INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Educating Boys

For discussions related to education and educational institutions.
Message
Author
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Educating Boys

#61 Post by Nick » October 19th, 2010, 11:18 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:But I need to: the "paying twice" claim is ridiculous.
No it's not. :D Let's take your transport example. Suppose we have an tax-paying OAP with a free bus pass. If s/he uses the bus pass, there is virtually no marginal cost to the bus company. There is, however a loss of marginal revenue. This is effectively paid for by (a proportion of) the tax the OAP is paying.

If the OAP drives instead, there is no marginal cost for the bus company. There is the same loss of marginal revenue, and again the OAP still pays for their share of the bus journey in taxes. In addition, the OAP pays the whole of the marginal cost of going by car, which includes a sizable dollop of tax, over and above the immediate cost of transport, which again subsidises "free" services.

The driving OAP's do obtain some benefits. They travel without strangers sitting next to them, door to door, when they want. The bus passenger theoretically pays a price in increased road congestion by having those pesky motorists on the road.

In summation, the car driving OAP is paying virtually the whole cost of their missed bus journey (assuming there is space on the bus, which there virtually always is). They are also paying over and above the cost of going by car because of taxation.

I cannot see otherwise than that the motoring OAP is paying more than twice.

The analogy also applies to private education. The school fee payer is paying twice.

User avatar
loz2286
Posts: 45
Joined: September 16th, 2010, 11:51 am

Re: Educating Boys

#62 Post by loz2286 » October 20th, 2010, 12:55 am

It does bother me that there are people in the world who'd like even half the chances that we, over-privileged foreigners, get every day. We build our monstrous houses for 4 people that could easily fit a dozen or more. We throw out restaurant food that is perfectly edible because portion sizes are huge when that food could go to the homeless. We've got 15 pairs of shoes when 1 pair is a luxury for some people. Yet, we continue to whine about how bad things are, how we're poor, how hard we have to work when compared to some, we are on a gentle merry-go-round. And don't think I'm not including myself here, I am.
It bothers me too. But don't blame me or the independent education sector for that. Blame the system.

User avatar
loz2286
Posts: 45
Joined: September 16th, 2010, 11:51 am

Re: Educating Boys

#63 Post by loz2286 » October 20th, 2010, 1:00 am

The school's job is to educate. I'm frightened by the idea that schools are raising our kids.
It frightens me too, yet as Pastoral Leader at my school I no longer amazed when the school has to do the job of nurturing values because the child is bereft of basic social skills.

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#64 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 20th, 2010, 5:12 pm

