Oct 2015
11:09am, 16 Oct 2015
6,935 posts
|
simbil
DG, So if the limited budget can build a local grammar or a local special needs school, which one would you prefer? |
Oct 2015
11:19am, 16 Oct 2015
6,778 posts
|
Binks
I'd say individuals should be responsible for their self-protection, but that does not necessarily mean that they will only protect themselves individually. Voluntary groups would naturally form to give economies of scale on protection. And my experience of humanity is that people would go out of their way to ensure that the little old lady is safe. People would not just say "Dave is attacking someone else, that's cool so long as it's not me". A general belief (principle or whatever it might be called) of mine is that when personal responsibility gets taken away from you (as is the case in Sweden with booze, or most countries with drugs, health, education, work choices etc) then the outcomes will be less efficient. Since you are now further away from seeing the direct consequences of your actions you are less inclined to discover the ways to enhance your own circumstances and make good decisions. In this case of the old lady I think that a community will gather round and ensure her safety out of being good humans who see the consequences of their actions. If her safety was delegated to the state then people have a tendency to think "well, it's the state that is responsible to protect her, I have paid into the machine and the machine should take care of her". The machine costs lots of money, is quite slow and not close enough to the problem to be able to make the best call. personal security is obviously at the very top end of importance and this example might sound extreme. I think at least the same principle could be applied to a decision about whether to drink a beer, or smoke a herb, or hail a cab with a smartphone, or drink unpasturised milk, or watch naked ladies on our computers etc. |
Oct 2015
11:21am, 16 Oct 2015
660 posts
|
Cheg
A grammar school should essentially cost as much as any regular comprehensive school, the only difference is they are selective over who attends. If the local area needs 4,000 11-16 years to get taught then it needs 4 x 1,000 capacity schools. If the Grammar school is excessive and leads to the current schools being half empty that's a different story. A special needs school is a lot more specialised and the cost per pupil is a lot higher. I don't see it as a trade off that many areas would have to make. |
Oct 2015
11:31am, 16 Oct 2015
16,742 posts
|
DeeGee
We don't need to build new schools, simbil. There's excess capacity - schools are closing. Moving towards a two-tier system would just require the reversal of what happened when the comprehensive system was created, ie one or two local schools are designated as a grammar. The budget should be spent where it is needed to address shortfalls in equipment, to ensure that students at all schools have access to the same quality of resources. SEND children have an additional bundle of money anyway which travels with them, so all other things being equal they will still receive proportionally more of the funding. I don't want to be drawn on whether, subjectively, a new school for the 5-10% who pass the 100 plus or a new school for the 5-10% with significant learning difficulties would be better spent. it would be down to where there was need for additional capacity within the local area. |
|
Oct 2015
11:32am, 16 Oct 2015
16,743 posts
|
DeeGee
"pass the 100 plus?" The 11 plus, obvs.
|
|
Oct 2015
11:45am, 16 Oct 2015
6,936 posts
|
simbil
Binks, You posted a link a while back on another thread along the lines of the human mind as an elephant (our animal part) being ridden by a person (our human part) if I remember correctly. This is the same idea as that in the Chimp Paradox book that is popular with endurance sports types. The message is that for most of what we do, especially if we do it quickly or under stress, is an animal response. So yes, Dave gets a good kicking, or something disproportionate to 'teach him a lesson'. To me that is going to be worse in most cases than a community based approach where a compromise of views is taken into account to decide on a sensible action. The extremes (kill Dave and do nothing to Dave) are removed and the majority moderate approach is taken instead. Regarding personal responsibility in a community, that is something that can be eroded by too many rules and a too restrictive a community. It's about finding a balance I think. |
|
Oct 2015
12:06pm, 16 Oct 2015
6,937 posts
|
simbil
Cheg & DG, OK, that was a poor question on my part - the chimp did it  I don't really get what a grammar school is supposed to do that a well run comprehensive can' t - isn't it better to stream students based on ability in different subjects at different times rather than just once across all subjects at a particular age? |
|
Oct 2015
12:08pm, 16 Oct 2015
6,779 posts
|
Binks
Ahh yes. Definitely recommend reading this book amazon.co.uk And the chimp paradox! You are right in that an "animal" response to something like a drunken Dave might be worse than a community response. I still don't think my suggestion rules out a community response though. We create communities through voluntary interaction and trade. This to me is preferable to a mandatory system where people are forced to do good. Sure people can live outside of some voluntary system but they will not thrive. If I decided to forsake all others and selfishly work only for myself I will win few friends, find it hard to trade and get favours, will have less people looking out for me when times are hard. In effect my selfishness will be counter productive. So my problem with big states, big government, lots of layers of decision making many layers away from the problem at hand is that you can get away with being selfish. Your actions are hidden and the consequences are hidden. Politicians get away for so long without having anything to add to society but because they are so far removed from it they can use their political influence to get their way. Politics is the perfect playground for someone who does not give a shit about others to further their selfish aims. That's why I usually object to people suggesting that these playgrounds should be expanded. |
|
Oct 2015
12:23pm, 16 Oct 2015
661 posts
|
Cheg
Against Grammars I would definitely agree it's a lot of pressure for a kid that is 9-10 years of age. I would agree Simbil/Jambano that it is a very narrow English/Maths focus but strengths in those subjects generally correlate with strengths in many other subjects. |
Oct 2015
12:32pm, 16 Oct 2015
220 posts
|
Shadowless Formless Legs
I think the pressure would only be from the parents so it would be their responsibility to manage it appropriately. On the other hand, there is pressure from the schools anyway with the existing system of SAT's.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jan 2025
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
