you admit that schools are inadequate. RH
They can teach what you call the "three Rs", but he expects more of a
school than the "three Rs".
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
No, it is compulsory for a school to provide the minimum education
deemed fit by Parliament. RH
So, what in your scheme will happen when that standard can
be provided for [say] two-thirds voucher cost [as it certainly can
by the most efficient schools]?
Dear oh dear, if the voucher can pay for more than the set standard the
set standard will be raised. RH
At that school in particular?
At all schools. RH
The voucher won't pay for the same standard at all schools. The
quality of a school depends in part on the sorts of students that
attend those schools.

Here in Fairfax Co VA, we have had some of the highest achieving
schools in the entire USA, even while some years spending far less
than schools a hundred miles away that perform much worse. The reason
is that, as a suburb of the US capital, we have an extremely high
percentage of students whose parents have university educations, and
even advanced degrees. The kids probably have a skewed IQ
distribution, access to expensive tutoring outside of school when
needed, and access to books as well as high expectations from their
parents.

In a working class area where most of the people work in a factory,
few have any college degrees or any sort of library at home, it would
cost much more to achieve what Fairfax County does even for some kids,
and it probably wouldn't be possible even with unlimited expenditures
to achieve it for most kids.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why would you need scholarships to enable poor people to get
their free education more cheaply?
Because without them the middleclass will colonise the better schools as
they do now. RH
If the middleclass has fully "colonised" those better schools, there
will be no openings for the poor people with scholarships.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Both transport and GP provision relies heavily or entirely on public
subsidy. RH
And education does not? What planet are you on?
Sigh. You were talking of education in private hands. RH
Education *currently* runs largely on public money, and in
a voucher scheme it would *continue* so to run.
The money would be administered by people operating under the profit
motive. RH
Why? There are few profits to be made in operating schools. The
large effort being made here by a profit-making organization to run
schools is losing money in enormous quantities. So far, they cannot
run the schools on the same money as the public schools do, and
produce better quality. They do seem to be able to satisfy the
parents who send their kids to the schools, but only because they are
subsidizing the schools by several thousand dollars of private money
on top of the public moneys.

And prep schools here, with the exception of those run by the Catholic
church (and subsidized by the church) charge tuitions that are much
higher than the public expenditure for schools, often double or even
treble what a voucher would pay.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
*You* may. *I* don't. My colleagues and neighbours are of
all manner of shades, nationalities and ethnicities, and my children
have close friends likewise of all types.
'course you do, DR Walker, 'course you do. How many working class
ethnics do you count amongst your friends? How many non-white faces
appear in your wedding photographs? RH
I can't speak for him, but I mentioned that this is one of the highest
achieving counties in the US. Over 30% of the kids entering
kindergarten here do not speak English as their native language. Some
30% of the population is non-white, perhaps 9% black, 14% Asian, and
the rest listing some other race or mixed-race. Among the whites, we
have a lot of immigrants from other countries, with eastern Europeans
being especially noteworthy in recent years.

My daughter dates more people of minority ethnicity (mostly Hispanic)
than she does whites, since her high school was probably more than 50%
minority.

lojbab
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Robert Henderson
2004-08-07 04:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. After a year in which she went
backwards, we moved her to a different school, with more traditional
attitudes towards standards; in her first week, she produced the
same drivel she had become used to, was told to do better, and never
looked back.
So, the 3 RS and traditional standards are what is required. Thank you.
But you missed the point.
The point is you want the traditional qualities instilled in her. RH
I understand him as saying that he wants MORE than the traditional
qualities instilled in her.
No, he is saying he wants the traditional qualities instilled in her so
she can progress generally. RH
Post by Bob LeChevalier
More importantly, he wants her taught not
merely to get by with the minimum needed to succeed, but to be
challenged to do her best work, which is probably far above that which
is needed to get the grades in school.
Thus he wants privilege for his child. RH
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are, for a start, insufficient decent
teachers to provide "the best". There are too few competent maths
teachers, in particular, to provide even adequate maths education.
Ah, so now you admit that schools are inadequate. RH
They can teach what you call the "three Rs", but he expects more of a
school than the "three Rs".
So do I. The 3 Rs are merely the basis for the education. RH
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
No, it is compulsory for a school to provide the minimum education
deemed fit by Parliament. RH
So, what in your scheme will happen when that standard can
be provided for [say] two-thirds voucher cost [as it certainly can
by the most efficient schools]?
Dear oh dear, if the voucher can pay for more than the set standard the
set standard will be raised. RH
At that school in particular?
At all schools. RH
The voucher won't pay for the same standard at all schools. The
quality of a school depends in part on the sorts of students that
attend those schools.
Which is precisely why the middleclasses must not be allowed to escape
the consequences of poor schools. Make their children attend such
schools and the schools will improve. RH
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Here in Fairfax Co VA, we have had some of the highest achieving
schools in the entire USA, even while some years spending far less
than schools a hundred miles away that perform much worse. The reason
is that, as a suburb of the US capital, we have an extremely high
percentage of students whose parents have university educations, and
even advanced degrees. The kids probably have a skewed IQ
distribution, access to expensive tutoring outside of school when
needed, and access to books as well as high expectations from their
parents.
In a working class area where most of the people work in a factory,
few have any college degrees or any sort of library at home, it would
cost much more to achieve what Fairfax County does even for some kids,
and it probably wouldn't be possible even with unlimited expenditures
to achieve it for most kids.
One does what can be done. The problem in most places in Britain (and I
suspect the US) is that practically nothing is done to help the
children of the poor. RH
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Why would you need scholarships to enable poor people to get
their free education more cheaply?
Because without them the middleclass will colonise the better schools as
they do now. RH
If the middleclass has fully "colonised" those better schools, there
will be no openings for the poor people with scholarships.
I am talking about the existing private schools. Thos e which would
arise under a voucher system such as I envisage would not have the same
problem because they would only charge the voucher price. RH
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Both transport and GP provision relies heavily or entirely on public
subsidy. RH
And education does not? What planet are you on?
Sigh. You were talking of education in private hands. RH
Education *currently* runs largely on public money, and in
a voucher scheme it would *continue* so to run.
The money would be administered by people operating under the profit
motive. RH
Why? There are few profits to be made in operating schools.
Don't make me laugh. Already in Britain private companies are making fat
profits running state schools on contract from the govt. RH
Post by Bob LeChevalier
The
large effort being made here by a profit-making organization to run
schools is losing money in enormous quantities. So far, they cannot
run the schools on the same money as the public schools do, and
produce better quality. They do seem to be able to satisfy the
parents who send their kids to the schools, but only because they are
subsidizing the schools by several thousand dollars of private money
on top of the public moneys.
And prep schools here, with the exception of those run by the Catholic
church (and subsidized by the church) charge tuitions that are much
higher than the public expenditure for schools, often double or even
treble what a voucher would pay.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
*You* may. *I* don't. My colleagues and neighbours are of
all manner of shades, nationalities and ethnicities, and my children
have close friends likewise of all types.
'course you do, DR Walker, 'course you do. How many working class
ethnics do you count amongst your friends? How many non-white faces
appear in your wedding photographs? RH
I can't speak for him, but I mentioned that this is one of the highest
achieving counties in the US. Over 30% of the kids entering
kindergarten here do not speak English as their native language. Some
30% of the population is non-white, perhaps 9% black, 14% Asian, and
the rest listing some other race or mixed-race. Among the whites, we
have a lot of immigrants from other countries, with eastern Europeans
being especially noteworthy in recent years.
My daughter dates more people of minority ethnicity (mostly Hispanic)
than she does whites, since her high school was probably more than 50%
minority.
How very multicultural. RH
Post by Bob LeChevalier
lojbab
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-09 17:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Bob LeChevalier
More importantly, he wants her taught not
merely to get by with the minimum needed to succeed, but to be
challenged to do her best work, which is probably far above that which
is needed to get the grades in school.
Thus he wants privilege for his child. RH
If it is "wanting privilege" to expect a school to provide
competent education, then I make no apology at all for that. Nor
do I make any apology for having higher standards of what seems to
me to be "competent" than is apparently normal in our society.

[Bob:]
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Bob LeChevalier
The voucher won't pay for the same standard at all schools. The
quality of a school depends in part on the sorts of students that
attend those schools.
Which is precisely why the middleclasses must not be allowed to escape
the consequences of poor schools. Make their children attend such
schools and the schools will improve. RH
You can't *make* children attend particular schools [except
in a dictatorship]. The rich can avail themselves of private schools.
The middle classes have an extremely painful decision, unless they are
so lucky [or upwardly mobile] as to live in the catchment area of an
exceptional state school: (a) poor education; (b) no exotic holidays,
new cars, trips to theme parks, restaurants, etc. Around 30% of them
choose the latter, making a complete mockery of the stereotype of "rich
kids" at private schools. The rest of us have no choice at all -- yet
it does not seem to cause the same pain or political consequences as
the well-publicised deficiencies in the NHS.

Vouchers are a way to eliminate the corrosive division between
private and state education. You seem to want instead to entrench that
division. But we won't improve state education by making [or continuing
to make] private education inaccessible to most of us. There needs to
be an incremental route whereby people can see how much more [or in some
cases less] it costs to provide a higher quality, and can choose where
to place themselves on that scale. As the present standard will continue
to be provided free, no-one loses out.
Post by Robert Henderson
One does what can be done. The problem in most places in Britain (and I
suspect the US) is that practically nothing is done to help the
children of the poor. RH
There is not much correlation between wealth and quality of
education. There are good schools in poor areas, and vice versa.
But the "league tables" are too politicised, and so are any steps
that might be taken to improve things. [Inc vouchers, which are
unlikely ever to happen, in view of the ease with which ignorant
opposition to them can be mounted.] In my day, the 11+ exam and
scholarships gave at least *some* "children of the poor" an escape
route. But we are not going to see the 11+ re-introduced.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-08-10 05:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Bob LeChevalier
More importantly, he wants her taught not
merely to get by with the minimum needed to succeed, but to be
challenged to do her best work, which is probably far above that which
is needed to get the grades in school.
Thus he wants privilege for his child. RH
If it is "wanting privilege" to expect a school to provide
competent education, then I make no apology at all for that.
Those seeking advantage are always brazen. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Nor
do I make any apology for having higher standards of what seems to
me to be "competent" than is apparently normal in our society.
[Bob:]
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Bob LeChevalier
The voucher won't pay for the same standard at all schools. The
quality of a school depends in part on the sorts of students that
attend those schools.
Which is precisely why the middleclasses must not be allowed to escape
the consequences of poor schools. Make their children attend such
schools and the schools will improve. RH
You can't *make* children attend particular schools [except
in a dictatorship].
In practice many parents in Britain are already forced to send their
children to a school they would not choose. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The rich can avail themselves of private schools.
Unless such schools are banned. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The middle classes have an extremely painful decision, unless they are
so lucky [or upwardly mobile] as to live in the catchment area of an
exceptional state school: (a) poor education; (b) no exotic holidays,
new cars, trips to theme parks, restaurants, etc. Around 30% of them
choose the latter, making a complete mockery of the stereotype of "rich
kids" at private schools.
The vast majority of those sending children to private schools can
afford it without real sacrifice. It is also a mistake to imagine all
private education is ruinously expensive. It is the boarding fees which
are hideous. Day fees are often (for the middleclass family) easily
affordable. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The rest of us have no choice at all -- yet
it does not seem to cause the same pain or political consequences as
the well-publicised deficiencies in the NHS.
Vouchers are a way to eliminate the corrosive division between
private and state education.
Not if they are used to pay part of the fees of rather than all the
fees. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to want instead to entrench that
division.
On the contrary I want to bring the public and private sectors closer.
Good schools paid for by the voucher would soon begin to undermine the
established private schools just as the grammar schools did in the
period 1945-1970. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But we won't improve state education by making [or continuing
to make] private education inaccessible to most of us.
My voucher system would not do that. It would increase the number of
options for parents. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There needs to
be an incremental route whereby people can see how much more [or in some
cases less] it costs to provide a higher quality, and can choose where
to place themselves on that scale. As the present standard will continue
to be provided free, no-one loses out.
Post by Robert Henderson
One does what can be done. The problem in most places in Britain (and I
suspect the US) is that practically nothing is done to help the
children of the poor. RH
There is not much correlation between wealth and quality of
education.
Tosh. All the leading public schools score much better on exam results
than the average state school. There is also the social advantage of
making friendships with other privileged pupils and the greater social
confidence which is engendered. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are good schools in poor areas, and vice versa.
But the "league tables" are too politicised, and so are any steps
that might be taken to improve things. [Inc vouchers, which are
unlikely ever to happen, in view of the ease with which ignorant
opposition to them can be mounted.] In my day, the 11+ exam and
scholarships gave at least *some* "children of the poor" an escape
route. But we are not going to see the 11+ re-introduced.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
derek *
2004-08-10 11:40:59 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:46:50 +0100, Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The middle classes have an extremely painful decision, unless they are
so lucky [or upwardly mobile] as to live in the catchment area of an
exceptional state school: (a) poor education; (b) no exotic holidays,
new cars, trips to theme parks, restaurants, etc. Around 30% of them
choose the latter, making a complete mockery of the stereotype of "rich
kids" at private schools.
OTOH I know a Chef at a local high class restaurant (Trained at the
Dorchester) who has 2 kids completely free on a bursary. It seems his
salary is less than £11k/year. ;-) .
Post by Robert Henderson
The vast majority of those sending children to private schools can
afford it without real sacrifice. It is also a mistake to imagine all
private education is ruinously expensive. It is the boarding fees which
are hideous. Day fees are often (for the middleclass family) easily
affordable. RH
For some values of "easily affordable". The neighbours 2 kids went to
"Batley Grammar School". Don't laugh, Joseph Priestley went there.

Fees were £2k /term/pupil about 6 years ago. Say £2.5k now. No details
of fees on their website!. Leeds Grammar School is £8055/annum.

So that equates to £16k of income after tax in school fees alone for 2
kids, plus school dinners, school trips, games kit, and uniforms and
travelling expenses. If this came from one salary earner they would
need need to be earning at least £80k/annum, to have any money left
for household expenses because they would be paying higher rate tax.
The decision to send the kids to a local suburban private school would
involve a marginal cost of about £50k out of their pre tax annual
income, leaving £30k before tax to live on. This equates to about
£1,500/month to pay the mortgage, council tax , pay travelling
expenses, buy food and insurance etc. Implying no exotic holidays, no
trips to theme parks, no restaurant meals, no visits to the cinema
even, (Certainly not Cinerama anyway!).

They would be spending about twice as much on a private education for
two kids as the whole of the rest of their family budget. Some people
would say this is out of proportion. Other people of my aquaintance
simply moved to a better area with a better state school, paying a
bigger mortgage into the bargain (but has the benefit of a nicer place
to live), but they have the option of selling up and getting their
investment back when the kids have finished school, whereas school
fees are a sunken cost.

There are/may be/used to be assisted places but if you are earning
£80k before tax you can forget about it. Bursaries usually taper to
zero at a total family income of £30k

ISTM that it's impossible to pay for private education out of earned
income paying PAYE.

Some people have inherited money, say from sale of parents house.
Some work in the black economy. Some have access to the proceeds of
crime. 1 school place will cost £56k over 7 years that begins to look
more reasonable.

Some may have taken out endowment policies 12-15 years ago to pay for
private education, I wonder what has happened to them?

DG
Robert Henderson
2004-08-10 15:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by derek *
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 06:46:50 +0100, Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The middle classes have an extremely painful decision, unless they are
so lucky [or upwardly mobile] as to live in the catchment area of an
exceptional state school: (a) poor education; (b) no exotic holidays,
new cars, trips to theme parks, restaurants, etc. Around 30% of them
choose the latter, making a complete mockery of the stereotype of "rich
kids" at private schools.
OTOH I know a Chef at a local high class restaurant (Trained at the
Dorchester) who has 2 kids completely free on a bursary. It seems his
salary is less than £11k/year. ;-) .
Very rare for proper checks of personal details to be made anywhere. RH
Post by derek *
Post by Robert Henderson
The vast majority of those sending children to private schools can
afford it without real sacrifice. It is also a mistake to imagine all
private education is ruinously expensive. It is the boarding fees which
are hideous. Day fees are often (for the middleclass family) easily
affordable. RH
For some values of "easily affordable". The neighbours 2 kids went to
"Batley Grammar School". Don't laugh, Joseph Priestley went there.
Fees were £2k /term/pupil about 6 years ago. Say £2.5k now. No details
of fees on their website!. Leeds Grammar School is £8055/annum.
So that equates to £16k of income after tax in school fees alone for 2
kids, plus school dinners, school trips, games kit, and uniforms and
travelling expenses. If this came from one salary earner they would
need need to be earning at least £80k/annum,
A not uncommon middleclass household income. RH
Post by derek *
to have any money left
for household expenses because they would be paying higher rate tax.
What planet are you on? How do you think families on household incomes
of less than £15,000, a large proportion of the population, manage? RH
Post by derek *
The decision to send the kids to a local suburban private school would
involve a marginal cost of about £50k out of their pre tax annual
income, leaving £30k before tax to live on. This equates to about
£1,500/month to pay the mortgage, council tax , pay travelling
expenses, buy food and insurance etc. Implying no exotic holidays, no
trips to theme parks, no restaurant meals, no visits to the cinema
even, (Certainly not Cinerama anyway!).
Amazing how those on much smaller residual incomes manage to afford much
of that. Moreover, many middle class people have inherited homes and
have no mortgage. RH
Post by derek *
They would be spending about twice as much on a private education for
two kids as the whole of the rest of their family budget.
But as you say they don't have to do it up front out of earned income
year by year. They can start paying into plans even before children
are born. In addition, if you own a house, then there will have a
massive capital appreciation over the past twenty years. Unlock some of
that to pay the fees. RH
Post by derek *
Some people
would say this is out of proportion. Other people of my aquaintance
simply moved to a better area with a better state school, paying a
bigger mortgage into the bargain (but has the benefit of a nicer place
to live), but they have the option of selling up and getting their
investment back when the kids have finished school, whereas school
fees are a sunken cost.
There are/may be/used to be assisted places but if you are earning
£80k before tax you can forget about it. Bursaries usually taper to
zero at a total family income of £30k
ISTM that it's impossible to pay for private education out of earned
income paying PAYE.
Some people have inherited money, say from sale of parents house.
Some work in the black economy. Some have access to the proceeds of
crime. 1 school place will cost £56k over 7 years that begins to look
more reasonable.
Some may have taken out endowment policies 12-15 years ago to pay for
private education, I wonder what has happened to them?
DG
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
derek *
2004-08-10 21:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Hello Robert, You are a terrible man, but I like you!

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:09:37 +0100, Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
OTOH I know a Chef at a local high class restaurant (Trained at the
Dorchester) who has 2 kids completely free on a bursary. It seems his
salary is less than £11k/year. ;-) .
Very rare for proper checks of personal details to be made anywhere. RH
Say no more !
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
Post by Robert Henderson
The vast majority of those sending children to private schools can
afford it without real sacrifice. It is also a mistake to imagine all
private education is ruinously expensive. It is the boarding fees which
are hideous. Day fees are often (for the middleclass family) easily
affordable. RH
For some values of "easily affordable". The neighbours 2 kids went to
"Batley Grammar School". Don't laugh, Joseph Priestley went there.
Fees were £2k /term/pupil about 6 years ago. Say £2.5k now. No details
of fees on their website!. Leeds Grammar School is £8055/annum.
So that equates to £16k of income after tax in school fees alone for 2
kids, plus school dinners, school trips, games kit, and uniforms and
travelling expenses. If this came from one salary earner they would
need need to be earning at least £80k/annum,
A not uncommon middleclass household income. RH
But not commonplace either. Eh?

Can we get a better grip upon what is meant by "middle class"
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
to have any money left
for household expenses because they would be paying higher rate tax.
What planet are you on?
Not on the planet Rothschild...

I know that my own mother with an income of only the single persons
old age pension, but living in an house she owned outright, but in
receipt of council tax benefit saved thousands + thousands of pounds
in her last few years. But, incidentally she never gave me her
"parental contribution" when I was at University but it was stopped
out of my grant.
Post by Robert Henderson
How do you think families on household incomes
of less than £15,000, a large proportion of the population, manage? RH
On benefits and on the fiddle. EOS. C'mon Robert!

However I was challenging the concept that...