Nick wrote:Suppose we have an tax-paying OAP with a free bus pass. If s/he uses the bus pass, there is virtually no marginal cost to the bus company. There is, however a loss of marginal revenue.
There's a loss of marginal revenue if the OAP would have paid for a bus fare if she didn't have a bus pass, rather than stayed at home, or walked, or got a lift with someone, or if she was taking up a seat that someone else might have paid for. If it's a journey she's only making because she's taking advantage of her free bus pass, and if the bus isn't anywhere near full, then surely there's no loss of marginal revenue.
Nick wrote:This is effectively paid for by (a proportion of) the tax the OAP is paying.
Oh, these pesky "effectivelys". No, it's paid for (if there's any cost at all) by a proportion of the tax that all taxpayers are paying, whether they have bus passes or not, whether they're of pensionable age or not, whether they're likely to reach pensionable age or not, whether they use public transport, or drive, or cycle, or walk ...
Nick wrote:If the OAP drives instead, there is no marginal cost for the bus company. There is the same loss of marginal revenue, and again the OAP still pays for their share of the bus journey in taxes.
I don't understand why there's a loss of marginal revenue here. And I am flummoxed by the idea that the OAP is paying for her share of the bus journey. What bus journey? The hypothetical bus journey that she would have gone on if she hadn't driven? But it's hypothetical. It might not even have been something that she would have considered. She might not like buses. There might not be a bus stop within walking distance of her home. When I walk to the shops, as I always do, am I paying for a hypothetical bus journey too, out of my taxes? I suppose that I'm also paying for my hypothetical triple bypass operation, too, am I, despite having a healthy heart. And clearly I'm paying for my hypothetical children to attend school. No, this is silly. It makes no sense at all.
Nick wrote:In addition, the OAP pays the whole of the marginal cost of going by car, which includes a sizable dollop of tax, over and above the immediate cost of transport, which again subsidises "free" services.
But not, specifically, free bus passes for people of pensionable age. Vehicle excise duty used to be hypothecated, but it isn't any more, and when it was it went towards maintaining roads, not paying for free bus services. Again, it is all taxpayers who pay for all public services, not for their share of the ones they happen to use, or are entitled to use.
Nick wrote:The driving OAP's do obtain some benefits. They travel without strangers sitting next to them, door to door, when they want. The bus passenger theoretically pays a price in increased road congestion by having those pesky motorists on the road.
And many of us benefit, even if we're not pensioners ourselves, from having pensioners, many of whom are our parents and grandparents and other relatives and friends, being encouraged to get out and about.
Nick wrote:In summation, the car driving OAP is paying virtually the whole cost of their missed bus journey (assuming there is space on the bus, which there virtually always is). They are also paying over and above the cost of going by car because of taxation.
No, and no. The first statement is a nonsense, because the "missed bus journey" isn't real and so costs nothing. The second statement is false because you are ignoring the costs of travelling by car that the car driver doesn't pay for directly, but that we all pay for, either in taxes or in other ways. I don't drive. I don't pay vehicle excise duty. But I do pay income tax and VAT, and I do contribute to the costs of road maintenance, and to the costs of the medical treatment of people injured in road traffic accidents, and to the costs of traffic-related air and water pollution, and to the costs of cleaning up oil and getting rid of old tyres. And then there are the costs to my quality of life: the costs of traffic congestion, and of the barriers created by cars on roads, so that I can't walk freely from A to B but have to stop every so often and push a little button and wait for a little green man to flash at me; and the costs of air pollution, whenever I fill my lungs with stinky air containing nasty things like benzene; and the costs of road noise pollution, which interferes with my enjoyment of my natural surroundings. And a share of all those costs is borne by that tax-paying OAP who uses her bus pass. Are you going to say that she "pays twice" for a car journey that she doesn't bloody make?
Nick wrote:I cannot see otherwise than that the motoring OAP is paying more than twice.
And I cannot understand why you think this. It is an abuse of the English language. "Paying twice" clealry implies paying twice for the same thing. If the car-driving OAP really were paying more than twice for her journey, then every single taxpayer would be paying many times over for all sorts of things that we do or might have done, and the phrase would become meaningless.
Nick wrote:The analogy also applies to private education. The school fee payer is paying twice.
Right, that's it. It has become meaningless. Next time I really do pay for something twice, as a consequence of some clerical error or computer glitch, I'll have to come up with an entirely new phrase to describe that unfortunate event, or I'll have some school fee-payer nodding sagely at me and saying, "Oh yes, I know exactly how you feel." :nod:

Emma

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Educating Boys

#65 Post by Nick » October 20th, 2010, 5:55 pm

Hmmm... looks like I've got some explaining to do :laughter: It'll be in bits, because my lap-top screen jumps about if there is a lot of text. (Grrr!)
Emma wrote:
Nick wrote:Suppose we have an tax-paying OAP with a free bus pass. If s/he uses the bus pass, there is virtually no marginal cost to the bus company. There is, however a loss of marginal revenue.
There's a loss of marginal revenue if the OAP would have paid for a bus fare if she didn't have a bus pass......
That is precisely the point I am making. I am attempting to compare this to education, and little Johnnie doesn't have the choice of whether he goes toschool or not. By comparison, the OAP must make the journey.


So..
....rather than stayed at home, or walked, or got a lift with someone, or if she was taking up a seat that someone else might have paid for. If it's a journey she's only making because she's taking advantage of her free bus pass, and if the bus isn't anywhere near full, then surely there's no loss of marginal revenue.
is irrelevant.

