Cycling UK Forum

Tangled Metal wrote:How many properly funded public services can be paid for by the pot of money brought in by the government? At what point do you compromise and cut this proper funding? For what services do you cut?

It always comes as the solution. Proper funding if this service or that service. Then a new thread comes up about a different service and the solution is proper funding. And so it goes. The truth is that's an ideal not a solution. The government's always come up with their solutions. It's different every government. The one thing they have never managed so far is to properly fund any service.

I think that the parents who pay extra for education beyond state provision regard it as an investment in the child's future.
To adapt Churchill on school milk, putting knowledge and skills into children is a good investment in the nation's future.
Much the same can be said for a state medical service. It produces a healthier population at a much cheaper price than private insurance, to the obvious good of the state.

Tangled Metal wrote:How many properly funded public services can be paid for by the pot of money brought in by the government? At what point do you compromise and cut this proper funding? For what services do you cut?

It always comes as the solution. Proper funding if this service or that service. Then a new thread comes up about a different service and the solution is proper funding. And so it goes. The truth is that's an ideal not a solution. The government's always come up with their solutions. It's different every government. The one thing they have never managed so far is to properly fund any service.

The present and previous governments have done more chopping and changing and faffing about with education than enough,ask the teachers what needs doing for education,they'll give you the answer.Unfortunately,AFAICS teachers have been treated appallingly in recent years by the present bunch of privately educated millionaire MP's.
We've had 10 years of austerity that's done nothing for the country and worse for the education of societies children

reohn2 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:What rubbish! By paying for a tutor for poor kid down the road you're giving him the advantage instead. Equality would be both getting tutored privately surely.....

In a decently funded education system both wouldn't need private tutoring.
There's a good system to provide that,it's called taxation,though the present government has seen fit to cut the taxes of the rich far more than it has the poor to buy their votes and consequentially that reduction can be used to buy in tutors to help their children up the ladder.

It's far easier to pedal on the flat than uphill especially when you're overgeared to begin with,OTOH climbing uphill is much easier when you have the right gearing installed .

I refer you to my post above about all the many public services who's problems are solved by proper funding. I ask what taxation burden will rich and poor accept for this proper funding?

Your comments about buying the votes of the rich by cutting their taxes. The rich are the minority so isn't it better to cut the taxes of the poor to gain votes?

It's not their votes they are buying but their money got party funding. All parties give sweeteners out to those who give their party the most. It's politics and it's expensive.

reohn2 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:How many properly funded public services can be paid for by the pot of money brought in by the government? At what point do you compromise and cut this proper funding? For what services do you cut?

It always comes as the solution. Proper funding if this service or that service. Then a new thread comes up about a different service and the solution is proper funding. And so it goes. The truth is that's an ideal not a solution. The government's always come up with their solutions. It's different every government. The one thing they have never managed so far is to properly fund any service.

The presentnand previous governments have done more chopping and changing and faffing about with education than enough,ask the teachers what needs doing for education,they'll give you the answer.Unfortunately,AFAICS teachers have been treated appallingly in recent years by the present bunch on privately educated millionaire MP's.
We've had 10 years of austerity that's done nothing for the country and worse for the education of societies children

It has always been the claim of teachers that governments ministers interfere, chop and change. With each new government there's often a new minister who stamps his or her or their party's politics / ideology on education. It's ever the case that teachers say it should be left to them. I've seen teachers ' representatives say this about every government I've lived through since I first got interested in politics, that's only about 35 years and many governments / ministers for education (or whatever their titles have been since they've change it over the years).

reohn2 wrote:In a properly funded national education system there'd be less eed for private tutors or private schools,nor wouldnthere be a post code school system where parents move house because of a better school down the road,it would bring schools upto a higher level across the board.
But as you say pigs might fly

What kind of funding did the education system receive in the 1960s? Many would argue it was better then, yet I doubt it got as much funding as it does now, on a per pupil basis.

In the Soviet Union or Mao's China, where all were ostensibly equal, do you not think children of high ranking members of the party received superior schooling to the common peasant child, who in some cases may not have received a secondary education at all? Didn't Ben@Forest tell us of a Russian translator who learnt English (in Soviet times) because his parents paid for private lessons.