"Day fees are often (for the middle class family) easily affordable"
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
The decision to send the kids to a local suburban private school would
involve a marginal cost of about £50k out of their pre tax annual
income, leaving £30k before tax to live on. This equates to about
£1,500/month to pay the mortgage, council tax , pay travelling
expenses, buy food and insurance etc. Implying no exotic holidays, no
trips to theme parks, no restaurant meals, no visits to the cinema
even, (Certainly not Cinerama anyway!).
Amazing how those on much smaller residual incomes manage to afford much
of that.
Sorry I was discussing "Middle class families"

See the example of the chef above, and the examples I put at the end
of my OP. The beneficiaries of the black economy, The benficiaries of
the proceeds of crime. I know people in both of these categories, one
of which has been disqualified as a company director, his wife has
been disqualified as a company director, he is personally bancrupt,
and still drives round the village in a large mercedes, whilst his
*Pension Scheme* owns several large properties in the village and
seemingly runs subsidiary businesses. Entities such as these do not
qualify as "Middle Class Families" in my book.

Some of them may have had savings plans in place, fantastic, how very
prudent. But what state are they in now, after the dot com crash, and
the post 9-11 crash and the rest? Help us out, if you please, we
don't know.
Post by Robert Henderson
Moreover, many middle class people have inherited homes and
have no mortgage. RH
Super, how does one arrange to be in that doubtless fortunate and
desirable situation?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
They would be spending about twice as much on a private education for
two kids as the whole of the rest of their family budget.
But as you say they don't have to do it up front out of earned income
year by year. They can start paying into plans even before children
are born.
OK, but what's happened to those "School Fees" plans? Have they gone
the way of all flesh like Endowments and Pensions?
Post by Robert Henderson
In addition, if you own a house, then there will have a
massive capital appreciation over the past twenty years.
An accountant would use discounted cash flow to get to the real value
of free equity.

Putting it another simpler way. You bought a house for 50k 3years ago,
it now will sell for 120K. Easy to re mortgage for 100K. possible,
well, Yes, but prudent, is it? To do that and commit 56K of the
released equity on school fees? (Figures from my son's property)

What if there's a property crash? What about "Middle Class" values?
What if another child (twins even) comes along and you need a bigger
house on the same salary?

Since when has the abilty of todays generation to be satisfactorily
educated being mandated upon the previous generation becoming indebted
to the absolute very limit? I see no record of this.
Post by Robert Henderson
Unlock some of that to pay the fees. RH
Well it has to be paid back!

And then when they go to University? Where do the fees come from then
once the parents have exhausted their credit paying for school fees?

What if there's a crash? In my particular circs. we are talking about
someone who is nearly 58, and anticipating working another 2-3 years
for health reasons. Not a bad innings by any stretch in 2004. But we
don't have any time any more to recover.

DG
Robert Henderson
2004-08-12 04:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by derek *
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
So that equates to £16k of income after tax in school fees alone for 2
kids, plus school dinners, school trips, games kit, and uniforms and
travelling expenses. If this came from one salary earner they would
need need to be earning at least £80k/annum,
A not uncommon middleclass household income. RH
But not commonplace either. Eh?
Common enough. A husband and wife both working in professional jobs will
easily reach that figure. Of course, you don't need £80,000 to afford
£16,000 pa fees. Nor is it necessary to pay fees of £8,000 pa per child.
Plenty of private schools will do it for far less. Assume a class size
of 16 and six classes of 16 - 96 children. Make it 100 children for
convenience. School income £400,000 per annum, more than enough to pay
for eight teachers and the cost of administration. buildings etc. RH
Post by derek *
Can we get a better grip upon what is meant by "middle class"
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
to have any money left
for household expenses because they would be paying higher rate tax.
What planet are you on?
Not on the planet Rothschild...
I know that my own mother with an income of only the single persons
old age pension, but living in an house she owned outright, but in
receipt of council tax benefit saved thousands + thousands of pounds
in her last few years. But, incidentally she never gave me her
"parental contribution" when I was at University but it was stopped
out of my grant.
Blame your mother. RH
Post by derek *
Post by Robert Henderson
How do you think families on household incomes
of less than £15,000, a large proportion of the population, manage? RH
On benefits and on the fiddle. EOS. C'mon Robert!
Some, but not the majority. RH
Post by derek *
However I was challenging the concept that...
"Day fees are often (for the middle class family) easily affordable"
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
The decision to send the kids to a local suburban private school would
involve a marginal cost of about £50k out of their pre tax annual
income, leaving £30k before tax to live on. This equates to about
£1,500/month to pay the mortgage, council tax , pay travelling
expenses, buy food and insurance etc. Implying no exotic holidays, no
trips to theme parks, no restaurant meals, no visits to the cinema
even, (Certainly not Cinerama anyway!).
Amazing how those on much smaller residual incomes manage to afford much
of that.
Sorry I was discussing "Middle class families"
Irrelevant. I am showing how people with less can still afford much of
what the middle class wants. RH
Post by derek *
See the example of the chef above, and the examples I put at the end
of my OP. The beneficiaries of the black economy, The benficiaries of
the proceeds of crime. I know people in both of these categories, one
of which has been disqualified as a company director, his wife has
been disqualified as a company director, he is personally bancrupt,
and still drives round the village in a large mercedes, whilst his
*Pension Scheme* owns several large properties in the village and
seemingly runs subsidiary businesses. Entities such as these do not
qualify as "Middle Class Families" in my book.
Some of them may have had savings plans in place, fantastic, how very
prudent. But what state are they in now, after the dot com crash, and
the post 9-11 crash and the rest? Help us out, if you please, we
don't know.
Post by Robert Henderson
Moreover, many middle class people have inherited homes and
have no mortgage. RH
Super, how does one arrange to be in that doubtless fortunate and
desirable situation?
It is merely one way amongst a number of financing fees. RH
Post by derek *
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
They would be spending about twice as much on a private education for
two kids as the whole of the rest of their family budget.
But as you say they don't have to do it up front out of earned income
year by year. They can start paying into plans even before children
are born.
OK, but what's happened to those "School Fees" plans? Have they gone
the way of all flesh like Endowments and Pensions?
Depends on the plan. Not all are equity linked. RH
Post by derek *
Post by Robert Henderson
In addition, if you own a house, then there will have a
massive capital appreciation over the past twenty years.
An accountant would use discounted cash flow to get to the real value
of free equity.
Putting it another simpler way. You bought a house for 50k 3years ago,
it now will sell for 120K. Easy to re mortgage for 100K. possible,
well, Yes, but prudent, is it? To do that and commit 56K of the
released equity on school fees? (Figures from my son's property)
You don't re-mortgage for that amount. Your remortgage each year. RH
Post by derek *
What if there's a property crash?
You sit tight until the market picks up. RH
Post by derek *
What about "Middle Class" values?
What if another child (twins even) comes along and you need a bigger
house on the same salary?
Since when has the abilty of todays generation to be satisfactorily
educated being mandated upon the previous generation becoming indebted
to the absolute very limit? I see no record of this.
Post by Robert Henderson
Unlock some of that to pay the fees. RH
Well it has to be paid back!
But over a long period which makes it manageable. RH
Post by derek *
And then when they go to University? Where do the fees come from then
once the parents have exhausted their credit paying for school fees?
What if there's a crash? In my particular circs. we are talking about
someone who is nearly 58, and anticipating working another 2-3 years
for health reasons. Not a bad innings by any stretch in 2004. But we
don't have any time any more to recover.
DG
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Derek
2004-08-14 18:43:59 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:33:25 +0100, Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
Common enough. A husband and wife both working in professional jobs will
easily reach that figure. Of course, you don't need £80,000 to afford
£16,000 pa fees.
You do if it comes out of one set of income tax allowances under PAYE
assuming there's also a family to support, a mortgage to pay, and no
other sources of income.
Post by Robert Henderson
Nor is it necessary to pay fees of £8,000 pa per child.
Plenty of private schools will do it for far less.
Maybe but you don't get a lot to choose from, the school has to be
within travelling distance. The two I mentioned were my two workable
options The lowest I could find was Manchester Grammar School (A very
good school BTW. Alistair Cook went there) at £6500 but too far away.
Post by Robert Henderson
Assume a class size
of 16 and six classes of 16 - 96 children. Make it 100 children for
convenience. School income £400,000 per annum, more than enough to pay
for eight teachers and the cost of administration. buildings etc. RH
This is a primary school -right? And a rather basic one at that.
Compare with

http://www.isbi.com/isbi-viewschool/2601-ASHVILLE_COLLEGE.html

Total pupils 840 total staff 240.

Looks like you need to think of a total payroll of about 30 for 96
pupils. Remember you'll need a headmaster, (£40-50,000) a deputy
head, and heads of all the subject departments. I'd say taking into
account all social security taxes, pension charges the paroll would
cost you about £1,300,000 pounds.

The object was to provide something substantially better than the
state's offering. Even then it sounds like a £2,000,000 building to
me. It would cost about £120,000 to service the loan interest alone
plus repairs and renewals.

A secondary school building with six classrooms, a general office,
headmasters study, staff room. a gymnasium/school hall/dining room,
library, science labs, music and art rooms, IT suite? I could only
guess at £3,000,000 - £5,000,000. which is why secondary schools tend
to be about 15x that size to achieve economies of scale.
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't re-mortgage for that amount. Your remortgage each year. RH
Too risky, that would be irresponsible. The funding has to be secure
before you start.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
What if there's a property crash?
You sit tight until the market picks up. RH
You can't pause the kids education. What if it doesn't?

You could end up with insufficient or negative equity wth the kids
half way through school.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
Well it has to be paid back!
But over a long period which makes it manageable. RH
Ok, if you've got 10-15 good earning years left.

And then there's the issue of funding the kids through university
whilst you are still repaying their school fees. Another £6k per year
(current rules).

DG
Robert Henderson
2004-08-15 13:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:33:25 +0100, Robert Henderson
Post by Robert Henderson
Common enough. A husband and wife both working in professional jobs will
easily reach that figure. Of course, you don't need £80,000 to afford
£16,000 pa fees.
You do if it comes out of one set of income tax allowances under PAYE
assuming there's also a family to support, a mortgage to pay, and no
other sources of income.
All your comment means is that the middleclass expect too much. Any
workingclass family to live comfortably on two thirds as much and pay
the fees. RH
Post by Derek
Post by Robert Henderson
Nor is it necessary to pay fees of £8,000 pa per child.
Plenty of private schools will do it for far less.
Maybe but you don't get a lot to choose from, the school has to be
within travelling distance. The two I mentioned were my two workable
options The lowest I could find was Manchester Grammar School (A very
good school BTW. Alistair Cook went there) at £6500 but too far away.
Start your own school. RH
Post by Derek
Post by Robert Henderson
Assume a class size
of 16 and six classes of 16 - 96 children. Make it 100 children for
convenience. School income £400,000 per annum, more than enough to pay
for eight teachers and the cost of administration. buildings etc. RH
This is a primary school -right?
Nope, merely an illustration of what the manning and maintenance costs
would be for any school. RH
Post by Derek
And a rather basic one at that.
Compare with
http://www.isbi.com/isbi-viewschool/2601-ASHVILLE_COLLEGE.html
Total pupils 840 total staff 240.
Absurd staff-pupil ratio 1of :4 . A ratio of 1:16 is more than generous.
RH
Post by Derek
Looks like you need to think of a total payroll of about 30 for 96
pupils.
You don't. RH
Post by Derek
Remember you'll need a headmaster, (£40-50,000) a deputy
head, and heads of all the subject departments. I'd say taking into
account all social security taxes, pension charges the paroll would
cost you about £1,300,000 pounds.
The object was to provide something substantially better than the
state's offering. Even then it sounds like a £2,000,000 building to
me. It would cost about £120,000 to service the loan interest alone
plus repairs and renewals.
A secondary school building with six classrooms, a general office,
headmasters study, staff room. a gymnasium/school hall/dining room,
library, science labs, music and art rooms, IT suite? I could only
guess at £3,000,000 - £5,000,000. which is why secondary schools tend
to be about 15x that size to achieve economies of scale.
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't re-mortgage for that amount. Your remortgage each year. RH
Too risky, that would be irresponsible. The funding has to be secure
before you start.
If you have a substantial house it will be even if negative equity
occurs - that is irrelevant if you do not move. RH
Post by Derek
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
What if there's a property crash?
You sit tight until the market picks up. RH
You can't pause the kids education. What if it doesn't?
You could end up with insufficient or negative equity wth the kids
half way through school.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by derek *
Well it has to be paid back!
But over a long period which makes it manageable. RH
Ok, if you've got 10-15 good earning years left.
The vast majority of parents will have double that from the time they
actually start paying. RH
Post by Derek
And then there's the issue of funding the kids through university
whilst you are still repaying their school fees.
You don't need to. Let them borrow or do what I do and campaign for an
end to mass university education and the reintroduction of grants and
the abolition of tuition fees. RH
Post by Derek
Another £6k per year
(current rules).
DG
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Bob LeChevalier
2004-08-15 14:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Derek
Post by Robert Henderson
Assume a class size
of 16 and six classes of 16 - 96 children. Make it 100 children for
convenience. School income £400,000 per annum, more than enough to pay
for eight teachers and the cost of administration. buildings etc. RH
This is a primary school -right?
Nope, merely an illustration of what the manning and maintenance costs
would be for any school. RH
Different levels of school would require different manning and
maintenance costs. For the simplest example, larger kids take up more
space, hence need larger classrooms.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Derek
And a rather basic one at that.
Compare with
http://www.isbi.com/isbi-viewschool/2601-ASHVILLE_COLLEGE.html
Total pupils 840 total staff 240.
40 of the staff are part time
Post by Robert Henderson
Absurd staff-pupil ratio 1of :4 . A ratio of 1:16 is more than generous.
Not at all, given that it is a boarding school, supports several
special-needs kids, and have the extensive list of features listed
under "facilities". It also advertises "small classes", and
"Extensive weekend activity programme"

A non-boarding school in the US typically has at least one
non-teaching staff member for each teacher. There are building
custodians and maintenance people, cooks/cafeteria workers,
librarians. A boarding school would also require evening activity
leaders and night monitors (who might overlap), so as to provide
24-hour supervision; the residential facilities also need cleaning and
maintenance and laundry services. Since parents are not present, a
somewhat more extensive counseling apparatus would be needed to handle
problems than for a regular day school. There are very few parents
who could properly parent 16 kids at once, and the school is operating
in loco parentis most of the time.

(There are also teachers for specialty subjects like music, art,
physical education apart from the classroom teachers.)

lojbab
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Derek *
2004-08-15 15:26:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 10:22:05 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Derek
http://www.isbi.com/isbi-viewschool/2601-ASHVILLE_COLLEGE.html
Total pupils 840 total staff 240.
40 of the staff are part time
Post by Robert Henderson
Absurd staff-pupil ratio 1of :4 . A ratio of 1:16 is more than generous.
Not at all, given that it is a boarding school, supports several
special-needs kids, and have the extensive list of features listed
under "facilities". It also advertises "small classes", and
"Extensive weekend activity programme"
If we count the 40 part timers as 20, so staff = 220, then half it as
per your example we still have about one teacher per 8 pupils. That's
enough to support classes of about 15 pupils and give the teacher some
time for preparation and marking. That seems about right, classes
about half the size of a state school, and that in a nutshell is what
parents are paying for, day pupils at least. There may be other
reasons for kids to go to boarding school.

DG
Robert Henderson
2004-08-15 14:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Derek
This is a primary school -right?
Nope, merely an illustration of what the manning and maintenance costs
would be for any school. RH
Different levels of school would require different manning and
maintenance costs. For the simplest example, larger kids take up more
space, hence need larger classrooms.
God preserve us from bounded minds. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-13 18:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If it is "wanting privilege" to expect a school to provide
competent education, then I make no apology at all for that.
Those seeking advantage are always brazen. RH
Not true. But if it were, then I'm no more "seeking
advantage" than you are when you shop at Sainsbury's rather
than at Aldi, or when you buy a decent car rather than a
banger, or when you live in London rather than Scotland.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The rich can avail themselves of private schools.
Unless such schools are banned. RH
If [unthinkably, except in a dictatorship] so, then the
top schools would simply re-locate to France or Dubai, and the
rich would continue to avail themselves.
Post by Robert Henderson
The vast majority of those sending children to private schools can
afford it without real sacrifice.
This is simply, and utterly, not true. *Some*, of course,
can. But a large majority -- at least around here -- are ordinary
middle-class families spending considerably more on private education
than on their mortgage, or on their cars. If you think they would
not *prefer* to spend that money on a better house, or exotic
holidays, or "home entertainment centres", or dining out in a
good restaurant every week, then you have a weird view of human
nature. They forego some or all of those things in order to give
their children a better, as they see it, education.
Post by Robert Henderson
It is also a mistake to imagine all
private education is ruinously expensive. It is the boarding fees which
are hideous. Day fees are often (for the middleclass family) easily
affordable. RH
You seem to have strange views of what is "easily affordable"
by the typical middle class family. Most of us are already living
pretty much up to our incomes, some well beyond [in the hope of
better things to come]. If you have suggestions about where I could
reasonably have saved some #10Kpa to send two children to the local
private schools [relatively cheap, compared with the rest of the UK],
for the 13 years of their education, well, I'd be v grateful. That's
#130K. You can add some #64K that the family [including the children
themselves] will have to fork out for HE [4 years x 2 children x 8K
minimum tuition + living], not to mention the 8 years of lost earnings
[or 12 from minimum school-leaving age] by the time they graduate.
All of that after tax, so representing some 20% of my entire lifetime
earnings. A further [roughly] 10% of my lifetime earnings would, in
that circumstance, go to the state education that my family would not
be using. This is substantially more than fully private health care
for the family would cost. You can guess that I'm not entirely happy
with the state of education in the UK, and even less am I in a position
to be independent of state provision.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Vouchers are a way to eliminate the corrosive division between
private and state education.
Not if they are used to pay part of the fees of rather than all the
fees. RH
That's *exactly* how they avoid the corrosion.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to want instead to entrench that
division.
On the contrary I want to bring the public and private sectors closer.
Good schools paid for by the voucher would soon begin to undermine the
established private schools just as the grammar schools did in the
period 1945-1970. RH
You won't *get* good schools paid for by the voucher in your
system. You will get schools providing the state minimum, as they
have no way to vary their income. And private schools *weren't*
"undermined" in that period -- contrariwise, it was the period of
greatest academic success of such schools, not least because the
system of full LEA scholarships made it possible for bright children
from even very poor homes to attend. My own school regularly sent
20+ students per year on scholarships to Oxbridge -- many more
without scholarships. Many of us could not possibly have afforded
the school fees.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There is not much correlation between wealth and quality of
education.
Tosh. All the leading public schools score much better on exam results
than the average state school.
Yes, and only 7% of children go to private schools at all,
less than that to "leading public schools". For the rest, there
is little correlation between how much money goes into a school
and what quality of education comes out.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-08-14 16:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If it is "wanting privilege" to expect a school to provide
competent education, then I make no apology at all for that.
Those seeking advantage are always brazen. RH
Not true. But if it were, then I'm no more "seeking
advantage" than you are when you shop at Sainsbury's rather
than at Aldi, or when you buy a decent car rather than a
banger, or when you live in London rather than Scotland.
The ghastly voice of the Thatcherite for whom everything must be reduced
to an economic relationship. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
The rich can avail themselves of private schools.
Unless such schools are banned. RH
If [unthinkably, except in a dictatorship] so, then the
top schools would simply re-locate to France or Dubai, and the
rich would continue to avail themselves.
Governments could take action to prevent it, eg, making citizenship
dependent upon being raised in a country. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
The vast majority of those sending children to private schools can
afford it without real sacrifice.
This is simply, and utterly, not true. *Some*, of course,
can. But a large majority -- at least around here -- are ordinary
middle-class families spending considerably more on private education
than on their mortgage, or on their cars.
Let me get the violin out. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If you think they would
not *prefer* to spend that money on a better house, or exotic
holidays, or "home entertainment centres", or dining out in a
good restaurant every week, then you have a weird view of human
nature. They forego some or all of those things in order to give
their children a better, as they see it, education.
Post by Robert Henderson
It is also a mistake to imagine all
private education is ruinously expensive. It is the boarding fees which
are hideous. Day fees are often (for the middleclass family) easily
affordable. RH
You seem to have strange views of what is "easily affordable"
by the typical middle class family. Most of us are already living
pretty much up to our incomes, some well beyond [in the hope of
better things to come].
If you have suggestions about where I could
reasonably have saved some #10Kpa to send two children to the local
private schools [relatively cheap, compared with the rest of the UK],
Take out a plan when they are born, re-mortgage your house. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
for the 13 years of their education, well, I'd be v grateful. That's
#130K. You can add some #64K that the family [including the children
themselves] will have to fork out for HE [4 years x 2 children x 8K
minimum tuition + living], not to mention the 8 years of lost earnings
[or 12 from minimum school-leaving age] by the time they graduate.
All of that after tax, so representing some 20% of my entire lifetime
earnings.
Not at real value. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
A further [roughly] 10% of my lifetime earnings would, in
that circumstance, go to the state education that my family would not
be using. This is substantially more than fully private health care
for the family would cost. You can guess that I'm not entirely happy
with the state of education in the UK, and even less am I in a position
to be independent of state provision.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Vouchers are a way to eliminate the corrosive division between
private and state education.
Not if they are used to pay part of the fees of rather than all the
fees. RH
That's *exactly* how they avoid the corrosion.
Nope, that is buying privilege. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to want instead to entrench that
division.
On the contrary I want to bring the public and private sectors closer.
Good schools paid for by the voucher would soon begin to undermine the
established private schools just as the grammar schools did in the
period 1945-1970. RH
You won't *get* good schools paid for by the voucher in your
system.
Yes you will. It is quite possible to produce a good education for £5000
pa. Just cut out all the unnecessary public school add-ons. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You will get schools providing the state minimum, as they
have no way to vary their income. And private schools *weren't*
"undermined" in that period -- contrariwise, it was the period of
greatest academic success of such schools, not least because the
system of full LEA scholarships made it possible for bright children
from even very poor homes to attend. My own school regularly sent
20+ students per year on scholarships to Oxbridge -- many more
without scholarships. Many of us could not possibly have afforded
the school fees.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There is not much correlation between wealth and quality of
education.
Tosh. All the leading public schools score much better on exam results
than the average state school.
Yes, and only 7% of children go to private schools at all,
less than that to "leading public schools". For the rest, there
is little correlation between how much money goes into a school
and what quality of education comes out.
You cannot get away from the fact that more money spent in private
schools = better results. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-17 17:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If [unthinkably, except in a dictatorship] so, then the
top schools would simply re-locate to France or Dubai, and the
rich would continue to avail themselves.
Governments could take action to prevent it, eg, making citizenship
dependent upon being raised in a country. RH
So you think that someone who is born in the UK, of UK
parents, imbibing UK culture throughout his childhood, but who
happened to have been educated at Eton-Dubai, rather than Eton-
Windsor, for five years should be deprived of his birthright?
Even if his parents moved to Dubai to run the Dubai end of some
UK company? And a government that enforced that is not a
dictatorship?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If you have suggestions about where I could
reasonably have saved some #10Kpa to send two children to the local
private schools [relatively cheap, compared with the rest of the UK],
Take out a plan when they are born, re-mortgage your house. RH
When they were born, I had no notion that the most local
state school was not excellent -- repeat, it is highly regarded,
and is a school that families pay large premiums to move to the
catchment area of. In addition, schools can change very rapidly.
The local [state] nursery school was excellent for my children,
but had places only because the previous year it had been awful;
a new head changed that virtually overnight.