(BTW, I approve of bus passes, though the age should be raised to 65)
Nick wrote:This is effectively paid for by (a proportion of) the tax the OAP is paying.
Oh, these pesky "effectivelys". No, it's paid for (if there's any cost at all) by a proportion of the tax that all taxpayers are paying, whether they have bus passes or not, whether they're of pensionable age or not, whether they're likely to reach pensionable age or not, whether they use public transport, or drive, or cycle, or walk ...
I agree. I just didn't write enough. The point I was trying to make is that a proportion of the OAP's taxes also contribute the the cost of the bus pass.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Educating Boys

#66 Post by Nick » October 20th, 2010, 6:31 pm

Nick wrote:If the OAP drives instead, there is no marginal cost for the bus company. There is the same loss of marginal revenue, and again the OAP still pays for their share of the bus journey in taxes.
I don't understand why there's a loss of marginal revenue here....
The marginal revenue lost by not paying a fare, which is met by taxpayers.
And I am flummoxed by the idea that the OAP is paying for her share of the bus journey. What bus journey?
The bus journey which is still being made by the bus.
The hypothetical bus journey that she would have gone on if she hadn't driven? But it's hypothetical. It might not even have been something that she would have considered. She might not like buses. There might not be a bus stop within walking distance of her home. When I walk to the shops, as I always do, am I paying for a hypothetical bus journey too, out of my taxes? I suppose that I'm also paying for my hypothetical triple bypass operation, too, am I, despite having a healthy heart. And clearly I'm paying for my hypothetical children to attend school. No, this is silly. It makes no sense at all.

Sorry, but none of that is relevant. We are only comparing different ways of conducting a journey, not whether or not to undertake the journey
Nick wrote:In addition, the OAP pays the whole of the marginal cost of going by car, which includes a sizable dollop of tax, over and above the immediate cost of transport, which again subsidises "free" services.
But not, specifically, free bus passes for people of pensionable age. Vehicle excise duty used to be hypothecated, but it isn't any more, and when it was it went towards maintaining roads, not paying for free bus services. Again, it is all taxpayers who pay for all public services, not for their share of the ones they happen to use, or are entitled to use.
Yes of course it’s not hypothecated, but the OAP is choosing to incur taxes which are used for all sorts of things, instead of paying no additional tax for the journey.
Nick wrote:The driving OAP's do obtain some benefits. They travel without strangers sitting next to them, door to door, when they want. The bus passenger theoretically pays a price in increased road congestion by having those pesky motorists on the road.
And many of us benefit, even if we're not pensioners ourselves, from having pensioners, many of whom are our parents and grandparents and other relatives and friends, being encouraged to get out and about.

As I say, I’m not against bus passes, for the reasons you cite, but we are just talking about cost here, so though important, it is not relevant to the matter in hand.
Nick wrote:In summation, the car driving OAP is paying virtually the whole cost of their missed bus journey (assuming there is space on the bus, which there virtually always is). They are also paying over and above the cost of going by car because of taxation.
No, and no. The first statement is a nonsense, because the "missed bus journey" isn't real and so costs nothing.
But the journey is still being made by an empty seat. (I might have said more clearly the OAP pays the same contribution to the cost of the bus journey, rather than ‘the whole cost’)


To be continued....

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Educating Boys

#67 Post by Nick » October 20th, 2010, 7:02 pm

The second statement is false because you are ignoring the costs of travelling by car that the car driver doesn't pay for directly, but that we all pay for, either in taxes or in other ways. I don't drive. I don't pay vehicle excise duty. But I do pay income tax and VAT, and I do contribute to the costs of road maintenance, and to the costs of the medical treatment of people injured in road traffic accidents, and to the costs of traffic-related air and water pollution, and to the costs of cleaning up oil and getting rid of old tyres. And then there are the costs to my quality of life: the costs of traffic congestion, and of the barriers created by cars on roads, so that I can't walk freely from A to B but have to stop every so often and push a little button and wait for a little green man to flash at me; and the costs of air pollution, whenever I fill my lungs with stinky air containing nasty things like benzene; and the costs of road noise pollution, which interferes with my enjoyment of my natural surroundings. And a share of all those costs is borne by that tax-paying OAP who uses her bus pass. Are you going to say that she "pays twice" for a car journey that she doesn't bloody make?
I did hint at externalities, but since you've opened that can of worms further, let's see what we find. First of all, the taxes paid by road users wildly exceed all the direct and indirect costs of roads and related things. It is also true that there are external costs eg pollution, noise, deprivation of country hedgerows etc., but there are corresponding external benefits. Without the road system there would be a dramatic reduction in her standard of living, as the OAP would be deprived of all the cost savings which result from a modern transport system, which allow for the bus pass in the first place..
Nick wrote:I cannot see otherwise than that the motoring OAP is paying more than twice.
And I cannot understand why you think this. It is an abuse of the English language. "Paying twice" clealry implies paying twice for the same thing. If the car-driving OAP really were paying more than twice for her journey, then every single taxpayer would be paying many times over for all sorts of things that we do or might have done, and the phrase would become meaningless.
Re-examine this in the light of the fact that the journey must be made. Tax-payers do indeed pay for many things they don’t use (and rightly so).The point is, that if they wish to use an alternative to the service for which they have paid, they pay again.

