What is it, to be free? Free to do what one wants? Or free to walk down the street without fearing for one's life? Surely if one permits the former that necessarily puts the latter in jeopardy? Which freedom is more desirable?The Devil at The Devil's Kitchen has me wondering about freedom. From what I can gather, he argues for freedom from the state. Being a lefty kind of girl, I've never questioned the existence of the state before. Being a lefty kind of girl, I grew up believing the state takes money off its citizens in order to redistribute it. It helps the poor to be less poor. It forces the rich to care about those who are less fortunate. It provides free health care and education for all. It enforces rules to ensure its citizens are kind to each other, look after each other, and do upon others as they would do upon themselves. Being a lefty kind of girl, I believed the right-wingers to be evil monsters and the left-wingers to be righteous pursuers of justice.
Then I became a teacher.
Now all I can see is the great harm done to my children by the welfare state. I see young women encouraged to have children at an early age by the state that dangles pseudo-gifts in front of their eyes. I see most children take their education for granted, or indeed reject it entirely because they haven't had to pay for it. I see parents take little interest in their child's education because they'll have an education, no matter what. I see both children and parents abuse books, pencils, or laptops because they have been given to them. I see property defaced over and over, because it belongs to no one. I see my colleagues abused day after day by children who have no sense of gratitude.
My children are no longer free to have motivation. They are no longer free to have ambition. They are no longer free to have a sense of pride, or indeed shame. Gone is the freedom of making plans for the future, or saving for a rainy day. Gone is the idea of building up a bank of skills to make something of oneself. Gone is the idea of being responsible for a life, for one's own life, and for one's family.
But if there were no state, who would build the roads? Who would pick up the rubbish? Who would provide the police who keep me safe when walking down the street?
My children do not have the freedom to do what they want, as I think The Devil would like for himself. They are children. And we take their freedom, with the hope that this will give them greater freedoms later in life. My children are too young to know what is good for them. I don't ask them to do the right thing. I tell them. I tell them to do X in the same way that the state tells us to do Y.
Being a lefty kind of girl, I don't mind being told what to do by the state. I only mind when the state's orders cause harm. My issue with the state is not with its existence. My issue with the state is that it takes away any meaningful freedom from my children. It leaves my children with the freedom to go to prison, work at McDonalds, or have a child. The state robs my children of their lives. And being a lefty kind of girl who pursues righteousness and justice, I hate the state for killing my children.
74 comments:
Hello? You hate the state for killing your children?
I follow your blog closely, and I enjoy it, for its insights into a world not my own, and its intelligent commentary on that world, and the passion with which you write. But I think you've really lost me on this one.
It's not often I jump to the defense of the state, but following that instinct to defend the underdog, this post has made me want to. The state can't really win, can it?
I'm another faithful lurker at your blog, and another fan of your authentic voice, though I often disagree with you.
It's worth noting that here in the USA we give people precious little in the way of redistributed wealth, far less than in Britain, I believe. Even so, our children have all the same problems that cause you despair.
As a fellow lefty kind of girl (though one with libertarian tendencies), I wonder if the problem lies not with the state, but with the pervasive consumerism that has taken the place of so much genuine community life.
In Europe and the US, kids are brainwashed from infancy to value material goods and celebrity above all else. Artistic and intellectual accomplishment, helping others, building a satisfying family life--these things count for nothing unless they bring wealth or notoriety. Few people see their lives blessed--if that's the word--with either. Modern capitalist/consumer culture requires a "failure" caste, and your kids were born into it. A few will escape it, but most won't. They are well aware of that fact, though they couldn't articulate it. They know the game as it stands is rigged, and it's the only game in town, so why should they bother to play by its rules?
Excuse the long comment, just thought I'd share a thought. Keep writing.
> Hello? You hate the state for killing your children?
Why not?
If one is a lefty and believes in the power of the state, then surely the behaviour of black children in this country as compared to say Dominica/Jamaica/etc., must be the fault of the state.
What other explanation is there to explain the differing outcomes?
I am left wondering when people blame the state for the bad ideas and incompetence in the education system.
Do they think that they would go away if the state backed off? Do they think that politicians personally recruit incompetent headteachers? Most of those bad ideas exist in one form or another in private schools, and private companies too. The only way to tackle the problem is for people to fight for change, and that is not likely to be any easier in a private system than a public one. There is something to be said for allowing a bit of competition, so we can compare the good and the bad schools and see what works, but there is little to be said for believing that any kind of framework for education can simply dissolve entrenched difficulties.
The main I reason I follow your blog is that I find myself in a similar position - someone with what I thought of as lefty instincts who finds himself taking what are labelled as conservative positions.
We might be getting old - that is the cliche of the left right trajectory isn't it?
I don't think so. What was once labelled the left has changed.
Times change and as bad ideas tend to be the creations of fashion bad ideas will be ubiquitous, in public sector and private sector, as oldandrew points out. He overlooks that in education the public and private sectors are working to two different sets of bad ideas at the moment.
You do put your finger on the problem with libertarianism - it is a great system for property owning white men with gun cupboards, not so good for unarmed black girls in Hackney.
There is more to freedom than safety, however. It is the subtle side of freedom which is being choked out of your children, and to some extent out of the rest of us too.
I do wish you wanted to be more free, Miss, but if you fear it will cost you your life, I can see why you are reluctant.
Bitter Grace
Thank you for your comment. You make a good point about modern capitalist culture and to take that further, the idea of 'getting rich quick' without qualifications is something that my kids cannot see past.
But it is not true to say that they feel they will never succeed because the game is rigged. Or at least, I don't think they understand this instinctively. They are told this by the media and by the Left and the state in particular over and over. The right-wingers tell them to get on with it. It is the patronising Left that tells them they can't do it, tells them that their teachers are racists, tells them that the system is against them, that that they will never get a job because they are working class or black, etc.
And my point is that not only is this not true, but this kind of talk is far more damaging to my kids than a lack of material wealth. It robs them of the freedom of hope.
Old Andrew
You think the private system has the same problems as where you work? You think the only problem is that there are incompetent headteachers?
But even if that were the only problem, let's look at that for a moment. Why are there few good heads out there? Because no one wants to be the head of a state school. (Private schools have excellent heads.) Why not? Because of the chaos and the life the job will suck out of you. Why is there chaos? Because the children have little motivation, interest or ambition. And we then return to why this is the case. If you don't think the state is responsible for these children lacking these qualities, then what do you believe is responsible for it? Poverty?
You think the private system has the same problems as where you work?
No.
I said that the same bad ideas exist in one form or another in private schools, and private companies too. Private management is not a cure-all for stupidity. A lot of the daft ideas that blight teaching (eg. learning styles, cooperative learning, performance management) actually have their origins in how private companies manage themselves and how they train their employees.
Private schools, as opposed to the private sector generally, are often better than state schools at escaping the stupidity, but this is at least partly because that is why people choose to work in those schools in the first place. It does not, however, make them immune to daft ideas and "progressive" private schools have often been at the root of insane educational dogma. I fear A.S. Neill's Summerhill has ultimately had more influence on the state sector than Thomas Arnold's Rugby.
With regard to the attitude of the kids, I believe it is largely a result of the educational system for tolerating such attitudes in the first place. We can describe that as the "state" if you like, but it is a not the result of a central leadership, it is the culture created by, and sustained by, the schools. I believe this can be seen in the change of attitude that can be observed between year 7 and year 11 (and how it used to be reversed once students became part of the distinct culture of the sixth form).
Old Andrew
You seem to be contradicting yourself with what you say about private schools. The point is that they have CHOICE and can ignore ridiulous ideas, unlike those of us in the state sector who are controlled centrally.
Heads are bound by the state. You hold them responsible for everything but they are also held at ransom (in the way teachers are) by the system. To be a good Head in the state sector, one must be willing to reject the orders from up above - and that takes one hell of a backbone.
That's why the Heads in the private sector are good. They are not bound by the state. They don't have to be extraordinary individuals who are willing to fight the Machine and stand up for what they believe.
There's an awful lot going on in this post. I had to restrain myself from immediately penning (typing) an "outraged from Basingstoke" comment, and forced myself to read the other comments.
The first part that confused me, lovely Miss Snuffy, was your assertion that children and parents don't value the education / equipment they are given because they are given it: that the very provision of something by the state is a license for people to abuse and disdain it. Whilst I (kind of) see where you're coming from, I'm not sure this is something that the state can help with. The fact that we as a culture experience this sort of wilfully self-destructive behaviour is surely a cumulative result of generations of expecting something for nothing, to the point at which we are so familiar with what's available that we've actually gone beyond contempt. It's a deeply, deeply unpleasant state of affairs and something, to be honest, that had not occurred to me before. I'm a lefty sort of chap, but there's a part of me I don't like very much and he occasionally emerges after three glasses of wine too many, and he'd almost certainly burst with self-righteous anger at being told this. Then he'd open another bottle and vote Tory.
But I'm not really sure how you can blame the state for this. I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with bittergrace, who seems to think that artistic and intellectual accomplishment count for nothing in the minds of the children of this debased western world of ours. But that sort of mindset is certainly the privilege of the few. And it's undoubtedly easier to flourish, artistically / creatively / what-have-you, in a private school where the teachers are better paid, the methods of teaching more flexible, and so on.