Equally, when they were born, I had just *mortgaged* the
house; as soon as the children hit us, we had no spare income
[and still have none, two decades later]. Unless you have "been
there, done that", you have no idea.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
All of that after tax, so representing some 20% of my entire lifetime
earnings.
Not at real value. RH
Yes, of course at real value.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You won't *get* good schools paid for by the voucher in your
system.
Yes you will. It is quite possible to produce a good education for ^#5000
pa. Just cut out all the unnecessary public school add-ons. RH
And you think the voucher will be #5000? That corresponds
already to a *schools* education budget of around #45bn, before we
account for HE/FE, assessment, admin, etc. And whatever is *possible*,
it won't *happen* in your system, as you have not installed any way
to drive up standards. For that you need effective competition.
Post by Robert Henderson
You cannot get away from the fact that more money spent in private
schools = better results. RH
Private schools are driven by commercial pressures; if they
don't get better results than cheaper schools, they go out of business.
There are few such pressures in the state sector, where most people
have no idea at all what "they" are paying for Johnny to go to the
local comp, and pressures from LEAs are disguised by all sorts of
indexes, both within the LEA and across the country. That is why
one comp can be awful and a worse-funded one excellent, even when
catchment is allowed for.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-08-20 06:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If [unthinkably, except in a dictatorship] so, then the
top schools would simply re-locate to France or Dubai, and the
rich would continue to avail themselves.
Governments could take action to prevent it, eg, making citizenship
dependent upon being raised in a country. RH
So you think that someone who is born in the UK, of UK
parents, imbibing UK culture throughout his childhood, but who
happened to have been educated at Eton-Dubai, rather than Eton-
Windsor, for five years should be deprived of his birthright?
Nope. I merely showed you how a govt could act. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Even if his parents moved to Dubai to run the Dubai end of some
UK company? And a government that enforced that is not a
dictatorship?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If you have suggestions about where I could
reasonably have saved some #10Kpa to send two children to the local
private schools [relatively cheap, compared with the rest of the UK],
Take out a plan when they are born, re-mortgage your house. RH
When they were born, I had no notion that the most local
state school was not excellent -- repeat, it is highly regarded,
and is a school that families pay large premiums to move to the
catchment area of.
Translation: I lived in a very white middleclass area. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In addition, schools can change very rapidly.
The local [state] nursery school was excellent for my children,
but had places only because the previous year it had been awful;
a new head changed that virtually overnight.
Equally, when they were born, I had just *mortgaged* the
house; as soon as the children hit us, we had no spare income
[and still have none, two decades later]. Unless you have "been
there, done that", you have no idea.
Well, you have about half the year as a holiday so you could have worked
for another 5 months. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
All of that after tax, so representing some 20% of my entire lifetime
earnings.
Not at real value. RH
Yes, of course at real value.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You won't *get* good schools paid for by the voucher in your
system.
Yes you will. It is quite possible to produce a good education for ^#5000
pa. Just cut out all the unnecessary public school add-ons. RH
And you think the voucher will be #5000?
Yep. That is the figure the Tories are mentioning. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
That corresponds
already to a *schools* education budget of around #45bn, before we
account for HE/FE, assessment, admin, etc. And whatever is *possible*,
it won't *happen* in your system, as you have not installed any way
to drive up standards. For that you need effective competition.
Post by Robert Henderson
You cannot get away from the fact that more money spent in private
schools = better results. RH
Private schools are driven by commercial pressures;
The schools which are charities with large endowments are largely
cushioned against them. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
if they
don't get better results than cheaper schools, they go out of business.
They get the better results largely because of the higher staff/pupil
ratio. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are few such pressures in the state sector,
The league tables apply much the same pressure. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
where most people
have no idea at all what "they" are paying for Johnny to go to the
local comp, and pressures from LEAs are disguised by all sorts of
indexes, both within the LEA and across the country. That is why
one comp can be awful and a worse-funded one excellent, even when
catchment is allowed for.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-20 16:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Nope. I merely showed you how a govt could act. RH
In a dictatorship. Back in the real UK ....
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
When they were born, I had no notion that the most local
state school was not excellent -- repeat, it is highly regarded,
and is a school that families pay large premiums to move to the
catchment area of.
Translation: I lived in a very white middleclass area. RH
Middle class, certainly; though at the time two extremely
dubious council estates [one since demolished] were also in the
catchment area. Very white, certainly not. It is a cliche that
immigrant families are often the ones to see education as a way
forward for their children, and that applies just as much to
professionals as to those in poverty.
Post by Robert Henderson
Well, you have about half the year as a holiday so you could have worked
for another 5 months. RH
No, I have next week for my holiday, having more-or-less
completed admissions work for this season.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And you think the voucher will be #5000?
Yep. That is the figure the Tories are mentioning. RH
Then either they are as innumerate as you or they are
intending a very large hike in the education budget.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Bob LeChevalier
2004-08-20 21:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And you think the voucher will be #5000?
Yep. That is the figure the Tories are mentioning. RH
Then either they are as innumerate as you or they are
intending a very large hike in the education budget.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3168318.stm
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Shadow Education Secretary Damian Green said his party would pilot the
"better schools passport" scheme in London, Birmingham, Leeds,
Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool.
Mr Green estimates the policy would cost up to £400m a year in those
areas.
The money would come from existing spending on schools, the
Conservatives plan.
...
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But the Conservatives say there are plenty of schools - and could be
many more - working on a charitable basis which could operate within
the £5,500 a year they say should be available for a secondary school
place.
lojbab
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Robert Henderson
2004-08-22 16:13:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Nope. I merely showed you how a govt could act. RH
In a dictatorship. Back in the real UK ....
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
When they were born, I had no notion that the most local
state school was not excellent -- repeat, it is highly regarded,
and is a school that families pay large premiums to move to the
catchment area of.
Translation: I lived in a very white middleclass area. RH
Middle class, certainly;
And thus very white. No middle class area is ever other than very white.
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
though at the time two extremely
dubious council estates [one since demolished] were also in the
catchment area. Very white, certainly not. It is a cliche that
immigrant families are often the ones to see education as a way
forward for their children, and that applies just as much to
professionals as to those in poverty.
Post by Robert Henderson
Well, you have about half the year as a holiday so you could have worked
for another 5 months. RH
No, I have next week for my holiday, having more-or-less
completed admissions work for this season.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And you think the voucher will be #5000?
Yep. That is the figure the Tories are mentioning. RH
Then either they are as innumerate as you or they are
intending a very large hike in the education budget.
The secondary funding per pupil is already closing in on £4000. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-01 18:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: I lived in a very white middleclass area. RH
Middle class, certainly;
And thus very white. No middle class area is ever other than very white.
What world do you live in, Robert? In the real one, there
are several hundred non-white middle-class people working in every
large hospital or university, many more working in schools or as
GPs and similar, and in any city there will be thousands more who
own "ethnic" restaurants, shops and small companies, not to mention
those who become accountants, lawyers, or who work in IT or research,
and other "white collar" companies. In addition, whereas the older
generations of immigrants may well themselves be working class, their
children have been growing up with the same aspirations as the rest
of us, and will get their degrees and decent jobs in much the same
proportion [as your botched arithmetic in the "twice as many" thread
already showed].

Where do you think all those people, and their families,
live? It may be different in London and/or in rural communities
[I have too little experience of either to be sure], but around
here, something of the order of 10% of leafy suburbia is occupied
by non-white people, and a similar proportion by the non-native
population.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And you think the voucher will be #5000?
Yep. That is the figure the Tories are mentioning. RH
Then either they are as innumerate as you or they are
intending a very large hike in the education budget.
The secondary funding per pupil is already closing in on ^#4000. RH
Ie, *some* schools are funded to the extent of less than
80% of your proposal. Not all funding will go to the voucher, as
LEAs [inspectorates, special needs, etc] will still need to function,
so you would be very hard pushed to justify a *current* voucher of
even as much as #3500, on average, including primary schools. That
corresponds to an intended hike of over 40% in the major part of the
education budget. If your figures are correct, of course.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-03 05:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: I lived in a very white middleclass area. RH
Middle class, certainly;
And thus very white. No middle class area is ever other than very white.
What world do you live in, Robert? In the real one, there
are several hundred non-white middle-class people working in every
large hospital or university, many more working in schools or as
GPs and similar, and in any city there will be thousands more who
own "ethnic" restaurants, shops and small companies, not to mention
those who become accountants, lawyers, or who work in IT or research,
and other "white collar" companies. In addition, whereas the older
generations of immigrants may well themselves be working class, their
children have been growing up with the same aspirations as the rest
of us, and will get their degrees and decent jobs in much the same
proportion [as your botched arithmetic in the "twice as many" thread
already showed].
Show me the middleclass area which is not overwhelmingly white. Morever,
show me the white middleclass person who has close non-white friends.
How many of your close friends are non-white? When did you last spend
an evening with a non-white friend? How many of your relatives are
married to a non-white? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Where do you think all those people, and their families,
live? It may be different in London and/or in rural communities
[I have too little experience of either to be sure], but around
here, something of the order of 10% of leafy suburbia is occupied
by non-white people, and a similar proportion by the non-native
population.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And you think the voucher will be #5000?
Yep. That is the figure the Tories are mentioning. RH
Then either they are as innumerate as you or they are
intending a very large hike in the education budget.
The secondary funding per pupil is already closing in on ^#4000. RH
Ie, *some* schools are funded to the extent of less than
80% of your proposal. Not all funding will go to the voucher, as
LEAs [inspectorates, special needs, etc] will still need to function,
so you would be very hard pushed to justify a *current* voucher of
even as much as #3500, on average, including primary schools. That
corresponds to an intended hike of over 40% in the major part of the
education budget. If your figures are correct, of course.
If there were 10 million schoolchildren, an extra £1500 per pupil would
only be another £15bn, something easily accommodated in an economy such
as ours. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-06 17:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Show me the middleclass area which is not overwhelmingly white.
I did, in the paragraph following the one to which yours
was a response. If you need it spelling out again, then look for
those middle-class areas which are close to universities, large
hospitals, large research companies and other similar employers
of large numbers of non-white middle-class people.
Post by Robert Henderson
Morever,
show me the white middleclass person who has close non-white friends.
I do; all my colleagues do; some of them are married to
non-white people, or are non-white and married to white people.
I find non-white people among colleagues, among those who share
my interests, and among neighbours; and the colour of their skin
is just about the least interesting thing in determining which
of them become close friends, which become distant friends, and
which remain mere acquaintances.
Post by Robert Henderson
If there were 10 million schoolchildren, an extra ^#1500 per pupil would
only be another ^#15bn, something easily accommodated in an economy such
as ours. RH
It amounts to around #700pa per family. You might easily
accommodate such an increase in your tax bill, but most of us have
many competing demands for such sums.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-07 08:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Show me the middleclass area which is not overwhelmingly white.
I did, in the paragraph following the one to which yours
was a response. If you need it spelling out again, then look for
those middle-class areas which are close to universities, large
hospitals, large research companies and other similar employers
of large numbers of non-white middle-class people.
Ho, ho, ho...hos to infinity and beyond. Effing hilarious! And you
consider that is real life? Give me an example in normal circumstances.
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Morever,
show me the white middleclass person who has close non-white friends.
I do;
How many? What proportion of your friends? What is the colour of your
three closest friends? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
all my colleagues do; some of them are married to
non-white people,
What proportion? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
or are non-white and married to white people.
I find non-white people among colleagues, among those who share
my interests, and among neighbours; and the colour of their skin
is just about the least interesting thing in determining which
of them become close friends, which become distant friends, and
which remain mere acquaintances.
Post by Robert Henderson
If there were 10 million schoolchildren, an extra ^#1500 per pupil would
only be another ^#15bn, something easily accommodated in an economy such
as ours. RH
It amounts to around #700pa per family. You might easily
accommodate such an increase in your tax bill, but most of us have
many competing demands for such sums.
£15 billion savings to spend on education? No problem. Withdraw from EU.
Save £12 billion. Reduce spending in the Celtic fringe to English
levels: savings £10 billion. End AID, savings: £4 billion. End Asylum,
savings: £2-3 billion. End mass immigration and withdraw benefits and
the welfare state from those already here, savings: many billions. End
all state-sponsored political correctness, savings: many billions. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-07 17:27:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Show me the middleclass area which is not overwhelmingly white.
I did, in the paragraph following the one to which yours
was a response. If you need it spelling out again, then look for
those middle-class areas which are close to universities, large
hospitals, large research companies and other similar employers
of large numbers of non-white middle-class people.
Ho, ho, ho...hos to infinity and beyond. Effing hilarious! And you
consider that is real life? Give me an example in normal circumstances.
Every city has hospitals; almost every one has at least one
university, big ones have two or more; every one has large numbers
of non-white GPs, restaurant owners, teachers and similar; every one
has several large white-collar employers with ethnically-diverse staff.
So what on earth do you suppose is not normal about the places where
such staff [etc] live?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
If there were 10 million schoolchildren, an extra ^#1500 per pupil would
only be another ^#15bn, something easily accommodated in an economy such
as ours. RH
It amounts to around #700pa per family. You might easily
accommodate such an increase in your tax bill, but most of us have
many competing demands for such sums.
^#15 billion savings to spend on education? No problem. Withdraw from EU.
Save ^#12 billion. [...]
You are confused. Most of us are not looking for ways in which
taxes spent on X can instead be spent on Y, but for ways in which any
savings on X can come to our pockets rather than the government's. If
your political programme can save us #40bnpa, then fine, let us have our
#1900pa per family to spend on holidays, cars, restaurants and other
pleasures. If you *also* want to spend #15bn on something else, make
your case, and convince us that the #700pa/family would be well spent.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Die Trees Die
2004-09-07 22:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Show me the middleclass area which is not overwhelmingly white.
I did, in the paragraph following the one to which yours
was a response. If you need it spelling out again, then look for
those middle-class areas which are close to universities, large
hospitals, large research companies and other similar employers
of large numbers of non-white middle-class people.
Ho, ho, ho...hos to infinity and beyond. Effing hilarious! And you
consider that is real life? Give me an example in normal circumstances.
Every city has hospitals; almost every one has at least one
university, big ones have two or more; every one has large numbers
of non-white GPs, restaurant owners, teachers and similar; every one
has several large white-collar employers with ethnically-diverse staff.
So what on earth do you suppose is not normal about the places where
such staff [etc] live?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
If there were 10 million schoolchildren, an extra ^#1500 per pupil would
only be another ^#15bn, something easily accommodated in an economy such
as ours. RH
It amounts to around #700pa per family. You might easily
accommodate such an increase in your tax bill, but most of us have
many competing demands for such sums.
^#15 billion savings to spend on education? No problem. Withdraw from EU.
Save ^#12 billion. [...]
You are confused. Most of us are not looking for ways in which
taxes spent on X can instead be spent on Y, but for ways in which any
savings on X can come to our pockets rather than the government's. If
your political programme can save us #40bnpa, then fine, let us have our
#1900pa per family to spend on holidays, cars, restaurants and other
pleasures. If you *also* want to spend #15bn on something else, make
your case, and convince us that the #700pa/family would be well spent.
The money is not simply going into the government's pocket. We should
become a little more focused on government spending going toward our
public schools rather than trying to let parents "choose" between
public and private/parochial schools. If we could take this government
money and turn our public school sytems into the success that they
could potentially be then this problem may dissappear altogether.
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-08 18:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Die Trees Die
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
^#15 billion savings to spend on education? No problem. Withdraw from EU.
Save ^#12 billion. [...]
You are confused. Most of us are not looking for ways in which
taxes spent on X can instead be spent on Y, but for ways in which any
savings on X can come to our pockets rather than the government's. [...]
The money is not simply going into the government's pocket. We should
become a little more focused on government spending going toward our
public schools rather than trying to let parents "choose" between
public and private/parochial schools.
The govt is *already* spending very large sums of money on
education. Personally, I think it should spend more, but I'm biased,
and I recognise that the govt has to strike a balance somewhere near
what Mr Average thinks is reasonable. Robert wants them to spend an
extra #700pa/family on education; fine, but first he has to make a
case that this money will be well spent [and spending it ostensibly
on a voucher scheme is not, to my eyes, a case that the public will
swallow]. It is not enough simply to say "well, we could save that
money by doing XXX", where XXX [in this case, coming out of the EU]
is not directly related to education.