Suppose the nation paid for a free theatre seat for every OAP once a year. If our car-driving OAP decided not to go, her seat would be wasted, but she would be paying a share of the cost of the seat through her taxes. If our OAP went, but bought a ticket for the seat next to the “free” seat, she would be paying twice: first, her tax contribution to the “free” seat and secondly, full price for the seat she actually uses.

Hope that helps.....
:D

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#68 Post by Marian » October 20th, 2010, 9:28 pm

loz2286 wrote: It bothers me too. But don't blame me or the independent education sector for that. Blame the system.
You are right. I wasn't blaming you or the independent sector for these things. I think I was just trying to point out a particular attitude not that you have that attitude. Sorry if I came across otherwise.
loz2286 wrote:It frightens me too, yet as Pastoral Leader at my school I no longer amazed when the school has to do the job of nurturing values because the child is bereft of basic social skills.
What a tragic situation that is. How is it that the child managed thus far?
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#69 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 21st, 2010, 3:44 pm

Nick wrote:Hmmm... looks like I've got some explaining to do :laughter:
Hmmmm ... looks like I do too. :wink: Actually, I'm beginning to think that the problem lies not so much in our just not getting each other's arguments as in a fundamental philosophical difference.
Nick wrote:I am attempting to compare this to education, and little Johnnie doesn't have the choice of whether he goes to school or not. By comparison, the OAP must make the journey ... The point I was trying to make is that a proportion of the OAP's taxes also contribute [to] the cost of the bus pass ... We are only comparing different ways of conducting a journey, not whether or not to undertake the journey ... But the journey is still being made by an empty seat ... Re-examine this in the light of the fact that the journey must be made.
OK, I understand now. These two OAPs must make a journey. They both have a bus pass. They both pay taxes. One chooses to travel by bus; one chooses to travel by car. The one who travels by bus pays nothing (over and above taxes); the one who travels by car pays for petrol, and perhaps a tiny bit of wear and tear, and she also pays for insurance, and tax on the car, as well as the other taxes. So there's no denying that the one travelling by car is paying more for her journey than the other one is paying for hers. What I reject is the idea that the driver is paying for the journey twice.