But then oldandrew blames the schools. Is that it? I know the Wire has been referenced extensively by some of the commentors on this blog, but there's an interesting parallel to draw in this instance. At a certain point in your development as an adult, you choose - consciously or not - what it is you need to survive in the future that you see for yourself. If that's as a pre-teen drug dealer - and, admittedly, our problems in this regard aren't as pervasive as they are in the world of the Wire - then the education you're being given at school simply isn't something you see yourself as needing. You withdraw, you hold its instruments and enforcers in contempt. Why shouldn't you? What good will it do you?
Phew. I still don't know the answer but I'm glad I stopped to think and read before ranting. But I also think it's interesting that you've decided the state is to blame, Miss Snuffy. Culturally, socially, economically... there are any number of factors one could choose to epitomise the problem. Absentee parents. A violence-glamourising media. And yet you chose that one.
Private schools have an easier time. The best ones select academically, all of them are fee paying and they can exclude the disruptive. The parents tend to be motivated as do their kids. It's not just choice that makes the private sector "better", they start from a priviledged position. Old Andrew is right that some of the idiocies inflicted on the State sector are also inflicted on private schools and that some of these innovations are "private sector" innovations.
But
The problems of the State sector can be attributed in part to the attitudes that prevail in the schools as Old Andrew says, but they are reflections of the wider left-wing establishment that also controls the welfare state.
In my (private) schools the fact that you were an ethnic minority with a reputation for academic underperformance was never an excuse for pupil or teacher. Everyone was taught the same way, everyone was expected to do well - or at least as well as their academic gifts would allow nor was there any allowance made in behaviour. At this point at least I think we would allow that the corrosive attitude described by Ms S in some cases doesnt exist in (my little bit of) the private sector. But then again the minorities in my schools tended to "priviledged", so the ethnic tags were somewhat less meaningful.
So, I think that Ms S's objection to the State is really an objection to the bad aspects of the welfare state and the state education system, not an outright condemnation of all aspects of the state.
It reminds me of the problem of Political Correctness as discussed on R4. The defenders of PC were right - racist language and behaviour has been corrected by those who fought for PC. But, it has gone too far. Some idiot claimed no one has sung "Baa, Baa, rainbow sheep", but I distinctly heard on R4 last year a programme where someone from the Liverpool Phil saying that they had dropped Baa baa black sheep for PC reasons. PC has gone mad.
The left-wing establishment (as far as the welfare state and state education) is well entrenched and is still fighting the battle against racism and elitism that they won years ago. (Just as PC won the battle against the N word amongst other things. And a damn good thing too.) The problem is that their analysis was "racism" and "elitism" is bad. So anti-racism and inclusiveness is good. But they are like the kid taught to use a hammer, everything that sticks out is a nail. So you hit it and keep hitting it even if it is a screw. So the headteachers are bound by the dictats of this culture.
The establishment have lost sight (if they ever knew it) of the final goals of the welfare state and state education - people working with some security, kids learning.
The private sector hasnt lost sight of this, but then they have individual customers. (Yes, bits of it go boing occasionally). The State has no customers, or rather it claims to have them, but the State is a ("free") monopoly provider. So obviously choice would help (no longer a monopoly therefore some flexibility in approach).
My conclusions - the culture of the establishment must be challenged, they need to see that not everything is a nail. At the margin, a bit of choice wouldnt hurt, but relative to the culture, I think Ms S is more correct - for it is the misguided effects of the left wing part of the welfare state that crushes ambition, creates teenage mothers, encourages disruptive behaviour, means that there is no effective sanction for bad behaviour in schools and in wider society.
I hate to say it but understanding the mission statement that drives the entire process might be useful. The problem is that most of the time the mission statement (unwritten) is not the right one or no one has thought through the process: "Reducing child poverty" - shower benefits on this group. Increase incentives to become single teenage mother with no education. Obviously not a good mission or a bad way of doing things. The state may not be killing these kids, but the State is condemning a goodly number of them to a lifetime of underachievement and dependence.
PS I dont believe the conspiracy theorists who say the left do this to create a clientele, or the right do this to create a great unwashed industrial reserve army. Most of the time, the people involved are well meaning, but misguided. Yes, there are so toerags who see clienteles, but it wouldnt work without the vast numbers of the well meaning.
Excellent post Snuffy.
DK is the reason I started reading blogs in the first place; his language leaves a lot to be desired but then the bile is well directed and deserved. Knowing (a little) more about libertarianism now than I did when I first started to read his blog (i.e. absolutely nothing) I would make the comment that his philosophy borders (but only borders) onto libertinism:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine)
There is nothing particularly wrong with that but it is not the same thing as libertarianism; the mixup between the 2 is why people so misunderstand the latter.
One important thing to take home though is that libertarianism is neither to the left nor the right; it is the understanding that people work best together with little intereference from a third party - the Bory's traditionally are social authoritarians (laughably so) whilst NuLabour are traditionally economic authoritarian - in both cases you get more of the same; baptist and bootleggers getting rich of the proceeds of others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists); they are all elitists who contribute little but take much.
Concerning children though Snuffy you have missed the point; the state is not telling you Y whilst you tell the children X - it is telling you Y to tell them Y and getting angry when either Y doesn't work or you start telling them X. One of the exceptions to the rule for libertarianism are children; they cannot be expected to fend for themselves and need stewardship, without which they cannot make informed, educated choices as to what is right; NuLabour have just extended this to adulthood.
But then if you have no responsibilities you invariably can have no rights; you cannot complain when the education you recieve is substandard, or healthcare fails to cure, or when the government you vote in doesn't listen to you because you gave away your vote on the basis of who would give you a bigger welfare cheque; turkeys would never vote for Christmas, and as we are fast seeing from the buildup of EU control we have little say in anything of importance (which is left to the "professionals" who you cant oust).
My point is simply thus; their is a definite need for some sort of organisation, but what we have now is disorganised, massive and expensive with little thought into the problems it is designed to deal, instead focusing on petty internal empire building and control; in short it is no longer about governance but about control - I dont know if you read the IEA publication I linked to you earlier but it describes how this is inevitable once the state puts its fingers in too many pies.
The trick is to limit what it provide to protecting the negative freedoms and little else; healthcare and education funding is a tricky but not insurmountable problem for libertarians - most would agree to some degree of subsidy funding by the state but no control, the control exercised by shortfalls made up by the consumer of such services.
You seem to be contradicting yourself with what you say about private schools. The point is that they have CHOICE and can ignore ridiulous ideas, unlike those of us in the state sector who are controlled centrally.
This is the excuse bad managers always make, yet somehow the best state schools seem to avoid the silly ideas just as well as the private sector.
There is a massive gap between what schools are required to do by law and the rubbish they do because they have been advised to, or have heard that it was the "in-thing". When you've heard a headteacher announce the "good news" that he has reduced permanent exclusions by 90% for a year, in the very year that targets for permanent exclusions were actually abolished you start to notice that there is a big gap between what schools claim they have to do and what they actually have to do.
Successful schools go their own way and still do well. Bad schools claim that every bit of nonsense they come up with "has to be done for OFSTED" and you don't have to go through too many OFSTEDs to notice that they often criticise schools for the very things that SMT claimed the school "had to do".
And it's undoubtedly easier to flourish, artistically / creatively / what-have-you, in a private school
On no it's not. That is the side of the curriculum where A S Neill does do better than Dr Arnold.
BTW "Creative" is the management-speak word par-excellence. Everything must be fun and creative, even selling paper-clips.
Trouble is creativity is pretty useless without application and self-discipline.
If we have to look at it from an ideological perspective, the root of the problem is anti-authoritarianism: People who see tradition, knowledge and authority as inherently bad things and want to set up a system where the authorities are weak, everything provided by the state is a "right" rather than subject to judgement, and where new ideas are favoured over old regardless of merit.
This does mean that it is not simply a "left versus right" issue. I do find the whining on about "lefties" and a "left-wing establishment" to be ludicrous. We hardly had a golden era of state education under Thatcher. Nevertheless, it is not a "statists versus libertarians" issue either. I'd sooner trust a card carrying member of the Communist Party to enforce discipline in a school (and for a long time certain parts of London did rely on exactly that) than those who believe that any authority exercised on behalf of the community is a con-trick.
As far as I can see the way out of the mess does call on both left and right wing ideas. We need conservative ideals of tradition, discipline and authority to identify what makes a good education, but we need a left-wing ideal of equality and community to see that that this good education is delivered to everybody. What we don't need is any form of liberalism, libertarianism or anarchism to declare that what matters is that children have the inalienable right to avoid and obstruct education.
Snuffy, I've been reading your blog for a while, and, having been a teacher in Hackney myself, I agree with an awful lot of what you say.
The Caribbean parents of my former students used to deplore the British attitude to books and classrooms. In Jamaica, they used to say, parents had to buy all the equipment necessary for school: exercise books, pens, pencils, textbooks.
In Britain, we give pupils exercise books. We expect them to share textbooks which are often years old, covered in graffiti. Teachers are expected to keep a supply of spare pens for children who don't bring one to class.
So, as you say, we set them up for failure because we take away expectations of preparedness and responsibility. We give them everything they need at school, so they don't have to work for it. And then we continue that throughout their life afterwards.
If it was the parents' responsibility to buy their books, for example, I am convinced they would not get away with drawing sections of the human anatomy all over them. If they repeatedly ripped pages out of their exercise books, their parents would be the ones who had to buy new ones every week.
I eventually refused to supply pens to pupils who arrived without them, because I would not nanny them any more. And I was accused, by some of my colleagues, of unnecessarily humiliating pupils. Aged 14 and still can't remember to bring a pen to every lesson? I think you deserve a small humiliation, if that's what will teach you some sense of responsibility.