Note that the actual cost of a voucher scheme is negligible
[in the multi-billion scale of things] -- #1pa/family should be ample.
Simply pouring ill-considered large sums of money into schools, in
the guise of doing something else, is a recipe for disaster, a folly
which would make the Dome seem sensible.
Post by Die Trees Die
If we could take this government
money and turn our public school sytems into the success that they
could potentially be then this problem may dissappear altogether.
And there's the rub. How do you bring about success? By
pouring money down the drain? Or by changing the system? Those
of us who support vouchers claim that just this one change would
already bring about major improvements at almost no cost. It is
also worth noting that there is [or should be] nothing sacrosanct
about *state* education. State-*funded* education is another
matter. Look to tertiary education for possible models.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-08 05:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Show me the middleclass area which is not overwhelmingly white.
I did, in the paragraph following the one to which yours
was a response. If you need it spelling out again, then look for
those middle-class areas which are close to universities, large
hospitals, large research companies and other similar employers
of large numbers of non-white middle-class people.
Ho, ho, ho...hos to infinity and beyond. Effing hilarious! And you
consider that is real life? Give me an example in normal circumstances.
Every city has hospitals;
And the middle class staff of most of them commute. Of course, at least
half the population do not live in cities or large towns. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
almost every one has at least one
university, big ones have two or more; every one has large numbers
of non-white GPs, restaurant owners, teachers and similar; every one
has several large white-collar employers with ethnically-diverse staff.
So what on earth do you suppose is not normal about the places where
such staff [etc] live?
Really typical of how the population really lives, even the middle class
population. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
If there were 10 million schoolchildren, an extra ^#1500 per pupil would
only be another ^#15bn, something easily accommodated in an economy such
as ours. RH
It amounts to around #700pa per family. You might easily
accommodate such an increase in your tax bill, but most of us have
many competing demands for such sums.
^#15 billion savings to spend on education? No problem. Withdraw from EU.
Save ^#12 billion. [...]
You are confused. Most of us are not looking for ways in which
taxes spent on X can instead be spent on Y, but for ways in which any
savings on X can come to our pockets rather than the government's.
The voice of the selfish. Of course, if you actually had to pay for
everything out of your untaxed income you wouldn't be able to do it. Try
getting a private health plan which covers your for chronic illness or
long term palliative care. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If
your political programme can save us #40bnpa, then fine, let us have our
#1900pa per family to spend on holidays, cars, restaurants and other
pleasures. If you *also* want to spend #15bn on something else, make
your case, and convince us that the #700pa/family would be well spent.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-08 19:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Every city has hospitals;
And the middle class staff of most of them commute.
And where do you suppose they commute *from*? It's not
that hard, is it? The middle-class Indian and Australian and
Malaysian and Polish and Nigerian doctors and nurses come from
the same sorts of middle-class houses as the middle-class English
doctors and nurses. Whatever the colour of their skin.
Post by Robert Henderson
Of course, at least
half the population do not live in cities or large towns. RH
And on the whole our rural areas are less occupied by
immigrants than our urban areas; so that urban and suburban
middle-class areas, on average, contain more than their fair
share of the immigrant middle-class doctors and nurses [and
academics and restaurateurs and so on]; and those that are
particularly near to hospitals [etc] contain even more. So
it should not be hard for you to find, in every city, one or
several middle-class areas where these people tend to live.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So what on earth do you suppose is not normal about the places where
such staff [etc] live?
Really typical of how the population really lives, even the middle class
population. RH
You are not making sense. If you mean that the middle-
class areas near hospitals are not typical, well, you didn't ask
for typical, you asked for examples of middle-class areas which
were not almost entirely white.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
^#15 billion savings to spend on education? No problem. Withdraw from EU.
Save ^#12 billion. [...]
You are confused. Most of us are not looking for ways in which
taxes spent on X can instead be spent on Y, but for ways in which any
savings on X can come to our pockets rather than the government's.
The voice of the selfish. Of course, if you actually had to pay for
everything out of your untaxed income you wouldn't be able to do it. Try
getting a private health plan which covers your for chronic illness or
long term palliative care. RH
You didn't propose scrapping the NHS, you proposed leaving the
EU. Whether that would be a good thing or a bad is a matter for debate,
but *if* it is good, and *if* it saves us #12bn, it does not follow
that those savings should go instead to state spending on schools [or
any other state spending]. That is a quite independent case.

You seem to have me confused with someone who does not believe
in any role at all for state spending. Wrong.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-12 14:27:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Every city has hospitals;
And the middle class staff of most of them commute.
And where do you suppose they commute *from*?
From very white suburbs. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It's not
that hard, is it? The middle-class Indian and Australian and
Malaysian and Polish and Nigerian doctors and nurses come from
the same sorts of middle-class houses as the middle-class English
doctors and nurses. Whatever the colour of their skin.
I suggest you visit Southall. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Of course, at least
half the population do not live in cities or large towns. RH
And on the whole our rural areas are less occupied by
immigrants than our urban areas;
Not on the whole, most are barely touched by immigration. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
so that urban and suburban
middle-class areas, on average, contain more than their fair
share of the immigrant middle-class doctors and nurses [and
academics and restaurateurs and so on];
No they don't, they are small in number and often live in middle class
enclaves of their own - try driving through Slough. Of course, if you
really want to experience the joy of diversity you should be living
amongst working class immigrants. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and those that are
particularly near to hospitals [etc] contain even more. So
it should not be hard for you to find, in every city, one or
several middle-class areas where these people tend to live.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So what on earth do you suppose is not normal about the places where
such staff [etc] live?
Really typical of how the population really lives, even the middle class
population. RH
You are not making sense. If you mean that the middle-
class areas near hospitals are not typical, well, you didn't ask
for typical, you asked for examples of middle-class areas which
were not almost entirely white.
I am talking about the middleclass generally, not the extraordinary
case of a university with staff living on or near the campus. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
^#15 billion savings to spend on education? No problem. Withdraw from EU.
Save ^#12 billion. [...]
You are confused. Most of us are not looking for ways in which
taxes spent on X can instead be spent on Y, but for ways in which any
savings on X can come to our pockets rather than the government's.
The voice of the selfish. Of course, if you actually had to pay for
everything out of your untaxed income you wouldn't be able to do it. Try
getting a private health plan which covers your for chronic illness or
long term palliative care. RH
You didn't propose scrapping the NHS, you proposed leaving the
EU. Whether that would be a good thing or a bad is a matter for debate,
but *if* it is good, and *if* it saves us #12bn, it does not follow
that those savings should go instead to state spending on schools [or
any other state spending]. That is a quite independent case.
You seem to have me confused with someone who does not believe
in any role at all for state spending. Wrong.
You, like all the middle class "I'll stand on my own two feet brigade",
will take everything the state offers. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Bob LeChevalier
2004-09-13 04:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Every city has hospitals;
And the middle class staff of most of them commute.
And where do you suppose they commute *from*?
From very white suburbs. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It's not
that hard, is it? The middle-class Indian and Australian and
Malaysian and Polish and Nigerian doctors and nurses come from
the same sorts of middle-class houses as the middle-class English
doctors and nurses. Whatever the colour of their skin.
I suggest you visit Southall. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Of course, at least
half the population do not live in cities or large towns. RH
And on the whole our rural areas are less occupied by
immigrants than our urban areas;
Not on the whole, most are barely touched by immigration. RH
I won't pretend to know what constitutes "middle class" in Britain,
but you guys could do well to look at your own census data on this
matter. It was trivial to call up several locales with good education
and hence probably middle class, and mixed in color and heritage.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/

I went through the K's quickly (since the list was short - only 11
local authorities):

Kensington and Chelsea
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00aw.asp
22% non-white, around 45% born outside the UK and 31% born outside the
EU. Over 50% of those agred 16-74 qualified to degree level or
higher.

Kingston-Upon Thames
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00ax.asp
15% non-white, 20% born outside the UK; 15% born outside the EU; 35%
qualified to degree level or higher

(London as a whole is 71% white, and 31% degreed; around half of
non-whites in the country live in the London region)
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
so that urban and suburban
middle-class areas, on average, contain more than their fair
share of the immigrant middle-class doctors and nurses [and
academics and restaurateurs and so on];
No they don't, they are small in number and often live in middle class
enclaves of their own - try driving through Slough.
Slough
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00MD-A.asp
64% white, 24% born outside UK, 21% born outside EU; 20% qualified
with a degree or better (about the national average)

Of course, if you
Post by Robert Henderson
really want to experience the joy of diversity you should be living
amongst working class immigrants. RH
Dr Walker's email includes Nottingham:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00FY-A.asp
85% white, 10% born outside UK, 8% born outside EU; 17.6% degreed
(somewhat below national average)

lojbab
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Robert Henderson
2004-09-13 13:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
immigrants than our urban areas;
Not on the whole, most are barely touched by immigration. RH
I won't pretend to know what constitutes "middle class" in Britain,
but you guys could do well to look at your own census data on this
matter. It was trivial to call up several locales with good education
and hence probably middle class, and mixed in color and heritage.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/
I went through the K's quickly (since the list was short - only 11
Kensington and Chelsea
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00aw.asp
22% non-white, around 45% born outside the UK and 31% born outside the
EU. Over 50% of those agred 16-74 qualified to degree level or
higher.
Kingston-Upon Thames
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00ax.asp
15% non-white, 20% born outside the UK; 15% born outside the EU; 35%
qualified to degree level or higher
(London as a whole is 71% white, and 31% degreed; around half of
non-whites in the country live in the London region)
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
so that urban and suburban
middle-class areas, on average, contain more than their fair
share of the immigrant middle-class doctors and nurses [and
academics and restaurateurs and so on];
No they don't, they are small in number and often live in middle class
enclaves of their own - try driving through Slough.
Slough
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00MD-A.asp
64% white, 24% born outside UK, 21% born outside EU; 20% qualified
with a degree or better (about the national average)
Of course, if you
Post by Robert Henderson
really want to experience the joy of diversity you should be living
amongst working class immigrants. RH
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/00FY-A.asp
85% white, 10% born outside UK, 8% born outside EU; 17.6% degreed
(somewhat below national average)
What is this meant to show us? You are quoting statistics which cover
large areas. White liberal bigots herd together in parts of such areas.
Good to see how little of Nottingham is "ethnic" RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-15 17:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Every city has hospitals;
And the middle class staff of most of them commute.
And where do you suppose they commute *from*?
From very white suburbs. RH
So very white suburbs contain the non-white commuters?
You're making even less sense than usual.
Post by Robert Henderson
I suggest you visit Southall. RH
It's spelled "Southwell" around here, and I do visit it
fairly regularly, most recently to visit the nearby clock museum.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
so that urban and suburban
middle-class areas, on average, contain more than their fair
share of the immigrant middle-class doctors and nurses [and
academics and restaurateurs and so on];
No they don't, they are small in number
You didn't dispute my estimate of around 10% in the
more relevant parts of the UK.
Post by Robert Henderson
and often live in middle class
enclaves of their own
So your next claim is that all middle-class areas are very
white because some of them are completely non-white? You really
should not post while unfit to think.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You are not making sense. If you mean that the middle-
class areas near hospitals are not typical, well, you didn't ask
for typical, you asked for examples of middle-class areas which
were not almost entirely white.
I am talking about the middleclass generally, not the extraordinary
case of a university with staff living on or near the campus. RH
There are around 300 reasonably major university campuses
in the UK. Roughly half of Nottingham is within ten minutes walk
of at least one of them, and I expect most major cities to be much
the same. If we add in the hospitals, and a few of the major white-
collar employers you're up to around 75%+. What are you saying is
unusual, or even atypical, let alone extraordinary, about the middle-
class areas in our cities and near to such employers?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to have me confused with someone who does not believe
in any role at all for state spending. Wrong.
You, like all the middle class "I'll stand on my own two feet brigade",
will take everything the state offers. RH
And why not? It's reciprocal; and indeed they don't even
give me the choice for the most part. And I assume you did not
intend even to hint that I might belong to the ISomo2FB; I don't.
I *do* belong to the "govts that cannot run whelk stalls should not
be encouraged to run any more than the absolute minimum of state-
controlled activities" brigade, and I also know the difference
between state control and public funding.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-17 13:37:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Every city has hospitals;
And the middle class staff of most of them commute.
And where do you suppose they commute *from*?
From very white suburbs. RH
So very white suburbs contain the non-white commuters?
You're making even less sense than usual.
Until to the bounded mind. M Very few people live in the circumstances
you initially posited. RH Most white middle class people live in white
suburbs or white, gentrified enclaves. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
I suggest you visit Southall. RH
It's spelled "Southwell" around here, and I do visit it
fairly regularly, most recently to visit the nearby clock museum.
Dear of dear, the bounded mind at its most embarrassing: making a joke.
Rh
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
so that urban and suburban
middle-class areas, on average, contain more than their fair
share of the immigrant middle-class doctors and nurses [and
academics and restaurateurs and so on];
No they don't, they are small in number
You didn't dispute my estimate of around 10% in the
more relevant parts of the UK.
Post by Robert Henderson
and often live in middle class
enclaves of their own
So your next claim is that all middle-class areas are very
white because some of them are completely non-white?
No, my claim is that most middle class areas are very white. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You really
should not post while unfit to think.
Translation: a bounded mind panics. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You are not making sense. If you mean that the middle-
class areas near hospitals are not typical, well, you didn't ask
for typical, you asked for examples of middle-class areas which
were not almost entirely white.
I am talking about the middleclass generally, not the extraordinary
case of a university with staff living on or near the campus. RH
There are around 300 reasonably major university campuses
in the UK. Roughly half of Nottingham is within ten minutes walk
of at least one of them, and I expect most major cities to be much
the same. If we add in the hospitals, and a few of the major white-
collar employers you're up to around 75%+. What are you saying is
unusual, or even atypical, let alone extraordinary, about the middle-
class areas in our cities and near to such employers?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to have me confused with someone who does not believe
in any role at all for state spending. Wrong.
You, like all the middle class "I'll stand on my own two feet brigade",
will take everything the state offers. RH
And why not?
It's hypocrisy. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It's reciprocal; and indeed they don't even
give me the choice for the most part.
If you received all the tax you pay which goes on social spending you
would not be able to purchase a fraction of what you get from the state-
provision. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And I assume you did not
intend even to hint that I might belong to the ISomo2FB; I don't.
I *do* belong to the "govts that cannot run whelk stalls should not
be encouraged to run any more than the absolute minimum of state-
controlled activities" brigade, and I also know the difference
between state control and public funding.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-20 17:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So very white suburbs contain the non-white commuters?
You're making even less sense than usual.
Until to the bounded mind. M Very few people live in the circumstances
you initially posited.
Robert, please think before you type rather than after [or,
apparently, not at all]. You're making even less sense than usual.
What was "Until to the bounded mind. M" *intended* to mean? And the
"circumstances" I "initially posited" was living in a middle-class
area with an apparently decent school: see
"<cftg43$n0v$***@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>". Are you claiming that very
few people live in m-c areas with such schools? *You* then "interpreted"
that as "very white", which was manifestly false both in my specific
case and in many, if not most, urban areas.
Post by Robert Henderson
RH Most white middle class people live in white
suburbs or white, gentrified enclaves. RH
In London perhaps, in rural areas perhaps. If by "white
suburbs" you mean [sub]urban areas from which non-white people are
effectively excluded, this is manifest rubbish. My children have
now been, between them, to seven different local schools, ranging
from a state nursery to a 6FC, all staunchly middle-class, and all
with significant non-white minorities. Their personal friends --
and ours -- have been black, brown, yellow, pink. What is true of
Nottingham will be just as true of Leicester, Sheffield, Birmingham,
Manchester, ... and dozens of other cities.

Further, you did not ask about *most* people, you asked me
in "<S0A+***@anywhere.demon.co.uk>" to show you "the
middleclass area which is not overwhelmingly white". Having asked
that, you then claimed the existence of exclusive m-c areas for
non-white commuters, making a nonsense of your own case.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So your next claim is that all middle-class areas are very
white because some of them are completely non-white?
No, my claim is that most middle class areas are very white. RH
"Very white" in the above sense? Or just "normally white,
roughly corresponding to the ethnic composition of that part of the
UK as a whole"? Think it through before replying.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to have me confused with someone who does not believe
in any role at all for state spending. Wrong.
You, like all the middle class "I'll stand on my own two feet brigade",
will take everything the state offers. RH
And why not?
It's hypocrisy. RH
For the ISomO2FB, perhaps. For me it is not. I pay my dues
to society, and expect to receive my rights.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It's reciprocal; and indeed they don't even
give me the choice for the most part.
If you received all the tax you pay which goes on social spending you
would not be able to purchase a fraction of what you get from the state-
provision. RH
That is manifest rubbish. Despite the problems with private
pension funds, my private pension will represent considerably better
value than state provision. And state restrictions have prevented
me from doing even better for myself with the money that I have been
forced to put towards an annuity. I could have provided a much
better education for my children had my contributions towards state
education gone towards private schooling. And the amount I have paid
towards the NHS would have purchased excellent health provision for
my family in the USA. But you still seem to have me confused with
someone else. I accept, as part of my social responsibility, that
I have a duty to put in more than I take out, for the benefit of
those less fortunate than myself; and I have done so. YMMV.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-21 14:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So very white suburbs contain the non-white commuters?
You're making even less sense than usual.
Until to the bounded mind. M Very few people live in the circumstances
you initially posited.
Robert, please think before you type rather than after [or,
apparently, not at all]. You're making even less sense than usual.
What was "Until to the bounded mind. M" *intended* to mean?
My eyesight is none too wonderful, so I can't check everything minutely.
Obviously, the until was a spell check substitution for only which I
must have transposed a letter in, something I do commonly. The M is
simply a typo. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And the
"circumstances" I "initially posited" was living in a middle-class
No you didn't, you posited a situation where the staff of universities
and hospitals lived close to the university or hospital. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
see
few people live in m-c areas with such schools? *You* then "interpreted"
that as "very white", which was manifestly false both in my specific
case and in many, if not most, urban areas.
Post by Robert Henderson
RH Most white middle class people live in white
suburbs or white, gentrified enclaves. RH
In London perhaps, in rural areas perhaps.
In almost every place. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If by "white
suburbs" you mean [sub]urban areas from which non-white people are
effectively excluded, this is manifest rubbish. My children have
now been, between them, to seven different local schools, ranging
from a state nursery to a 6FC, all staunchly middle-class, and all
with significant non-white minorities.
What does significant mean ? How large a proportion of non-white faces?
How many of those were not middleclass? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Their personal friends --
and ours -- have been black, brown, yellow,
How many of each? How many black, brown and yellow faces at your
wedding? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
pink. What is true of
Nottingham will be just as true of Leicester, Sheffield, Birmingham,
Manchester, ... and dozens of other cities.
Further, you did not ask about *most* people, you asked me
middleclass area which is not overwhelmingly white". Having asked
that, you then claimed the existence of exclusive m-c areas for
non-white commuters, making a nonsense of your own case.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So your next claim is that all middle-class areas are very
white because some of them are completely non-white?
No, my claim is that most middle class areas are very white. RH
"Very white" in the above sense? Or just "normally white,
roughly corresponding to the ethnic composition of that part of the
UK as a whole"? Think it through before replying.
Amazing white. Hampstead is my favourite where trying to spot a black or
brown face away from the high street is next to impossible. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to have me confused with someone who does not believe
in any role at all for state spending. Wrong.
You, like all the middle class "I'll stand on my own two feet brigade",
will take everything the state offers. RH
And why not?
It's hypocrisy. RH
For the ISomO2FB, perhaps.
Nope, it is objectively hypocritical. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
For me it is not. I pay my dues
to society, and expect to receive my rights.
Bet you have received far more than you have paid in. Anyone with
children will be on a winner if they are only earning a mediocre
middleclass salary like you will have done throughout your career. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
It's reciprocal; and indeed they don't even
give me the choice for the most part.
If you received all the tax you pay which goes on social spending you
would not be able to purchase a fraction of what you get from the state-
provision. RH
That is manifest rubbish. Despite the problems with private
pension funds, my private pension will represent considerably better
value than state provision.
Or it may be worthless when you come to cash it in or dwindle to nothing
over 20 years or so, as inflation bites into it. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And state restrictions have prevented
me from doing even better for myself with the money that I have been
forced to put towards an annuity. I could have provided a much
better education for my children had my contributions towards state
education gone towards private schooling.
Tosh. They would not have paid for private fees and by your own
admission you are too poor to pay anything more. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And the amount I have paid
towards the NHS would have purchased excellent health provision for
my family in the USA.
Wait till you have a chronic illness which is not covered or you require
long term palliative care which is not included. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But you still seem to have me confused with
someone else.
Again, impossible . RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
I accept, as part of my social responsibility, that
I have a duty to put in more than I take out, for the benefit of
those less fortunate than myself; and I have done so. YMMV.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Andy Walker
2004-08-06 01:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And when you're setting out a legal framework for a universal
scheme, "general terms" is not enough.
Sigh. Yes it is. By essentials I mean the three Rs, ability to build an
argument, logical thought etc. RH
3Rs takes you up to age 8 or 9, the rest is not usually taught
specifically at all, though with luck some will learn it through maths.
Many people never learn these skills unless/until they go to univ.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] There just is no commonality as soon as you're
past motherhood-and-apple-pie.
A balanced school curriculum can as a matter of objective fact bee
created. In the instance of history, by definition a country should
teach its own history first and in depth. [...]
How much depth? One hour per week or two or five? Up to what
age [compulsarily]? Is it or is it not acceptable that some parts of
the UK learn a different slant on, let us say, the Boyne or Culloden?
Should Scots be expected to learn about pre-17thC England and the rest
of us about pre-17thC Scotland? To the same depth? When does history
stop? WW1? WW2? Falklands/Iraq? Is it kings and battles or should we
be learning about history of science and technology? As well or instead?
How about the Corn Laws, domestic fashions, the lives of Victorian
children or servants? Regional/local history? And when we've done that,
how important is classical Roman/Greek history? General European/world
history? Dawn of civilisation? Etc., etc.