Now, I suspect that the issue of loss of marginal cost or lost marginal revenue is a bit of a red herring, and probably a lot more complicated than either of us is making it. But still, I'd like to try to make sense of it. As you said, we're comparing two different ways of making a journey. And only two different ways. We are not at this point concerned with the option of travelling on the bus and paying a fare. And the person we're interested in is the person who decided to drive, rather than take the bus, because she is the one who, you're claiming, paid twice for her journey. If she had taken the bus, she would have paid nothing to the bus company, but the bus company would have claimed back her fare from the Government. So the woman's decision to drive meant a loss of marginal revenue for the bus company, but no marginal cost for the Government and hence for the taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying for the woman who took the bus, however. And the taxpayer is also paying for the administration cost of the free bus pass scheme, and there's also been some talk of fraud by bus companies claiming back the cost of ‘phantom’ passengers. So a proportion of each OAP's taxes would go towards that. If we assume that the woman who took the bus would have taken it even if she'd had to pay for it, then in her case her having a bus pass did involve a marginal cost for the Government. The OAP who drove is, like all taxpayers, paying for a proportion of the total costs, or total lost revenue claimed by the bus company, i.e. a proportion of the fares that would have been paid by all the OAPs who are travelling on buses for free, if they didn't have bus passes, as well as for administration, and for bus company fraud. She is not paying for the bus journey she might have taken. She is not paying for an empty seat. There was no seat reserved for her.
Nick wrote:Yes of course [vehicle excise duty is] not hypothecated, but the OAP is choosing to incur taxes which are used for all sorts of things, instead of paying no additional tax for the journey.
Yes, she is paying extra taxes which are used for all sorts of things, including road maintenance. But that's irrelevant. The other OAP might be paying extra taxes too, for all we know.
Nick wrote:First of all, the taxes paid by road users wildly exceed all the direct and indirect costs of roads and related things.
OK. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the indirect costs of roads and related things, if you're not referring to externalities. I accept what you say as far as the direct costs are concerned. (I have found a report from the House of Commons Transport Committee, "Taxes and charges on road users", Sixth Report of Session 2008–09, that says that "most studies have found that total payments in taxes and charges by road users exceed Government expenditure on roads by a large margin". According to the AA, "Estimates show that motoring taxation amounts to around £46 billion[---][/---]this includes fuel duty, VED, VAT and business motoring taxes. The amount spent on the roads is less than a quarter of this[---][/---]just over 30 years ago there was much greater equity with £11.4 billion of £12.8 billion motoring tax revenues being spent on the roads.") But in my view, the cost of medical care for victims of road-traffic accidents (along with others things like the cost of policing the roads) is an indirect cost of roads and related things. The Campaign for Better Transport, using Government research on marginal costs of congestion, infrastructure, accidents, local air quality, noise and greenhouse gases, claims that there is a total cost of externalities of £70 billion[--][/--]£95 billion per annum at today's prices (the major component being congestion). Of course, this doesn't include the positive externalities you mentioned, but it doesn't include all the negative ones either, like loss of landscape and tranquillity.
Nick wrote:(I might have said more clearly the OAP pays the same contribution to the cost of the bus journey, rather than ‘the whole cost’)
That's certainly an improvement, as it takes us further away from the old "paying twice" myth. :D But it still talks about the cost of the hypothetical bus journey, rather than the cost of bus passes for pensioners, and I think that's misleading.
Nick wrote:It is also true that there are external costs eg pollution, noise, deprivation of country hedgerows etc., but there are corresponding external benefits. Without the road system there would be a dramatic reduction in her standard of living, as the OAP would be deprived of all the cost savings which result from a modern transport system, which allow for the bus pass in the first place..
Absolutely. As with so many public services, there are costs and benefits, both tangible and intangible. How difficult it is to calculate net costs or cost savings, let alone an individual taxpayer's share of those.
Nick wrote: Tax-payers do indeed pay for many things they don’t use (and rightly so).
They don't "pay for" them. They pay something towards many public services they don't use (and rightly so). And sometimes they don't use them because they choose not to, or don't need to. And sometimes they don't use them because they are not eligible to use them. But even if they don't use all services, chances are they'll use a fair number of them. When we pay taxes, we are not paying just for the services we use or are eligible to use. We are paying for services that bring (or are supposed to bring) overall benefits to our society. Of course, when we pay taxes we expect there to be "something in it for me". But that something can be, and to a great extent is, quite diffuse and indirect.
Nick wrote:The point is, that if they wish to use an alternative to the service for which they have paid, they pay again.
Except, as you agreed, they are paying a contribution to the cost of the service, rather than, necessarily, the whole cost. We don't know how big a contribution, but if it's not for the whole cost we can't say that they're paying "again" or paying "twice". And in any case, by singling out one particular public service, we're not getting the full picture. Suppose the OAP who took the bus had paid taxes all her life, had kept herself healthy and needing very little in the way of medical treatment, had generated very little landfill waste, and had never commited a crime or civil offence. And suppose the one who drove avoided paying tax whenever she legally could, smoke and drank heavily, dropped litter, frequently drove faster than the speed limit, parked on yellow lines, let her dog foul the footpath and had wild parties that often ended with the police turning up at three in the morning. It is misleading to contrast the tax contributions with the service use of two people, and suggest that one is paying twice for something and one isn't, by looking at one service alone.
Nick wrote:Suppose the nation paid for a free theatre seat for every OAP once a year. If our car-driving OAP decided not to go, her seat would be wasted, but she would be paying a share of the cost of the seat through her taxes. If our OAP went, but bought a ticket for the seat next to the “free” seat, she would be paying twice: first, her tax contribution to the “free” seat and secondly, full price for the seat she actually uses.