Do you think you could stop parents paying for tutors to further their children in some sense of another?

I'm sorry, I just think you are fighting against nature. You could bring schools up to a higher level, but you would lose pupils along the way, some pupils academic abilities won't be good enough for the higher level schooling. They should be encouraged to pursue other occupations, if they are not suited for academia.

I'm trying to work this out - are you a believer in the blank slate, that every child is essentially the same raw material (intellectually) and it is only what they are exposed to or not which determines their intellect upon adulthood? I can see no way that the same education could work equally for all, unless they are a blank slate.

I think children should be encouraged in their particular gifts, whether that is working with their hands, playing music, sport or pursuing a more academic route. I think much ability in these realms is innate and you can only go so far until you come up against the limits of a child, if they are being pushed in a direction which is not in their make up.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,

reohn2 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:Long, boring discussion <snip>

I think the phrase R2 wanted read everyone should be treated as equals not equally. You can't really treat people equally and expect the best out of them. Some will always need more help, others less.

You can treat people as equals in that they are of equal worth and deserve equal chance at achieving their best. All very much idealistic though that is.

Thanks,that's exactly what I meant,and I don't see any wrong in idealic aims especially in education.

And what do you do with lazy people?
The lazy exist in all classes and all walks of life. modern living has done this, being paid beyond your worth breeds lazy.

The bible:- 2 Thess ch 3 v 10 "if a man will not work then he shall not eat".
However there's a huge difference between that and when a man cannot work,or when he works hard and cannot make ends meet.
Some of today's children wont get off first base due to being hampered by a bad education system,more so if they're from an ethnic background.
Lazy people are lazy people that's their prerogative,though what that's got to do with poor education I'm puzzled,unless you're claiming that anyone who doesn't make the grade(whatever that grade maybe in your estimation)is lazy,you couldn't be more mistaken.

Freddie wrote:

pete75 wrote:

Freddie wrote:The social class system works both way. It is a game of snakes and ladders, not just a game of 'very occasional ladders', as some would have it. Plenty of people have fallen from high birth to low within a generation because of their own misbehaviour or ineptitude. People go both up and down the class system.

If you're incompetent, do you think it is possible to maintain any wealth/position gifted to you by your parents? No, you either slowly descend or you come crashing down, depending upon your degree of incompetence.

If a person is born into wealth, it doesn't mean that is where they will stay.

Most certainly yes.

And do you have evidence of this or just a gut feeling?

Yes I know people like that. Plenty in the upper reaches of society, known personally to me.

Tangled Metal wrote:I refer you to my post above about all the many public services who's problems are solved by proper funding. I ask what taxation burden will rich and poor accept for this proper funding?

When you invest in society your returns are a better society,see Mike Sales post above.

Your comments about buying the votes of the rich by cutting their taxes. The rich are the minority so isn't it better to cut the taxes of the poor to gain votes?

They did cut the taxes of the poor,but no where near as much as they did the rich,and at the same time they made it harder for the poor to live by allowing rents and house prices to rocket.As well as demonising the the poor and disabled by making it harder for them to claim the benefits the government said they were due to,see IDS's benefit changes and the hoops created the poor and disabled need to jump through to get what is due to them.
It's sickening.

It's not their votes they are buying but their money got party funding. All parties give sweeteners out to those who give their party the most. It's politics and it's expensive.

And we know who's funding the Tory party.
A clue,it isn't the poor!

Freddie wrote:BTW, I have to ask Pete, do you have children? You are part of the 1% as per what you've told us regarding your income and more power to you, but where would this place any children you might have? Would you not be able to provide things for them for far beyond the ability of the typical working class person on a 'working class' income.

You are a working class person 'done good' and that is great, but aren't any children you may have unduly privileged because of this? Are they still working class, what about any grandchildren?

Yes I have children and they were no keener on working hard academically than I was. They'll probably end up being just as big a failure in life as I've been.

I read somewhere about inner city schools getting more funding per head and it was getting results. But that was at the expense of other school areas not b getting this extra funding. IIRC it was london but no other city. Vague recollection so details sketchy. I don't think it was effective universally the funding was applied.