Now go back and cross out the yes/no answers you scribbled in
response to all the above, for your views don't really matter. What we
would need is a consensus among (a) historians, (b) the general public.
And there simply isn't one. Yes, I absolutely agree with you that it's
a scandal that so few teenagers know about Drake, though it becomes less
surprising if you look at modern glossy history books and find that he is
a picture and one paragraph in one page about the Elizabethans. Don't
blame the children for that! But the fact remains that if we put in
*all* the things that some historians think that every educated adult
ought to know, it will squeeze out music and French and geography and
.... And each of those subjects has advocates who think that educated
adults ought to know about Wagnerian leitmotifs and irregular verbs and
oxbow lakes. And how to build an argument, write essays, think logically,
use a computer, understand simple statistics, ....
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. After a year in which she went
backwards, we moved her to a different school, [...]
But you missed the point.
The point is you want the traditional qualities instilled in her. RH
*I* did, indeed. *I* wanted sloppy work to be corrected, I
wanted tests to learn how she was doing, I wanted focussed reports from
her teachers, I wanted intelligent questions to be encouraged not slapped
down. I was *extremely* cross when school A did a project on the ancient
Egyptians [OK, fine so far]; #1 was in Waterstone's, saw the excellent
Usborne book on that topic, bought it *out of her own money*, proudly
took it to school to show the teacher, and was told "I do hope you are
not going to cheat by copying out of it". No, she thought that reading
a book about something was a good way to learn, thought, mistakenly but
understandably, that the teacher would approve, and thought it was possible
the teacher had not seen this particular book and might be interested to
read it herself. Poor kid was in tears. But, de facto, I am in a minority
in this democracy of ours. It is school A that is popular, school B that
had places. Education, education, happy-clappy education [just as long as
it is cheap, and keeps the kids off the streets].

[...]
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are, for a start, insufficient decent
teachers to provide "the best". There are too few competent maths
teachers, in particular, to provide even adequate maths education.
Ah, so now you admit that schools are inadequate. RH
Do pay attention. I have been claiming just that for decades.
Especially, but not only, in maths. But it is *some* schools, not all.
6FCs are a Good Idea, and do a lot to redeem what has gone before. Our
young children are, despite everything, much more responsible, *on
average*, than your generation and mine were, they think more about
careers, and they work hard for their GCSEs and A-levels. And if you
think, as you have said elsewhere, education in the '50s was so much
better, then you missed out on the average SecMod -- though there again
there were good and bad schools. Your persistent abuse of *all* education
today, and of *all* 18yos, is just shameful. Our "morons" of students
could teach you a thing or two about manners and tolerance.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So, what in your scheme will happen when that standard can
be provided for [say] two-thirds voucher cost [as it certainly can
by the most efficient schools]?
Dear oh dear, if the voucher can pay for more than the set standard the
set standard will be raised. RH
At that school in particular?
At all schools. RH
And what will you do with the majority of schools that were only
just about managing to provide decent education at voucher cost?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
So, they would not be able to fund scholarships. RH
Why should they want to?
To give the poor a proper chance. RH
Why would you need scholarships to enable poor people to get
their free education more cheaply?
Because without them the middleclass will colonise the better schools as
they do now. RH
"Oh, hello Mr Middle. Here is your voucher. Tarquin will have
to hand it in at school on the first day, it will pay for his fees. Next!
Oh, hello Mr Poore. Here is your voucher. Kevin will have to hand it in
at school on the first day, it will pay for his fees. And as you're poor
and Kevin is bright, here is his scholarship cheque for, let me see, yes,
zero, to cover the remaining cost of his fees. Next!"
Post by Robert Henderson
Sigh. No surplus for providing scholarships. RH
Zero would seem to be sufficient surplus. Especially as your
scheme, but not mine, would prevent schools from charging more or less
than the voucher. But then, yours, unlike mine, does little or nothing
to address the quality of education in the UK.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] My colleagues and neighbours are of
all manner of shades, nationalities and ethnicities, and my children
have close friends likewise of all types.
'course you do, DR Walker, 'course you do. How many working class
ethnics do you count amongst your friends?
There are three such [families] on our Christmas card list, FWIW.
Post by Robert Henderson
How many non-white faces
appear in your wedding photographs? RH
It's absolutely none of your business, but as we invited *no*
friends, colleagues or neighbours, but only a few close family to our
wedding, there were none. If we had had a more traditional/flamboyant
wedding and reception, there would have been several. Again FWIW, our
next-door neighbours [and good friends] at the time were Cape coloureds,
who had had to flee apartheid, and gave me a good education in the
practicalities of that topic a couple of years before cricket protests
and similar really brought it to more general attention here.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
[...] So we can be 60% over or under simply by an
unfortunate coincidence, none of which is under our own control.
No, he was saddled with a system which takes that into account and
allows clearing to fill vacant places. RH
You plainly don't understand [or haven't thought about]
Clearing. Despite all the hype and bally-hoo that will appear in
the papers in just under two weeks, Clearing is a minority activity,
and most students will not be using it. It is a scheme for the
students who have *failed* to get the grades wanted by their "firm"
and "insurance" universities. So any student in Clearing has already
been *rejected* by [at least] two universities, and cannot have top
grades. There are *no* students in Clearing who would qualify to do
single-honours maths at Nottingham. There are precious few who would
qualify for *any* decent university. We have to fill up with the
students who were offered contracts last October, or not at all.

It's different in subjects, such as history or medicine, with a
huge excess of applicants over places, and in the lower-division univs.
Post by Robert Henderson
More toddler-level ego. RH
More ignorant and childish abuse from RH.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-08-07 05:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And when you're setting out a legal framework for a universal
scheme, "general terms" is not enough.
Sigh. Yes it is. By essentials I mean the three Rs, ability to build an
argument, logical thought etc. RH
3Rs takes you up to age 8 or 9, the rest is not usually taught
specifically at all,
It is in decent schools. RH
Post by Andy Walker
though with luck some will learn it through maths.
Many people never learn these skills unless/until they go to univ.
That is a condemnation of our schools. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] There just is no commonality as soon as you're
past motherhood-and-apple-pie.
A balanced school curriculum can as a matter of objective fact bee
created. In the instance of history, by definition a country should
teach its own history first and in depth. [...]
How much depth? One hour per week or two or five?
Ah, I have somewhat revolutionary ideas on teaching timetables. I think
subjects should be taught in intensive modules with regular refreshers
in the same way that languages are often taught. Letting children
meander though a day with an hour here, half an hour there of six or
seven subjects strikes me as pretty pointless.

Obviously this regime would have to be adjusted to different age groups,
for example, quite pointless expecting a five year old to concentrate
for an hour. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Up to what
age [compulsarily]?
16. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Is it or is it not acceptable that some parts of
the UK learn a different slant on, let us say, the Boyne or Culloden?
Should Scots be expected to learn about pre-17thC England and the rest
of us about pre-17thC Scotland?
The curriculum can be adjusted to suit the four nations of Britain. RH
Post by Andy Walker
To the same depth? When does history
stop? WW1? WW2? Falklands/Iraq?
You need perspective and access to the information. For example, our 30
year rule (and longer in some instances) means that the Falklands and
Iraq cannot be properly evaluated as yet. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Is it kings and battles or should we
be learning about history of science and technology? As well or instead?
How about the Corn Laws, domestic fashions, the lives of Victorian
children or servants? Regional/local history? And when we've done that,
how important is classical Roman/Greek history? General European/world
history? Dawn of civilisation? Etc., etc.
All of that can be fitted in. The staggering thing about our schools is
how little is taught in 11 years of basic education. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Now go back and cross out the yes/no answers you scribbled in
response to all the above, for your views don't really matter.
Oh dear, toddler-level stamping of feet. RH
Post by Andy Walker
What we
would need is a consensus among (a) historians, (b) the general public.
And there simply isn't one. Yes, I absolutely agree with you that it's
a scandal that so few teenagers know about Drake, though it becomes less
surprising if you look at modern glossy history books and find that he is
a picture and one paragraph in one page about the Elizabethans. Don't
blame the children for that! But the fact remains that if we put in
*all* the things that some historians think that every educated adult
ought to know, it will squeeze out music and French and geography and
....
No it won't. There is plenty of time in 11 years to teach all these
things. RH
Post by Andy Walker
And each of those subjects has advocates who think that educated
adults ought to know about Wagnerian leitmotifs and irregular verbs and
oxbow lakes. And how to build an argument, write essays, think logically,
use a computer, understand simple statistics, ....
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. After a year in which she went
backwards, we moved her to a different school, [...]
But you missed the point.
The point is you want the traditional qualities instilled in her. RH
*I* did, indeed. *I* wanted sloppy work to be corrected, I
wanted tests to learn how she was doing, I wanted focussed reports from
her teachers, I wanted intelligent questions to be encouraged not slapped
down. I was *extremely* cross when school A did a project on the ancient
Egyptians [OK, fine so far]; #1 was in Waterstone's, saw the excellent
Usborne book on that topic, bought it *out of her own money*, proudly
took it to school to show the teacher, and was told "I do hope you are
not going to cheat by copying out of it". No, she thought that reading
a book about something was a good way to learn, thought, mistakenly but
understandably, that the teacher would approve, and thought it was possible
the teacher had not seen this particular book and might be interested to
read it herself. Poor kid was in tears. But, de facto, I am in a minority
in this democracy of ours. It is school A that is popular, school B that
had places. Education, education, happy-clappy education [just as long as
it is cheap, and keeps the kids off the streets].
I can agree with all that. RH
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
There are, for a start, insufficient decent
teachers to provide "the best". There are too few competent maths
teachers, in particular, to provide even adequate maths education.
Ah, so now you admit that schools are inadequate. RH
Do pay attention. I have been claiming just that for decades.
Especially, but not only, in maths.
So how come that your university department manages never to take in
maths duds? And don't tell me it is because yours is a top department.
If maths teaching is generally poor, even the best natural
mathematicians will be less well prepared than you were when you went up
to Cambridge. RH
Post by Andy Walker
But it is *some* schools, not all.
6FCs are a Good Idea,
Wrong in principle because they rob schools of a bridge between
childhood and adulthood. RH
Post by Andy Walker
and do a lot to redeem what has gone before. Our
young children are, despite everything, much more responsible, *on
average*, than your generation and mine were, they think more about
careers, and they work hard for their GCSEs and A-levels. And if you
think, as you have said elsewhere, education in the '50s was so much
better, then you missed out on the average SecMod -- though there again
there were good and bad schools. Your persistent abuse of *all* education
today, and of *all* 18yos, is just shameful. Our "morons" of students
could teach you a thing or two about manners and tolerance.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So, what in your scheme will happen when that standard can
be provided for [say] two-thirds voucher cost [as it certainly can
by the most efficient schools]?
Dear oh dear, if the voucher can pay for more than the set standard the
set standard will be raised. RH
At that school in particular?
At all schools. RH
And what will you do with the majority of schools that were only
just about managing to provide decent education at voucher cost?
If the standard is high enough, meeting it will be sufficient. RH
RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
So, they would not be able to fund scholarships. RH
Why should they want to?
To give the poor a proper chance. RH
Why would you need scholarships to enable poor people to get
their free education more cheaply?
Because without them the middleclass will colonise the better schools as
they do now. RH
"Oh, hello Mr Middle. Here is your voucher. Tarquin will have
to hand it in at school on the first day, it will pay for his fees. Next!
Oh, hello Mr Poore. Here is your voucher. Kevin will have to hand it in
at school on the first day, it will pay for his fees. And as you're poor
and Kevin is bright, here is his scholarship cheque for, let me see, yes,
zero, to cover the remaining cost of his fees. Next!"
Post by Robert Henderson
Sigh. No surplus for providing scholarships. RH
Zero would seem to be sufficient surplus. Especially as your
scheme, but not mine, would prevent schools from charging more or less
than the voucher. But then, yours, unlike mine, does little or nothing
to address the quality of education in the UK.
But this part of the discussion only arose because you don't want the
voucher cost to be all that can be spent. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] My colleagues and neighbours are of
all manner of shades, nationalities and ethnicities, and my children
have close friends likewise of all types.
'course you do, DR Walker, 'course you do. How many working class
ethnics do you count amongst your friends?
There are three such [families] on our Christmas card list, FWIW.
Post by Robert Henderson
How many non-white faces
appear in your wedding photographs? RH
It's absolutely none of your business,
It is absolutely my business because you play the "Aren't immigrants
wonderful" card. RH
Post by Andy Walker
but as we invited *no*
friends, colleagues or neighbours, but only a few close family to our
wedding, there were none.
How very odd. RH
Post by Andy Walker
If we had had a more traditional/flamboyant
wedding and reception, there would have been several. Again FWIW, our
next-door neighbours [and good friends] at the time
How many non-whites in your present street? RH
Post by Andy Walker
were Cape coloureds,
who had had to flee apartheid, and gave me a good education in the
practicalities of that topic a couple of years before cricket protests
and similar really brought it to more general attention here.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You don't have empty places. You simply shape the size of depts to meet
domestic demand. RH
[...] So we can be 60% over or under simply by an
unfortunate coincidence, none of which is under our own control.
No, he was saddled with a system which takes that into account and
allows clearing to fill vacant places. RH
You plainly don't understand [or haven't thought about]
Clearing. Despite all the hype and bally-hoo that will appear in
the papers in just under two weeks, Clearing is a minority activity,
and most students will not be using it. It is a scheme for the
students who have *failed* to get the grades wanted by their "firm"
and "insurance" universities. So any student in Clearing has already
been *rejected* by [at least] two universities, and cannot have top
grades. There are *no* students in Clearing who would qualify to do
single-honours maths at Nottingham. There are precious few who would
qualify for *any* decent university. We have to fill up with the
students who were offered contracts last October, or not at all.
Tough. You simply offer for the places you have. If any remain unfilled
that does not mean good candidates have been denied a degree chance
merely that they have preferred another university. Moreover, if your
dept t is as hot as you say, you should have no problem filling the
places because students would tend to have it as their first choice. RH
Post by Andy Walker
It's different in subjects, such as history or medicine, with a
huge excess of applicants over places, and in the lower-division univs.
Post by Robert Henderson
More toddler-level ego. RH
More ignorant and childish abuse from RH.
The toddler-level ego still on display . RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-12 20:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Ah, I have somewhat revolutionary ideas on teaching timetables.
Don't suppose you've ever tried to construct a timetable?
Thought not. People with "ideas" are the bane of the life of all
timetablers.

[...]
Post by Robert Henderson
All of that can be fitted in. The staggering thing about our schools is
how little is taught in 11 years of basic education. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Now go back and cross out the yes/no answers you scribbled in
response to all the above, for your views don't really matter.
["because what we need is a consensus"]
Post by Robert Henderson
Oh dear, toddler-level stamping of feet. RH
You were the one in a paddy. You should read articles before
replying to them, then you wouldn't get caught so very easily. Does
your editor not have an "up" key?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
[...] But the fact remains that if we put in
*all* the things that some historians think that every educated adult
ought to know, it will squeeze out music and French and geography and
....
No it won't. There is plenty of time in 11 years to teach all these
things. RH
Did you miss the "all"? I emphasised it, above. The point is
that schools are already squeezing quarts into pint pots; so topics
that many of us would consider valuable are being omitted.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Ah, so now you admit that schools are inadequate. RH
Do pay attention. I have been claiming just that for decades.
Especially, but not only, in maths.
So how come that your university department manages never to take in
maths duds?
Because we don't accept anyone without an A in Maths A-level
and two other very high grades [or near equivalent in IB, etc]; we
*ask* for AAB, but almost all students have AAA or better; anyone
here with worse than AAB had a special case of some kind. Only
Oxbridge consistently beats us for grades. That isn't proof that
students will succeed, but it is pretty much proof against duddery.
Post by Robert Henderson
And don't tell me it is because yours is a top department.
If maths teaching is generally poor, even the best natural
mathematicians will be less well prepared than you were when you went up
to Cambridge. RH
(a) Maths teaching is not *uniformly* poor. Most private
schools, grammar schools and 6FCs can put up a decent show. But
when they have 4+ maths graduates, and the *average* is less than
1, it is not hard to deduce that most schools are completely without.
(b) I'm not greatly concerned with "preparation". It is already the
case that the LCD of our intake amounts to roughly half an A-level
[tho' most have two full A-levels in maths], so we have to teach the
rest ourselves. It would add about 2 weeks to our teaching if we
had to start right back from GCSE level. What concerns me is the
ability of our students. (c) You probably don't realise exactly how
*simple* A-level maths is to a good mathematician. Many of our
students have been ahead of their teachers [not at the good schools,
of course] since before GCSE.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Sigh. No surplus for providing scholarships. RH
Zero would seem to be sufficient surplus. Especially as your
scheme, but not mine, would prevent schools from charging more or less
than the voucher. But then, yours, unlike mine, does little or nothing
to address the quality of education in the UK.
But this part of the discussion only arose because you don't want the
voucher cost to be all that can be spent. RH
Indeed. I want choice, and I want some families to be able to
get a higher standard than the state minimum and others to be able to
get a refund from schools that can reach that minimum with resources to
spare. Just that, with no need for *everyone* to have or to exercise
that choice, will drive up standards. Without it, the state minimum
becomes also the state maximum, and only those who shell out monstrous
amounts of money [as well as foregoing state education] will ever be
able to do better. That's no good.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
How many non-white faces
appear in your wedding photographs? RH
It's absolutely none of your business,
It is absolutely my business because you play the "Aren't immigrants
wonderful" card. RH
Oh. Then you were being objectionably intrusive, and that
on a false premise. I have never played, or even thought of, an
"Aren't immigrants wonderful" card. Immigrants are no more wonderful
than they are left-handed or red-headed or thieving or work-shy or
obese or clever or ... well, anything else, really. Those are
properties not of groups but of individuals.
Post by Robert Henderson
How many non-whites in your present street? RH
I neither know nor care.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
[...]. We have to fill up with the
students who were offered contracts last October, or not at all.
Tough. You simply offer for the places you have. If any remain unfilled
that does not mean good candidates have been denied a degree chance
merely that they have preferred another university.
If all universities simply offered places up to quota, then
Cambridge would be reasonably OK, but we would get around 10 students,
so would the other top univs, there would be around 1000 students with
AAA swilling around with unexpected rejections, and all hell would
break loose. If that's not the absurd idea you had in mind, then
perhaps you can explain. In the Autumn, I shall have a pile of UCAS
forms sitting on my desk, around 10 for every quota place. What do
you say I should do with those forms?
Post by Robert Henderson
Moreover, if your
dept t is as hot as you say, you should have no problem filling the
places because students would tend to have it as their first choice. RH
I don't have any such problem. We have filled up exactly to
quota with excellent students for the past seven or eight years. We
will do the same this coming Sunday, barring a miracle with the A-level
results. But note that 40% of our applicants are applying also to
Cambridge, and it is no surprise to me that those who get offers from
there may tend to prefer Cambridge. 70% are applying to Warwick,
which is *also* a very good department, and it is pretty much a toss-up
which applicants go there and which come to us. 40% are applying to
Imperial; most, given the choice, will prefer us, but London has its
attractions. 35% are applying to Bristol, also pretty good. Etc.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-08-14 16:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Ah, I have somewhat revolutionary ideas on teaching timetables.
Don't suppose you've ever tried to construct a timetable?
Thought not. People with "ideas" are the bane of the life of all
timetablers.
It would be very simple. Each class would have the same teacher(s)
teaching them day after day. Forms in the same school would take
different subjects during the same period. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]
Post by Robert Henderson
All of that can be fitted in. The staggering thing about our schools is
how little is taught in 11 years of basic education. RH
Post by Andy Walker
Now go back and cross out the yes/no answers you scribbled in
response to all the above, for your views don't really matter.
["because what we need is a consensus"]
Post by Robert Henderson
Oh dear, toddler-level stamping of feet. RH
You were the one in a paddy. You should read articles before
replying to them, then you wouldn't get caught so very easily. Does
your editor not have an "up" key?
Does your brain have a "write concisely" key and a "see the woods for
the trees" key? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
[...] But the fact remains that if we put in
*all* the things that some historians think that every educated adult
ought to know, it will squeeze out music and French and geography and
....
No it won't. There is plenty of time in 11 years to teach all these
things. RH
Did you miss the "all"? I emphasised it, above. The point is
that schools are already squeezing quarts into pint pots; so topics
that many of us would consider valuable are being omitted.
It is a nonsense to say that 11 years of full time education is not long
enough to teach the full range of mainstream subjects. The problem at
the moment is that much of what children do is repetitive and what they
do have put before them is often forgotten because it is lost in a
forest of a mixed curriculum. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Ah, so now you admit that schools are inadequate. RH
Do pay attention. I have been claiming just that for decades.
Especially, but not only, in maths.
So how come that your university department manages never to take in
maths duds?
Because we don't accept anyone without an A in Maths A-level
and two other very high grades [or near equivalent in IB, etc]; we
*ask* for AAB, but almost all students have AAA or better;
What does that really mean with exam inflation? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
anyone
here with worse than AAB had a special case of some kind. Only
Oxbridge consistently beats us for grades. That isn't proof that
students will succeed, but it is pretty much proof against duddery.
Depends what standards are like these days. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
And don't tell me it is because yours is a top department.
If maths teaching is generally poor, even the best natural
mathematicians will be less well prepared than you were when you went up
to Cambridge. RH
(a) Maths teaching is not *uniformly* poor. Most private
schools, grammar schools and 6FCs can put up a decent show. But
when they have 4+ maths graduates, and the *average* is less than
1, it is not hard to deduce that most schools are completely without.
Which supports my general case of lowered standards. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
(b) I'm not greatly concerned with "preparation". It is already the
case that the LCD of our intake amounts to roughly half an A-level
[tho' most have two full A-levels in maths], so we have to teach the
rest ourselves. It would add about 2 weeks to our teaching if we
had to start right back from GCSE level. What concerns me is the
ability of our students. (c) You probably don't realise exactly how
*simple* A-level maths is to a good mathematician. Many of our
students have been ahead of their teachers [not at the good schools,
of course] since before GCSE.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Sigh. No surplus for providing scholarships. RH
Zero would seem to be sufficient surplus. Especially as your
scheme, but not mine, would prevent schools from charging more or less
than the voucher. But then, yours, unlike mine, does little or nothing
to address the quality of education in the UK.
But this part of the discussion only arose because you don't want the
voucher cost to be all that can be spent. RH
Indeed. I want choice, and I want some families to be able to
get a higher standard than the state minimum and others to be able to
get a refund from schools that can reach that minimum with resources to
spare.
Shameless seeking of advantage. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Just that, with no need for *everyone* to have or to exercise
that choice, will drive up standards. Without it, the state minimum
becomes also the state maximum, and only those who shell out monstrous
amounts of money [as well as foregoing state education] will ever be
able to do better. That's no good.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
How many non-white faces
appear in your wedding photographs? RH
It's absolutely none of your business,
It is absolutely my business because you play the "Aren't immigrants
wonderful" card. RH
Oh. Then you were being objectionably intrusive, and that
on a false premise. I have never played, or even thought of, an
"Aren't immigrants wonderful" card.
Yes you do. You use the version "I am colourblind, Man is a single
entity etc. " RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Immigrants are no more wonderful
than they are left-handed or red-headed or thieving or work-shy or
obese or clever or ... well, anything else, really. Those are
properties not of groups but of individuals.
Post by Robert Henderson
How many non-whites in your present street? RH
I neither know nor care.
Translation: I live in a very white world. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Andy Walker
[...]. We have to fill up with the
students who were offered contracts last October, or not at all.
Tough. You simply offer for the places you have. If any remain unfilled
that does not mean good candidates have been denied a degree chance
merely that they have preferred another university.
If all universities simply offered places up to quota, then
Cambridge would be reasonably OK, but we would get around 10 students,
so would the other top univs, there would be around 1000 students with
AAA swilling around with unexpected rejections, and all hell would
break loose. If that's not the absurd idea you had in mind, then
perhaps you can explain. In the Autumn, I shall have a pile of UCAS
forms sitting on my desk, around 10 for every quota place. What do
you say I should do with those forms?
Post by Robert Henderson
Moreover, if your
dept t is as hot as you say, you should have no problem filling the
places because students would tend to have it as their first choice. RH
I don't have any such problem. We have filled up exactly to
quota with excellent students for the past seven or eight years. We
will do the same this coming Sunday, barring a miracle with the A-level
results. But note that 40% of our applicants are applying also to
Cambridge, and it is no surprise to me that those who get offers from
there may tend to prefer Cambridge. 70% are applying to Warwick,
which is *also* a very good department, and it is pretty much a toss-up
which applicants go there and which come to us. 40% are applying to
Imperial; most, given the choice, will prefer us, but London has its
attractions. 35% are applying to Bristol, also pretty good. Etc.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-16 18:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Ah, I have somewhat revolutionary ideas on teaching timetables.
Don't suppose you've ever tried to construct a timetable?
Thought not. People with "ideas" are the bane of the life of all
timetablers.
It would be very simple. Each class would have the same teacher(s)
teaching them day after day. Forms in the same school would take
different subjects during the same period. RH
So 4C are going to get Mr Smith for maths for a whole week.
And then Miss Jones for French for a week as they swap with 5B. You
really do have no idea of what either teaching or learning is like,
do you?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You were the one in a paddy. You should read articles before
replying to them, then you wouldn't get caught so very easily. Does
your editor not have an "up" key?
Does your brain have a "write concisely" key and a "see the woods for
the trees" key? RH
Apparently more so than yours. Firstly, I read the whole of
an article before responding to it, and try to respond to points, not
to individual phrases. Secondly, in the first half of August, I wrote,
according to Google, 61 articles averaging 75.6 lines; you wrote, in
the same period and using the same metrics, 233 articles averaging
116.4 lines. If we ignore headers and signatures, then you are
writing nearly four times as many articles at nearly twice the length.
Get a life.
Post by Robert Henderson
It is a nonsense to say that 11 years of full time education is not long
enough to teach the full range of mainstream subjects.
It is most certainly not enough to teach *everything* that
advocates of those subjects believe should be known to educated
people. That "everything" has more than doubled since my time at
school, and there was far too much to teach even then. There is no
time in school to do more than give tasters for all major topics
plus an in-depth treatment of a handful.
Post by Robert Henderson
The problem at
the moment is that much of what children do is repetitive
"At the moment"? Less so than in the past, or have you
forgotten, then, those lessons spent chanting times tables, doing
handwriting exercises, and learning spelling. But repetition is
how most people learn.
Post by Robert Henderson
and what they
do have put before them is often forgotten because it is lost in a
forest of a mixed curriculum. RH
It's forgotten because they are *children*, who have, in
their eyes, better things to do than sit in a classroom learning.
No matter how you dress it up, it's more fun to "chill" with your
friends, play games, listen to pop music, etc., than to learn about
Drake or Wellington, or irregular French verbs, or the angles in a
triangle.