Hope that helps.....
:sad2: Not in the slightest. In this case, the unused seat is a wasted seat, so it is fair to say that the seat has been paid for twice [---][/---] or rather that two seats have been paid for rather than one, and only one used. (Although in real life this wouldn't happen; she'd probably have a voucher that could be exchanged for a ticket to a theatrical performance of her choice.) But her tax contribution to the "free" seat, or rather to all the free seats for OAPs, does not necessarily cover the cost of that seat, as you've agreed. Therefore it is inaccurate to say that she has paid twice, and misleading to look at that particular service in isolation, when we don't know what other public services the OAP is availing herself of.

Getting back to education, if the Independent Schools Council are to be believed, the cost of educating a child in the state sector is over £9,000 a year. As I understand it, only 13% of public spending in the UK goes on education. So, ignoring the fact that that includes spending on universities, if taxpaying parents were actually paying enough tax that one might get away with saying that they are, in effect, "paying for" the entire cost of educating just one child in the state sector, they'd have to be paying an annual tax bill of something approaching £70,000. Now, it may be that many of them are paying that much. But if we're talking about the increasing numbers of parents on fairly modest incomes who are scrimping and saving to pay for their children's school fees, then I'd guess that they're not paying anything like that.

And that's ignoring the fact that some people have more than one child. If a parent is paying for one child to go to an independent school while two others are going to state schools, then it makes even less sense for that parent to be said to be paying twice. And even if they're all going to independent schools, and the parent has to pay three lots of school fees, they're still not paying three lots of tax going towards paying for a child's state education.

Of course, that's not a fair way of looking at it, because it ignores everything else that their tax money goes towards paying for. But that reinforces my point. One can't look at a single public service in isolation and say in any meaningful way that an individual is paying for their share of that service, and that therefore, if they don't avail themselves of that service and pay for an alternative service, they are paying "twice".

Emma

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Educating Boys

#70 Post by Nick » October 22nd, 2010, 12:54 pm

Philiospohical differences? :puzzled:

I'm wondering if we have a different definition of "twice".....

If the actual cost of the seat's journey is (say) £1, the pass holders' contributions through taxes may be (say) 10p each. The price may be £2. The cost (and price) of the car journey may be (say) £2.50.

The car driver is paying 10p for the bus, plus £2.50 for the car journey.

"Twice" in this instance means a total of £2.60, not 20p or £4 or anything else.

Does that help us?


I'm also happy to alter "pay for", to "contribute towards" or some such. Maybe I wasn't being clear, or maybe you were misinterpreting my words, but it doesn't alter what I intended to mean. :D

I think a comment on the above could save us both a whole load of typing.... :D

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#71 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » October 22nd, 2010, 2:45 pm

Nick wrote:Philiospohical differences? :puzzled:
Yep. I think we have a different philosophy of taxation. :)
Nick wrote:I'm wondering if we have a different definition of "twice".....
I don't think so. We might have a different definition of "paying for", though.
Nick wrote:If the actual cost of the seat's journey is (say) £1, the pass holders' contributions through taxes may be (say) 10p each. The price may be £2. The cost (and price) of the car journey may be (say) £2.50.

The car driver is paying 10p for the bus, plus £2.50 for the car journey.

"Twice" in this instance means a total of £2.60, not 20p or £4 or anything else.