The other issue I have is schools tend to focus on the middle and lower end of ability. There also needs to be better handling of the education of the brightest kids. One work colleague says that very bright kids should be considered as having a different kind of learning difficulty. If you like me funding to teach and get the best out of the kids at each end of academic ability. I can see that because I've seen kids underperform due to boredom because the lack of challenge in their education. If you're learning at the pace of the average when you're well above average, well you can understand this issue.

Pete, you didn't answer my question though...How are your children, who I presume have benefitted from your wealth, much different from the children of old Etonians, who you say benefit from an unfair advantage through their fathers' contacts. Where is the line drawn between fair and unfair advantage?

Isn't it a bit convenient that old money is unfair, whilst new money is not.

With all the cuts to funding over the past ten years there is absolutely no chance of brighter kids getting more individual attention than in the past. Staff numbers are being cut, jobs downgraded so wages can be cut without it looking like a pay cut, and teachers are hanging on by their finger nails. They want to provide better teaching, and they know how to do it, but the time for each pupil just isn't there.

Freddie wrote:

reohn2 wrote:In a properly funded national education system there'd be less eed for private tutors or private schools,nor wouldnthere be a post code school system where parents move house because of a better school down the road,it would bring schools upto a higher level across the board.
But as you say pigs might fly

What kind of funding did the education system receive in the 1960s? Many would argue it was better then, yet I doubt it got as much funding as it does now, on a per pupil basis.

Facts and figures please.

In the Soviet Union or Mao's China, where all were ostensibly equal, do you not think children of high ranking members of the party received superior schooling to the common peasant child, who in some cases may not have received a secondary education at all? Didn't Ben@Forest tell us of a Russian translator who learnt English (in Soviet times) because his parents paid for private lessons

If there weren't a need due to a better education system,then there wouldn't been a need would there?

Do you think you could stop parents paying for tutors to further their children in some sense of another?

Did I say I could or even would?
See the answer to your previous question.

I'm sorry, I just think you are fighting against nature. You could bring schools up to a higher level, but you would lose pupils along the way, some pupils academic abilities won't be good enough for the higher level schooling. They should be encouraged to pursue other occupations, if they are not suited for academia.

You seem to believe,education is all about academia,it isn't,it should be much wider than that.

I'm trying to work this out - are you a believer in the blank slate, that every child is essentially the same raw material (intellectually) and it is only what they are exposed to or not which determines their intellect upon adulthood? I can see no way that the same education could work equally for all, unless they are a blank slate

There's no such thing as a blank slate,what gave you the idea I thought there was?
Every pocket has a bottom to it,nor do I believe every child has the same intellectual ability,nor do they all have the same intellectual interests,see my answer to yuor previous question
Did you watch the video?

I think children should be encouraged in their particular gifts, whether that is working with their hands, playing music, sport or pursuing a more academic route. I think much ability in these realms is innate and you can only go so far until you come up against the limits of a child, if they are being pushed in a direction which is not in their make up.

Ah! So you do understand what I was driving at,you just assumed too much of me

reohn2 wrote:If there weren't a need due to a better education system,then there wouldn't been a need would there?

I dunno, some parents are very keen on their children learning instruments and I doubt this could be done properly without a) a private tutor or b) a proper music school.

reohn2 wrote:Ah! So you do understand what I was driving at,you just assumed too much of me

Maybe, I'm not sure how you'd fix the problem you see...you said increase funding, but would one school tend to different types of children? Wouldn't it be better to separate as per ability and type of schooling, something akin to the German system, something a bit like we used to have...

What would the reohn2 system look like?

pwa wrote:With all the cuts to funding over the past ten years there is absolutely no chance of brighter kids getting more individual attention than in the past.

So what chance the less bright kids?

Staff numbers are being cut, jobs downgraded so wages can be cut without it looking like a pay cut, and teachers are hanging on by their finger nails. They want to provide better teaching, and they know how to do it, but the time for each pupil just isn't there.

Quite!

The countries that have come out ot the 2008 crash best are the countries that borrowed and invested in infrastructure,which includes education.
The UK went in the opposite direct(the orchastrators of which have long since flown the coup) and as a result we are where we are,a divided nation on it's knees snd getting worse by the day,due to it's myopic class based system that looks after the rich and devil take the hindmost.