You've never had children, and you've forgotten your own
childhood; and you've never been a teacher, of any sort or at any
level. Come back when any one of these conditions is satisfied,
and your views on education will be taken more seriously.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
So how come that your university department manages never to take in
maths duds?
Because we don't accept anyone without an A in Maths A-level
and two other very high grades [or near equivalent in IB, etc]; we
*ask* for AAB, but almost all students have AAA or better;
What does that really mean with exam inflation? RH
It means that all of our students are among the 30000 or so
brightest people that the country produces each year [across all
subjects], and almost all are among the 1000 or so best maths students.
*You* weren't in that 30000 in your year. Inflation, even if real,
doesn't affect that; all it affects is what grades the top so-many
percent will achieve.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] That isn't proof that
students will succeed, but it is pretty much proof against duddery.
Depends what standards are like these days. RH
Top univs have never taken duds, except by mistake.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
(a) Maths teaching is not *uniformly* poor. Most private
schools, grammar schools and 6FCs can put up a decent show. But
when they have 4+ maths graduates, and the *average* is less than
1, it is not hard to deduce that most schools are completely without.
Which supports my general case of lowered standards. RH
No, it supports a case of inadequate standards across
education as a whole. It doesn't tell you, from that, whether
things are getting better or worse. But AAMOF they won't get
better [in maths] until pay for maths teachers is comparable
with pay for accountants, computer programmers, statisticians,
industrial researchers, etc.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Oh. Then you were being objectionably intrusive, and that
on a false premise. I have never played, or even thought of, an
"Aren't immigrants wonderful" card.
Yes you do. You use the version "I am colourblind, Man is a single
entity etc. " RH
I use no such version. You clearly have me confused with
someone else. I treat people as individuals. As do the vast
majority of educated people, including almost all students.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
How many non-whites in your present street? RH
I neither know nor care.
Translation: I live in a very white world. RH
Incorrect translation. Please try to read what I write, not
what you think I might have written had I been someone else.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. In the Autumn, I shall have a pile of UCAS
forms sitting on my desk, around 10 for every quota place. What do
you say I should do with those forms?
Did you have an answer to this question? Or should we just
write off your rant about quotas as another RH "write first, think
afterwards" exercise?
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-08-17 05:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Ah, I have somewhat revolutionary ideas on teaching timetables.
Don't suppose you've ever tried to construct a timetable?
Thought not. People with "ideas" are the bane of the life of all
timetablers.
It would be very simple. Each class would have the same teacher(s)
teaching them day after day. Forms in the same school would take
different subjects during the same period. RH
So 4C are going to get Mr Smith for maths for a whole week.
And then Miss Jones for French for a week as they swap with 5B.
Yep. Where's the problem. Actually they would have Mr Smith and Miss
Jones for a good deal longer than a week. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You
really do have no idea of what either teaching or learning is like,
do you?
Translation: trade union bluster. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You were the one in a paddy. You should read articles before
replying to them, then you wouldn't get caught so very easily. Does
your editor not have an "up" key?
Does your brain have a "write concisely" key and a "see the woods for
the trees" key? RH
Apparently more so than yours. Firstly, I read the whole of
an article before responding to it, and try to respond to points, not
to individual phrases. Secondly, in the first half of August, I wrote,
according to Google, 61 articles averaging 75.6 lines; you wrote, in
the same period and using the same metrics, 233 articles averaging
116.4 lines. If we ignore headers and signatures, then you are
writing nearly four times as many articles at nearly twice the length.
Get a life.
The number of articles is irrelevant. You also need to differentiate
between my formal articles and replies to posts. The formal articles
are irrelevant to the case. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
It is a nonsense to say that 11 years of full time education is not long
enough to teach the full range of mainstream subjects.
It is most certainly not enough to teach *everything* that
advocates of those subjects believe should be known to educated
people. That "everything" has more than doubled since my time at
school, and there was far too much to teach even then. There is no
time in school to do more than give tasters for all major topics
plus an in-depth treatment of a handful.
Post by Robert Henderson
The problem at
the moment is that much of what children do is repetitive
"At the moment"? Less so than in the past, or have you
forgotten, then, those lessons spent chanting times tables, doing
handwriting exercises, and learning spelling. But repetition is
how most people learn.
Oh dear, the linquistic limitations of the bounded mind. Repetition does
not mean merely routine exercises but repeated covering of the same
ground, eg, in history children keep going over the Nazi period. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
and what they
do have put before them is often forgotten because it is lost in a
forest of a mixed curriculum. RH
It's forgotten because they are *children*, who have, in
their eyes, better things to do than sit in a classroom learning.
No matter how you dress it up, it's more fun to "chill" with your
friends, play games, listen to pop music, etc., than to learn about
Drake or Wellington, or irregular French verbs, or the angles in a
triangle.
They will have a much better understanding of something if it is taught
intensively to them. Language teaching with total immersion shows that.
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You've never had children,
Whoooo..... now you are jumping in at the deep end. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and you've forgotten your own
childhood;
More bounded mind reckless assertion. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and you've never been a teacher, of any sort or at any
level.
Untrue actually. I have done a fair bit of training work. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Come back when any one of these conditions is satisfied,
and your views on education will be taken more seriously.
The voice of the trade unionist. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
So how come that your university department manages never to take in
maths duds?
Because we don't accept anyone without an A in Maths A-level
and two other very high grades [or near equivalent in IB, etc]; we
*ask* for AAB, but almost all students have AAA or better;
What does that really mean with exam inflation? RH
It means that all of our students are among the 30000 or so
brightest people that the country produces each year [across all
subjects], and almost all are among the 1000 or so best maths students.
*You* weren't in that 30000 in your year. Inflation, even if real,
doesn't affect that; all it affects is what grades the top so-many
percent will achieve.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] That isn't proof that
students will succeed, but it is pretty much proof against duddery.
Depends what standards are like these days. RH
Top univs have never taken duds, except by mistake.
Untrue. Oxbridge commonly did it until 20-30 years ago because of the
Old Boy network and closed scholarships, exhibitions etc. Even when I
was at university there was a shortage of good maths and physics
candidates. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
(a) Maths teaching is not *uniformly* poor. Most private
schools, grammar schools and 6FCs can put up a decent show. But
when they have 4+ maths graduates, and the *average* is less than
1, it is not hard to deduce that most schools are completely without.
Which supports my general case of lowered standards. RH
No, it supports a case of inadequate standards across
education as a whole. It doesn't tell you, from that, whether
things are getting better or worse.
The reduced quality numeracy of school-leavers does. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But AAMOF they won't get
better [in maths] until pay for maths teachers is comparable
with pay for accountants, computer programmers, statisticians,
industrial researchers, etc.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Oh. Then you were being objectionably intrusive, and that
on a false premise. I have never played, or even thought of, an
"Aren't immigrants wonderful" card.
Yes you do. You use the version "I am colourblind, Man is a single
entity etc. " RH
I use no such version. You clearly have me confused with
someone else. I treat people as individuals
That is a form of Man is a single entity, I am coolourblind argument.
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
As do the vast
majority of educated people, including almost all students.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
How many non-whites in your present street? RH
I neither know nor care.
Translation: I live in a very white world. RH
Incorrect translation. Please try to read what I write, not
what you think I might have written had I been someone else.
Sigh. How many non-white people in your street? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. In the Autumn, I shall have a pile of UCAS
forms sitting on my desk, around 10 for every quota place. What do
you say I should do with those forms?
Go through them. If there are more qualified candidates than places, put
all the names in a hat and pull out enough to fill your places. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Did you have an answer to this question? Or should we just
write off your rant about quotas as another RH "write first, think
afterwards" exercise?
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Bob LeChevalier
2004-08-17 11:23:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
"At the moment"? Less so than in the past, or have you
forgotten, then, those lessons spent chanting times tables, doing
handwriting exercises, and learning spelling. But repetition is
how most people learn.
Oh dear, the linquistic limitations of the bounded mind. Repetition does
not mean merely routine exercises but repeated covering of the same
ground, eg, in history children keep going over the Nazi period. RH
You are using the wrong word. Here in the states, that is not called
"repetition" because it really isn't. They call it the "spiral
method", wherein students revisit the same topic later in their
schooling where it is covered with a greater degree of detail and
abstraction.

It also ensures that kids don't forget the important stuff, because
unlike you, the typical kid doesn't give a hoot about the Nazi period,
and 3 years later will remember only vaguely that it happened last
century, and involved a guy named Hitler somehow, and grownups
generally think it was bad.

Spiral method seems a bit more like repetition in maths, in that kids
have to be taught over and over again the mechanics of adding unlike
fractions, etc. again because they don't remember them. But here
again they don't have to spend the same amount of time to reinforce
what was learned once, and they do move on to a deeper coverage of the
same thing.

Without what you call "repetition" in maths, most kids would emerge
from school truly innumerate - unable to perform the most basic
operations.

lojbab
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Robert Henderson
2004-08-17 11:44:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Oh dear, the linquistic limitations of the bounded mind. Repetition does
not mean merely routine exercises but repeated covering of the same
ground, eg, in history children keep going over the Nazi period. RH
You are using the wrong word. Here in the states, that is not called
"repetition" because it really isn't. They call it the "spiral
method",
No, I am using the correct word: you are using a piece of ghastly
jargon. Reinforcing what has already been learned is one thing; doing
the same thing again, as with history in English schools, to the
exclusion of anything else is another. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Frank F. Matthews
2004-08-17 23:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Bob LeChevalier
Post by Robert Henderson
Oh dear, the linquistic limitations of the bounded mind. Repetition does
not mean merely routine exercises but repeated covering of the same
ground, eg, in history children keep going over the Nazi period. RH
You are using the wrong word. Here in the states, that is not called
"repetition" because it really isn't. They call it the "spiral
method",
No, I am using the correct word: you are using a piece of ghastly
jargon. Reinforcing what has already been learned is one thing; doing
the same thing again, as with history in English schools, to the
exclusion of anything else is another. RH
I am going to have to get a scope and sequence chart for Math at a
British school. I cannot imagine that it can be as ghastly as you
portray. Repetition with no change of focus or level will quickly
become useless. Repeating the study of a given topic at a higher level
will usually focus the mind and produce learning.