I admire you greatly, because you are clearly a very gifted teacher. And you remind me how rewarding teaching can be. I got so sick of the bad management, bad behaviour, being sworn at every day, constant tiredness, unnecessary diktats over the way I could teach, the uninspiring curriculum, lack of hope, teaching almost solely to exams from Year 9, and terrible life I had as a teacher that I left. I haven't ruled out going back, but a lot would have to change first.
OldAndrew,
*bangshisheadonwallinfrustration*
Libertarianism is not "do as thou wilt" anarchism; it is the understanding that you are ultimately responsible for your own actions and that you have immutable rights that are only supplanted by the those same right when applied to others, i.e. you have a right to "life" but not a right to "murder" (taking someone elses "life"); sample applies to "theft", "property earned legitimately" etc.
It is the understanding that you are only constrained by what you do with your own life, liberty and property; if you work you sacrifice time and energy to your boss in return for a wage, just as you sacrifice time and money in lifestyle pursuits, whether they be children, drinking or drugging.
Libertarianism is the ability to be conservative, be liberal or be anywhere in between, just as long as you understand you cannot enforce the ideal on others (though as mentioned, children are the exception).
Equally, in such a system when you select a school you enter into an agreement that you will receive their "product" on their "rules"; if you do like their offer you dont accept it and go elsewhere; the decision should be made against exactly the same money/time constraints as you have when buying a new car or kitchen, etc.
It is the understanding that you are only constrained by what you do with your own life, liberty and property;
And you don't see how such an attitude might be bad for discipline in schools? You can dress it up all you like with talk of rights and contracts, but you are embracing the very philosophy that is wrecking our schools: the suggestion that we have rights rather than responsibilities. The notion of schools as places where children receive their "rights" is where we are at the moment.
Discipline requires constraint, not on the basis that we have identified a breach of contract or a denial of rights, but as a necessary part of order. A well run school is a community, not a business deal. Good behaviour is a moral, not a contractual, obligation. To educate children to believe: "I must respect others to the extent that I am contractually obliged" would be to continue the failures of today, where poor behaviour is seen as a purely technical matter.
OldAndrew,
Noone "recieves" the right the kind of rights libertarians talk about; only positive action can usurp these "rights", and to some degree yes you have to do this in order to teach children (by any standard children have their rights held in trust by their parents/guardians until they are old enough to exact them themselves). What I am driving home is the need to not alienate negative rights.
This wiki page is informative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
In a nutshell my belief is that education should be a contract agreed upon by the childs parents (or independant adult) and educator and either partially or fully funded by the taxpayer, this is different to the current setup where the state dictates how our children are educated, how they are tested and how they are treated, and by doing so inevitably how taxpayers money is spent; the consequences of this is to monopolise an industry removing its need to improve and allowing it to ignore best practice principles in place of ideologically flawed principles (the baptists and bootleggers principle).
To reject this system comes at extraordinary cost to the individual; they pay the same whether they take up the service or not, and for those who do take up the service the perceived lack of cost lowers it apparent value in their eyes; putting the money and the choice in their hands as to how their kids are educated and they will adopt your sense of "community" (I am not against this - I am very much for it, but I know that not everyone agrees with this and kids learn in different ways and schools should be able to cater better to these requirements, thus best practice.
I am not for liberalism or libertinism; I am for libertarianism and the right to self-determination - children are naturally under the authority of their parents/gaurdians and rescin the right and responsibilities associated with adulthood until they are old enough to cope with both. In practice I am quite (small c) conservative but I respect the right to not be, just as I expect not to be held accountable for other peoples lifestyles.
oldandrew,
You seem to be making the classic mistake...
There are two fundamentals that underpin libertarianism. The first is the non-aggression principle: "you can live your life in whichever way you like as long as you do not initiate fraud against someone's else's life, liberty or property."
The second principle -- that of strong property rights -- follows from the first: your own your life, and the products of your life (your property) and the right to do with your life as you wish (liberty). If there are no property rights, then you cannot own your life and cannot then, have a libertarian society.
However, it should be pointed out that (in general) libertarians only ascribe these rights to adults.
Central to libertarianism is the idea of being able to make a free choice in any given circumstance: however, a choice made without knowing either the full facts (or being deceived as to the true facts), or being able to appreciate the ramifications, is not a free choice.
Children (and, often, the mentally ill), almost by definition, cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions; uneducated children are also likely to be unaware of the facts surrounding said choice.
At what stage we adjudge someone to be an adult is a source of contention amongst libertarians. However, as the law stands, we generally adjudge people to be able to make their own choices -- certainly as regards sex, employment, and a few other things -- at around the age of 16.
Given that, we can say that it is acceptable that children have their rights constrained by their guardians (parents, etc.) and those whom the guardians promote to act in their stead, e.g. teachers (you might have heard the phrase in loco parentis).
I believe that a good education (something that children do not currently receive in the state system, on the whole, because the state is crap) is of benefit to the whole of society: it is, if you like, a common good. As such, being a consequentialist libertarian, I personally would be happy to see the state fund education.
But only fund it: not provide it. I favour the adoption of something like the Swedish model of education: a voucher system, no national curriculum, all schools privately operated (and free from government interference) and able to set their own entry criteria.
It works in Sweden (and in those areas in the US where they are trialling this system) and there is no reason why it should not work here.
As a result, good schools expand and bad schools go bust (although, actually, research finds that, in general, the bad schools get better rather than going bust).
This also produces a result that Snuffy wants to achieve: because parents have the total choice (given only geographical constraints: there are no "catchment areas"), they tend to care more about the schooling that their child is receiving. And the children, having had to stretch themselves to get into the best possible school, also tend to care more too.
DK
P.S. Tomrat is right: I stray into libertinism because, for instance, I take drugs from time to time (and am thus not respecting the rule of law). In a libertarian country, of course, this would not be an issue since all drugs would be legalised.
I think there is a distinction to be made between 'state' and 'society'. I totally agree with you, Snuffy, that materialism and the get-rich-quick culture is hugely disaffecting and demotivating for kids. To some extent that is the product of 'state' (ie government), but I think it is part of a much bigger picture. I agree with you that the government should fight it, rather than fuel it, but we can't lay the blame at their door.
As for not valuing free supplies, the alternative seems bleaker - not giving schools the supplies they need unless they can prove they can look after them. That's just another layer of bureaucracy. Here in the US, pupils DO have to provide their own basic supplies. I have no idea whether this means they value them more, but I do know that it means that some kids have to rely on local churches to provide the supplies for them. What happens to the kids who can't provide their own, and don't have a local church that provides, I don't know.
It never ceases to amaze me that libertarians always assume that anyone who disagrees with them needs a lesson in philosophy or economics.
I am quite familiar with the doctrines of libertarians. It is not that I don't understand the concept of positive and negative rights, I just find it incoherent.
You can only determine whether a right is positive or negative by making an implicit judgement as to what people are morally entitled to, and declaring those rights that provide what they are supposedly entitled to are negative and those that provide what they supposedly aren't entitled to are positive. You can also dress this up with talk of aggression and non-aggression. The basic flaw is still there. The initial entitlements are basic moral judgements, and if we allow such judgements in the first place we have no reason to allow other such moral judgements to be over-ruled by so-called "rights".
The real point is not that I don't understand rights or contracts, but that I think the notion of rights and contracts is alien to what education is about. Education is initiation into a culture and a community, it is not a product anymore than parenting is a product.
Changing education from the current model of a commodity commissioned by the state to a commodity purchased by parents is not going to change anything important. Claiming that such a model is our "right" is even more ludicrous.
Children are not "contractually" obliged to submit to discipline, or simply obliged to respect others' rights. They are moral beings with moral obligations. Similarly, educating the next generation is a duty, not simply the flip-side of their rights, and society has an obligation to see that it is done appropriately. It is not the case that education can be provided in any and every arbitrary way and we simply say "that's okay, that doesn't breach the terms of the contract". The duties of parents, educators and children are moral duties, not matters of contract.
oldandrew,
"Similarly, educating the next generation is a duty..."
Or, as I put it, a public good.
The reason that I advocate the Swedish system is because we can see that it works: does this mean nothing to you at all?
Or does your ideology trump the objective -- that of ensuring that children get a good education?
Because, as you can see, mine does not.
DK
You know you've annoyed libertarians when they start accusing other people of being ideological.
Strangely enough, I'm quite happy with the idea of getting children a good education. If you are now claiming that's all that was being discussed here, then it leaves me wondering where all this talk of "negative rights" and "non-aggression" came from.
With regards to the Swedish model, I can see benefits in increasing choice and independence, but it does nothing at all to deal with the problem of those students whose parents don't know how to "work the system" it simply changes the system they have to work. That's the problem the state needs to get a grip with, and calls for the state to just withdraw are as unwelcome and unhelpful as the claims that there isn't a problem.
Old Andrew,
I dont think Ms S. is in favour of the State withdrawing per se. She explicitly states she is in favour of being told what to do as long as it causes no harm.
I think what she wants is for the State to stop doing harmful things - like encouraging kids to reject education for spurious reasons. This is the anti-Authoritarianism that you refer to.
The reason why I (and others) see it as a left-wing problem is that the anti-authoritarianism is wrapped up in anti-racist, anti-elitist outfits. I totally agree that State education under Mrs Thatcher was no golden age, but the Conservative government of the day did nothing to challenge the orthodoxies - and back in the 1980s I can see that anti-racism might have had a place.