Does that help us?
No, I'm afraid not. I wasn't under the misapprehension that "twice" meant "exactly double". What I am clear about is that "paying twice for something" is not the same as "paying for two different things".
Nick wrote:I'm also happy to alter "pay for", to "contribute towards" or some such. Maybe I wasn't being clear, or maybe you were misinterpreting my words, but it doesn't alter what I intended to mean. :D
Ah well, never mind.
Nick wrote:I think a comment on the above could save us both a whole load of typing.... :D
I think we are, for some reason, talking past each other. That's why I think the difference must be philosophical. As I see it, when we pay taxes, we are contributing towards public services for the whole of society. Many of those services are services we don't need, or don't want, or aren't eligible for, but it's in our interests that our society provides them for people who do need them and want them and are eligible for them. And as individuals we benefit from public services in various ways, directly and indirectly, throughout our lives, till the moment we're dead. We're never in a position to make a final tally of the benefits. So, in my view, it makes no sense to say that a taxpayer is, through taxation, at a particular time, "paying for" something as specific, and specific to to him, as the state education of his son, or a particular NHS operation, or a particular bus journey, real or hypothetical. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that he is "paying twice" for the education of his son, or for a particular operation, or for a particular journey, if he chooses ways of doing those things that he has to pay for out of his own pocket.

That probably hasn't helped either. :D I think we've reached an impasse! :shrug:

Emma

User avatar
loz2286
Posts: 45
Joined: September 16th, 2010, 11:51 am

Re: Educating Boys

#72 Post by loz2286 » October 28th, 2010, 9:25 am

I've stayed out of the last bit, mainly because any talk of taxation sends me to sleep. There is much of what the Government funds through taxation that I wish I could opt out of, but I can't. However, just like I may choose not to ride the local bus, because the service is crap and I'm lucky enough to own a car, I chose to provide my son with independent education because I'm not satisfied with the provision and, yes, I'm lucky enough to be able to afford it. Truth is I take advantage of the huge employee discount I get.

I used to be a card-carrying member of the Labour Party. Why then, I hear you ask, does Loz teach in the independent sector? That's easy. Because in the independent sector if a child attacks a teacher with a weapon then the safety of the teacher is taken into consideration and there is no way the teacher is expected to continue teaching the child. I was attacked twice by a boy of 11 years, with a craft knife. Fortunately not seriously hurt, some minor cuts, but the fact is an attack had occured. Despite my reservations that child was back in my class the next day. Apparently I had upset him and because he comes from a difficult background I must accept his problems and work with him. Yeah right! He crossed the line. Think what would have happened to my career if I had protected myself with force. In the independent sector rules and expectations are more clearly defined, and, ultimately, the heads have the right to permanently exclude a child more easily.

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#73 Post by jaywhat » October 28th, 2010, 10:27 am

This is only a very small corner of a huge and complex scenario. It tells little or nothing about the whole picture.

User avatar
loz2286
Posts: 45
Joined: September 16th, 2010, 11:51 am

Re: Educating Boys

#74 Post by loz2286 » October 28th, 2010, 11:54 am

jaywhat wrote:This is only a very small corner of a huge and complex scenario. It tells little or nothing about the whole picture.
No, maybe not, but it is certainly a metaphor for some of the ills in maintained sector education.

Anyway I'll say no more on the matter as people's opinions seem very entrenched.

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#75 Post by Marian » October 28th, 2010, 5:13 pm

loz2286 wrote: No, maybe not, but it is certainly a metaphor for some of the ills in maintained sector education.

Anyway I'll say no more on the matter as people's opinions seem very entrenched.
I have to say that it's very annoying when you bring up an issue, you say you're two cents but then shut the conversation down by saying you'll not talk about it anymore. I can picture you sitting there with your arms crossed even. ;)

Why bring it up in the first place if you don't want to talk about it?

Yes, many people dislike the idea of children with issues or special needs being given the same opportunities; the independent sector certainly has the right idea of exclusion if you don't want disruptions or people who are a bit different. But I am not biased against the independents or the state-run schools. I have issues with both.
I know that simply excluding people doesn't help the situation and often makes it worse. But I don't suppose that really matters unless the issue effects one directly.

Let me add though that nobody should have to feel threatened either.
Transformative fire...

User avatar
Gurdur
Posts: 610
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:00 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#76 Post by Gurdur » October 30th, 2010, 5:57 pm

jaywhat wrote:This is only a very small corner of a huge and complex scenario. It tells little or nothing about the whole picture.
Then perhaps you could describe the whole picture, jaywhat.