If that were not true then folks studying Mathematics would not study
Calculus at least five times before finishing. Of course to avoid
criticism they change the title to Analysis or Measure Theory
occasionally but it's really Calculus.
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-18 18:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So 4C are going to get Mr Smith for maths for a whole week.
And then Miss Jones for French for a week as they swap with 5B.
Yep. Where's the problem. Actually they would have Mr Smith and Miss
Jones for a good deal longer than a week. RH
Perhaps you might like to think of the effects if you tried
this with your diet? Nothing but pizza this week, cornflakes all
next, cucumber sandwiches the week after? Please think about it
and apply the analogies *before* replying "Apples and oranges".
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. If we ignore headers and signatures, then you are
writing nearly four times as many articles at nearly twice the length.
Get a life.
The number of articles is irrelevant.
No it isn't. One piece of drivel per day is quite different
from your average of 15.
Post by Robert Henderson
You also need to differentiate
between my formal articles and replies to posts.
If you think I'm going to read those 233 articles in order
to categorise them, you have too high an opinion of yourself. It's
amply enough just to read those on potentially interesting topics.
I go by what Google will tell me "free". But FWIW, ISTM that your
replies are longer than your other posts, so ...
Post by Robert Henderson
The formal articles
are irrelevant to the case. RH
... eliminating the "formal" articles would not help you.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and you've never been a teacher, of any sort or at any
level.
Untrue actually. I have done a fair bit of training work. RH
Tee hee. "Training work" is not teaching, and trainees
who are adults depending on your approval for their bits of paper
that they need for their jobs bear no relation to 4C, who are
simply not interested in anything you have to say. And not much
relation even to students at 3rd/4th year university modules.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Top univs have never taken duds, except by mistake.
Untrue. Oxbridge commonly did it until 20-30 years ago because of the
Old Boy network and closed scholarships, exhibitions etc.
You seem to have a weird view of what closed scholarships
were. It is true that there were exhibitions limited to sons of
clergy or to Etonians. But they were awarded on the same basis and
the same exams as other scholarships, and if, unusually, there was
no-one suitable they were simply not awarded. In reality, with top
schools -- the ones with closed scholarships -- typically getting
10+ awards per year, calling one of them the "Bloggs Exhibition" was
no great deal. Similarly with the gentlemanly professions. As for
the OB network, that was based on trust. If my school had sent duds
to Cambridge on that basis, there would very soon have been a sharp
note from the college, and no more trust. So it was not abused.
We, like the other schools on the OB network, had plenty of bright
people to send.
Post by Robert Henderson
Even when I
was at university there was a shortage of good maths and physics
candidates. RH
No there wasn't; not for maths, anyway. For many years
there was a pretty decent balance between candidates and place,
so that only the very bottom univs had gluts or famines. That
balance broke down some years ago, when the number of A-level
maths candidates suddenly stopped climbing and went into reverse.
Since then, many maths and physics departments have closed, and
most are in serious trouble. The A-level numbers limit the totals
taking maths and physics, most of engineering, chemistry and CS,
and the numerate parts of subjects like economics, geography,
biology, ....
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
I use no such version. You clearly have me confused with
someone else. I treat people as individuals
That is a form of Man is a single entity, I am coolourblind argument.
You are confused.
Post by Robert Henderson
Sigh. How many non-white people in your street? RH
As I have already told you, I neither know nor care.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. In the Autumn, I shall have a pile of UCAS
forms sitting on my desk, around 10 for every quota place. What do
you say I should do with those forms?
Go through them. If there are more qualified candidates than places, put
all the names in a hat and pull out enough to fill your places. RH
But they are not *yet* qualified, and I have no way [other
than experience and the laws of statistics] of knowing how many of
them I need to make offers to to fill our places. Try again.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-08-22 16:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So 4C are going to get Mr Smith for maths for a whole week.
And then Miss Jones for French for a week as they swap with 5B.
Yep. Where's the problem. Actually they would have Mr Smith and Miss
Jones for a good deal longer than a week. RH
Perhaps you might like to think of the effects if you tried
this with your diet? Nothing but pizza this week, cornflakes all
next, cucumber sandwiches the week after? Please think about it
and apply the analogies *before* replying "Apples and oranges".
Strange how language schools use the technique successfully. Strange how
people taking single honours degrees manage to survive on the diet for
three years. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. If we ignore headers and signatures, then you are
writing nearly four times as many articles at nearly twice the length.
Get a life.
The number of articles is irrelevant.
No it isn't. One piece of drivel per day is quite different
from your average of 15.
Toddler-level foot stamping. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
You also need to differentiate
between my formal articles and replies to posts.
If you think I'm going to read those 233 articles in order
to categorise them, you have too high an opinion of yourself. It's
amply enough just to read those on potentially interesting topics.
I go by what Google will tell me "free". But FWIW, ISTM that your
replies are longer than your other posts, so ...
Post by Robert Henderson
The formal articles
are irrelevant to the case. RH
... eliminating the "formal" articles would not help you.
Yes it would because they are the only long posts I make. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and you've never been a teacher, of any sort or at any
level.
Untrue actually. I have done a fair bit of training work. RH
Tee hee. "Training work" is not teaching,
Oh dear, semantics are always outside the bounded mind. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and trainees
who are adults depending on your approval for their bits of paper
that they need for their jobs bear no relation to 4C, who are
simply not interested in anything you have to say. And not much
relation even to students at 3rd/4th year university modules.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Top univs have never taken duds, except by mistake.
Untrue. Oxbridge commonly did it until 20-30 years ago because of the
Old Boy network and closed scholarships, exhibitions etc.
You seem to have a weird view of what closed scholarships
were. It is true that there were exhibitions limited to sons of
clergy or to Etonians. But they were awarded on the same basis and
the same exams as other scholarships
Utter nonsense. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
, and if, unusually, there was
no-one suitable they were simply not awarded.
Happened once in a blue moon. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In reality, with top
schools -- the ones with closed scholarships -- typically getting
10+ awards per year, calling one of them the "Bloggs Exhibition" was
no great deal. Similarly with the gentlemanly professions. As for
the OB network, that was based on trust. If my school had sent duds
You need to distinguish between absolute duds and students not as able
as the norm. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
to Cambridge on that basis, there would very soon have been a sharp
note from the college, and no more trust. So it was not abused.
We, like the other schools on the OB network, had plenty of bright
people to send.
Post by Robert Henderson
Even when I
was at university there was a shortage of good maths and physics
candidates. RH
No there wasn't; not for maths, anyway.
I know for a fact there was. Some universities were better off than
others. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
For many years
there was a pretty decent balance between candidates and place,
so that only the very bottom univs had gluts or famines. That
balance broke down some years ago, when the number of A-level
maths candidates suddenly stopped climbing and went into reverse.
That is due to the corruption of the examination system and university
entrance. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Since then, many maths and physics departments have closed, and
most are in serious trouble. The A-level numbers limit the totals
taking maths and physics, most of engineering, chemistry and CS,
and the numerate parts of subjects like economics, geography,
biology, ....
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
I use no such version. You clearly have me confused with
someone else. I treat people as individuals
That is a form of Man is a single entity, I am coolourblind argument.
You are confused.
Post by Robert Henderson
Sigh. How many non-white people in your street? RH
As I have already told you, I neither know nor care.
Translation: I live in a very white world. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. In the Autumn, I shall have a pile of UCAS
forms sitting on my desk, around 10 for every quota place. What do
you say I should do with those forms?
Go through them. If there are more qualified candidates than places, put
all the names in a hat and pull out enough to fill your places. RH
But they are not *yet* qualified,
Ye Gods! They are qualified for university entrance. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and I have no way [other
than experience and the laws of statistics] of knowing how many of
them I need to make offers to to fill our places. Try again.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-08-31 18:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So 4C are going to get Mr Smith for maths for a whole week.
And then Miss Jones for French for a week as they swap with 5B.
Yep. Where's the problem. Actually they would have Mr Smith and Miss
Jones for a good deal longer than a week. RH
Perhaps you might like to think of the effects if you tried
this with your diet? [...]
Strange how language schools use the technique successfully.
Doing it for one subject for an intensive course for adults
who want to learn is somewhat different from running the whole of
school education that way.
Post by Robert Henderson
Strange how
people taking single honours degrees manage to survive on the diet for
three years. RH
AFAIK, every university uses "long thin" modules for almost
all their teaching [ie, except things like introductory IT, remedial
maths/languages]. I certainly wouldn't want to teach any of my
modules in intensive bursts of two or three weeks -- it would be
very unpleasant for all concerned, quite apart from giving no
"soak time" or coursework preparation time.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
... eliminating the "formal" articles would not help you.
Yes it would because they are the only long posts I make. RH
No they aren't. You often exceed 200 lines.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to have a weird view of what closed scholarships
were. It is true that there were exhibitions limited to sons of
clergy or to Etonians. But they were awarded on the same basis and
the same exams as other scholarships
Utter nonsense. RH
You mean those who were from Eton [etc] took two sets of
exams? A secret set to award the closed scholarships and then those
who failed to get these took the standard set to get the open ones?
And there is a conspiracy so that you and the Etonians are the only
ones to know this truth? Don't be daft.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In reality, with top
schools -- the ones with closed scholarships -- typically getting
10+ awards per year, calling one of them the "Bloggs Exhibition" was
no great deal. Similarly with the gentlemanly professions. As for
the OB network, that was based on trust. If my school had sent duds
You need to distinguish between absolute duds and students not as able
as the norm. RH
You're still being daft. My school [and I'm sure it was not
unusual in this respect] pulled strings to get its best pupils to the
best Oxbridge colleges; the "not as able" pupils were left to sink
or swim. That's how trust works. If the school had sent inflated
claims about us, the trust would have evaporated. FWIW, in this
litigious age of open references almost all school references are
essentially worthless, but 20+ years ago you could guarantee that
the school report from the top schools was scrupulously fair on both
good and bad points of its pupils; if Eton felt that Johnny was not
really up to Cambridge, the report would say so, and would say why
he would do better here instead.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Even when I
was at university there was a shortage of good maths and physics
candidates. RH
No there wasn't; not for maths, anyway.
I know for a fact there was. Some universities were better off than
others. RH
I know for a fact there wasn't. Even in 1969, maths had the
highest A-level scores of any major subject, even at second-division
universities. There were plenty of good mathematicians at the better
polys. If your AM failed to attract them, it was because they preferred
[eg] Trent Poly to Keele, not because they didn't exist.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Sigh. How many non-white people in your street? RH
As I have already told you, I neither know nor care.
Translation: I live in a very white world. RH
If I did, I would know [though still not care].
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. In the Autumn, I shall have a pile of UCAS
forms sitting on my desk, around 10 for every quota place. What do
you say I should do with those forms?
Go through them. If there are more qualified candidates than places, put
all the names in a hat and pull out enough to fill your places. RH
But they are not *yet* qualified,
Ye Gods! They are qualified for university entrance. RH
No they are not. They don't so qualify until ten months later,
when they get their A-levels. At that stage, those who get AAAA will
become qualified for our courses, and those who get CCD will not. But
a lot of those with AAAA will choose [and be given the chance] to go to
Cambridge, some will even go to Warwick or Imperial or Bristol. As we
are not told where they have applied to, it's all a big guessing game,
which can go wrong [eg] if an open day happens to be particularly cold,
wet and miserable or [OTOH] nice and sunny.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-03 05:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
So 4C are going to get Mr Smith for maths for a whole week.
And then Miss Jones for French for a week as they swap with 5B.
Yep. Where's the problem. Actually they would have Mr Smith and Miss
Jones for a good deal longer than a week. RH
Perhaps you might like to think of the effects if you tried
this with your diet? [...]
Strange how language schools use the technique successfully.
Doing it for one subject for an intensive course for adults
who want to learn is somewhat different from running the whole of
school education that way.
No reason why it could not work with children. Just a question of
conditioning them. Also, in my regime there would be plenty of non-
academic activities interspersed: art, drama, sports, public debates
etc. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Strange how
people taking single honours degrees manage to survive on the diet for
three years. RH
AFAIK, every university uses "long thin" modules for almost
all their teaching [ie, except things like introductory IT, remedial
maths/languages]. I certainly wouldn't want to teach any of my
modules in intensive bursts of two or three weeks -- it would be
very unpleasant for all concerned, quite apart from giving no
"soak time" or coursework preparation time.
Arts and social science courses do not operate on that basis. They take
an area of study and concentrate on it for a term, year etc. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
... eliminating the "formal" articles would not help you.
Yes it would because they are the only long posts I make. RH
No they aren't. You often exceed 200 lines.
Only in my formal articles. 200 lines is around 1500 words. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You seem to have a weird view of what closed scholarships
were. It is true that there were exhibitions limited to sons of
clergy or to Etonians. But they were awarded on the same basis and
the same exams as other scholarships
Utter nonsense. RH
You mean those who were from Eton [etc] took two sets of
exams? A secret set to award the closed scholarships and then those
who failed to get these took the standard set to get the open ones?
And there is a conspiracy so that you and the Etonians are the only
ones to know this truth? Don't be daft.
The old pals act was alive and well at Oxbridge until the 1970s. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
In reality, with top
schools -- the ones with closed scholarships -- typically getting
10+ awards per year, calling one of them the "Bloggs Exhibition" was
no great deal. Similarly with the gentlemanly professions. As for
the OB network, that was based on trust. If my school had sent duds
You need to distinguish between absolute duds and students not as able
as the norm. RH
You're still being daft. My school [and I'm sure it was not
unusual in this respect] pulled strings to get its best pupils to the
best Oxbridge colleges; the "not as able" pupils were left to sink
or swim. That's how trust works.
Dear oh dear, how little the bounded mind understands of human nature.
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If the school had sent inflated
claims about us, the trust would have evaporated. FWIW, in this
litigious age of open references almost all school references are
essentially worthless, but 20+ years ago you could guarantee that
the school report from the top schools was scrupulously fair on both
good and bad points of its pupils; if Eton felt that Johnny was not
really up to Cambridge, the report would say so, and would say why
he would do better here instead.
The top public schools have gone down the academic route in the past 20
years so the quality of the average pupil should now be better. Of
course, they have always taken bright boys in the form of scholars and
they would doubtless take the lion's share of the closed scholarships.
RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Even when I
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
was at university there was a shortage of good maths and physics
candidates. RH
No there wasn't; not for maths, anyway.
I know for a fact there was. Some universities were better off than
others. RH
I know for a fact there wasn't. Even in 1969, maths had the
highest A-level scores of any major subject, even at second-division
universities. There were plenty of good mathematicians at the better
polys. If your AM failed to attract them, it was because they preferred
[eg] Trent Poly to Keele, not because they didn't exist.
I am not basing my judgement on Keele alone. It was a common problem. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Sigh. How many non-white people in your street? RH
As I have already told you, I neither know nor care.
Translation: I live in a very white world. RH
If I did, I would know [though still not care].
Translation: I live in a very white world. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. In the Autumn, I shall have a pile of UCAS
forms sitting on my desk, around 10 for every quota place. What do
you say I should do with those forms?
Go through them. If there are more qualified candidates than places, put
all the names in a hat and pull out enough to fill your places. RH
But they are not *yet* qualified,
Ye Gods! They are qualified for university entrance. RH
No they are not. They don't so qualify until ten months later,
when they get their A-levels.
Dear oh dear, the pedantic bounded mind. You make offers based on their
mocks and school estimates of their likely grades. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
At that stage, those who get AAAA will
become qualified for our courses, and those who get CCD will not. But
a lot of those with AAAA will choose [and be given the chance] to go to
Cambridge, some will even go to Warwick or Imperial or Bristol. As we
are not told where they have applied to, it's all a big guessing game,
which can go wrong [eg] if an open day happens to be particularly cold,
wet and miserable or [OTOH] nice and sunny.
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Bob LeChevalier
2004-09-03 11:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
... eliminating the "formal" articles would not help you.
Yes it would because they are the only long posts I make. RH
No they aren't. You often exceed 200 lines.
Only in my formal articles. 200 lines is around 1500 words. RH
...

You need to learn to count. From later in your post, a passage 4
Post by Robert Henderson
The top public schools have gone down the academic route in the past 20
years so the quality of the average pupil should now be better. Of
course, they have always taken bright boys in the form of scholars and
they would doubtless take the lion's share of the closed scholarships.
had 51 words, which would make a 200 line post somewhat over 2500
words.

lojbab (who has been known to write at length himself)
--
lojbab ***@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Robert Henderson
2004-09-03 13:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob LeChevalier
...
You need to learn to count. From later in your post, a passage 4
Post by Robert Henderson
The top public schools have gone down the academic route in the past 20
years so the quality of the average pupil should now be better. Of
course, they have always taken bright boys in the form of scholars and
they would doubtless take the lion's share of the closed scholarships.
had 51 words, which would make a 200 line post somewhat over 2500
words.
I was taking a conservative 7/8 words to the line. Of course, your
calculation makes Dr Walker's claim even more outlandish. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-06 16:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Doing it for one subject for an intensive course for adults
who want to learn is somewhat different from running the whole of
school education that way.
No reason why it could not work with children. [...]
Yes there is. They have [mostly] neither the attention span
nor the motivation of adults. What is more, whereas you can drop out
if you find yourself in an evening class with Miss Bloggs who turns
out to be an unsympathetic battle-axe, children have to take what
they are given -- and you have probably forgotten the intensity with
which children *hate* many teachers.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
AFAIK, every university uses "long thin" modules for almost
all their teaching [ie, except things like introductory IT, remedial
maths/languages]. [...]
Arts and social science courses do not operate on that basis. They take
an area of study and concentrate on it for a term, year etc. RH
That *is* a long, thin module. Students typically take six
or so such modules in parallel. Occasionally they may be linked --
eg two or three history modules covering different aspects of the
same period -- but usually they are not.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
... eliminating the "formal" articles would not help you.
Yes it would because they are the only long posts I make. RH
No they aren't. You often exceed 200 lines.
Only in my formal articles. 200 lines is around 1500 words. RH
However many words it may be, your typical article is much
longer than mine, you post several times as often, and those of your
articles that are not replies [which I take to include your "formal"
articles"] are shorter, not longer, than your average. You may
easily check this with Google and either a suitable script or else
enough patience to do it by hand. No matter how you slice and dice
it, you are in no position to accuse me of verbosity.
The old pals act was alive and well at Oxbridge until the 1970s. RH
Yes. Indeed until the present day. I have used it, both
ways. But not *ab*used it. If I tried to palm weak students off
onto my old college, or vv, then the trust would very soon wear
thin, and the OPA would stop working.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You're still being daft. My school [and I'm sure it was not
unusual in this respect] pulled strings to get its best pupils to the
best Oxbridge colleges; the "not as able" pupils were left to sink
or swim. That's how trust works.
Dear oh dear, how little the bounded mind understands of human nature.
No doubt. But having been part of that system, for many
years and at several levels, I understand it better than you do.
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Even when I
was at university there was a shortage of good maths and physics
candidates. RH
No there wasn't; not for maths, anyway.
[...]
I am not basing my judgement on Keele alone. It was a common problem. RH
Then perhaps you will tell us which universities, apart
perhaps from Keele, failed to attract those who preferred to go
to Trent Poly and other top polys, and why? You also need to
explain why, at that time, all univs *had* maths departments,
and were expanding them to cope with the demand [whereas today
around half have closed or are closing, and most of the rest are
finding recruitment very difficult].
Dear oh dear, the pedantic bounded mind. You make offers based on their
mocks and school estimates of their likely grades. RH
That *is* what we do, and you complained about it. As
I told you lo! these many posts ago, we have to make several
offers per quota place to allow for those who prefer to go to
Oxbridge or Bath or wherever and for those who eventually fail
to meet their predictions; and that makes the whole process
very uncertain. Meeting quota exactly [or even to within 10%]
is much more luck than judgement; which does not stop the govt
from penalising univs that are unlucky.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-07 08:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
AFAIK, every university uses "long thin" modules for almost
all their teaching [ie, except things like introductory IT, remedial
maths/languages]. [...]
Arts and social science courses do not operate on that basis. They take
an area of study and concentrate on it for a term, year etc. RH
That *is* a long, thin module. Students typically take six
or so such modules in parallel.
Not in the arts and social sciences. A single subject degree student
will, particularly in the final year, be concentrating on a narrow area
of study. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Occasionally they may be linked --
eg two or three history modules covering different aspects of the
same period -- but usually they are not.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
... eliminating the "formal" articles would not help you.
Yes it would because they are the only long posts I make. RH
No they aren't. You often exceed 200 lines.
Only in my formal articles. 200 lines is around 1500 words. RH
However many words it may be, your typical article is much
longer than mine, you post several times as often, and those of your
articles that are not replies [which I take to include your "formal"
articles"] are shorter, not longer, than your average. You may
easily check this with Google and either a suitable script or else
enough patience to do it by hand. No matter how you slice and dice
it, you are in no position to accuse me of verbosity.
I am afraid that your post is yet again a masterclass in the bounded
mind's inability to be succinct. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-07 17:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Arts and social science courses do not operate on that basis. They take
an area of study and concentrate on it for a term, year etc. RH
That *is* a long, thin module. Students typically take six
or so such modules in parallel.
Not in the arts and social sciences. A single subject degree student
will, particularly in the final year, be concentrating on a narrow area
of study. RH
On *several* narrow areas of study in parallel, in long thin
modules. If modules came in the short fat style you commend, it would
be an organisational and educational nightmare, *especially* for final
year options. Arts and social sciences are no different in this respect.

If your AM was otherwise, then it was even weirder than anyone
outside supposed at the time.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] No matter how you slice and dice
it, you are in no position to accuse me of verbosity.
I am afraid that your post is yet again a masterclass in the bounded
mind's inability to be succinct. RH
And yet both it and this one are shorter than yours.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-08 05:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Arts and social science courses do not operate on that basis. They take
an area of study and concentrate on it for a term, year etc. RH
That *is* a long, thin module. Students typically take six
or so such modules in parallel.
Not in the arts and social sciences. A single subject degree student
will, particularly in the final year, be concentrating on a narrow area
of study. RH
On *several* narrow areas of study in parallel, in long thin
modules.
In a final year a history student would typically take a year long
special subject plus a series of revision seminars. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If modules came in the short fat style you commend, it would
be an organisational and educational nightmare, *especially* for final
year options. Arts and social sciences are no different in this respect.
If your AM was otherwise, then it was even weirder than anyone
outside supposed at the time.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] No matter how you slice and dice
it, you are in no position to accuse me of verbosity.
I am afraid that your post is yet again a masterclass in the bounded
mind's inability to be succinct. RH
And yet both it and this one are shorter than yours.
Oh dear, now we are in bounded mind fantasyland. Your previous post had
38 lines of new bounded mind input. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-08 18:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
In a final year a history student would typically take a year long
special subject plus a series of revision seminars. RH
*Several* specialised subjects. Try looking at a range of
arts [and other] disciplines in a range of universities, not just
at your somewhat strange experiences of a third of a century ago.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-12 14:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
In a final year a history student would typically take a year long
special subject plus a series of revision seminars. RH
*Several* specialised subjects. Try looking at a range of
arts [and other] disciplines in a range of universities, not just
at your somewhat strange experiences of a third of a century ago.
On the contrary, my real experiences of the arts and social sciences as
opposed to your fantasy world of non-experience of arts and social
sciences. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-14 19:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
On the contrary, my real experiences of the arts and social sciences
In *one* decidedly unusual university a third of a century ago.
Post by Robert Henderson
as
opposed to your fantasy world of non-experience of arts and social
sciences. RH
A fantasy world containing (a) actual membership of four
different univs, up to the present day, inc friends and colleagues
in A&SS depts at all four, (b) membership of the cttee that set up
and validated *all* courses at this univ when we went fully modular
some years ago, (c) membership, as an external advisor, of cttees
at other univs that set up and validated courses in various subjects,
some of which were A&SS, (d) experience with various joint honours
combinations, here and elsewhere, that included maths and A&SS
subjects [esp, but not only, economics], (e) course info, easily
obtainable on the Web, about a range of courses at a range of
univs, (f) attendance at many conferences including talks and
presentations by people from other disciplines which alluded to
education in those disciplines, and (g) common sense. "Etc."