You are absolute right that what is required in achieving better education are what some might call "left wing ideals" of equality and community to make it happen. But, that doesnt mean that we dont have to tackle the idiot lefties who are entrenched with their inclusiveness (eg anti elitist) and anti-racist agendas who are actively undermining both equality and community.
On the wider question of how to get the parents to play the system, I think Ms S (and the libertarians) are in favour of the State stopping some of the actively harmful things like giving flats and money to teenage single mothers. Which just leaves us with the problem of what to do with the ones who are already ensconced.
Ms Snuffy, we have these problems because people don't want to accept any responsibility. They want change out of nothing. They want the government to look after them from cradle to grave. We've ended up with a generation of people who are, 'eyeless , soulless and their passions well spent'.
OldAndrew,
Not annoyed; I love debates like this! Specifically though you mentioned a conservative leaning - my point was that this was unimportant in a system that champions liberal education provision; you can have what you want then as long as someone can provide it (or provide it yourself).
Also why would you need to "work the system" when you knew specifically what everyone got from the system? Every child gets X amount from the system, if a school costs Y you make up the difference and if it calls for certain constraints you meet them, or go someplace else that doesn't place those same constraints.
2 brief things, because there are some impassioned opinions onj here that demonstrate a knowledge of the education sector that I can't hope to attain.
Jollyboatingweather... you're talking balls. The argument about creative expression was an observation about resources, class sizes and all the things that come with opting for private education. I don't know much about art class in the modern state school, but I do know that your opinion of "creative" as a management wankword bears absolutely no relation to my usage of it in the previous post. What an insufferable, pompous arse of a comment.
Secondly, suggesting that the state refuses to nurture and support those in society who, through whomsoever's fault, find themselves in need - I believe teenage single mothers was the example used - should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Revolting. A state withholding aid to teach society a lesson? Wrap that up in whatever terminology you like - libertarian, whatever. It's disgusting.
What an insufferable, pompous arse of a comment.
It was the way I was educated to be!
But my main point still stands: the private sector has no interest in the self-expression of its pupils. None. The people who taught me (some while ago) had no concept of creativity (or whatever we care to call it) as part of someone's well-being. To present an idea one had come up with oneself rather than one culled from a book was looked down on.
As the public schools fall into line with teaching to the test I expect this more the case today.
The differences between public and private sector are often assumed to be only a matter of resources. It is not that simple.
But my main point still stands: the private sector has no interest in the self-expression of its pupils. None.
That really does depend where you are. I know for a *fact* of at least one school that does, because I teach there and I do an awful lot of hard work to try and make sure this happens.
Incidentally can I just correct something? Private schools are not really free from OFSTED. Almost all are inspected by the ISI, which works as a kind of sub-contractor for OFSTED and uses many of the same criteria. Yes, your curriculum is freer but the differences in terms of all the buzzwords and paperwork they love so much are minimal.
guernican,
"Secondly, suggesting that the state refuses to nurture and support those in society who, through whomsoever's fault, find themselves in need - I believe teenage single mothers was the example used - should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Revolting. A state withholding aid to teach society a lesson? Wrap that up in whatever terminology you like - libertarian, whatever. It's disgusting."
It is a question of incentives; the state, having failed to provide any real ambition to the swaggering masses finds itself with thousands of young girls and boys who's sole aim in life is to get drunk and drugged up as often as possible - this is what is interpreted as fun (which it is..for a season.). Not knowing how to acquire the funding to live this lifestyle they will go to the source that has always provided: the state - all it requires is that you fill in as many victimhood boxes as are possible; the best way to guarantee you hit all the boxes in this institutionalised schadenfreude (for that is what it can only be described as) is by getting knocked up, having children you dont want for money that you do.
Where do you draw the line and say stop? You think its evil that I should want this travesty that condemns children to societies victim scrapheap, for they will never get off this heap, then so be it; I work with the type of kids who fall into these traps and think that society holding them at arms length, expecting the state to take care of them with all inefficiency, uncaring nature, has a lot to answer for.
I'm not talking about the lefts whiny "oh but think of the Cheeldren Een Povertee" spiel; thats tired and keeps these kids down; I'm talking about asking yourself the following questions:
1. If you see these kids walking down the street in obvious need of monetary and social support why aren't you giving it?
2. If you cant it, with all this nations riches, who are you giving your money to?
The state does a crap job. I want to take that responsibility away from them and do a better one - not through government but through people.
guernican,
"Secondly, suggesting that the state refuses to nurture and support those in society who, through whomsoever's fault, find themselves in need - I believe teenage single mothers was the example used - should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Revolting. A state withholding aid to teach society a lesson? Wrap that up in whatever terminology you like - libertarian, whatever. It's disgusting."
It is a question of incentives; the state, having failed to provide any real ambition to the swaggering masses finds itself with thousands of young girls and boys who's sole aim in life is to get drunk and drugged up as often as possible - this is what is interpreted as fun (which it is..for a season.). Not knowing how to acquire the funding to live this lifestyle they will go to the source that has always provided: the state - all it requires is that you fill in as many victimhood boxes as are possible; the best way to guarantee you hit all the boxes in this institutionalised schadenfreude (for that is what it can only be described as) is by getting knocked up, having children you dont want for money that you do.
Where do you draw the line and say stop? You think its evil that I should want this travesty that condemns children to societies victim scrapheap, for they will never get off this heap, then so be it; I work with the type of kids who fall into these traps and think that society holding them at arms length, expecting the state to take care of them with all inefficiency, uncaring nature, has a lot to answer for.
I'm not talking about the lefts whiny "oh but think of the Cheeldren Een Povertee" spiel; thats tired and keeps these kids down; I'm talking about asking yourself the following questions:
1. If you see these kids walking down the street in obvious need of monetary and social support why aren't you giving it?
2. If you cant provide it, with all this nations riches, who are you giving your money to?
The state does a crap job. I want to take that responsibility away from them and do a better one - not through government but through people. I want to encourage people to have children because they want children, not because they want a house, or to keep a relationship together but because the act of having a child is a wonderful thing, ruined by a conceited bunch of rent-seekers with pretty rosettes and fancy suits.
Guernican
You have visited my blog before. You know that I don’t just blame the state. This post is about the state, but there are lots of other reasons why education doesn’t work in this country. And yes, one can blame the state for inculcating this culture of getting something for nothing. That’s exactly what the state does!
Ken
I also heard that Radio 4 programme. I was planning to put it up on my blog…
Tomrat
Thanks. I didn’t mean what you thought I meant with the X/Y statement. But thank you for the explanation of the Libertarian position on children. So when does a child stop being a child?
Old Andrew
Yes, the best state schools are run by extraordinary people who have the confidence to ignore the state. The private sector does not need its heads to be so extraordinary. I agree with you that there are plenty of idiots in SMTs across the country. But you underestimate how much their hands are tied and also how much they are influenced by what the state tells them. Our educational ‘culture’ is framed by the desires of the state.
AJ
Welcome to my blog. When I become a Head, you can come work for me. :)
DK
I’m sure there is something quite wrong about admitting to taking drugs on a teacher’s blog! But for you, I’ll let it pass…
Damo
Exactly. And the question one must ask is WHY these people think like this…
Tin Drummer
It isn’t just about Ofsted. It is about a huge number of restrictions. Exclusions is a big one.
Well Miss -
This Summer a friend of mine who I hadn't seen for a few years told me to get hold of 'The Welfare State we're in' - and to my shame I still haven't gotten round to doing so....
Still - for what it's worth:
Isn't there a difference between the 'State' and 'Society'? Whenever the State starts to hypertrophy and take over all the public space that is normally occupied by Society all kinds of social problems manifest themselves in the ways that you have to deal with every single day.
Isn't there, similarly, a difference between 'liberty' and 'license' and between 'freedom' and 'spontaneity'? Between 'having a choice' and 'making a choice'?
Happily, I find myself being able to teach in a school where I can make those kinds of distinctions with bright kids who want to learn them.
Elsewhere, we are witnessing the 'abolition of man' that C.S. Lewis predicted 60 years ago: the anti-humanism that is inherent in Relativist Ideology.
You are not a Relativist, Miss.
Your employer is.
Keep the Faith.
Specifically though you mentioned a conservative leaning - my point was that this was unimportant in a system that champions liberal education provision; you can have what you want then as long as someone can provide it (or provide it yourself).
I'm quite familiar with the fantasy that says everyone gets what they want in a free market.
I just consider it nonsense, especially in the context of education. You can't change school as easily as you change supermarket, nor can everyone easily identify the best product even if they were free to change.
Also why would you need to "work the system" when you knew specifically what everyone got from the system? Every child gets X amount from the system, if a school costs Y you make up the difference and if it calls for certain constraints you meet them, or go someplace else that doesn't place those same constraints.
The point is that it is a fantasy that you can just "go someplace else". Changing school is a big deal.
Beyond that if parents are allowed to top up school fees from their own pockets (something that the Swedish system prohibits) then you can almost guarantee the low quality of the schools for those who can't afford the top up.
That said, the main issue I have with these libertarian schemes is that they are all about middle class escape routes, something we already have plenty of, rather than dealing with the poor education of the not quite so comfortable. There simply aren't private companies queuing up to educate the underclass.
Schools might be more willing to educate the disadvantaged if there were a pupil premium, which I gather is Conservative & Liberal Democract policy.