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#77 Post by jaywhat » October 31st, 2010, 6:22 am

How long have you got?

ASHEd
Posts: 67
Joined: June 23rd, 2010, 3:55 am

Re: Educating Boys

#78 Post by ASHEd » February 23rd, 2011, 11:41 pm

I see this idea of teaching boys and girls in different styles falling flat on its face if it doesn't considered the possibility of Transsexual individuals or indeed taking even gender further.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24065
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#79 Post by Alan H » February 24th, 2011, 12:31 am

ASHEd wrote:I see this idea of teaching boys and girls in different styles falling flat on its face if it doesn't considered the possibility of Transsexual individuals or indeed taking even gender further.
An interesting thought. Which class would they be put in. Or an intersexual?

There was a fascinating programme on last night about the athlete Caster Semenya and whether she should be allowed to run in women's races. It's a difficult area because there is no clear boundary (n ot that I know much about it). However, this is not a new problem in athletics - I suspect it's been an issue, particularly with Soviet athletes, for decades. The question is, why haven't the IAAF or the IOC resolved it before now? I don't know what the criteria would have to be, but it seems to me to be something that should have been tackled decades ago, even if there is no solution that would please everyone. (There's also the question of how intrusive they might have to be to make a determination, but that's another matter.)

The same might apply to schools - getting your child into the school you want might be just as competitive as the 100 m!
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Marian
Posts: 3985
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 2:25 pm

Re: Educating Boys

#80 Post by Marian » February 25th, 2011, 3:55 pm

I was thinking that maybe the division of learning just based on sex isn't working anyway. Everyone has different learning styles and if we really want to educate our children properly, we need to understand how each child learns and capitalize on that. I imagine there are probably that if enough kids were studied, it might be possible to define learning styles just as has been done for adult learners. Divide up students based on style of learning instead of a square peg in a round hole syndrome that we've got now.

Slightly off topic but still related to education. Here's what my son learned at school yesterday. (Warning: might become a bit of a rant but I'll try to keep it under wraps.) He learned the following:

People in authority will find sneaky ways to make sure one doesn't feel welcome or looked after. ie. putting him in a pair of pants that were 3 sizes too small after he'd had yet another 'accident' because they don't make sure he's seated properly when using the washroom. This has happened on at least 4 occasions.

Same people laughed uproariously when describing how the pants were put on. The story was related to me in front of him and other staff/students. Humiliation, anyone?

Said sneaky ways seem to be an attempt to push us out of the school because certain staff are refusing to help with washroom duties and the place isn't really accessible. We are in the middle of a political power struggle regarding the building. Although he's been there 7 years, it doesn't seem to matter what he needs.

He learned that it's what adults want, not want the student needs that is most important regardless of what comes out of their mouths. Mixed messages, perhaps?

So, the lesson of today's class is: if you are in a wheelchair, you don't quite count as human, you can be humiliated and shuffled along elsewhere. Remember that kids.
Transformative fire...

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Educating Boys

#81 Post by Nick » February 25th, 2011, 5:03 pm

So sorry to hear such bad experiences, Marian. You are right to be angry. Years ago there was a radio programme about disabilities called "Does He Take Sugar?" (The point being that they should ask the person concerned, not his carer.) For those of us not directly involved, we all need a reality check every now and then, and it seems it's time for the staff to be reminded that the school is for the benefit of the kids, not the teachers.


Looking back at this thread, I am struck by how little discussion we actually had about the topic I raised originally. We had all sorts of discussion about types of education, licence fees and down-loads, but nothing about Malone's implied question behind his series: "why are (some) boys not succeeding in schools?" I had a look to see if I could find any record of the programmes (You-tube etc., ) but failed. In the course of my searches, I came across a mumsnet thread which was similarly diverted. It seemed as if every time a mum wanted to discuss her son's education in the light of the programme, the thread was derailed by others saying things like "And why shouldn't girls have a fun education too?" Well, maybe they should, but that wasn't the question raised, was it?

I hope it's repeated. I expect there will be some sort of follow up, just to further Malone's career. Incidentally, he is now the proud father of a daughter, so maybe mumsnet mums will get their wish... :D

Post Reply