But feel free to peddle your ancient memories as though
they are modern fact.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-15 16:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
On the contrary, my real experiences of the arts and social sciences
In *one* decidedly unusual university a third of a century ago.
Don't imagine that the unusual breadth of study at Keele in the 60s/70s
= less depth to the degree subjects. The degree subjects were studied to
the same depth as in a three year degree and in the same organised
manner. The fact it was a four-year degree gave time to spread across
other subjects. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
as
opposed to your fantasy world of non-experience of arts and social
sciences. RH
A fantasy world containing (a) actual membership of four
different univs, up to the present day, inc friends and colleagues
in A&SS depts at all four, (b) membership of the cttee that set up
and validated *all* courses at this univ when we went fully modular
some years ago, (c) membership, as an external advisor, of cttees
at other univs that set up and validated courses in various subjects,
some of which were A&SS, (d) experience with various joint honours
combinations, here and elsewhere, that included maths and A&SS
subjects [esp, but not only, economics], (e) course info, easily
obtainable on the Web, about a range of courses at a range of
univs, (f) attendance at many conferences including talks and
presentations by people from other disciplines which alluded to
education in those disciplines, and (g) common sense. "Etc."
Translation: no practical experience of Arts and Social Science
teaching. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-15 19:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
On the contrary, my real experiences of the arts and social sciences
In *one* decidedly unusual university a third of a century ago.
Don't imagine that the unusual breadth of study at Keele in the 60s/70s
= less depth to the degree subjects. [...]
And this has what exactly to do with the fact that your
experiences were (a) at an unusual univ, and (b) antique?
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: no practical experience of Arts and Social Science
teaching. RH
Factually incorrect; I have such experience both as teacher
[IT and history of maths] and as student [tho' out of general interest
rather than "for credit"]. And surely you are not claiming practical
experience of *teaching* at Keele?

You should not assume that academics in general are as
narrow-minded as those, if any, you know, or as your projection
of what you think academics are like. A few, of course, are;
at least as much so on the "Arts" side of Snow's divide as on
the "Science" side. Keele was to be commended for trying to
bridge that gap; but the truth is, and always was, that most
academics have wide-ranging interests.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-17 13:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
On the contrary, my real experiences of the arts and social sciences
In *one* decidedly unusual university a third of a century ago.
Don't imagine that the unusual breadth of study at Keele in the 60s/70s
= less depth to the degree subjects. [...]
And this has what exactly to do with the fact that your
experiences were (a) at an unusual univ, and (b) antique?
A. The unusual nature of Keele was irrelevant to the discussion because
it did not affect the degree curriculum. B. the teaching curriculum of
Arts and Sciences has not changed that much since 1970. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: no practical experience of Arts and Social Science
teaching. RH
Factually incorrect; I have such experience both as teacher
[IT and history of maths
As I said, no experience of teaching Arts and Social Sciences. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
] and as student [tho' out of general interest
Your bounded mind puts these subjects beyond your grasp. You won't
realise that of course being a bounded mind. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
rather than "for credit"]. And surely you are not claiming practical
experience of *teaching* at Keele?
Sigh. I had the experience of being an Arts and Social Science student
at Keele. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
You should not assume that academics in general are as
narrow-minded as those, if any, you know, or as your projection
of what you think academics are like. A few, of course, are;
at least as much so on the "Arts" side of Snow's divide as on
the "Science" side. Keele was to be commended for trying to
bridge that gap; but the truth is, and always was, that most
academics have wide-ranging interests.
You must be joking!!!! For example, the average academic historian
squeals in terror when asked something beyond "his period". RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-17 19:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
A. The unusual nature of Keele was irrelevant to the discussion because
it did not affect the degree curriculum.
Yes it did, both by my own knowledge of Keele and your
descriptions of it. How many historians at Cambridge do you
suppose were required to do an extra year including science?
Post by Robert Henderson
B. the teaching curriculum of
Arts and Sciences has not changed that much since 1970. RH
It has *here*. I expect it has at Keele as well.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: no practical experience of Arts and Social Science
teaching. RH
Factually incorrect; I have such experience both as teacher
[IT and history of maths
As I said, no experience of teaching Arts and Social Sciences. RH
The departments concerned, and their students, seemed quite
happy with the content and style, which was apparently very similar
to what they received in other modules. Do you suppose that A&SS
is all history? Subjects like philosophy, economics, psychology
have much in common with the less lab-based sciences.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
] and as student [tho' out of general interest
Your bounded mind puts these subjects beyond your grasp. You won't
realise that of course being a bounded mind. RH
Tee-hee. You need to take some philosophy modules before
spouting such rubbish; but I expect they're beyond your grasp.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
rather than "for credit"]. And surely you are not claiming practical
experience of *teaching* at Keele?
Sigh. I had the experience of being an Arts and Social Science student
at Keele. RH
But you did not do any *teaching*, and so you have no
worthwhile opinions on education beyond those of the man on
the Clapham omnibus.
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] For example, the average academic historian
squeals in terror when asked something beyond "his period". RH
If this is true of the historians you knew at Keele, which
I doubt, then this says more about Keele than about academics in
general. Apart from your ancient and untypical experiences as an
undergraduate, how many "average academic historians" do you know,
and what did you ask them beyond their periods? All the historians
I know are only too keen to rabbit on about every subject under the
sun, whether or not it is "in period".
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-18 06:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
A. The unusual nature of Keele was irrelevant to the discussion because
it did not affect the degree curriculum.
Yes it did, both by my own knowledge of Keele
Which is effectively zero. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and your
descriptions of it. How many historians at Cambridge do you
suppose were required to do an extra year including science?
You miss the point in true bounded mind fashion. Because Keele had the
extra year in those days, the additional subjects did not impinge on the
degree subjects' time. That is all that matters. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
B. the teaching curriculum of
Arts and Sciences has not changed that much since 1970. RH
It has *here*. I expect it has at Keele as well.
OK. How has the History curriculum in terms of teaching timetables
altered at Nottingham? RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Translation: no practical experience of Arts and Social Science
teaching. RH
Factually incorrect; I have such experience both as teacher
[IT and history of maths
As I said, no experience of teaching Arts and Social Sciences. RH
The departments concerned, and their students, seemed quite
happy with the content and style, which was apparently very similar
to what they received in other modules. Do you suppose that A&SS
is all history? Subjects like philosophy, economics, psychology
have much in common with the less lab-based sciences.
Translation: I must waffle to cover up the fact I have never taught Arts
and Social Sciences. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
] and as student [tho' out of general interest
Your bounded mind puts these subjects beyond your grasp. You won't
realise that of course being a bounded mind. RH
Tee-hee. You need to take some philosophy modules before
spouting such rubbish; but I expect they're beyond your grasp.
Translation: Bounded mind panic. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
rather than "for credit"]. And surely you are not claiming practical
experience of *teaching* at Keele?
Sigh. I had the experience of being an Arts and Social Science student
at Keele. RH
But you did not do any *teaching*,
Irrelevant to the point at issue which is the way in which the Arts and
Social Sciences are taught. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and so you have no
worthwhile opinions on education beyond those of the man on
the Clapham omnibus.
Post by Robert Henderson
[...] For example, the average academic historian
squeals in terror when asked something beyond "his period". RH
If this is true of the historians you knew at Keele, which
I doubt, then this says more about Keele than about academics in
general. Apart from your ancient and untypical experiences as an
undergraduate, how many "average academic historians" do you know,
and what did you ask them beyond their periods? All the historians
I know are only too keen to rabbit on about every subject under the
sun, whether or not it is "in period".
Not when they are on academic duty. Faced with those who know some
history they clam up for fear of seeming stupid. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-09-20 18:48:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
A. The unusual nature of Keele was irrelevant to the discussion because
it did not affect the degree curriculum.
Yes it did, both by my own knowledge of Keele
Which is effectively zero. RH
You have me confused with someone else.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and your
descriptions of it. How many historians at Cambridge do you
suppose were required to do an extra year including science?
You miss the point in true bounded mind fashion. Because Keele had the
extra year in those days, the additional subjects did not impinge on the
degree subjects' time. That is all that matters. RH
You didn't say "time", you said "curriculum". Make your
mind up. If the extra year had no effect on curriculum [in later
years], then it was manifestly a waste of time.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
B. the teaching curriculum of
Arts and Sciences has not changed that much since 1970. RH
It has *here*. I expect it has at Keele as well.
OK. How has the History curriculum in terms of teaching timetables
altered at Nottingham? RH
It has been completely re-written three times in the last
fifteen years to my personal knowledge, for starters. Yes, that
is too often, but it is in response to univ and govt initiatives,
and we can at least hope that there will now be a stable period.
But most degree courses get revised from scratch every so often,
and they are required to be reviewed in depth at least every five
years. Final-year options are mostly the personal interests of
individual staff, and *they* have turned over almost completely
in the last 34 years. But first-year modules too have gone the
way of all flesh over the years.

I've just checked the current list of modules [which you
can find for yourself on the Web] against the regulations for
1977 [first "Arts" handbook I found on my shelf]. I have not
yet found a single topic directly in common. If you will send
me your snail-mail address, I will happily post you a photocopy
of the 1977 version for your verification.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. Do you suppose that A&SS
is all history? Subjects like philosophy, economics, psychology
have much in common with the less lab-based sciences.
Translation: I must waffle to cover up the fact I have never taught Arts
and Social Sciences. RH
In what sense is teaching [eg] philosophy, albeit as a "guest
lecturer" rather than an official member of their staff, not teaching
that subject?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But you did not do any *teaching*,
Irrelevant to the point at issue which is the way in which the Arts and
Social Sciences are taught. RH
As a student, you have no idea what goes on "behind the
scenes". Even a year or two as a postgrad would have given you
*some* idea of the issues involved. As an undergrad, you see
only one small aspect; and you are away for half the year.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] All the historians
I know are only too keen to rabbit on about every subject under the
sun, whether or not it is "in period".
Not when they are on academic duty. Faced with those who know some
history they clam up for fear of seeming stupid. RH
But you weren't talking about "academic duty", even if
what you say is true of historians [which I doubt, based on my
own experiences of them], as opposed to other academics. You
were attacking the wide-ranging interests of most academics.
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Robert Henderson
2004-09-21 14:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
A. The unusual nature of Keele was irrelevant to the discussion because
it did not affect the degree curriculum.
Yes it did, both by my own knowledge of Keele
Which is effectively zero. RH
You have me confused with someone else.
Impossible. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
and your
descriptions of it. How many historians at Cambridge do you
suppose were required to do an extra year including science?
You miss the point in true bounded mind fashion. Because Keele had the
extra year in those days, the additional subjects did not impinge on the
degree subjects' time. That is all that matters. RH
You didn't say "time", you said "curriculum". Make your
mind up. If the extra year had no effect on curriculum [in later
years], then it was manifestly a waste of time.
Sigh. The extra year was the foundation year which took place before the
degree subject years. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
B. the teaching curriculum of
Arts and Sciences has not changed that much since 1970. RH
It has *here*. I expect it has at Keele as well.
OK. How has the History curriculum in terms of teaching timetables
altered at Nottingham? RH
It has been completely re-written three times in the last
fifteen years to my personal knowledge, for starters.
Translation: I haven't a clue what changes if any have been made. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Yes, that
is too often, but it is in response to univ and govt initiatives,
and we can at least hope that there will now be a stable period.
But most degree courses get revised from scratch every so often,
and they are required to be reviewed in depth at least every five
years. Final-year options are mostly the personal interests of
individual staff, and *they* have turned over almost completely
in the last 34 years. But first-year modules too have gone the
way of all flesh over the years.
I've just checked the current list of modules [which you
can find for yourself on the Web] against the regulations for
1977 [first "Arts" handbook I found on my shelf]. I have not
yet found a single topic directly in common.
Topics change, the structure of the courses does not. rH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
If you will send
me your snail-mail address, I will happily post you a photocopy
of the 1977 version for your verification.
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]. Do you suppose that A&SS
is all history? Subjects like philosophy, economics, psychology
have much in common with the less lab-based sciences.
Translation: I must waffle to cover up the fact I have never taught Arts
and Social Sciences. RH
In what sense is teaching [eg] philosophy, albeit as a "guest
lecturer"
Translation: they were humouring me. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
rather than an official member of their staff,
Chortle. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
not teaching
that subject?
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
But you did not do any *teaching*,
Irrelevant to the point at issue which is the way in which the Arts and
Social Sciences are taught. RH
As a student, you have no idea what goes on "behind the
scenes". Even a year or two as a postgrad would have given you
*some* idea of the issues involved. As an undergrad, you see
only one small aspect; and you are away for half the year.
Self important waffle. RH
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
Post by Robert Henderson
Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...] All the historians
I know are only too keen to rabbit on about every subject under the
sun, whether or not it is "in period".
Not when they are on academic duty. Faced with those who know some
history they clam up for fear of seeming stupid. RH
But you weren't talking about "academic duty", even if
what you say is true of historians [which I doubt, based on my
own experiences of them], as opposed to other academics. You
were attacking the wide-ranging interests of most academics.
Most have very narrow interest in my experience. Scientists are the
worst. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Jean
2004-08-03 16:03:25 UTC
Permalink
One concern that I have in regards to school vouchers is that there is
less regulation and accountability for private voucher schools
(compared to public schools). At least in Milwaukee, there is no
requirement for the private schools to even show where the voucher
monies are going. And look where that lead- founder of Mandella
School of Science and Math, David A Seppeh, used $330,000 in state
voucher money and bought two Mercedes. How can we trust any shmuck
who starts up a school to use voucher money to actually educate our
children? And how do we know that our children are safe and receiving
a good education? At Alex's Academics of Excellence voucher school
(yes, that's really the name of the place), the founder is a convicted
sexual offender and reporters were physically threatened when they
tried to find out about the school and curriculum there. These are
only a few examples of the disturbing abuses of our tax dollars. If
voucher programs truly are the way to offer education for all (and I'm
not even sure I like the idea in the first place), then private
voucher schools must be held accountable financially and academically.
Robert Henderson
2004-08-04 04:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean
One concern that I have in regards to school vouchers is that there is
less regulation and accountability for private voucher schools
(compared to public schools). At least in Milwaukee, there is no
requirement for the private schools to even show where the voucher
monies are going.
That could be overcome by proper public auditing. Whether such auditing
would happen is another matter. It is a genuine area of concern. RH
Post by Jean
And look where that lead- founder of Mandella
School of Science and Math, David A Seppeh, used $330,000 in state
voucher money and bought two Mercedes. How can we trust any shmuck
who starts up a school to use voucher money to actually educate our
children? And how do we know that our children are safe and receiving
a good education?
To a degree the parents would decide this, ie, they would remove
children from poor schools. However, there is the problem of exactly
what other schools are in an area. One would need a system of external
evaluation of schools. RH
Post by Jean
At Alex's Academics of Excellence voucher school
(yes, that's really the name of the place), the founder is a convicted
sexual offender and reporters were physically threatened when they
tried to find out about the school and curriculum there. These are
only a few examples of the disturbing abuses of our tax dollars. If
voucher programs truly are the way to offer education for all (and I'm
not even sure I like the idea in the first place), then private
voucher schools must be held accountable financially and academically.
There would have to be strong reserved powers for the state to
intervene. That would be quite legitimate because the schools are
living off taxpayers' money. RH
--
Robert Henderson
***@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Ian Bailey
2004-07-13 22:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Henderson
The most obvious difficulty is what real choice can a parent have in
practise if they only have two or three schools in their catchment area?
Precious little, because it is unlikely that all will be good. Outside
the larger cities and towns the choice, particularly in rural areas, is
likely to be even more restricted.
Exactly the point I was making. Choice is a nonsense in most cases,
due to a lack of practical options for a variety of reasons. Real
choice would involve parents being able to choose their excellent
local school, or its excellent neighbour, or any other school knowing
that they have all been given the attention and resources they need to
hit the kind of standards all schools should attain.

Ian
unknown
2004-07-14 07:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by Robert Henderson
The most obvious difficulty is what real choice can a parent have in
practise if they only have two or three schools in their catchment area?
Precious little, because it is unlikely that all will be good.
It is precisely this attitude that has allowed underperformance for so
long
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by Robert Henderson
Outside
the larger cities and towns the choice, particularly in rural areas, is
likely to be even more restricted.
Exactly the point I was making. Choice is a nonsense in most cases,
due to a lack of practical options for a variety of reasons.
'Most'? What proportion of the UK lives in urban areas?
Post by Ian Bailey
Real
choice would involve parents being able to choose their excellent
local school, or its excellent neighbour, or any other school knowing
that they have all been given the attention and resources they need to
hit the kind of standards all schools should attain.
I.e. no choice at all, and the usual statist crap
--
cheers

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Ian Bailey
2004-07-14 18:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by Robert Henderson
The most obvious difficulty is what real choice can a parent have in
practise if they only have two or three schools in their catchment area?
Precious little, because it is unlikely that all will be good.
It is precisely this attitude that has allowed underperformance for so
long
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by Robert Henderson
Outside
the larger cities and towns the choice, particularly in rural areas, is
likely to be even more restricted.
Exactly the point I was making. Choice is a nonsense in most cases,
due to a lack of practical options for a variety of reasons.
'Most'? What proportion of the UK lives in urban areas?
Why just urban areas? Live in suburbia and the alternate choice of
school is either a car ride or a bus (or two) ride away. Live in the
country and suddenly we're talking about miles and miles.

You seem to be objecting to all schools pushing themselves to hit the
same fundamental standards. Why? Are some kids not worthy of the
quality education we seem to be demanding for some middle-class kids.
As even you must accept that not all kids can go to the schools you
consider acceptable, that condemns the others to poor schools - unless
we improve these schools like I am arguing for.

Ian
unknown
2004-07-14 20:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by unknown
Post by Ian Bailey
Exactly the point I was making. Choice is a nonsense in most cases,
due to a lack of practical options for a variety of reasons.
'Most'? What proportion of the UK lives in urban areas?
Why just urban areas? Live in suburbia and the alternate choice of
school is either a car ride or a bus (or two) ride away. Live in the
country and suddenly we're talking about miles and miles.
To a school building for sure. In most places a school building can
simply be split into two schools. Been done before. Improves results
in most cases
Post by Ian Bailey
You seem to be objecting to all schools pushing themselves to hit the
same fundamental standards.
I'm not
--
cheers

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Mark
2004-07-14 10:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Bailey
Real
choice would involve parents being able to choose their excellent
local school, or its excellent neighbour, or any other school knowing
that they have all been given the attention and resources they need to
hit the kind of standards all schools should attain.
If you believe that, it's odd that you support tax-funded, government-run schools.

Mark
Ian Bailey
2004-07-14 18:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by Ian Bailey
Real
choice would involve parents being able to choose their excellent
local school, or its excellent neighbour, or any other school knowing
that they have all been given the attention and resources they need to
hit the kind of standards all schools should attain.
If you believe that, it's odd that you support tax-funded, government-run schools.
Why? Are youy saying that state-run schools should be shit?

Ian
Halberd
2004-07-14 19:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by Mark
Post by Ian Bailey
Real
choice would involve parents being able to choose their excellent
local school, or its excellent neighbour, or any other school knowing
that they have all been given the attention and resources they need to
hit the kind of standards all schools should attain.
If you believe that, it's odd that you support tax-funded, government-run schools.
Why? Are youy saying that state-run schools should be shit?
These chaps have the problem that when kids from state schools start
achieving it makes the expense of their opting for the private system look
a bit daft. They pay for a differential and it is being eroded.
unknown
2004-07-14 20:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by Mark
Post by Ian Bailey
Real
choice would involve parents being able to choose their excellent
local school, or its excellent neighbour, or any other school knowing
that they have all been given the attention and resources they need to
hit the kind of standards all schools should attain.
If you believe that, it's odd that you support tax-funded, government-run schools.
Why? Are youy saying that state-run schools should be shit?
I'm saying they *are*
--
cheers

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Halberd
2004-07-15 11:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by Mark
Post by Ian Bailey
Real
choice would involve parents being able to choose their excellent
local school, or its excellent neighbour, or any other school knowing
that they have all been given the attention and resources they need to
hit the kind of standards all schools should attain.
If you believe that, it's odd that you support tax-funded,
government-run schools.
Why? Are youy saying that state-run schools should be shit?
I'm saying they *are*
...and believing that saying it makes it so.
Greg Hennessy
2004-07-15 13:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Halberd
Post by unknown
Post by Ian Bailey
Why? Are youy saying that state-run schools should be shit?
I'm saying they *are*
...and believing that saying it makes it so.
ROTFLMFAO! Hilarious coming from you.
--
Konnt ihr mich horen?
Konnt ihr mich sehen?
Konnt ihr mich fuhlen?
Ich versteh euch nicht
unknown
2004-07-15 18:11:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:39:49 +0000 (UTC), Halberd
Post by Halberd
Post by unknown
Post by Ian Bailey
Post by Mark
Post by Ian Bailey
Real
choice would involve parents being able to choose their excellent
local school, or its excellent neighbour, or any other school knowing
that they have all been given the attention and resources they need to
hit the kind of standards all schools should attain.
If you believe that, it's odd that you support tax-funded,
government-run schools.
Why? Are youy saying that state-run schools should be shit?
I'm saying they *are*
...and believing that saying it makes it so.
And your evidence to the contrary is? Checked out Ryde college
recently?
--
cheers

www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...