What do you think of a pupil premium, Miss? (& anyone else with a view on the matter).
I agree with you that there are plenty of idiots in SMTs across the country. But you underestimate how much their hands are tied and also how much they are influenced by what the state tells them.
"He told me to do it" is not an excuse I accept.
Our educational ‘culture’ is framed by the desires of the state.
I cannot accept that when the various parts of the state have very different desires and it's anyone's guess who will get their way on a given issue.
The purpose of a left state is to safeguard the liberty of the individual. For instance, its not the state that forces young girls from certain communities to be circumcised, married against their will, and murdered when they refuse - its their "own" communities.
The state, by passing laws that recognise the fundamental liberty and equality of all people, and that through deed enables all to achieve their potential, should be a liberating state.
Unfortunately too many on the left fall into traps. One is that equality can be achieved if we all queue up at the Department of Socialism and get our equal and fair lives handed to us by all-seeing all-knowing very clever administrators. That's a view that sees the people as a dumb, passive crowd incapable of original thoughts and creativity. That seems to be the state we are stuck with.
I am left wondering when people blame the state for the bad ideas and incompetence in the education system.
They don't, OldAndrew.
They blame the state for the bad ideas and incompetence in the part of the education system run by the state.
As far as the private sector is concerned: new companies are formed continuously, and those less competent than average tend to go bankrupt. This process tends to reduce the amount of incompetence in the economy.
But in government, departments responsible for a solving a problem that get more money and staff if the problem remains unsolved, and more still if the problem gets worse. Wait a hundred years, and what do you expect to happen?
"He told me to do it" is not an excuse I accept.
But do you believe that people are more likely to do something if their superiors tell them to do it? If so, then if headmasters in state schools are more likely to be given foolish instructions, all else being equal, they will be more likely to do something foolish.
Old Andrew
It is, as Ad says. I'm not making excuses for crap heads. But I am saying that we should not have a system which encourages them, sometimes forces them, to do the wrong thing. Because that means that ONLY extraordinary people can do the job well.
So by definition, that means that most schools will fail under the current system. And there is something wrong with that.
As for what Tomrat and DK are saying, I don't understand why you have a problem with their position. All they are saying is that if parents and children have more ownership over what school they 'get into', then they are more likely to value it. Isn't that true?
You do put your finger on the problem with libertarianism - it is a great system for property owning white men with gun cupboards, not so good for unarmed black girls in Hackney.
Jolly, I have seen figures on Coppersblog, the Reform website, and in The Abolition of Britain (and I think The Welfare State We’re In) to the effect that the crime rate in the UK around 1900-1920, was fifty to one hundred times lower than today.
I don’t know if you would consider that society to be libertarian, but until the First World War the UK had few, if any, laws restricting drugs, drink, guns or prostitution. And the welfare state was a lot, lot smaller.
The point is that there were a lot fewer laws to obey, but if you broke one the book would be thrown at you pretty hard. As with welfare – if you made your own mess, the taxpayer would not pay to have it fixed for you.
I'm not making excuses for crap heads. But I am saying that we should not have a system which encourages them, sometimes forces them, to do the wrong thing.
I'm saying that too. I just object to the idea that this system exists in some distant place called "the state". The system that does this is part of everyday educational life and while it does reach all the way to Whitehall it also exists in every Local Authority and every school.
As for what Tomrat and DK are saying, I don't understand why you have a problem with their position. All they are saying is that if parents and children have more ownership over what school they 'get into', then they are more likely to value it. Isn't that true?
It is the "more ownership" part that I don't accept. We've had talk on this thread of schools controlling their own admissions, and schools taking top-up fees from parents. This has nothing to do with parents owning their schools and everything to do with private companies making money out of providing middle class escape routes, while the less well off remain in the sink schools.
When reading the comments about this it is hard to believe we have had decades of proposals to increase parent choice, while the quality of education actually got worse. Yet we still have people whose answer is to give even more choice to the middle classes and do nothing about the problems of the majority.
Who wants to follow Sweden which does not do as well as the UK in the PISA scores for science when you can follow Finland which has consistently ranked way above average for twenty years or more? Extensive free pre-school education where the teachers must have masters degrees. Compulsory, comprehensive education up to the age of 16 with very restricted choice of school and virtually no private schools. All very statist and yet if the PISA scores are to be believed - very successful.
As far as the private sector is concerned: new companies are formed continuously, and those less competent than average tend to go bankrupt. This process tends to reduce the amount of incompetence in the economy.
Can you not see why there are grave problems with applying this model to education? If a supermarket goes bankrupt it can sell off its stock and its customers can use other shops, of which there is usually no shortage. If a school goes bankrupt its pupils cannot just turn up to another school the next day.
Somebody mentioned Sweden earlier as some kind of example earlier. People seem to have missed that (according to wikipedia) even after 16 years of a free market, only 8% of students in Sweden are in independent schools. That's only marginally more than the UK.
Yet somehow people seem to be convincing themselves that this sort of measure changes the system as a whole rather than just the small part of it used by the canniest parents. The fact is that the vast majority of pupils will thrive or lose out according to the standards in bog standard state schools, not according to the latest scheme for giving middle class parents an escape route.
Old Andrew
Once again, you bring up supermarkets. Who says a school (or a supermarket) has to close when it goes bankrupt? Bankruptcy doesnt equal liquidation. It actually means that the existing management/owners lose control of their enterprise and that the creditors take over. (It's more complicated than this, but it is the basic point).
So a bankrupt school (by which we mean one that is no longer able to fund itself) would be taken over by an administrator and could 1)Be sold as a going concern, 2) Wound down over a period of a couple of years so that the children would be found new schools.
There would still be issues - wouldnt good teachers leave? The issues over making sure that the fabric of the school didnt deteriorate and so on. But, let's not make the absurd claim that pupils would be tossed out on the street. (Just like all your other supermarket analogies this one doesnt make sense either.)
Backstop regulations and funds could be made available to make sure that liquidation doesnt happen swiftly.
You bring up parental choice - but choice without new supply is not much choice at all, especially when entry is limited by things like catchment areas and entry/school standards are centrally controlled. The choice required is that schools should be free to choose their own standards and criteria, that new schools be allowed to open.
You also seem to misunderstand markets and the impact of new entrants (so it would appear that you do need a lecture on economics) - the point about Sweden isnt that 8% of students are in independent schools - the issue is whether standards as a whole rise. If a new entrant enters a market and drives up the quality of a good for the market as a whole by 10%, but only manages to get 1% market share because everyone else matches price and quality with the new entrant, the issue isnt what the market share of the new entrant is, but the rise in quality.
Now, what one can say is that we know there is little direct impact from the independent school sector in this country on state schools, as they dont compete for the same pupils (except at the very margins), but we know that independent schools in Sweden do compete with non-independent schools, so a consequent rise in quality would be expected. (But, I dont know whether this has been measured.)
You are, of course, right in that we dont want to affect just the choices for the clever middle classes (who are forted up in expensive catchment areas), but the bog standard comprehensive. I thought that was what we were all talking about - and logically the Swedish model should help in that regard.
Ken
I don't understand your point about Independent schools. They have a massive impact on the state sector. When you take the most clever, the most obedient children out of the equation altogether, the result is to create chaos everywhere else.
That doesn't necessarily mean one should close down private schools. But one cannot deny that their existence has a devastating effect on the state sector.
OldAndrew,
"I'm quite familiar with the fantasy that says everyone gets what they want in a free market.
But that is entirely what a free market is; no cross purposes, no middle men, no third party ramping up the price with tariffs or "duty" or "VAT" - just you and the supplier. If you dont want that particular item or you dont want to pay that much you compromise on quality or go to a cheaper supplier of the same product.
"Beyond that if parents are allowed to top up school fees from their own pockets (something that the Swedish system prohibits) then you can almost guarantee the low quality of the schools for those who can't afford the top up."
That entirely depends on what the subsidy is now doesn't it? I'm about to say something I thought I'd never say; NuLabour did a good thing when injected money into the budget for education - they screwed up completely, however, by ridgedly controlling how it was spent according to their flawed ideology, increasing the number of wooden tops "administrating" these funds, setting up task forces and QUANGO's and all other sorts of rubbish. If that money could be directed at a more localised level there would be less waste.
It is the "more ownership" part that I don't accept. We've had talk on this thread of schools controlling their own admissions, and schools taking top-up fees from parents. This has nothing to do with parents owning their schools and everything to do with private companies making money out of providing middle class escape routes, while the less well off remain in the sink schools.
He who pays the piper...
As Snuffy has pointed out on numerous occasions, letting parents have a say in the direct running of the school is a very bad idea; if parents dont like what the school is providing, then, as with any consumer product (and it is, even if we dont like to consider it in those terms), they can vote with their feet.
"The point is that it is a fantasy that you can just "go someplace else". Changing school is a big deal."
No; your children are a big deal, and how likely is it that school authorities would not be willing to act on a particular issue if parents were pulling their children out en masse? If a restaurant started poisoning customers with bad food you can guarantee they would change up the minute bums weren't on seats anymore or die trying.
As for the queues of private companies; how many teachers leave the profession every year? How many of those left because they didn't like the setup? How many would come back to teaching if they could set up their own school and teach or run it how they want to?
The Gentleman Loser,
You are indeed correct about the Finnish system, but it should also be noted that a high degree of choice is present in this system also; division between vocation and academic paths occur which would turn the stomach of most of the righteous in this country. Additionally school entering age occurs at age 6-7 rather than 3-4 at our own school system, relying a lot more on parental provision; I will have to dig it up but I recall reading that one Finland has one of the worlds highest entry literacy rates - their kids know how to read when they enter education rather than entering education to learn to read!
Also it should be pointed out that although the PISA scores are higher for Finland the proportion of higher education degree holders is higher for Sweden, even with its moderate PISA scores; freedom of choice, it seems, encourages the type of independant thought needed to improve the education of a nation overall.
Snuffy,
You are quite right - It has been 8 years since I left sixth form and I should remember my algebraic etiquette when it comes to using someone elses formula; X and Y represented totally different points here? A and B better?
Trusting you are enjoying your half term as much as Mrs. Tomrat is; she didn't get yesterday till I was having lunch!
Miss S, I understand your concerns regarding private schools, but the needs of one's own children will almost always outweigh the needs of someone else's. I have 5 children; 4 went to state schools but the youngest is at an independent school because the local schools are now very poor. My principles in this must take second place to my son's education. My wife and I make significant sacrifices to pay the fees, but it's money well spent.
Cutting to the chase, it is exactly because there are almost no badly behaved underachievers (they are got rid of) that the teachers can get on with educating, rather than policing. It isn't academically selective; not all the pupils will be doctors and rocket scientists. They will, however, emerge having fulfilled their potential, which is as much as anyone can ask.
I wish all kids could get the same, and I'm sure that the best state schools are at least as good. But I'm not going to sacrifice my son's education on the altar of my own pipe dreams.
Okay, I think we've now reached the point where people are arguing that the market works because it does, rather than because of any reason to think it actually will work in this situation.
What is worse, though, is that now we've moved to the practicalities people seem oblivious to how the system currently works.
There is already parental choice; there is competition between schools; there is a private sector almost the same size as Sweden's; schools do become undersubscribed or even become financially unviable; private organisations already control schools. This has not resulted in any improvement for the great mass of schools.
If the market system being proposed is little more than the factors above (as opposed to something more drastic) then you are arguing that "more of the same" is some kind of major change that will solve the problems in our schools.
If you are proposing something more drastic then you need to spell it out clearly, and justify it in practical terms instead of in dogma about the effectiveness of free markets. At the moment people seem to want to have their free-market cake and eat it, simultaneously arguing that the threat of going under will motivate schools, but backing off from the idea that any schools will actually go under.
Ms. S.
I agree the independent sector has a negative effect by snaffling the best students - what I meant was that as independent schools ask for fees, their market segment is different from the Swedish system where there are no fees - so the independent sector competes directly with state schools for the same pot of money.
The independent sector actually helps the state system in this country as far as fees are concerned, every parent willing to pay twice for education - once through taxes, once through fees, means more money for the state. So there is no monetary incentive for state schools to compete with independent schools (although quality wise there is as you say, but this isnt exactly reflected in the incentives given to schools).
Old Andrew,
Ah, back to obfuscation eh? Face it. You are wrong about bankruptcy = liquidation. You are also wrong about market share = change.
Now, that doesnt mean a market will work - the devil is indeed in the details, but it undermines your badly thought out arguments. So now you demand "details". Please admit you are wrong on both the above points first. Otherwise you just show yourself to be someone who cannot debate, but has to bluster. (I hold out no hope since you repeat the claim that the private system is the same in the UK and Sweden as though it meant something.)
Jollyboatingweather... your experience of private / public schools clearly differs from mine. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Tomrat... so you're saying that by providing welfare for its citizens, the state encourages them to freeload? I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. Yes, there will always be a group of people who are predisposed to try and manipulate the system. If that's endemic, and more people than not take advantage of the munificence of the government to avoid working / bettering themselves / however you want to put it, I'm not sure I understand the point you're tryingt o make.
First, you gloss over one point - the state refusing to provide "ambition to the swaggering masses". Who are these people? Everyone? 90% of everyone who doesn't work? Most of the people for whom the education system has been a failure? Please elaborate.
Secondly, the majority of these people have an overriding compulsion to get drunk and/or drugged-up at every available opportunity. These are... who? The children not being educated? I don't think it's "evil" that you should want people to want to make something of their lives. I just find it astonishing that, in an enlightened society, or the nearest approximation that we have to one, the best suggestion you can come up with is to cut benefits. To what end? So a reasonable percentage of them can... what? Apply themselves rigorously to the task of getting educated and getting jobs? Where, I wonder, do you propose that they live while they're doing this? Perhaps you plan to do the rounds of their cardboard boxes giving out tins of beans?
I realise that this is starting to sound a little melodramatic. Generally, that tone isn't my style. But I haven't heard such casual fascism since I youtubed William Hague at a young conservatives' meeting. I want people to do better for themselves. They come from poor backgrounds. So let's stop giving them money, THAT'LL incentivise them. One thing you don't mention at all - and I thought this was the usual argument - was that if people are intent on a drug-fuelled lifestyle, they tend to turn to petty crime to fulfil it. Believe me, you'll find it quite hard to support a crack habit on the dole. Perhaps you could explain where that fits into your vision of the system.
What makes me smile is that their used to be the GM system. Extracts taken from the internet.
Grant-maintained schools were developed to allow more parental choice within the state-maintained sector. The legislative conditions that created grant-maintained schools lasted from 1988 until 1998.
The popularity of GM schools in some areas was attributed to the poor financial support offered by local education authorities. GM schools were entitled to apply to central government for capital grants for essential building works.
In part because of the additional funding, but also because GM schools were allowed to set their own admissions criteria which were sometimes at variance with those applied by the Local Education Authorities, Grant-maintained schools were controversial and their semi-independence status caused friction with LEAs. (Hence they were abolished because political dogma?)
Then the wheel goes round and round and spins off the Academy idea. Since 2000, an academy in England can mean a type of secondary school which is independent but publicly funded and publicly run. As such, academies are outside the control of the Local Authorities in which they are situated.
Only this time instead of the parental choice the direction is influenced by rich people who give 10% for the cost of the academy capital costs, or £2m whichever is lower. Plus 10% selection by aptitude for the specialisation.
Academies are considered to be controversial,and their existence has frequently been opposed and challenged by politicians, commentators, teachers and teachers' unions,and parents. Even after several years of operation and with a number of academies open and reporting successes, the programme continues to come under attack for creating schools that are, inter alia, a waste of money, selective, damaging to the schools and communities around them forced on parents who do not want them, and a move towards privatisation of education "by the back door".
Does this mean people want the centralised control and throw money at it approach, as opposed to tailoring the school to local conditions?
As I understand it academies are now supported by all three main political parties, with a further cross-party initiative to extend the programme into primary schools currently being considered.
OldAndrew,
Fair enough; my wishlish for "drastic change":
1. Alter the compulsory education age to 6-16, liberalise funding for pre-school and further education and have funding locally collected and controlled: The Finnish system has a later starting date but higher PISA scores - how? More parental interaction - encourage nurturing, enable parents to get hold of funding for their childs education before entering school and after school (with the kids themselves making the decisions for further education).
2. Abolish The National Curriculum: By all means set a national (minimum) test standard - if we fund education as a nation some account needs to be given to the nation; but how that school reaches that standard is up to them. Beyond the minimum qualification (i.e. a 3R's test) you allow schools to diversify as they see fit, similar to what happens in Finland where vocational and academic pursuits can be realised.
3. Allow parents to direct their childs allocated funding to any school they see fit: As I recall LEAs currently manage university student loans; extend this to school age and allow the parents to transfer this funding to any willing school. Home schooling will acceptable but registry to a home-school monitoring authority responsible for gauranteeing performance will be mandatory.
4. Make parents/guardians ultimately responsible for their childrens actions: failure to stop a childs disruptive tendencies should ultimately lie with the parent/guardian, schools can eject unruly students with ease but lose the funding associated with them (putting consideration for this action purely on the grounds of poor behaviour and performance). It will then be the parents job to find a new school willing to accept the student. A more centrally managed and funded welfare and LEA service will lead to greater penalties to both parents and disruptive students (parents losing benefits, etc.)
5. (To be applied beyond education)Withdraw from European convention on human rights, abolish the human rights act and the health and safety executive: this may sound like a strange thing to put in an education wish list but the consequence of having laws made external to the UK has infantilised not only our populace but also our leaders; how can they make effective laws on how a teacher conducts a lesson, chastises a pupil or performs an experiment with a minimal amount of risk involved when the base rules are set elsewhere and, worse, the judicial service can overrule acts of parliament?
I'm not talking about bringing back corporal punishment or empowering prison-like gulags in the place of schools as I'm sure some swivvle eyed loons will claim, I am talking about being able to say to a parent "if your child behaves, irrespective of who they are they will be punished accordingly; this will be by cane/expulsion/detention..."
As you can probably tell point (5) has wider reaching consequences outside of education policy, but thats kind of the point to drastic action isn't it? We have come to the point were little minor changes will simply not work and can be counter productive; you wouldn't abolish welfare outright without putting in policies that address the ability to get jobs or privatise healthcare without making provision for the poor.
It is a balance; and one I think the Libertarian Party (shameless plug alert!) is trying to address as we speak.
Since the comments on this post seem to have turned into a debate on the Swedish education system, I thought I'd repost this:
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/uploads/publications/Open_Access_%5BFINAL%5D.pdf
It's a report from the Adam Smith Institute on Swedish education reform, quoting some facts and figures. Yes, they're a right-wing free trade organisation, so you can assume a certain bias. But it's still interesting reading.
I'm not venturing into this debate at all apart from posting this though! It's all too complicated :-P
tomrat
I agree what you propose is setting strong policies to provide guidance as to what is socially acceptable. However look at the comments of guernican, he regards the behaviour of drug addicts in feeding their habit as being petty offences. I would point out that robbery is an indictable only offence with a maximum punishment of 14 years imprisonment, although in the world today it will probably be classed as common assault with a theft i.e. to reduce crime figures in the serious categories.
Burglary is also max 14 years with a min 3 years for 3 separate repeat offences. Try telling this to the widowed pensioner who has her house turned upside down and is afraid to stay in the house on her own. Those who can't get insurance because they are to poor themselves and lose everything of value. Those who get a repeat visit because the addicts know the insurance will have provided replacement goods.
However things like this are tritely dismissed as petty (usually by people who are fortunate enough to live where this petty offending is not common) and anyone who criticises this for not being normal is a fascist. In fact the drug problem is not seen as a crime itself instead it is offered up as a mitigation for the criminal behaviour itself. It really just highlights how far standard and values have fallen.
guernican,
Fair enough - I'll stop throwing up straw men if you will! ;-)
My point, in a nutshell, is that when the state offers money to it's flavour-of-the-month victim groups that money attracts more people to join that particular victim group, especially when the only other option is to go without; most will chose the path of least resistance (this is nowhere near as clear cut, but a valid observation of human nature all the same, because we all do it).
This is not the same as saying that we should decry the plight of that particular victim; I find it repugnant when real fascists say we should oust migrants or sterilise single mothers; I'm not calling for that nor ever could - I am just calling on a greater emphasis and acceptance that perhaps the problem lies in how we have removed some of the financial and social taboos associated with certain types of lifestyle that are not healthy - and no that is not casting judgement; taking the example of the single parent household, if it were a healthy successful lifestyle then it would flourish without it needing to be propped up by taxpayers cash.
I was not flippantly calling for welfare abolition either; I was calling for a drastic rethink on a culture that encourages people to be reliant on the faceless edifice of the state rather than on yourself and those around you - this would be made a lot easier if the following happened:
1. Local authorities were in charge of their own taxation and service provision: there would be a push to limit costs of things like welfare by encouraging jobs by lowering business rates of taxation, whilst balancing this against city life, resource and logistics (for everyone).
2. Abolish Income Tax, Encourage Business and Jobs: Even in the present economic crisis this is possible; tax should be proportional to consumption so replacing VAT with a sales tax, allowing local authorities to collect the whole 100% of their funding requirements from their residents (~75% filtered through Whitehall at present) will reduce the need for income tax - it could be removed over a period of years by ramping up the tax free bracket to infinity over a ten year period for example.
3. Localise business taxation: to encourage "rate competition", bringing jobs where needed and discouraging the "welfare hammock".
gastank,
(Am beginning to agree with cantab golds sentiments; brain huuurts!)
If any message is taken from my inane warblings it should be that I am trying to say what is socially acceptable, but remove the state from deciding what becomes socially successful. Despite being a Christian I dont put much stock in morals; they are the playthings of the individual to be abandoned whenever real problems occur - sharing or enforcing them only compounds the problem of putting these toys in their toybox when real problems occur; looks at how quickly the nonsense of climate change has been abandoned wholesale in the wake of this economic crisis.
Regarding the way we treat our prisoners, drug addicts and the like I think most people understand the libertarians view on property rights by now - focusing on criminality for a minute one of the main problems we face today is a poor understanding and execution of the laws that govern this land because too many people are responsible for their creation and not enough for their implimentation and enforcement; any chimp can right down on a piece of paper what you cant do but few can make sure you keep to it. Look at the American Patriot Act and you'll understand.
And with that I think I will call it a day. Few!
Miss Snuffy,
The problem is that we have a country run by, and influenced by, upper-middle-class authoritarians that have employed socialist mantras to basically screw everyone else.
I used to be a lefty-kind-of girl. I used to be a hard-lefty-kind-of-girl (though never a Trot).
Now I am not. You know why? Because 'the left' in Britain is now made-up of posh and privileged, university-educated at a time when working class people could barely afford to keep a kid on for A levels, ex-Marxists who want everyone to do what they say, but not what they do, and who utilise 'the poor' because they think it gives them the aura of being 'good, caring people'.
And they are bolstered by a media full of posh and privileged ex-Marxists who went to public schools and Oxbridge, and live in the same paradigm they do.
These people are the establishment and the state now. These are the people who believe all serious political authority is illegimate, including their own -- so they fudge serious governance issues, refuse to take positions, and cover all this pathetic inadequacy by paying court to ideological principles they feel are vastly more important -- like climate change and inclusion.
They are not leaders. These people are so far removed from the ordinary working man and woman that they might as well be aliens.
And it is these people who have formulated the environment and ethos that so affects your children.
The idea is this: it is good to be seen to be nice to underprivileged children -- you can then get away with meddling in things that are none of your business -- and one can be seen to be nice and caring by giving them free stuff and making excuses about their behaviour. After all, it doesn't matter. They are not going to be the ones cleaning up the mess; that's you, Snuffy. And their kids will not be affected, they all go to nice schools with the other children of posh, privileged folk.
The attitude is akin to the Lady of the Manor swanning down to the poor oiks at Parish and doling out lots of sweets. All the poor kids thinks she's a marvellous, kind lady 'that they love', except they eat so many sweets that they are all violently sick, and the 'nasty' vicar's wife, who tells them off for not washing their hands and behind their ears at Sunday school, has to clean it all up. And then, of course, the Lady of the Manor decides to stop her sponsorship of the yearly children's church trip to the seaside, and makes arrangements for them to stop school and all work in her mill.
The left in the country, because of their paradigms and attitudes, actually behave with a strange noblesse oblige bien pensant mix that is both utterly condescending, and disempowering for the vast majority of people.
What you see in your classrooms is a result of thirty years of this ethos in the education system: teachers that believe their love of mixed ability and inclusion means they are being 'good people', when it actually screws up those kids' life chances.
As regards society, well, this new establishment has infected society to the extent that you cannot get away from their ideas -- or challenge them without being perceived as an enemy of society and a nasty person.
The left now is nothing to do with working people, or the masses. It is now simply a new authoritarian elite that hides its meddling in social-conscious gloves.
As you may be able to tell, I am rather angry about all this.
Also Snuffy before I forget; the LPUK forums had a topic on the age of "adulthood" last year that got pretty heated; I think the accepted age was 16.
The real problem with this age is that it is not applied rigidly in contrast to other rules; you can have sex a age 16 but you cant smoke or buy alcohol. You can (could) leave school at age 16 but you cant drive or vote; plain stupid.
Fair enough, tomrat. Of course if we can find principled ways of encouraging this sort of thing, I'm for it. I guess I'm naturally nervous of generalisations, but I see now that you're not making the mistake I thought you were.
At least you've taken the time to read and understand what I was trying to say, which is more than can be said for gastank.
Old Andrew,
Ah, back to obfuscation eh? Face it. You are wrong about bankruptcy = liquidation. You are also wrong about market share = change.
Now, that doesn't mean a market will work - the devil is indeed in the details, but it undermines your badly thought out arguments. So now you demand "details". Please admit you are wrong on both the above points first.
I have never made either of those points.
I have just pointed out the rather obvious facts:
a) if unpopular schools cannot go under (and get closed) then you do not have a free market, nor does your own "bluster" about the free market have any relevance to those schools
and
b) declaring a country where 92% (instead of 93%) of students are in state run schools to be an example of the benefits of removing the state is ludicrous.
I think what really grates is the idea that these are suggestions to deal with the real problems of our school system. An ideological posture is not a solution, and in case people hadn't noticed talk of choice, private involvement and greater independence for schools is exactly the sort of posturing we've had for decades already.
I thought the Labour Party was indeed proposing to cut benefits for both incapacity and job seekers allowance for those who refuse to attend job interviews, or perform community work for the money after two years of signing on. Plus the age that single parents seek work will be reduced. Although nobody will have their housing benefit taken away.
Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell has been determined to shrink the number with his "work for dole" scheme. "It's only fair that we make sure a life on benefits is not an option," he has claimed
I do not suggest that this is the only single means to achieve the aim and that opportunities need to be accessible to act as an incentive in terms of training and jobs. What puzzles me is why this approach is being taken at a time when economically it is the least favourable time to attempt to wean people off the benefits culture (other than to cut the benefits bill). Although I personally applaud it, if it reduces the something for nothing culture and helps to instil a sense of routine from working.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2463696.0.How_new_welfare_system_puts_the_emphasis_on_finding_work.php
Old Andrew
You made both points:
(Bankruptcy = liquidation)
Can you not see why there are grave problems with applying this model to education? If a supermarket goes bankrupt it can sell off its stock and its customers can use other shops, of which there is usually no shortage. If a school goes bankrupt its pupils cannot just turn up to another school the next day.
and
(Market share = Success of market entry)
Somebody mentioned Sweden earlier as some kind of example earlier. People seem to have missed that (according to wikipedia) even after 16 years of a free market, only 8% of students in Sweden are in independent schools. That's only marginally more than the UK.
You are just a blusterer. Your inability to face up to the hollowness of your points once again trips you up - just like all your strawmen. Go back and read my points again and try to comprehend. (I know its difficult for you. But try.)
Can we drop this ridiculous excuse that the private schools only perform better because they nick all the best pupils, please? There were plenty of bright, well-behaved people in the comprehensive school I went to who were there because their parents couldn't afford the fees for private schools, and not because they wouldn't have been accepted on academic grounds. And I sit next to a woman at work whose spoilt, badly-behaved, academically-idiot son attends a private school. None of this prevented the comprehensive school I attended suffering from poor results and bad behaviour, and nothing short of a series of hard smacks (which aren't likely to be given) and a thunderbolt from heaven will make my colleague's son pass his GCSEs.
No, private schools do well because they operate well, and state schools do badly because they operate badly. I don't pretend to know the answer to the problem, but it certainly has nothing to do with the socio-economic situation of the pupils' parents.
Jenny
The socio-economic status and educational attainment of parents has a measurable effect on their children's educational achievements. These are well known facts backed by several decades of research.
It is also a fact that schools populated with large numbers of well behaved middle class children do well - the parents are involved and disciplinary problems are limited. By removing a substantial slice of the middle class from state schools, the average quality of pupil behaviour falls. All this is also well documented.
Private schools are successful partially because of their resources but I suspect mainly because of their selection. I went to a good private school and the teaching ranged from brilliant to the abysmal. The pupils generally worked around the abysmal ones.
Private schools probably add some value, but I've not seen any good work on it. Some (not very good) academic work suggests that the able do equally well in state schools as private schools, but I didnt think much of the methodology. What is true is that private schools tend to lose pupils over the course of a few years if a bad headteacher takes over, so in that respect at least, the market does seem to work.
You are just a blusterer. Your inability to face up to the hollowness of your points once again trips you up - just like all your strawmen. Go back and read my points again and try to comprehend. (I know its difficult for you. But try.)
Oh for pity's sake.
I'm used to the fact that you simply won't engage with what I'm saying, unless it's to misrepresent or ignore it, but isn't it about time you learnt what a straw man actually is? It wouldn't be quite so bad if your imaginative reinterpretations of what I've said weren't themselves textbook examples of strawman arguments.
"This has nothing to do with parents owning their schools and everything to do with private companies making money out of providing middle class escape routes, while the less well off remain in the sink schools."
Look, sunshine: there is a system that works. We see that people do not remain in sink schools. Sink schools do not exist.
Dear god, people like you make me want to vomit. You would ruin the lives of children because of your hideous ideology and your utter refusal to look. At. A. System. That. Works. Better. Than. Ours.
You are the enemy that those of us who care are trying to fight. For god's sake, retire and shut up.
DK
Old Andrew
I see. Once again, you obfuscate. I dont misrepresent what you say at all. We are back to claiming neither is answering the others points. You probably like that - you truly havent tried to engage, you probably think you have won a draw. In reality, you have simply admitted your iadequacy. Bye. 2-0 to me.
Dear god, people like you make me want to vomit. You would ruin the lives of children because of your hideous ideology and your utter refusal to look. At. A. System. That. Works. Better. Than. Ours.
You are the enemy that those of us who care are trying to fight. For god's sake, retire and shut up.
Is this still meant to be about Sweden?
Are you still claiming that the 8% of children in independent schools in Sweden (as opposed to the 7% in this country) makes all the difference in educational performance between the two countries?
It's not as if I'm even defending the English education system, I just don't accept that middle class escape routes or the pressures of competition (two things we are not short of as it is) can solve the problems.
Still, it never ceases to amaze me just how willingly those who are proposing something based entirely on political dogma, accuse those who are thinking about the likely practical effects of being "ideological".
It's not as if I'm hostile to change, I'd just like some reason to think the change would work. The lectures about "rights", the claims that free markets always give people what they want (even the poor) and the fantasy that there is little parental choice or private sector influence in the British education system, would not convince anybody who was more interested in children than advancing their ideology.
I dont misrepresent what you say at all.
I'm afraid you do. I have never claimed that "bankruptcy is liquidation", I have merely observed that there is no meaningful market (nor any consequence for bad schools) if schools cannot go under (which is, of course, the fundamental reason why there is no meaningful market in schooling and probably never will be).
I have never claimed that the independent schools in Sweden were not a "success" because they only taught 8% of students. I just pointed out that it is insane to suggest that standards in Swedish schools didn't depend far more on what happened to the other 92% of students and suggesting that Sweden is more successful that the UK because they have 1% more students in private schools is ridiculous.
Now I realise that both of these points completely blow a hole in the ability of the market to solve every problem, and I can see that as true believers you really hate that. But that does not justify trying to accuse me of all the things (setting up strawmen, avoiding the questions) that you are actually doing.
Don't you get that if your solutions were to used then you'd have to convince people like me? People who want change? People who see our current system as not fit for purpose? Instead all I get is lectures followed by abuse and aggression when I simply ask "how is that meant to work?"
From this, it is hard not to conclude that you simply have no idea how it could possibly work. And that is why we are caught between declarations that the market would solve things by magic, and claims that the market would provide things (parental choice, competition) that we already have in the UK anyway.
Just a thought. Private schools don't nick all the best pupils; rather, they select the ones they want from those that apply. Applying for a private school place is generally a proactive move by the parents. Not all can or want to.
So, in order for the "they nick all the best pupils" theory to be correct, the following criteria would have to exist:
1. The number of 'good' pupils (whatever that means) must be broadly the same as the number of available private school places
2. All 'good' pupils apply for these places
3. Only 'good' pupils apply for the places
4. By inference, pupils who don't apply or get accepted are not 'good'.
Yes, I know its a bit tongue in cheek and I'm not pooh-poohing the impact of private schools on state education. I just feel a bit irked at the inference that somehow kids who don't go to private school are second-rate or get a second-rate education per se.
Bad schools are bad schools. Having been a governor at a failing inner-city school, I can say that in that school, things were bad due to poor staff. They were allowed to exist because a bad head didn't challenge them. Socio-economic factors undoubtedly had an influence, but there were bright, nice kids who went there and I felt frustrated that we were letting them down.
And just to pour petrol on the flames, I remember an MP who declared that private education and selection were wrong and that she would only send her son to a state school. However, the state school she chose was a selective one some 14 miles from her home; a school that is two boroughs away. Her name? Harriet Harman, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and wife of union firebrand Jack Dromey.
As a parent, I have no issue with them doing the best for their son. But please stop this 'do as I say, not as I do' culture of pulling up the ladder behind them.
Ginger
No. It is far more complex than that. If you worked in a school for a year, you'd know what I mean.
Old Andrew
I dont accept that bad schools cannot be closed down. That is a matter of political will and is a necessary corollary to the opening of new schools. Yes, it does require political backbone that has been conspicuous in its absence, but I see it as fundamentally political problem rather than an insoluble fact of life. But, I accept that closing (or having new management installed in) schools is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for change.
You are quite right about the 92% or 91% of Swedes not in the independent system being the important ones. But, my point about standards and competition stands - the independent sector in Sweden competes for the same pot of money and pupils as State schools. The fact that they have a market share of 8% doesnt mean that they have'nt raised standards in the 92%. It also doesnt mean they have - I havent seen numbers on that. But, competition in this type of market should result in a rise in standards as the pre-existing schools fight to maintain their market share. If the 8% are just the well behaved who are being creamed off and the independent sector actively avoids having to let in anyone else, the situation may be different. The devil is indeed in the details.
Political will is important - in allowing bad schools to fail (to be wound down over time or taken over), in encouraging good teachers, in letting teachers do their thing rather than trying to micromanage them, in admitting that not everyone can be helped and that it is the job of the state to help those who can be helped, in creating the right framework for small schools to be started in unconventional settings, to create an environment that fosters learning (reintroduction of proper school discipline - no, not caning, but kids should respect authority). An end to trying to use schools to act as surrogate social services.
No, it isnt a matter of letting market forces rip - market forces in places, a change in priorities for teachers (to the kind of thing that you and Ms S would probably agree on), a lot less State interference.
Certainly one could make the system better without introducing competition - just reduce the national curriculum to the bare bones and allow schools to choose their own curricula, enforce discipline in schools, reform (Ms S would say close) OFSTED, allow schools to choose their own criteria for entry, allow unpopular schools to be wound down, allow the creation of new schools.
Some of the above could be made more effective with competition, but it is not a necessary or sufficient condition to improve matters.
A matter of political will - oh and vision.
Now we are getting somewhere, you do seem to be admitting that private competition isn't what makes the difference, it's the willingness (and ability) to wind up or intervene in the unpopular schools.
Unfortunately, where we have a problem here is that you are pretending that closing schools and redistributing their pupils OR changing their management amounts to "less interference by the state". A second's thought would reveal that it actually involves more interference by the state, and more power exercised by the state. Closing schools in particular always involves the state riding roughshod over parents' wishes.
The fact that a school is closed is not what I'd call greater interference by the State. I'm not sure whether I'd call it more or less. Given that the school is provided by the State, keeping it open is basically no different from closing it as far as State intervention is concerned. In some ways it is less - for what is more market driven than failure for a business without customers. In other ways it is more, for schools are not businesses, but communities and this is "expropriation" - one could argue both sides.
It does involve irritating some parents. It requires a positive act from the State and requires a decision from someone. This could be facilitated by having proper rules in place and support for the process.
Closing schools (or changing the management) is a necessary condition, but it wouldnt deliver good education by itself - what also needs to happen is that there needs to be a supply of better schooling. This could be achieved to some extent within the existing state provision by changing the rules, but I still think that it would be better provided by introducing an element of private competition.
Post a Comment